Supporters Are the Most Important Thing Right Now
It’s great to have readers. We love people visiting RSN. It allows us to educate and make a difference in the world. But the most important thing needed right now are supporters.
Who can help out?
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Andy Borowitz | Mitch McConnell Warns That Voting Bill Would Bring US to Brink of Democracy
Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
Borowitz writes: "Blasting the For the People Act, Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that the bill's passage would bring the United States 'to the brink of democracy.'"
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report." 
lasting the For the People Act, Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that the bill’s passage would bring the United States “to the brink of democracy.”
“The Democrats can dress this bill up any way they want, but their real agenda couldn’t be clearer,” the Senate Minority Leader said. “They want to turn the United States of America that we love and cherish into a democracy.”
Noting that the word “democracy” originated in ancient Greece, he vowed, “I will not sit idly by and watch a foreign form of government sneak across our border.”
McConnell rallied his fellow Republican senators by reminding them that “we’re the only thing standing between this country and democracy.”
“The people who voted for us did not vote for us so that other people could vote for other people,” he said.
Then president Donald Trump holds a Bible outside St. John's Church across from Lafayette Square near the White House on June 1, 2020. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
Federal Officials Can't Be Sued for Clearing Protesters Near White House, Judge Says
Scott Neuman, NPR
Neuman writes: "A federal judge has dismissed claims that former White House officials conspired to forcibly remove peaceful protesters last year from Washington, D.C.'s Lafayette Square so that then-President Donald Trump could pose for a photo holding a Bible at a nearby church."
The lawsuit stems from June 1, 2020, when U.S. Park Police and National Guard troops dispersed a largely peaceful gathering of Black Lives Matter protesters from the square near the White House using tear gas and pepper spray.
Trump, accompanied by then-Attorney General William Barr, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strode to St. John's Church across from the square, where the photo was taken.
In four overlapping suits, Black Lives Matter and three other plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union alleged that the former president, Barr and other Trump administration officials conspired to violate the civil rights of the protesters.
Last month, the Department of Justice asked U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich to dismiss the lawsuits.
On Monday, Friedrich called the plaintiffs' claims speculative and dismissed the allegations against Barr, Gregory Monahan of the U.S. Park Police and other federal officials.
In her ruling, Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to prove an agreement or plan to violate the rights of the protesters.
"These allegations, taken as true, do not show sufficient 'events, conversations, or documents indicating an agreement or meeting of the minds' amongst the defendants to violate [plaintiffs'] rights based on [their] membership in a protected class,' " she said.
The ACLU had said that the forcible clearing of the square could have a chilling effect on free speech, a contention that Friedrich also rejected.
"The plaintiffs allege that they continue to demonstrate in or near Lafayette Square and that they fear law enforcement officers may disperse or attack them," she wrote.
"The plaintiffs' primary basis for these fears are the alleged events of June 1, 2020 and President Trump's social media posts before and after the clearing of Lafayette Square," she continued. "Significantly, the plaintiffs do not rely on any alleged law or policy as the basis for this claimed risk of future harm."
The judge also ruled that Barr, Monahan and others are immune from civil suits and cannot be sued for damages.
In a tweet, the ACLU of the District of Columbia said the ruling not only represents "a stunning rejection of our constitutional values and protestors' First Amendment rights, but it opens the door for future violence at the hands of the federal government and effectively places federal officials above the law."
One claim against the federal defendants survives: Friedrich said that the plaintiffs can still challenge continued restrictions on access to Lafayette Square because they have "plausibly alleged an ongoing injury."
"To this day, over a year after the events of June 1, Lafayette Square remains subject to heightened restrictions that periodically limit protestors' access to the Square," she said. "Despite the change in Administrations, the federal defendants have not met the high bar of showing that this claim has been mooted by subsequent events."
In asking for the suits to be dismissed, Justice Department trial attorney David Cutler said last month that the police acted lawfully and that the president's security is of "paramount" government interest, according to The Washington Post.
This month, the Interior Department's inspector general, Mark Greenblatt, concluded that the U.S. Park Police did not clear the protesters from the square specifically for Trump's photo-op.
"[T]he evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day," Greenblatt wrote in a statement.
Sen. Bernie Sanders said he would not support regressive tax measures. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Sanders Won't Back Infrastructure Deal With More Gas Taxes, Electric Vehicle Fees
Maria Carrasco, POLITICO
Carrasco writes: "Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said he wouldn't support the bipartisan infrastructure bill if it included measures such as raising the gas tax or a fee on electric vehicles."
His statement demonstrates the risk of Democrats losing support from the left.
The statement demonstrates that Democrats are at risk of losing progressives' support in a 50-50 Senate even as they court Republicans to produce a bipartisan bill.
"If it is roads and bridges, yeah, of course we need to do that and I support that," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "If it is regressive taxation — you know, raising the gas tax or a fee on electric vehicles, or the privatization of infrastructure, no I wouldn’t support it, but we don’t have the details right now."
Twenty-one senators, including 11 Republicans, have detailed a bipartisan proposal that costs about $973 billion over five years or $1.2 trillion over eight. The plan would have $579 billion in new spending and would repurpose unspent Covid relief funds, impose a surcharge on electric vehicles, and expand the use of state and local funds for coronavirus relief.
Sanders fired back on measures like the added gas tax and fee on electric vehicles but added that the proposal was "mostly good."
"What is in the bipartisan bill in terms of spending is, from what I can see, mostly good," Sanders said. "One of the concerns that I do have about the bipartisan bill is how they are going to pay for their proposals, and they're not clear yet. I don't know that they even know yet, but some of the speculation is raising a gas tax, which I don't support, a fee on electric vehicles, privatization of infrastructure, those are proposals that I would not support."
Sanders' pushback comes as Senate Democrats continue to weigh spending as much as $6 trillion via the reconciliation process on their own infrastructure package if the chamber's bipartisan talks fail — or even if the bipartisan package is approved. The Vermont senator added that key issues such as elder care, climate change and wealth disparities need to be addressed.
"It is time we paid attention to the needs of working people," Sanders said. "And when we do that, when we deal with climate, when we deal with infrastructure, when we deal with home health care, when we deal with child care, we can create millions of good-paying job, that is what the American people want. That's what we've got to do."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), one of the leaders of the group offering the bipartisan proposal, responded to Sanders' comments, saying the $6 trillion proposal is a "grab bag of progressive priorities."
"It's not about infrastructure. It's kind of a $6 trillion grab bag of progressive priorities," Portman said on "Meet the Press." "Ours is about core infrastructure, and it is paid for."
Carl Nassib. (photo: Sky Sports)
ALSO SEE: 'Proud of You': NFL Players Welcome
Carl Nassib's Decision to Come Out
Carl Nassib Becomes First Active NFL Player to Come Out as Gay
Nicki Jhabvala, The Washington Post
Jhabvala writes: "Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib announced Monday on Instagram that he is gay, making him the first active NFL player to come out."
READ MORE
Protesters call for change at a Los Angeles rally in May. (photo: Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News/Getty)
This Progressive Police Reform Bill Is Pretty Popular
Li Zhou, Vox
Zhou writes: "As lawmakers try to find a bipartisan compromise on police reform, new polling data reveals that a more progressive approach has fairly strong support as well."
READ MORE
For Amazon workers, Prime Day means mandatory overtime and increased risk of injury. (photo: Ronny Hartmann/AFP/Getty Images)
Amazon Prime Day Is a Nightmare for Amazon Workers
Alex N. Press, Jacobin
Press writes: "Amazon calls its annual Prime Day a 'holiday' - but it's pure misery for the hundreds of thousands of workers tasked with fulfilling orders."
READ MORE
Eurasian spoonbills are one of many species that travel along the east Atlantic flyway. (photo: Getty Images/iStock)
BP Is Planning to Drill for Fossil Gas on Edge of World's Largest Cold-Water Coral Reef
Daisy Dunne, The Independent
Dunne writes: "BP is planning to drill for fossil gas on the edge of the world's largest cold-water coral reef - raising the risk of biodiversity loss, further global heating and toxic fuel spills."
Exclusive: Oil giant’s plan to drill off west coast of Africa could raise the risk of biodiversity loss, further global heating and toxic fuel spills, an investigation reveals
P is planning to drill for fossil gas on the edge of the world’s largest cold-water coral reef – raising the risk of biodiversity loss, further global heating and toxic fuel spills.
The British oil giant has begun construction work on a fossil fuel project close by to the 580km-long coral ecosystem off the coast of west Africa, which is in an area crucial for migrating waterbirds, as well as threatened sharks, turtles and whales, according to an investigation by Unearthed and SourceMaterial shared with The Independent.
The project is the “first step” in a series of developments in the region that, if approved, aim to produce around 40 trillion cubic feet of gas over the next 30 years, according to an independent estimate from Rystad Energy, a research firm.
When burned, this amount of gas would produce 2.2 billion tonnes of CO2 – nearly twice the annual energy emissions of the entire African continent. In global terms, it equates to between 0.3 and 1 per cent of the remaining global “carbon budget” left to keep the global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
A BP spokesperson said they were unable to comment on Rystad’s projection, and declined to provide their own forecast.
BP has previously promised to slash its emissions to net zero by 2050 and to cut its oil and gas production by 40 per cent within a decade. The oil firm is also a partner of Prince Charles’s Terra Carta initiative, which aims to “bring prosperity into harmony with nature”.
Last month, a major assessment from the world’s energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, said there can be no further fossil fuel expansion in any country beyond 2021 if global climate goals are to be met.
Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a think tank based in Nairobi, Kenya, described further fossil fuel development as a “a major threat to Africa’s food security, water security and public health”.
Any future oil or gas drilling will “ultimately undermine our livelihoods and development,” he told The Independent.
“We can’t excuse a company like BP, at a time when it seems to be taking climate change more seriously, simultaneously bankrolling a project that may end up having a big impact on Africa’s carbon footprint and future.”
The Independent’s Stop Fuelling the Climate Crisis campaign is shining a light on UK support for fossil fuels ahead of Cop26, a major climate summit being held in Glasgow in November.
BP’s Greater Tortue Ahmeyim project will develop a new gas field 2.7km below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Senegal and Mauritania. Such a deep drilling project has never been attempted before in Africa, but previous research shows deep sea gas production can cause long-lasting damage to fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs.
The first 20-year phase of the project has already been approved, with drilling expected to produce gas in two years’ time. It is one of BP’s three developments in the pipeline for the west Africa region, where it hopes to operate for at least 30 years if it is able to obtain approval.
An environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) carried out for the project, seen by The Independent, Unearthed and SourceMaterial, states that an eruption of a well used in the production process could lead to a spill of condensate, a liquid byproduct of natural gas.
Though it says the chances of a spill occurring are “extremely rare”, it warns that any such event could prove lethal or damaging to the unique ecosystems surrounding the project site, according to the assessment.
The area chosen for the project is close to key sites along the east Atlantic flyway, a major migration route for millions of birds travelling between the bottom of Africa and the Arctic. Birds using the route include Eurasian spoonbills, grey plovers and red knots.
The gas project is also just 5km away from Diawling National Park, which hosts 250 different bird species as well as monkeys, warthogs and monitor lizards. It is a similar distance away from the marine protected area of Saint-Louis, a key site for local fishing and feeding whales and dolphins.
Without careful management, BP’s construction and drilling operations could threaten these important wildlife hotspots and the livelihoods of local fishing communities, Sandra Kloff, a consultant marine biologist who has worked in the region for 25 years, told The Independent.
She added that the wildlife in the region already faces large threats from overfishing by international companies.
“Since the 1980s, it has been a total wild west for biodiversity off this northwest African coast despite scientific proof that this region is the most important feeding area for charismatic wildlife in the Atlantic Ocean – and in spite of the fact that these waters are home to the longest cold water coral mounds,” she told The Independent.
BP has previously pledged to reduce harm to biodiversity by committing to not establishing new oil and gas operations in Unesco world heritage sites or in nature reserves that meet a set of specific criteria. Its Greater Tortue Ahmeyim project does not contravene these rules.
Awa Traore, an oceans campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said BP’s actions amounted to “greenwashing”.
“More fossil fuel production is only going to expose communities to more harm, undermining the renewable energy investment which can effectively lift millions of people out of poverty,” she told The Independent.
“By adopting renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, African countries have the opportunity to leapfrog dirty energy to meet their energy security needs, with massive potential benefits for the population.”
A BP spokesperson said: “We want to help conserve the marine ecosystem in Mauritania and Senegal and the project’s environment and social impact assessment was approved by the governments and regulators of both Mauritania and Senegal when the project was sanctioned for development.”
The spokesperson added that BP was currently developing an additional biodiversity action plan for the project alongside “scientists and other stakeholders”.
“This will integrate the latest scientific data and allow us to identify and implement appropriate biodiversity-related mitigation and management measures for the project,” the spokesperson said.
“We are working to set up an independent scientific panel of national and international scientists for peer review of our plans.”
They added that emissions from the first phase of the Greater Tortue Ahmeyim project will be included in BP’s climate targets.
“Emissions from any further projects that were approved and developed would also be included as and when they began operation,” the spokesperson said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.