14 June 21
Keep doing what you do, I don't always agree with things on RSN, however, you are a beacon for the 1st Amendment!
Joe
RSN - Reader-Supporter
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
14 June 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Bess Levin | A Disturbing Number of Republicans Believe Trump's Batshit Claim About Being "Reinstated" as President
Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
Levin writes: "One-third of GOP voters actually think Trump is going to be president again at some point this year."
arlier this month, we learned that while Donald Trump appeared unhinged as unhinged can be during the years in which he was the leader of the free world, he’s somehow become even more insane since departing the White House in January. And the reason we know this is because, according to multiple reports, he’s told people he’s going to be “reinstated” as president this summer, several years before Joe Biden’s first term is up. And perhaps even scarier than the idea of an ex-president thinking there’s a mechanism in the Constitution to just put him back in the White House after he definitively lost the election is the fact that a wildly disturbing number of Republicans actually believe him.
According to the results of a Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted between June 4 and June 7, 3 in 10 Republican voters think that Trump is going to be back in the Oval Office this year. While 61% of GOP voters (and 84% of Democrats and 70% of Independents) dismiss the idea as the ramblings of a deeply disturbed individual who should’ve been put in a straitjacket a long time ago, one third is an unnervingly high percentage, considering, again, that we’re talking about the prospect of Trump replacing Biden as president with 1,320 days to go in the latter’s term. As the National Review described the scale of the delusion last week:
This is not merely an eccentric interpretation of the facts or an interesting foible, nor is it an irrelevant example of anguished post-presidency chatter. It is a rejection of reality, a rejection of law, and, ultimately, a rejection of the entire system of American government. There is no Reinstatement Clause within the United States Constitution. Hell, there is nothing even approximating a Reinstatement Clause within the United States Constitution. The election has been certified, Joe Biden is the president, and, until 2024, that is all there is to it. It does not matter what one’s view of Trump is. It does not matter whether one voted for or against Trump. It does not matter whether one views Trump’s role within the Republican Party favorably or unfavorably. We are talking here about cold, hard, neutral facts that obtain irrespective of one’s preferences; it is not too much to ask that the former head of the executive branch should understand them.
Just how far out there is Trump’s theory? Consider that, even if it were true that the 2020 election had been stolen—which it is absolutely not—his belief would still be absurd. It could be confirmed tomorrow that agents working for a combination of al-Qaeda, Venezuela, and George Soros had hacked into every single voting machine in the country and altered the totals by tens of millions, and it would remain the case there is no mechanism within the American legal order for a do-over of any sort. In such an eventuality, there would be indictments, an impeachment drive, and a constitutional crisis. But, however bad it got, Donald Trump would not be “reinstated” to the presidency. That is not how America works, how America has ever worked, or how America can ever work. American politicians do not lose their reelection races only to be reinstalled later on, as might the second-place horse in a race whose winner was disqualified. The idea is otherworldly and obscene.
And yet, one third of Republican voters think it’s probably going to happen, which is probably a testament to Trump (and Fox News) scrambling their brains.
In other news re: the ex-president’s industrial-sized lies, NPR reports that lawyers who defended him in his second impeachment trial are now going to bat for his supporters who stormed the Capitol on his behalf after being falsely told the election had been stolen:
Attorneys Michael van der Veen and Bruce Castor defended former President Donald Trump at his Senate impeachment trial over allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection. Even as van der Veen, Castor and the Trump defense team called the impeachment “political theater” and ultimately secured Trump’s acquittal, they condemned the rioters for bringing “unprecedented havoc, mayhem, and death” to the Capitol. They argued in a legal brief that the rioters’ actions deserve “robust and swift investigation and prosecution.” Now, van der Veen and Castor find themselves on the other side of those prosecutions, defending at least three people charged in connection with the Capitol breach.
It’s a real circle-of-life story.
Naftali Bennett gives a press conference at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, April 21, 2021. (photo: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90/JTA)
Netanyahu Is Out: Naftali Bennett Sworn In as Israel's New Prime Minister
Dustin Jones, NPR
Jones writes: "For the first time in more than a decade, Israel has welcomed a new prime minister. Naftali Bennett was sworn in on Sunday after a new coalition unseated longtime Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu."
The newly elected prime minister was appointed by the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in a 60-59 vote, with one minister abstaining.
Shortly after the votes were tallied, the now former-Prime Minister Netanyahu approached his opponent and the two shook hands. Not long after that, he took to Twitter, instructing his supporters to hold their heads high and keep the faith; vowing to return.
"I ask you: do not let your spirit fall," he said. "We'll be back - and faster than you think."
President Joe Biden released a statement congratulating Bennett and the new Israeli government. "Israel has no better friend than the United States. The bond that unites our people is evidence of our shared values and decades of close cooperation and as we continue to strengthen our partnership, the United States remains unwavering in its support for Israel's security," he said.
"I look forward to working with you to strengthen the ties between our two nations," Prime Minister Bennett responded via Twitter.
The ejection of Israel's longest-serving prime minister was made possible by a band of unlikely allies from across the political spectrum, brought together by the shared belief that Netanyahu had to go. The new coalition government is made up of eight parties, all of whom have agreed to hold off on major decisions surrounding controversial issues, like the future of the occupied West Bank.
The Palestinian Authority Foreign Ministry in Ramallah said it expected to see "no difference, or perhaps even worse" policies under the new Israeli government. In Gaza, Hamas said Israel continues to be "a settler occupier entity that must be resisted by all forms of resistance, foremost of which is the armed resistance."
Netanyahu, 71, was first elected prime minister in the late 1990s and then again in 2009. Over the last 12 years, he has used his time in office to allow the growth of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, frustrated Palestinian aspirations for statehood and aligned Israel with right-wing leaders internationally.
Among his loyal supporters — he's seen as a strong defender of Israel who made the country an economic success and oversaw an effective battle against the coronavirus. But the former prime minister also faces corruption charges including bribery, fraud and breach of trust — allegations Netanyahu denies. A trial is already underway.
Over the last two years, Netanyahu's support waned and he struggled to stay in power by prompting repeated elections, leading to inconclusive votes.
But earlier this month, Netanyahu's opposition came to a complicated agreement to form a majority. Yair Lapid, former finance minister and head of the centrist Yesh Atid party, led the charge against Netanyahu and joined with the right-wing Bennett.
Bennett is Netanyahu's former chief of staff. Under the coalition agreement, he will serve for two years before passing the torch to Lapid for the latter half of the 4-year term. Despite Lapid's party holding more than double the seats in the Knesset, he agreed to let Bennett take the first term to maintain political solidarity. Together they helped bring together a diverse government body, including a party representing Arab citizens for the first time in the nation's history.
Netanyahu took to Twitter in the days leading up to Sunday's vote in hopes of eroding trust in his opposition. "Bennett has broken all his commitments to his constituents to become prime minister at all costs," he tweeted Thursday. "This is the scam of the century!"
With some of the former prime minister's words echoing that of former President Donald Trump — a close ally of Netanyahu's while in office — the Likud party also took to social media and tried to pressure members of the new coalition. But, the coalition held its small majority.
Israel also elected a new president last week, Isaac Herzog, following in his late father's footsteps. He is the first son of an Israeli president to be elected president. But the presidential role is primarily ceremonial and formal in nature. He is still the head of state, however, the prime minister is the head of the executive branch.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: Brittany Greeson/Getty Images)
AOC Less Patient Than Pelosi With Manchin
Richard Luscombe, Guardian UK
Luscombe writes: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive congresswoman from New York, assailed Manchin for clinging to what she said he saw as 'the romanticism of bipartisanship' and an era of Republicanism 'that simply does not exist any more.'"
Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez address Democratic senator who has refused to back ending the filibuster
oe Manchin, the conservative Democratic West Virginia senator whose defiance over the filibuster rule threatens to stall Joe Biden’s domestic legislative agenda, found himself under pressure from both wings of his party on Sunday.
Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, adopted a conciliatory approach on CNN’s State of the Union show, offering a novel interpretation of Manchin’s assertion a week earlier that he would refuse to support Biden’s flagship For the People voting rights act, or vote to end the filibuster that would allow it to pass.
“I don’t give up on Joe Manchin. I think he left the door open, I think it’s ajar [and] I’m not giving up,” she said, offering an olive branch following harsh criticism from other Democrats.
“He has certain concerns about the legislation that we may be able to come to terms on. We have to make this fight for our democracy. It isn’t about Democrats or Republicans, it’s not about partisanship, it’s about patriotism so we must pass it.”
Later in the same show, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive congresswoman from New York, assailed Manchin for clinging to what she said he saw as “the romanticism of bipartisanship” and an era of Republicanism “that simply does not exist any more”.
“We have the influence of big money [donors] that impacts both parties in Congress and I believe that that old way of politics has absolutely an influence in Joe Manchin’s thinking, and the way he navigates the body,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“You have the Koch brothers and associated organizations really doing victory laps about Joe Manchin’s opposition to [ending the] the filibuster.”
The contrasting approaches to the Manchin problem underscore the growing rift in the Democratic party. It controls the White House and House of Representatives but appears increasingly unable to progress key elements of Biden’s agenda, including voting rights, a $1.7tn infrastructure plan, racial justice efforts and gun reforms, through the Senate.
There, seats are divided 50-50 and the Democrats have a tie-breaking vote in the vice-president, Kamala Harris, but the filibuster rule means the minority party can block much legislation that does not have the support of at least 60 members.
Colleagues have urged Manchin to support efforts to end or restructure the Senate filibuster, but he is not in favor.
Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats now faced “a fork in the road”.
“Do we settle for much less and an infrastructure package that has been largely designed by Republicans in order to get 60 votes, or can we really transform this country, create millions of union jobs, revamp our power grid, get bridges fixed and schools rebuilt with 51 or 50 Democratic votes?” she said.
An immigrant detention center. (photo: ABC)
ICE Locks Down Facility as Women Protest Handling of Possible Tuberculosis Case
Felipe De La Hoz, The Intercept
Excerpt: "Women detained by ICE staged a protest after learning of possible tuberculosis exposure. Facility staff responded by taking away phone access."
omen detained at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana, have been put on a communications lockdown after internal protests in response to a possible case of tuberculosis among the detained population, a lack of prompt medical treatment, and poor communication about their immigration cases.
Six women at the private immigration facility, which is run by the prison conglomerate GEO Group on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told The Intercept on Thursday that staff had informed them a woman at the facility had tested positive for the serious bacterial infection, and that they would have to go into quarantine, which entails remaining in their cells without joint meals and recreation time. The notification set off a minor panic among the detained population.
Mindy Faciane, a spokesperson for the Louisiana Department of Health, confirmed that department staff had been informed of a possible tuberculosis case at the facility and were working with ICE personnel to monitor the situation. “We are aware of a detainee with a suspected case. It has not been confirmed. ICE detainees in federal facilities are treated at those facilities, so they don’t come through our public health system, but our regional team is providing treatments and contact investigation guidance to the facility staff,” she said, adding that ICE was following the health department’s guidance.
A representative for the GEO Group did not respond to questions about the situation. ICE acknowledged receiving questions on Friday but did not provide comment.
The situation, compounded by the women’s perception of lax medical care at the detention facility, caused them to protest by refusing to enter lockdown and collectively clamoring for more detailed information and commitments for improved care. Detention staff responded to the acts of protest by taking away the women’s access to phones and tablets to communicate, as well as access to televisions, according to a woman who managed to contact The Intercept before the lockdown began, and the husband of another woman who relayed the same details the following morning. Last year, staff at the facility took similar measures against women who spoke publicly about their fears of Covid-19, which ICE failed to adequately deal with.
Medical negligence has long been one of the most common complaints for people in ICE custody. The issue garnered national attention last year amid allegations of nonconsensual hysterectomies of women at the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia. Over the years, detained migrants across ICE facilities have accused the agency of failing to provide or providing incorrect medications, ignoring requests for treatment, and releasing detainees who are sick to the point of near death. Medical negligence claims have been investigated and substantiated by congressional committees and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.
Tuberculosis is incredibly rare among the general U.S. population, with an active rate of 2.7 per 100,000 people in 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Millions more have what’s known as latent TB, meaning that the bacteria is present in their bodies but at low enough quantities that it doesn’t become symptomatic. Incidences of tuberculosis are not unheard of among people in ICE custody; according to a study that examined the ICE detainee population in the years 2014 through 2016, they have an infection rate closer to 100 per 100,000, though most are asymptomatic.
Dr. Ranit Mishori, a professor at Georgetown University and senior medical adviser to Physicians for Human Rights, told The Intercept via email that “medically, not everyone who screens positive necessarily has active disease,” but that they should nonetheless be isolated “ideally in a negative pressure room. NOT in solitary confinement,” and have their cellmates, visiting family members, and other close contacts screened as well.
According to the women who spoke to The Intercept from the Louisiana facility, the woman with suspected tuberculosis was actively symptomatic for days, if not weeks, prior to her removal from the unit. According to three separate people, the young Brazilian asylum-seeker had been at the center for about two months and had long been visibly sick and deteriorating rapidly before she was taken away on June 4. It was not until June 10 that other people detained at the facility were told it was a suspected TB case, they told The Intercept.
“You could see in her face that she was sick. In the two months she was here waiting for her [asylum] process, she dropped 30 pounds. Who drops 30 pounds, no matter how bad the food is?” said one asylum-seeker at the center. “She started coughing really badly, seems like she was in late stages of the disease, they finally took her away because she was vomiting, spitting up blood.” The Intercept is granting anonymity to the detained migrants due to the retaliation they say they have faced at the detention facility and their fear that being identified will affect their ongoing immigration cases.
Another woman who spoke to The Intercept also said she saw the young woman coughing up blood. A third woman, who was in the same unit, said that the woman “was coughing all the time, not eating, she would spend all night up complaining.”
It is not clear where the person with a suspected infection is being cared for, if she is being properly isolated, if the people in her unit will now all be screened for tuberculosis, or how staff at the facility will ensure that the spread is contained.
If left untreated, tuberculosis can become life-threatening, particularly if it infects someone who has or is recovering from a Covid-19 infection. According to ICE statistics, as recently as in mid-May there were over 60 simultaneous confirmed cases of Covid-19 at South Louisiana. This week, the facility reported none, though the lack of consistent testing leaves open the possibility of unreported cases. “Many of the women here are terrified, don’t know much about the disease but they tell us it’s lethal,” said the woman who witnessed the coughing of blood. “I already had Covid, and so I’m a bit scared because they marked me as recovered but never gave me a test.”
Civil rights pioneer James Meredith, center, and others walk through downtown Jackson, Mississippi, to the state Capitol on June 25, 2016, as part of a commemoration of his 1966 march from Memphis to Jackson. (photo: Rogelio V. Solis/AP)
Aram Goudsouzian, The Conversation
Aram Goudsouzian, The Conversation
Goudsouzian writes: "James Meredith, who soon turns 88, remains a familiar figure around Jackson."
ames Meredith was walking down Highway 51 just south of Hernando, Mississippi. It was June 6, 1966, the second day of his planned 220-mile trek from Memphis to Jackson, which he undertook to encourage Black people to overcome racist intimidation and to register to vote.
As cars filled with newspaper reporters and police officers rolled nearby, he walked a sloping stretch of road lined with pine trees. He heard a shout: “James Meredith! James Meredith!”
A white man in a roadside gully lifted his shotgun, aimed at Meredith and fired. Meredith was hit and crawled across the road, his eyes wide with panic. As he splayed onto the gravel shoulder of Highway 51, blood soaked through the back of his shirt.
The attack, which happened 55 years ago, propelled Meredith back into the spotlight. Four years earlier he had integrated the University of Mississippi, which prompted bloody rioting and a political crisis. Now, in 1966, photographs of an anguished, injured Meredith splashed across newspapers’ front pages, and the media again admired his stoic fight for racial justice.
Civil rights leaders and thousands of others took up Meredith’s walk, transforming it into a huge demonstration known as the “Meredith March” and “March Against Fear.”
But Meredith, who survived his wounds, resisted his assigned political role. While liberals celebrated his sacrifice, he grumbled that he should have carried a gun, and in the ensuing weeks, he complained that the march lacked order, imposed upon Black Mississippians and endangered women and children.
The shooting revealed how James Meredith fits no conventional political category. He is a civil rights hero who does not associate himself with the civil rights movement. He espouses conservative ideas of self-reliance, discipline, morality and manhood, yet he proclaims a radical mission to destroy white supremacy.
Meredith’s historical meaning is slippery, but that very inability to pin him down can teach important lessons – not only for how to remember the 1960s, but for how to think about social change.
As Meredith’s example reinforces, humans are too complicated to assign to one political tribe. Major movements, moreover, need contributions from people with a range of ideologies.
‘Paradoxical personality’
Meredith, who soon turns 88, remains a familiar figure around Jackson. He is one of the elderly regulars at a supermarket’s coffee klatch. He often dons his trademark white suit and a “New Miss” ballcap. Prone to grandiose or quirky statements, he still possesses a certain charisma, informed by his mystical sense of his own God-ordained destiny.
I first encountered Meredith’s paradoxical personality in 2009, during an interview for “Down to the Crossroads,” my narrative history of the Meredith March Against Fear. Since then, I’ve kept wrestling with Meredith’s significance – I wrote the introduction to his reissued memoir “Three Years in Mississippi,” and I’m now collaborating on a graphic history about Meredith and the integration crisis at “Ole Miss.”
Other major figures from the March Against Fear have clear-cut legacies. Martin Luther King Jr. is the moral beacon of a nonviolent movement. Stokely Carmichael, who called for “Black Power” on the march, is a radical icon. Fannie Lou Hamer represents the central role of Black women in the grassroots freedom struggle.
But Meredith? After the march, he faded from view. He did not join any of the major civil rights organizations. His multiple runs for office failed, as did numerous business ventures. By the late 1980s, he seemed to court shock value: He worked for archconservative North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms, and then endorsed Louisiana politician David Duke, a former grand wizard in the Ku Klux Klan.
Yet Meredith also remains a symbol of pride: His statue on the University of Mississippi campus is a rallying symbol for Black students – and also has been a target of racist defacement. Black Mississippians often recognize his heroism.
Meredith is difficult to categorize or claim.
Those on the political right tend to showcase the rare Black conservative, but Meredith is a vocal critic of American racism, which most conservatives seek to downplay.
Liberals love to celebrate civil rights icons, but Meredith sometimes makes provocative, and even outrageous, statements about the civil rights movement and its leaders.
Radicals share his goal of destroying white supremacy, but an old man who preaches old-fashioned morality does not conform to the modern model of an activist.
Streams into a river
The Black freedom struggle has long encompassed people of different ideologies and tactics. Like streams feeding into a river, these political approaches come from distinct sources, but inevitably move in the same direction. In the 1960s, this movement surged forward, in part thanks to Meredith.
He is a complex person – one who might never be fully understood. That’s an important reminder: A movement depends on individual people making individual choices to act in individually specific ways, all in service of a collective goal.
The United States is again undergoing a racial reckoning, and again the nation is divided over its direction. It is, moreover, a dangerous moment for democracy. A sizable portion of the electorate believes in conspiracy theories about stolen elections.
In this polarized atmosphere, what can a productive social movement look like?
It has to respect the idealism of the forces demanding change but still speak to broadly shared democratic principles. A powerful movement makes room for contributors who don’t fit neatly into that movement. Sometimes, as in the case of James Meredith, their significance is extraordinary.
Police fire rubber bullets at protesters in Rio de Janeiro. (photo: Christophe Simon/Getty Images)
Bolsonaro Ramps Up Crackdown on Dissent With Tough Brazil Election Looming
Andrew Fishman, The Intercept
Fishman writes: "From a dictatorship-era law to his campaign against the press, Brazil's far-right president is ready to use his whole arsenal."
right red blood gushed through Daniel Campelo da Silva’s fingers, staining his otherwise immaculate white polo shirt. He was out buying work supplies on May 29 in the northeastern Brazilian city of Recife. Peaceful protests against far-right President Jair Bolsonaro were sweeping Brazil, and da Silva was walking into one, unaware that riot police would soon, without warning, violently crack down. A police officer shot the 51-year-old da Silva with a rubber-tipped bullet, leading to the loss of his eye.
Da Silva’s tragic misfortune is emblematic of multiple facets of Brazil’s descent into disarray. On a basic level, a common man working to pay his bills is permanently scarred by authoritarian state violence, carried out in an effort to stamp out left-wing resistance. Beneath the surface, a more ominous dynamic was at work: Gov. Paulo Câmara, a Bolsonaro critic and commander-in-chief of the state police, insists that neither he nor anybody from his office gave the order to attack the protestors. The president’s interests had apparently overridden the governor’s legal authority over the security forces. One columnist was prompted to ask: “Who commands the police?”
The power struggle and the consequences for people like da Silva raise another, larger question: How far will Bolsonaro go to stay in power?
Bolsonaro, who faces record disapproval, has ratcheted up his pressure on opponents in various ways, attempting to fortify himself ahead of presidential elections next October. He has worked to build a solid base among local police rank and file (although that support may be fading) and replaced wavering allies with loyal shock troops in key military, intelligence, and law enforcement positions. All the while, Bolsonaro has repeatedly signaled his desire to rewrite the rules to give himself more power, even if it requires a coup to do so.
Dictatorship-Era Law
In recent months, Bolsonaro has increasingly taken to the courts to stifle dissent among prominent adversaries. Critics of the president — including journalists, politicians, Indigenous leaders, YouTubers, professors, and activists — have been investigated under the dictatorship-era National Security Law, which is widely considered unconstitutional.
One such case involved leading Brazilian YouTuber Felipe Neto, an outspoken Bolsonaro critic who referred to the president as “genocidal” over his disastrous handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Neto, who got his start making videos for young people, was also investigated for alleged “corruption of minors,” but the charges were dismissed by a judge last week. Neto said the case was an attempt to use the judiciary as an “instrument of persecution of the president’s opponents.”
The National Security Law was increasingly in the spotlight and at risk of being struck down by the Supreme Court — past due, critics said, for a relic of the dictatorship that ended in 1985. The president’s supporters in Congress, though, rushed to introduce legislation that repealed the law but maintained many of its provisions in a separate, new bill. The legislation passed the lower house of Congress last month.
Along with a host of other civil society groups, Abraji, the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism, said it strongly supports repealing the law and does “not support any bill currently being developed to replace it.” The group highlighted that the new bill, as written, could be used to “criminalize everyday behaviors” of journalists and give rise to the prosecution of whistleblowers.
Marcelo Semer, a law professor and member of the Association of Judges for Democracy, told The Intercept that the law is more likely to be used for state repression of dissidents than to protect Brazil’s fragile democracy against a coup. In a recent congressional hearing, he called the National Security Law “an obstacle to democracy” and argued that it would be much better to revoke it than replace it.
That analysis likely won’t resonate with Bolsonaro, who has never been particularly fond of democracy and only criticized the military dictatorship for not going far enough. In a 2016 interview, Bolsonaro said, “The mistake of the dictatorship was to torture and not kill.” His son, Rep. Eduardo Bolsonaro, and many supporters have repeatedly called for “a new AI-5,” referring to the notorious 1968 military decree that heavily curtailed political freedoms and institutionalized torture, inaugurating what became known as the “Years of Lead.”
War on the Press
“I’d like to punch you in the mouth, you bastard,” Bolsonaro told a reporter last year. It was just one of hundreds of threats that the president had lobbed at the media since taking office in 2019. According to the National Federation of Journalists, physical and verbal attacks on the media have reached all-time highs under this presidency, growing rapidly year over year.
The administration has largely closed its doors to news media that publish anything critical, making it harder to verify even basic facts. It also greatly increased advertising spending but radically shifted its tens of millions of dollars in ad buys to favor politically aligned outlets. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro’s supporters have repeatedly accosted journalists in the streets, preventing them from doing their job.
Bolsonaro, who once told journalists that they are “an endangered species,” is running nothing short of a campaign to destroy the media. Patricia Campos Mello, a veteran journalist who recently won judgments against the president and his son Eduardo for offensive comments, has drawn comparisons between Bolsonaro’s playbook and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s successful campaign against the press. Orbán was able to co-opt major outlets, economically squeeze resistors, delegitimize independent journalists as “enemies,” and use state powers to limit press freedom. Bolsonaro has made inroads in all of these areas.
The developments are concerning, but Celso Rocha de Barros, a political columnist for the Folha de S.Paulo newspaper, said the recent cases brought against critics might be a sign of weakness rather than strength. “They see that this is the worst situation they’ve been in yet,” said Barros, citing low approval numbers, a sagging economy, and the return of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the political scene.
Late last month, Senate police launched an investigation into Barros after he criticized Bolsonaro allies for trying to obstruct a Senate inquiry into the government’s miserable handling of the pandemic. “Their goal is clearly to intimidate, to limit criticism against them,” Barros said. “I personally will not be intimidated.”
Brazilian January 6?
Much could change before the election. Congress has clearly shown no interest in impeaching the president, which gives Bolsonaro 16 months — an eternity in fast-paced Brazilian politics — to pray for an economic recovery and successful vaccination campaign that would win voters’ confidence.
He likely won’t be relying on improved conditions alone. Bolsonaro could attempt to use partisan allies in the executive branch, media, judiciary, and law enforcement to manipulate the election in his favor. Current polling shows that Lula would win handily, but Bolsonaro, like former U.S. President Donald Trump, has clearly signaled that he does not intend to accept a loss at the polls.
Bolsonaro has been on a campaign to delegitimize Brazil’s electronic voting system, saying he will only accept the results of an election with paper ballots. “This is just a smokescreen that creates the environment for them to discredit the results of the polls,” said João Amoedo, an opposition politician, last month.
Last week, former President Michel Temer expressed concern that Bolsonaro would attempt a coup if he lost. Temer, a center-right politician, argued that supporters of Brazilian democracy needed to do more to improve relations with the military, which is firmly allied with Bolsonaro, to prevent such an eventuality.
“There’s a coup practically scheduled for next year if they lose the election,” said Barros, the political columnist, though he is doubtful Bolsonaro can pull it off.
Eduardo Bolsonaro, meanwhile, appears to have thought through coup strategies. The younger Bolsonaro was on hand in Washington, D.C., and met with members of the Trump family and inner circle before, during, and after the Capitol insurrection on January 6.
In an interview with the Estadão newspaper in January, Eduardo Bolsonaro suggested the problem was not that the far-right insurrection took place but that it was poorly executed. “It was a disorganized movement. It was unfortunate. Nobody wanted this to happen,” he said. “If it were organized, they would have taken over the Capitol and made demands that the invading group established in advance. They would have minimal military power to not kill anyone, kill all the police inside or the members of Congress that they hate so much. When the right becomes 10 percent of the left, we are going to have civil war in all western countries.”
"A group of local fishermen and tourism industry stakeholders established a fishing sanctuary several years ago in Oracabessa Bay." (image: Marlene Solorio/Mongabay)
Conservation Solutions in Paradise: Jamaica's Oracabessa Bay Fishing Sanctuary
Gladstone Taylor, Mongabay
Taylor writes: "In Jamaica's famed Oracabessa Bay, long a favored hub for artists of all kinds, biodiversity has faced threats from modern development.
he coastal ecosystem of the Caribbean is as unique as the region’s year-round humid tropical climate. On the island of Jamaica, picturesque deep-blue waters and rich biodiversity are among the country’s top tourism draws. That has endured despite the industry’s forced shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Jamaica Tourist Board (JTB) indicates 1.1 million visitors arrived during the first 10 months of 2020, significantly less than the 3.4 million over the same period in 2019.
Reefs and other essential systems such as mangroves — crucial for mitigating coastal flooding and storm damage, and maintaining the water’s diversity — are at risk. Global sea level rise, according to the University of the West Indies, was estimated at about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) over the 20th century. In countries like Jamaica, where pearly white beaches boast stunningly smooth sand made by coral skeletons and carbonate deposits from the exotic reefs, such a change is notable.
The increase in pollutants like microplastics and chemical runoff from agriculture, also increases coral reef bleaching and stimulates algae growth. These are among the factors compounding the threats to the region’s waters.
Overfishing has had a major impact on reef destruction, according to two regional Red List reports published in 2017 by the IUCN. For a country like Jamaica, where much of the food supply is reliant on coastal life, resolving reef-related issues like overfishing are more complex than at first glance.
With fewer bottom feeders like the reef-cleaning Scaridae or parrotfish, algae growth on the coral reefs goes unchecked, which stifles the coral’s development and health. The reef is also a home for fish, and unhealthy reefs mean fewer fish. Parrotfish are a popular part of the local diet, however, so this creates a kind of dilemma.
Where tradition once involved targeting this fish for food, now some in Jamaica are thinking long and hard about how they can protect, preserve and restore them.
Crafting local solutions
In 2011, a small group of fishermen in the town of Oracabessa, in the parish of St. Mary on Jamaica’s north coast, came together with the GoldenEye Foundation to establish a fishing sanctuary. Their aspiration was simple: enclose and enforce a no-fishing zone along the famous scenic strip of Oracabessa Bay’s beach, where the 12 original novels in the James Bond series were penned by Ian Fleming, and two of the Bond films were shot.
Today, a group of 18 — from board members to fishermen to the supervisors and coral gardeners — has managed to test, prove, maintain and upgrade a cohesive vision of marine conservation.
Their vision is borrowed from other countries around the world, like Indonesia, the United States and Belize, which inspired their coral-gardening techniques. As they have learned and applied over the years, the Oracabessa Bay fishing population has grown.
“When we can protect the fish like this, we will see more,” Ivanhoe Rose, one of the captains working with the sanctuary for nine years, said in a recent interview. “Even in the bay here, sometimes in the evening or morning time you will see a lot of fish like the tarpon or the snook.”
Reports like these by once-struggling fishermen indicates a regeneration in the fishing population. Jamaica’s National Environment and Planning Agency’s (NEPA) national reef survey report backs these claims, recording herbivorous fish abundance of 6,792 grams per 100 square meters in 2020, a significant increase from 1,192g/100m2 in 2013. This means one very important thing: whatever they are doing at Oracabessa Bay’s fishing sanctuary is working.
Before the sanctuary
Before the years refined the Oracabessa group’s vision for marine conservation and granted them new roles as stewards of the sea, they were humble fishermen.
Often, it is those who are closest to the elements of nature who feel the strongest call and commitment toward its preservation, as was the case for fishermen involved in the project like Ivanhoe Rose and David Murray. It was certainly the case for Lenford Dacosta, a fisherman-turned-coral-gardener.
According to these fishermen, who now all work with the sanctuary, the shortage of fish was becoming a serious issue for the fishing community and for tourist attractions such as snorkeling and diving along the beach in Oracabessa Bay.
“Many of us start out fishing very young. I started at 13 years old, and had my own fish gun,” Dacosta said, referring to his homemade wooden speargun. “My friends and I used to fish on the shores, but as we grew in age we became bolder, so by 16, 17 we were out in the reef shooting and catching. But we noticed the fish population began to decline so we had to go deeper to catch them.”
The worse it became, the farther out to sea the fishermen needed to venture to find a catch, and eventually they had to start diving as well. That’s when a transformation began to take place. Once a fisherman begins to dive, the way he sees the world above and below water completely changes.
In the case of Dacosta and others, who have been fishing and interacting with the ocean all their lives, diving has been a new experience. And for Dacosta, it heralded a shift in his world view.
“It wasn’t until I started diving that I really saw the damage underwater and realized how things we do contribute,” he says. But diving can be dangerous. “I used to bleed,” he recalls. “A lot of us used to cough up blood when we’re done diving. Because of the expansion and overwork of our lungs.”
What he found beneath the water’s surface was much scarier than the risks of diving: dead or dying corals.
“There was a lot of damage to the coral reefs, some of the fishermen used to drop the fish pots on the reefs and break them. Also a lot of pollution, all different kinds. That’s when I heard about this sanctuary and its programs and the coral gardening immediately caught my interest.”
From there, Dacosta and two other divers got on board with the sanctuary project and went on to get special training and coral-gardening education. By establishing a coral garden and a nursery, gardeners like Dacosta can select the most diverse corals, extract samples from the colony, and place them in the nursery.
After about six to eight months in the garden, the corals become mature enough to replant on the reef and facilitate new growth.
The future of the coral reef and the fish population are locked in a symbiotic relationship. The coral reef also serves as an important buffer against storms, and is home to many species and has one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. It’s almost impossible to place a value on it.
In addition, during their feeding, parrotfish grind up inedible calcium carbonate reef material like coral skeletons, which they excrete as the sand that populates the beaches. With less sand, beach erosion becomes more of a risk.
Foundational partnerships
The success of the Oracabessa Bay Fishing Sanctuary is in large part due to the cooperation of parties from both the tourism and fisheries sectors of the country. Both sectors are affected severely by poor reef health.
Travis Graham, executive director of the GoldenEye Foundation, is a firm believer in this combined effort as one of their secrets to success. Graham is well versed in the sanctuary’s rich history, even after just over two years in the role.
“Our marine conservation model is a bit unique,” Graham said in a recent interview. “It’s what we call an ecosystem-based model. It’s rooted in this partnership approach with the community.”
He describes a decidedly symbiotic and collaborative approach in the partnerships.
“Basically all our projects and programs are done in total partnership with the local fishing association. All decisions are made in tandem with the fishers and this collaboration was formalized through the establishment of the Oracabessa Bay Marine Trust.”
The trust is comprised of 50% board members and 50% local fishers, Graham says.
On a recent visit to the sanctuary, freelance dive instructor Shari Kelly made a similar deduction. “When it comes to tourism, the coral plays a huge role in the appearance,” Kelly said. “People want to come here to dive and see things, not just dead coral.”
Plotting the future
The Oracabessa Bay Fishing Sanctuary has an ambitious set of plans for marine conservation, which continues to be modified and adjusted. Goals include replanting 80,000 corals in the sanctuary. A yearly release of approximately 15-20,000 sea turtles each year has seen a total of over 220,000 hatchlings released.
Its success thus far has led the group behind it to inspire and help other areas around Jamaica to do the same. With funding from the Global Environment Facility, through the UNDP, the sanctuary is in the process of bringing its management model to four new locations along Jamaica’s northern coast.
According to Graham, there are projects around Jamaica in Lucea, Grange Pen, Mobay, Salt Marsh on the border between St. James and Trelawny, and Whitehouse Mobay.
“Based on the success that we’ve had here and the model, they have been very receptive in those areas,” Graham said. “We’re at different stages in different locations but overall people are seeing the need for fish sanctuaries.”
The Oracabessa sanctuary coastal environment conservation and biodiversity restoration successes over the last decade bring into focus myriad issues that highlight the country’s growing need for sustainable marine conservation efforts.
The journey to better coastal health for Jamaica is ongoing, but the vision is bearing fruit, which makes for a more compelling concept that can be replicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.