02 August 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Challenging the Red State, Blue State Fallacy
It has to do with the very idea of “red states” and “blue states,” a generalized catch-all for the American political divide that arose on presidential election nights but has since evolved into a lazily imprecise shorthand for a complicated, conflicted, and very heterogeneous nation.
Now living now full-time in Texas after moving from New York, I am keenly aware that I have crossed some mental Maginot Line in our culture war culture between one of the most stereotypical of “blue states” (probably exceeded only by California in the mindset of Republicans) to perhaps the most villainized of “red states” in the minds of many Democrats. Sure, West Virginia or Alabama may be more “red” in terms of vote percentages. But when it comes to leading a form of “red state agenda,” from restricting voting rights to banning abortion to assaulting public education, everything really is bigger in Texas.
I have written before in this publication about why I consider Texas “a home worth fighting for.” That piece yielded a lot of passionate feedback in the comments section, with many telling stories of how places in this country they once called home — Texas and elsewhere — had become unrecognizable and no longer places they would choose to live. Others talked about fighting for what they believed in and refusing to be pushed out, especially knowing others less privileged had no choice but to stay. These are the kinds of conversations we always hoped this Steady newsletter would inspire.
For the purpose of today’s discourse, I want to turn to one of the passages from that post that I think is particularly relevant:
“For all that is dispiriting about Texas, there is a lot that is inspiring. I see many people fighting at the level of neighborhoods, cities, and the state as a whole for visions of inclusion and progress. I see people who look at steep odds and only increase their motivation. They are saying some form of, ‘We will not let the forces of injustice define Texas. We are Texas, too. And we have just as much of a right to live here and build the home we want as those who would deny us our rightful place in this state and in this nation.’”
And that brings me to the remarkable story of one such fighter who exploded onto the national stage this week — Olivia Julianna. Many of you undoubtedly have now heard of this 19-year-old reproductive rights activist (who publicly uses her first two names to protect her privacy).
It all started when Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz gave one of his odious speeches where he suggested that many abortion activists are too ugly to ever get pregnant.
The response was swift and overwhelming. It’s also the kind of reaction that feeds this loathsome troll, who is under investigation for paying an underage girl for sex. I hadn’t intended to give these disgusting comments more of a platform. But something remarkable happened.
First came Olivia Julianna’s response:
And then Gaetz responded to Olivia Julianna like the bully he is, using a picture of the Texas teenager to unleash his army of like-minded trolls.
Well, Olivia Julianna did not shrink away from the fight. Like a tough Texan, she stood her ground and turned the insults into a fundraiser for abortion access. To date, she has raised more than $2 million! Yes, you read that number correctly.
And the funds are still pouring in, as her story has gained national media attention and shout outs from major political figures like Hillary Clinton.
I wanted to show my own recognition of her accomplishment, and make a broader point.
And I was honored to see Olivia Julianna’s reply:
Texas is lucky to have young activists like Olivia Julianna, and many more like her. If these young dreamers and fighters, who have all their lives before them, aren’t giving up in working tirelessly for equality, empathy, and justice, then no one should.
With the overturning of Roe, we became all too aware once again about the patchwork of our nation. Because of the power of state governments, the future of abortion rights will differ greatly in “red states” and “blue states.” Although that could change if Republicans gain control of all levers of national government and ban abortion outright.
We see our country all too often as a perverse chess board with blocks of different-colored spaces strewn about, although red tends to aggregate with red and blue with blue in large swaths of our national geography.
But I would caution on two important fronts. One, states change their identities over time. I remember when West Virginia was about as solid a Democratic state as you could find and California was the breeding ground for Republican presidents. Secondly, and this is related, activism matters. Change bubbles up from the community level and it can be contagious.
State boundaries also do not denote monolithic divisions. There are places in California that vote like Mississippi and places in Mississippi that vote like California. At the county level, our patchwork of blue and red looks different than at the state level. And it is even more different if you could zoom into households.
We live where we live for many reasons. And that should not, indeed it does not, require that we give up our beliefs or give into cynicism. At the same time, we should not minimize the struggle ahead. Yet leadership like that provided by Olivia Julianna is built upon perseverance, a dogged determination that is fed by hope.
In wrapping up this newsletter, I couldn’t improve on the thoughts this brave agent of change expressed to The Washington Post in one of the early articles on the movement she has inspired:
“Olivia Julianna grew up as a queer Latina in a small conservative rural Texas community. ‘I’ve been mocked, ridiculed and harassed for most of my life. I will not tolerate that kind of behavior anymore,’ she said.”
Courage. And godspeed.
A predator drone. (photo: General Atomics)
US President Joe Biden says ‘justice has been delivered’ after al-Qaeda leader located and killed in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Al-Zawahiri was killed on Sunday in the biggest blow to the group since its founder Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011.
“Justice has been delivered and this terrorist leader is no more,” Biden said in a special televised address from outside the White House.
Intelligence had located al-Zawahiri’s family in Kabul earlier this year, Biden said, adding that no members of the family or civilians had been killed in the attack.
An Egyptian surgeon with a $25m reward on his head, al-Zawahiri helped coordinate the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US that killed nearly 3,000 people.
Earlier, US officials speaking on the condition of anonymity told reporters that the CIA carried out a drone attack in Kabul using two missiles. Al-Zawahiri was on his balcony at the time, they said.
“It’s a significant blow,” Colin Clarke, research director at the Soufan Group, a global security firm, told Al Jazeera, adding that his presence in Kabul was also interesting in what it suggested about his relationship with the Taliban.
“It tells us he’s gotten far more comfortable over the past year since the Taliban took over,” Clarke said.
The Taliban confirmed the attack in Kabul – without naming al-Zawahiri – and condemned it as a “violation of international principles”.
The strike was carried out on a residential house in the Sherpur area of Kabul, a diplomatic enclave where many Taliban leaders live now, Taliban chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement.
“Such actions are a repetition of the failed experiences of the past 20 years and are against the interests of the US, Afghanistan and the region,” Mujahid said.
Al-Qaeda has yet to issue a statement.
In a statement, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said al-Zawahiri’s presence in Kabul “grossly violated the Doha Agreement and repeated assurances to the world that they would not allow Afghan territory to be used by terrorists to threaten the security of other countries”.
Washington and the Taliban signed the deal in 2020, paving the way for the withdrawal of US-led foreign forces in return for a guarantee from the Taliban not to allow groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) to operate on Afghan soil. The US forces withdrew just before an August 31 deadline in what turned out to be a chaotic exercise.
Blinken said by allowing the al-Qaeda leader to shelter in Afghanistan, the Taliban had also “betrayed” the Afghan people and “their own stated desire for recognition from and normalization with the international community”.
Reporting from Kabul, Al Jazeera’s Ali Latifi said the drone strike took place in a “highly residential area of Kabul”.
“It’s near a grocery store, near a bank, and a main street. It is an area where previous warlords, governors and ministers have lived under the previous government. It is not anywhere hidden,” he said.
“That raises the question of how the current leader of al-Qaeda could walk into Kabul without the government knowing and that’s what the US is alluding to when they say this is in violation of the Doha agreement,” he added, noting that the Taliban also accused the US of violating the Doha deal.
POMPEO negotiated the release of 5,000 terrorist prisoners with the TALIBAN, excluding the Afghan government creating a terrorist haven from his sabotage of the Biden Presidency.
Those 5,000 terrorists were imprisoned because they posed a threat.
Can we faulty the CIA for their current involvment when POMPEO created a time bomb?
Pompeo to Afghan leaders: Make a deal with the Taliban or risk full U.S. troop pullout
The stern message, delivered two weeks ago, underscores Trump’s concern that the absence of a unified government in Kabul threatens to unravel his tenuous Taliban peace deal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pompeo-afghan-leaders-make-deal-taliban-or-risk-full-u-n1174161
Yes, the Trump administration in 2020 agreed to the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners
Peace talks between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban, which never made substantial progress, didn’t begin until after the release of the prisoners.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/afghanistan-taliban-united-states-deal-5000-prisoners/536-202b0ae9-6251-44d3-a3d0-b9e7d029aed9
Chris Wallace Confronts Pompeo: Do You Regret Giving Taliban ‘Legitimacy’?
(FOX NEWS)
“Do you regret pressing the Afghan government to release 5,000 prisoners, which they did, some of whom are now back on the battlefield fighting with the Taliban?” Wallace asked.
Amid the widespread criticism that’s been thrown at the Biden administration over the collapse of Afghanistan following the withdrawal of American troops, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace kept it fair and balanced on Sunday morning when he confronted former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over his own record of legitimizing and emboldening the Taliban.
With the Taliban essentially taking over the entire country in a matter of a few short weeks and the Afghan president fleeing the country after the group surrounded the capital of Kabul, Pompeo appeared on Fox News Sunday to blast President Joe Biden for supposedly folding to the Taliban.
“It looks like the Biden administration has just failed in its execution of its own plan,” the former Trump secretary of state said. “It looks like they are now trying to get folks out. This reminds me of when we have seen previous administrations allow embassies to be overrun, it’s starting to feel that way. It also looks like there’s a bit of panic having to reinsert soldiers to get them out.”
Pompeo went on to say the Trump administration—which had previously reached a deal with the Taliban (but not the Afghan government) to withdraw all troops by May 1—had “delivered on its promise” before calling on the Biden administration to issue airstrikes against the Taliban.
“They should go crush these Taliban who are surrounding Kabul,” he bellowed. “We should do it with American airpower, we should put pressure on them, we should inflict cost and pain on them. We shouldn’t be begging them to spare the lives of Americans, we should be imposing costs on the Taliban until they allow us to execute our plan in Afghanistan.”
After Pompeo insisted that the Taliban would not “run free and wild in Afghanistan” if he and former President Donald Trump were still in office, Wallace noted that Biden appears to be placing the lion’s share of the blame on Trump for leaving him with the troop withdrawal deal.
“If the risks weren’t so serious, Chris, it would be pathetic,” Pompeo huffed. “I wouldn’t have let my 10-year old son get away from this kind of pathetic blame-shifting.”
Wallace, however, shot back, pointing out that a number of critics have said that Trump cutting a deal with the Taliban without the Afghan government even being involved was “hugely demoralizing” and led to the current chaos. (Notably, just weeks before the 2020 election, the Taliban endorsed Trump for president in the hopes he would “wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.”)
Pompeo vehemently disagreed, claiming that it was “simply not true” before taking shots at the “corrupt” Afghan leaders who he said were more interested in lobbying for American money than “building up friends and coalitions and working with the Taliban.” The ex-secretary also asserted the Trump deal with the Taliban set a “conditions-based withdrawal of American soldiers.”
But the veteran Fox anchor wasn’t done pressing Pompeo on his own record with the Taliban, bringing up the fact that he was the first secretary of state to ever meet with the group and actually heaped praise on them at one point.
Airing a clip of Pompeo last year saying the Taliban would “work alongside us to destroy” Al Qaeda, Wallace pointedly asked the former secretary: “Do you regret giving the Taliban that legitimacy? Do you regret pressing the Afghan government to release 5,000 prisoners, which they did, some of whom are now back on the battlefield fighting with the Taliban?”
Pompeo, for his part, responded by saying “you make peace with your enemies” while also insisting that the Trump administration “never trusted the Taliban.”
He concluded: “We didn’t take the word of the Taliban, we watched their actions on the ground. When they did the right thing and helped us against terror, that was all good, and when they didn’t, we crushed them.”
tRump and his lackey, POMPEO negotiated the DOHA agreement with the TALIBAN excluding the government of Afghanistan.
This is what happens when you support a STUPID leader:
Trump had the chance to kill Al Qaeda's leader but didn't because he didn't recognize the name, report says
The Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed by a US drone strike, Biden announced Monday.
Then-President Trump had the option to kill al-Zawahiri but chose not to, NBC reported in 2020.
Trump wanted to kill Osama bin Laden's son instead because it was the only name he knew, NBC said.
President Donald Trump had the chance to kill the leader of Al Qaeda but didn't because he didn't recognize the terrorist leader's name, NBC News reported in 2020.
Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed in a US drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Saturday, President Joe Biden announced Monday.
His death, which has been praised by many world leaders, is the biggest blow to Al Qaeda since its founder, Osama bin Laden, was killed by US Navy SEALs in 2011.
But plans for al-Zawahiri's execution could have been carried out far earlier, according to an NBC News report published in February 2020.
Intelligence officials briefed Trump many times about senior terrorist figures the CIA wanted to track down and kill, mentioning al-Zawahiri, NBC News reported.
Two people familiar with the briefings told NBC News that Trump chose not to pursue al-Zawahiri because he didn't recognize his name and instead suggested targeting bin Laden's son, Hamza bin Laden.
"He would say, 'I've never heard of any of these people. What about Hamza bin Laden?'" one unnamed former official told NBC News.
A Pentagon official also told the news outlet: "That was the only name he knew."
The Department of Defense and a spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.
Even though bin Laden's son was widely seen as an emerging figure in the terrorist group, he was not believed to be planning any attacks at the time, NBC News reported.
'The president's preference for a "celebrity" targeted killing'
Trump confirmed in 2019 that the younger bin Laden had been killed in a US counterterrorism operation earlier on in his presidency.
"Despite intelligence assessments showing the greater dangers posed by Zawahiri, as well as his Iran-based lieutenants al-Masri and Saif al-Adil, and the unlikelihood Hamza was in the immediate line of succession, the president thought differently," the former CIA official Douglas London wrote in Just Security in 2020.
He added that Trump's "obsession" with bin Laden's son "is one example of the president's preference for a 'celebrity' targeted killing versus prioritizing options that could prove better for US security."
In his address announcing al-Zawahiri's death, Biden said that after "relentlessly seeking Zawahiri for years under Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump, our intelligence community located Zawahiri earlier this year."
"This mission was carefully planned, rigorously minimized the risk of harm to other civilians, and one week ago, after being advised that the conditions were optimal, I gave the final approval to go get him, and the mission was a success."
Al-Zawahiri helped Osama bin Laden plot the September 11, 2001, attacks, which directly killed nearly 3,000 people.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-skipped-chance-kill-al-qaeda-leader-name-unfamiliar-nbc-2022-8
From Heather Cox Richardson:
Tonight, President Joe Biden announced that a drone strike managed by the Central Intelligence Agency at 9:48 Eastern time on Saturday killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, 71, who took control of al-Qaeda after the death of leader Osama bin Laden. The precision strike hit Zawahiri as he stood on a balcony in a prosperous section of Kabul, Afghanistan. There were no civilian casualties.
Zawahiri believed that attacking the U.S. and allied countries was essential to undermining the pro-Western Arab regimes that were standing in the way of uniting Muslims around the world. In 1998, he wrote, “To kill Americans and their allies—civilian and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it.” In that year, he was a senior advisor to bin Laden when al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 200 people and wounding more than 4500 others. He planned the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and wounded dozens more. He helped to plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Under the Doha Agreement of February 29, 2020, negotiated by the Trump administration and the Taliban without the involvement of the then-Afghan government, the U.S. agreed to withdraw all its forces so long as the Taliban promised not to permit terrorist organizations to operate within their territory. And yet the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan a year ago provided Zawahiri with the ability to operate comfortably in that country.
When President Biden withdrew remaining troops from Afghanistan in August of last year, he said the U.S. would be better served by fighting terrorism with “over-the-horizon” attacks rather than with soldiers on the ground. The elimination of Zawahiri proved his point. “No matter how long it takes, no matter where you hide, if you are a threat to our people, the United States will find you and take you out,” Biden said.
Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Reuters)
The foreign ministry threatens ‘serious consequences’ if the US house speaker makes a trip to the self-ruled island claimed by Beijing.
In Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian reiterated earlier warnings on Monday, saying “there will be serious consequences if she insists on making the visit”. He did not spell out any specific consequences.
“We are fully prepared for any eventuality,” he said. “The People’s Liberation Army [PLA] will never sit by idly. China will take strong and resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
PLA ships have been stationed close to the median line in the Taiwan Strait, which separates China and Taiwan, since Monday, and several military jets flew close to the line on Tuesday morning, Reuters news agency reported citing unnamed sources. Taiwan had dispatched aircraft to monitor the situation, it added.
China has been steadily ratcheting up diplomatic and military pressure on the self-ruled democracy since President Tsai Ing-wen was first elected in 2016. But threats of retaliation over a visit by Pelosi have driven concerns of a deepening crisis amid continued tension between Beijing and Washington, which has formal diplomatic relations with China, but is required by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself.
Several Taiwan media outlets reported late on Monday, citing unnamed sources, that Pelosi would visit Taiwan on Tuesday and spend the night in Taipei.
One of the newspapers, the Liberty Times, said Pelosi was scheduled to visit Taiwan’s parliament on Wednesday morning.
Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it had no comment on reports of Pelosi’s travel plans.
“We have many differences when it comes to Taiwan, but over the past 40 plus years, we have managed those differences and done it in a way that is preserved peace and stability and has allowed the people of Taiwan to flourish,” said US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
“It would be important, as part of our shared responsibility, to continue to manage this in a wise way that doesn’t create the prospect for conflict.”
Amid widespread speculation over the potential stop in Taiwan, Pelosi’s office said on Sunday she was leading a congressional delegation to the region that would include visits to Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Japan. It did not mention Taiwan.
Zhao said it would be “a gross interference in China’s internal affairs” if Pelosi visits Taiwan, and warned it would lead to “very serious developments and consequences”.
Asked what kind of measures the PLA might take, Zhao said: “If she dares to go, then let us wait and see.”
A slickly produced video by the Peoples Liberation Army’s Eastern Theatre Command, which showed scenes of military exercises and preparations and was posted on state media sites on Monday evening, urged troops to “stand by in battle formation, be ready to fight upon command, bury all incoming enemies”.
China, which has not ruled out the use of force to take control of the island, views visits by US officials to Taiwan as sending an encouraging signal to those on the island who want independence.
A visit by Pelosi, who is second in the line of succession to the US presidency and a long-time critic of China, would come amid worsening ties between Washington and Beijing. Republican Newt Gingrich was the last House speaker to visit Taiwan, in 1997.
‘Playing with fire’
The White House dismissed China’s rhetoric as groundless and inappropriate.
“The speaker has the right to visit Taiwan,” John Kirby, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, told reporters, warning China was “positioning” to respond with a show of military force.
“There is no reason for Beijing to turn a potential visit consistent with longstanding US policies into some sort of crisis,” he said. However, China “appears to be positioning itself to potentially take further steps in the coming days.”
This “could include military provocations such as firing missiles in the Taiwan Strait or around Taiwan”, according to Kirby, also identifying “large scale air entry into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone” as a possible step.
Some developments “could be of a different scope and scale,” Kirby said, noting the last firing of Chinese missiles into the Taiwan Strait was back in the mid-1990s.
During a phone call last Thursday, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned US President Joe Biden that Washington should abide by the one-China principle and “those who play with fire will perish by it”.
Biden told Xi that US policy on Taiwan had not changed and Washington strongly opposes unilateral efforts to change the status quo or undermine peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
On Monday, Taiwan Premier Su Tseng-chang did not directly respond when asked whether Pelosi would visit.
“We always warmly welcome visits to our country by distinguished foreign guests,” he told reporters in Taipei.
‘Really just symbolism’
Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Renmin University in Beijing, said a Pelosi visit would prompt the strongest counter-measures by Beijing in years, but he did not expect that to trigger major military conflict.
“China has reiterated in no ambiguous terms its opposition to Taiwan separatism. The US has reiterated many times its one-China policy has not changed and that it is against any change to the status quo by either side of the Taiwan Strait,” he said.
“Unless by accident, I am sure neither side would intentionally take military action that could lead to a major security risk.”
Ross Feingold, an Asia political risk analyst, said Beijing could cut some trade with US allies, close consulates, and increase large-scale military exercises in the region if Pelosi does make the trip. He added the purpose of her visit was unclear.
“The fact is Pelosi is a bit of a lame duck. There is a likelihood she won’t be speaker come January next year. So what could she really do for Taiwan in the remaining months she is speaker is a legitimate question to ask. So what is the point of all this? It’s really just the symbolism,” Feingold told Al Jazeera.
Last Wednesday, Biden told reporters he thought the US military believed a Pelosi visit to Taiwan was “not a good idea right now”.
Agricultural products were Ukraine's primary source of export revenue, and accounted for nearly 10% of the country's GDP. (photo: Fadel Dawood/Getty Images)
The first ship carrying grain has left a Ukrainian port under a landmark deal with Russia.
Russia has been blockading Ukrainian ports since February, but the two sides made a deal to resume shipments.
It is hoped the agreement will ease the global food crisis and lower the price of grain.
Turkey said the Sierra Leone-flagged vessel, the Razoni, would dock at the port of Tripoli in Lebanon, adding that further shipments were planned over the coming weeks.
The Joint Co-ordination Centre, set up in Istanbul under the deal, said the ship was carrying some 26,000 tonnes of corn and was expected to arrive in Turkish waters for inspection on Tuesday.
Ukraine's Minister of Infrastructure Oleksandr Kubrakov told the BBC the Razoni was an important test to show the deal would work, with Turkey aiding its safe navigation through dangerous waters.
"There's the question of mines," he told BBC Newshour. "There are a lot of mines - starting from World War Two, in addition to mines which appeared in the Black Sea starting from February - it provides a lot of risks," he said.
There are concerns that while ships may be able to leave Ukraine with tonnes of grain, they might not be able to get affordable insurance to return for another load.
But Mr Kubrakov said he expected to see between one and three vessels going in both directions in the next few weeks, with empty ships coming to the port of Odessa from Turkey's Bosporus Strait.
While the sight of the Razoni, with her stowed white cranes and long blue hull, inching out into the mine-infested Black Sea represents a significant development, the operation will have to last for a sustained period for either Ukraine's damaged economy or tens of millions of people around the world to benefit.
Last month's deal - brokered by the UN and Turkey - took two months to reach and was set to last 120 days. It can be renewed if both parties agree. UN Secretary General António Guterres welcomed the departure of the ship and hailed Turkey for its role in working to implement the agreement.
The blockade of Ukraine's grain has contributed to a global food crisis with wheat-based products like bread and pasta becoming more expensive, and cooking oils and fertiliser also increasing in price.
Russia and Ukraine jointly produce nearly a third of global wheat supplies. In 2019 Ukraine accounted for 16% of the world's corn supplies and 42% of sunflower oil, according to UN data.
Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called the shipment a "relief for the world" and urged Moscow to "respect its part of the deal". Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow that the ship's departure was a "very positive" development.
International leaders gave the shipment a cautious welcome, with UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss calling it "an important first step". But EU spokesperson Peter Stano said Russia must ensure the "whole deal" is met to resume Ukrainian exports around the world.
Under the terms of the deal, Russia has agreed not to target ports while shipments are in transit and Ukraine has agreed that its naval vessels will guide cargo ships through waters that have been mined.
One engineer working on the Razoni told Reuters news agency that he was worried about the danger of sea mines.
"We hope that nothing will happen and that we will not commit any mistake. This is the only thing that I fear during this trip, as for the other things, we are used to them as sailors," Abdullah Jendi said.
Turkey - supported by the United Nations - will inspect ships, to allay Russian fears of weapons smuggling.
Trust remains low between officials in Kyiv and Moscow, and last month the deal was thrown into chaos less than 24 hours after it was announced when Russia launched two missiles at Odesa port.
Odesa MP Oleksiy Goncharenko told the BBC he expected shipments to continue from the other ports on Tuesday but warned Russia might attempt to disrupt them with further military action.
"We see these awful missile attacks against Odesa in the last days - that is just their attempts to increase the risks for ship owners, for crew, not to come to Odesa," he said.
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)
It will be confusing for voters to figure out whether it’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ that preserves abortion rights
On one hand, this vote could be seen as a litmus test for how a traditionally conservative state reacts to the US supreme court overturning Roe v Wade, which guaranteed the right to an abortion nationwide.
But this election may not be an accurate picture, because the text on the ballot is so hard to understand clearly. Republicans in the state legislature wrote the language on the ballot last year, and ever since experts have argued it is purposefully confusing and misleading.
To be clear:
- Voting “yes” would mean supporting an amendment that would change the Kansas state constitution so it no longer protects abortion, overturning a 2019 state supreme court ruling.
- Voting “no” would mean the state constitution continues to protect abortion rights.
On the ballot, however, it’s not that simple. Let’s take a look.
Consitutional Amendment
Vote Yes or No
Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.
A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.
Shall the following be adopted?
§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother
Yes
No
Kansas abortion referendum language
This is what Kansas voters will see when they decide whether to amend the constitution to no longer protect abortion.
Ballot: The ballot says a “yes” vote would “affirm there is no constitutional right to abortion”.
Reality: To be clear, a “yes” vote changes the Kansas constitution and takes away the constitutional right to an abortion.
Ballot: The ballot says a “yes” vote would ban the “government funding of abortion”.
Reality: Kansas already bans taxpayer money from funding abortions.
Ballot: The ballot says “yes” vote would “reserve to the people” the right to regulate abortion. It says a “no” vote could “restrict the people” from regulating abortion.
Reality: Federal and state constitutions often protect individual rights from being infringed upon by government policies.
Ballot: The ballot explicitly mentions what kind of exceptions an abortion ban could have, like for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
Reality: This vote does not stop the legislature from passing a complete abortion ban, with no exceptions from rape, incest or life of the mother.
Ballot: Above the areas where people cast their vote is the language of the proposed amendment.
Reality: This could be misinterpreted as the current law, which means people could cast a vote that is the opposite of their intent.
Ballot: Ultimately, the ballot language sows confusion in an effort to push people to vote “yes”.
Reality: A “yes” vote means the state constitution would no longer protect abortion. A “no” vote means the state constitution would continue to protect abortion.
Donald Trump. (photo: Erin Schaff/NYT/Redux)
The former president’s unusual endorsement added uncertainty to an already tumultuous race
But by day’s end, the former president injected more chaos into an already tumultuous race, simply endorsing “ERIC” — a first name shared by two rival candidates — former governor Eric Greitens and state Attorney General Eric Schmitt — as he suggested he was leaving it to voters to choose between them.
“There is a BIG Election in the Great State of Missouri, and we must send a MAGA Champion and True Warrior to the U.S. Senate, someone who will fight for Border Security, Election Integrity, our Military and Great Veterans, together with having a powerful toughness on Crime and the Border,” Trump wrote in a statement. “I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds, much as they did when they gave me landslide victories in the 2016 and 2020 Elections, and I am therefore proud to announce that ERIC has my Complete and Total Endorsement!”
The unusual statement came hours after Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I will be endorsing in the Great State of Missouri Republican race (Nomination) for Senate sometime today!” In recent days, several of the candidates to replace retiring Sen. Roy Blunt (R) made an 11th-hour pitch for the nod in the bitterly contested race.
At his final pre-election rally at a St. Louis-area GOP headquarters, Schmitt told supporters that he’d been “endorsed by President Trump,” and that he’d thanked Trump when he called with the news. On Twitter, before his final rally at an airport near the state’s largest city, Greitens, too, said that he’d thanked Trump over the phone.
The dual endorsement was a small victory for Senate Republicans, who had worried that Trump would endorse Greitens outright. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had lobbied Trump on Monday, urging him not to back Greitens, according to a person with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private interaction.
The day’s events amounted to a new dose of turmoil in a race that has been filled with it. Greitens, who governed this state for 16 months before he resigned amid personal and political scandals and has more recently faced domestic violence accusations that he denies, has campaigned as a martyred outsider who wrestled in the same “swamp” as Trump. To stop him, GOP-aligned donors had poured at least $6 million into a super PAC, Show Me Values, with ads that highlight the accusations of abuse and warn that he isn’t fit to represent Missouri.
“We’ve got all the right enemies,” a defiant Greitens told an evening crowd at a house party here last week. “What that tells me is that they recognize that our campaign is a threat to business as usual.”
Ahead of Tuesday, some Republicans here were hopeful that the ads had neutralized Greitens, and that a possible endorsement from Trump would seal the race for Schmitt. The campaign for a seat Republicans have held since 1987 has tested whether concerns about electability, and a scandal-plagued candidate dragging down the party, are enough to stop a candidate who taps into conservative grievances and distrust in the media and party establishment.
Schmitt and Rep. Vicky Hartzler, who is backed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), have attacked Greitens while trying to distance themselves from Republican leaders. By the race’s final weekend, both had called for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to be replaced as GOP leader, and both were warning that Greitens could put the seat at risk in November.
“Are you going to vote for the former governor who’s abused his wife and his kid, assaulted his child, and quit on Missouri?” said Schmitt at a rally with supporters in Columbia last week. The attorney general, who has pushed for Trump’s support as he’s risen in limited public polling, was referencing allegations from Greitens’s ex-wife, which the candidate had called a distraction, after separate accusations that forced him from office in 2018 resulted in no charges against him.
“This man is a quitter,” said Schmitt. “And when the going gets tough, he got going.”
Schmitt said after those remarks that he was still seeking Trump’s endorsement, with the former president likely “aware of the separation in the polls this last week.” But Trump, whose endorsements in other states have occasionally saddled the party with weak nominees, remained quiet for most of the race, apart from a statement condemning Hartzler.
That left many Republican voters guessing which candidate shares the values and priorities they appreciated from Trump — or at least, the fighting spirit against an establishment they believe had given up too much ground to liberals.
“Eric Schmitt is the establishment candidate,” said Kym Franklin, a 55-year old social worker who supports Greitens. Waiting for the former governor to speak at a Saturday rally, at a sports bar where neon marked the “stairway to heaven” and the “highway to hell,” she compared the ex-governor to ex-presidents. “They both got railroaded, and we the people who voted for them got robbed.”
Show Me Values PAC, funded with start-up cash from pro-Schmitt donors Rex and Jeanne Sinquefield and Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R), worked in recent weeks to try to demolish such impressions. In some of its 30-second spots, an actress portraying Greitens’s ex-wife read from an affidavit that accused him of “abuse,” both against her and against their young son. Greitens has called his ex-wife’s allegations “baseless.” But that has been unconvincing to some Republican primary voters.
“I wish Greitens would drop out,” said Matt Fisher, a 42-year-old loan officer who was leaning toward Schmitt. “He continues to embarrass us. He’s a disgrace to our state.”
Greitens entered the primary in March 2021, claiming to Fox News that he’d been “completely exonerated.” An investigation found no wrongdoing on a campaign finance charge, and a felony charge against him alleging invasion of privacy against a woman, his former hairdresser, whom he admitted to having an affair with, was dropped by prosecutors.
The former governor has won some endorsements from Trump allies with intense followings, such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Greitens has portrayed himself as a foe of RINOs, which stands for “Republicans in name only.” He had faced criticism for releasing a campaign ad that shows him pretending to hunt down members of his own party with guns — a message his campaign monetized with “RINO hunting permits” to place on vehicle windows.
“We have to recognize we are in a fight against evil,” Greitens said at his Saturday rally in St. Charles County, where he condemned Republicans who he said had defied Trump’s effort to finish a U.S.-Mexico border wall.
Blunt, whose retirement plans kicked off this primary, was one of the Republicans who disapproved of Trump’s decision to shuffle around defense funds to pay for the wall. And in March, after the release of an affidavit from Sheena Greitens accusing her ex-husband of abuse, Blunt had called on Greitens to quit the race.
Public and private polling, which has a spotty record in Missouri, found that the affidavit hurt Greitens. The ad campaign focused on the new charges, say strategists, helped Schmitt and Hartzler push ahead. And support for Team PAC, which had given Greitens air cover before the affidavit from his ex-wife, had dried up. In the closing stages of the race, some Greitens backers have waged smaller-scale efforts to help him prevail.
Blake Johnson, a 45-year old contractor, installed a fridge-size Greitens sign on the bed of his Ford F-350. Driving through St. Charles County, a Republican stronghold outside St. Louis, he’d tracked the support he saw for the ex-governor. “I had three people flip me off today, but they were all driving Priuses, so you assume they leaned left,” he said on Saturday. “I had 21 people give me a thumbs up.”
In late June, former U.S. attorney John Wood launched an independent Senate bid and called Greitens a “danger to our democracy,” convincing some Republicans that Greitens might lose a November election that anyone else in his party should win.
“It seems like Greitens might be dead now,” said Democratic candidate Lucas Kunce, a veteran and anti-monopoly campaigner running for his party’s nomination, at a Wednesday night town hall in Columbia. If Greitens lost on Tuesday, Kunce hoped that Wood and the GOP nominee might tumble into “a little civil war — the country club Republicans versus the Trump side.”
Other candidates in the crowded field have also pursued Trump’s backing and run in his mold. Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) has run a shoestring campaign while urging Trump to endorse him. Mark McCloskey, an attorney who became a Trump 2020 surrogate after pointing a rifle at Black Lives Matter protesters marching through his St. Louis neighborhood, is also in the race.
Hartzler and Schmitt have different conservative bona fides, and different strategies for winning. Earlier this year, Hartzler, the farmer-turned-legislator, was censored by Twitter — a badge of honor in GOP primaries — for an ad singling out transgender female athletes.
“Women’s sports are for women,” Hartzler said in the ad, which focused on University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas. “Not men pretending to be women.”
But on July 8, shortly after the Missouri Farm Bureau endorsed Hartzler, Trump posted an anti-endorsement of the candidate on his Truth Social website. “I don’t think she has what it takes to take on the Radical Left Democrats,” Trump wrote.
“Maybe he’s listened to some lies from my opponents,” Hartzler speculated in an interview on Friday, after a meet-and-greet at a restaurant in Missouri’s conservative Bootheel region.
About 60 voters showed up to eat ribs and talk policy at the Hickory Log Restaurant, a day after Greitens drew a smaller crowd. While she had called Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6 “unpresidential,” voters, she said, knew she supported his policy agenda.
“It's caused my supporters to be even more energized,” Hartzler said of the Trump statement. “They have overwhelmingly said: Clearly, he doesn't know you. We know you, and we want to fight even harder for you.”
As the primary drew closer, Schmitt had checked more of Trump’s boxes. After a Wednesday stop at a restaurant in Columbia, and after dodging questions about whether McConnell, whom Trump has criticized, should remain the GOP’s leader in the Senate, Schmitt took the same position as Trump, Greitens, Hartzler and McCloskey. It was time for McConnell to go.
“Mitch McConnell hasn’t endorsed me, and I don’t endorse him,” Schmitt told reporters after a stop at a restaurant in Columbia. The Senate needed “new leadership,” he added, and the GOP had “changed pretty dramatically” since the 80-year old McConnell got to the Senate.
As Schmitt and Greitens touted Trump’s words on Tuesday, other Missouri Republicans cracked a smile. Hartzler congratulated Eric McElroy, a comedian who filed for the Senate race but ran no visible campaign. “He’s having a big night!” Hartzler said in a statement.
State Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz, whose campaign for the seat had received little traction, joked on Twitter that his name is Eric and he was “honored and humbled” to get the endorsement.
"As firefighting crews made progress toward containing a blaze in Yosemite National Park in California, another fire erupted near the Oregon border." (photo: Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/Denver Post/Getty Images)
The legislation would prevent fires, bump pay for firefighters, and protect water resources.
On the other side of the country, in swampy but fire-free Washington, D.C., Democratic lawmakers were feeling the heat. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a sweeping package of bills to bolster wildfire response and drought resilience on Friday. The 49-bill package was sponsored by Joe Neguse, a Democratic representative from Colorado who has devoted his short career in Washington to wildfire prevention policy, and passed largely along party lines.
One of the bill’s headline provisions would increase the minimum wage for wildland firefighters employed by the U.S. Forest Service to $20 per hour and allow them paid mental health leave. Federal firefighters are paid significantly less than their state-employed counterparts, and the agency has struggled with low retention rates. NPR reported in May that Forest Service vacancies were highest in the Pacific Northwest and California. The bipartisan infrastructure law that Congress passed last year temporarily raised the minimum wage for federal firefighters; this bill would make the pay hike permanent.
In addition to bolstering the government’s capacity to fight fires when they happen, the package contains a slew of measures that would address prevention and recovery. It would authorize $500 million for initiatives to remove dead trees and vegetation that have accumulated in forests due to a long history of fire suppression. It would also fund intentional, controlled fire projects that clear out overgrowth, which are known as prescribed burns. The package aims to train more people to manage prescribed burns with the creation of new “prescribed fire centers.” To restore ecosystems that have been impacted by past fires, the legislation would also establish a new “burned area recovery account” authorized at $100 million per year. The funds would be prioritized for projects that enhance public safety and protect water resources.
Protecting and shoring up water resources are major themes across the board in the package. It would boost funding for water recycling and reuse programs. There’s funding for desalination research and project development, which would help cities and states that are looking to suck up seawater, strip it of salty minerals, and use it to replenish groundwater supplies. It would authorize the Interior Department to spend $500 million on efforts to preserve water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, two major reservoirs with hydroelectric dams that store water and generate power for much of the West. It would also include a competitive grant program for clean water access projects that benefit Native American tribes. And it would create a new grant program at the Environmental Protection Agency to pay for states to establish incentives that help homes and businesses install more water-efficient appliances.
Only one House Republican voted for the bill, and other Republicans attacked it for authorizing new spending and for not reforming environmental review processes that inhibit forest thinning projects.
The White House was also somewhat lukewarm on the package. In a statement that asserted the Biden administration’s support for the bills, the Office of Management and Budget also suggested that some of the policies advanced were redundant. “The Administration appreciates the interest of Congress in the Administration’s efforts to address climate change and its effects on wildfires and drought,” it said, but it “would like to work with the Congress to ensure the many provisions in the Act avoid duplication with existing authorities and Administration efforts.”
The legislation faces an uncertain future in the Senate, which has recently turned its attention to a different climate-related package — a spending bill called the Inflation Reduction Act. Alongside a cornucopia of clean energy tax credits that experts say will help the country achieve its emission goals, that package would appropriate $1.8 billion over the next decade for removing hazardous fuels from federal forests.
Special Coverage: Ukraine, A Historic Resistance
READ MORE
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.