Common Dreams - breaking news & views for the progressive community

Common Dreams - breaking news & views for the progressive community Feed abonnieren Common Dreams - breaking news & views for the progressive community
Common Dreams
Aktualisiert: vor 1 Stunde 14 Minuten

Clean Cars Standards Deliver Cleaner Air

20. März 2024 - 17:08

The Environmental Protection Agency released its latest set of clean car standards that will cut carbon emissions and other tailpipe pollutants starting in 2027. These final standards will deliver major carbon reductions, save drivers money on fuel and maintenance, and reduce asthma attacks, heart disease and other illnesses.

The following is a statement from Manish Bapna, president and CEO of NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council):

“This is where the rubber meets the road on climate. These commonsense standards will slash the source of a fifth of the nation’s carbon footprint.

“Over time, these rules will prevent more carbon pollution than the entire U.S. economy coughs up in a year. They’ll save drivers money at the pump and cut tailpipe pollution that endangers public health.

“In the longer journey to confront the climate crisis, these standards take us in the right direction. They signal a commitment to stay the course, build on gathering momentum and see the mission through to its finish. That’s what confronting the climate crisis demands.”

Background:

Transportation is the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S. and cars and trucks contribute more than 80 percent of those emissions. These car, SUV and pickup truck standards will cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 7 billion tons over 2027-2055; that’s more than the total greenhouse gas emissions of the entire U.S. in one year.

The standards will also save drivers money on fuel and maintenance: EPA estimates that drivers will save up to $6,000 over the lifetime of the vehicle. A recent analysis from Atlas Public Policy found that buying, fueling and maintaining an electric vehicle is less expensive than a similar gasoline model across all light-vehicle types. In many cases, the EV sticker price is about the same as that of a gasoline vehicle.

These EPA pollution standards will be followed in the coming weeks by the Department of Transportation’s fuel economy standards. These two separate rules do different things and have different goals, but they also work in tandem to ensure that cars are cleaner and are less reliant on oil.

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

New EPA Light Duty Vehicle Standards Will Reduce Climate-Endangering Emissions

20. März 2024 - 17:06

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued the strongest standards to date to limit emissions from light-duty passenger cars and trucks. Starting in 2027, these rules will require emissions reductions in all new cars sold, which automakers can achieve by implementing cleaner technologies for gasoline engines or by adding more zero-emission electric vehicles to their offerings. This rule will reduce transportation pollution, an important step in a broader effort to create a cleaner transportation system, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Below is a statement by Steven Higashide, director of the Clean Transportation Program at UCS.

“Today’s announcement will shift the trajectory of the automobile market and put us on a path to real emissions reductions, with an estimated 7.2 billion tons of global warming pollution avoided by 2055. These rules are the strongest standards ever finalized and vital for meeting U.S. climate goals. This rule is technology-neutral and won’t mandate electric vehicles, but it will encourage this growing market. New cars sold in the coming years will be on the road for a decade or more, so it’s vital that these rules cut emissions from gasoline cars as well as encourage zero-emission electric cars.

“However, EPA should have gone even further because we have the technology to be more ambitious. The science is clear on both the urgent need to cut climate-endangering emissions and the fact that we can make the cuts we need. We don’t have many opportunities to reduce transportation pollution and it’s disappointing that this rule falls short of what’s possible. We’ll continue to push the administration to create, implement and enforce the strongest rules possible.

“These standards will help clean up emissions from transportation—the biggest source of global warming pollution in the U.S. To achieve their full potential, these rules must be accompanied by other investments in a cleaner, more accessible transportation system. These investments—many of which are already underway—must build out charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, boost domestic manufacturing, put more renewable power on the electric grid, and expand transit, walking and bicycling options. We need to use every policy tool available to reduce the dangers of climate change and build the transportation system of the future.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Taking Major Action on Climate and Health, Biden Administration Finalizes Clean Car Pollution Standards

20. März 2024 - 17:05

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized federal standards to strengthen the nation’s emissions requirements for light-duty vehicles that will encourage the production of cleaner passenger cars and light- and medium-duty trucks.

The standards cover model years 2027 to 2032 and build on the agency’s decades-long arc of action to cut vehicle pollution. The standards will avoid 7.2 billion metric tons of climate pollution from 2027-2055 and help clean the air for millions of Americans living near freeways and roads from coast to coast.

According to the EPA’s own analysis, the transportation sector accounts for 29 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions—more than any other sector in the U.S.—and is the fastest-growing emitter of GHG emissions. It is also a significant contributor to air pollution for communities across the nation, with passenger cars and trucks making up 44 percent of PM2.5 pollution and 76 percent of sulfur dioxide pollution from the nation’s vehicles.

Due to the legacy of redlining, communities of color are often most vulnerable to traffic pollution from highways and highly-trafficked corridors. Exposure to air pollution comes with an increased risk of many health problems, including increased risk of asthma attacks, strokes, heart attacks, cancer and premature deaths. By requiring automakers to reduce the emissions of their vehicles and deliver cleaner cars, the EPA is carrying out its statutory mandate to prevent toxic air pollution that threatens Americans’ health – especially our lung and heart health.

In response to the final rule, Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous released the following statement:

“Every single day, millions of Americans suffer under the weight of vehicle pollution, unsustainable gas prices, and the climate crisis, all fueled by tailpipe emissions spewing from gas cars throughout our communities. Today, President Biden, in one of the most significant actions his administration can take on climate change, has put forward standards with benefits extending far beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The Biden Administration’s new clean car standards will save lives and money for families. And with investments from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act underway, these new standards will only further help U.S. manufacturers in building American-made and union-built zero-emission vehicles.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Spitting On A Kid's Grave: We Don't Want That Filth

20. März 2024 - 6:19


At the first school board meeting since the assault and death of non-binary student Nex Benedict in Oklahoma, parents and advocates blasted a culture of rampant bullying of LGBTQ+ students - predictably, in a state run by GOP bullies - especially after a dubious medical report declared Benedict's death a suicide. With both a federal probe and effort to remove their hateful school superintendent underway, enraged parents told the tepid, complicit board, "You have failed...Do better."

A 2STGNC+ (Two Spirit, transgender, gender nonconforming+) student of Choctaw descent, Nex, 16, died the day after a fight in a school bathroom at Owasso High School in which three girls harassed Nex for using the bathroom; Nex poured some water on the girls, who then knocked and beat Nex to the floor, where they blacked out. After the school declined to notify police, Nex' family took them to the hospital, where they told police they'd endured a year of bullying by other students. Nex went home that day, but was rushed back to the hospital the next day and was soon pronounced dead. A few days later, Owasso police declared Nex had not died from trauma and their death "wasn’t directly related to the fight"; soon after, an interim, one-page report was released by the state's long-unaccredited medical examiner asserting, with no evidence or explanation, that Nex likely died of suicide from the “combined toxicity” of two common medications, the anti-histamine Benadryl and the anti-depressant Prozac - a cause of death medical experts said would be "very, very, very rare."

Nex' death came in a deep-red state with a GOP super-majority where anti-trans hysteria is flourishing. Nationwide, GOP lawmakers have already passed or proposed over 500 transphobic bills this year; Oklahoma leads the dystopian race with 54. Now they're considering bills to bar residents from changing sex designation on birth certificates, require schools to forbid alternative names or pronouns and assert gender an “immutable biological trait,” and ban, under a Patriotism Not Pride Act, dreaded rainbow flags. Their state school superintendent, Ryan Walters, a 38-year-old Christo-fascist culture warrior, fits right in. He's slammed "groomer" teachers and their promoting "pornography"; joined Moms For Liberty while billing taxpayers for events; appointed Libs of Tik Tok's homophobic Chaya Raichik to help censor library books; and repeatedly denied the existence of non-binary people: "There’s not multiple genders. There’s two. That’s how God created us." Schools "treat every student with dignity and respect," he insists, but "we won't go into the transgender ideology by accepting all of those premises."

With Walters having created "a devastatingly hostile environment" for gay, trans or non-binary students, other officials have fearlessly followed suit. Thus did state Sen. Tom Woods feel free, asked at a public forum after Nex Benedict's death about connections between her assault and "some of the things Ryan Walters has said," to spew his venomous take on what he called "filth." "A child losing their life is horrible," he blathered, but "I represent a constituency that doesn’t want that filth in Oklahoma...We are going to fight to keep that filth out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state, we are a moral state." They're also a state evidently intent on perpetuating the sins of the ignorant cretins, bigots and bullies who "lead" their schools, from a board that allegedly echoes them or turns the other way to a district superintendent who opened last week's meeting by prattling she was proud "that in times like this, our school community continues to come together to reflect, support one another and ensure that every student feels a sense of safety, security and belonging" - a statement that drew loud boos.

It especially drew the ire of "comedian" Walter Masterson, a political prankster who relishes bursting the bubble of hypocrisy around many right-wing stances. He's smilingly greeted Matt Gaetz by calling him a pedophile and noted, "Racism is screaming WHAT ABOUT THE WHITE PEOPLE? every time a black person gets shot"; joining Planned Parenthood protesters, he tried to hand out adoption applications and yelled, "I hate women! Can I stay now?"; trolling Moms For Liberty, he said he brought "a book filled with sexual acts, violence and mass killings to indoctrinate our children" and began reading aloud, "So the Lord tried to kill Moses..." "Apparently, people don’t feel safe here - I can’t imagine why," he began at the board meeting before citing Woods' obscene remark. "A more woke school board would see the death of a child and work to make sure it never happens again," he went on. "Not this board. This board sees a dead kid and says that's a good start...We'll spit on a kid's grave...We'll call children filth. Even the dead ones because, you know, we’re the good guys..."

— (@)


Many community members likewise decried what alum Madison Hutton called Owasso High School's longstanding "culture of cruelty." "The story needs to be told and somebody needs to be held accountable," she said. "This is an opportunity to unlearn bigotry, to relearn acceptance. I refuse to accept this is who we are." The mother of a senior described printing out the district's safety policies and showing them to a group of teenagers, who laughed at them: "They were like, 'None of that happens.'" She helped organize a vigil "to show students there are people standing with them against hate...The adults in the room need to step up as the adults in the room." Several mothers said their kids had been bullied with no school response: “Our children are hurting. They are screaming for help. When will you hear them?” "Everyone out there deserves a voice. Nex deserved a voice," said a mom who was "outraged as a parent." "You take away the name, you take away the photos splashed across the media, and it's my child dying on that bathroom floor. It's everyone's child."

Collective anger grew when medical experts questioned the finding that Nex died from an overdose of Prozac and Benadryl, which pose an "extraordinarily low" risk of death. One toxicology expert said complications could lead to seizures or heart arrhythmia "but that would be very, very, very rare." Nex' family is challenging the report with new information about the assault - trauma to Nex’s head and neck, hemorrhages, scalp lacerations, bruising on the torso. GLAAD is publicizing their doubts with questions of their own: Why has the examiner's office, with a history of misconduct allegations, operated without accreditation for 14 years? Why did the school not call police after a student was beaten unconscious? Where are written protocols for this non-response? Have there been other attacks? What are schools doing about them? Etc. The federal Department of Education has opened an investigation, and over 350 advocacy groups have called for Ryan Walters' removal for "fostering a culture of violence and hate." He says "the radical left (will) stop at nothing to destroy the country" and he will "not back down to a woke mob."

"Nex deserved so much better," a fiery Nicole Gray told the school board at that meeting. "It was your job to protect them, and you failed. There is no denying of that fact. You allowed the prejudice and hate so sadly prevalent in what should be a neutral, and dare I say sacred, place of learning (to) end the life of one of your students." A nonbinary Oklahoman who "barely survived" public school 20 years ago - their eloquent tirade starts at 17.58 -- Gray recalled an apathetic system's "lip service" to stop the hate "but rarely any real measurable action taken, no matter how often it was reported." Bullying, Gray insisted, is not "a fact of life" but "a choice people make, a deliberate behavior people choose to engage in. To defeat it, kids must be taught that "other people deserve to be treated with care and respect, just as we wish to be ourselves" - and adults must affirm the lesson. Despite their supposed zero-tolerance policy, LeaAnne Wilson told the board, her three kids in Owasso schools and many others say they're regularly bullied, and the schools do nothing. "It took a student dying," she said, "for y’all to see that something is wrong.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Supreme Court Allows Anti-Immigrant Texas Law to Go into Effect

19. März 2024 - 20:09

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled to leave in place an appeals court administrative stay on a preliminary injunction blocking Texas Senate Bill 4 (88-4), an extreme anti-immigrant law. Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh emphasized that they were not addressing the merits, but concluded Supreme Court intervention was premature at this early stage. The ruling will allow the law to go into effect immediately.

The legislation is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country and would permit local and state law enforcement to arrest, detain, and remove people they suspect to have entered Texas from another country without federal authorization. The law’s implementation would lead to racial profiling, separate families, and harm Black and Brown communities across the state. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and El Paso County, arguing that S.B. 4 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by federal law.

Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay that suspended a lower court decision to block S.B. 4 from going into effect while the case is litigated. In response, civil rights groups filed an application to the Supreme Court to vacate the stay. The Fifth Circuit has stated that it will expedite consideration of the appeal, and oral arguments have been set for April 3 in New Orleans.

Quotes from co-counsel and plaintiffs are as follows:

Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said:

“Today’s decision is disappointing and threatens the integrity of our nation’s immigration laws and bedrock principles of due process. But it is only preliminary and turned on the specific posture of the case. We’ll continue to fight against S.B. 4 until it is struck down once and for all.”

Rebecca Lightsey, co-executive director of American Gateways, said:

“While today’s Supreme Court decision is another setback for immigrants and refugees, we will continue to advocate for civil rights and dignity for people fleeing persecution. We all recognize that our current immigration system is broken. It’s past time to take a look at realistic solutions that will help not only those coming and seeking protection, but also the communities that are receiving them.”

Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, said:

“Make no mistake, this decision does not change our commitment to this fight. Everyone, regardless of race or immigration status, has the freedom to move and the freedom to thrive. We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure this anti-immigrant and unconstitutional law is struck down for good, and Texans are protected from its inherent discrimination.”

Tami Goodlette, director of the Beyond Borders Program at TCRP, said:

“Today’s decision is unfortunate. Allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people’s lives at risk. Everyone, no matter if you have called Texas home for decades or just got here yesterday, deserves to feel safe and have the basic right of due process. We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4 to show the nation that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authority.”

Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, said:

“We disagree with the court’s decision and the implementation of this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law will likely be disastrous for both Texans and our legal system. S.B. 4 threatens our most basic civil and human rights as citizens and non-citizens alike and we recommend anyone threatened by this, including people who fear racial profiling, to remember their rights. We will continue our efforts to halt this hateful law.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Landmark ruling: The Peruvian Court of Nauta recognizes the rights of the Marañón River and the Indigenous communities as its guardians

19. März 2024 - 18:28

In a landmark decision in favor of rivers in Peru, the Mixed Court in the City of Nauta ruled that the Marañón River, one of the country’s most significant rivers and water sources and the first source of the Amazon, has an intrinsic value and it is recognized as a Subject of Rights codifying a series of inherent rights. The triumph marks the culmination of efforts led by the Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana Federation, an Indigenous Kukama women’s group rooted in the Parinari district of the Loreto province and region. Since 2021, they have spearheaded a legal battle against the State and Peruvian authorities, demanding protection for the Marañón River from the constant oil spills from the Norperuvian oil pipeline operated by Petroperu. The communities that make up this federation are still dealing with the aftermath of the Saramuro oil spill in 2010.

The Marañón River is one of the most important rivers and freshwater sources in Peru and its headwaters are high in the Andes Mountains before the river flows through the Andean valley to become one of the mainstem sources of the Amazon River. The river has been impacted by more than 60 oil spills caused by Oleoducto Norperuano between 1997 and 2019. The river is also being harmed by impacts from infrastructure projects – such as hydroelectric dams and the Amazon Waterway – considered a risk by multiple agencies and organizations including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The river is also contaminated by mercury and other hazardous materials as a consequence of illegal gold mining.

In the constitutional protection process initiated in 2021 and supported by Instituto de Defensa Legal, International Rivers, and Earth Law Center, the Kukama women sought not only redress for environmental damages but also the fundamental recognition that the Marañón River and its tributaries be granted rights holder status.

The lawsuit targeted key actors, including the petroleum company, Petroperú; the Ministry of the Environment, the Institute of Research of the Peruvian Amazon (IIAP), the National Water Authority (ANA), and the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Also included are representatives of regional entities, such as the Executive Directorate of Environmental Management and the General Management of Indigenous Affairs of the Regional Government of Loreto.

In the ruling, the judge of the Mixed Court of Nauta recognized the intrinsic value of the Marañón River, codifying a series of intrinsic rights, among them: the right to exist; right to ecological flow; the right of restoration; the right to be free of pollution; right to exercise its essential functions with the ecosystem; right of representation. The court also went further to name the Peruvian government and the Indigenous organizations as guardians, defenders and representatives of the Marañón River and its tributaries. The Court further ordered that the regional Government of Loreto must take the necessary steps before the National Water Authority to create a water resource basin organization for the Marañón River and its tributaries; and ordered the oil company to prepare and present an updated environmental management instrument within six months to evaluate all the impacts of transportation and hydrocarbon activities on the river.

For Mariluz Canaquiri Murayari, president of Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana, the Federation of Kukama Indigenous Women, “We are truly happy and grateful to everyone who has supported us. We also want to thank God for what we have achieved. It won’t end here; we will continue. It encourages us to fight to defend our territories and rivers, which is fundamental. The recognition made in this decision has critical value. It is one more opportunity to keep fighting and claiming our rights. Our work is fundamental for Peru and the world: to protect our rivers, territories, our own lives, and all of humanity, and the living beings of Mother Nature.”

Over the past years, the Kukama women, along with their lawyer Martiza Quispe Mamani, have navigated the justice system fighting for the protection of their fundamental right to health, sanitation, social, cultural, environmental, and economic rights and a dignified life. Now, their long wait for resolution may finally be nearing an end.

“This historic ruling is an important achievement of the Kukama women, Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana, who have fought for the protection and defense of their rivers due to constant oil spills for many years,” says Martiza Quispe Mamani, the attorney representing the communities. “The fact that the judge of the Nauta Court has declared the Marañón River as a subject of rights represents a significant and transcendental milestone for the protection not only of the Marañón River but also of all rivers contaminated by extractive activities.”

To the international community, the decision by the Peruvian court can represent important progress for environmental restoration and the fundamental right to water. This case has progressed towards justice thanks to the work of Instituto de Defensa Legal, International Rivers, Earth Law Center, Forum Solidaridad Peru, Quisca, Radio Ucamara, Radio Voz de La Selva, WCS Peru, Instituto Chaikuni, the parish of Santa Rita de Castilla and the Bishop of Iquitos, Monsignor Miguel Ángel Cadenas, Father Manolo Berjón, Vicariato Apostólico de Iquitos, Mesa Regional de Lucha Contra La Pobreza (Regional Committee for the Fight Against Poverty), Broederlijk Delen, and Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature.

The recognition of the rights of the Marañon River and the Indigenous communities as its guardians represents a very important step toward addressing the persistent threats to the river and is a significant milestone for Peru and for the global community that has closely followed the struggle of the Kukama people.

The Nauta court’s decision marks a major win for river conservation in Peru, affirming the intrinsic value of the Marañón River and granting it the status of a Subject of Rights. This milestone underscores the vital impact of community-led advocacy in safeguarding river ecosystems and sets a crucial precedent for river conservation efforts globally. By recognizing the Marañón River as a Subject of Rights, this decision is significant not only in terms of environmental protection but also in advancing the rights of nature and the rights of rivers. It establishes a groundbreaking legal framework that acknowledges the inherent rights of natural entities, paving the way for similar legal recognition and protection of rivers worldwide.
Monti Aguirre, Latin America Director of International Rivers “The recognition of the rights of the Marañón River and the indigenous communities as its guardians is the first step to restore many cumulative impacts that affect the Mranonriver basin. This historic decision is crucial for Peru and the international community that has closely followed the struggle of the Kukama people. This groundbreaking decision vindicates the rights and culture of the Amazonian populations in Peru.”
Javier Ruiz, Earth Law Center Expert in Environmental Policy and Climate Change
Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Israeli Assurances to Use US Arms Legally Are Not Credible

19. März 2024 - 17:25

The Biden administration should follow US law and immediately suspend arms transfers to Israel, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam said today. The organizations on March 19, 2024 submitted a joint memorandum to the US government regarding Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law including with US weapons and the blocking of US-funded humanitarian assistance.

“There are good reasons why US law prohibits arms support for governments that block life-saving aid or violate international law with US weapons,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “Given ongoing hostilities in Gaza, the Israeli government’s assurances to the Biden administration that it is meeting US legal requirements are not credible.”

The Oxfam-Human Rights Watch memorandum summarizes a wide range of Israeli violations of international humanitarian law, deprivation of services critical to the survival of the civilian population, and arbitrary denial and restrictions of humanitarian aid since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. Examples include:

  • Use of US-supplied white phosphorus in military operations in Lebanon and Gaza in October;
  • Indiscriminate or disproportionate strikes on or near several major hospitals between October 7 and November 7, as well as a strike on a marked ambulance that reportedly killed 15 people and injured 60;
  • Systematic blocking of assistance, including aid substantially provided by the US, from reaching about 300,000 Palestinians remaining in northern Gaza;
  • The bombardment and significant destruction of Oxfam and partner organizations’ water infrastructure, rendering much of it inoperable.

Oxfam and Human Rights Watch said in their memorandum that they “are confident that the examples we cite here reflect a broader pattern of conduct than is currently being assessed by the US Government.”

On March 15, the Israeli government submitted its most recent “assurances” to the US State Department that it is not arbitrarily blocking US humanitarian assistance and not violating international humanitarian law as part of its compliance with National Security Memorandum-20 (NSM-20).

NSM-20 establishes that foreign security partners such as Israel submit assurances to the Departments of State and Defense that they are not arbitrarily blocking US humanitarian assistance and not violating international humanitarian law. The secretaries of state and defense then need to determine whether these assurances are credible.

“Oxfam has repeatedly sounded the alarm that Israel’s ongoing bombardment and siege, and its actions to prevent access for humanitarian aid, have escalated a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” said Scott Paul, associate director for peace and security at Oxfam America. “We have laid out clearly for the Biden administration why any assurances from Israel that they have not delayed, restricted, and impeded aid into Gaza cannot be relied upon. Despite this, the United States has continued to provide Israel with deadly weapons. The time has long passed for the Biden administration to end lethal arms sales to Israel, and we call on them to do so now and work to end the death and suffering in Gaza.”

The joint submission is being released as famine is imminent in northern Gaza and a high risk for the rest of the strip if Israel persists in its hostilities and restriction of humanitarian access. The United States and other countries have resorted to airdrops and a temporary seaport – a product of Israel blocking aid from entering via more effective and safe land routes, the groups said.

Oxfam and Human Rights Watch urged Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to consider expected future violations when determining the credibility of the Israeli government’s assurances. “Oxfam and Human Rights Watch believe a suspension of arms transfers to Israel is necessary so long as there is an overriding risk that they are being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, and US law and policy,” the groups said in their report.

To read the National Security Memorandum on Safeguards and Accountability with Respect to Transferred Defense Articles and Defense Services (NSM-20), please visit:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/02/08/national-security-memorandum-on-safeguards-and-accountability-with-respect-to-transferred-defense-articles-and-defense-services/

To read the IPC Hunger Report in Gaza, please visit:
https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-97/en/
Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Indigenous Leaders and Environmental Groups Deliver Petitions Urging Army Corps of Engineers to Address Line 5 Pipeline Impacts

18. März 2024 - 21:18

Last week, the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance and environmental groups delivered a petition with 9,000+ signatures calling on the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a robust environmental review of the Line 5 crude oil pipeline reroute. The petition builds on growing momentum to shut down Line 5 permanently. Two weeks ago, leaders of 30 Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging the United States to take action against the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline’s trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign territories.

The petition delivery comes ahead of the Washington D.C. premiere of the BAD RIVER documentary film, which will be attended by Bad River Tribal leaders, community advocates, environmental groups, and Congressional and government leaders and officials. The film will be released in 15 AMC and local theaters throughout the country on March 15th, many of which will run through the weekend, with 50% of ticket sales going to the Bad River Band.

Enbridge’s Line 5, a 645 mile and 70-year-old oil pipeline, has continued to operate illegally through the Bad River Band’s land in northern Wisconsin and the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan. The existing infrastructure poses a serious threat to the Great Lakes region which holds one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater. Enbridge's proposed reroute will still impact the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s sovereign land and watersheds. Despite the Bad River Band’s request that Enbridge immediately shutdown the existing illegal pipeline, the company is moving forward seeking permits for the reroute.

During the petition delivery, the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance brought attention to the cultural and environmental impacts of the Line 5 pipeline, the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Line 5 reroute, and the urgent calls to shutdown and decommission the pipeline permanently. Ahead of the delivery, members of the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance and allies met with the Army Corps and Congressional leaders. See a livestream of the delivery and rally here.

While the unprecedented Great Lakes Tunnel Project in the Straits of Mackinac aims to replace only a small segment of the overall degrading pipeline, four tribes, environmental groups, and numerous Great Lakes advocates continue to object to the high-risk project that would encase the pipeline in concrete beneath the Lake. This unusual pipeline mechanism introduces an entirely new and extremely dangerous set of explosion risks to the Lakes and surrounding communities.

The petition delivery and rally was led by the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance (IWTA) with support from the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) and Sierra Club. Please see quotes below from leaders of the IWTA, which is facilitated by the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network:

Rene Ann Goodrich, Bad River Ojibwe, Native Lives Matter Coalition and Wisconsin Department of Justice MMIW Task Force Member: “Line 5 crosses over tribal treaty territory and one of those ceded territories is my own reservation of Bad River. The dangers that Line 5 brings to the water and environment is a huge and immediate concern. As a Bad River tribal member our way of life, historical homelands, cultural resources, subsistence, wild rice, medicines, fisheries, and water are in direct jeopardy of an imminent catastrophic oil spill. We call for the Line 5 shutdown and decommissioning, not simply re-routed, whereas it would still put the entire Great Lakes ecosystem at great risk and cause irreparable destruction. As sacred water carriers, we stand with the water and are calling for the Army Corps to conduct a proper EIS on Line 5 which will demonstrate that this pipeline is not ecologically feasible and should be immediately decommissioned, and for the Army Corps to reject permits for a re-route of Line 5.”

Aurora Conley, Bad River Ojibwe, Anishinaabe Environmental Protection Alliance: “As a Bad River Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe member, I join the calls from tribal leaders to immediately shutdown the existing Line 5 pipeline and conduct a proper EIS on the new Line 5 proposal. Our territories and water are in imminent danger, and we do not want to see irreversible damage to our land, water, and wild rice. We do not want our lifeways destroyed. The Ojibwe people are here in Bad River because of the manoomin, the wild rice. A rupture from this oil spill will irreversibly harm the Great Lakes and wild rice beds. That is unacceptable. That is something we will not stand for. I will continue this call to action until Line 5 is decommissioned and removed from our lands. We object to any reroute. Line 5 should not exist here.”

Gaagigeyaashiik - Dawn Goodwin, Gaawaabaabiganigaag, White Earth-Ojibwe, Co-founder of R.I.S.E. Coalition, Representative of Indigenous Environmental Network: “As a member of the Wolf Clan I have an inherent responsibility to protect the environment and the people. I have seen first hand what happens when the government fails to protect the water as they so unfortunately did with Line 3. Now Enbridge is looking to push through a new re-route for the Line 5 pipeline, and it must be stopped. The Army Corps has an opportunity here and now to protect the Great Lakes before irreparable damage occurs. It is time to honor and respect the treaties as the supreme law of the land, and to listen to Tribes and Indigenous leaders calling for a comprehensive EIS and for the Army Corps to reject permits for a re-route of Line 5.”

Nookomis Debra Topping, Nagajiiwanong, 1854 Treaty Fond du Lac, Co-founder of R.I.S.E. Coalition: “Nibi (water) is sacred. Manoomin is sacred. The wild rice is the reason why my people, the Anishinaabe, are located in the regions we currently reside in. I am inherently a caretaker of these lands and resources. I have said No to line 3 and now to line 5, and will forever say No to the rape of our Mother Earth. No means No. “No” is a full sentence. This work is exhausting and, yet, we don't give up on this. I have my community and grandchildren to answer to. Who do you answer to? Does your family mean enough to you to protect our mother earth and her resources? Or is dirty money, power and oil your priority?”

Alexus Koski, Bad River Ojibwe Youth Leader, Water Protector, Stop Line 5 Advocate:

“As a Bad River Youth Leader, I fear the continued and imminent threats to our sacred water. As a young person, unable to yet vote, it is sometimes difficult to remain hopeful about our future but it is far too important and far too dangerous to remain silent, to allow this pipeline to continue operating another day— my future is at stake, my culture is at stake, our climate is at stake. Please join us to stand in solidarity with Bad River and all other tribes calling for the immediate removal of this pipeline from our lands, to finally shut down line 5 once for all. We do not want a reroute. We want to protect the water. We owe that much to young people and to future generations. Shut down Line 5! Water is Life!”

Since 2022, the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) has been honored to facilitate the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance. In response to the petition delivery and rally, Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director of the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) stated: “Not only are we in an escalating climate crisis, we are also facing a water crisis. We cannot risk poisoning the Great Lakes, which hold one-fifth of the world’s surface freshwater. To be climate leaders, it is necessary to listen to Indigenous leadership, protect biodiversity, and end the expansion of fossil fuels. Shutting down Line 5 means being a climate leader. The Army Corps must conduct the most thorough environmental review possible of the proposed reroute, and through this effort, we are calling for Line 5 permits to be rejected and the entire pipeline permanently shut down."

Elizabeth Ward, Sierra Club - Wisconsin Chapter Director: “We’re here today in support of Indigenous sovereignty and to elevate the demands of the Bad River Band and dozens of tribal nations with President Biden – end the trespass of the existing Line 5 pipeline on sovereign land and deny the permits for the proposed reroute upon completion of a full environmental impact statement”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Religious Leaders Call for Global Health Equity as Nations Gather to Finalize Pandemic Agreement

18. März 2024 - 17:45

Today, over 100 religious leaders and faith-based organizations globally called on leaders of the World Health Organization to secure equity commitments to protect all populations everywhere from future pandemics. The letter was delivered on the opening day of the intended final nine-day negotiating session in Geneva for the Pandemic Accord, a new international agreement of UN member states to bolster pandemic prevention, preparedness and response efforts.

“The sanctity of human life often seemed forgotten in the pandemic, with the lives of people in wealthy nations appearing to be valued over those in low- or middle-income countries,” states the letter. “As you enter the final stage of negotiations, we implore you to deliver an agreement that ensures every life is valued equally.”

Millions of people lost their lives during the Covid emergency due to late and inequitable access to tests, treatments and vaccines. The letter urges negotiators to reach an agreement that ensures that everyone, everywhere can benefit from scientific advancement and that the tools needed to fight the next pandemic are shared equally, including necessary knowledge and technology.

It also urges negotiators to ensure that intellectual property barriers are removed when necessary, and that people in the Global South are “treated not as mere samples for pandemic monitoring, but as equal partners in a collective endeavour towards a healthier world.” Over the course of the pandemic, despite the sharing of genetic information that enabled production of effective vaccines, these products were not accessible to many. The proposed pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) mechanism in the agreement aims to remedy this by ensuring that sharing of pathogen data also enables equitable access to resulting medical tools.

Letter signatory Archbishop Thabo Makgoba of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa said, “As the world prepares for future pandemics, it is essential that it plans to give equal protection to all people, everywhere, not only for moral reasons but to protect one another. Covid-19 showed us that none of us are safe until all of us are safe, and that only a comprehensive response that covers the world can bring pandemics under control.”

The letter was organized by Public Citizen, in collaboration with the ACT Alliance, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice and the People’s Vaccine Alliance.

The final text of the Accord is slated for presentation to the World Health Assembly in May.

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

I'm A Cook: Feeding Hope In Gaza

17. März 2024 - 4:01


As children in Gaza starve and rapacious capitalism, fractured governments and toothless international groups all fail to act, let it not be said that one person - albeit with extraordinary grit, heart, political will, clarity of vision - cannot make a difference. This week, chef José Andrés' World Central Kitchen, working with Jordan, UAE and Cyprus, made the first maritime delivery of food to Gaza. Please give this man his Nobel Peace Prize already. Also send him some money.

Since moving to the U.S. decades ago, the Spanish-born, award-winning Andrés, 54, has opened multiple restaurants in D.C and then across the country, including in New York, Chicago, Orlando and Las Vegas. In 2010, after volunteering at D.C.'s Central Kitchen helping repurpose food for those in need, he founded World Central Kitchen, whose chefs and first responders bring meals to people hit by natural disasters and humanitarian emergencies around the globe. Since his first mission to earthquake-ravaged Haiti, he and a worldwide "Chef Corps" of local cooks have made and distributed over 350 million meals - to Puerto Ricans devastated by Hurricane Maria, COVID-trapped cruise ship passengers in California, flooded-out Houston and, in 2022, in their first active war zone, to Ukraine, where, when a Russian missile hit the Kharkiv restaurant they were working in, injuring four WCK workers, team members insisted, "We wanna keep cooking. We wanna keep fighting.'"

"We all are Citizens of the World. What's good for you, must be good for all," reads WCK's website. "If you are lost, share a plate of food with a stranger...You will find who you are." Blunt, droll, reportedly merciless on the basketball court and seemingly tireless, Andrés views food as "the great connector" and his mission as both plain and existential: "Feeding humanity, feeding hope." "Without empathy, nothing works," he says. "A meal in a time of crisis is so much more than a plate of food - it's hope, it's dignity, it's a sign that someone cares." He argues that, in any dire situation, people must be treated with respect, "and the way you do that is being next to them in their darkest hour" - when, he adds, "you make magic happen...and you see the best of humanity." Deemed by many "a light in the darkness," Andrés often seems to be everywhere - he also has a podcast Longer Tables, a new cookbook, an upcoming show Dinner Party Diaries (Bryan Cranston!) - and now he's in Gaza.

With Israel's savage siege trapping over two million Gazans, the U.N. says over a million children, one in three, are now "acutely malnourished" - aka very hungry. Grotesquely, Israel has still attacked at least 26 starving crowds waiting for rare aid convoys; Thursday, they killed at least 20 people and wounded over 150. Since October, WCK teams have been in Gaza; often working with Jordan, they've served over 35 million meals, 350,000 a day; sent (or tried to send) 1,400 aid trucks across the Rafah crossing; and opened 60 kitchens, with ten more in the works. Meanwhile, for two months Andrés met with Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian officials to get permits, mainly from Israel's COGAT, to approach Gaza from the sea in what he calls "the most politically complex environment WCK has operated in." Their goal: To establish a maritime highway so boats can continuously deliver food to a devastated people, especially children, pleading, "We want to eat, we want to live...God willing."

Palestinian child asks Egyptian soldiers for food in a letter www.youtube.com

As widespread famine looms and the two sides skirmish and stall, the deadly stalemate brought Andrés back to WCK's origin story, of people in need facing "bureaucracy’s failures, inefficiencies, and prioritizing risk aversion over human lives." "This is a time for action, not for hollow promises," he says. "Our job is to feed people in crisis, no matter what." With food potentially "the difference between life and death" for millions, "the greatest failure now would be failing to try." Still, the task was daunting. Working with King Abdullah II of Jordan, the United Arab Emirates - which co-financed the mission with WCK - the government of Cyprus as a departure point, and the Spanish rescue charity Open Arms, they encountered a host of technical and political issues. For starters, Israel has so completely razed Gaza there are no working ports left; for weeks a team from WCK and Open Arms has been building a jetty with rubble from bombed buildings and whatever machinery they could salvage.

The location remains secret; citing other "security" concerns, Israel blocked the effort at almost every turn. For permission to build the jetty, Israel insisted international crews have no contact with Gazans. The result was a complex, months-long delivery system: In February, the Open Arms rescue ship set sail from Spain for the port of Larnaca on Cyprus, 280 miles from Gaza, in Operation Safeena - boat in Arabic. Last week, Cyprus crews loaded 200 tons of food - rice, flour, legumes, canned goods - on pallets onto a larger cargo barge, strapped to the Open Arms, that can only sail slowly in relatively calm waters; after three days at sea, it neared Gaza, where two tugs pushed it to the jetty; there, WCK crews unloaded the pallets, re-loaded them on trucks, and drove them to WCK kitchens and other distribution points. Weather already delayed the first shipment; Andrés also cited, "The sand, the tide, the wind, the machines, the permits, having enough cement for the jetty, having enough fuel for the cranes..."

On Friday, he jubilantly announced the first delivery from "Chefs For the People" had safely arrived: "We did it!" He noted the load included dates for Ramadan, and that 500 more tons of food await in Cyprus, along with ships to haul it and machinery to load it. Andrés stresses this is "a test, a pilot" designed to inaugurate a maritime corridor to deliver thousands of tons a week to Gaza, and inspire other multi-national humanitarian initiatives: "Let's have less diplomacy by meetings and more diplomacy by action - today, not in a month." But he's also adamant this is a stopgap measure in a crisis that shouldn't be happening. His 200 tons is equivalent to 10 or 12 truckloads; before the war, 500 trucks a day brought in aid that still wasn't enough to meet the needs of stricken Gazans. As long as Israel persists in occupying Gaza, land crossings should be open and human decency should prevail: "Everyone has the power to help or feed the many. We all have the power to move the needle."

Once word of World Central Kitchen's mission began to spread, news coverage followed. In one post, Andrés mockingly quoted a Washington Post headline that read, "Who Is José Andrés, the Chef Behind the First Aid Ship to Gaza?" He responded with, "Really? 30 years in DC and my favorite newspaper asks who I am? I'm a cook. Thanks." Still, the poignant, often heartbroken thanks that poured in from those who heard of, donated to, felt a deep need to acknowledge the project reflected the common grief and rage and gutting sense of helplessness so many have felt watching the horrors in Gaza unfold. "Heartfelt thanks to the warrior angels," wrote one. Also: "Thank you thank you thank you for respect to Palestine," "Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I wish you all safety and Allah bless you more a thousand fold," "You are the change we need to see in the world," and, "May the Almighty reward you, may the Almighty grant Palestinians peace. Amen." Until then, donate here.

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

ACLU Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision Related to Whether Public Officials Can Block Social Media Followers

15. März 2024 - 18:29

The Supreme Court on Friday clarified when public officials’ social media posts are subject to the First Amendment in response to two challenges, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.

“We’re gratified by the court’s ruling today, which underscores that the First Amendment restricts how the government can shape speech that takes place on social media,” said Evelyn Danforth-Scott, ACLU staff attorney specializing in Supreme Court litigation. “It gives everyday Americans a way to hold officials constitutionally accountable when they censor social media content, restrict access to it, or improperly elevate certain viewpoints over others. At the same time, it protects public officeholders’ own free speech rights by giving them guidance on how to make clear when they are speaking as private individuals.”

Both cases involved local officials who had blocked or censored critical constituents from Facebook and X (formerly Twitter); the constituents then sued, saying denying them access violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that social media posts and curation efforts by government officials can be attributed to the state, and, therefore, subject to First Amendment scrutiny, only if the speaker has the authority to speak on the state’s behalf and purports to exercise that authority through their relevant social media presence.

The ruling follows friend-of-the court briefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which acknowledged that the First Amendment guarantees public officials’ right to free speech in their private capacities, but argued that when public officials appear to represent their government offices online, they are acting in their government capacities and so are subject to the First Amendment’s prohibitions on government censorship.

These cases are part of ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

New Federal Lawsuit Challenges Use of Artificial Intelligence in U.S. Elections to Undermine Voting Rights

14. März 2024 - 17:09

The League of Women Voters of the United States (LWV-US), the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire (LWV-NH), and several individual New Hampshire voters have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire against Steve Kramer, Lingo Telecom, and Life Corporation, who together delivered robocalls to New Hampshire residents featuring a deepfaked President Biden’s voice telling them not to vote in the New Hampshire primaries in January. LWV-NH, LWV-US, and the individual voters seek to stop the defendants from using robocalls and AI technology to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or deceive voters. Free Speech For People and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP represent the plaintiffs, along with local counsel Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau, & Pachios, Chartered, LLP.

Ahead of the New Hampshire presidential primary, Steve Kramer paid to create a recorded message using artificial intelligence to mimic President Biden’s voice. Posing as President Biden, the messages falsely implied that voters could not vote in both the primary and general elections and urged voters to “save” their vote for November. The defendants sent the message via robocalls to thousands of New Hampshire residents for a single evening just two days before the New Hampshire primary elections. Many of the robocalls “spoofed” the phone number of the former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair—causing her number to appear on many recipients’ caller IDs to make it appear that the robocalls originated with her. When news of the deception became public, thousands of voters had already received robocalls.

“These deceptive robocalls attempted to cause widespread confusion among New Hampshire voters,” said Liz Tentarelli, president of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire. “As a nonpartisan organization, the League of Women Voters works to ensure that all voters, regardless of their party affiliation, have the most accurate election information to make their voices heard. We will continue to advocate for New Hampshire voters and fight against malicious schemes to suppress the vote.”

“These types of voter suppression tactics have no place in our democracy,” said Celina Stewart, chief counsel at the League of Women Voters of the United States. “Voters deserve to make their voices heard freely and without intimidation. For over 100 years, the League of Women Voters has worked to protect voters from these unlawful crimes and will continue to fight back against bad-faith actors who aim to disrupt our democratic system.”

The lawsuit argues that the robocalls violated federal and state laws that protect voters from intimidation, threats, coercion, and deception: (1) the Voting Rights Act, which bans intimidating, threatening, or coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce, any person from voting; and (2) the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related provisions of New Hampshire state law, which ban deceiving recipients about the source of robocalls or disseminating political messages via robocalls without disclosing who made and funded the calls.

The plaintiffs ask the court for an injunction to stop the defendants from producing, generating, or distributing AI-generated robocalls that impersonate U.S. politicians and from distributing “spoofed” communications. Without an injunction, these defendants (as well as other potential robocall abusers) may carry out similar campaigns to suppress voting in advance of other primary elections or ahead of the general election in November. The lawsuit states, “[i]f these deceptive and coercive tactics are not immediately declared unlawful, enjoined, and redressed, citizens’ ability to exercise their right to vote free and unimpaired—the linchpin of all other civil and political rights—will be in grave peril.”

“Fraudulently made robocalls have the potential to devastate voter turnout by flooding thousands of voters with intimidating, threatening, or coercive messages in a matter of hours,” says Courtney Hostetler, Senior Counsel at Free Speech For People, which serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “No one should abuse technology to make lawful voters think that they should not, or cannot safely, vote in the primaries or in any election. It is an honor to represent the League of Women Voters and the other plaintiffs in this important case to protect the right to vote.”

"As a former state attorney general, I know the damage that voter suppression can inflict on our democracy,” said Mark Herring of Akin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs and former two-term Virginia attorney general. "We must hold accountable those who abuse new technology to undermine our freedom to vote."

The League of Women Voters is at the forefront of the most important federal and state cases across the United States. To learn more about the League’s litigation work visit our Legal Center to review historic and active cases on our docket.

Akin is a leading international law firm with more than 900 lawyers in offices throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Akin’s global pro bono practice leverages the experience, knowledge and passion of our lawyers, advisors and business services personnel to advance access to justice by representing refugees seeking asylum, tenants fighting eviction, veterans seeking health benefits, domestic violence survivors, nonprofit organizations and other clients in need.

Free Speech For People is a national non-profit organization dedicated to defending our democracy and our Constitution. The organization serves as a leading force in the country in litigation to protect the right to vote, including prior litigation stopping illegal voter intimidation in Minnesota leading up to the November 2020 election and current cases challenging voter intimidation in Colorado and voter suppression laws in Arizona and Texas.

Read our full complaint here.

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Medicare Advantage Myth-Busting

14. März 2024 - 17:06

This year, the majority of Americans eligible for Medicare coverage chose to enroll in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans rather than Traditional Medicare. Insurance companies that run these MA plans spend significant sums of money to blanket seniors with marketing that highlights the supposed advantages of MA like low upfront costs, supplemental coverage, and other unique perks like subsidizing gym memberships. However, the ads leave seniors in the dark on the downsides of MA like heavily restricted networks that damage one’s choice of provider along with dangerous delays and denials of necessary care. At the same time, both the Biden Administration and many members of Congress from both parties have voiced support for the further privatization of Medicare through growing Medicare Advantage.

In this article, we will debunk several pervasive myths about MA that proponents and insurance giant owners push in their effort to continue privatizing Medicare at the expense of patients.

Myth #1: Medicare Advantage Is Medicare

The inclusion of the term Medicare in Medicare Advantage — otherwise known as Medicare Part C — is incredibly misleading, as the program is de facto government-subsidized private insurance.

Traditional Medicare is public insurance, where tax revenues are directly used to cover healthcare for seniors and some disabled people. It employs a fee-for-service (FFS) payment model, where the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) directly pays for each covered service by a healthcare provider.

In contrast, MA consists of thousands of different plans mostly provided by health insurance giants like UnitedHealthcare and Humana. Seven large insurance companies accounted for 84% of MA plan enrollment in 2023. Rather than directly covering care as needed, the federal government pays lump sum Medicare dollars, known as capitated payments, to these private insurers for each patient. MA plans make money by spending as little as possible on patient care in order to keep as much of the leftover taxpayer money as possible.

In other words, MA is private insurance supported by government subsidies, and it is a form of managed care by health insurance companies. MA is not a government-managed public health insurance program like Traditional Medicare.

Myth #2: Medicare Advantage Saves Money

Medicare Advantage has never saved taxpayers money as a substitute for Traditional Medicare. In fact, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), taxpayers have spent more on financing MA than they would have if everyone was covered under Traditional Medicare.

In fact, Congress and CMS have been working to try to stop MA companies from gaming the system to steal taxpayer money. A 2023 study by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) estimates that CMS overpaid MA plans between $88-$140 billion in 2022 alone through various practices like pretending patients were sicker than they were along with targeting healthier, less costly seniors to enroll in their plans. Overpayments have also caused all Medicare beneficiaries to pay billions in higher Medicare Part B premiums.

Through taking taxpayer subsidies, MA has been significantly more profitable for insurance companies than the private plans offered to the rest of Americans. In 2021, MA companies had a gross profit margin of $1,730 per enrollee, which is more than double their profit margin on the individual market ($745). In 2023, Humana ended its entire commercial insurance business in order to entirely focus on government-funded programs like MA.

Some who claim MA saves money point to how MA spending is growing at a slower rate than Traditional Medicare. However, their point assumes that people enrolled in MA and Traditional Medicare share the same characteristics, which is false. MA targets and enrolls people who are healthier, less likely to use medical services, and, thus, less expensive to cover than those in Traditional Medicare.

Myth #3: Medicare Advantage Is Necessary To Save Beneficiaries Out-of-Pocket Spending

One of the primary appeals of Medicare Advantage is the idea that it saves beneficiaries money. However, this is highly dependent on how much care someone needs. The extent to which MA does save money for patients is not a natural result of its supposed superiority; it is due to intentional political sabotage and decision making.

Patients in both MA and Traditional Medicare have to pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part B ($174.40 in 2024). Then, Traditional Medicare covers 80% of costs for outpatient services. Beneficiaries are responsible for paying the remaining 20%, with no limit on out-of-pocket (OOP) payments. However, Traditional Medicare fully covers inpatient services such as hospitalization after a patient meets a deductible ($1,632 in 2024). For prescription drug coverage, Traditional Medicare beneficiaries pay a monthly premium for a Medicare Part D plan run by a private insurer ($40 average in 2023).

Traditional Medicare beneficiaries can purchase a supplemental Medigap insurance plan to cover most OOP spending (average monthly premium of $139 in 2023), which a plurality (41%) did in 2021. Eighty-nine percent of people in Traditional Medicare had some form of supplemental coverage in 2023, such as through Medicaid (19%) or their employer/union (31%).

In MA, premiums, coinsurance rates, and deductibles vary across the thousands of different plans. However, the average monthly premium is very low ($18.50 estimate for 2024), and many plans have $0 premiums. Additionally, CMS mandates that MA plans have an OOP spending limit. The average limit for in-network services was $4,835 in 2023; when accounting for both in- and out-of-network services, the average limit was $8,659. Ninety-seven percent of MA beneficiaries are in plans that incorporate drug coverage, and the average premium is $10 per month (73% of enrollees had no premiums for drug coverage).

For healthy individuals without need of expensive healthcare services and products, MA saves money due to its low premiums. However, while Traditional Medicare users with a Medigap plan spend more money upfront due to higher premiums, they can save thousands of dollars for expensive care that would reach their OOP limit if they were enrolled in MA.

However, many seniors simply cannot afford purchasing a Medigap plan, so they have little choice but to enroll in MA. In 2023, 52% of MA beneficiaries earned annual incomes around $25,000. Income limitations disproportionately lead Blacks (65%) and Latinos (69%) to choose MA compared to Whites (48%), as 78% and 81% of Black and Latino MA beneficiaries earn less than 200% of the federal poverty level, respectively.

Traditional Medicare beneficiaries without any form of supplemental coverage (11% of Traditional Medicare users in 2021) most certainly have to pay more for healthcare due to Part A deductible and the lack of any OOP cap. However, the lack of an OOP cap in Traditional Medicare is entirely a result of politics and can be changed. While CMS requires MA plans to have an OOP cap, policymakers have elected not to create one for Traditional Medicare. Congress could legislate a $5,000 OOP cap for Traditional Medicare; this would cost just $39 billion annually or just 28-44% of the overpayments made to MA plans in 2022.

Considering the fact that MA has never saved taxpayer money, the history of billions of dollars in overpayments to MA plans, and the fact that Congress could cost-efficiently lower costs for those in Traditional Medicare, it is a myth that MA is necessary to save patients money.

Myth #4: Medicare Advantage Improves Health Outcomes

Through incentivizing the use of preventative care, Medicare Advantage’s capitated payment model should supposedly increase the health of its beneficiaries. However, there is not sufficient evidence to prove this. Additionally, the sickest patients opt for Traditional Medicare and low reimbursement rates decrease the willingness of healthcares providers to accept MA patients.

The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reviewed existing studies and found that there is not strong evidence of widespread significant differences in health outcomes between Americans enrolled in MA versus Traditional Medicare. MA plans push patients to more preventative care visits, and they also incentivize beneficiaries to take on healthy habits like getting and using a gym membership. In contrast, Traditional Medicare is more likely to send its beneficiaries to higher-rated cancer facilities, nursing facilities, and home health agencies. Issues with data quality and differences in the populations who choose MA versus Traditional Medicare also render direct comparisons between the two programs quite weak.

Incentivized to spend as little as possible, MA plans pay healthcare providers less than Traditional Medicare. As a result, an increasing number of doctors and providers are declining to accept MA patients, further restricting MA networks and access to care. Additionally, lower payments can prevent doctors from providing the best quality care. In comparison, around 99% of non-pediatric physicians accept Traditional Medicare.

Medicare Advantage is a great option for relatively healthy beneficiaries who do not expect to need intensive care for serious illnesses and injuries. Capitated payments do incentivize MA insurance companies to save money by investing in healthy, preventative care and programs. At the same time, the model also incentivizes MA plans to avoid covering the highest quality care for the people most in need.

To restrict care that beneficiaries would otherwise receive in Traditional Medicare, MA companies delay and deny care through prior authorizations (PAs) and payment denials. In 2021, patients and their providers had to file 35 million PA requests in order to receive medical care. MA companies denied 2 million of these requests. People only bothered to appeal 11% of the time; however, those that did had a 82% success rate. In 2022, 94% of physicians surveyed by the American Medical Association reported experiencing PAs which caused delays to necessary care; 56% reported this occurring always or often. Eighty percent reported that PAs caused the abandonment of recommended treatment, and 33% reported that they caused a serious adverse event for their patients.

There are many reasons for poor health outcomes in the United State: lack of healthcare access, high costs, low income, poor diet, and lack of exercise to name a few. The strategy of giving lump sums of money — mostly to insurance giants — and incentivizing them to spend as little as possible is not supported with evidence of improved health outcomes and does not directly tackle these greater issues.

Myth #5: Medicare Advantage Offers Benefits That Traditional Medicare Simply Cannot Match

A primary selling point of MA plans is that they offer supplemental benefits — mainly coverage for dental, vision, and hearing care — that Traditional Medicare does not provide. While this is true, it is misleading because it does not reveal the quality of this coverage.

While the vast majority of MA plans offer supplemental benefit coverage, there isn’t evidence that their beneficiaries actually utilize dental, hearing, and vision services much more than people enrolled in Traditional Medicare. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary regarding dental care. This is because MA supplemental “coverage” does not protect patients from having to spend significant sums of money out of their own pockets.

Most MA plans have high coinsurance rates along with low annual caps on how much insurance will cover. So, MA coverage predominantly doesn’t help patients with expensive dental, hearing, or vision treatments. This prevents many seniors from being able to afford care even though they technically have coverage. Ultimately, MA plans constantly advertise that they offer supplemental coverage, but they leave Americans in the dark on how little financial help they will actually receive.

Additionally, taxpayers and Traditional Medicare beneficiaries are effectively subsidizing these additional benefits. Not only has MA never saved taxpayer money, it is further depleting the Medicare Trust Fund and raising Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. These higher premiums and taxpayer overpayments allow MA companies to market supplemental benefits along with the aforementioned low premiums which attract healthier and lower-income seniors.

Instead of enriching MA companies, Traditional Medicare could provide dental, hearing, and vision benefits for less than $42 billion in 2025, which is 30-48% of the overpayments taxpayers made to MA in 2022. Unlike in MA, this coverage would not be limited to restricted provider networks.

Myth #6: Medicare Advantage Is Necessary To Lower Healthcare Spending

Healthcare spending overall and Medicare spending specifically increase every year more than inflation. The United States spends more money per capita than any other country on healthcare. The average cost of healthcare per person in other wealthy nations is roughly half as much as the United States.

To lower Medicare spending, proponents of Medicare Advantage tout the benefits of “value-based” care compared to Traditional Medicare’s FFS model. Critics claim that FFS incentivizes wasteful spending and opportunities for doctors to become rich by billing Medicare for services unnecessary to patient health.

In contrast, “value-based” care involves CMS giving lump sums of money (capitated payments) to MA companies for each patient, supposedly incentivising efficient healthcare spending on preventative care. Through spending less and, ideally, keeping patients healthier, MA companies get to keep more money.

While there are case studies of mission-driven organizations succeeding with capitated payments, this does not hold true for the large, for-profit insurance giants that dominate MA. Rather, the major MA companies’ primary goal is to maximize profit. Therefore, they typically take as much taxpayer money as feasible by gaming the system while restricting care in order to spend less and keep as much as possible.

However, the entire premise that reducing healthcare usage with a more restrictive insurance policy is the best means to lower healthcare spending is baseless. The United States does not use healthcare services more than the other countries who spend far less, and the same is true for Medicare compared to similar foreign populations.

Then why is healthcare so expensive in the United States? Prices. Healthcare prices in the United States are significantly higher than other countries. This reality is a result of factors like market consolidation (lack of competition), patents, administrative waste, and more.

Rather than combat the large hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, private equity companies, insurance giants, and other powerful private interests who control armies of lobbyists and excesses of campaign cash, MA proponents provide a simple solution: make people get less care. This is a convenient solution which happens to also further enrich and get the blessing of dominant insurers like UnitedHealth Group.

All in All, Medicare Advantage Is a Scam

Congress created Medicare Advantage with the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA). After signing the bill into law, President George W. Bush boasted how MA would lower costs, expand benefits, afford seniors more choices, and improve quality of care. However, this supposed modernization of Medicare was really a scheme to privatize, gifting billions of dollars to insurance companies while seeking to end Traditional Medicare.

In reality, MA has never saved taxpayer money. Through gaming the system of capitated payments, MA insurance companies have reaped billions in overpayments — which have also increased the amount all Medicare beneficiaries pay in Part B premiums.

Through restricting care and taxpayer subsidies, MA plans do offer a lower cost alternative to Traditional Medicare, especially for beneficiaries who cannot afford a supplemental Medigap plan. Additionally, it can offer supplemental benefit coverage unavailable under Traditional Medicare, even if the quality of such coverage is poor and provides limited financial support. However, this reality is not because of its inherent design; it is a result of the political sabotage of Traditional Medicare. Congress can cap OOP expenses and provide supplemental coverage for Traditional Medicare with the same money it overpays to MA insurance giants lining their profit margins.

The only choices MA afforded seniors has been which private plan they want to choose. The program destroys beneficiaries’ choice of doctor due to restricted networks. Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence that MA significantly improves health outcomes while health providers are increasingly dropping MA plans due to low reimbursements, further limiting the number of providers MA patients can see. At the same time, current comparisons between MA and Traditional Medicare are unfair as long as policy makers refuse to fix the cost gaps in the latter.

Within both the Medicare and entire American populations, healthcare costs are rising at the same time as health outcomes are worsening, especially in comparison to peer nations. While MA is a convenient solution for insurance companies, it neither addresses the causes of high prices nor poor health outcomes.

MA proponents consistently point to the increasing share of beneficiaries who choose MA over Traditional Medicare as evidence of success. Along with millions of dollars spent on deceptive advertising by insurance companies, this is the consequence of policymaker’s failure to update Traditional Medicare.

It’s past time Medicare beneficiaries are given a real choice. Instead of overpaying insurance giants to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, Congress can cap OOP expenses at $5,000 annually and provide supplemental benefits in Traditional Medicare.

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Automakers Spend Millions to Undercut EPA’s Proposed Protections

14. März 2024 - 15:48

Ten automakers and industry groups have pumped more than $183 million into lobbying efforts around Washington, D.C., since 2019, according to a new report from Public Citizen. The report comes shortly before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to finalize new safeguards on car tailpipe emissions critical to protecting public health and mitigating climate change.

The top five automakers by U.S. sales – General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota, and Honda – have claimed EPA’s stronger emission standards would hurt the industry’s bottom line, despite evidence showing the availability of existing technologies to meet the proposed regulations while cutting down costs to do so. Those same five automakers have profited immensely from marketing and selling larger SUVs and trucks, earning nearly $293 billion in combined profits since 2018, paid shareholders nearly $78 billion in dividends, and repurchased nearly $41 billion of their own stock.

“Automakers seem to have no shame,” said Chelsea Hodgkins, senior electric vehicle advocate with Public Citizen’s Climate Program. “For decades, they’ve chosen to drag their feet on improving their cars to the maximum extent possible and instead chose to follow in Big Oil’s footsteps, to spread public misinformation and dissuade policymakers from taking strong action. These rules will save consumers money, protect the health of millions, and give us a shot at a liveable future. Big Auto’s multi-million dollar lobbying efforts and corrupting influence are a direct attack on this progress and our democracy.”

The Biden administration is set to announce the final emissions rules for light-duty vehicles in the coming days or weeks. According to reports, rules will be stronger than those under former President Trump, but will fall short of the strongest alternative that the EPA initially proposed.

The report, Stuck in Neutral, found that:

  • The top five automakers continue to actively lobby against the rules while enjoying massive profits on gas-guzzling pickup trucks and ever-larger sport-utility vehicles.
  • Ten major auto companies and trade groups spent more than $183 million on lobbying in Washington D.C., since 2019, an indication of their influence on Capitol Hill.
  • The largest by far was General Motors, with $48.6 million in lobbying, followed by Toyota at $31 million and Ford at nearly $21 million over that time frame.
  • The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the industry association that represents major automakers, was the fourth-highest spender on vehicle-related lobbying from 2019-2023.
  • In total, 25 different lobbyists were hired by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation to lobby on the standards from 2020 through 2023, including three former staffers of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“We are running out of time, but it’s not too late for the Biden administration to do the right thing,” said Hodgkins. “The Biden administration must stand strong against the auto industry’s efforts to water down these regulations by finalizing the strongest EPA vehicle emissions rules.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

New Research Exposes Countries and Companies Supplying the Oil Fueling Palestinian Genocide

14. März 2024 - 13:15

New data compiled by DataDesk, commissioned by Oil Change International, sheds light on the devastating role of oil fueling the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. By tracing the supply chains of crude oil and refined products to Israel, the research exposes the various countries and companies whose fuel supplies are perpetuating this humanitarian crisis – and thus have an opportunity to help compel a ceasefire by turning off those taps.

According to the findings, the US is the Israeli military’s key direct source of imported jet fuel. Oil majors, including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Eni, and TotalEnergies, are also complicit in fueling atrocities in their ownership stakes in and operations of projects supplying oil to Israel, particularly via Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Brazil and Saudi Arabia are also implicated in supplying Israel with fuel for its war machine. Countries and companies continuing to provide fuel to Israel are playing a part in enabling the ongoing violence and oppression against the Palestinian people.

Key findings:

    • Israel has received three tankers of JP8 Jet Fuel since the war started as part of U.S. military aid for Israel. JP8 Jet Fuel is specifically formulated for military jets. One shipment left the United States before the war started, while two have been sent since. The latest tanker was seen docked at Israel’s Ashkelon terminal on March 6.
    • Israel receives relatively small but regular shipments of crude via the Sumed pipeline. The pipeline receives crude oil from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iraq, and from Egypt, through which the pipeline also travels. All of these countries have condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza.
    • Other countries with more friendly relations with Israel supply the majority of crude oil delivered since the war began, including Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Gabon is also a major source of crude oil delivered. Crude from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan is supplied by pipelines owned or operated by major international oil companies, including BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and Eni.
    • Russia continues to supply a steady stream of vacuum gas oil (VGO) for one of the key refineries in Haifa. VGO is generally upgraded into gasoline and diesel.
    • Two shipments of Brazilian crude oil totaling 260,000 tons have been delivered to Israel since December 2023. This crude was supplied from offshore fields co-owned by Shell and TotalEnergies together with Brazil’s Petrobras.

Palestinian groups and their allies have called for an energy embargo and are demanding governments and companies cease all fuel shipments to Israel until it ends the genocide and its regime of apartheid against the Palestinian people. Specifically, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement calls for a consumer boycott of Chevron-branded gas stations. Countries, as well as oil and gas companies, must be held to account for their role in perpetuating violence and human rights abuses.

Statements:

Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International US Program Manager, said:
“Countries and major oil companies fueling Israel’s war machine are complicit in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. With growing public outrage, including massive protests across the globe, the demand for an end to this genocide is resounding. By directly fueling Israel’s military, on top of over a hundred other weapons sales, the U.S. in particular must be held accountable for potential violations of international law. We call on nations to leverage their oil supply as a means to demand an immediate ceasefire and an end to the occupation. Fossil fuel companies, like BP, Chevron, and Exxon, driven solely by profit, are willing to fuel conflict against innocent civilians. This must stop today. We demand a permanent ceasefire and an end to Israeli occupation in Palestine.”

Mahmoud Nawajaa, General Coordinator, Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), said:
“The ICJ’s ruling of 26 January indicates that Israel could plausibly be committing genocide against 2.3 million Palestinians in occupied Gaza. States and companies must immediately end any complicity in Israel’s genocidal acts, including its use of starvation as a weapon of war. UN human rights experts have reminded States of this obligation, calling for an “immediate” military embargo on Israel, entailing a halt to the transfer of weapons and other military supplies to it.

“States and companies that continue to provide Israel with fuel for its military forces are directly complicit in supporting its ongoing genocide. We shall never forgive them for that. The BDS movement, which is already targeting Chevron with a growing global boycott and divestment campaign, will expose and target the complic States and corporations mentioned in this valuable report.

“This complicity in Israel’s Gaza genocide is not just killing Palestinians and destroying our cities, refugee camps and villages; it is also accelerating the world’s descent into what the UN Secretary-General calls, “total impunity,” where the law of the jungle reigns.”

Mohammed Usrof, co-founder of Climate Alliance for Palestine, said:
“After the International Court of Justice ruling, it’s disheartening to see the silent complicity of international corporations in the prolonged suffering of my people and my family. These companies, by supplying oil and gas to Israel, not only fuel a machinery of conflict but also ignore the urgent calls for ethical responsibility and humanity. It’s high time we demand more than just corporate profit – accountability and justice should be non-negotiable.”

Peter Frankental, Amnesty International UK’s Economic Affairs Director, said:
“There are urgent due diligence questions for any company with commercial ties to the Israeli military, and oil firms must ensure they’re not in the business of helping to entrench Israel’s apartheid system or fuelling war crimes and possible genocide in Gaza.

“The need to avoid being directly linked to Israeli war crimes via any of their business relationships extends to all companies which form part of the global oil distribution infrastructure. We’ve repeatedly called on the Government to ensure that no UK company can trade with Israel’s network of illegal settlements, and likewise the Department for Business & Trade must be prepared to take action to prevent unscrupulous UK firms – including in the lucrative oil sector – from profiting from Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.”

Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch said:
“Israeli authorities have carried out mass atrocities in Gaza in recent months. Countries and other actors that provide support to Israel’s armed forces risk complicity in war crimes. States should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel so long as its forces commit widespread, systematic abuses against Palestinian civilians with impunity.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Absolutely Not Photographic: Dems Bring the Babbling Receipts

14. März 2024 - 6:35


Amidst a fraught political landscape where totalitarian clouds loom, we celebrate House Democrats whose smarts and prowess may yet save us. Thus did a hearing on "lying bozo" Robert Hur's hit job on classified documents - which charged Biden only with being a "well-meaning, elderly man" - turn into another hot mess for GOP hacks and yahoos after Dems laid bare Hur's flimflam and showcased their demented stable genius yammering word salad into the unseemly air.

Tuesday's hearing before a GOP-run House Judiciary Committee, like all the GOP's flops before it, quickly went sideways for Republicans hungry to find something, anything, to charge the "Biden crime family" with - this time, that Biden so "old, old, old (he) can’t remember even how old he is." Hur was already on the defensive after outrage at what many deemed his gratuitous digs at Biden's cognitive abilities, clearly a discomfiting pot/kettle set-up from the start. The Democrats' case only got stronger after newly released transcripts showed, less than shockingly, that many of Hur's conclusions were manipulative bullshit, a point savvy Dems repeatedly, delightedly hammered home. Under pressure, Hur insisted his unsolicited opinion of Biden's cognitive skills was "necessary and accurate and fair"; he also stood by calling him a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" and rejected the idea he "exonerated" Biden with, "That word does not appear in the report." Then again, Dems noted, another word missing from the report is "photographic," which is what he admiringly called Biden's memory in the transcript. Awkward.

Of course this is not the first rodeo where GOP clowns fell off their steeds. In a feckless Congressional session on track to be the least productive of any American Congress since 1931, the GOP has become "a full-blown, corruption-riddled, nepotism-laden cult of incompetency," according to a former GOP fat cat who says he's "out" after a lifetime of giving money to candidates. "I donated to help win elections, not to maintain the lifestyle of a billionaire," he wrote. "No point donating now." And it's getting worse. A razor-thin majority in the House just got flimsier, much like Mike Johnson's support, with the resignation of Colorado's right-wing Ken Buck; wingnut losers like shrieky MTG get improbably dumber; candidates are so rabid they boast about burning books before they're even elected; another in a long line of criminals in the law-and-order-save-our-kids party was just sentenced to 410 years in prison on multiple counts of child sex abuse; and the new RNC head is a former personal trainer whose first act with her mobster father-in-law was undertaking a "bloodbath" of the faithful.

Meanwhile, he's still shooting off his mouth. He announced his "first acts as your next President" will be to "Close the Border, DRILL, BABY, DRILL, and Free the January 6th Hostages," he randomly flip-flopped on banning TikTok (now nay) 'cause maybe he can get some money toward the cool half-billion he owes, and he bleated out he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare - eloquently, "There’s tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do" - which is the least popular thing he could do after ending women's reproductive freedom and making his lackeys kill the border bill. He tried to backpedal, but Dems quickly put up an ad quoting him - with Biden vowing, "I will stop you" - because they're so much better at this. See Jamie Raskin's grammar lessons to Boebert and Santos - "Banana Republican Party" and "the truth is resilient" - or Eric Swalwell's questions to Hunter Biden - "Did your father operate a hotel where foreign nationals spent millions while he was in office," employ family members, receive 41 trademarks from China, make a multi-million-dollar deal with the Saudis - ending with, "That's all I've got."

And so to Hur's report on senile geezer Joe Biden, where scripts were again masterfully flipped. Hur, a registered Republican who served in Trump's Justice Department, told House members that "partisan politics had no place whatsoever in my work." That didn't go over well with Repubs who've never met a partisan hack they didn't like, even the weaselly Hur who they were depending on to bring charges, deserved or no. "I want to thank you for the work you did as far as you could," menaced Rep. Tom Tiffany. "But unfortunately you are part of the praetorian guard that guards the swamp here (in) DC, protecting the elites, and Joe Biden is part of that company of elites." Say what? Matt Gaetz, meanwhile, couldn't decide if Hur found "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter" because Biden was "senile," or because Biden was “a little craftier, a little more devious (than) we might otherwise think." Wisconsin Rep. Scott Fitzgerlad gave it another desperate shot. He read aloud Webster's definition of senile and asked Hur, "Did you find that the president was senile?" Life is full of disappointments: Hur said, "I did not."

The transcript showed he did, however, overstate Biden's supposed "poor memory," a finding that hinged largely on his occasionally hedging on dates - unlike the rest of us over, say, 40. Biden sometimes hesitated over the year something happened - including the death of his son Beau - but vividly recalled even painful specifics: "What year did he die? Oh God, May 30th." He was quick-witted - to one photo Hur showed him: "You can tell it's old - I have my arm around Lindsey Graham" - and lively, veering off-topic to extol electric cars he'd tried out: "Damn, they're quick!" Because Dems had come to play, Rep. Jerry Nadler was quick to contrast all that with a "sizzle reel" of Trump speeches packed with blather: Words mangled, putting Paris in Germany, forgetting who he was married to when, confusing Obama and Biden, Balkan with Baltic, North and South Korea, oranges and origins. "That is a man (who) is wholly unfit for office," Nadler concluded at the ungainly end of the linguistic carnage, "and a man who, at the very least, ought to think twice before accusing others of cognitive decline."

Democrats flip the script on Republican's sham hearing with a supercut of receipts www.youtube.com

And so it went. One after the other, Democrats had done their homework and brought their receipts, which were glorious. Before he offered up his own super-cut of incoherence, Eric Swalwell went to the transcript, which, yes, he'd read. On the subject of a house he visited in Mongolia that Biden evidently described to Hur in detail, "You said, 'You...appear to have a photographic understanding and recall of the house.' Did you say that to President Biden?" Hur, slimy, after long pause. "Those words do appear on page 47 of the transcript." Swalwell: "'Photographic' is what you said, is that right?" Hur: "That word does appear on page 47 of the transcript." Swalwell: "It never appeared in your report, though, is that correct? The word 'photographic?'" Hur: "It does not appear in my report." Swalwell, calmly: "Now I want to show you something that is absolutely not photographic." Cue more Trump mayhem: Slurred words, the brave frontline workers on 7/11, God bless the United Shates, windmills driving driving whales a little batty etc. Ever-shameless Gym Jordan, horrified by too much masochism even for him, finally cut him off.

Rep. Jim Jordan cuts off second supercut of Trump being hot mess in disastrous committee hearing www.youtube.com

Pennsylvania Rep. Madeleine Dean likewise brandished Hur's own words before him, this time on the vital "material distinctions" between how Biden and Trump handled the issue of classified documents improperly taken - that Biden cooperated, thus ruling out willful, criminal intent. Dean went one better by making Hur read his report aloud - and thus condemn Trump - himself. Hur kept stopping; each time, Dean said, "Go on." "The allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts," Hur read. "Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite...He not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives (and DOJ), consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."

— (@)

For his turn, Rep. Ted lieu went the Swalwell route, asking the reluctant Hur a series of pointed questions he knew the answers to that, cumulatively, proved deeply damning. His first question: "In your investigation, did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to lie to the FBI?” Hur: "We identified no such evidence." Lieu: "Did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to destroy classified documents?” Hur: "No." And on and on: Did you find that President Biden directed someone to move boxes of documents, hide them from the FBI, delete security camera footage; that he showed a classified map about on ongoing military operation to an aide, engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, engaged in a scheme to conceal..." All no's from Hur. Each of those activities, Lieu noted, "describe what Donald Trump did in his willful mishandling of classified information and his criminal efforts to deceive the FBI," which is why Biden hasn't been indicted and Trump has been "in not just 1, or 2, or 3, but four criminal cases." As Hur sits silent.

REP LIEU QUESTIONS SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT HUR IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING www.youtube.com

Adam Schiff tangled more directly with Hur, charging him with deliberately, gratutiously taking a "deeply prejudicial" approach to the report that "you had to know would have a maximal political impact," even while declining to prosecute. Schiff blasted his old geezer language, rather than "the president did not recall" when "there is nothing more common with a witness of any age when asked about events that are years old." "You understood that you made a choice," Schiff charged. "That was a political choice. It was the wrong choice." Finally, Jamie Raskin furiously, elegantly dismissed "the spectacle (of) our colleagues...drive-by diagnoses" of Biden's memory despite his soaring SOTU speech and "devastating extemporaneous reparte with even the most skilled ninja hecklers of the Freedom Caucus." All of it, he argued, is "a desperate quest" to distract from Trump's 91 criminal charges, staggering civil court losses and "full-blown embrace (of) authoritarian dictators." "My friends, this is a memory test," he said gravely. "But it's not a memory test for President Biden. It's a memory test for all of America."

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Civil rights organizations oppose xenophobic TikTok ban, implore Congress to pursue common sense privacy legislation instead

13. März 2024 - 17:29

From the RESTRICT Act to this most recent legislative attempt (Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act) to ban TikTok, Fight for the Future has continued to call it like it is: the rhetoric fueling a TikTok ban is a xenophobic, moral panic about the content on TikTok, disregarding the 150 million users in the US that use the app for news, small business, community organizing, and free expression.

If Congress really cares about the data abuse Americans are subject to because of surveillance capitalist business models, they should pass comprehensive privacy legislation that would stop all Big Tech companies from harvesting our data. Millions and millions of people use TikTok to connect with people, learn about current events, and support their families. A total ban would infringe on the First Amendment rights for all of these people, in addition to not solving the problem at hand. The data of Americans is already susceptible to bad actors, foreign and domestic, because Congress has waited so long to act. Censorship is not the answer, data privacy legislation is.

Fight for the Future has been helping young people and TikTok creators take action against each version of a TikTok ban for months, using DontBanTikTok.com to showcase their voices.

Fight for the Future has also joined other civil society groups, including the ACLU, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and PEN America, in a letter to Congress opposing this bill for its unconstitutionality and threat to free speech.

“Banning or requiring divestiture of TikTok would also set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms,” the letter said. “The United States has rightfully condemned other countries when they have banned specific social media platforms, criticizing these efforts as infringing on the rights of their citizens. If the United States now bans a foreign-owned platform, that will invite copycat measures by other countries, banning American-owned speech intermediaries and companies from operating in their borders, with significant consequences for free expression globally.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

ACLU Urges Senate to Reject TikTok Ban Bill Following House Passage

13. März 2024 - 17:10

The U.S. House of Representatives today passed H.R. 7521, a bill that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States. The vote comes just one day after the American Civil Liberties Union and partners expressed serious constitutional concerns with the bill.

Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU, had the following reaction:

“Make no mistake: the House’s TikTok bill is a ban, and it’s blatant censorship. Today, the House of Representatives voted to violate the First Amendment rights of more than half of the country. The Senate must reject this unconstitutional and reckless bill.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

Florida Legislature Approves Law Banning Water Breaks and Cooling Measures for Workers

8. März 2024 - 21:40

The Florida House of Representatives today voted to approve legislation specifically intended to prohibit local workplace standards requiring drinking water, cooling measures, recovery periods, posting or distributing materials informing workers how to protect themselves, and requiring first aid or emergency responses. The senate approved the measure yesterday.

In an attempt to preempt local protections set to be voted on in Miami-Dade county, this measure has been rushed through the state legislature ahead of sine die on Friday. The proposed protections in Miami-Dade county would require that outdoor workers have access to drinking water and regular shaded breaks, as well as training on protecting themselves from heat illness, injury, and fatality. Juley Fulcher, worker health and safety advocate with Public Citizen, issued the following statement:

“The punitive cruelty of denying workers access to water and protection from heat in one of the hottest states in the country is sinister and monstrous. Each year, hundreds of workers across the U.S. die excruciating deaths from heat. Not only does this bill rob workers of simple water breaks, it forbids the posting of educational materials to protect themselves from the heat.

“The vicious inhumanity at the heart of this legislation will cost the lives of and impose needless suffering on workers – especially workers of color and immigrant workers, who make up a disproportionate share of agricultural and construction workers – across the state. Governor Ron DeSantis should veto this legislation.

“With Florida joining Texas in preempting even the most minor workplace protections for excessive heat exposure, it’s past time for the federal government to step up. With what’s likely to be the hottest summer of our lives approaching, Congress should passing the Asuncíon Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury and Fatality Prevention Act, which would direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to adopt interim heat standards right now, while the agency continues its years-long slog of adopting a final heat protection rule.”

Kategorien: Externe Ticker

ITEP Statement & Resources: Tax Fairness and The State of the Union

8. März 2024 - 16:03

President Biden’s State of the Union address and a new White House fact sheet touched on a wide range of tax policy issues. See below for a statement on the President’s tax agenda and useful resources about many of the White House proposals.

STATEMENT FROM ITEP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AMY HANAUER

“When it comes to tax fairness, President Biden has a clear and compelling vision. Make large, profitable corporations and the wealthy pay their share, reduce taxes on low-income and working families with robust refundable tax credits, and use the trillions of dollars in new resources to create the kind of America we all want to see. As the President’s tax agenda makes clear, we can strengthen this country’s communities, care for all our people, and restore balance to our tax system. Our lawmakers just need to find the will to do it.”

RESOURCES

New blog: Tax Proposals President Biden Is Expected to Discuss in the State of the Union

Reforming the corporate tax

The President is proposing several important corporate tax reforms, including raising the rate to 28%, instilling a corporate minimum tax of 21% for billion-dollar corporations, reining in corporate tax avoidance, and increasing the stock buyback tax.

ITEP’s recent report found that many profitable American corporations are paying much less than the 21% corporate tax rate due to loopholes. The 342 companies included in our study paid an average effective income tax rate of just 14.1% from 2018-2022, almost a third less than the statutory rate. That translates to $275 billion in tax subsidies for these companies.

Other important corporate tax resources:

Stronger taxes on wealthy individuals

The President is proposing, among other things, to have billionaires pay at a 25% minimum tax, and to ensure the IRS has enough funding to continue collecting unpaid taxes from wealthy taxpayers and corporations.

Resources:

Improving refundable credits for low-income and working families

The President is proposing to restore the 2021 expanded Child Tax Credit and strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit, among other reforms.

Resources:

Kategorien: Externe Ticker