The election in November is the most important election in the modern history of this country. Democracy is at stake.
Showing posts with label DEMOCRACY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DEMOCRACY. Show all posts
Sunday, March 31, 2024
These are extremely difficult times for our country.
It goes without saying that these are extremely difficult and trying times for our country, and for the entire planet. The good news is that all across the country working people are standing up and fighting for economic justice and against corporate greed.
Sunday, February 13, 2022
RSN: FOCUS: "Trump Will Get His Comeuppance": Rep. Jamie Raskin Promises Consequences for Jan 6
13 February 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Maryland Democrat on his bestselling book, his unbearable personal loss and bringing Donald Trump to justice
I have interviewed Raskin many times for my SiriusXM radio show, and he has always been a thoughtful, measured person when it comes to talking politics of the day. The fact that he's a former constitutional law professor likely contributes to that professorial nature. That's also why we should all take heed of his words when he states point blank that today's Republican Party has launched a "fascist attack against the constitutional order." In his book, Raskin writes that the GOP is now "the party of Trump, authoritarianism, corruption, and insurrection."
That has become even more obvious in recent weeks as Donald Trump suggested he would pardon the Capitol attackers if returned to office, and the Republican National Committee approved a resolution describing the Jan. 6 attack as "legitimate political discourse." Raskin, who is a member of the House select committee investigating the events Jan. 6, shared his belief that the panel's upcoming public hearings could be the most important in American history, saying they will "certainly up there with the Watergate hearings." You can watch my "Salon Talks" with Rep. Raskin here, or read our conversation below to hear Raskin discuss the "maddening and frustrating" fact that Trump has yet to be brought to justice.
Your book "Unthinkable" went straight to No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. The book is a love letter to your late son Tommy, who took his own life last December, and on some level a love letter to our democracy and what this nation stands for. But I wanted to start with Tommy. You go into detail about his struggle with depression, writing, "Depression, it entered his life like a thief in the night and became an unremitting beast." What do you say to families out there where people are struggling with depression?
Well, I don't claim any particular medical expertise. But I will just say as a dad who's gone through this, that it's obviously important that each person who's facing a mental health struggle be in a therapeutic relationship with doctors and get whatever medication we have that might work. But also, build a close social network to stay on top of the situation. Obviously I've asked myself a thousand questions since all of this happened, but the thing I probably most regret is not talking about the topic of suicide and not confronting it directly.
I think parents probably have an instinct that talking about it will somehow conjure it into existence or cast some kind of spell that will make it happen. But that's obviously just superstition, and it really works in the other direction: To not talk about something is the risky thing, it's to endow it with more power and mystery than it should have. I say that about suicide and I also say that about the word "fascism" in the book. We can't be afraid to talk about that, like somehow that's a breach of etiquette or something.
Switching to politics here, right in the beginning of your book, you talk about how in the week between Dec. 31, 2020, and Jan. 6th, 2021, your family suffered two impossible dramas: One was your son's death by suicide, and the second was the Capitol insurrection. You're not equating the two things, but I can sense your love for this nation. Is that fair to say that: You have a deep love for this democratic republic and what it's supposed to stand for, and you feel compelled to defend it?
Well, I think that's right. It's kind of you to say that. I certainly feel it. And I have felt that Tommy's with me, and he is in my heart. He's in my chest. He was during the impeachment trial in the Senate. And unfortunately we didn't have enough Republican senators to join us in convicting Trump. I mean, it was the most bipartisan, sweeping impeachment result in a Senate trial in American history, but we still fell 10 votes short. And for that reason, we're still in the thick of this struggle.
Like I told the impeachment managers before we went out there, the facts are overwhelmingly on our side. The law is overwhelmingly on our side. I want to make sure that people understand that the passion for our country, the patriotism in your hearts is what's motivating the whole thing. So show your emotion about what just happened to us. They stormed our house.
You write about going into the Capitol on Jan. 6, bringing your daughter Tabitha and your son-in-law Hank with you. So during the siege, you weren't just worried about yourself, you had to worry about your family. We have the footage of this horrific attack on our Capitol by people dressed in Trump regalia and chanting, "Fight for Trump." Yet now we know, thanks to the work of your committee, that Donald Trump, for 187 minutes, watched that and did nothing, even when Ivanka Trump came in twice asking him to intervene. What does that say to you about how Trump viewed this event?
The violence was strategic and political, but it was also sadistic too. He had unleashed primitive impulses in this mass demonstration, which became a mob riot. I view the activities of Jan. 6 as being in three rings of sedition, Dean. There was the mob riot, which surrounded the ring of the insurrection. And that was the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the Aryan Nation, different white nationalist groups, the Militiamen, the First Amendment Pretorians, there were some religious cults in there. These people had trained for battle and they were the first ones to come and smash out our windows and attack our police officers. They helped convert the demonstration into a mob riot and an attack on the officers. But the scariest ring was the innermost ring, the ring of the coup, which is a strange word to use in American political parlance, because we don't have a lot of experience with coups.
We think of a coup as something that takes place against a president, but this was a coup orchestrated by the president against the vice president and against the Congress. And the whole purpose was to get Mike Pence to declare lawless, extra-constitutional powers, to exclude and reject and repudiate Electoral College votes coming in from Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania to lower Biden's total from 306 to below 270. That would have triggered, under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, a contingent presidential election. And you ask: Why would Donald Trump want Speaker Pelosi's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to decide who's president? Well, in a contingent election, we're not voting one member, one vote. We're voting one state, one vote.
After the 2020 elections, they had 27 state delegations, we had 22 and one, Pennsylvania, was split down the middle. So even had they lost the at-large representative from Wyoming — my new best friend, Liz Cheney — they still would have had 26 votes to declare Donald Trump president and seize the presidency for another four years. I think they were also prepared at that point to invoke the Insurrection Act and declare martial law, and finally call on the National Guard, that had been held back, to put down the insurrectionary chaos he had unleashed against us.
Are you surprised that we don't even hear an inkling that Trump is being investigated by the Department of Justice for potential crimes?
Well, yeah. I mean, I'm a little bit softer on Attorney General Merrick Garland than some people are, because he's my constituent. I still remember, so bitterly, how they prevented him from even getting a hearing when he was nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court. But look, people were on Garland's case about the fact that there had been no indictments for seditious conspiracy. And then there was a huge indictment on seditious conspiracy against the Oath Keepers, and presumably more to come. They obviously weren't the only group there. There were these overlapping circles of conspiracy to knock over the Capitol and take down our government. I mean, that was the interruption of the peaceful transfer of power, for the first time in American history, for four or five hours. And we didn't know which way it was going to go.
Trump will get his comeuppance. I know how maddening and frustrating it is to people. I share that feeling, having been an impeachment manager. I mean, he's as guilty as sin. He's a one-man crime wave, and it's amazing that his dad's money and this pack of lawyers he travels with have been able to get him off everything up until now. But I'm with Dr. King that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it tends toward justice. It's going to catch up with Donald Trump too.
You write in the book that we can now say that the Democratic Party, whatever its faults, is the party of democracy and that the Republican Party is the party of authoritarianism, corruption, and insurrection. Can our democratic republic continue if one party is embracing autocracy and fascism and the other party is playing by the rules?
It's a good question. If you look at it historically, liberal and progressive parties have never on their own been enough to defeat fascist and authoritarian coups. It's always the liberal and progressive parties, the left and the center-right together. And when they come together, they can reject and defeat a fascist attack against the constitutional order. And that is the importance of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and Mitt Romney. We had 10 Republicans vote to impeach in the house. We had seven vote to convict in the Senate. So that's like 14 or 15 percent of the Republican Party. If that block holds and comes our way, and we're able to build a cross-party coalition with a lot of Independents and Greens and Libertarians and Republicans and Democrats to defend democracy, we can do it.
The Democratic Party can't do it alone. It's going to have to be the base of it, but we also need to assemble all the other institutions in American life that are part of democracy, because democracy's not one thing. I mean, it is the legislative branch, yes, obviously. But it is courts. It is the states. It is the press, the media, the universities, the colleges, the schools, civil society. Everybody needs to stand up and reject authoritarianism at this point. When people ask what they can do: You can do things every single day to stand up for strong democracy in America.
After Watergate, Congress passed reforms to try to rein in a runaway president in Richard Nixon. I know some have been proposed now. Is there any hope of legislation that will curtail another potential Trump or another person cut from that cloth, regardless of party, who really tries to abuse their power?
In a certain sense, this is what we've been trying to do with all the voting rights legislation. We've been trying to solidify and protect the right to vote and protect the integrity of elections against these outrageous efforts to convert bipartisan or nonpartisan election commissions into partisan election commissions, or to put them directly under the control of GOP legislatures. The problem is that the Republican Party, which is a minority party and a shrinking minority party — remember, Hillary beat Trump by three million votes and Joe Biden beat him by seven and a half million votes. The young people are coming in our direction.
That demography is totally against the GOP, but they've got this bag of tricks that include the most anti-democratic instruments in the country. It's voter suppression statutes. It's the filibuster. It's right wing court packing and judicial activism. It's manipulation of the Electoral College. It's a race between the will of the majority, trying to defend democratic institutions and liberal democracy, against one-party rule, which is what they want. They are a rule-or-ruin party, and I've been calling that them that for a while. I was glad that President Biden picked that up in his democracy speech because they either are going to rule or they're going to ruin our ability to make any progress as a country.
With the Jan. 6 committee, you're going to have public hearings coming up at some point this year. I'm not sure if there's a schedule that we don't know about. Is there any sense of what we might expect to see, or the types of witnesses that you might bring forward in these hearings?
I'd hoped it would happen in March. I think because of all the obstruction and roadblocks thrown up by the entourage around Donald Trump — Mark Meadows, who's kind of doing the hokey pokey, one foot in one foot out, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone — that it's going to be later in the spring, April or May more likely. But I think these could be the most important hearings in American history, certainly up there with the Watergate hearings. I hope we will do them during prime time. I hope we will see them every single day, so we can tell a complete story to the American people about how this took place. It's obviously enormously complex. But people are following it closely.
The vast majority of Americans who we've approached as witnesses have testified. So most people, including people who participated, are cooperating. They understand that they've got not just a legal obligation but a civic obligation to help us figure out what happened. It's only when you get right to that bullseye core around Donald Trump and his innermost confidants that people think they're somehow above the law and can just give the finger to the U.S. Congress.
The way you envision this, it wouldn't be like the first hearings we saw with the Capitol Police, which was months ago? This would be more like lining up a bunch of nights in a row, as opposed to one hearing and then coming back three weeks later?
Yeah, it would not be episodic. We want to tell the whole story. I felt very strongly that we'd go to the police officers first. That was my great frustration about the Senate trial, that we weren't able to have them come and tell the story of what had happened. We wanted to shock the public into remembrance of what this was about. I mean, this was a violent assault on American democracy, a riot surrounding an insurrection surrounding a coup, and it was our officers who stood between us and losing it all. So there were a lot of heroes on that day and we can't forget who those heroes were.
Newt Gingrich literally said that you and others on your committee are going to jail if Republicans get control of the House. I don't know what the justification would be, but when you hear that, does that ring bells of fascism to you? The idea of threatening to put political opponents in prison simply because they're doing their job.
Well, of course that was the direction that Donald Trump took their party in, because the moment he got in, the Department of Justice was treated like a group of lawyers who were supposed to follow his orders in prosecuting his enemies and excusing and protecting his friends. It was like that from the very beginning, and all through the administration. It doesn't surprise me that Newt Gingrich, who's an utter chameleon and total moral invertebrate, would just follow Donald Trump down into that cesspool.
You mentioned that 10 Republican House members voted to impeach Donald Trump, and seven Republicans voted to convict in the Senate. We heard Kevin McCarthy go on the floor saying, "The president's to blame." But that same Kevin McCarthy now is sucking up. What do you make of this, in terms of that party losing its way? Is it just the pursuit of power at literally any cost?
Of course. I mean, the framers understood this. If you go back and read Federalist No. 1 by Alexander Hamilton, he says that the major threat to the Democratic Republic is going to be politicians who act as demagogues pandering to negative emotions who then come to power and go from being demagogues to becoming tyrants. So, exploiting negative emotions in people, racism, hatred, stereotyping, scapegoating and then becoming tyrants over the people. So that's an old story. It's obviously a different story than Donald Trump was telling, but it's one we can recognize immediately.
On another point, you have a documentary, "Loving the Constitution," coming out on MSNBC. It was shot over three years, following you through everything. What can you share about this?
Madeline Carter was someone who was a college classmate of mine, and she kept bugging me for more than a year that she wanted to make a documentary about me and Trump. The constitutional law professor who gets elected the same night as the would-be authoritarian dictator of America — following his story and mine. Of course history takes us places we never imagined going. But I finally relented, I said, "Fine, if you think there's something there, you can make the movie about us." Of course she ended up filming a lot of stuff I wish had never happened, along with some things I'm proud of and some things I regret. But it is what it is. I confess I have lived, as Pablo Neruda said. It is what it is, and I'm curious to see what it's all about.
When Justice Breyer had his press conference, talking about retiring, he mentioned the Gettysburg Address and talked about the experiment this country is. I went back and read the Gettysburg Address, and the very last line is that the government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth. That was the hope of Lincoln. You get the sense that some of our fellow Americans just believe it won't perish from the earth and they don't have to do anything to preserve it.
I mean, I don't blame those people. Most of us grew up with the sense that there was stability and durability in our democratic institutions and that they would grow stronger over time. But of course there are people who also have much more of a tragic sensibility and understand the ebb and flow of history. There are periods of progressive evolution and change, and then periods of profound reaction and destruction, and we obviously just witnessed one of those with these nihilists who took over and tried to destroy everything that had been built for decades. I mean, they just put the civilizing movements of our time in their crosshairs: the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the LGBTQ movement, the human rights movement, the environmental movement, the climate movement and so on.
So yeah, I don't really blame those people. But I think Lincoln was trying to say, if democracy's going to survive, we all have to fight for it. And there will be a spectrum of sacrifice. Some people will give their lives, like the thousands who were killed in the battle at Gettysburg. But all of us have got to be engaged in this. I mean, that's what democracy is. It's something that we take care of together.
Lincoln was posing that as a real question, not as just some kind of rhetorical flourish. I mean, for most of the history of our species, people have lived under despots and tyrants and dictators and bullies and kings and queens and all that. So our American experiment began with some very high ideals. They were compromised from the beginning, with the viciousness of slavery and other kinds of repressive political features. But at least the ideals were there and successive social and political movements have been able to transform the country. And that has left us, even through Donald Trump, the greatest multiracial, multiethnic, multi-religious constitutional democracy that's ever existed. So that's our legacy. That's what we're fighting for now.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
Saturday, February 12, 2022
Donald Trump’s raised over $122 million
In the last few days, Donald Trump has falsely claimed voter fraud in 2020, said Hillary Clinton and Adam made up Russia’s interference… and called Adam a watermelon head.
“Respectfully,” he added. Yeah, sure thing, Donald.
Trump may no longer be on social media, but the more he stirs up controversy and spreads lies, the more donations pile into his political organization. By the end of January, his team announced he’s stockpiled over $122 million in campaign funds — and that number is growing every day.
Not since Grover Cleveland has a president who lost re-election come back four years later to run again. Trump’s unprecedented amount of cash and his unique disdain for democracy and the rule of law makes him more than a historical anomaly, but a dangerous one, too.
He’s endorsing Republican candidates and shaping the terms of political debate around conspiracy, lies, and rage. If Trump’s efforts lead to Democrats’ defeat in 2022, make no mistake, it will fuel his comeback in 2024.
We can’t let that happen. We just can’t. We need to fight back.
With our first mid-quarter deadline of the year only four days away — can you chip in $10 right now to help Adam win re-election and support Democrats across the country? We need to keep Kevin McCarthy and other Trump enablers in the minority so we can continue building on the progress we’ve already made.
Thank you for your support — it really means a lot that we can always count on you. — Team Schiff |
Wednesday, February 9, 2022
The American people deserve to know the truth
 | |||||||
|
Tuesday, February 8, 2022
RSN: Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner | Islands of Hope
07 February 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
When looking back at the past, it is tempting to see paths as preordained - narratives we neatly tuck into the contextual confines that make them easier to understand. In contrast, the present is always messy. It will only become clearer once we know how it ends, at which point we will be living in a new era of uncertainty.
We have written a lot at Steady of the crises of our current age. We can never dismiss the many challenges we face or the threats they pose. They are particularly dire. The list of woes bears repeating and remembering - from the climate crisis (felt with an extreme cold front here in Texas), to the ongoing threat to our democratic institutions, to our continued struggle for racial justice, to the threats of war, to the pandemic, and onward.
In the future we may look back and see that one of these forces escalated to a point of even greater dominance, and disaster. But this week, amidst the swirling seas of discontent, I also saw islands of hope emerge. These should remind us that the ultimate course of our current trend lines is not preordained.
One of the few things I have learned with any certainty over the course of a long life is to be wary of certainty. Those who predict with the most confidence what will happen in the future are often the voices that should be treated with the greatest skepticism. These paragons of certainty invariably are the ones who talk the most and consequently do the least to make a difference.
So today, I wanted to highlight three events from the past week that brought a sense of optimism. What they all might add up to remains to be seen.
Democracy
The Republican Party entered the aftermath of the 2020 census salivating at the prospects of expanding on what they were able to achieve back in 2010 - the use of extreme partisan gerrymandering in states they controlled to heavily tilt the balance of power in the House of Representative (and in state houses) in their favor. The result was that even if the Democrats won many more total votes in congressional elections when counted on the national level, the way those votes were pooled into districts meant the Republicans could still win control of the House.
Many election experts predicted that the Republican hopes would be realized again this time around. But that isn’t what happened. Not by a long shot. There seems to be a growing consensus that there might now be no or minimal partisan tilt in the House. In other words, whichever political party wins the most congressional votes will likely win the House in the decade ahead. That’s how it should be.
This doesn’t mean the Democrats will retain control of the House in 2022, or beyond. The historical trends for off-year elections and the headwinds of President Biden’s current low approval ratings suggest the Democrats will likely lose and could lose big. Whether they win or lose, however, should be dictated by what voters think of the job they are doing, not by a gaming of the political system. That both political parties will now have more of a fair shot should be considered a big win for democracy.
How this happened is itself a patchwork of stories, as the rules for how to draw congressional maps still, at this point, reside with the states. What was different from 2010 is that the Democrats went on the offensive. The latest and perhaps most significant victory came in North Carolina on Friday when the Democratic majority on the state's supreme court threw out the map that the (gerrymandered) Republican-controlled state legislature had drawn up. The experts who study these things believe this could lead to a swing of several congressional seats towards the Democrats.
This wasn’t the only victory for the Democrats in the courts. Earlier, the Ohio Supreme Court threw out its state’s maps in a way that will help Democratic representation in the Buckeye State. And federal judges threw out Alabama’s map, ruling it violated fair representation for Black residents. This case is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court, which could reverse course. Or it could rule in a way that further expands non-white representation in Congress.
The Democrats have gotten to parity by also playing the partisan gerrymandering game in states they control, particularly Illinois and New York. In the latter, the map that has emerged is so aggressive that it will likely switch three Republican seats to Democrats. In the New York Times, Michael Li, senior counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice called it “a master class in how to draw an effective gerrymander.”
Predictably, the trends laid out above have led to hackles from many Republicans. They have argued that there is extreme hypocrisy among Democrats because they promote gerrymandered maps in Blue States while suing to strike down gerrymandered maps in Red or Purple States. These Republican critics would have a strong case, except for one very important point. For years, Democrats in Congress have tried to pass voting rights bills that would outlaw all partisan gerrymandering across the country. And Republicans have voted, in unison, against such measures. So to now complain about partisan gerrymandering is pretty darn rich.
I suspect Democrats would gladly make the maps of New York illegal if it meant the same rules applied to Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin, and the rest of the nation. The bills to do this are still there to be passed by Congress. But after watching Republicans use all the means at their disposal to lock in power, the Democrats seem to have learned to abandon unilateral disarmament.
Maybe the Republicans, weighing their own narrow self-interest, will now change their tune on partisan gerrymandering. We should all hope so. This likely would lead to more contested races, which is what a healthy democracy should encourage. Nevertheless, it is essential that our national legislature more accurately reflects the beliefs of the majority of our nation, whatever that majority may end up being.
January 6
This past week there was also movement on a reckoning over the violent insurrection of January 6. Donald Trump and his enablers are still out there fomenting the Big Lie. But there is a growing sense that the congressional committee investigating those perilous events is making headway. One way of knowing this is the leaks that are coming out that suggest President Trump was much more involved in orchestrating the events that led up to that day than was previously disclosed.
Former Vice President Mike Pence gave a speech this week where he said something that almost no Republican has felt free to say over the last several years, including, especially, Pence - “President Trump is wrong.” Now Pence was only talking narrowly about whether he, personally, had the right to overturn the election. And he is not exactly a profile in courage on such issues as the Big Lie or all the other outrages we have seen from the previous administration, of which he was an integral part.
Nevertheless, in Trump world this speech counts as a major betrayal and a schism within the party. So where it goes from here bears watching. Will Pence retreat once more in fealty to Trump? Or will he stand firm? I suspect some of what we are seeing is being driven by the fact that Pence knows what will come out from the investigation, and how ugly it could be. Two close Pence aids, including his own former chief of staff, have testified at length in front of the committee in recent days.
Although the drum beats of accountability may be increasing, it is still easy to be cynical. For all that we find out, for all that we already know, Trump and those around him seem to be evading a reckoning once again. We can even point to this week’s outrageous censure by the Republican National Committee of the two Republicans who have joined the Democrats in investigating January 6, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
Another worry many of you have shared is that there doesn’t seem to be much energy, at least publicly, at the Department of Justice in prosecuting the political players responsible for instigating (and possibly actively planning and abetting) the insurrection. But I would suggest that this story still has many chapters. And there are other active investigations into Trump, from New York to Georgia. While I am reluctant to guess at what anyone else might be thinking. I do have a sense, from his words and actions, that Trump is not confident he can escape responsibility this time.
The Economy
And finally, for our third island of hope this week, let’s look at the U.S. economy. According to polling, this has been a weakness for President Biden. And tor the past several days, there had been expectations, including from the White House, that the jobs numbers that were released on Friday would be shockingly bad. Instead they were shockingly good. When a publication like the Financial Times touts the strength of Biden’s approach to the economy, replete with a picture of the president looking fit and active, perhaps a new narrative might be emerging.
We leave you today by acknowledging that this is but one week in time. The positive developments I mention above might very well be swamped by waves of despair. That being said, my hope is to foster, well, a bit of hope. For I fervently believe that we have a real shot here, not only to minimize our decline, or even to just hold on, but to make this world better and more just.
None of these islands of hope just appeared out of nowhere. They are the products of action and determination. And that is in itself also a reason for optimism. The tides of history are controlled, in large part, by us.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a roundtable meeting with federal workers in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2021. (photo: Bloomberg/Getty Images)
The release of the report from the White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment comes months after it was delivered to President Joe Biden in late October, a White House official told CNN, and the President has accepted the recommendations.
"As the President has said, 'unions built the middle class.' They 'lift up workers, both union and non-union.' At its core, it is our administration's belief that unions benefit all of us," the official said in a statement. "The Biden-Harris Administration believes that increasing worker organizing and empowerment is critical to growing the middle class, building an economy that puts workers first, and strengthening our democracy."
The suggestions are meant to "promote worker organizing and collective bargaining for federal employees, and for workers employed by public and private-sector employers," according to the report. "The recommendations include ways to increase private sector workers' access to information about their existing right to join and/or organize a union, and the legally-defined process of how to do so."
Those recommendations include eliminating "barriers to union organizers being able to talk with employees on federal property about the benefits of organizing a union," at agencies including the General Services Administration and the Department of Interior. The report also recommends ensuring "federal contract dollars are not spent on anti-union campaigns," at the Department of Labor, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, among other issues.
In April 2021, Biden created the task force via executive order and directed the group to make a set of recommendations within 180 days on how existing policies, programs and practices could be used to promote worker organizing and collective bargaining in the federal government and what new policies are needed to achieve its mission. The task force is vice-chaired by Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh and includes more than 20 Cabinet members and heads of other federal agencies.
The report's release comes after Biden signed an executive order Friday while in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, that's aimed at boosting union labor for federal projects paid for by the bipartisan infrastructure law that passed last year.
Ivanka Trump. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
Trump again told Pence that he had a duty to reject Electoral College votes that would formalize Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, something the vice president had no authority to do in his ceremonial role in Congress that day.
“You don’t have the courage to make a hard decision,” Trump told Pence, according to congressional testimony. Even after Trump called him a “wimp,” Pence rebuffed the demand, issuing a lengthy statement afterward laying out his conclusion that he had no power to influence the outcome.
When the call ended, Ivanka Trump turned to retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg and said, “Mike Pence is a good man.”
“Yes, he is,” Kellogg replied.
Now the House committee investigating the riot wants to know what else Ivanka Trump heard and saw that day as they try to stitch together the narrative of the riots and the former president’s role in instigating them. There was a frantic effort by many of Trump’s top supporters to persuade him to intervene, and some directly sought to use his daughter as their conduit.
A committee aide said they are hopeful that she will soon commit to a time to meet.
Throughout her time in the White House, Ivanka Trump was known as a rare voice who could get through to her father and talk him out of bad decisions, though her success was mixed. The former first daughter has kept an extraordinary low profile since her father left office and has distanced herself from him and politics since moving to Florida.
But her proximity to him on Jan. 6 could provide the committee with direct access to what Trump was doing during those crucial three hours when his supporters violently stormed Capitol.
“Ivanka Trump has details about what occurred in the lead-up to and on Jan. 6 and about the former president’s state of mind as events unfolded,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla, a member of the panel, told The Associated Press.
It is highly unusual for congressional investigators to target a family member of a president, but as a senior adviser to her father, she also had a perch close to power.
Kellogg disclosed the exchange with the committee, but so far Ivanka Trump, who famously guards her image and public profile, has not talked to the panel.
The answers could have significant repercussions not only for Donald Trump, who is eyeing a political comeback in 2024, but for those in the Republican Party who have downplayed his role in the insurrection.
A spokeswoman for Ivanka Trump did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But in a statement issued in late January, a representative for her noted that Ivanka Trump did not speak at the rally near the White House where the then-president urged his supporters to “fight like hell” as Congress convened to certify the 2020 election results, and said she still believed that “any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable.”
Members of the committee hope to get beyond such vague assertions.
Hours after Trump’s call to Pence, Ivanka Trump joined brother Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Kimberly Guilfoyle under a large tent at the rally to listen to Trump’s speech.
She reportedly told aides she “decided to attend only because she had hoped to calm the president and help keep the event on an even keel.”
After Trump’s speech, as rioters began to smash through Capitol police barriers and break windows, the former president tweeted: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution ...”
That tweet, according to court testimony, only added to the anger fueling the mob.
Back in the White House, as staffers watched in shock at what was unfolding down Pennsylvania Avenue on television screens positioned throughout the West Wing, Trump’s attention was so rapt that he hit rewind and watched certain moments again, according to Stephanie Grisham, a former White House press secretary.
“Look at all of the people fighting for me,” Trump said, according to Grisham, who also served as chief of staff to first lady Melania Trump. At one point, the president was confused why staffers weren’t as excited as he was watching the unrest unfold.
Kellogg testified that staff wanted the president to take immediate action to address the violence consuming the Capitol, but Trump refused.
“Is someone getting to potus? He has to tell protestors to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed,” Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former White House communications official, texted Ben Williamson, an aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
“I’ve been trying for the last 30 minutes. Literally stormed in outer oval to get him to put out the first one. It’s completely insane,” Williamson wrote back.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., then called Ivanka Trump, pleading that the president “ask people to leave.”
“We’re working on it,” she replied.
At that point, staffers acknowledged that despite efforts by Meadows, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Kellogg, the only person who could get through to him would be his daughter.
Ivanka Trump, according to testimony, went on to make at least two “tenacious” attempts to reason with her father as staffers were bombarded with messages from Trump allies begging him to quell the violence.
“Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to leave the (Capitol),” Fox News host Sean Hannity texted Meadows.
But inside the West Wing, Kellogg strongly recommended that they not ask the president to appear in the press room, where a group of reporters would be waiting for him.
“Apparently, certain White House staff believed that a live unscripted press appearance by the President in the midst of the Capitol Hill violence could have made the situation worse,” lawmakers wrote in their letter to Ivanka Trump.
The president ultimately agreed to a video statement. Multiple takes were filmed but not used. In each one of the initial takes, according to the committee, he failed to ask rioters to leave.
The final video was released on Twitter at 4:17 p.m. — nearly two hours after Trump’s initial tweet criticizing Pence.
“This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people,” Trump said in the video. “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you’re very special.”
Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the vice chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, has said it’s hard to “imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty” than Trump’s failure to quell the riots.
Trump’s last words that day came at 6:01 p.m. when he tweeted that the 2020 election was “unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long.”
He ended with, “Go home with love and in peace. Remember this day forever.”
The committee has been aggressively interviewing witnesses — nearly 500 so far — and has subpoenaed Meadows and Trump’s personal lawyer. They are asking Ivanka Trump to cooperate voluntarily.
Tents lined up on San Pedro on skid row, in downtown Los Angeles. (photo: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images)
Untreated disease, violence, exposure, overdoses and car strikes are all added hazards of living on the streets
An examination of 20 US urban areas found the number of deaths among people living without housing shot up by 77% in the five years ending in 2020.
The rise from 2016 through 2020 was driven by many factors, including ever-rising numbers of people living on the street and the growing dangers they face, such as violence, untreated disease and increasingly deadly illicit drug supplies.
From 65-year-old Randy Ferris, killed when a car veered into a California sidewalk encampment, Justine Belovoskey, 60, who died alone in a tent during a Texas cold snap, and Anthony Denico Williams, stabbed to death at age 20 in Washington DC, to scores of young people succumbing to overdoses on the streets, their stories reflect the harrowing tragedy of an epidemic of homelessness.
“People who die while experiencing homelessness are some of the most neglected in society,” said Matt Fowle, University of Washington researcher and co-creator of the organization Homeless Deaths Count. “These are folks who most need our help and are least likely to receive it.”
Coronavirus was just one more hazard people struggling on the streets and in shelters faced in the last two years.
While the federal government makes no effort to count deaths nationally of people deemed homeless, the Guardian worked with Fowle to collect local data from large urban areas, where consistent year-to-year counts were available. The stark results stretch from Los Angeles and Seattle to New York, Philadelphia and Miami, via the heartland.
The Guardian’s analysis counted 18,000 people who died homeless over five years in encampments, on sidewalks or in shelters, including 5,000 deaths in 2020 alone. In most cases, the deaths were tracked by county coroners and medical examiners, but in a few locations only local non-profits kept track.
Experts at the non-profit National Health Care for the Homeless Council say that, in many places, the people who perish without housing are never counted. They estimate the total number of deaths is actually between 17,000 and 40,000 every year.
“Every person and every life matters,’’ said the council’s Katherine Cavanaugh. “That’s part of why we are encouraging people to just track these deaths. We want to make sure that we can use that information to improve situations for people in the future and not have these deaths be happening in vain.”
In all but two of the 20 cities or counties examined by the Guardian, numbers rose significantly over five years. For instance, the homeless death toll in Los Angeles almost doubled to more than 1,600 in 2020 from 871 in 2016, while New York’s total more than doubled to 685 from 290.
In places that listed causes of death, the most prevalent have plagued homeless populations for years: drug overdoses, violence, traffic deaths and premature lethality of treatable conditions like heart disease. Only New York and Los Angeles noted a large number of deaths caused by Covid-19.
The overall jump in deaths may reflect both increases in the sheer number of unhoused people but also, disproportionately, the growing dangers they face.
The annual count of the nation’s homeless population was postponed in 2021 due to the pandemic, but counts for previous years showed a disheartening trend: after declining for years, the homeless population increased steadily between 2016 and 2020.
And more people who find themselves without a home are living outside, in unsheltered conditions, a factor that was exacerbated by shelter closures in the pandemic. They also suffer the toll of increasingly deadly synthetic street drugs, including fentanyl.
Many may have faced the kind of societal headwinds encountered by 26-year-old Christopher Madson-Yamasaki of Oregon, a bright, aspiring renewable energy technician with a mischievous grin, who had struggled with schizoaffective disorder since his teenage years, his family said.
He had become addicted to methamphetamines, after falling off his medication routine and self-medicating. He and his mother repeatedly sought to get him treatment around Portland. But in the end, there were no doors open for him.
He was found in a tent on 27 February 2020, dead of a meth overdose and with all his valuables stolen from him, days after being kicked out of a shelter for smoking on a balcony, according to his mother, Hope Yamasaki.
Yamasaki told the Guardian how Christopher fell through the cracks.
She described how he had repeatedly been turned away from drug treatment centers, because they couldn’t handle those with mental illness, and from mental health programs, because they couldn’t take those with addiction problems. When he turned 26, Madson-Yamasaki no longer qualified for youth programs that had previously provided housing.
“And he didn’t make it to 27,” said his mother. “This is so hard to talk about, but it’s so important. So many members of our community are dehumanized for mental health and addiction issues. They matter.”
Officials of Multnomah county, which provides health services for Madson-Yamasaki’s region, held a press conference featuring his story to highlight the need for more specialized treatment, which they hope to provide with recently approved new funding.
“We know that there is a lot more to be done,” said the Multnomah county chair, Deborah Kafoury.
People without a home face three times the risk of death of the general population, according to a local analysis of 2017 to 2019 deaths by Los Angeles county health department’s center for health impact evaluation. It found homeless people in LA were 35 times more likely to die of drug or alcohol overdose, 16 times more likely to die of traffic-related injuries, such as being hit by a car, and 14 times more likely to be the victim of homicide.
In 2020, drug overdose deaths were the top cause of death among homeless people in every urban area that reported causes.
“It’s deadlier to have a substance use disorder now,” said Liz Hersh, director of Philadelphia’s office of homeless services, who said fentanyl, which is as much as 100 times as potent as heroin, is a huge driver of increased overdose deaths.
Methamphetamine was also a factor in many deaths.
Jennifer Vines, health officer of Multnomah county, said people living outside sometimes report taking the stimulant at night because they fear violence.
“We often hear anecdotally that people will start using meth as a way of staying alert to protect themselves and their belongings,” she said. “And then, the flip side of that is it can also lead to psychosis and erratic and violent behavior.”
Hersh of Philadelphia, where homeless deaths doubled over five years, also noted rising trends in overdoses and violence since coronavirus arrived, even though its homeless population decreased.
“We’re seeing some of the frustration and rage that the pandemic has engendered,” she said. “People are despairing.”
In Las Vegas on 13 July 2020, Brent Michael Lloyd, 48 and unhoused, was shot in the head while he slept outside, in what police described as a “thrill killing”.
Anthony Denico Williams, 20, lost his mother to cancer at age 16 and ended up regularly sleeping under the neoclassical arches of Washington DC’s Union station railway hub.
He dreamed of opening a home for youth in need. Asked what he would do with three wishes, he said he’d want “a house over my head, to be able to give back to others and to have a nice job, that’s it”.
Instead Williams was knifed to death 26 January 2020, in an altercation over a drug sale.
A friend, social worker Grace McKinnon, told a local TV station that his death seemed senseless.
“So young, he still had his life ahead of him. And for it to end like this, I don’t know if there’s meaning in that.”
Homeless people are at greater risk of being hit by cars, according to numerous officials, particularly where large numbers are living under bridges or beside freeway off-ramps.
Randy Ferris, a Vietnam war veteran, was one of three men killed on 15 March 2021 when a driver veered into an encampment under a San Diego bridge.
Amber Joseph, who recently got housing, spoke at a memorial about how Ferris had helped her navigate living on the streets.
“He was like a big brother to me. He kept a close eye on me,” the Times of San Diego reported her saying.
Deaths from exposure make up a relatively small fraction of reported deaths, according to several homelessness experts, perhaps because the coldest cities have programs to get people indoors in winter.
But Bob Erlenbusch, executive director of the Sacramento regional coalition to end homelessness, said his normally temperate area of northern California, where 70% of the homeless population live outside, has seen more people dying of hypothermia in unusual weather events.
“I think it’s just so many more people outside exposed to the elements,” he said. “And the elements are somewhat more unpredictable than they might have been in the past. Sadly, really terrible storms and fires are the new normal.”
The climate crisis is driving more extreme weather events across the US.
During the exceptional cold snap that gripped Texas last winter, leaving millions without power, Justine Belovoskey, 60, perished of hypothermia in her tent in a state-sanctioned homeless encampment on 15 February. She didn’t make it to a warming center with a diesel generator, according to the Texas Observer.
In Denver, Colorado, the cold certainly killed people living outside, but disease and injury caused more deaths, while drug overdoses far exceeded other causes, Axios reported, citing local reports.
Beyond the direct medical causes, factors such as widespread lack of affordable housing drive increases in homelessness and, ultimately, deaths, experts say.
Those jurisdictions that reported the genders of those who died typically found that about three-quarters were men. Racial trends were hard to establish, based on the few reports that included racial breakdowns.
Sacramento, California, for example, reported that 41% of those dying while homeless were people of color.
The average age of death for people without housing is low. Again in Sacramento county, for instance, it was 51 for men and 49 for women.
“Basically, on average, homelessness takes off 25% of a person’s life,” said Erlenbusch.
Preventable and treatable diseases, including heart disease and diabetes, are among the biggest causes of premature homeless deaths.
“People should be dying of these illnesses when they are 80, not when they’re 48,” said Margot Kushel, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of its center for vulnerable populations.
It may be some time before the true effects of Covid-19 on this population are known. The biggest surge in coronavirus deaths nationally didn’t come until January 2021, which isn’t yet included in most jurisdictions’ homelessness data.
New York City, which recently disclosed deaths among people experiencing homelessness for the fiscal year ending July 2020, found that there were 121 deaths from Covid-19, mostly among those living in city-funded shelters. That made Covid the second highest cause of the 613 recorded homeless deaths that year.
Los Angeles’s unhoused have suffered several hundred Covid deaths, Will Nicholas, director of LA county’s center for health impact evaluation, said preliminary figures suggested.
And the pandemic probably worsened overdose deaths across the board.
“It’s a sad situation,” Nicholas said.
Experts agreed that the best prescription is to house people.
“You cannot have a healthy society with this many people living on the economic and social margins,” said UCSF’s Kushel. “Homelessness is lethal. We’re not going to be able to solve this without solving homelessness.”
For UW researcher Fowle, who is working on a doctoral thesis about the crisis of US homeless deaths, it comes down to whether our society can muster the empathy to act.
“It’s a tragedy that people are dying without housing,” he said. “We know the solutions. Housing saves lives and, for these people, is often a form of healthcare.”
Detainees walk with their hands clasped behind their backs along a line painted on a walkway inside the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, La., on Sept. 26, 2019. Detainees are required to walk from site to site with their hands clasped behind their backs. (photo: Gerald Herbert/AP)
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center about deportations without required interviews or hearings.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) said in a complaint filed last month against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's New Orleans field office that, in some cases, asylum-seekers never had a credible fear interview to explain why they fled and why they fear returning.
Some deportations are happening before asylum-seekers can get a hearing before a judge, or while a review of their case or their appeal is pending, according to SPLC attorneys.
The center filed the complaint on Jan. 18 with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
According to federal law, a person who expresses fear of return to their country cannot be deported until they have had an interview with an asylum officer. The law also bars asylum-seekers from being removed while an appeal is pending or while a case is before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Mich Gonzalez, an SPLC attorney who said three of his clients were illegally deported.
Gonzalez and other attorneys say they have seen sporadic cases over the years where an asylum-seeker was mistakenly deported and often returned when DHS realized they had made a mistake.
“But seeing this many cases in a six-month span is unprecedented,” Gonzalez said. “And in these recent cases, DHS and ICE are aware and everyone is washing their hands.”
One of his clients was deported to Nicaragua on Dec. 23, the day before Christmas Eve. The client said he spent two months requesting a credible fear interview. He said he fled Nicaragua after being beaten multiple times by members of the National Police.
“The National Police shot me with a rubber bullet and beat me. And here, the United States turned its back to me,” he said in an interview with Noticias Telemundo Investiga before his deportation.
An ICE spokesperson said Gonzalez's client “was afforded all due process that he was entitled to under U.S. law.”
ICE insisted in an emailed statement that it conducts a thorough review of cases before removing anyone from the U.S to "ensure due process has been afforded and that they are not eligible for any additional form of relief at the time of removal.”
Immigration attorneys insist this is not the case.
Gonzalez said another client was deported to Haiti days before Christmas, even though emails shown to NBC News indicate that ICE had been informed of a request for reconsideration.
After arriving in Haiti, according to photos and text messages sent to Gonzalez by his client, he was “brutally beaten” by supporters of two political parties because of his family’s political activism, and narrowly avoided being set on fire.
Gonzalez said his client is still actively fleeing persecution.
According to Gonzalez, ICE has not responded to multiple requests that his client be returned from Haiti.
Homero López, executive director of Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy in New Orleans, said his office has received about 20 to 30 calls from asylum-seekers saying they have been notified they will be deported but haven’t received a credible fear interview. By the time attorneys try to meet with them, they’re already gone.
“There’s definitely some shift that has happened at the asylum office,” said López, who noticed the trend during the past three to four months.
Attorneys and advocates have long criticized conditions at detention centers of the New Orleans field office since the Trump administration. There have been complaints of “horrendous conditions” in the facilities, excessively low rates of parole, and asylum-seekers being offered parol under unusually high bonds.
Jeremy Jong, a staff attorney with the nonprofit Al Otro Lado, said he has a client who was deported to Guatemala despite an active “stay of removal.” He said that for several months ICE assured him it would bring her back. “They haven’t made any moves in that direction at all — she’s still out there languishing, and I can’t get any of the ICE people who are responsible to answer me," he said.
Jong believes part of the problem is that even though administrations have changed, the staff that runs the day-to-day operations at the detention centers remain the same.
“I am not in touch with the thousands of people the ICE office detains," Gonzalez said. "I don’t know how deep the scope of this problem runs. The human cost is terrifying."
People wait outside of a food distribution in Havana, Cuba on December 21, 2021. (photo: Natalia Favre/Reuters)
Sixty years of US embargo on Cuba have not starved the island into ‘democratisation’, the way Washington hoped.
Indeed, as Cuba now marks six decades of existence under United States embargo, basic commodities are hard to come by – and that is just one aspect of the ongoing US policy of making life hell for Cubans. While the right-wing Cuban exile crowd and allied zealots like the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady prefer to insist that there is “no blockade”, reality indicates very much otherwise.
Sixty years ago, on February 7, 1962, an “Embargo on All Trade with Cuba” entered into effect under the supervision of then-President John F Kennedy, who had taken care beforehand to procure for himself no fewer than 1,200 Cuban cigars. It continues to be the most exhaustive embargo ever imposed on any country by the US, and at the time included a ban on all sales of medicine and food.
This was two years after Kennedy’s predecessor Dwight Eisenhower had made a nifty suggestion during a White House conference. According to the writeup of the January 1960 conference that appears on the State Department website, “the President said that… we could quarantine Cuba. If they (the Cuban people) are hungry, they will throw Castro out”.
Who ever said US statesmen were not charming?
A few months after that, in April 1960, Eisenhower’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Lestor Mallory produced a memorandum on the subject of what was to be done about Fidel Castro now that the glory days of brutal US-backed dictatorship in Cuba had come to an end. Significantly, the very first “salient consideration” listed in the memo is that “the majority of Cubans support Castro”. So much for Washington’s favourite old “democracy” argument for regime change.
On account of this problematic majority and other salient considerations, Mallory advised that “every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba”. He continued in nefariously longwinded diplomatic jargon:
“If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”
After all, there is nothing quite like adroit and inconspicuous starvation.
Fast forward to 2022, and the sanctions regime against Cuba is going strong, making it the longest-running embargo in US history – and one that has cost Cuba an estimated $130bn, according to the United Nations. The punitive details have fluctuated over the years, but the US has remained committed to strangling the Cuban example: the notion that there could be a functioning nation that places things like collective wellbeing and free health care and education above soul-sucking consumerism and savage military campaigns.
Penultimate US President Donald Trump imposed 243 new sanctions on the diminutive island, while also lifting a ban on US citizens suing international companies and individuals for utilising former US-owned properties in Cuba that were nationalised by the Cuban government after the 1959 revolution. Imperial grudges die hard.
Current US President Joe Biden – who was supposed to be, you know, nicer than Trump – imposed even more sanctions, ramping up the de facto US war on Cuba, and, in June 2021, the UN General Assembly voted for the 29th consecutive year in favour of a resolution calling for the end of the US economic blockade. As is par for the course on such matters, it was 184 nations against the US and Israel – another country where they like to believe that blockaded and besieged people are to blame for their own plight.
In his official explanation to the General Assembly in defence of the US vote, Political Coordinator for the US Mission to the UN Rodney Hunter described sanctions as “one set of tools in our broader effort toward Cuba to advance democracy [and] promote respect for human rights”, encouraging the Assembly “to support the Cuban people in their quest to determine their own future”. Obviously, preventing people from acquiring needed foods, medicines, and other basic goods is not the first thing that comes to mind when someone says “respect for human rights”. Nevertheless, the only democratic “future” for Cuba is, as ever, the one the US has determined the Cuban people should want.
A far sounder analysis of the Cuba situation appeared just after the UN vote, in the form of an article in The Nation by American actor and activist Danny Glover, who blamed the US embargo for Cuba’s shortage of millions of syringes in the middle of a pandemic: “No company wants to be bogged down navigating the complicated banking and licensing demands the US government places on transactions with Cuba”.
To be sure, the US has placed so many onerous restrictions on Cuba – and made doing business with Cuba such a colossal headache, with potentially gargantuan legal and financial repercussions – that it all seems anything but “adroit and inconspicuous”.
Here in Havana, staple food items and other essential products are conspicuously absent. Milk is an absolute luxury, and coffee is scarce. (I myself would have been equipped with the latter commodity, had the fine folks at the Mexican airline Viva Aerobus not made me leave it on the floor of the Mexico City airport as punishment for violating the weight allowance.)
None of this is to imply, of course, that the Cuban government is flawless – but current flaws must necessarily be analysed within a context of economic asphyxiation by the global superpower. As many an observer has reasoned in response to the argument that the Cuban state uses the embargo as a scapegoat for all its malevolent mismanagement: Why not just end it, then, and deprive the state of its excuses?
As luck would have it, my first interlocutor in Havana was a 50-year-old man who was in the process of repatriating himself to Cuba from Miami, where he had lived for the past five years working as a mechanic and truck driver. “My whole body hurts when I am in the US,” he told me in animated Cuban Spanish, “and I only begin to relax when I am on a plane out of there”.
He had concluded in his old age, he said with a wink, that he needed very few things to be happy. Life in the US was not one of them, because what he had experienced in the US was not life but rather capitalism – an “American dream” in which he never even had time to go fishing because he was always working. Yes, Cuba was crazy, but it was a craziness he understood and loved – and plus he was tired of listening to Cuban exiles in Miami endlessly plot their right-wing revolution.
Now, as the 60-year-old US embargo forces Cubans to live with less and less while imperial immunity from human decency and compassion proceeds apace, it is worth hanging on, perhaps, to Che Guevara’s words: “The true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love”.
Phoebe Suina of the Pueblo de Cochiti Nation stands on the shore of Cochiti Lake, which feeds into the Middle Rio Grande Valley. (photo: Kalen Goodluck/High Country News)
Phoebe Suina on the Rio Grande River, Pueblo inclusion and the need for holistic solutions to our man-made disaster.
Under Western water law’s “first in time, first in right” doctrine, sovereign tribal and pueblo nations are entitled to the most senior rights on the region’s waterways. Yet the U.S. water regime has long locked tribal nations out of the federal, state and local water-planning and decision-making process. Over the past century and a half, federal, state and local agencies have dominated planning on New Mexico’s largest river, the Rio Grande, fracturing it with man-made reservoirs and diverting it to irrigate farms and lawns and golf courses. They have over-allocated it to such an extent that they now must import water from neighboring basins just to keep the river flowing.
“It’s a system that we developed where we didn’t account for the needs of our Native American people who have lived here since time immemorial,” said Grace Haggerty, endangered species program supervisor for the Interstate Stream Commission, speaking in a July 2021 New Mexico Water Data video.
It can take years, sometimes decades, for tribal nations to navigate the legal maze of negotiating their rights within the massive tangle of other users staking claims. While the northern pueblos have secured water rights through three settlement agreements, most others have not. A majority of tribes, including the six Middle Rio Grande pueblos, have unresolved water claims that are moving at a glacial speed through New Mexico courts. There are a dozen active water rights adjudications, involving 18 tribal and pueblo nations, with the oldest one filed in 1966.
The state has acknowledged how inconvenient the water settlement negotiations are and has sought ways to speed up the process in recent years, but the system remains imbalanced. State water managers, meanwhile, quickly carve up water among municipalities, industry and private users instead of treating tribal and pueblo nations as partners.
High Country News sat down with Phoebe Suina, a hydrologist from the Pueblos of San Felipe and Cochiti, to talk about water and Indigenous knowledge. Suina talked about having meaningful engagement with tribal leaders in water planning and starting her own consulting company after a catastrophic wildfire.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Can you tell me a bit about your company, High Water Mark, and how you work with pueblo communities?
In 2013, my colleague Ryan Weiss and I started a small company called High Water Mark. Around that time, we were working for another, larger environmental consulting firm trying to help tribal communities, in particular the Pueblo of Cochiti after the Las Conchas wildfire. Cochiti Pueblo and the village were severely compromised by flooding in 2011 and 2012 and needed flood mitigation infrastructure in the main Jemez watershed.
After you have a wildfire in a mountainous area, if you get a moderate or severe burn in a watershed, it’s a catastrophic condition and impact to a watershed. The land will not absorb water like it normally could during a normal rain. It becomes hydrophobic, meaning the sand gets so hot during a wildfire — actually becoming similar to glass — (that) raindrops will hit and just immediately run off and can bring everything along, like an avalanche.
I was faced with a decision to leave Cochiti Pueblo to spearhead the company’s federal contract, and I didn’t see myself doing that. However, I realized that I had a certain experience and, some will call it, expertise as a hydrologist and navigating federal funding, navigating compliance, and navigating the real threat that post-wildfire flooding had on the community. So, in a matter of days, we jumped ship and started High Water Mark.
What do you think water- management agencies miss when they don’t include tribal nations when stewarding our watersheds?
I really feel like Indigenous peoples still have that knowledge, that lived experience of being connected to natural resources, like water, that maybe modernization has separated from being an everyday connection. As an example, how many people out of the billions on this earth can say that they’ve drank right from the earth, not from a faucet, not the water bottle? The largest portion are probably Indigenous peoples.
The current system is based on assumptions from back in the early-1900s with their interstate stream compacts and the other water agreements that didn’t have the breadth of understanding or the expertise or the knowledge or wisdom of Indigenous peoples at the table to help the decision-makers create a framework. So if it was deficient in that, how can it be a sustainable system, a sustainable framework, a sustainable way to go forward?
In this state of New Mexico, we have a term called “prior and paramount water rights.” Those that have prior and paramount water rights were not at the table in the early 1900s, when agreements were signed and were decided.
There’s an essence of being — having that direct connection to natural resources, but also how that connection is inherent culturally. To not take it for granted. And so when the tribal leaders and the state engineers and non-tribal governments come together, we tend to create that separation during these water discussions. We say, “OK, here’s a piece of paper and this identifies how many water rights our pueblo people have, as mothers, as daughters, sisters and all those that have gone before us.” I worry that we are veering dangerously from that perspective and are taking water for granted.
This reminds me of something Grace Haggerty of the Interstate Stream Commission said in a video explaining New Mexico’s 50-year plan. Speaking as someone who is in such a high position, she said that the system that operates the Rio Grande River — that it’s a system the U.S. developed that didn’t account for the needs of Native American people who have lived here since time immemorial. And I’m wondering what you make of that?
I appreciate her acknowledging that. People have reached out to me and asked about engaging tribes in these water conversations, and I encourage that. And I wholeheartedly hope that that continues. But let’s now follow up with action. How do we actually put those words into action? And how do we wholeheartedly incorporate the Indigenous wisdom and expertise in plans and laws and policies in how we track water, how we manage water, how we steward water? That will tell me if these are just words, or if there is real sentiment and understanding behind those words.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"Look Me In The Eye" | Lucas Kunce for Missouri
Help Lucas Kunce defeat Josh Hawley in November: https://LucasKunce.com/chip-in/ Josh Hawley has been a proud leader in the fight to ...
-
06 October 21 Live on the homepage now! Reader Supported News YOU BE THE ONE WHO DONATES — We need supporters any way we can get them. W...
-
03 November 21 Live on the homepage now! Reader Supported News FOCUS: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern | The New 6-3 Majority Dah...
-
Please Increase My Monthly Donation I’m shocked people are not more willing to help with donations. RSN does an incredible job. I learn ...
