Search This Blog

Showing posts with label LOW WAGE WORKERS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LOW WAGE WORKERS. Show all posts

Monday, September 6, 2021

RSN: Moira Donegan | Feminists Warned About America's Abortion Crisis for Years. We Were Written Off as Hysterical

 


 

Reader Supported News
05 September 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

IS IT POSSIBLE PEOPLE VIEW RSN AS ENTERTAINMENT? Searching for a reason why so many people would come to RSN, read and participate but not contribute? Is it possible people view the material we publish as somehow entertaining? We are trying to publish material that we believe is of the most urgent nature, of immediate concern to the public. However, for some reason when we ask for support to help run the process it is extraordinarily difficult to get. Your contributions are of the utmost importance.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

An owl rescued from Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care Center recuperates at a bird sanctuary. (photo: Don Preisler)
Moira Donegan | Feminists Warned About America's Abortion Crisis for Years. We Were Written Off as Hysterical
Moira Donegan, Guardian UK
Donegan writes: "This was predictable. In fact, it was predicted."

Why has the effective end of Roe v Wade been met with shock by so many corners of political life?


This was predictable. In fact, it was predicted. The end of Roe v Wade and nationwide protections for abortion rights became likely in 2016, the night that Donald Trump was elected. It became inevitable in 2018, when Anthony Kennedy, the fifth pro-choice vote, retired and handed his seat to Trump to fill. But the end of nationwide legal abortion in America has been coming for decades, and there has been no ambiguity about the appetite for Roe’s overturn on the American right. And crucially, feminists have been sounding the alarm for decades, warning in increasingly desperate terms that gradual erosions of Roe’s protections in the law had led to a rapid and widespread loss of abortion access on the ground.

Perhaps the form of Roe’s eventual downfall was a surprise. Few thought that Roe’s fatal case would be over Texas’s new abortion law, with its privatized enforcement system of bounty-hunting civil suits designed to elide judicial review. And among a sea of legal observers, only Cardozo law professor Kate Shaw seems to have predicted that the court would dispose of a long-established constitutional right in so rushed and perfunctory a proceeding as a late-night order on the shadow docket. But this outcome was never in doubt. Trump promised to appoint antichoice judges. He kept that promise. This week his three appointees – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – did what all of them know they were put on the court to do. They allowed the first state to outlaw abortion within its borders.

So why has the effective end of Roe v Wade, coming in a one paragraph order in the wee hours of Thursday morning, been met with shock by so many corners of political life? The Republican party’s control of the federal judiciary had left little doubt that those judges most inclined to strip women of their rights would have both the power and the opportunity to do so. And yet politicians, pundits, and legal observers had for years assured the public that the justices would not gut abortion rights, despite the clear evidence that they would. We were assured that the Republicans on the court were less determined to gut Roe than they appeared to be, and that those worried about the future of abortion rights were overreacting.

The court would not gut Roe, we were told by politicians and academics, because they said they wouldn’t. Kavanaugh, the ruddy-faced Trump appointee, had referred to Roe as “important precedent”. That this rather tepid comment was a disingenuous bit of posturing meant to ease his confirmation to the court was evident to everyone. Nevertheless, defenders of the confirmation process implored the public to treat it as if it had been uttered in good faith.

In a speech announcing her decision to vote to confirm Kavanaugh, Senator Susan Collins said that she believed Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn Roe, or to gut it procedurally, because “his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.” Of course, the court, with Kavanaugh’s help, did effectively overturn Roe “by stealth” – in an unsigned order in the middle of the night.

Of the feminists who opposed his nomination, Collins was dismissive, even patronizing. “We have seen special-interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record.” She condemned these women’s concerns as “over-the-top rhetoric and distortions”.

The court would not gut Roe, we were told by the legal world, because the justices were too professional. Barrett, the third of Trump’s appointees, had been a member of an antichoice faculty group while a law professor at Notre Dame. She had given a lecture to a Right to Life group; she had signed a letter condemning Roe and its “brutal legacy”. And yet despite Barrett’s extremist and evidently very passionately held views on abortion, people posing as serious told us that we could not know how she would vote on abortion rights, that the opinions and worldviews of judges would somehow not affect their legal judgement. “My personal views don’t have anything to do with the way I would decide cases,” Barrett told Senator Patrick Leahy when she was asked about her lengthy history of anti-abortion advocacy. The statement insulted both Leahy’s intelligence, and ours.

And yet as conservative, antichoice judges consolidated their power, several myths about the court persisted. We were told that the people who looked like rabidly conservative justices were really reasoned moderates; or that at least they would be professional and impartial in their judgements; or that at least the removal of abortion rights would move slowly. These myths were presented as the only serious way to understand the court. Feminist claims that what appeared to be happening really was happening – that the judiciary really had been taken over by antichoice zealots, that the ability of women to control their own bodies and lives would soon be stripped away – were labeled as delusional and silly. Faith in the integrity of the conservative justices was cast as informed, mature, and intelligent. And it was contrasted with the supposed hysteria of feminists, whose passion and fear was taken as a sign of their own delusion, not as an indication of the seriousness of the problem.

This notion, that the only intelligent response to a threat to women’s rights is to be calm, blasé, and preemptively assured that nothing very bad or important will result, has been weaponized with particular insidiousness over the course of the abortion debate during the past five years. In the halls of power, contempt for abortion rights activists was nearly complete.

After Kennedy’s resignation, the CNN host Brian Stelter took to social media to scold a liberal activist for her fear of a Roe reversal. “We are not ‘a few steps away from the Handmaid’s Tale’,” he wrote. “I don’t think this kind of fear-mongering helps anybody.” Confronted with women opposed to the confirmation of Kavanaugh, Senator Ben Sasse all but rolled his eyes. There had been, he said, “screaming protesters saying ‘women are going to die’ at every hearing for decades.”

The insistence that Roe is not in danger, and that women’s fear is silly, persists even now, after the court has effectively ended Roe. “Now breathe,” wrote the law professor Jonathan Turley in a blogpost urging women’s rights advocates to calm down, as if they were toddlers in the midst of a temper tantrum. “It is ridiculous to say that it was some manufactured excuse for a partisan ruling.”

Is it ridiculous? The public has no real reason to believe that the supreme court is acting in good faith – aside from the repeated assurances of supposed experts whose predictions have usually been wrong. Instead, it was the so-called alarmist feminists, the ones warning about manufactured excuses for partisan attacks on abortion rights, who got their predictions mostly right. Maybe these women are not so ridiculous after all. Maybe it’s time to start listening to them.

READ MORE


Georgia DA Asks Witnesses About Trump's Call to 'Find' VotesGeorgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger. (photo: Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty Images)

Georgia DA Asks Witnesses About Trump's Call to 'Find' Votes
Jose Pagliery and Asawin Suebsaeng, The Daily Beast
Excerpt: "A local criminal investigation into then-President Donald Trump's attempt to meddle with Georgia's 2020 election recount is inching forward, as Fulton County investigators have interviewed elections officials and received documents from the agency, according to three people with direct knowledge of the probe."
READ MORE

Corporate Boards, Consulting, Speaking Fees: How US Generals Thrived After AfghanistanIn the years since leaving the military, retired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has been a board member or adviser for at least 10 companies while running a boutique consulting firm and teaching at Yale University. (photo: Melina Mara/WP)


Corporate Boards, Consulting, Speaking Fees: How US Generals Thrived After Afghanistan
Isaac Stanley-Becker, The Washington Post
Stanley-Becker writes: "When Stanley A. McChrystal was the top general in Afghanistan, he would ask his troops a question: 'If I told you that you weren't going home until we win - what would you do differently?'"

Stanley A. McChrystal exemplifies how ex-generals sell their battlefield experience in other arenas, from corporations to covid-19 response.

When Stanley A. McChrystal was the top general in Afghanistan, he would ask his troops a question: “If I told you that you weren’t going home until we win — what would you do differently?”

McChrystal recalls that question in his 2015 management manual, “Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World,” which says his wartime leadership techniques can guide organizations far from the battlefield toward “successful mission completion.”

The failure of the American mission in Afghanistan became deadly apparent last month when the Afghan army collapsed as the Taliban took control.

But the generals who led the mission — including McChrystal, who sought and supervised the 2009 American troop surge — have thrived in the private sector since leaving the war. They have amassed influence within businesses, at universities and in think tanks, in some cases selling their experience in a conflict that killed an estimated 176,000 people, cost the United States more than $2 trillion and concluded with the restoration of Taliban rule.

The eight generals who commanded American forces in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2018 have gone on to serve on more than 20 corporate boards, according to a review of company disclosures and other releases.

Last year, retired Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commanded American forces in Afghanistan in 2013 and 2014, joined the board of Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s biggest defense contractor. Retired Gen. John R. Allen, who preceded him in Afghanistan, is president of the Brookings Institution, which has received as much as $1.5 million over the last three years from Northrop Grumman, another defense giant. David H. Petraeus, who preceded Allen and later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for providing classified materials to a former mistress and biographer, is a partner at KKR, a private equity firm, and director of its Global Institute.

Petraeus said several firms “aggressively sought” him for his military and CIA experience. As for his leadership in Afghanistan, he said, “I stand by what we did and how I reported it during my time.” Dunford said he pushed no policy in Afghanistan but “did exactly what the president directed me to do,” and that 80 percent of his time now is devoted to nonprofits, several serving veterans. Allen, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment.

McChrystal is the runaway corporate leader. A board member or adviser for at least 10 companies since 2010, according to corporate filings and news releases, he also leverages his experience to secure lucrative consulting contracts on topics distant from defense work, such as managing the coronavirus pandemic for state and local governments. The general, who was dismissed after being quoted in 2010 disparaging then-Vice President Joe Biden, has made millions from corporations, governments and universities, commanding six-figure salaries for some of his board positions and high five-figure speaking fees.

For a position on JetBlue’s board between 2010 and 2019, he was paid a total of more than $1.3 million, disclosures show. He made roughly the same amount between 2011 and 2018 from Navistar International, a vehicle and engine manufacturer. One of its subsidiaries agreed this spring to pay $50 million to resolve claims it defrauded the U.S. Marine Corps more than a decade ago by inflating the prices of armored vehicles used in Afghanistan and Iraq. McChrystal said he had been unaware of the dispute, which did not involve allegations of wrongdoing on his part. Navistar denied the allegations and admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.

Corporations seek out ex-military officials because they’re thought to hew to ethical codes and conduct themselves well in crisis, said Megan Rainville, a specialist in corporate finance and governance at Missouri State University. At the same time, her research has found that companies advised by board members with military experience are less likely to invest in research and development and have lower value than firms whose board members lack such experience, said Rainville, a former defense industry financial analyst.

“Team of Teams,” drawn from McChrystal’s experience helping large organizations function more like small teams, presents the pitch his consulting firm, McChrystal Group, makes to clients as disparate as ExxonMobil and public health agencies confronting covid-19. The book also contains the lessons he delivers to students at Yale University. The retired general teaches a course called simply, “Leadership.”

Now that the war’s failures have been laid bare, the leadership capabilities of those who perpetuated it should be reevaluated, said Daniel L. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who served two tours in Afghanistan. Military strategies used in Afghanistan will not aid U.S. businesses or governments, he argued.

“For years it’s been payday for the generals while the war itself has been a complete disaster,” said Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, a think tank urging military restraint. “At what point do we hold anyone accountable?”

McChrystal, 67, rejected that view, saying in a more than hour-long video interview with The Washington Post that he stood by his military decisions as well as his post-military earnings.

“I have built a business which has given a place for some of my old comrades to work and for a bunch of young people to have a special experience,” he said.

The retired general, whose father served in Germany during the American occupation after World War II, said his personal measure is whether there’s anything about his career that would disappoint his wife or, one day, his grandchildren. “And there’s not,” he said.

McChrystal, who endorsed Biden last fall, said it was too soon to draw conclusions about the president’s move to end the war. He allowed that the 20-year conflict “has had a very disappointing outcome,” but said, “I don’t think that means that necessarily many of the decisions made and the strategies pursued were wrong. I think in many cases they were the best strategy that could have been.”

Senior military leaders who choose to sit on corporate boards or run businesses — after commanding “thousands and thousands of people” — are acting appropriately, he said.

“It’s not a bunch of people getting their snout in the trough and just trying to get rich,” McChrystal said. “If you’ve risen to that level, you develop that skill level, that’s what the opportunities that come are. And I don’t think that’s wrong.”

‘The good guys in the equation’

The University of Nebraska at Lincoln was facing the prospect of curtailing research programs because of budgetary pressure in 2013 when it invited McChrystal to campus. For a keynote address at the university’s “Building the 22nd Century” conference, the university proposed what it understood to be his standard speaking fee: $62,500.

There was a hitch. Because of a board meeting in Chicago earlier that day, McChrystal required a private jet, a representative from the general’s speakers bureau, Leading Authorities, told university officials in emails obtained as part of a public records request. The fee would have to be higher: $80,000.

The university agreed, ultimately paying only $70,000, the emails show, because he made do without the jet. Asked about the fee, McChrystal said it sounded high but declined an invitation to review the contract, noting that he gives some speeches pro bono but has less control when his speakers bureau is involved.

McChrystal’s value to the university, the emails specify, came from his “efforts in leadership, statesmanship, innovation, change management, and international affairs.”

He brings the same insights to the boardroom, according to business executives close to the 1976 U.S. Military Academy graduate who rose through the ranks while winning academic fellowships and gaining a reputation as an ascetic, eating just one meal a day. After earning plaudits for reforming the elite counterterrorism unit known as the Joint Special Operations Command, and then directing the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, he took command in Afghanistan in 2009.

But one year later, he was ousted over a bombshell Rolling Stone profile depicting him as a “runaway general” who condoned contempt for civilian leaders. He apologized at the time for his “poor judgment” and told The Post in a 2015 interview that the episode taught him to prepare for the unexpected and not put too much stock in the judgments of others.

Despite the scandal, he remained in the business world’s favor partly because of then-President Barack Obama’s decision to let him retire with four stars, said former military colleagues — a move that also left him with an annual, taxpayer-funded pension of at least $149,700, according to Pentagon estimates at the time.

At Deutsche Bank, he has conducted leadership training, according to two former executives, leading to a seat on the board of the bank’s U.S. holding company. “Senior management is much more likely to listen to military commanders because they’re cool and they’ve killed people than to a McKinsey guy in a pinstripe suit,” said a former senior Deutsche Bank executive who, like some others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss human resources issues. A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined to comment.

A former vice president at Knowledge International, an Alexandria-based affiliate of an Abu Dhabi company that says it “exports close to $500 million annually in defense services and products,” mostly to the United Arab Emirates, said McChrystal was “valued for his name and gravitas that he brought to the board.”

McChrystal said he joined the board of Knowledge International, which did not respond to a request for comment, because a former boss, retired Gen. Bryan D. “Doug” Brown, asked him to. In an interview, Brown said the board members, by handling the authorizations for overseas defense work, were “the good guys in the equation — making sure everyone is moral, legal and ethical going over there.” He called McChrystal “one of the finest officers and people I’ve ever known.”

McChrystal’s obligation in Chicago that led his speakers bureau to request a private jet was a meeting of the board of Navistar International, the manufacturer based in Lisle, Ill., he said. When McChrystal was named to the board in 2011, Navistar’s chairman said, “His years of military leadership and service will be of great value to Navistar as we further expand our global and military businesses.”

While commercial vehicles represent the heart of Navistar’s business, McChrystal said, the company began making mine-resistant vehicles, known as MRAPs, “during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, when suddenly there was this need.” Its traditional trucking sales began contracting in 2005, he said, but revenue from the military-grade equipment “hid that problem” during the height of the two wars.

In 2013, a Navistar contract director filed a whistleblower complaint alleging the company had forged invoices and pricing information for MRAPs sold to the U.S. government between 2007 and 2012. McChrystal, who joined the board in 2011, was on its finance committee at the time of the complaint, and earned about $200,000 annually, corporate filings show.

The U.S. intervened in the whistleblower suit in 2019, arguing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the fraudulent documents had duped the government and cost it at least $1.28 billion.

The matter had come into public view before then. In 2016, Navistar divulged in an annual report that it had received a subpoena from the Pentagon’s inspector general related to its sales of military vehicles to the government. The company did not respond to a question about what it told the board about the underlying complaint, pointing instead to public filings that spell out the board’s responsibilities. McChrystal, who left the board in 2018, said he was unaware of the claims until this spring, when he read about the settlement in the news.

An attorney for the whistleblower, H. Vincent McKnight Jr., said he remains troubled by what he sees as ill-gotten gains, especially because the scheme exploited the American military and taxpayer.

“The company profited from that behavior and so did the board members,” he said.

‘People have to feed their families’

As coronavirus cases surged in Virginia earlier this year, state officials went shopping for books. The health department ordered 53 copies of McChrystal’s “Team of Teams,” for a total cost of more than $1,000, July procurements records show.

The supplier was McChrystal Group, the boutique consulting firm founded in 2011 by the retired general. It has since grown to about 85 employees, he said.

The firm, built on the idea that McChrystal and his colleagues “could capture the lessons they learned in counterterrorism and translate them into the private sector,” has advised clients including Bank of America, the National Basketball Association, Monsanto and MedStar Health. Its government work began two years ago, McChrystal said, when the firm ran leadership training for the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber unit and for the U.S. Secret Service.

Then a new opportunity arose. Last year, the firm began advising state and local governments on covid-19 response — one of many consulting companies that secured no-bid contracts to fill gaps in public health agencies overwhelmed by the crisis.

McChrystal Group’s services focused especially on leadership development based on the principles in “Team of Teams,” state records show. A Virginia health spokeswoman, Tammie Smith, said McChrystal’s books were purchased for the department’s work on “culture change dynamics.” All told, McChrystal Group has billed the state more than $5.7 million over the last 20 months, records show.

The firm also consulted on pandemic response for the city of Boston and the state of Missouri, for fees of more than $1.1 million and about $2.2 million, respectively.

In those cases, hardly any of the consultants identified in the contracts had public health experience, as indicated by their LinkedIn profiles. Two were recent Yale graduates and members of the football team, which McChrystal takes on a trip each year to the battlefield at Gettysburg.

“We weren’t experts in public health,” McChrystal acknowledged. “But we’re good at getting networks to communicate and come out with the right answer and implement.”

He added, “The problem in covid has never been a lack of public health knowledge. The problem in covid has been the inability of larger organizations to share information, and the lack of political leadership to do what we already know is the right answer.”

Marissa Levine, a former Virginia health commissioner who now directs the University of South Florida’s Center for Leadership in Public Health Practice, questioned that premise. Leadership training for public health requires specialized expertise, she said, because it differs from a business, being accountable not to shareholders but to “everyone in a community.”

But some officials said the firm’s services were crucial. The consultants served as the “nerve center of our response,” said Brian P. Golden, director of the Boston Planning and Development Agency. They led an 8 a.m. call and then managed tasks arising from the conversation, he said. “McChrystal Group was the enforcer all day.”

“We certainly could have figured this stuff out ourselves, but we had no time to waste,” Golden said.

The firm’s responsibilities were sweeping. The contract provided that McChrystal Group would “review and advise of all city plans.”

A spokeswoman for Marty Walsh, the former mayor who hired McChrystal’s team in Boston and now serves as Biden’s labor secretary, did not respond to a request for comment about the firm’s performance or the “weekly one-on-one executive consultation” promised to him in the contract. McChrystal said Walsh recently dined at his home in Alexandria, Va.

The retired general said his firm comes comparatively cheap. “We cost a fraction of what a traditional consulting firm comes in,” he said. His own pay is a “fraction” of what he would make in a larger company, he said, while declining to say how much he earns.

The fees in Missouri, about $250,000 per month, struck a former senior state official as too high for a small number of consultants. The former official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to address the response candidly, said the consultants interfered with the ordinary chain of command, causing more disruptions than upgrades. Kelli Jones, a spokeswoman for the governor, said the consultants helped “pull teams together within our state government to drive quick and effective action across every line of effort in the covid-19 response.”

Many of the firm’s recruits come from Yale, where McChrystal has taught since 2010. “You fish in the pond you’re standing around,” he said.

McChrystal’s course on leadership is “almost legendary,” said James A. Levinsohn, who directs the Yale institute where McChrystal teaches. Student evaluations reviewed by The Post reflect that status. One said it was useful “if you have any aspirations to climb a corporate ladder, serve in a leadership position, or just be a valuable member of team.” Complaints were sparsebut one bemoaned the complexity of the text assigned from Confucius, the ancient Chinese philosopher.

Central to McChrystal’s philosophy is the belief that all Americans should serve their country, inspiring his pro bono work as board chairman for Service Year Alliance, a nonprofit seeking to expand opportunities for a year of paid, full-time service. The retired general’s support has been a major asset, said John Bridgeland, the nonprofit’s vice chairman and a former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

Bridgeland said it was only natural for McChrystal to take on corporate work as well.

“People have to feed their families,” he said.


READ MORE

Abortion Clinics Are Already Seeing a Wave of Patients Fleeing TexasPro-choice protesters demonstrated outside the Texas State Capitol on September 1. (photo: Sergio Flores/WP/Getty Images)


Abortion Clinics Are Already Seeing a Wave of Patients Fleeing Texas
Carter Sherman, VICE
Sherman writes: "The calls started pouring in from Texas even before the abortion ban took effect."
READ MORE


It's Not a Labor Shortage - It's a Wage and Workers' Rights ShortageBusinesses across the leisure and hospitality industry are trying to staff up as the economy reopens, but they're having a hard time getting people to come work for them. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

It's Not a Labor Shortage - It's a Wage and Workers' Rights Shortage
Lane Windham, The Hill
Windham writes: "As we approach Labor Day, America's working people are deep into a protracted general strike."
READ MORE


Guinea in Turmoil as Soldiers Claim They Have Taken OverAccording to witnesses, soldiers have been deployed in Conakry. (photo: AFP)

Guinea in Turmoil as Soldiers Claim They Have Taken Over
Al Jazeera
Excerpt: "Soldiers who staged an uprising in Guinea's capital have said in a short broadcast on state television that they have dissolved the constitution and the government in the West African state."

Defence ministry says an attack on the presidential palace by mutinous forces has been put down.


Soldiers who staged an uprising in Guinea’s capital have said in a short broadcast on state television that they have dissolved the constitution and the government in the West African state.

But Guinea’s defence ministry said that an attack by mutinous special forces on the presidential palace had been repelled on Sunday. It was not immediately clear who held power.

Earlier, unverified videos shared on social media apparently showed President Alpha Conde being surrounded by soldiers. His whereabouts were unclear.

This followed earlier reports of heavy gunfire in Conakry near the presidential palace though it was unclear who was responsible.

Soldiers claim to take power

After seizing the airwaves, the mutinous soldiers vowed to restore democracy. Colonel Mamadi Doumbouya sat draped in a Guinean flag with a half dozen other soldiers in uniform alongside him as he read the statement, saying: “The duty of a soldier is to save the country.

“The personalisation of political life is over. We will no longer entrust politics to one man, we will entrust it to the people,” Doumbouya said, adding that the constitution would also be dissolved and borders closed for one week.

Doumbouya, who has headed a special forces unit in the military, said he was acting in the best interests of the nation of more than 12.7 million people. Not enough economic progress has been made since independence from France in 1958, the colonel said.

“If you see the state of our roads, if you see the state of our hospitals, you realise that after 72 years, it’s time to wake up,” he said. “We have to wake up.”

The defence ministry said the attempted uprising had been put down.

“The presidential guard, supported by the loyalist and republican defence and security forces, contained the threat and repelled the group of assailants,” it said in a statement.

“Security and combing operations are continuing to restore order and peace.”

Guinean journalist Youssouf Bah told Al Jazeera the situation was very fluid.

“Since the coup plotters’ statements on the national television, the opposition supporters have taken to the streets and thousands of youth are dancing, welcoming them,” he said, speaking from Conakry.

Bah described Doumbouya as a “popular military officer among most of the presidential guard”.

“The city is divided,” he added. “One part is supporting the coup plotters, and the other part has clashes between different groups. So it’s very difficult to understand exactly what is happening.”

Videos shared on social media had earlier shown military vehicles patrolling Conakry’s streets and one military source said the only bridge connecting the mainland to the Kaloum neighbourhood, where the palace and most government ministries are located, had been sealed off.

Al Jazeera’s Nicolas Haque, reporting from Dakar in neighbouring Senegal, said troops had been deployed in downtown Conakry and ordered residents over loudspeakers to remain indoors.

Haque said the area near the Hotel Kaloum was the scene of shooting and President Conde was reportedly nearby at the time.

“This comes a week after the national parliament voted an increase in budget for the presidency and parliamentarians, but a substantial decrease for those working in the security services like the police and the military.”

Disputed elections

Conde won a third presidential term in a violently disputed election last October. He ran after pushing through a new constitution in March 2020 which allowed him to sidestep the country’s two-term limit, provoking mass protests.

Dozens of people were killed during demonstrations, often in clashes with security forces. Hundreds were also arrested.

Conde, 83, was then proclaimed president on November 7 last year – despite complaints of electoral fraud from his main challenger Cellou Dalein Diallo and other opposition figures.

A former opposition activist himself, Conde became Guinea’s first democratically elected president in 2010 and won re-election in 2015 before doing so again last year. Critics, however, accuse him of veering towards authoritarianism.

Haque said the growing discontent with Conde was rooted in his inability to unite the population – the majority of who are Fulanis but are ruled by the minority Malinke ethnic group.

“It’s interesting to see officers go to the national television on social media calling for unity and the reason being is because the military remains divided,” he said. “There are still members that support Alpha Conde and will go out of their way to defend the president.”

Colonel Mamadi Doumbouya is himself a member of the Malinke group.

Guinea has witnessed sustained economic growth during Conde’s decade in power thanks to its bauxite, iron ore, gold and diamond wealth, but few of its citizens have seen the benefits.

READ MORE


How a Tahoe Refuge Saved Owls, Coyotes and Raccoons From WildfireAn owl rescued from Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care Center recuperates at a bird sanctuary. (photo: Don Preisler)


How a Tahoe Refuge Saved Owls, Coyotes and Raccoons From Wildfire
Gabrielle Canon, Guardian UK
Canon writes: "Greg Erfani watched the flames grow bigger and bigger as they crept toward Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care, the animal refuge he helps run in South Lake Tahoe. He feared not only for himself but for the menagerie of raccoons, coyotes, owls and porcupines inside. Luckily, the staff had a plan."

Wildfires take a devastating toll on local animals. A Lake Tahoe refuge made sure its creatures didn’t suffer the same fate

Greg Erfani watched the flames grow bigger and bigger as they crept toward Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care, the animal refuge he helps run in South Lake Tahoe. He feared not only for himself but for the menagerie of raccoons, coyotes, owls and porcupines inside. Luckily, the staff had a plan.

They coaxed animals into transport crates, sometimes with inventive methods. “The owl’s treat is a piece of salmon. You know the owl is going to go in the cage to get the piece of salmon,” Erfani said. Being prepared made all the difference. “Within an hour and a half we had evacuated all animals, all staff, and all volunteers from our facility.”

LTWC is one of many animal shelters whose staff scrambled to escape as the Caldor fire, which has now consumed more than 213,000 acres, swept through the Sierra Nevada Range.

On a typical day, LTWC finds and receives injured and sick animals of all kinds – from bears to barn owls – and helps them get back to the wilderness. Sometimes that means mothering baby coyotes until they are ready to hunt on their own, or helping enormous birds of prey regain their ability to fly.

Some animals live permanently at the center, including the fan favorite Em, a bald eagle with a broken wing who has been there since 2015. There’s also Porky the porcupine, who captures hearts with his signature waddle and camera-friendly chow sessions eating corn on the cob.

Erfani says it’s the first time a fire has put their mission in jeopardy.

“Our mission is the rescue, rehabilitation and release,” he said. “But you can’t release animals in a burn scar area because there’s no food source.”

As wildfires worsen across the west, animals are increasingly bearing the brunt, and firefighters, teams of state-funded disaster veterinarians, and rescue centers like LTWC are redoubling their efforts to save whoever they can.

“There’s always been this prevailing mindset that ‘they’ll get out of the way’, or that they can manage if left alone, but that needs to change,” said Dr Jamie Peyton of the University of California, Davis, who is part of a collaborative wildlife search and rescue team founded in 2020 between the university and the California department of fish and wildlife called the Wildlife Disaster Network. “Without human interference, these animals will suffer and succumb, due not only to their injuries but also to the loss of food, water and habitat. It is our obligation to provide the missing link for the wildlife that share our home.”

Yet even with the extra help, not all animals can be saved.

This week a bear called Tender, who captured the public’s heart after his paws were covered in third degree burns in the Caldor Fire, was euthanized due to the severity of his injuries. “That’s never the result we want, but sometimes it’s the only compassionate choice,” said Kirsten Macintyre, a supervising information officer for the California department of fish and wildlife.

Macintyre said the agency had received more reports of burned animals as the intensity and frequency of California’s fires had increased. Larger animals, including black bears and mountain lions, are treated in the agency’s facility whenever possible while smaller animals such as bobcats and skunks are brought to other wildlife rehabilitation centers.

Birds, both wild and domesticated, are often cared for by Michelle Hawkins, the director of the California Raptor Center at UC Davis and a board-certified specialist in avian medicine and surgery.

Hawkins says there’s a misconception that birds can just fly away from incoming infernos. “A lot of people believe that with fires, birds are best off,” she said. “But there are a lot of species of birds that live in one small area of woods for their entire lives and moving out of that area could be extraordinarily stressful for them.”

Birds are also in danger while they roost and sleep. “If a fire blows through at night – which is a lot of activity we have seen here in California – those birds don’t have a chance,” she said. “We saw that last year with our California condors. We lost 11 last year in the fires.”

Already this year there have been more heartbreaking stories. A hawk, electrocuted by downed wires in the Dixie fire, had to be euthanized this week. An owl found by a firefighter succumbed to its injuries before he could get the bird help. “He had it cradled in his arms and it died in his arms,” she said. “They were trying to get it out. He was in tears.”

Hawkins says firefighters are often the first to find an injured bird. Some may have had their feathers singed, rendering them flightless, while others are malnourished or suffering from smoke inhalation.

But for those who are found, the veterinarians and care workers stop at nothing to recuperate them. Others who are too injured for release have permanent homes where they can help educate the public.

Hawkins, who also works with the Wildlife Disaster Network, said Em, the bald eagle evacuated from Lake Tahoe Wildlife Center, was in her team’s care and was settling in well. “He’s got a pretty cool eagle suite at the California Raptor Center right now,” she said. “We set him up in his own house with lots of perches and enrichment for him.”

“He is just a lovely bird,” she added, and a testament to how important it was to be ready for fire. The center’s evacuation plan was what ensured his safety and that of the staff that saved him. “Just because you haven’t been in the path of a fire now doesn’t mean you won’t be in the future,” she said. “It’s extraordinarily important for all of us and a lesson we all have to take to heart – for all the animals in our care.”


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611







Saturday, July 24, 2021

RSN: Bess Levin | Nancy Pelosi Drop-Kicks Jim Jordan's Election-Denying Ass From 1/6 Investigation Committee

 

 

Reader Supported News
24 July 21

A Desperate Attempt to End This Fundraiser

We are at “20” days of fundraising for July and we are still well short of making our budget.

I have to do everything in my power to end this fundraiser.

We need you to help. This is “Reader Supported News.” It’s what we do, and it works.

We need you to turn your attention to the July funding drive.

Please.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

 

Reader Supported News
24 July 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

RIGHT NOW THE SMALLER DONORS ARE SAVING RSN. We are seeing, as we always do, a heroic effort by people who are really scratching to make ends meet. We are a long way down for July, a long way. Still only small fraction of our readers have donated. A few larger donations would really help right the ship. We have to find a way to save this, right now.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Reuters)
Bess Levin | Nancy Pelosi Drop-Kicks Jim Jordan's Election-Denying Ass From 1/6 Investigation Committee
Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
Levin writes: "Ever since Donald Trump incited a mob to lay siege on the U.S. Capitol in the hopes of blocking Joe Biden from becoming president, Republicans have pulled all manner of bullshit out of their asses in a sad attempt to explain why the failed insurrection wasn't really that bad."

In response, Republicans threw a fit and announced they’ll be forming their own 1/6 investigative panel.

ver since Donald Trump incited a mob to lay siege on the U.S. Capitol in the hopes of blocking Joe Biden from becoming president, Republicans have pulled all manner of bullshit out of their asses in a sad attempt to explain why the failed insurrection wasn’t really that bad. Senator Ron Johnson has suggested he never feared for his life because the rioters were white. Rep. Paul Gosar has called the individuals who violently broke into the Capitol “peaceful patriots” and said the Department of Justice is “harassing“ them. Rep. Andrew Clyde has boldly and insanely claimed that “There was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures…if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

Obviously, Republicans have taken this tack because deep down inside, they know they‘re partially responsible for the events that took place on January 6, thanks to their promotion of the lie that Trump actually won the election. Hence, why they refused to support an investigation into the attack on Capitol Hill, knowing the results, for them, would look really, really bad. Unfortunately for the GOP, Nancy Pelosi wasn’t just going to sit back and let her colleagues across the aisle pretend as though the failed coup, which left five people dead, never happened; after the legislation to form a January 6 commission was blocked in the Senate, the House speaker announced that she would form a select committee to investigate the events surrounding the attack.

Realizing at that point that this thing was going to happen with or without them, Republicans decided they‘d better get some of their own on the panel. But instead of appointing, say, lawmakers who hadn‘t whipped Trump’s supporters into a frenzy over the lie that the election was stolen, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tried to place Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, two of the biggest Big Liepushing congressmen in the House on the committee. Which would basically be like if O.J. Simpson was appointed to a board investigating the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. To which Nancy Pelosi effectively responded: Go f--k yourself.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected two of the five Republican choices for a select committee that is set to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, citing concerns about preserving the quality of the probe and asking that the GOP choose two replacements. “With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives [Jim] Banks and [Jim] Jordan to the Select Committee,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Because Republicans rejected the chance to form a bipartisan commission that would have been evenly split between five Democrats and five Republicans, Pelosi’s next option was to create a select committee to investigate the riot. Unlike the bipartisan commission, which would have given Republicans the opportunity to appoint whoever they wanted from outside Congress or any other branch of government, the select committee was set up by Pelosi and the rules for it were determined by her office as well. Pelosi, a California Democrat, reserved veto power over the five members appointed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. And she used that power to boot Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Jim Banks, R-Indiana, from the committee.

While Pelosi said Wednesday that she was happy to accept McCarthy’s three other choices (Reps. Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, and Troy Nehls), the minority leader—who himself voted to overturn the 2020 election results and rewritten history in Trump‘s favor since the Capitol attack—chose instead to throw a hissy fit, suggesting he‘d be taking his toys and going home. “Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts,” McCarthy said in a statement. In other words:

Anyway, we look forward to the results of the GOP’s “own investigation of the facts“ which will presumably conclude that Hunter Biden was behind the attack and that the only way to save democracy moving forward is to appoint Trump president for life.

Liz Cheney also thinks Kevin McCarthy is a despicable hack

...and suggests that Jim Jordan should be hauled before the 1/6 committee for questioning

READ MORE


A protest in front of a McDonald's restaurant in support of a $15 an hour minimum wage. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
A protest in front of a McDonald's restaurant in support of a $15 an hour minimum wage. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


'We All Quit': How America's Workers Are Taking Back Their Power
Lauren Kaori Gurley, VICE
Gurley writes: "Something remarkable is happening in fast food establishments, retail stores, and restaurants across America."

Motherboard spoke to economists and historians about why fast food and retail workers around the country are suddenly quitting en masse.

omething remarkable is happening in fast food establishments, retail stores, and restaurants across America. You may have seen photos of it go viral. You may have even experienced it in real life if you've dined at a Chili's or Applebee's and the hostess apologizes for extra-long wait times.

“WE ALL QUIT, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE,” disgruntled employees posted in giant letters on a sign outside a Burger King in Lincoln, Nebraska earlier this month.

"Almost the entire crew and managers have walked out until further notice," Chipotle workers wrote in Philadelphia on a sign posted on the glass doors of their restaurant.

“Closed indefinitely because Dollar General doesn’t pay a living wage or treat their employees with respect," retail workers scribbled in Sharpie outside a Dollar General in Eliot, Maine, after the entire store quit en masse.

In recent months, these mass resignations have been part of a national reckoning over a so-called "labor shortage." On one hand there are the businesses that want to continue to pay workers what they've always made (which is very little). On the other, workers and those who support them say there needs to be a fundamental reassessment of what work looks like in the United States.

Why are low-wage workers quitting their jobs now?

For the first time in more than two decades, fast food, retail, and hospitality workers have the leverage to resign from their jobs in protest of decades of deteriorating working conditions, which often include stagnant wages, unpredictable schedules, and no health care or paid sick leave.

A better social safety net during the pandemic and a tight labor market in the fast food, leisure, and hospitality industries is allowing this to happen. Historically, these sectors are among the least protected by labor laws and the most precarious workers in the country; many of them were deemed "essential" during the worst parts of the pandemic.

"It's an act of protest against abuses and exploitative conditions," said Patricia Campos Medina, executive director of the Worker's Institute at Cornell University. "It’s a sense of empowerment that workers don’t have to tolerate that kind of abuse."

For decades, large swaths of low wage service work have proved difficult to unionize because of fissured workplaces and aggressive union-busting by employers. Now these workers, many of them women of color—have taken the next best option, protesting through mass resignation.

Many conservative pundits have blamed unemployment and stimulus checks for the labor shortage. In 2020, a relief bill added $600 per week to state unemployment benefits. This year, that has fallen to $300 per week, and is set to expire on September 4. But recent academic studies show that extra stimulus money and unemployment insurance doesn't seem to have kept low-wage workers from reentering the job market more than usual. Many workers have just found other jobs, retired early, and even died.

Employment benefits have given workers a little more time to find jobs and higher expectations in their job search. "Workers have seen during the pandemic that when lawmakers choose to step in and act and protect people [via stimulus checks, unemployment benefits, healthcare], work doesn't have to suck as much. When workers are asked to do tough jobs, they want to be paid more," David Cooper, senior policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute said. "For the first time since the late 1990s, low wages workers have the leverage to demand higher pay. The workers who walk out of Burger King are using this to their advantage."

Historians say this is one of the few moments in modern US history when precarious, low-wage workers have really had this leverage. "The other really obvious example of this was World War II when you had even more government payments to people," said Nelson Lichtenstein, a history professor at UC Santa Barbara. "It was money to [use to] go out and find jobs that pay better wages." Then—as today—those fleeing their jobs in the greatest numbers were people of color and women.

"Real wages for Black people in Mississippi went up four times," Lichtenstein continued. "Some left for jobs in the ports of California. Women also left lousy jobs and white collar work opened up which was better. Domestic workers fled their jobs as maids and cleaners and got steady jobs in hospitals. When you give people an alternative, they seize the opportunity."

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 grants workers in the United States the right to form unions and bargaining with their employers for better wages and working conditions, but fast food and retail workers have long faced enormous barriers to forming unions thanks to franchised, contracted, and high turnover jobs. For example, there have been concerted efforts to unionize McDonald's and Walmart, but these have failed. McDonald's, for example, maintains that the vast majority of its workers are not employees of McDonald's but work instead for franchises, and unionization would have to go franchise by franchise, or McDonald's would have to agree to sit down at the bargaining table.

"The workers who are walking out today are at the margins of formal labor law and standards," Jennifer Klein, a professor of labor history at Yale University said. "They don't have access to bureaucratic mechanisms of the state and law to resolve grievances and they don't have collective power through a union. Low wage workers have so often been rendered invisible but now they're making themselves incredibly visible through informal means."

Where are workers going and are they actually getting paid more?

While some professionals are quitting because of burnout or existential crises, according to a New York Times article about the phenomenon from April, low wage workers don't have the savings or other financial cushion to leave the job market for extended periods of time to explore passion projects and travel, Cooper says.

But people are finding better jobs in the same industries, or entirely new ones. Cooper says the expanded social safety net has left workers wanting and expecting more, and has allowed them to spend a little more time out of the workforce looking for the right job. "In general, unemployment benefits give workers the ability to wait for better jobs and better working conditions," said Cooper. "They're taking time to pick the right jobs. Those jobs might be closer to their interests, closer to what they studied, jobs that are a career rather than a means to pay the bills."

Still, while employers in certain regions may in fact be offering higher wages than they usually do, there's no data yet showing that employers across the board are paying workers more.

Instead, many companies have resorted to offering hefty sign-on bonuses and other perks, such as free meals or cash for interviewing. In recent weeks, Amazon—where workers too are quitting—has offered enormous sign-on bonuses to warehouse workers across the country. For example, an Amazon warehouse in the Hudson Valley, New York recently offered a $3,000 sign-on bonus if workers start before August 1 and work certain shifts.

"Employers are smart too," said Lichtenstein, the history professor at UC Santa Barbara. "What they don’t want to do is establish a permanent higher norm, so instead of $15 an hour, they say here’s a bonus. You can have free lunches. We'll pay for your tuition. Employers will do anything to not improve wages in a permanent fashion."

The myth of at-will employment

Conservative pundits love to belabor the point that in America, employment is at-will, and workers and employers alike have the right to call it quits at any moment. "If you hate your job so much, why not leave? This is a free country after all," they say.

In reality, for decades saying "take this job and shove it" to McDonald's or Burger King has become increasingly hard thanks to the stagnant wages, a lack of benefits, non-compete clauses, and long stretches of economic recession that make it very difficult for workers to build up the kind of savings or emergency fund needed to quit without going through serious financial distress.

For the last 40 years, low wage workers across the United States have seen their pay, benefits, guaranteed hours, and schedules get progressively worse. Unemployment benefits have been harder to access. Companies such as Jimmy John'sMcDonald's, Carl's Jr., and Amazon have required workers to sign non-compete clauses and no-poach agreements that extend for months that legally bar workers from going to competitors in search of higher wages. Low-wage workers don't have the luxury to quit and wait six months to start working again, as a recent executive order from the Biden Administration is attempting to address by banning and limiting such clauses.

"Flexibility to look for better jobs has been eroded intentionally through policy choices and campaigns to undermine workers' leverage and ability to expect more from employers," said Cooper.

Raising expectations?

When Ieshia Townsend signed up to work at a McDonald's on the South Side of Chicago in 2015, it wasn't because she loved the idea of flipping burgers and working the take out window. She had just had a baby, and was caring for her mother who had Alzheimer's disease and a brother with epilepsy. It seemed like the best job she could get. "I couldn't pay rent," she said. "I couldn't pay lights or gas or cable, so I went into McDonald's and I said, 'God please make a way to provide for my mom, son, and brother.'"

Fast forward six years to this spring, after a year of working in a pandemic, Townsend quit her job after a bout of panic attacks that landed her in the emergency room and a recommendation from her doctor that she quit McDonald's to take care of her health. "It was the anxiety and the heat. I worked all the way through the pandemic. It was very stressful knowing I can’t touch my kids when I get home," she said.

Part of the mass resignations can be attributed to the fact that the pandemic has raised expectations for safety and benefits in the workplace. Jobs that don't offer health insurance and paid sick days have never been desirable, but now some workers are saying they're done putting up with them.

"I think the most fundamental fact is that the fast food and restaurant industries are having a structural shift in how people see the jobs and what workers and consumers expect of the industry," said Campos Medina at Cornell University. "Fast food has always been portrayed as the job of teenagers, not women sustaining families, but that is what it is. The pandemic revealed that people in these jobs have no job security, or health insurance, and couldn’t qualify for Medicaid."

Townsend, the McDonald's worker in Chicago who resigned, said she's found now work in the gig economy—which also has its drawbacks—and is testing out different food delivery apps, UberEats, DoorDash, and Instacart, to see which she prefers.

"It got to the point where I was having chest pains, my chest was throbbing and my manager would say 'you're fine' and wouldn't let me leave, so I just quit," she continued. "I would never work at McDonalds ever again."

READ MORE


A record 93,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2020. (photo: MediaNews Group/Getty Images)
A record 93,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2020. (photo: MediaNews Group/Getty Images)


Johnson & Johnson Reaches Opioid Settlement With No Legal Liability
Matt Stieb, New York Magazine
Stieb writes: "Less than two weeks after the Sackler family paid $4.5 billion to settle claims brought against Purdue Pharma for the opioid epidemic, four other drug distributors reached a deal Wednesday with the attorneys general of 14 states to release the firms from all claims for $26 billion."

ess than two weeks after the Sackler family paid $4.5 billion to settle claims brought against Purdue Pharma for the opioid epidemic, four other drug distributors reached a deal Wednesday with the attorneys general of 14 states to release the firms from all claims for $26 billion. It’s the largest corporate settlement since Big Tobacco.

Once the settlement is finalized, billions of dollars will be distributed to opioid treatment and addiction-prevention programs around the country.
In exchange, 14 state attorneys general will drop their cases against Johnson & Johnson and the distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson. In exchange, these four firms will not face any future legal actions from thousands of local governments and the states involved.

The agreement — which comes a week after new CDC data showed that a record 93,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2020 — still needs the formal approval of the states and municipalities that made the deal. It requires that Johnson & Johnson pays $5 billion over nine years and the other three firms pays $21 billion over 18 years.

As the New York Times notes, the distributors have been accused of “turning a blind eye for two decades while pharmacies across the country ordered millions of pills for their communities,” including towns where more bottles were being prescribed than there were residents living there. Johnson & Johnson, meanwhile, has been accused of overstating the benefits of prescription opioid use and trivializing the risk of addiction. In the settlement, the firm’s general counsel said they had “deep sympathy for everyone affected.” The three distributors issued a statement saying that while they hope the settlement delivers “meaningful relief,” they “strongly dispute the allegations made in these lawsuits.”

READ MORE

DACA recipients and their supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
DACA recipients and their supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Democrats Are Going It Alone on Immigration Reform
Nicole Narea, Vox
Narea writes: "After years of failed bipartisan talks on immigration reform, Democrats in Congress are pushing to go it alone and legalize millions of undocumented immigrants."

Immigration reform has long been elusive in Congress. Democrats may have a workaround.

fter years of failed bipartisan talks on immigration reform, Democrats in Congress are pushing to go it alone and legalize millions of undocumented immigrants.

They’re hoping to provide a path to citizenship to several key groups: undocumented “DREAMers” who came to the US as children; people with Temporary Protected Status, a form of humanitarian protection typically conferred on citizens of countries suffering from natural disasters, armed conflict, or other extraordinary circumstances; farm workers; and other essential workers.

Though the specific legislative language has yet to be announced, Democrats are planning to include the proposal in their 2022 budget reconciliation package, which they could pass with a simple majority in Congress and without a single Republican vote.

It’s a risky strategy, but one Democrats believe is worth trying in order to break the yearslong immigration reform deadlock and improve the lives of millions who would otherwise continue to live in the shadows as a kind of permanent underclass, vulnerable to exploitation and to removal from a country where many of them have put down roots.

Budget reconciliation may be the Democrats’ best and only option in President Joe Biden’s first term to enact the most significant legalization program since 1986. And a recent federal court ruling halting new applications to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has shielded more than 800,000 DREAMers from deportation, has only increased the pressure on Democrats to act.

Biden had unveiled his own broader proposal for comprehensive immigration reform shortly after taking office, which would have aimed to legalize the entire population of more than 10.5 million undocumented immigrants living in the US.

Despite Democrats’ attempts to use that proposal as a starting point for bipartisan negotiations, there has been little interest from Republicans, who have sought to exploit Biden’s perceived weakness on border policy as a potential midterm strategy.

So Democrats are going it alone. But there is no certainty for now that reconciliation will work, as there are limitations on what kind of legislation can be passed through the process. As Biden acknowledged on Monday, the Senate parliamentarian will be the ultimate arbiter of whether it is allowed under budget rules.

“That’s for the parliamentarian to decide. Not for Joe Biden to decide,” he told reporters.

Democrats believe they have a good case for using budget reconciliation to pass immigration reform, given precedent from a 2005 reconciliation bill and what would be a significant economic windfall resulting from legalizing the groups of immigrants under discussion. But that might not be enough to convince the parliamentarian — and the price of failure could be meaningful progress on immigration reform in Biden’s first term.

“Focusing so heavily on reconciliation is a risky maneuver, since it relies entirely on the decision of the parliamentarian,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, managing director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “I think that all avenues should be explored, and no one should put all their eggs in one basket.”

Democrats are targeting sympathetic groups of undocumented immigrants

Democrats’ proposal would legalize immigrant populations perceived as sympathetic by at least some members of both parties. Indeed, there have been bipartisan efforts to legalize DREAMers, immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and farm workers with legislation that passed the House as recently as March.

Many of those immigrants have been waiting for years, if not decades, for Congress to deliver them assurance that they can continue to live and work in the US free of fear of deportation — and Democrats’ efforts to deliver that through budget reconciliation are long overdue.

The first version of the DREAM Act, which would have offered a path to citizenship to DREAMers, was introduced in 2001, but time and time again, the legislation has failed to attract the necessary Republican votes to pass. The Obama-era DACA program has so far shielded them from deportation, despite being the target of attacks from immigration restrictionists since it was enacted in 2012.

For four years, President Donald Trump unsuccessfully sought to dismantle DACA and, for a time, halted new applications to the program. It revealed just how vulnerable DREAMers were to an administration with an anti-immigrant agenda.

Friday’s court decision from a federal judge in Texas is just the latest way in which DACA recipients’ legal status has come under threat. Under the decision, US Citizenship and Immigration Services cannot process or approve any new applications for DACA. That could affect a significant portion of the more than 1 million people eligible for DACA. People who currently have DACA can still apply for renewals, though that could change as the court case goes through the appeals process.

Immigrant advocates have argued that the decision has made a legislative solution for DREAMers all the more urgent. “Now, the responsibility rests entirely with the US Senate, and they need to take action,” Adonias Arevalo, national organizing director at the Latino rights group Poder Latinx, said in a statement.

Though budget reconciliation could be that solution, it might not come soon enough for people affected by the decision in the Texas case. An alternative might be a bipartisan bill that at least codifies the current DACA program, which “seems to be possible and may even be necessary sooner” given the more than 50,000 new applicants now in limbo at USCIS and the monthslong timeline for any possible reconciliation bill, Cardinal Brown said.

“There seems to be bipartisan support for doing at least that much, and I think it should be possible to do that and still push for larger legalization in the future,” she said.

TPS holders have similarly been waiting for Congress to offer them protection. About 400,000 citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti have also been able to live and work in the US with TPS, but Trump tried to terminate their status, among nationals of other countries, starting in November 2017, against the advice of senior State Department officials. He argued that conditions in those countries have improved enough that their citizens can now safely return. But many of them have resided in the US for decades and have laid down roots, making it difficult for them to return to countries they no longer call home.

The push to legalize other essential workers began during the pandemic, as Democrats recognized that they not only deserve to remain in the US but that America’s ability to recover, both from a public health perspective and economically, demands that they do. There are more than 5 million undocumented essential workers living in the US — almost three in four undocumented immigrants in the workforce. That includes an estimated 1.7 million workers in the nation’s food supply chain, 236,000 working as health care providers, and 188,000 who are responsible for keeping hospitals, nursing homes, and labs running.

It’s not yet clear exactly how many of these workers Democrats are seeking to legalize. California Sen. Alex Padilla and Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro, among other Democrats, have previously proposed offering a path to citizenship to 2 million of essential workers’ family members as well, but the reconciliation proposal might not be that broad.

The bill could also legalize the nation’s estimated 1.1 million to 1.7 million undocumented farmworkers. The US agricultural industry has relied on immigrant labor for decades, dating back to the Bracero Program in the 1940s that allowed millions of Mexicans to come to the US as farm workers. Another large influx of unauthorized workers came during the 1990s before a slowdown that started around 2008, leaving agricultural employers unable to replace an aging workforce.

Congress has been wrestling with how to respond to labor shortages in agriculture and reduce the industry’s reliance on undocumented workers ever since. That mission took on new urgency under Trump, following his administration’s immigration raids targeting the agricultural sector. At one raid in August 2019, 680 workers were arrested at two poultry plants in Mississippi.

Can Democrats pass immigration reform through reconciliation? It’s complicated.

The Democratic caucus seems to be presenting a unified front in supporting the inclusion of provisions to legalize some undocumented immigrants in a reconciliation package. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a key moderate, has said he supports it, just as he did a 2013 comprehensive immigration reform package that passed the Senate but ultimately failed in the House. It’s likely that other moderates will follow suit.

“I’m a 2013 immigration supporter. I thought that was a great bill. If we had that bill then, we wouldn’t have the problems we’d have today,” he told reporters last week.

But even if Democrats are comfortable using reconciliation to pass immigration reform, the Senate parliamentarian, an unelected official, might not be. That has raised concerns among some immigrant advocates on the left:

But barring a bipartisan breakthrough that has been elusive for years or the elimination of the filibuster, there isn’t any way around the parliamentarian’s ruling. It’s what ultimately doomed Democrats’ proposal earlier this year to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025.

Democrats have argued that precedent is on their side. In 2005, the then-Republican-controlled Senate passed its own reconciliation bill including several immigration provisions that would have effectively increased the number of green cards issued annually. It would have allowed any unused green cards under the annual caps set by Congress to be issued the following year, as well as excluded the family members of foreign workers from counting toward the caps.

The provisions didn’t ultimately make it into the final version of the bill that was passed by the House, but the fact that they passed the Senate without objection from the parliamentarian or members of Congress arguing that it violated budget rules could indicate that Democrats’ latest proposal will pass scrutiny. The late Sen. Robert Byrd, who authored the rules about legislation that can be passed via reconciliation, didn’t even challenge the provisions on that basis at the time.

“I think it’s a fairly strong precedent, and other folks who worked on the 2005 package agree,” said Philip Wolgin, managing director for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-wing think tank. “But I do know the parliamentarian hasn’t ruled on this. So it is still an open question.”

What’s more, Democrats think they can argue that the immigration provisions have direct budget impacts — not ones that are “merely incidental” to the policy goal — as required under budget rules. Though the federal government would have to incur $126 billion in costs at the outset to process new green card applications, the provisions would carry massive economic benefits.

Just providing DREAMers, TPS holders, and undocumented essential workers with a path to citizenship would increase GDP by a cumulative total of $1.5 trillion over 10 years and create 400,800 new jobs, not even accounting for the potential economic windfall for those immigrants’ children, according to estimates from the Center for American Progress. The same analysis notes after 10 years, those workers would see their annual wages increase by $13,500, and all Americans would see higher wages by an annual $600.

“There’s a pretty small short-term cost to the government, but really big economic benefits to ordinary Americans all across the country in the form of higher wages and new jobs,” Wolgin said.

Still, some budget experts aren’t convinced that the kind of immigration legislation that Democrats want to pass would have direct budgetary impacts. For example, raising fees associated with applying for visas or green cards to raise revenues at the immigration agencies would qualify, but increasing the number of people eligible for green cards probably doesn’t, said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

“This whole process was intended to be a fiscal exercise — not one in which major public policy was to be implemented through this fast track,” he said. “This is not what the authors of the Budget Act had ever envisioned.”

READ MORE


With the federal moratorium on evictions set to expire, the United States is on the verge of a massive housing crisis. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
With the federal moratorium on evictions set to expire, the United States is on the verge of a massive housing crisis. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)


Short-Term Fixes Aren't Enough to Solve America's Looming Eviction Crisis
Kathryn Reynolds and Abby Boshart, CNN
Excerpt: "After the CDC's national eviction moratorium expires on July 31, millions of renters could lose their homes."

Opinion by Kathryn Reynolds and Abby Boshart for CNN Business Perspectives

fter the CDC’s national eviction moratorium expires on July 31, millions of renters could lose their homes.

Congress has allocated almost $47 billion toward emergency rental assistance to help renters stay stably housed and help property owners cover their costs. But it’s very unlikely the money will reach most renters and landlords before courts resume judgments in eviction cases in August.

Rental assistance is reaching households very slowly, with renters waiting months after applying. Some states and localities started their programs in May or June and are still ramping up their emergency rental assistance programs. The good news, though, is that some states and localities are rushing to institute short-term eviction prevention policies that could help renters and landlords access assistance, including time-limited safe harbors from eviction for tenants who apply for rental assistance, local eviction moratorium extensions, and eviction diversion programs that offer services to landlords and tenants.

These short-term efforts shouldn’t end when the current crisis subsides. But more structural and enduring eviction reforms are needed to address longstanding inequities, ensure millions of families have housing stability, and avoid unnecessary costs to households, communities and the nation.

A crisis long in the making

An eviction crisis affected American families long before the pandemic. On average, 3.6 million evictions were filed each year in the US before Covid-19, with evictions disproportionately affecting women of color and single parents and their children. Families who have been evicted are more likely to enter a homeless shelter and spend more time experiencing homelessness than their peers, but the costs and impacts don’t stop there. Research has also found links between evictions and diminished physical and mental health outcomes for parents and children, reduced earnings and job instability for parents, and negative effects on children’s education attainment.

Landlords also face costs from evictions, including legal fees and lost rent while re-leasing their units, because they have few other avenues besides evictions to collect missed rent or solve other disputes. And governments at every level, particularly local governments, bear high costs to provide services to families experiencing housing instability.

Long-term strategies can reduce evictions and promote housing stability

Changing national eviction policy and local court practices is critical to address the nation’s long-term eviction crisis. To start, researchers, policymakers and advocates need better and more uniform data on evictions. This data is notoriously uneven and incomplete, making it hard to track evictions over time, identify communities hardest hit and design effective solutions. One proposal gaining traction is to create a federal database of eviction filings and completed evictions.

As a first step, the federal government could provide funding and technical assistance to help states and local communities create their own eviction databases.

A national right to counsel would also give renters a fairer shot in the justice system. Most landlords in eviction cases are represented by counsel, but renters can rarely afford lawyers and often aren’t aware of their rights. In response, local governments, like Maryland and San Francisco, have adopted policies and funded programs that guarantee representation for every renter facing eviction. Early data from these programs show promising results in preventing evictions, and many landlords are more likely to participate in mediation with tenants when they are represented.

The civil courts that administer evictions also need to work more closely with housing and social service practitioners, including housing assistance and financial counseling administrators, and with case workers who can connect evicted tenants to new housing opportunities. One way to do this is by setting up eviction diversion programs that offer services to landlords and their tenants, including requiring mediation and rental assistance before an eviction can proceed. At least 47 such programs already exist in state and city court systems across the United States. These types of programs can promote judicial fairness by reorienting the goal of court proceedings to promote housing stability while balancing the landlord’s property rights.

Finally, and most importantly, all of these steps are necessary because we don’t have a strong housing safety net. If the government were to expand rental assistance permanently to the many households who qualify, but who normally don’t receive assistance due to a lack of funding to cover the need, there would be fewer evictions for nonpayment of rent and greater housing stability.

The impending end to the national moratorium puts millions of American families at risk of eviction if they cannot access emergency rent relief in time. But this ticking clock shouldn’t keep policymakers and local leaders from addressing the broader eviction crisis affecting the country. Long-term solutions are the only way to guarantee every family has a home, not only during a pandemic, but always.

READ MORE


A military operation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (photo: Fernando Frasão/Agência Brasil)
A military operation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (photo: Fernando Frasão/Agência Brasil)


Bolsonaro Once Said He'd Stage a Military Takeover. Brazilians Fear He Could Be Paving the Way for One.
Terrence McCoy and Gabriela Sa Pessoa, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "In a television interview two decades ago, the fringe congressman didn't hesitate to say it: If he were president, he would shut down the Brazilian congress and stage a military takeover."

“There’s not even the littlest doubt,” Jair Bolsonaro said. “I’d stage a coup the same day [I became president,] the same day. Congress doesn’t work. I’m sure at least 90 percent of people would party and clap.”

Now the congressman is president of Brazil, and fears are mounting here that he could be considering how to make good on that idea. Bolsonaro, a former army captain who has frequently lamented the collapse of Brazil’s military dictatorship, has in recent days wondered not only whether he will participate in next year’s elections, but also whether there will even be elections.

“Next year’s elections have to be clean,” he declared this month. “Either we’ll have clean elections, or we won’t have elections.”

Some of the most powerful political voices in the country, including that of former president Michel Temer, are expressing concern that Bolsonaro could try to leverage unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud to derail or overturn a vote he has lost.

“The situation is extremely worrying in Brazil,” said Marcos Nobre, a prominent political scientist at the State University of Campinas. “It’s very, very grave what is happening here.”

Bolsonaro’s increasingly brazen comments escalate a months-long, Trump-style campaign to erode faith in the electoral system and transform its processes into a high-stakes political struggle. Now, as Latin America’s largest democracy girds itself for what is expected to be a tumultuous election, it confronts a paradox that will be familiar to Americans: The man leading the assault on its electoral process is the very person most recently awarded its highest office.

For years, Bolsonaro has lodged unsubstantiated allegations of electoral fraud. Before the 2018 presidential election, he said the only way he would lose would be by fraud. He then claimed he had won by much more than the official tally showed. Last year, he parroted President Donald Trump’s allegations on the U.S. election: “There was a lot of fraud there.”

But in recent months he has increasingly latched onto Brazil’s electronic voting machines, alleging without evidence that the system is pervaded by fraud. He says the country should switch to physical ballots and has repeatedly pushed the congress to make that change.

This week, he cast Brazil’s electoral process as part of a broader conspiracy by unnamed forces to return leftist politician Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the presidency. Lula, who was jailed on corruption charges and later released, is now leading Bolsonaro in presidential polls.

“The same people who took Lula out of jail and made him eligible to run for office will be secretly counting the votes inside the Superior Electoral Court,” he said this week. “Elections that you can’t audit, this isn’t an election — it’s fraud.”

In a statement, Bolsonaro’s presidential office defended Bolsonaro as an “active and tireless defender of democracy and the Brazilian constitution.” The officials said Bolsonaro wants a verifiable process in which every vote is honored.

“Brazil will continue to be a thriving democracy, with total respect given to the constitution and the will of the people to choose their representatives,” the Bolsonaro officials said.

Few think Bolsonaro would have any real chance of undoing an election. If anything, analysts say, his rhetoric betrays his political weakness. His approval ratings have fallen to record lows. The coronavirus has killed more than 545,000 Brazilians, and congressional investigators are probing his government’s hands-off response to the pandemic. He’s being investigated on allegations he failed to report suspicions of government corruption in the purchase of an Indian vaccine.

“I don’t see a possibility of a military coup in Brazil,” said Raul Jungmann, a former defense minister. “There are neither the internal nor the external conditions — not to mention there’s little desire among the armed forces to set out on an authoritarian adventure.”

But in a country freed from the yoke of a military dictatorship only in 1985, and which has warily eyed the military’s involvement in politics ever since, there is also the sense that anything is possible.

Bolsonaro has stacked his administration with a historically large number of military officials. His policies enjoy widespread approval among security forces. A portion of his base has repeatedly called on him to stage a military takeover — pleas he’s fanned by attending their rallies. After Trump supporters in the United States assaulted the U.S. Capitol to try to overturn the election results, Bolsonaro warned that Brazil would “have an even worse problem” if it didn’t change its electoral system. His defense minister, Braga Netto, has also reportedly threatened to cancel the elections if the country didn’t use paper ballots — a newspaper report Netto denied Thursday morning.

“Even if it is just a hypothesis, it would be democratically negligent to not be worried by this,” said Luiz Eduardo Soares, a prominent political analyst. “His behavior has been repeatedly threatening and hostile toward institutions.”

In a country polarized by Bolsonaro’s presidency, a sustained assault on the legitimacy of the election could undermine democracy for years to come. Millions could come away from the election feeling that they had been cheated — as has happened in the United States.

“Elections are a huge leap of faith, and it’s amazing that we’ve taken them as an article of faith for this long,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the London-based think tank Chatham House.

“The genius of electoral fraud claims is that you don’t even need to demonstrate fraud; you just need to demonstrate the possibility of fraud,” Sabatini said. “Then, in the hothouse environment of social media, it will be picked up with very little fact-checking, really catch fire and be reinforced.”

Lilia Moritz Schwarcz, a University of Sao Paulo anthropologist and visiting professor at Princeton, said Brazil today is haunted by the “specter of a dictatorship.” But it’s not the lingering effect of its decades under a military regime, she said — it’s the fear of Bolsonaro’s apparent authoritarian impulses.

“We have a president who was formed by the military, who talks all of the time about the dictatorship, who has conducted anti-democratic acts,” she said. “He clearly wants to weaken Brazil’s institutions.”

READ MORE


A massive 'heat dome' will settle across the heart of the contiguous U.S. on Monday. (photo: NOAA)
A massive 'heat dome' will settle across the heart of the contiguous U.S. on Monday. (photo: NOAA)


US Set for Punishing Temperatures as Huge 'Heat Dome' to Settle Over Country
Oliver Milman, Guardian UK
Milman writes: "The most extensive heatwave of a scorching summer is set to descend upon much of America in the coming week, further roasting areas already gripped by severe drought, plunging reservoirs and wildfires."

Heatwave to next week roast areas already gripped by severe drought, plunging reservoirs and wildfires

A massive “heat dome” of excessive heat will settle across the heart of the contiguous US from Monday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast, bringing elevated temperatures to the Great Plains, the Great Lakes, the northern reaches of the Rocky Mountains, the Pacific north-west and California.

Places used to more mild summers are set for punishing heat, with temperatures expected to breach 100F (37C) in the Dakotas and Montana, a state in which the city of Billings has already experienced 12 days above 95F (35C) this month. Areas of states including Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma may get “sweltering” temperatures reaching 110F (43C), Noaa said, while cities such as Des Moines, Minneapolis and Chicago will get significantly above-average heat.

The latest, but most expansive, in a parade of heatwaves to sweep the US is likely to bring thunderstorms and lightning to some areas, as well as worsen drought conditions ranked as “severe” or “exceptional” that now cover two-thirds of the US west.

Climate scientists have said the barrage of heatwaves over the past month, which have parched farms, caused roads to buckle and resulted in the obliteration of long-standing temperature records, are being fueled by predicted human-caused climate change – but admit to being surprised at the ferocity of the onslaught.

“It’s been a severe and dangerous summer, some of the heatwaves have been devastatingly hot,” said Michael Wehner, a a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “We certainly expected these type of temperatures as global warming continues but I don’t think anyone anticipated they would be so hot right now. I don’t think we could’ve expected so many heatwaves in the same general region in one summer.”

The most extraordinary of the recent heatwaves occurred in the Pacific north-west in June where the normally mild region was bathed in heat that broke temperature records by more than 10F (5.5C). The heat, which caused hundreds of people to die in cities including Seattle and Portland, where it reached 116F (46C), has caused several scientists to question their previous estimates of how the climate crisis will reshape heatwave severity.

“You expect hotter heatwaves with climate change but the estimates may have been overly conservative,” Wehner said. “With the Pacific north-west heatwave you’d conclude the event would be almost impossible without climate change but in a straightforward statistical analysis from before this summer you’d also include it would be impossible with climate change, too. That is problematic, because the event happened.”

Wehner said the ongoing heatwaves should prompt governments and businesses to better prepare for the health impacts of high temperatures, which range from heatstroke to breathing difficulties caused by smoke emitted from increasingly large wildfires.

“The good news is that heatwaves are now on people’s radars a bit more,” he said. “But these sort of events are completely unprecedented, you expect records to be beaten by tenths of a degree, not 5F or more.

“It’s a teachable moment in many ways for the public that climate change is here and now and dangerous. It isn’t our grandchildren’s problem, it’s our problem. But it’s been a teachable moment for climate scientists too.”

READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611  




"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 ...