Search This Blog

Showing posts with label TOXIC CHEMICALS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TOXIC CHEMICALS. Show all posts

Monday, January 24, 2022

RSN: Republican Voter Suppression Is Rampant. Manchin and Sinema Are Complicit Now.

 

 

Reader Supported News
24 January 22

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

DESPERATE TO AVOID DESPERATION: Hello folks, 249 donations from three hundred and fifty thousand visitors … Yikes! New year, new challenges. You know RSN will be there. Have to pay the bills.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. (photo: Getty Images)
Republican Voter Suppression Is Rampant. Manchin and Sinema Are Complicit Now.
Moira Donegan, Guardian UK
Donegan writes: "Manchin and Sinema's intransigence on the filibuster helps the Republican party usher in an era of voter suppression and election subversion."

Manchin and Sinema’s intransigence on the filibuster helps the Republican party usher in an era of voter suppression and election subversion

The last chance for federal legislation to stem the tide of Republican state-level attacks on the franchise died this week, when Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema rejected a bid by the Senate’s Democratic majority to change the filibuster rules to allow the passage of two voting rights bills.

The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would together serve to establish a baseline of federal rules enabling access to the ballot in all 50 states, and would restore the congressional authority to oversee new election laws in states that have a history of racist voting restrictions – a civil rights-era provision that was gutted by the Republican-controlled supreme court. But the two bills have been blocked repeatedly by Senate Republicans, who have used the chamber’s supermajority rule to prevent them from coming to a vote.

With the support of President Biden, who endorsed filibuster changes in a speech in Atlanta last week, the Democrats hoped to carve out an exemption that would finally allow the bills to be passed – Sinema and Manchin, after all, had both professed support for the bills themselves, though Manchin’s endorsement had to be cajoled. And exemptions to the filibuster are nothing new: according to Exceptions to the Rule, a book about the filibuster by the governance scholar Molly Reynolds, the filibuster was amended 160 times between 1969 and 2014. Both Manchin and Sinema supported a carve-out to the filibuster just weeks ago, when they both agreed to amend the rule to allow the Senate to raise the national debt ceiling.

But evidently, voting rights are different. Last Thursday, in a tearful speech on the Senate floor, Sinema announced that she would not support changing the filibuster to pass the bills. She called for compromise, and chided Democrats for not doing more to reach out to Republicans to treat the nation’s “disease of division”. For his part, after a meeting with Senate Democratic leaders on Tuesday night, Manchin, too, reiterated that he would not support a voting rights filibuster carve-out, and dismissed fears that Black Americans would be denied the ballot. “The government will stand behind them to make sure they have the right to vote,” Manchin said. “We have that. The things they’re talking about are in court.”

Responsible adults, assessing the state of voting rights in America in good faith, would of course know that neither the Republican party nor the federal courts are partners in the effort to preserve voting rights. Republican-controlled state legislatures have spent years imposing restrictive laws that make it harder and harder for people of color to vote, and have now progressed to making it easier for themselves to discard the voters’ preferences if they choose. These efforts have largely been supported by the federal courts, where Republican partisans in robes have gutted voting protections and given the green light to severe restrictions. It was the supreme court’s evisceration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in the cases Shelby County v Holder and Brnovich v DNC, that spurred congressional Democrats to write the John Lewis Voting Rights Act in the first place – the bill that Manchin and Sinema profess to support. The Republican party and much of the federal judiciary won’t preserve the franchise; they’re in fact working in concert to destroy it. Any competent and honest political observer will acknowledge this. That Manchin and Sinema will not suggests that they are either cynical or stupid.

For the past year, Manchin and Sinema have used the filibuster, and the Democrats’ paper-thin majority in the Senate, to flex their own influence, withholding their support on essential measures and hampering the Democrats’ agenda – most recently the Build Back Better Act, the Biden social infrastructure bill that Manchin single-handedly killed in December. They have served primarily as saboteurs, scuttling hopes that a Democratic trifecta in government might yield the actual realization of Democratic priorities. To hear Manchin and Sinema tell it, the filibuster has become a kind of totem: they speak of preserving the rule as a way of maintaining the principle that unity, cooperation and bipartisanship remain both possible and desirable. But for all their platitudes, there is little evidence that the filibuster encourages compromise. Critics like the writer and former Senate staffer Adam Jentleson have suggested that the filibuster in fact incentivizes obstructionism, giving the minority more opportunities to sabotage the majority’s agenda and few reasons to try to shape it. But Manchin and Sinema are immune to reality. They still speak as if the procedural accident of a 60-vote threshold represents some kind of republican virtue. Getting rid of it, they say, will plunge the country into disunity and distrust. One wonders what they think the state of the country is now.

Manchin and Sinema’s naive intransigence on the filibuster is now helping the Republican party to usher in an era of nationwide voter suppression and election subversion that will end meaningful representative government as we know it. The senators insist on delivering bromides to cooperation and bipartisanship, and baselessly claim that the Republican party, radicalized against democracy and increasingly centering its politics around interpersonal cruelty, can be persuaded to support voting rights if only the Democrats were kinder, more patient and less willing to use the power that the voters gave them. Listening to them try to justify themselves, Manchin and Sinema sound bizarrely detached from reality, as if they’re reading lines from the wrong play. The Senate they describe, the Republican colleagues they imagine themselves to have, the country they think they are living in – none of these bear much relation to the present reality of politics in America.

They offer no solutions for that reality, and no insight into its increasingly frayed constitutional order. Their best ideas consist of pretending that the Senate is not what it is, pretending that Republicans are not who they are. Like ostriches with their heads in the sand, they think that if they pretend not to see what is happening, then the circumstances will change by the force of their denial. This hasn’t worked, but Manchin and Sinema seem more committed to maintaining the delusion than to protecting the rights of this American people. And this is what makes their failure to do what is necessary to protect voting rights not only a tactical failure, but also a moral one.


READ MORE


US Diplomats' Families Ordered to Leave Embassy in Ukraine Amid 'Threat of Russian Military Action'Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Jan. 19. (photo: Alex Brandon/Pool/AP)

US Diplomats' Families Ordered to Leave Embassy in Ukraine Amid 'Threat of Russian Military Action'
John Hudson and Paul Sonne, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "The State Department ordered the departure of all family members of U.S. Embassy personnel serving in Kyiv on Sunday, citing the 'threat of Russian military action.'"

The State Department ordered the departure of all family members of U.S. Embassy personnel serving in Kyiv on Sunday, citing the “threat of Russian military action.”

The department also told nonessential staff they can leave the country — a decision that underscores the growing fears in Washington of an imminent military invasion of Ukraine by Moscow as it amasses tens of thousands of Russian troops around Ukraine’s borders.

The volatile atmosphere is the latest indication that efforts to de-escalate the crisis have faltered following talks between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Friday.

“The security conditions, particularly along Ukraine’s borders, in Russia-occupied Crimea, and in Russia-controlled eastern Ukraine, are unpredictable and can deteriorate with little notice,” the department said in a statement. “U.S. citizens in Ukraine should consider departing now using commercial or other privately available transportation options.”

The departure of family members and some nonessential staff comes as the Biden administration weighs sending thousands of U.S. forces, as well as armaments, to reinforce NATO allies in Poland and the Baltics, according to a U.S. official, who cautioned that a decision on such a deployment has not been made. The administration is not considering sending U.S. forces to Ukraine.

The Biden administration has regularly said that if Russia invades Ukraine, the United States will be forced to put more forces and weapons in allied nations along Russia’s periphery — the opposite of what Russian President Vladimir Putin says he wants.

But Russia has moved forces, armored personnel carriers and fighter jets to Belarus, allegedly to carry out joint military exercises in coming weeks. Military analysts worry the exercises could be a ruse to launch an attack on Ukraine across its northern border from Belarusian territory. The border with Belarus is just a few hours north of Kyiv.

The deployments in Belarus have also alarmed the NATO countries on the alliance’s eastern flank, three of which — Poland, Latvia and Lithuania — share a border with Belarus and face a threat from the Russian buildup there.

The Baltic nations — Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia — have been pushing for a larger U.S. troop presence on their territory to deter Russia from invading. In a letter to U.S. lawmakers, reported by Politico, top Lithuanian officials wrote that effective deterrence against Russia can be achieved only by having forces already in place in the nation. The United States already has about 200 military trainers in Ukraine, which Moscow has characterized as a threat to its security.

U.S. officials declined to offer more details about why the departure order was being made now, other than relaying President Biden’s recent remark that a Russian invasion “could happen at any time.”

U.S. officials say they have intelligence of a Russian plan to invade Ukraine but acknowledge they don’t know Moscow’s ultimate intentions.

On Saturday, Britain accused the Russian government of having plans to install a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician in Kyiv in the event that Ukraine’s pro-Western government collapses. The Russian Foreign Ministry has denied any intention to attack Ukraine and has accused Western governments of increasing tensions in the region through disinformation.

U.S. officials stressed that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv will remain open and that Washington continues to support Ukraine in the face of Russian “aggression.” They refused to provide the number of U.S. citizens who are in Ukraine.

The State Department modified its travel advisory on Sunday to carry a more urgent warning due to the coronavirus and “increased threats of Russian military action.”

The actions fall short of an evacuation order of U.S. personnel.


READ MORE


Bernie Sanders: Republicans Are 'Laughing All the Way to Election Day'Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Bernie Sanders: Republicans Are 'Laughing All the Way to Election Day'
John L. Dorman, Business Insider
Dorman writes: "Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Senate Republicans are 'laughing all the way to Election Day' since Democrats have yet to schedule a vote on the party's signature social-spending bill which has languished in the upper chamber due to intraparty divisions."

ALSO SEE: Bernie Sanders: Arizona Democrats
Were 'Exactly Right' to Censure Kyrsten Sinema

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Senate Republicans are "laughing all the way to Election Day" since Democrats have yet to schedule a vote on the party's signature social-spending bill which has languished in the upper chamber due to intraparty divisions.

During an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," the Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said Senate Republicans have essentially been left off the hook in casting votes for consequential pieces of legislation as lawmakers look toward the November midterm elections.

"What has bothered me very much is the Republicans are laughing all the way to Election Day," he said. "They have not had to cast one bloody vote — which shows us where they're at. And we have got to change that."

While the Senate easily passed the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill championed by President Joe Biden last year, the larger social-spending bill — which was originally pegged at $3.5 trillion before it was whittled down to roughly half of that amount — fell victim to opposition by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and a lengthy back-and-forth with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

Manchin backed many of Biden's climate provisions, along with expansion of the Affordable Care Act and universal pre-K, but balked at extending the monthly child tax credit program without major changes. The senator appeared on Fox News in December to oppose the Build Back Better bill, despite efforts by Biden officials to stop him.

Manchin's counteroffer to the White House for a smaller social-spending bill was reportedly off the table earlier this month, but last week, the senator said that renewed talks regarding the legislation would be "starting from scratch."

Biden said during a Wednesday press conference that he believed parts of the Build Back Better framework could pass Congress before the midterm elections.

"I'm confident we can get pieces, big chunks of Build Back Better signed into law," Biden said.

During the CNN interview, Sanders said the Senate should hold floor votes for individual components of the larger social-spending bill, which would allow members to clarify their respective positions.

He added that Democrats could craft a bill with the initiatives that are able to clear the upper chamber, pointing to the popularity of many of the party's policies among the American public.

"People want to expand Medicare. People want to deal with the crisis of climate," he said. "So what we are talking about is what the American people want. And I think, when you bring bills on the floor — we have allowed the Republicans to get away with murder."

Sanders — who said earlier on Sunday that he backed the Arizona Democratic Party's decision to censure Sinema over her refusal to change filibuster rules to pass voting-rights legislation — stated that Republicans need to have their votes on the record.

"They haven't had to vote on anything," he said. "Now, if they want to vote against lowering the cost of prescription drugs, expanding Medicare, dealing with child care, dealing with housing, let them vote, and let Manchin and Sinema decide which side they are on."

He added: "And when all of that shakes out, we will see where we are. I have the feeling that we will be able to get 50 votes or more on some of these issues. We could put that piece together and then pass something that's very significant."


READ MORE


NBA Coach Gregg Popovich Rips Republicans, as Well as Joe Manchin, Kyrsten SinemaGregg Popovich. (photo: Jim Cowsert/AP)

NBA Coach Gregg Popovich Rips Republicans, as Well as Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema
Jim Reineking, USA Today
Reineking writes: "San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich hasn't been shy about discussing hot-button political issues."

San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich hasn't been shy about discussing hot-button political issues.

On Sunday before the Spurs' game against the Philadelphia 76ers, he took aim at Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who voted with Republicans to block the advancement of a sweeping voting rights bill that was supported by Democrats and U.S. President Joe Biden. The vote Wednesday night to end debate on the bill was shot down, 51-49, with every Republican voting against moving the bill.

Popovich's comments came after being asked about Juneteenth becoming a national holiday.

"As many have said, it’s been time, it’s past time for hardball,” Popovich said. "The Republican Senate will just not participate, they just will not. So, whatever can be done needs to be done. And Sinema and Manchin, they get it, but they don’t get it. They know what’s going on. They understand. But there are more important things to them, and it’s damn selfish and dangerous to our country."

Popovich continued the discussion about inequality during a nine-minute session with reporters.

"It's ironic, but as much as the community of color has been oppressed and denigrated, those are the people who try to save this damn country from itself," Popovich said. "It’s just ironic to me. Every time we take steps forward, you get the backlash. The fact that the voting rights issue is in the situation it’s in is just mind-boggling to me in one sense, because we’ve already gone through this back in the '60s, and we know what the Supreme Court did earlier in gutting it.

"But it's like we don’t get it. It’s like, maybe there wouldn’t be a democracy if it wasn’t for Black people."

Popovich closed by taking aim at the Senate.

"It seems like (with) the Senate, mostly older white people, it all comes down to fear mongering and race and power, and they don’t want to face it," Popovich said.

Last year, Popovich said that then-President Donald Trump should have been removed from office after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. A few months earlier, Popovich called Trump "deranged" and said that he was "embarrassed as a white person" while addressing the death of George Floyd.


READ MORE


'Bob Wouldn't Be Bob Without Rita': Ziggy Marley on His Mother and FatherZiggy Marley with his wife Orly and their children. (photo: Kristin Burns/Tuff Gong Worldwide)

'Bob Wouldn't Be Bob Without Rita': Ziggy Marley on His Mother and Father
Rob Walker, Guardian UK
Walker writes: "Ziggy Marley was only eight years old when his mum and dad - the reggae great Bob Marley - were shot in an apparent assassination attempt inside their home in Kingston, Jamaica. But he remembers it like yesterday."

With an exhibition featuring unseen photos of the singer opening in London, his son talks about his father’s passion for sport – and the night he was shot

Ziggy Marley was only eight years old when his mum and dad – the reggae great Bob Marley – were shot in an apparent assassination attempt inside their home in Kingston, Jamaica. But he remembers it like yesterday.

“Cops came for us children in the middle of the night and carried us away to a secret hideaway up in the hills – no one really knew what was happening. It was scary but it was kind of exciting,” he says.

Yet just two days later, on 5 December 1976, Bob Marley insisted on playing the Smile Jamaica Concert at Kingston’s National Heroes Park, as planned – even though he had bullet wounds in his arm and chest. The gig was seen as a rallying cry for peace against the backdrop of Jamaica’s spiralling violence and political unrest, with 80,000 people watching Marley swagger his way through classics including Get Up Stand Up.

For reggae fans it’s the stuff of legend, though Ziggy insists his mother, who had been shot in the head on that night, deserves equal credit. “She still showed up for the show, the same as he did. I’m proud of both my dad and my mum because there’s a team work going on between them. Bob wouldn’t be Bob without Rita, you know what I’m saying?”

Now 53, Ziggy is speaking to the Observer on the eve of a new exhibition about his father’s life and influences opening at the Saatchi Gallery in London next month.

It’s the latest celebration of a singer who four decades after his death from cancer, aged 36, is still one of the bestselling artists in the world. His posthumous greatest hits album, Legend, released in 1984, has spent more than 950 weeks in the UK top 100 and has sold more than 25m copies worldwide.

The exhibition – which includes a giant vinyl installation of Legend – is pitched as a “multi-sensory experience” with numerous rooms and spaces, each highlighting different aspects of Marley’s life. One room, for example, is designed as a forest with the sounds and smells of Jamaica, the visual backdrop to many of the songs.

In another space, they have recreated a concrete urban landscape with huge art installations and there’s even a mock-up of the backstage corridor of a Bob Marley and the Wailers concert. A silent disco, which they’re calling the Soul Shakedown Studio, invites visitors to don headphones and groove to a reggae dance party.

But the highlight of the show is arguably a collection of never-seen images of Marley himself.

Ziggy explains that they were discovered in the storage locker of photographer Jean Bernard Sohiez, who died last year and whose two dozen photos are all seemingly taken on the same day in Kingston, more or less a year before Marley’s death.

They are un-posed candid shots, some capturing the singer playing football, which he said was his greatest passion after music.

“He was fanatical,” agrees Ziggy. “It was a big part of his life, and my life as a child around him, but it wasn’t just about football – he loved all sports. He loved boxing, running, table tennis, he was a sporty guy.”

He would sometimes come to Ziggy’s primary school and play against his teammates, he says, adding: “He was fast and he had a good kick.” He laughs out loud though at the idea his dad’s game was on a professional level, as friends who played with him have claimed.

“That was his aspiration!” he quips.

He thinks playing football was a way for Marley to alleviate some of the pressures of his day-to-day life. His dad was always in demand, he says, and sometimes it felt like everyone wanted a piece of him.

“Football helped him free his mind,” he says.

Disturbed by the shooting at his home, Marley moved to London for a spell, living in the relative calm of 42 Oakley Street in Chelsea. It’s there that he wrote one of his most enduring songs, Three Little Birds.

Ziggy stayed on in Jamaica along with the rest of his siblings (Marley had 11 acknowledged children) but claims he didn’t miss his father during the separation. Not because he didn’t love him, but through necessity, he says.

“When you reflect back you can feel sad, but in that moment you gotta do what you gotta do,” he says. “I had to go to school, there were a lot of things going on, so you just get on with it.”

Ziggy (a nickname his dad gave him, meaning “little spliff’’) was 12 when Marley died. He even performed at the funeral. And in a wider sense he’s “got on with it all his adult life, carving his own niche as a top recording artist. He’s an eight-time Grammy award winner, picking up best reggae album seven times, most recently in 2017.

Ziggy has a similar Trenchtown accent to his father, although he’s been living in Los Angeles with his wife Orly and four children for around 15 years now.

“As my father used to say, my home is in my head,” he says.

He knows he’ll never step completely out of his father’s shadow and he admits that some people want him to be his father. There’s always an expectation that he will do covers of Bob Marley songs at his live events, but that’s something he says he’s more than happy to do.

Sometimes he does tours where he only sings his father’s songs.

He doesn’t have a favourite one, but singles out Redemption Song as the one that is closest to his heart. It’s a song that was played a great deal around the time his father died, he says, and it meant so much to so many people.

“It carries a lot of emotional connection for me.”


READ MORE


Burkina Faso Government Denies Army Takeover After Barracks GunfireA soldier fires into the air near the Lamizana camp in Burkina Faso's capital Ouagadougou. (photo: Sophie Garcia/AP)

Burkina Faso Government Denies Army Takeover After Barracks Gunfire
Al Jazeera
Excerpt: "The government denies the army seized control of the country after exchanges of gunfire at multiple army barracks."

The government denies the army seized control of the country after exchanges of gunfire at multiple army barracks.

Residents in Burkina Faso’s capital say gunfire erupted late on Sunday in the same area as embattled President Roch Marc Christian Kabore’s home, hours after mutinous soldiers seized control of a military base in Ouagadougou.

Government officials had sought to reassure people that the situation was under control even after exchanges of gunfire at multiple army barracks, including two in Ouagadougou, amid growing frustration with the government’s failure to prevent attacks by armed groups.

Several people in the area around Kabore’s home told The Associated Press and AFP news agencies that they had heard gunfire and there were helicopters hovering overhead. A mutinous soldier also told AP by phone that heavy fighting was under way near the presidential palace, a claim that could not immediately be independently corroborated.

The unrest at Sangoule Lamizana camp, which houses the army’s general staff and a prison whose inmates include soldiers involved in a failed 2015 coup attempt, began as early as 5am (05:00 GMT) on Sunday, according to a Reuters news agency reporter.

The reporter later saw soldiers firing into the air in the camp. A witness also reported gunfire at a military camp in Kaya, about 100km (62 miles) north of Ouagadougou. Shots were heard at another military camp, Baby Sy, in the south of the capital, and at an airbase near the airport, military sources said.

Speaking on national television on Sunday, Defence Minister General Bathelemy Simpore denied rumours that Kabore had been detained, and said the motive behind the gunfire was still unclear.

“The head of state has not been detained; no institution of the country has been threatened,” Simpore said. “For now, we don’t know their motives or what they are demanding. We are trying to get in contact with them,” he said, adding that calm had returned to some of the barracks.

The authorities later declared an overnight curfew from 8pm (20:00 GMT) “until further notice” and the education ministry said schools would be closed on Monday and Tuesday across the country.

Protesters siding with the mutinous soldiers had set fire to the headquarters of the ruling party in the capital earlier on Sunday, according to an AFP journalist at the scene.

The blaze destroyed the ground floor of the building of the People’s Movement for Progress (MPP) party, where protesters also vandalised the facade before being dispersed by police firing tear gas, the reporter said.

The unrest came a day after clashes between police and demonstrators during protests against the authorities’ failure to stem violence ravaging thecountry.

It also follows the arrest earlier this month of numerous soldiers over a suspected plot to “destabilise institutions” in the country, which has a long history of coups.

A soldier leading the mutiny in one barracks told Al Jazeera’s Nicolas Haque, who is based in Senegal, that they had six demands for the government.

“One is hiring more troops to fight on the front lines against groups linked to ISIL [and] al-Qaeda,” Haque said.

“They also demand better care for the wounded and the families of those who lost their loved ones as well as better wages, training and forming of permanent battalions to deal with threats. [The mutineers’ demands] fall short of asking President Kabore to resign, but in their latest statement they say that if their demands are not met, then they will ask for Kabore to step down,” Haque added.

A voice recording obtained by AFP included similar demands.

“We want adequate resources for the battle” against hardline groups, a soldier from the Sangoule Lamizana base in Ouagadougou, was heard saying on the recording, the news agency said.

The disaffected soldiers also wanted top generals to be “replaced”, better care for wounded troops and more support for the families of soldiers killed in battle, the spokesman for the mutinous troops added in the anonymous recording.

Journalist Henry Wilkins, reporting from Ouagadougou, told Al Jazeera on Sunday evening that he did not think the government’s claims that the mutiny was under control were accurate.

“It doesn’t appear to be turning into a full-scale coup – I think mutiny is the certainly the best word to use to describe what’s happening at the moment. The mutiny is still ongoing however,” he said.

“And we are now hearing there could be plans to continue the mutiny into a second day, and possibly even merging the mutiny with protesters who tried to assemble in the centre of Ouagadougou [on Sunday] but were dispersed by police using tear gas.”

Alex Vines, director of the Africa programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera that a “mutiny that has ingredients of a coup is exactly the way to look at this”.

“We are now talking about a region which is seeing a swing back in favour of coups,” he said, after an attempted coup in Niger and successful coups in Mali and Guinea in recent years.

“We have had five successful or attempted coups [in the region] if you count them all together this decade, so Burkina Faso is fitting into that pattern.”

Mounting attacks

On Saturday, police had used tear gas to disperse protesters in rallies across the country, arresting dozens. The authorities earlier in the week said they were banning the protests for security reasons.

Groups linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) have plagued the landlocked Sahel nation since 2015, killing hundreds.

Attacks on civilians and soldiers have become increasingly frequent – and are largely concentrated in the country’s north and east. Security sources reported that two soldiers were killed after their vehicle drove over a crude bomb in the north on Saturday.

The violence has forced about 1.5 million people to flee their homes, the national emergency agency has said, and many have settled in the region around Kaya.

Al Jazeera’s Haque said the anger towards the president among the sections of the military has reportedly been building for months.

“In November, there was an attack in the north of the country in Inata, where 20 soldiers were killed. There was a national outcry when it turned out that those soldiers had gone two weeks without food rations and had to hunt for food,” he said. “That’s when they were attacked by groups linked to al-Qaeda.”

On November 27, hundreds demonstrated against Kabore’s failure to quell the violence, sparking clashes with security forces that wounded dozens.

Vines said it was significant that while the head of the military had appeared on television on Sunday, the president had not.

“It is very telling that President Kabore hasn’t been visible at the moment. It’s also very telling that this mutiny seems to have started in a military base where there is also a prison where some of the key military [figures] that were involved in the 2015 coup attempt are incarcerated.”

“This is a real reminder of the fragility of events in Burkina Faso at the moment, and also comes at a time when western support for the region is being reduced.”


READ MORE



How a Toxic Chemical Ended Up in the Drinking Water Supply for 13 Million PeopleThe Delaware River incident highlights the extent to which drinking water suppliers are often on the hook for cleaning up other people's problems. (photo: Matt Rourke/AP)

How a Toxic Chemical Ended Up in the Drinking Water Supply for 13 Million People
Rivard, POLITICO
Rivard writes: "Officials found a gap in state and federal regulations that allowed an unsafe chemical to end up in an essential water supply."

Officials found a gap in state and federal regulations that allowed an unsafe chemical to end up in an essential water supply.

New Jersey’s largest drinking water supplier discovered a toxic chemical in the river where it gets water for hundreds of thousands of customers, setting off a major search for polluters that led back to a Pennsylvania wastewater treatment plant and a South Jersey company.

The chemical New Jersey American Water Co. found, 1,4-Dioxane, is a byproduct of plastic manufacturing that is considered a likely carcinogen by the federal government. While the chemical has been found in water supplies before, this discovery in early 2020 set off alarms because of the high levels in a section of the Delaware River close to American Water’s treatment plant in South Jersey that sends drinking water to customers in Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Salem counties.

It wasn’t just a New Jersey problem. The Delaware and all of its tributaries provide drinking water to more than 13 million people along the East Coast — including New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware — and officials had no idea how the chemical was getting into the river.

What they found, the details of which have not been previously reported, is a gap in state and federal regulations that allowed an unsafe chemical to end up in an essential water supply.

There are no federal limits for how much 1,4-Dioxane can be in drinking water, though New Jersey is proposing new rules that would limit the chemical to .33 parts per billion. Some samples from 2020 found nearly 10 times that amountin the Delaware. New Jersey officials have said they believe those levels ultimately did not “pose any immediate health risk,” by the time drinking water reached customers.

Officials from across the region, including the Delaware River Basin Commission, the multi-state agency tasked with looking after the river, set up a group to track down the source of the contamination.

Though their work continues, it comes with an unsatisfying twist: Someone clearly sent the chemical into the river, but it’s not clear whether anyone will face consequences for polluting one of the country’s major water supplies.

Some chemicals, including 1,4-Dioxane, remain largely unregulated. And even as New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection is preparing for the first time to set strict limits on the amount of 1,4-Dioxane allowed in drinking water, it seems unlikely those rules would have prevented the Delaware River contamination.

New Jersey’s planned rules require drinking water suppliers to look for and remove most of the chemical from drinking water — but the rules don’t do more to keep polluters from putting it there in the first place.

The Delaware River incident highlights the extent to which drinking water suppliers are often on the hook for cleaning up other people’s problems, even as New Jersey American is expanding its treatment process to handle 1,4-Dioxane and other contaminants, like other “forever chemicals” the public only recently understood are unsafe.

A big part of figuring out where the pollution was coming from fell to Matt Csik, the top water quality official for New Jersey American Water. He needed to know how a likely carcinogen was getting into the river and threatening his customers’ water. In a watershed that stretches from the Catskill Mountains to Rehoboth Beach, Del., that was a challenge.

So, in October 2020, Csik put on his wetsuit and started taking water samples from the Delaware.

His sampling suggested the chemical was in water coming from one of the Delaware’s main tributaries, the Lehigh River, which cuts through Pennsylvania before dumping into the Delaware.

“It was pretty clear to me at that point that we had at least the smoke to tell us where the fire could be,” Csik said in an interview.

Csik’s work helped narrow down where the larger regional search party would look and ultimately find the chemical — near a wastewater treatment plant in Allentown, Pa., operated by the Lehigh County Authority. A sample taken from the Lehigh River near the treatment plant found levels of 1,4-Dioxane more than 100 times higher than what New Jersey‘s proposed rules would say is safe to drink.

The Allentown plant takes wastewater, cleans it up, then discharges it into the Lehigh at a point right before where the Lehigh empties into the Delaware. The plant handles chemicals on a federal priority list, but 1,4-Dioxane isn’t one of them, and the plant hadn’t studied how to treat it. That makes 1,4-Dioxane one of thousands of potentially harmful chemicals that are not an official priority for federal regulators, even though they have already determined long term exposure to it may cause kidney and liver damage.

“We weren’t looking for it and didn’t know to look for it,” Liesel Gross, the CEO of the Lehigh County Authority said in an interview.

But now the plant needed to find out who was sending it wastewater laced with 1,4-Dioxane.

Most people know wastewater treatment plants handle what comes to them through sewage systems. But some plants, including the one in Allentown, have lucrative side businesses accepting waste from outside haulers.

The Lehigh County Authority, a public agency run by local officials, received about $2.9 million in 2020 treating all kinds of hauled waste, including $38,000 from Coim USA, Gross said in an email. Coim which had been sending some wastewater to the Allentown plant Pennsylvania since 2018 from its polymer manufacturing facility in West Deptford, N.J.

Coim is an Italian polymer and plastics maker, and 1,4-Dioxane is one of its byproducts.

According to regulatory filings Coim submitted to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the company should have been sending waste containing 1,4-Dioxane to an incinerator near Niagara Falls, N.Y.

But when the Allentown treatment plant conducted tests in June 2021 to find who was bringing 1,4-Dioxane to its facility, it found Coim was the “main contributor.”

The treatment plant immediately stopped accepting Coim’s waste and the amount of 1,4-Dioxane in the Delaware dropped, according to officials from New Jersey American Water and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, both of which have the results from subsequent water samples in the Lehigh and Delaware rivers.

Coim USA’s president, Michelangelo Cavallo, denied responsibility for polluting the river and said the June test that found 1,4-Dioxane in the wastewater it was sending to Pennsylvania was the result of an accident. That time — and that time only, Cavallo said — the company mixed up the tank it was sending to the Allentown plant with the one meant for the incinerator in Niagara Falls.

“It was a simple mistake,” Cavallo said in an interview. “Never happened in the past and … it will not happen in the future.”

Regulators haven’t taken any formal action against anyone involved in the incident.

The EPA requires plants like the one in Pennsylvania to test for about 130 different chemicals, out of what experts say are thousands of industrial chemicals that can end up in wastewater. After a plant tests for what they have to, they have little insight into what else might be is going into their facilities — or what might be is coming out.

“In this case, if there are not regulations that prevent a thing from occurring, the thing can occur,” said Shawn LaTourette, New Jersey’s top environmental regulator. “I think the public has a really hard time with this, and understandably so.”

Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the nonprofit Delaware Riverkeeper Network, said failing to test for pollutants is long-standing problem along the river.

"But ignorance is not bliss, and this is no excuse for pollution,” she said.

Work is continuing to track down other sources of 1,4-Dioxane in different parts of the Delaware, though New Jersey American’s sampling shows the primary source of the chemical threatening its supplies has substantially gone away since last summer.

Csik, New Jersey American’s water quality official, said the utility was fortunate to have a treatment process that helped remove 1,4-Dioxane and is getting ready to add another treatment process that further removes the chemical.

This is not the first time 1,4-Dioxane has threatened New Jersey drinking water. Several years ago, the federal government asked large water suppliers throughout the country to test for the chemical. About a tenth found some level of 1,4-Dioxane, but nearly a quarter of New Jersey suppliers found it, including about 30 drinking water systems that had levels of the chemical at or above what would be allowed under the state’s newly-proposed proposed rules.

Tom Neltner, the chemicals policy director of the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit group, said incidents like the one in the Delaware are pretty common, though the details are rarely reported. Tracking down the unusual toxic trail can be difficult and municipal wastewater treatment plants, like the one in Allentown, may not know what industrial polluters are sending them.

He said the Safe Drinking Water Act, the key law that protects Americans’ drinking water, may be ill-suited for a world where potent and robust chemicals, like the 1,4-Dioxane found in the Delaware River, can come from far away and be dangerous in tiny amounts.

“In many ways, we use the Safe Drinking Water Act as a cleanup program, to clean up the water that never should have been contaminated in the first place,” Neltner said in an interview, “instead of trying to prevent it from being contaminated in the first place.“


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611







Sunday, January 23, 2022

RSN: Paul Krugman | Biden Versus the Friends of COVID

 

 

Reader Supported News
23 January 22

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

WE NEED A FEW GOOD DONORS … ASAP! — We don’t need zillions of donors or millions of dollars, we need a reliable budget to continue our work. Who can be a part of that?
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

President Joe Biden attends a White House meeting in September. (photo: Naresh111/Shutterstock)
Paul Krugman | Biden Versus the Friends of COVID
Paul Krugman, The New York Times
Krugman writes: "President Biden ended his first year in office on a low note, with polls showing public disapproval of his handling of, well, just about everything."

President Biden ended his first year in office on a low note, with polls showing public disapproval of his handling of, well, just about everything. We are, of course, hearing endless commentary about his political missteps, along with some acknowledgment that public expectations were too high given the razor-thin Democratic majority in Congress.

One thing I don't think gets enough emphasis, however, is the extent to which Biden has been hurt by the way the pandemic keeps dragging on -- a dismal reality for which he bears little responsibility. Oh, the messaging could have been clearer, testing and masks made more available, and so on. But Biden's biggest error on Covid-19 was underestimating the ruthlessness of his opponents, who have done all they can to undermine America's pandemic response.

Before I get to the politics of Covid response, let's talk about how pervasively the pandemic's persistence colors the nation's mood.

Some of the effects are direct and obvious. Certainly most Americans, even if they haven't developed Covid themselves, know people who have gotten seriously ill or died.

Furthermore, Covid is still making life difficult in ways large and small. Shuttered schools were a nightmare for many parents; they've reopened in most places but are still subject to unpredictable closings.

Work is also still disrupted. According to the Census Bureau's most recent Household Pulse Survey, 8.7 million Americans were not working because they were either sick with coronavirus symptoms or caring for someone else who was; 3.2 million more weren't working out of fear of contracting or spreading the virus.

And Covid is contributing to our economic problems. Fear of face-to-face contact has skewed consumer spending away from services toward goods, straining supply chains and fueling inflation. Both fear of infection and burnout among workers who have been coping with the pandemic's strains are probably major factors in labor shortages, which are also contributing to inflation.

One of the puzzles in recent polling is why public assessments of the economy are so negative despite plunging unemployment. It's true that inflation has eroded real wages -- but George H.W. Bush ran on a strong economy in 1988 even though real wages fell for most of Ronald Reagan's second term. And as I and others have noted, there's a big disconnect between Americans' assessment of their own financial situation -- which is pretty positive -- and their grim assessment of "the economy."

Partisanship surely plays a big role, with Republicans claiming that the economy is as bad now as it was in early 2009, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. But the pandemic probably also darkens perceptions: Aside from a general sense of malaise, people see closed shops and empty office buildings, which makes things look worse than they are.

What makes all of this especially demoralizing is that 2021 began with the hope that miraculous vaccines would end the pandemic. Despite the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing serious illness, that didn't happen even in highly vaccinated countries. But America is doing especially badly because it isn't a highly vaccinated country: After a strong start, its vaccination drive fell far behind other wealthy nations.

And while there are various reasons individuals fail to get vaccinated, at a national level our shortfall is all about politics. Vaccination rates in blue states are similar to those in other advanced countries, while the rates in red states are far behind; at the county level there's a stunning negative correlation between Donald Trump's share of the 2020 vote and the vaccination rate.

Why do many Republicans refuse the vaccines? Because they're getting a steady stream of misinformation from right-wing media, while right-wing politicians have gradually shifted from claiming to be against vaccine mandates to being straight-out anti-vax. For example, recently the medical director for Orange County, Fla., was placed on leave simply for encouraging -- not requiring -- the staff to get vaccinated.

But why are right-wing elites so hostile to vaccines? Have they carefully considered the evidence? Don't be silly.

Their real motive is the desire to prevent Democrats from achieving any kind of policy success. And is it really implausible to suggest that some leading figures on the right actively want to make things worse, in the belief that the public will blame Biden?

But while the public does indeed tend to blame presidents for anything bad that happens on their watch, they can fight back. In 1948 Harry Truman successfully campaigned against "do-nothing" Republicans who were blocking his economic and housing agenda. Biden could, with even more justification, campaign against Republicans whose anti-vaccine posturing is putting both the national economy and thousands of American lives at risk.

Would this work? Nobody knows. What we do know is that a year of trying to be conciliatory and unifying hasn't worked. It's time for Biden to come out swinging.


READ MORE



Trump Draft Executive Order Would Have Authorized National Guard to Seize Voting MachinesDonald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)

Trump Draft Executive Order Would Have Authorized National Guard to Seize Voting Machines
Dareh Gregorian, NBC News
Gregorian writes: "The draft executive order appears to be among the files the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was seeking to obtain from the National Archives."

The order, which was obtained by Politico, was never signed by the former president.

A draft of an executive order prepared for then-President Donald Trump and obtained Friday by Politico would have authorized the secretary of defense to send National Guard troops to seize voting machines around the country in the weeks following the 2020 election.

The order, which was never signed by Trump, also would have appointed a special counsel "to institute all criminal and civil proceedings as appropriate based on the evidence collected," and calls on the defense secretary to release an assessment 60 days after the action started, which would have been well after Trump was set to leave office on Jan. 20, 2021.

The Politico article includes a facsimile of the full order, but does not say how the news organization obtained the document or whose possession it was in.

The draft executive order appears to be among the files the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was seeking to obtain from the National Archives.

The committee had revealed what it sought in the documents in a court filing, and it included “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity" and “a document containing presidential findings concerning the security of the 2020 presidential election and ordering various actions.”

Those documents were handed over to the committee this week after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's request that it block the documents from being handed over.

A representative of Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

It is unclear who wrote the draft document, which is dated Dec. 16, 2020, and titled, "PRESIDENTIAL FINDINGS TO PRESERVE COLLECT AND ANALYZE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION REGARDING THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION." It parrots arguments that were made by lawyer Sidney Powell and former national security adviser Michael Flynn during a Dec. 18 meeting at the White House.

In the meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times and later confirmed by NBC News, Trump discussed naming Powell, who'd championed numerous bogus conspiracies about the election, as special counsel.

The draft order doesn't identify the person Trump would name as special counsel, but does refer to the person a "her."

Powell could not be reached for comment.

The order also bases the need for the unprecedented action on Powell's debunked allegations of widespread voter fraud and foreign interference in the election.

It cites a "forensic report" championed by Powell that falsely accused Dominion Voting System machines of being "intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results." Dominion is suing Powell for defamation.


READ MORE


If Local Journalism Manages to Survive, Give Evan Smith Some Credit for ItEvan Smith, co-founder and CEO of the Texas Tribune, at a panel discussion in Edinburg, Tex., in 2019. (photo: Verónica G. Cárdenas/The Texas Tribune)

If Local Journalism Manages to Survive, Give Evan Smith Some Credit for It
Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post
Sullivan writes: "'No state is more in need of watchdog reporting than Texas,' Smith said when that effort was launched."

The Texas Tribune founder has been a “true pioneer” in finding ways to cover local communities as a non-profit.

When Evan Smith co-founded the Texas Tribune back in 2009, digital-first nonprofit newsrooms were something of a rarity. There was ProPublica, only two years old at the time, MinnPost in Minneapolis, the Voice of San Diego, and a few others.

So his move from top editor of the award-winning Texas Monthly magazine, at the urging of venture capitalist John Thornton, was considered slightly bizarre.

“The tone of the coverage was almost mocking,” Smith recalled this week, soon after he announced he would step down as the Tribune’s CEO at the end of this year. “It was ‘what does this joker think he’s doing?’”

As it turns out, Smith and company — he and Thornton recruited Texas Weekly editor Ross Ramsey to join the endeavor — had a good idea of what they were doing, or figured it out along the way.

The Austin-based Tribune has grown from 17 employees to around 80 (more than 50 are journalists), raising $100 million through philanthropy, membership and events, including its annual Texas Tribune Festival that has attracted speakers from Nancy Pelosi to Willie Nelson. Most important, it has done a huge amount of statewide news coverage with a focus on holding powerful people and institutions accountable.

These days, such newsrooms are springing up everywhere; there are now hundreds of them. They are easily the most promising development in the troubled world of local journalism, where newspapers are going out of business or vastly shrinking their staffs as print revenue plummets and ownership increasingly falls to large chains, sometimes owned by hedge funds.

In Baltimore, the Banner — funded by Maryland hotel magnate Stewart Bainum — is hiring staff and expects to start publishing soon. In Chicago, the Sun-Times is converting from a traditional newspaper to a nonprofit as it merges operations with public radio station WBEZ. And in Houston, three local philanthropies working with the American Journalism Project (also co-founded by Thornton) announced a $20 million venture that will create one of the largest nonprofit news organizations in the country.

“These newsrooms are popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm,” Smith, 55, told me.

He’s right about the growth of nonprofit news — and he’s also one of the reasons it’s thriving. “A true pioneer,” wrote Peter Lattman, managing director of media at the Emerson Collective, the philanthropic corporation funded by Laurene Powell Jobs.

As a speaker at Trib Fest myself, I’ve seen Smith in action — a promotional force of nature, energetic organizer, prodigious fundraiser, and lively onstage interviewer.

Emily Ramshaw, who started at the Trib as a reporter and was named its top editor in 2016, called him “an innovator, a ringleader and a fearlessly ambitious local news entrepreneur.” What’s more, she told me, Smith has brought along “a whole series of news leaders who have grown up in his image.”

Rawshaw counts herself among them; she left the Trib in 2020 to found a new nonprofit news organization, the 19th, which covers the intersection of gender, politics and society.

The Trib’s new editor is Sewell Chan, most recently at the Los Angeles Times, where he was the top opinion-side editor, and previously at the New York Times and The Washington Post. Smith considers it a triumph for nonprofit newsrooms that it’s no longer unusual for them to attract the likes of Chan, or of Kimi Yoshino, who was managing editor of the L.A. Times before being named editor in chief of the Baltimore Banner.

“Now when people like Sewell Chan or Kimi Yoshino come to a nonprofit newsroom, no one is mocking their decisions,” Smith said. (He has no immediate plans for what he’ll do after stepping down as CEO, saying that it simply was the right time to make the move; he’ll remain as an adviser for another year.)

The Trib’s journalism is influential well beyond its own free website. More than 400 Texas Tribune stories appeared on the front pages of newspapers throughout the state last year, provided free of charge. The site has done investigative projects on the effect of sex trafficking on young girls, the influence of religious belief on the lawmaking of Texas legislators, and an investigation, part of its voting rights coverage, into the state’s review of voting rolls. In 2019, it announced it was joining forces with ProPublica to form a new investigative unit based in Austin.

“No state is more in need of watchdog reporting than Texas,” Smith said when that effort was launched. “It’s a target-rich environment if you’re in the business of holding people in power and institutions accountable.”

But far from the only one. With local news outlets withering in many communities — statehouse coverage, in particular, has dwindled despite its importance — and democratic norms under attack in many states, the need for that kind of watchdog reporting is acute everywhere.

If local journalism proves itself up to these challenges — and I fervently hope it will — Evan Smith will deserve a share of the credit, no matter what he decides to do next.


READ MORE


Big Tech Is About to Make Our Terrible Health Care System Even WorseCareRev and similar start ups want to introduce the gig-economy model to health care, allowing hospitals to source temporary staff locally for much less than they pay for either full-time or travel nurses. (photo: SJ Objio/Unsplash)

Big Tech Is About to Make Our Terrible Health Care System Even Worse
Akil Vicks, Jacobin
Vicks writes: "America's health care system is in crisis."

“It's like Uber, but for nurses.” Does that scare you? It should. Private hospitals are increasingly teaming up with Silicon Valley to make American health care even more exploitative.


America’s health care system is in crisis. As frontline health care workers abandon the field at an alarming rate, hospitals are struggling to meet staffing demands — and patients are suffering for it. But Craig Allan Ahrens, senior vice president of strategy and growth for a start-up called CareRev, has an “innovative” solution for both short-staffed hospitals and burned-out healthcare workers:

The solution isn’t overly complicated. It all goes back to supply and demand. By creating a pool of ready skilled labor willing to work as needed instead of only full-time, healthcare systems can take advantage of professionals who want to work to tackle fluctuating needs.

Translation: Uber for nurses.

The idea has been gathering steam during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has pushed America’s capitalist health care system to its limits, dramatically exposing and exacerbating preexisting issues. The imperative for health care to turn a profit has left hospitals woefully understaffedunder-resourced, and unable to properly deal with the influx of COVID-19 patients. Thus, the question of the health care labor market has been driven to the fore, with everyone agreeing that something needs to change.

But instead of acknowledging that decades of pinching pennies and cutting corners led to this chaotic juncture and course-correcting by sacrificing future profits to permanently increase capacity, major health care companies have opted for a more predictable response. They’ve united with venture capital and Silicon Valley in a depressingly on-brand pivot to the gig economy.

Saving money on labor, regardless of the outcome for workers and patients, is the name of the game in hospital management. It’s how we got into this mess to begin with. And it seems the responsible parties know better than to let a good crisis go to waste.

The Flexibility Trap

CareRev, which received $50 million in series A funding from Transformation Capital earlier last year, is just one of several companies looking to “bring a different perspective” to health care labor. The company does not employ nurses; instead, it functions as a technology-driven platform that connects hospitals needing shifts filled to nurses and other health care specialists looking for work on their own schedule. Like Uber drivers, these nurses operate as independent contractors.

Because nurses who use CareRev are not employees of the company, they aren’t eligible for benefits through it. CareRev offers its users the ability to purchase health care through a partnership with Stride Health — the same insurance broker that works with other gig work companies like Uber. And that’s as far as benefits extend. Workers using the app are left to their own devices to manage tax contributions, retirement funds, and what to do about money when they need time off.

According to proponents of the new model, it’s not the management-by-stress techniques employed by profit-focused hospital executives that are driving the labor exodus from health care. The problem is the lack of “flexibility.” It’s not understaffed and under-resourced hospital floors, according to Ahrens, but the “red tape (of) regulatory and licensing hurdles to practice” and the “onerous onboarding and credentialing processes that keep professionals in orientations instead of actually providing care” that are making people leave the profession they once cared deeply about. CareRev advertises higher wages to nurses than standard full-time employment, but in pitching the gig model to hospital administrators, Ahrens advises that “engaging professionals beyond money by focusing on flexibility is key.”

The word “flexibility” does a lot of heavy lifting in selling gig work as innovative and emancipatory for workers. However, as political scientist and author of the book Consumer Management in the Internet Age: How Customers Became Managers in the Modern Workplace Joshua Sperber told Jacobin, “Flexibility means you’re fundamentally precarious.” Sperber noted that in traditional labor markets, workers compete with each other to fill job openings, but once in the workplace, they often find shared interests and some measure of stability. With the gig economy, workers are constantly in competition with each other for the next shift. Gig companies, says Sperber:

promote the idea that you have the choice to say yes or no, pick up what hours you want or set your own rates, and in practice, that’s never going to work because you’re competing with a whole bunch of other comparably qualified professionals. So, there’s not only increasing downward pressure on wages, but there’s also pressure to accept jobs even when they’re forty miles away.

Companies like CareRev and its competitors — ShiftMed, Trusted Health, Nomad Health, connectRN — are raising tens of millions of dollars in venture capital investment because they provide value to their customers. But their customers are not the health care workers who want to earn a living on their platforms. Their actual customers are for-profit hospitals desperate to cut labor costs.

Labor historian and history professor at University of Chicago Gabriel Winant examined the relationship between neoliberal capitalism and the health care industry in his book The Next Shift: The Fall of Manufacturing and the Rise of Health Care in Rust Belt AmericaHe spoke with Jacobin about how health care employers have historically viewed labor as a hindrance to their profits rather than facilitators of care to their patients:

Individual employers — hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies — have incentives to try to hold down their staffing levels as much as possible, since this is the best way for them to make their margins work. In consequence, health care is run increasingly on a “lean” basis, at the bare minimum of staffing, and then, when there is a need to increase supply, firms like CareRev are positioned to profit; it’s good for them and good for hospitals but bad for workers and bad for patients.”

Lean, Mean Profit Machine

The lean paradigm and resulting worker burnout existed long before the pandemic. The focus on margins rather than patient care, justified by the assumption that the same efficiency that increased profit would also benefit patients, led hospitals to look to automotive manufacturing as the template for how health care should be administered.

Originating in the auto industry, “just-in-time” production is the practice of dynamically scaling labor, resources, and production to match demand — always ordering parts or workers at the last minute based on a real-time assessment of needs, and never keeping extra reserves on hand since doing so might be financially wasteful. For hospitals, this has meant reducing the number of hospital beds and carrying the absolute minimum of drugs and personal protective equipment (PPE). And since labor remains the biggest cost to any hospital, reducing full-time staff has become a key feature of “successful” hospital administration.

Hospital administrators will fight tooth and nail for the continued ability to put their patients’ health and their workers’ well-being in jeopardy for profit. We saw this clearly in Massachusetts, where nurses at Saint Vincent Hospital recently ended the longest nurses’ strike in state history over safe staffing levels. And the pandemic has only increased hospitals’ appetite for cheap and flexible labor.

Before the pandemic, hospitals were mostly content to supplement their lean staffing with travel nurses from staffing agencies. Travel nurses typically are engaged in six- or twelve-week contracts at the same hospital. Some eventually are hired on full-time. Travel nurses are also likely to be compensated for the expenses related to moving for a job. Hospitals spend more for temporary travel nurses than they do for ordinary full-time nurses, but as Winant explained:

Many travel nurses have put themselves in harm’s way out of a sense of obligation or a justifiable desire for a pay bump or both in the past two years, and there’s nothing wrong — and even something laudable — about the individual choice to do that. And of course, nurses should have the right to adventure and travel and mobility, just like everyone should. But this industry is currently tied to a model where hospitals don’t employ enough nurses or other workers even during normal times — don’t pay them enough or treat them with the respect they deserve — and the travel nurses are brought in to cover over that ugly reality when it starts to show.

The cost of travel nurses has increased substantially over the pandemic. Some hospitals are paying over $200 an hour for nurses to take shifts. Some agencies have begun to import nurses from other countries to meet the demand and potentially lower costs, but hospitals are becoming frustrated with the time it takes to get foreign-born medical professionals through immigration.

CareRev and its fellow harbingers of gigification are seeking to remedy this contradiction, allowing hospitals to source temporary staff locally for much less than they pay for either full-time or travel nurses. Hospitals can have cheap labor on hand when they need it, and they bear no responsibility for those workers when there’s no immediate demand for their skills. In that sense, the Uber-for-nurses model is the dystopian logical conclusion of just-in-time production as applied to health care.

And there are other benefits to the gig model for health care employers. As the Saint Vincent nurses demonstrated, unions have some ability to change their working conditions — directly through striking, but also indirectly through organizing to pass bills like they did in California, where safe staffing levels are now state mandated.

In the gig economy, there is no communal space for workers to meet and organize. Instead of talking with fellow nurses about looking for work and how they are treated by hospital administration, job seekers are stuck looking at their phones trying to decide if the shift located forty miles away is worth it. Gigification is the most direct method of labor atomization capitalism has ever employed.

The Burnout-to-Precarity Pipeline

The pandemic prompted a surge of unemployed and underemployed workers to risk their health and enter the gig economy. A recent Pew Research Center study found that 9 percent of Americans performed some sort of app-based gig labor in the past year. Most reported that it was not their main source of income but rather a way to make ends meet or to save some extra money in a financially stressful and uncertain time. Over a third of respondents said that gig work was essential or important for making ends meet, with 52 percent saying that their motivation in taking gig work was covering for fluctuations in income. Pew notes that majorities of gig workers are satisfied with the work and pay, and feelings about the lack of benefits are basically split down the middle.

There are people for whom the gig model is perfect for their needs. According to Pew, 35 percent of gig workers got into it because they wanted to be their own boss. It’s uncertain how many of those 35 percent actually enjoy “self-employment” once they are doing it.

The problem, in any case, is that gig work isn’t self-employment. Organizations like the Gig Workers Collective, led by Instacart worker Vanessa Bain, are trying to fight against the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Bain related to Jacobin that the autonomy nominally granted to gig workers is superficial. Workers’ options are determined by ratings systems and algorithms. They do not get to set their own rates. Their compensation is also set by algorithms — and, in the case of CareRev, the deals negotiated with hospitals looking to cut labor costs.

It’s disingenuous for health care gig work companies like CareRev to sell themselves as an antidote for burnout, when in fact they’re helping hospitals facilitate the lean staffing ratios that are a major contributor to burnout. And in fact, this new trend is likely to exacerbate the burnout we’re seeing among health care workers. What Ahrens refers to derisively as the “red tape” of orientation and regulatory certification serves a useful function, preparing new staff for the demands of the job and the specific rhythms and procedures of individual hospital floors. Transient nursing drops uninitiated strangers into already stressful situations and can have the paradoxical effect of making work harder for full-time staff trying to care for their patients while also bringing new staff up to speed.

It’s not unreasonable to predict that the burnout-to-precarity pipeline that health care gig work companies are creating will result in a scenario where staffing consists mostly of gig workers spending the majority of their time split between the same few hospitals, functionally employed but treated like private contractors, their working conditions determined by someone else’s keystrokes.

The ultimate problem with this lean philosophy is not just that it’s inherently vulnerable to unpredictable events like a pandemic — though that is a serious flaw, as the last two years have demonstrated. The ultimate problem is that it treats workers and patients as little more than inputs in a system designed to generate profit. Do we want a health care system designed to heal us when we’re sick, or do we want a business scheme designed to enrich a few executives at everyone else’s expense? In the end, we can only choose one.

READ MORE



Controversial Teddy Roosevelt Statue Removed From Outside New York City MuseumA bronze statue of Theodore Roosevelt on a horse with a Native American man on one side and an African man on the other side stands in front of the American Museum of Natural History on June 30, 2020 in New York. (photo: Liao Pan/China News Service/Getty Images)

Controversial Teddy Roosevelt Statue Removed From Outside New York City Museum
Tim Fitzsimons, MSN
Fitzsimons writes: "The removal of New York City's controversial monument to 26th U.S President Theodore Roosevelt was removed this week, according to the American Museum of Natural History."

ALSO SEE: Theodore Roosevelt:
'The Only Good Indians Are the Dead Indians'

The removal of New York City's controversial monument to 26th U.S President Theodore Roosevelt was removed this week, according to the American Museum of Natural History.

"The process, conducted with historic preservation specialists and approved by multiple New York City agencies, will include restoration of the plaza in front of the Museum, which will continue through the spring," a museum spokesperson said in a statement.

"The Museum is proud to continue as the site of New York State’s official memorial to Theodore Roosevelt."

The bronze sculpture of Roosevelt on horseback with Native American and African figures on either side of him has gazed out across Central Park West from a public plot of land outside the entrance of the American Museum of Natural History since 1940.

The statue had long drawn accusations of racism, and in 2020, the museum requested its removal because of its depiction of subjugation and racial inferiority, and former mayor Bill de Blasio quickly indicated his support.

"It is the right decision and the right time to remove this problematic statue," the former mayor said.

The museum said its request was prompted by the killing of George Floyd on May 25 and the demonstrations protesting racism that have followed.

The New York City Public Design Commission approved its removal and relocation in June, and in November, the museum announced the statue would be moved on long-term loan to the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota.

Historians regard Roosevelt’s legacy as both “progressive” and “racist” as he “viewed other peoples around the world as distinctly inferior to Americans.”


READ MORE


Sunday Song: Bob Marley | Redemption SongSinger, songwriter, poet Bob Marley. (photo: AP)

Sunday Song: Bob Marley | Redemption Song
Bob Marley, YouTube
Excerpt: "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

Lyrics: Bob Marley | Redemption Song
From the 1980 album, Uprising

Old pirates, yes, they rob I;
Sold I to the merchant ships,
Minutes after they took I
From the bottomless pit.
But my hand was made strong
By the 'and of the Almighty.
We forward in this generation
Triumphantly.
Won't you help to sing
This songs of freedom
'Cause all I ever have:
Redemption songs;
Redemption songs.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
'Cause none of them can stop the time.
How long shall they kill our prophets,
While we stand aside and look? Ooh!
Some say it's just a part of it:
We've got to fullfil the book.

Won't you help to sing
This songs of freedom-
'Cause all I ever have:
Redemption songs;
Redemption songs;
Redemption songs.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our mind.
Wo! Have no fear for atomic energy,
'Cause none of them-a can-a stop-a the time.
How long shall they kill our prophets,
While we stand aside and look?
Yes, some say it's just a part of it:
We've got to fullfil the book.
Won't you have to sing
This songs of freedom? -
'Cause all I ever had:
Redemption songs -
All I ever had:
Redemption songs:
These songs of freedom,
Songs of freedom.

READ MORE


We've Breached Earth's Threshold for Chemical Pollution, Study SaysAs the demand for oil decreases, petrochemical companies are ramping up their plastic production. (photo: Louis Vest/Flickr)

We've Breached Earth's Threshold for Chemical Pollution, Study Says
Elizabeth Claire Alberts, Mongabay
Alberts writes: "Many thousands of human-made chemicals and synthetic pollutants are circulating throughout our world, with new ones entering production all the time - so many, in fact, that scientists now say we've crossed a critical threshold that heightens the risk of destabilizing the entire Earth operating system and posing a clear threat to humanity."

Many thousands of human-made chemicals and synthetic pollutants are circulating throughout our world, with new ones entering production all the time — so many, in fact, that scientists now say we’ve crossed a critical threshold that heightens the risk of destabilizing the entire Earth operating system and posing a clear threat to humanity.

There are about 350,000 different types of artificial chemicals currently in the global market, from plastics to pesticides to industrial chemicals like flame retardants and insulators. While research has shown that many of these chemicals can have deleterious impacts on the natural world and human health, most substances have not been evaluated, with their interactions and impacts not yet understood or entirely unknown.

“The knowledge gaps are massive and we don’t have the tools to understand all of what is being produced or released or [what is] having effects,” Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist and microplastics researcher from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, told Mongabay in a video interview. “We just don’t know. So we try to look at what we do know and add up all these little puzzle pieces to get a big picture.”

As scientists endeavor to identify and understand the impacts of chemicals and other artificial substances — referred to en masse as “novel entities” — industries are pumping them out at a staggering rate. The global production of chemicals has increased fiftyfold since 1950, and this is expected to triple by 2050, according to a report published by the European Environment Agency. While some novel entities are regulated by governmental bodies and international agreements, many can be produced without any restrictions or controls.

The mismatch between the rapid rate at which novel entities are being produced, compared to the snail’s pace at which governments assess risk and monitor impacts — leaving society largely flying blind as to chemical threats — is what prompted Carney Almroth and colleagues to make a weighty argument in a new paper published in Science and Technology: that we have breached the “planetary boundary” for novel entities, endangering the stability of the planet we call home.

Quantifying the novel entities boundary

The concept of planetary boundaries was first proposed by a team of international scientists in 2009 to articulate key natural processes that, when kept in balance, support biodiversity; but when disrupted beyond a certain threshold, can destabilize and even destroy the Earth’s ability to function and support life. Nine boundaries have been identified: climate change, biosphere integrity, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol pollution, freshwater use, biogeochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus, land-system change, and of course, the release of novel chemicals.

Many of these boundaries have clear thresholds. For instance, scientists determined that humanity would overshoot the safe operating space for climate change when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceeded 350 parts per million (ppm), which happened in 1988. The threshold for novel entities, however, has until recently evaded definition, largely because of the knowledge gaps surrounding these substances.

Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at Stockholm University’s Stockholm Resilience Centre, who co-authored the new paper, said these knowledge gaps aren’t present because these chemicals and other polluting substances don’t pose risks — it’s because scientists are still scrambling to understand novel entities and the myriad ways they can impact the natural world.

“It’s a very new field of study,” Villarrubia-Gómez told Mongabay in a video interview. “It’s in its infancy in comparison to other major environmental problems … most research has been done in the past seven years.”

Carney Almroth said researchers have used the Holocene, the current geological epoch that began just over 10,000 years ago, as a measuring point to quantify the thresholds of other planetary boundaries, but this approach wasn’t appropriate for novel entities.

“This boundary is different from the others because the others are all referring back to the Holocene conditions — that was 10,000 years of a very stable Earth system and Earth climate,” Carney Almroth said. Scientists “can look back and ask, ‘What were carbon dioxide levels then and where was nitrogen and phosphorus during that time period?’ and refer back to that [as a baseline]. We couldn’t do that because novel entities didn’t exist during that time period and the background baseline levels would be zero for most of them.”

Instead, the researchers gathered all of the information they could on artificial chemicals and other pollutants, looking at their impacts all along their supply chain, from extraction to production to use, and eventually, to their disposal as waste. Then they used a weight-of-evidence approach to determine that novel entities could, in fact, disrupt the planet’s stability.

“The weight of evidence indicates now that we are exceeding the boundary, but there’s more work to be done,” Carney Almroth said.

Björn Beeler, the international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), who was not involved in this new research, called it a “very smart academic paper” that illustrates the need to act.

“We’re about to enter an exponential growth period,” Beeler told Mongabay in a phone interview. “If you’re concerned about toxic substance exposure, the amount of toxic substances [including plastic pollution] is set to grow three- [or] fourfold in the decades ahead.”

He added: “If you’re worried about it now, it’s set to get a lot worse.”

With science falling far behind in assessing risk, and governments largely failing to regulate chemicals, humanity is flying blind into a future where the unforeseen impacts of chemical pollutants could be catastrophic.

The release of novel entities isn’t the only planetary boundary that humanity has breached. Climate change, biosphere integrity, land system change and the biogeochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus have also pushed past the safe operating limits that keep Earth a habitable place.

An ‘existential’ threat to humanity

What is known about chemical substances and other pollutants has long raised alarms among experts — dating back to Rachel Carson and the publication of Silent Spring, which helped launch the modern environmental movement. Hazardous chemicals such as pesticides can damage soil health, contaminate drinking water, and even get carried on the wind, to impact a wider environment and disrupt populations of birds, mammals and fish. Many of the chemicals we ingest, such as pharmaceuticals, persist after being flushed down the toilet, with wastewater polluting rivers and oceans, or even the land when contaminated solid sewage sludge is used to fertilize crops.

Chemical persistence in the environment is a major thorny problem: Research has shown that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — highly toxic and carcinogenic substances banned by the U.S. as far back as 1977 and once widely used in coolants and oil paints — have continued building up in the blubber of killer whales (Orcinus orca), posing a genuine threat to a species that is already struggling in many parts of the world. So called “forever chemicals” — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), that are highly toxic, carcinogenic and act like endocrine disruptors, are currently commonly used in disposable food packaging, cookware, cosmetics and even dental floss. A recent report also found them to be common in most of the drinking water in the U.S. They take hundreds or thousands of years to break down, but no U.S. limits have yet been placed on the concentration of forever chemicals in water.

“Even if we were to stop using and releasing [many novel entities], they would still be [here] for decades, or centuries, depending on what [substance] we’re talking about,” Carney Almroth said, adding that the risk of residual impacts from novel entities makes it even more imperative to stop, or at least slow down, the release of these substances.

The new paper in Science and Technology takes a specific look at plastics, which have become ever-present in daily life as food packaging, kitchenware and appliances. In recent years, much attention has been paid to the trillions of microplastics — fragments smaller than 5 millimeters, or three-sixteenths of an inch — polluting the global oceans, and the potential for larger plastic pieces to entangle or choke wildlife. New research shows that the sea breeze can even propel microplastics into the atmosphere, contaminating the very air we breathe and impacting climate change.

Plastic is highly problematic since it’s made out of a cocktail of chemicals that can leach out dangerous substances, especially when heated, cooled or scratched. A chemical compound known as bisphenol A (BPA) has been shown to act as an endocrine disruptor and interfere with hormones, impact immune systems and even promote certain cancers. One study even found that BPA can be absorbed into the human body through mere skin contact. But it’s not just BPA that’s harmful — many BPA alternatives have been found to be equally a risk to human health.

“We have been told for many, many decades that [plastics are] inert, and that they don’t release chemicals to their surroundings,” Villarrubia-Gómez said. “More and more, we’re discovering that that’s not true. Plastic leaches other chemicals … and we are in contact with [plastic] the whole day.”

Plastic isn’t just a problem in its end state. To make plastic, which uses petroleum as its base, greenhouse gases like ethane and methane need to be fracked from the ground and “cracked” into new compounds, the precursors to plastics. These industrial processes can release a number of toxic chemicals, along with various greenhouse gases, into the environment. The production of plastics is also intimately tied to the fossil fuel industry; as demand for oil drops, the petrochemical industry is ramping up its production of plastics.

“They see plastics as their next piggy bank,” Carney Almroth said. “Simultaneously, there’s a big push for an increase in plastics production and plastic use and plastic sales.”

Beeler said the release of novel entities into the environment poses a similar risk as climate change. “They’re both existential threats to humanity,” he noted. “Climate change [will determine] where you can live and how you can have a livelihood. Chemicals actually just remove your health — it’s very, very direct and personal. So I would draw them [as being at] the same crisis levels. It’s just that we’re not that socially conscious of chemicals and chemical safety, as we are of climate now.”

Determining a chemical’s risk often takes many years of methodical research, as scientists trace the causal connections between a synthetic substance and resulting environmental and health impacts. By then, that substance will often be ubiquitous, used in products across society.

‘Uptick in awareness’

While change is urgently needed to mitigate the impacts of novel entities, Carney Almroth said such an industrial paradigm shift would require a “massive overhaul of systemic societal structures.”

Industries that produce novel entities are “supported by the fact that we require constant economic growth,” she said. “This is one of the ways that they’ve been able to keep producing and using chemicals, even in the face of toxicity data, because they can show that it can grow economies, provide jobs, provide materials and so on and so forth.”

Despite the enormity of the problem, there may be opportunities for change in the near future. For instance, there are calls to form an international panel on chemical pollution, similar to those institutions focused on biodiversity and climate, such as the IUCN or the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In February and March, the U.N. Environment Assembly (UNEA) will also be meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss a number of environmental issues, including whether to mandate a new global treaty on plastics.

Beeler said that while negotiations may swing in the direction of only treating plastic as a waste issue, there are calls to address the entire plastic life cycle, taking into account all of the chemicals and pollutants plastic releases into the environment from production to waste stream.

He also said there’s also a reason for optimism in the way heightened public interest in plastic pollution has helped raise awareness of the larger problem of synthetic chemical contaminants.

“There’s been a small uptick in awareness [of] the harm from chemicals … due to the affiliation and link to plastics,” he said. “But prior to plastics, it was really [an awareness] desert — and plastics have created a little oasis of growing consciousness.”

This article was originally published on Mongabay


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 ...