RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Trump Is Killing the Economy Out of Spite Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51503"><span class="small">Paul Krugman, The New York Times</span></a>   
Friday, 09 October 2020 11:03

Krugman writes: "Last year Donald Trump called Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, a 'nasty, vindictive, horrible person.' Actually, she isn't - but he is."

A man wearing a mask walks by the New York Stock Exchange on March 17, 2020 at Wall Street in New York City. (photo: Getty)
A man wearing a mask walks by the New York Stock Exchange on March 17, 2020 at Wall Street in New York City. (photo: Getty)


Trump Is Killing the Economy Out of Spite

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

09 October 20


So what will he do if he loses the election?

ast year Donald Trump called Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, a “nasty, vindictive, horrible person.” Actually, she isn’t — but he is.

Trump’s vindictiveness has become a major worry as the election approaches. He has already signaled that he won’t accept the result if he loses, which seems increasingly likely though not certain. Nobody knows what chaos, possibly including violence, he may unleash if the election doesn’t go his way.

Even aside from that concern, however, a defeated Trump would still be president for two and a half months. Would he spend that time acting destructively, in effect taking revenge on America for rejecting him?

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
History Will Remember Mike Pence's Performance for Two Reasons Beyond the Fly on His Head Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Friday, 09 October 2020 08:12

Pierce writes: "The first was his absolute and obvious contempt for the two women with whom he shared the stage."

Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Getty)
Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Getty)


History Will Remember Mike Pence's Performance for Two Reasons Beyond the Fly on His Head

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

09 October 20


The first was his absolute and obvious contempt for the two women with whom he shared the stage.

ne day, the president*’s Jewish grandchildren will grow up and realize that a big lump of Velveeta with a fly on its head used them as a shield for their howling bigot of a grandfather. That will be a bad day.

That was one of the many alarums and diversions employed by Vice President Mike Pence Wednesday night when he was asked a question he didn't want to answer, which was practically all of them. Senator Kamala Harris was belaboring him with the president*'s undeniable bigotry, and Pence decided that the proper answer was to point out that the president* has Jewish grandchildren and, therefore, not only can the president* not be anti-Semitic, but also that none of the white-supremacists the president* steadfastly has refused to condemn are anti-Semitic, either.

History will remember Pence's performance in the debate for two reasons beyond the fly on his head and the fact that something else appeared to be crawling out of one of his eyes. The first is his absolute and obvious contempt for the two women—Harris and moderator Susan Page of USA Today—with whom he shared the stage. He repeatedly interrupted Harris; the Democratic campaign already was selling, "Mr. Vice President. I'm Speaking." T-shirts, as well as Biden-Harris flyswatters. He simply bulldozed Page on the agreed-upon time limits. He wasn't as grotesque about it as his boss was last week, but he left the rules in pretty much the same shambles. The second was more important, and vastly more telling. He simply would not answer Page's questions as she asked them. And while it is true that Harris ducked a question about what she and Biden might do as regards the Supreme Court, it hardly measured up against Pence's Patches O'Houlihan act.

The most striking example of what Pence was about in this debate came when Page asked him, as a former governor of Indiana, what that state would do if Roe v. Wade were overturned by a newly confirmed 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority. Now, Mike Pence is not merely anti-choice. He's a damn fanatic on the subject. He introduced the first congressional bill to cut off Planned Parenthood, and he introduced it in 2007. He proposed a bill that would have limited the rape exception for anti-choice laws to cases of "forcible rape." He introduced a federal "personhood" amendment, a concept so far out there that a bill to that effect once was crushed in a referendum campaign in Mississippi.

Moreover, when he was governor of Indiana, he signed no fewer than eight anti-choice bills, one of which would have mandated funeral services for fetuses no matter how they may have died. (This prompted one of the most creative exercises in direct action—the famous "Periods For Pence" campaign, during which women across Indiana called Governor Pence's office during their periods to make sure they didn't have anything for which they might have to throw a funeral.) Pence's anti-choice bona fides were a big part of drawing evangelical voters to a ticket headed by the most thoroughgoing heathen ever to run for president. He is one of the most enthusiastic fetus obsessives in American politics.

And yet, on Tuesday night, this was the answer he gave to Page's question about what would happen in Indiana if Roe were overturned—something that god and man know has been central to this administration*'s judicial selection process from Neil Gorsuch to Amy Coney Barrett.

President Trump and I could not be more enthusiastic about the opportunity to see Amy Coney Barrett become justice Amy Coney Barrett. She's a brilliant woman. And she will bring a lifetime of experience and a sizable American family to the Supreme Court of the United States. Our hope is in the hearing next week, unlike Justice Kavanaugh received with treatment from you and others. And we hope she gets a fair hearing. And we particularly hope that we don't see the kind of attacks on her Christian faith that we saw before. The Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee before when, when Judge Barrett was being confirmed for the Court of Appeals, expressed concern that the dogma of her faith lived loudly within her, and Durbin of Illinois said that it was a concern. Senator, I know one of our judicial nominees, you actually attacked because they were a member of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, just because the Knights of Columbus holds pro-life views.

Mike Pence dodged a question about repealing Roe v. Wade!

This is the equivalent of hearing Joe Biden bad-mouth the good people of Scranton, PA.

Of course, he wants Roe repealed. He's never shut up about that. But now that a repeal seems more imminent than it has been at any time since 1972, support for the original decision is peaking in the high 60s and low 70s. As part of a campaign that is shedding the support of women faster than the White House staff is shedding viral load, Mike Pence has the gallows in his eyes and sees what could be a historic beating on the horizon, and so even Mike Pence's career-long campaign to shred the privacy rights of 51 percent of the American population had to give way to the Hippocratic Oath of political rhetoric: First, Do No Harm. It was epochal. Because of his fealty to a plague-ridden president*, a fly-specked Mike Pence couldn't even answer his simple, customary "yes" to a question he's answered 1,000 times before.

Perhaps of more significance down the line was Pence's refusal to state flatly that he would accept the results of the election, which, of course, is completely in line with what the president* has been saying for months. Instead, he said this, and I quote it at length because there are some tasty nuggets amid the word salad:

When you talk about accepting the outcome of the election. I must tell you, Senator, your party has spent the last three and a half years trying to overturn the results of the last election. So amazing. When Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States, the FBI actually spied on President Trump in my campaign. There were documents released this week that the CIA actually made a referral to the FBI documenting that those allegations were coming from the Hillary Clinton campaign. And of course, we've all seen the avalanche what, what you put the country through for, for the better part of three years, until it was founded. There was no obstruction, no collusion, Case Closed.

And then Senator Harris, you and your colleagues in the in the Congress tried to impeach the president of the United States over a phone call. And now Hillary Clinton has actually said to Joe Biden that under in her words, under no circumstances should he could see the election. So let me just say I think we're gonna win this election. President Trump and I are fighting every day in courthouses to prevent Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from changing the rules and creating this universal mail in voting that will create a massive opportunity for voter fraud. We have a free and fair election. We know we're going to have confidence in it. And I believe in all my heart that President Donald Trump is going to be reelected for four more years.

It's all in there, every bit of wormwood with which this administration is attempting to poison the process. In that answer, Pence is catapulting a conspiracy theory on the 2016 election that comes directly from a debunked Russian propaganda campaign. He also read off the administration*'s bogus script about mail-in voting. (Does Indiana have vote-by-mail? Yes, sort of.) Kamala Harris did what she had to do on Tuesday night. Meanwhile, the hollowed-out shell that once was Mike Pence proved conclusively that it has been filled to its top with Donald J. Trump. If I weren't laughing at the fly on its head, I might have found that sad.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Plot Against Gretchen Whitmer Shows the Danger of Private Militias Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56569"><span class="small">Mary B. McCord, The New York Times</span></a>   
Friday, 09 October 2020 08:12

McCord writes: "In the swirls of disinformation that now pollute our political discourse, one is particularly dangerous: that private militias are constitutionally protected."

A gathering in Louisville, Kentucky, in September. (photo: Bryan Woolston/Reuters)
A gathering in Louisville, Kentucky, in September. (photo: Bryan Woolston/Reuters)


The Plot Against Gretchen Whitmer Shows the Danger of Private Militias

By Mary B. McCord, The New York Times

09 October 20


These groups have no constitutional right to exist.

n the swirls of disinformation that now pollute our political discourse, one is particularly dangerous: that private militias are constitutionally protected.

Although these vigilante groups often cite the Second Amendment’s “well regulated militia” for their authority, history and Supreme Court precedent make clear that the phrase was not intended to — and does not — authorize private militias outside of government control.

Indeed, these armed groups have no authority to call themselves forth into militia service; the Second Amendment does not protect such activity; and all 50 states prohibit it.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Lower Court Order on Abortion Pills Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54259"><span class="small">Nina Totenberg, NPR</span></a>   
Friday, 09 October 2020 08:12

Totenberg writes: "The U.S. Supreme Court has refused, for now, to reimpose FDA regulations that require women seeking medication abortion to pick up the prescribed pills in person at a clinic instead of by mail."

Abortion rights demonstrators rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington. (photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
Abortion rights demonstrators rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington. (photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)


Supreme Court Refuses to Block Lower Court Order on Abortion Pills

By Nina Totenberg, NPR

09 October 20

 

he U.S. Supreme Court has refused, for now, to reimpose FDA regulations that require women seeking medication abortion to pick up the prescribed pills in person at a clinic instead of by mail.

The court's decision came Thursday night on a 6-to-2 vote that rejected an emergency appeal from the Trump administration.

The challenge to the FDA regulation was brought by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists after the the agency relaxed similar regulations for other drugs — including opioids — in order to limit patients' exposure to Covid-19 during the pandemic, but refused to relax the same rule for those with prescriptions for abortions with pills in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

Federal Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland ruled in favor of ACOG, declaring that requiring such in-person pick-ups of pills during a pandemic posed "a substantial obstacle to women seeking an abortion." The Supreme Court has long ruled that such substantial obstacles unconstitutionally interfere with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

On Thursday night, the Supreme Court turned down the Trump administration's attempt to block the lower court order. But the decision was more of a punt, than a long-lasting decree.

The high court said it would hold the Trump administration's request "in obeyance" to permit the district court judge to promptly consider other efforts by the administration to "dissolve, modify, or stay" its previous order if "relevant circumstances have changed." And the justices said that their decision did not indicate their views on the merits of the case should it come to them again.

The language of the one-paragraph order seemed to suggest that the court was simply unwilling to make any decision in an abortion case two weeks after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and just days before the U.S. Senate is scheduled to take up the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as Ginsburg's replacement.

"It is a relief that for the next few weeks the Trump administration cannot force abortion patients to needlessly risk contracting a life-threatening disease as a condition of obtaining care," said Julia Kaye, lead counsel for ACOG in the case. But, she added, "When President Trump is trying to rush through a third Supreme Court justice with the express goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, the court's delayed ruling in this case gives little comfort that the right to abortion is secure."

But Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the SBA List, which opposes abortion rights, said her group was "disappointed by the lack of a ruling."

"We thank the Trump administration for fighting for vitally important health and safety protections and are confident we will ultimately prevail," she said.

Dissenting from Thursday night's decision were Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Writing for the two, Alito said that "for all practical purposes there is little difference between what the court has done and an express denial" of the Trump administration's emergency motion to block the lower court order.

Alito went on to blast his colleagues for other actions it has taken during the pandemic in upholding bans on large church gatherings, decisions that he characterized as "unimaginable restraints" on the "free exercise of religion."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Growing Drugs Damages the Environment Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56559"><span class="small">Tim Schauenberg, Deutsche Welle</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 October 2020 12:54

Schauenberg writes: "Whether they smoked a joint on the couch or sniffed a line in a club, some 269 million people around the world indulged in drugs in 2018, according to the United Nations."

Some 269 million people around the world indulged in drugs in 2018, according to the United Nations. (photo: Creative Commons)
Some 269 million people around the world indulged in drugs in 2018, according to the United Nations. (photo: Creative Commons)


How Growing Drugs Damages the Environment

By Tim Schauenberg, Deutsche Welle

08 October 20

 

hether they smoked a joint on the couch or sniffed a line in a club, some 269 million people around the world indulged in drugs in 2018, according to the United Nations.

Cocaine production is at record levels, opium has been on an upward trend for the past decade, the market for synthetic drugs is growing in the Netherlands and some countries are legalizing cannabis. In short, business is booming.

It is no secret that drug trafficking and cartel wars cost human lives but so far there has been little focus on how this global trade impacts the environment.

Cannabis Vs. Potatoes: Which Has a Bigger Carbon Footprint?

With 192 million users in 2018, cannabis is by far the most popular drug worldwide — excluding alcohol and tobacco.

Efforts to legalize marijuana are continuing to gather pace in the United States, where the drug has already become a billion-dollar market. But cultivating the plants in greenhouses, with optimum light, ventilation and temperature, guzzles an enormous amount of resources.

According to estimates, cannabis production in the U.S. already accounts for around 1% of the country's total energy consumption.

"Within a single year, approximately 16.5 tons of carbon dioxide are emitted in the United States as the result of indoor cannabis production, equivalent to the annual emissions of 3 million cars," according to a report by the University of California, Davis.

That means that a single joint has a similar carbon footprint to about 6.6 pounds of potatoes.

Cannabis Plants Add to Water Stress

Cannabis is also an extremely thirsty plant, needing twice as much water as tomatoes or grapes.

About 70% of the cannabis consumed across the country is grown in California. Such large-scale cultivation of a crop that requires up to 6 gallons of water per day per plant has only intensified the region's water shortages during dry seasons.

Scientists from the Californian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife estimate that illegal outdoor cultivation has lowered the water level in some flowing streams by up to a quarter.

Clearing Forests to Plant Coca

The ecological footprint of the world's 19 million cocaine users is particularly apparent in Latin America. According to the United Nations, Colombia had the potential to produce 1,120 tons of pure cocaine in 2018 — a record crop for the South American country.

Since 2001, about 741,000,000 acres of forest have been cleared for the cultivation of coca — the plant that produces cocaine.

Following a temporary decline, "we can see actually the same peak of coca that we were watching 20 years ago," Paulo Sandoval, a geographer at the University of Oregon, told DW.

Sandoval's latest satellite data shows that around 123,000 acres of coca are currently being cultivated in Colombia's Amazon region alone — about half of it in nature reserves that are home to a rich diversity of species.

But the plantations he surveyed account for only 20% of the total cultivated area.

Colombia's Approach 'Harms' the Environment

Until now, the Colombian government has relied on a strategy of eradication in its fight against coca cultivation. As part of its campaign, aircraft sprayed plantations with the highly concentrated herbicide glyphosate. This method effectively destroyed many coca plantations, but it also damaged neighboring forests and farmland.

Elizabeth Tellman, a geographer at Columbia University's Earth Institute in New York, says this approach harms rather than helps the environment. And once the fields are destroyed, the cartels simply clear more forests elsewhere and plant new coca crops.

"We do know that it [the destruction of cultivated areas] has not only had no effect (...) it's been really counterproductive," she told DW in an interview.

Coca leaves aren't just grown in the jungle; they're also processed into cocaine in secret laboratories there. This process requires highly toxic chemicals such as ammonia, acetone and hydrochloric acid. Scientists estimate that several million liters of these substances end up in soils and rivers each year. There are now few aquatic plants or animals living in those contaminated waters, according to a 2015 EU report.

MDMA, Ecstasy and Co.

So-called party drugs — from pills to a line of powder in a nightclub bathroom — have grown in popularity in recent years.

The Netherlands and Belgium are hotspots for synthetic drugs. The production of a kilo of pure MDMA, the main substance in ecstasy, results in 10 kilos (22 pounds) of toxic waste — or 30 kilos (66 pounds) in the case of amphetamines. This might include sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acids and acetone, substances that would normally have to be disposed of as hazardous waste using protective suits.

The Dutch Water Research Institute (KWR) estimates that in 2017, around 7,000 tons of these substances were either dumped somewhere in drums or leaked into the ground and rivers. "That's unbelievable," says Eric Emke, a scientist at the KWR.

A report aired by Dutch public broadcaster NOS showed just how abrasive these liquids can be. In it, a scientist immerses a chicken leg in a yellow sodium hydroxide solution. After two days, the meat has completely dissolved, leaving just the bone behind.

Emke says the waste is sometimes dumped into containers used to collect cattle excrement, becoming mixed with the dung that is spread on corn crops.

"And so five years ago, they discovered amphetamine and ecstasy residues in corn lice."

Jeremy Douglas, the regional representative of the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime for Southeast Asia, says Thailand, Laos and Myanmar have also become a hub for "industrial scale" global synthetic drug production in recent years.

"The spillover damage to groundwater and habitats is severe, and frankly it is nothing short of an ecological and public health disaster," he said.

Groundwater Sinking in Afghanistan

Around 337,000 football fields, or 23 times the size of Paris — that's the amount of land that was used to cultivate opium worldwide in 2019, according to the UN. The main producers are Myanmar, Mexico and Afghanistan — which accounts for 84% of global cultivation.

Poppy fields spread mainly across the country's southwest in areas where, until the 1990s, there was nothing but arid desert. Today, some 1.4 million people live there, making a living from cultivating opium and agriculture. That's all possible thanks to more than 50,000 solar-powered water pumps that have greened the desert. But that is not as green as it sounds.

A report by socio-economist David Mansfield found that the region's groundwater is sinking by 9.8 feet per year. Wells as deep as 426 feet are now being drilled to find water.

"Each year, more people are arriving in the desert and installing solar deep wells. There are local fears that there will fast become a time when agricultural production will no longer be viable."

The poppy farmers also use chemical fertilizers and strong pesticides to control weeds. Groundwater tests have shown that nitrate levels are significantly higher than what is deemed safe. This can increase the risk of blue-baby syndrome, which leads to heart defects and death in newborns.

Mansfield warns that if water in the region does eventually run out, it will likely force large numbers of people from their homes, sparking a rural exodus.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 Next > End >>

Page 330 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN