World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Global dismay as supreme court ruling leaves Biden’s climate policy in tatters

      by

      Global dismay as supreme court ruling leaves Biden’s climate policy in tattersBiden’s election was billed as heralding a ‘climate presidency’ but congressional and judicial roadblocks mean he has little to show Joe Biden’s election triggered a global surge in optimism that the climate crisis would, finally, be decisively confronted. But the US supreme court’s decision last week to curtail America’s ability to cut planet-heating emissions has proved the latest blow to a faltering effort by Biden on climate that is now in danger of becoming largely moribund.The supreme court’s ruling that the US government could not use its existing powers to phase out coal-fired power generation without “clear congressional authorization” quickly ricocheted around the world among those now accustomed to looking on in dismay at America’s seemingly endless stumbles in addressing global heating.The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s future | Kate AronoffRead moreThe decision “flies in the face of established science and will set back the US’s commitment to keep global temperature below 1.5C”, said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, in reference to the internationally agreed goal to limit global heating before it becomes truly catastrophic, manifesting in more severe heatwaves, floods, droughts and societal unrest.“The people who will pay the price for this will be the most vulnerable communities in the most vulnerable developing countries in the world,” Huq added.The “incredibly undemocratic Scotus ruling” indicates that “backsliding is now the dominant trend in the climate space,” said Yamide Dagnet, director of climate justice at Open Society Foundations and former climate negotiator for the UK and European Union. António Guterres, the secretary general of the United Nations who has called new fossil fuel infrastructure “moral and economic madness”, said via a spokesman that the ruling was a “setback” at a time when countries were badly off track in averting looming climate breakdown.In the 6-3 ruling, backed by the rightwing majority of justices, the supreme court did not completely negate the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate emissions from coal plants. But it did side with Republican-led states in stating that the government could not set broad plans to shift electricity generation away from coal because of the nebulous “major questions doctrine” that demands Congress explicitly decide on significant changes to the US economy.“The court appoints itself, instead of Congress or the expert agency, the decision-maker on climate policy,” wrote justice Elena Kagan in an unusually blunt dissenting opinion. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”Al Gore, the former US vice-president said the ruling was the “result of decades of influence and coordination by the fossil fuel lobby and its allies to delay, obstruct, and dismantle progress toward climate solutions”.For Biden, who called the ruling “devastating”, the court’s decision is just the latest crushing jolt to what was billed as a “climate presidency” when he was elevated to the White House.Landmark legislation to bolster clean energy has stalled in Congress, largely due to the opposition of Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat who has a coal-trading firm, and is perilously close to not being resurrected in time before midterm elections later this year in which Democrats are expected to lose their tenuous hold on Congress. The US, almost uniquely among major democracies, still has no national climate or energy policy in place.Biden’s promise to end oil and gas drilling on public land has been unfulfilled, while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused gasoline prices to leap, prompting the president to urge oil companies to ramp up production, to the horror of climate campaigners.The president has vowed that the US will cut its emissions in half by 2030 but this goal, and America’s waning international credibility on climate change, will be lost without both legislation from Congress and strong executive actions. Both of these factors remain highly uncertain, with the supreme court’s ruling sharply restricting the latter option. Gina McCarthy, the White House’s top climate adviser, has admitted the administration will have to get “creative” in forcing down emissions.“Congress acting on climate was important before this decision, now it’s even more important,” said John Larsen, partner at Rhodium group, a climate and energy analysis organization. According to Rhodium, the supreme court ruling is not fatal to US climate targets but there are still 1.7bn to 2.3bn tons of greenhouse gases that will need to be prevented on top of current policy if the 2030 goal is to be met.“The EPA still has authority, although it is more narrow than it was, so they need to get moving and crank out some rules because there’s not a lot of time left,” Larsen said.“It’s entirely possible the US will meet its emissions target but we have just eight years until 2030. The ball needs to start rolling very fast, very soon, if we are to get there. Everyone needs to really step up and start delivering.”TopicsClimate crisisUS supreme courtUS Environmental Protection AgencyUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Worried about abortion and demonic possession? You’d make a great Republican politician | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Worried about abortion and demonic possession? You’d make a great Republican politicianArwa MahdawiJust when you think you’ve plumbed the depths of delusion and bigotry, another stalwart of the GOP proves you wrong. Astounding work, Kristina Karamo, Scott Neely and Karianne Lisonbee Have you mislaid a few brain cells? Do you have increasingly bizarre delusions? Are you completely befuddled about how the female body works? Well, congratulations! You have what it takes to forge a successful career as a Republican politician. Anyone watching recent events unfold would be forgiven for thinking the main skills required for a job in Republican politics appear to be extreme bigotry combined with a knack for saying whatever outlandish thing comes into your head first.Even so, there are still times when Republican politicians can surprise you with the depths of their inanity. Let me introduce you, for example, to Scott Neely, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor of Arizona. During a televised debate last week Neely discussed an Arizona abortion ban by invoking aliens. “If we found life on Mars, wouldn’t we do everything in our power to protect that life?” Neely asked. “Why can’t we treat human life the same way we would treat alien life?”Neely would probably have quite a lot to talk about with Kristina Karamo, who is vying to become Michigan’s next secretary of state, and has the endorsement of Donald Trump. Karamo has publicly said (in a 2020 podcast that was publicised this week) that she thinks “demonic possession is real” and can be sexually transmitted. Unfortunately for those of us not wanting to catch a bad case of demonic possession, she didn’t go into the details of how this works. Do contraceptives stop sexually transmitted demons? Inquiring minds want to know.Karamo isn’t the only Republican to have made headlines in recent weeks for her unorthodox views on biology. Utah Republican Karianne Lisonbee recently apologised for saying she trusts women to “control [their] intake of semen” in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And, last month, Yesli Vega, who just won a Republican primary in Virginia, told an interviewer that she had heard it was “harder for a woman to get pregnant if she’s been raped … maybe because there’s so much going on in the body”. Clearly, there’s not much going on in the brain, or she might have realised what she had just said.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsRepublicansOpinionAbortionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      After Roe, are Republicans willing to expand the social safety net?

      by

      After Roe, are Republicans willing to expand the social safety net?The party has shown little enthusiasm to help those affected by unplanned pregnancies – is anything likely to change? Republicans across the United States cast the supreme court’s decision last month that allowed states to ban abortion as a victory for “life”. Left unsaid was the quality of life that families and mothers set to be left dealing with unplanned pregnancies might have.For years, the Republican party has pushed to ban a procedure that is mostly sought out by people who are poor, while showing much less enthusiasm for efforts to permanently expand the country’s social safety net. Critics have labeled the party’s stance as caring a lot politically about unborn fetuses, but losing interest in them when they are born as American citizens.I read the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling to see what we lost. Everyone should | Francine ProseRead moreTwenty-six states are now expected to ban abortion entirely following the supreme court’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and following November’s midterm elections, Republicans could gain control of one or both houses of Congress, and make gains in state legislatures.That dynamic could now give many more Americans a close-up look at what the party’s policies mean for women and families dealing with any wave of unplanned pregnancies, and there are signs Republicans are worried about what they will see.“Over the years, we have written on federal policies that we consider ‘pro-life’ that support pregnant women, not just policies that restrict abortion. This line of thinking is no longer a luxury of thought for pro-lifers like us. It is an obligation of pro-life advocacy in the future as we enter what will be a dynamic, uncertain, and uneven state landscape for years to come,” Republican operatives Mark Rodgers and Kiki Bradley wrote in the National Review last month, in an essay calling for the party to get behind policies like paid family leave and tax credits for families with children.“A number of leaders understand that our expressions of concern for life would ring hollow without our movement’s advocacy of a support system for pregnant women and their babies.”Already, there are signs of some Republican lawmakers moving to address these concerns. Republicans senators have proposed two bills expanding aspects of the government social safety net, and lawmakers may end up considering them before the year is out and the new Congress convenes in 2023.“There’s certainly, I think, at least at the intellectual level, a recognition that we need to be approaching these issues in a fresh way,” said Brad Wilcox, a University of Virginia professor affiliated with the Institute for Family Studies and the American Enterprise Institute, both right-leaning thinktanks.Yet opponents of the supreme court’s decision in Dobbs can’t help but contrast the fervency within the party for outlawing abortion with their relative historic coolness towards programs that could help people affected by the bans.“Republicans claim to be for small government – but where it comes to abortion they are for big government. Traditional views about women – and disrespect for poor women – may blind Republicans to these contradictions,” said Reva Siegel, a Yale Law School professor who wrote a brief unsuccessfully urging the supreme court to overturn the Mississippi law at issue in the Dobbs case.“The Republican party now has its chance to show the nation what pro-life means. In many states now banning abortion, its policies are more concerned with control than care. I hope the party can change course, but I have yet to see a Republican jurisdiction that has developed a philosophy of social services even remotely appropriate to accompany laws requiring pregnant women to give birth.”The downfall of national abortion rights in America comes as the US remains an outlier among its wealthy peers in terms of social services. It famously has no national health insurance program, and is the only wealthy country not to offer paid family leave, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Data shows that women who seek abortions tend to be the ones who could stand to benefit the most from social services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 75 percent of American abortion patients are poor and 60 percent already have a child.State bans already on the books could lead to an additional 75,000 birth per-year, Caitlin Knowles Myers, an economics professor at Middlebury College, predicted, and the costs of an unplanned pregnancy have been shown to be substantial. A University of California, San Francisco study found that women who wanted an abortion but could not get one saw their household poverty rates increase for at least four years as compared to women who were able to access the procedure, and also struggled to pay for necessities like food and transportation for years after.America is also a uniquely deadly place to give birth. The Commonwealth Fund found that in 2018, the United States’s ratio of deaths for live birth was more than twice that of most other wealthy countries.Meanwhile, 12 states still have not expanded Medicaid health insurance coverage for poor people offered under the Affordable Care Act, and of these, only Kansas and North Carolina are among those not immediately banning abortion.At the state level, there have been moves by lawmakers to address these disparities. The Republican-led legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, for instance, have pushed to expand Medicaid coverage to women after they gave birth, even as they’ve declined to take part in the program’s expansion. South Carolina and Georgia recently enacted legislation giving state employees paid parental leave.But much of the most powerful social welfare legislation comes from Congress, where progress has been uneven. In 2021, Democrats pushed through a massive spending package that included a provision sending monthly checks to almost all families with children, which was credited with slashing child poverty.President Joe Biden proposed continuing it in his massive Build Back Better proposal to revamp social services and fight climate change, but the package won no Republican support and died amid infighting with Democrats.Samuel Hammond, director of social policy at the Niskanen Center, said Republicans will now be under pressure to pass legislation to aid families and children by the same groups that wanted them to overturn the 49-year old Roe v Wade ruling that allowed abortion nationwide: social conservatives.“The kind of bargain they had was we will pass our tax cuts and deregulations and you will get conservative court justices,” Hammond said. “And now that Roe has been repealed, you can’t put Amy Coney Barrett on the court twice.”In the past weeks, Senate Republicans have announced legislation to expand aid to families, casting their proposals as “pro-life” responses to the end of Roe. Florida’s Marco Rubio has published a plan that would allow families to pull from their social security benefits to fund paid family leave, expand a tax credit meant to help families with children, while also allowing religious groups to play a greater role in federal social service programs.In a press release filled with endorsements from anti-abortion groups, three senators announced a bill that would give families $350 each month for a young child and $250 for a child attending school. The proposal is similar to the child tax credit that Biden unsuccessfully tried to extend, but requires families to earn a certain amount to be eligible and, Hammond said, would be less effective at slashing poverty.“You want to make sure you’re supporting families that are making some effort to support themselves,” Wilcox said.“You don’t want to be promoting policies that lock in support for a model of family life that is detached from work and from marriage, which are of course two of the key avenues for economic progress even in the 21st century.”While the Democratic-led Congress has been deadlocked over social policy for months, Hammond predicted the proposal from the three Republican lawmakers could be worked into a larger tax bill that has to be passed by the year end, giving Republicans an opportunity to show that they want to help families.“Where they’ve always pulled their punches is on these more proactive social policies,” Hammond said. “I think this is now the window for the Republicans to put their stamp on a major extension to the child credit in a way that’s more generous to parents and make good on this outreach to parents and this Christian conservative minority.”TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Fox and friends confront billion-dollar US lawsuits over election fraud claims

      by

      Fox and friends confront billion-dollar US lawsuits over election fraud claims Rightwing networks Fox News, OAN and Newsmax could be found liable in cases brought by voting machine company DominionIn the months following the 2020 US presidential election, rightwing TV news in America was a wild west, an apparently lawless free-for-all where conspiracy theories about voting machines, ballot-stuffed suitcases and dead Venezuelan leaders were repeated to viewers around the clock.There seemed to be little consequence for peddling the most outrageous ideas on primetime.But now, unfortunately for Fox News, One America News Network (OAN), and Newsmax, it turns out that this brave, new world wasn’t free from legal jurisdiction – with the three networks now facing billion-dollar lawsuits as a result of their baseless accusations.Group aims to strip Fox News of ad revenue over ‘fueling next insurrection’Read moreIn June, Dominion Voting Systems, which provided voting machines to 28 states, was given the go-ahead to sue Fox Corp, the parent company of Fox News, in a case that could draw Rupert Murdoch and his son, Lachlan, into the spotlight.In the $1.6bn lawsuit, Dominion accuses Fox Corp, and the Murdochs specifically, of allowing Fox News to amplify false claims that the voting company had rigged the election for Joe Biden.Fox Corp had attempted to have the suit dismissed, but a Delaware judge said Dominion had shown adequate evidence for the suit to proceed. Dominion is already suing Fox News, as well as OAN and Newsmax.“These allegations support a reasonable inference that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch either knew Dominion had not manipulated the election or at least recklessly disregarded the truth when they allegedly caused Fox News to propagate its claims about Dominion,” Judge Eric Davis said.Davis’s ruling is not a guarantee that Fox will be found liable. But the judge made it clear that this isn’t some frivolous attempt by Dominion – and media and legal experts think Fox could be in real trouble.“Dominion has a very strong case against Fox News – and against OAN for that matter,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Stetson University and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute.“The reason Dominion is suing is because Fox and other rightwing news outlets repeated vicious lies that Dominion’s voting machines stole the 2020 election from Trump for Biden. But all of these conspiracy theories about Dominion’s machines were just pure bunk, and Fox as a news organization should have known that and not given this aspect of the big lie a megaphone.”“What’s particularly bad for Fox is [that] Dominion asked them to stop and correct the record in real time, and Fox persisted in spreading misrepresentations about the voting machine company.”Indeed, in his ruling, Davis noted that “other newspapers under Rupert Murdoch’s control, including the Wall Street Journal and New York Post, condemned President Trump’s claims and urged him to concede defeat”.In a statement, a Fox News spokesperson said: “Limiting the ability of the press to report freely on the American election process stands in stark contrast to the liberties on which this nation was founded, and we are confident we will prevail in this case, as the first amendment is the foundation of our democracy and freedom of the press must be protected.”A potential precedent in the Dominion v Fox case could be found in a recent case involving Sarah Palin, who sued the New York Times. Palin claimed the newspaper maliciously damaged her reputation by erroneously linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting. In February a jury sided with the Times, finding that a Times employee had not acted with “actual malice” against a public figure or with “reckless disregard” for the truth – the criteria necessary to prove defamation.But the Times victory shouldn’t give Fox too much hope, said Torres-Spelliscy.“In the Palin case, the New York Times quickly corrected the mistake about Palin that had been added while an article was edited,” Torres-Spelliscy said.“By contrast Fox News kept up the bad behavior and repeatedly told myths about Dominion’s voting machines. This is likely why judges in several of these Dominion defamation cases have not dismissed them.”Dominion isn’t the only company seeking damages from Fox and its contemporaries.Smartmatic, an election software company which provided voting software to precisely one county in the 2020 election but found itself subjected to claims that it was founded “for the specific purpose of fixing elections” by associates of Hugo Chavez, the former president of Venezuela who died in 2013, is suing Fox Corp, Fox News and associates for $2.7bn.Still, Fox News is the most-watched and arguably most influential cable news channel in the US, and is probably too big to fail.But that isn’t the case for the smaller rightwing networks OAN and Newsmax, which are also both being sued by Dominion and Smartmatic – in June, a Delaware judge refused Newsmax’s motion to have the Dominion case dismissed, but did not weigh on whether Newsmax was innocent or guilty.“I think OAN is going to be wiped out from the litigation costs. Forget about any judgment,” said Angelo Carusone, president and chief executive of Media Matters for America, which monitors rightwing media.Carusone pointed out that OAN is already struggling to survive, after it was dropped by the DirecTV cable company – which was reportedly responsible for 90% of OAN’s revenue – in April.“We’ve started seeing, already, them scaling back programming, they’ve been laying off staff, they’ve been cutting back the number of programs. So it’s pretty clear that they don’t have sufficient resources to weather a protracted litigation.”Newsmax, which is still carried by DirecTV, is “relatively cash flush” in comparison to OAN, Carusone said – enough to survive a trial, if not to pay the billions of dollars Dominion and Smartmatic are seeking.In a statement, Newsmax said it had “reported on allegations made by President Trump and his surrogates and at no time did we report these allegations were true. We also reported on critics of the Trump claims”.It added: “The Dominion suit is an assault on a free press and endangers all press outlets if it were to prevail.”OAN did not respond to a request for comment.As for Fox, the most significant thing could be if the Murdochs are subjected to discovery – where they and Fox could be forced to hand over documents potentially including communications data – as part of the legal process, Carusone said.Text messages obtained by the January 6 commission have already revealed that there was communication between Fox News hosts and White House officials regarding the insurrection – and it seems unlikely that is the only thing that was discussed.“I think once you start to pull the discovery material, what you’re going to find is there was a lot of communication between the Trump people both internally and externally about pushing very specific lies and narratives,” Carusone said.While Fox is more financially comfortable than OAN and NewsMax, it is not invulnerable. Fox News is due to renegotiate its contracts with cable providers at the end of this year, and Carusone said cable companies could use the lawsuit to drive down prices.The Dominion and Smartmatic cases are likely to drag on for some time, and it remains to be seen how Fox News, OAN and NewsMax will react.As for the news channels’ conspiratorial claims of election fraud, at least that is one thing that has already been settled.The courts, the Department of justice, election officials have investigated and dismissed the accusations, as has the US Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.“The November 3 election was the most secure in American history,” the agency said in a statement in 2020.“While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”William Barr, Trump’s attorney general, put it in rather less sophisticated terms.The claims of election interference, Barr told the January 6 committee, were “bullshit”.TopicsFox NewsUS politicsRepublicans21st Century FoxUS television industryTelevision industryUS press and publishingnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      In the Path of Abraham: selective memoir of Trump’s Israel policy

      by

      In the Path of Abraham: selective memoir of Trump’s Israel policyJason Greenblatt chronicles his work with Jared Kushner for Middle East peace, leaving out anything bad for his boss Jason Greenblatt was once in-house counsel to the Trump Organization. After the 2016 election, he became Donald Trump’s special representative for international negotiations. With Jared Kushner, he aimed to secure peace between Israel and the Palestinians.Trump’s Peace review: dysfunction and accord in US Israel policyRead moreJust like its predecessors, the Trump administration failed at that task.That cold reality might make some think the subtitle of Greenblatt’s new memoir – How Donald Trump Made Peace in the Middle East and How to Stop Joe Biden from Unmaking It – is at least a bit of an overstatement.On the other hand, Trump did deliver the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. The Trump administration also moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and shredded the Iran nuclear deal. The 45th president left his mark in so many places, in so many ways.As to be expected, Greenblatt’s book is silent about some of Trumpism’s darkest hours, its engagement with the antisemitic far right: Charlottesville, Nazis and tiki torch marches, the January 6 insurrection. Also predictably, he is happy to strafe Barack Obama, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.Greenblatt left the White House in late 2019. He volunteers that Kushner was “the best boss I ever had or will ever have – with the possible exception of his father-in-law”. These days, Greenblatt is engaged as an investor, like Kushner with an eye on the Middle East.Greenblatt’s book is a gentler and more graceful version of Sledgehammer, a memoir written by David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel. Like Friedman, Greenblatt attacks Biden and blows kisses at Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s once and possibly future prime minister.As was the case with Friedman, Greenblatt keeps mum about Trump saying of Netanyahu, “Fuck him,” as was reported by Barak Ravid in Trump’s Peace. Ravid captured Trump in all his profane and vindictive reality. He reported Trump’s critique of Netanyahu and his praise for Mahmoud Abbas, the ageing Palestinian leader.Trump told Ravid he believed Netanyahu “did not want to make peace. Never did.” As for Abbas, Trump said: “We spent a lot of time together, talking about many things. And it was almost like a father. I mean, he was so nice, couldn’t have been nicer.”Greenblatt skips both issues, choosing to stress Abbas’s hostility toward Israel and his recalcitrance in negotiations.Greenblatt also says he stood removed from politics until Trump launched his candidacy, and first registered as a Republican in 2016. No one would confuse him with Michael Cohen, the Trump lawyer who entered a guilty plea and turned on his former boss.Greenblatt does not crave the spotlight but he can be subtly subversive. In the Path of Abraham casts bouquets at three Trump nemeses: Mike Pence, HR McMaster and John Bolton, McMaster’s successor as national security adviser. Trump dumped McMaster in a tweet after clashing over the Iran deal, then sent Bolton packing for his bellicosity.“Pence was, refreshingly, the authentic article,” Greenblatt writes, “… a man who was unflappable and unfailingly helpful, no matter the problem, big or small.”Greenblatt offers no comment about Pence’s plight in the Capitol on January 6, when the mob chanted for him to hang, or Trump’s reported comment that his vice-president deserved it.During his trip to Israel in 2017, Trump excluded McMaster from a meeting with Kushner, Netanyahu and the Israeli national security adviser. According to Israeli reports, Rex Tillerson, then secretary of state, was invited to join the group. But “McMaster sat outside the King David room during the course of the entire meeting”.McMaster suffered in silence. Bolton did not. “I don’t think [Trump’s] fit for office. I don’t think he has the competence to carry out the job,” he told ABC, promoting a book of his own.Mike Pompeo, by then secretary of state, called Bolton a traitor. Peter Navarro, the White House trade hawk who now labors under a contempt indictment, called Bolton’s book “deep swamp revenge porn”.In the Path of Abraham is not that. But as Greenblatt conveys his impressions of the Arab world, he chooses to call the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, “a truly visionary leader”.He writes: “I cannot possibly understand what then-candidate Biden was trying to accomplish when he said that he planned to make the ‘Saudis pay the price, and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are’.”It had something to do with US intelligence believing the prince ordered the murder, dismemberment and disposal of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and US resident who wrote for the Washington Post.Then again, with gas topping $5 a gallon, many Americans wish Biden would make nice with the Saudis and stay on script.Greenblatt also offers glowing praise for a leader of the UAE, writing: “Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, colloquially known by his initials as MBZ, is a unique leader. One of the most influential people in the Middle East, he also one of the most humble and thoughtful. Wise and extraordinarily open-minded, he knows the best way to plan for the future is to create it.”Sledgehammer review: David Friedman comes out swinging on Trump and IsraelRead moreIn the same spirit of trans-global high-fiving, Greenblatt has attracted blurbs of praise from Trump, Kushner, Pence, McMaster, Pompeo and a passel of Gulf-state ambassadors. The book could double as a prospectus.As the book lands, Greenblatt finds himself unexpectedly in the news. Last week, the New York Times reported that he made the introduction of Alex Holder to Kushner. Holder is the British documentary film-maker subpoenaed by the House committee investigating the Capitol riot.Fittingly, In the Path of Abraham contains a Yiddish proverb: “Mann Tracht, un Gott Lacht”. Translated: “Man plans and God laughs.” Greenblatt would be hard-pressed to find anyone close to Trump smiling at this moment – whatever their plans may be.
      In the Path of Abraham: How Donald Trump Made Peace in the Middle East – And How to Stop Joe Biden from Unmaking It, is published in the US by Post Hill Press
      TopicsBooksPolitics booksMiddle East peace talksIsraelPalestinian territoriesSaudi ArabiaDonald TrumpreviewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      No – Not just Russian Imperialism Has Triggered War in Ukraine

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Uvalde school police chief quits city council amid fury over shooting response

      by

      Uvalde school police chief quits city council amid fury over shooting responseState public safety chief blamed Pete Arredondo for delaying officers’ confrontation with gunman The Uvalde, Texas, school district police chief is resigning from his community’s city council amid criticism of the law enforcement response to the shooting that killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb elementary in May.Pedro “Pete” Arredondo told the Uvalde Leader-News that he was stepping down from the city council post to which he was sworn in just seven days after the massacre, the outlet reported on Saturday.Why did they wait? Uvalde anger grows over bungled police responseRead moreA statement from Uvalde’s mayor, Don McLaughlin, said the city government had received Arredondo’s resignation letter only after he announced his intentions through the local newspaper.McLaughlin’s statement called stepping down “the right thing to do” for Arredondo.According to the Leader-News, Arredondo continued maintaining that he was not the commander of officers who waited more than an hour before confronting and killing the shooter at Robb on 24 May. His statement is contrary to the findings from the state’s department of public safety chief, Steve McCraw, who concluded it was Arredondo’s call to delay officers that day despite the fact that they had adequate numbers and weaponry to put a stop to the carnage much sooner than they did.A copy of Arredondo’s resignation letter, released by McLaughlin’s office, offered prayers to the school massacre victims’ families.“In speaking with other communities that have had similar tragedies, the guidance has been the same: continue to support the families, continue to support our community and definitely to keep our faith,” Arredondo said.He also said he was leaving the council behind “to minimize further distractions” for the city.Arredondo had missed the first two city council meetings of his tenure and was facing expulsion from the panel if he had a third unexcused absence. The city council late last month rejected a request to grant him a leave of absence that would have protected him from being expelled from the body if he missed more than the two meetings.After Uvalde shooting, tech companies tout their solutions. But do they work?Read moreResidents had gone to the meeting where the council considered the leave of absence and urged his colleagues to vote it down. Some said he failed the slain students and teachers on the day of the attack, with the relative of one victim saying: “We’re begging – get this man out of our lives”.Before stepping down from the council, he was placed on paid administrative leave from his position as the school district’s police chief while federal and state investigations into the officers’ response to the attack at Robb continued.Residents had pondered subjecting Arredondo to a recall election if he insisted on keeping his seat on the city council. It would have required fewer than 50 signatures to compel the election, yet local laws prevented residents from taking such a step until February next year.After Arredondo’s resignation takes effect, voters in his council district will have the opportunity to elect a replacement to serve the rest of his four-year term.Arredondo was his county’s highest paid law enforcement official, earning $90,750 each year after becoming the Uvalde school district’s police chief in 2020. The local sheriff’s salary, by contrast, is about $77,915, the Leader-News reported.His ability to serve in his public positions seemingly became tenuous after a committee of state lawmakers examining the shooting released a timeline showing 11 officers had been positioned outside two classrooms under attack within seven minutes of the first 911 call.At least two of the officers had rifles, providing a team that was adequate to mount an assault against the intruder, who was fleeing the scene of another shooting, McCraw has said.Police responding to so-called active shooters have been trained for at least two decades to confront the assailants as soon as practical rather than wait for reinforcements, a practice that was developed amid countless mass killings across the US over the past two decades.But instead of ordering officers to go in, Arredondo – who was on site at the school – reportedly had them wait while he called the city police force for reinforcements.“We don’t have enough firepower right now,” Arredondo said, in part, according to a committee transcript of that call.Arredondo also purportedly worried that the door to the classroom where the intruder was cornered had potentially been locked, and he couldn’t immediately track down its key. But the door was in fact not locked – and even if it was, officers had a “hooligan” tool that could pry locked doors open, according to the committee’s evidence.Officers stormed the classroom 77 minutes into the attack and killed the gunman. But by then he had already murdered 21 and wounded 17 others.McCraw ultimately assessed Arredondo’s performance that day as an “abject failure and antithetical to everything we’ve learned” about mass shootings.TopicsTexas school shootingUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden urged to do more to defend abortion rights: ‘This is a five-alarm fire’

      by

      Biden urged to do more to defend abortion rights: ‘This is a five-alarm fire’ Furious Americans have taken to the streets, but many Democrats believe Biden has failed to capture the urgency and angerHigh above America’s capital, pro-choice activists scaled a construction crane, inching across its latticed steel arm, to affix a banner with a message for the president to see. It read: “BIDEN PROTECT ABORTION.”In the days since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, legions of furious Americans have taken to the streets to protest a decision that was once unimaginable. But as a new reality takes shape, many are demanding the president and Democratic leaders do more to defend reproductive rights.Biden backs exception to Senate filibuster to protect abortion accessRead more“Is it that they can’t, or they won’t, go as far as they need to to stem the tide of the radical Republican agenda?” said Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, a progressive advocacy group that works to mobilize women of color.For many Democrats, the president has failed to capture the urgency and fear they feel as conservative states and courts rush to ban abortion. “Is this a five-alarm fire? Yes, absolutely,” Allison said, adding that Democrats must show voters they are prepared to “fight like hell”.In the week since the ruling was issued, Biden stepped up his rhetoric. During a meeting with Democratic governors, Biden said he “share[d] public outrage of this extremist court that’s committed to moving America backward.” He also endorsed a change to the Senate’s filibuster rule that would create an exception for abortion and other privacy rights potentially under threat by the conservative court.“Now we’re talking!” tweeted Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat of New York, who has pushed Democrats to deliver a more aggressive response. “Use the bully pulpit. We need more.”With narrow majorities in Congress, Biden is under pressure to use the full force of his executive authority to protect reproductive rights.More than 20 Black Democratic congresswomen sent a letter to Biden asking him to immediately declare a public health emergency. “In this unprecedented moment, we must act urgently as if lives depend on it because they do,” the lawmakers wrote.Other proposals include expanding access to abortion medication, covering expenses for federal employees who have to travel out of state, ensuring women serving in the military can receive care regardless of where they are stationed and using federal lands to perform abortions in states where it is banned.Advertisement: What would the end of abortion rights in America mean for the world? Join our live discussion on Wednesday, 6 July, 3pm-4pm ET. Button says ‘book tickets here’Warning of potentially “dangerous ramifications,” the White House has so far resisted calls to open federal lands for abortion, led by Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and echoed on Friday by the governors of New York and New Mexico.“Do it anyway,” said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run for Something, a progressive organisation that helps young people run for local and state office. “Show me you are willing to put some skin in the game.Democrats need to give voters concrete plans, she said. When Biden warns voters Republicans would ban abortion nationwide if they win control of Congress, they also need to hear him say he will not sign any restrictions they send to his desk, she added.In recent days, the justice department has said it would seek to protect any woman who travels out of state for an abortion while the health department said it is working to expand access to medication abortion.Biden has promised additional actions but has repeatedly said the only way to “truly” protect abortion access is to elect enough Democrats to codify Roe v Wade into federal law. “Vote, vote, vote. That’s how we’ll change it,” Biden said during a press conference in Madrid.But Democrats face a historically difficult election environment in the midterms this November, with inflation at a four-decade high and fears of a recession weighing down Biden’s approval rating. Yet there are early signs that the court’s ruling on abortion and the potential threat it poses to other rights such as same-sex marriage and contraception, is energizing Democrats’ demoralized base.The number of Americans who identified abortion as top concern more than doubled since December, particularly among Democrats, a new poll by the Associated Press-Norc Center for Public Affairs Research found. Meanwhile, public opinion polls show a shift toward Democrats in the wake of the court’s decision, which drew thousands of people to the streets. To successfully galvanize voters around the issue, Democrats must “connect the dots” by showing them that Republicans’ end goal is a total ban on abortion, said Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster who has surveyed voters’ views on the issue.“Being against abortion is potentially for some voters not an indictment,” she said. “But wanting to make it illegal and trying to make it illegal is – and that’s where the debate needs to go.”This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to Democrats outlining potential votes the caucus could take. They include protecting personal data stored on reproductive health apps from “sinister” prosecutors who might use it to target women who have abortions; ensuring the right to travel between states; and enshrining the right to an abortion into federal law, a version of which has already passed the House but has no path forward in the Senate.Much of the fight has now shifted to the state and local level, where Democrats are vowing to use their power to expand access or, where they can, block new restrictions.Across the country, Democratic governors and attorneys generals are vowing to protect abortion access. Governors in states like California and Illinois want to become havens for women seeking abortions in states where it’s banned.Progressive local prosecutors and officials in conservative states say they will not enforce strict abortion laws against patients or providers. Some liberal-run cities are considering plans to set up funds for women who have to go out of state for an abortion.Meanwhile, activists have declared a “summer of rage”, vowing to keep marching and resisting until a national right to abortion is restored.But cracks are also in display in the party.Many progressives remain furious with party leaders for backing Texas congressman Henry Cuellar, the lone House Democrat to oppose abortion, over his progressive, pro-choice challenger, Jessica Cisneros. Cuellar won the primary by fewer than 300 votes.They are also mobilizing to stop Biden from nominating an anti-abortion Republican attorney for federal judgeship in Kentucky, which was reported by the Courier Journal.Democrats increasingly believe the problem is the supreme court itself. A number of Democratic lawmakers have backed efforts to expand the number of justices on the court or impose term limits. Some lawmakers are calling for Congress to investigate – or even impeach– justices who signaled during their Senate confirmation hearings they would respect precedent but then voted to overturn Roe.Biden has mostly resisted those calls. But as long as there remains a 6-3 conservative majority of justices on the court, little else will change, said Christopher Kang, cofounder and general counsel of Demand Justice, a liberal group that advocates for expanding the supreme court.“Having spent 50 years wresting a supermajority of power on the court, they’re not likely to give that away,” he said. “Unless you have a balanced supreme court, none of these other reforms will get a fair shot.”TopicsJoe BidenThe ObserverUS politicsAbortionRoe v WadenewsReuse this content More