Thomas Paine's version of "you didn't build that":
"Separate an individual from society,and give him an island or a continent to possess,and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end,in all cases,that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore,of personal property,beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice,of gratitude,and of civilization,a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came"
Submitted by Leah
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
Nearly all of these are English-edition daily newspapers. These sites have interesting editorials and essays, and many have links to other good news sources. We try to limit this list to those sites which are regularly updated, reliable, with a high percentage of “up” time.
A four-year-old koala named Archer at the Featherdale Wildlife Sanctuary in Sydney, Australia. Scientists have cracked the koalas’ genetic code giving new hope of saving them from possible extinction, scientists have said
Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP/Getty Images
Arctic wolves in Gévaudan wolf park near Saint-Léger-de-Peyre, southern France. According to the latest count, there are 430 wolves in France, with an increasing number of areas of permanent presence
Researchers say temperature and sea level rises could be much more extreme than previously believed. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP
Temperature rises as a result of global warming could eventually be double what has been projected by climate models, according to an international team of researchers from 17 countries.
Sea levels could also rise by six metres or more even if the world does meet the 2 degree target of the Paris accord.
The findings, published last week in Nature Geoscience, were based on observations of evidence from three warm periods in the past 3.5m years in which global temperatures were 0.5-2 degrees above the pre-industrial temperatures of the 19th century.
The researchers say they increase the urgency with which countries need to address their emissions.
The scientists used a range of measurements to piece together the impacts of past climatic changes to examine how a warmer earth would appear once the climate has stabilised.
They found sustained warming of one to two degrees had been accompanied by substantial reductions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and sea level rises of at least six metres – several metres higher than what current climate models predict could occur by 2100.
“During that time, the temperatures were much warmer than what our models are predicting and the sea levels were much higher,” said Katrin Meissner from the University of New South Wales’s Climate Change Research Centre and one of the study’s lead authors.
She said the effects today would mean populous urban areas around the world and entire countries in the Pacific would be underwater.
“Two degrees can seem very benign when you see it on paper but the consequences are quite bad and ecosystems change dramatically.”
Meissner said potential changes even at two degrees of warming were underestimated in climate models that focused on the near term.
“Climate models appear to be trustworthy for small changes, such as for low-emission scenarios over short periods, say over the next few decades out to 2100,” she said. “But as the change gets larger or more persistent … it appears they underestimate climate change.”
The researchers looked at three documented warm periods, the Holocene thermal maximum, which occurred 5,000 to 9,000 years ago, the last interglacial, which occurred 116,000 to 129,000 years ago, and the mid-Pliocene warm period, which occurred 3m to 3.3 m years ago.
In the case of the first two periods examined, the climate changes were caused by changes in the earth’s orbit. The mid-Pliocene event was the result of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that were at similar levels to what they are today.
In each case, the planet had warmed at a much slower rate than it is warming at today as a result of rising greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans.
“Observations of past warming periods suggest that a number of amplifying mechanisms, which are poorly represented in climate models, increase long-term warming beyond climate model projections,” Prof Hubertus Fischer of the University of Bern, one of the study’s lead authors.
“This suggests the carbon budget to avoid 2°C of global warming may be far smaller than estimated, leaving very little margin for error to meet the Paris targets.”
Hayden Valley was named for a geologist and surveyor who supported the extermination of tribal people who rejected federal dictates. Photograph: Ed Austin/Herb Jones
Mount Doane is a 10,500ft peak in Yellowstone national park, named for Lt Gustavus C Doane, a US army cavalry captain and explorer. In January 1870, he led a massacre that killed around 175 Blackfeet people, and he continued to brag about the incident throughout his life.
Hayden Valley, a broad valley that holds Yellowstone Lake, was christened for Dr Ferdinand V Hayden, a geologist and surveyor. He also advocated for the extermination of tribal people who refused to comply with federal dictates.
A group of Native Americans say such names can no longer stand. The Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, an organization of tribal chairmen of 16 Sioux tribes from Nebraska and the Dakotas, is pursuing an application to change Mount Doane to First Peoples Mountain and Hayden Valley to Buffalo Nations Valley.
The proposal echoes moves to take down monuments commemorating Confederate leaders and proponents of slavery. And it mirrors other efforts across the US – and online – to rename landmarks bearing appellations rooted in racism.
“We’re not against certain names,” said William Snell, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council, who supports the Yellowstone renaming. “But we’re not for names where individuals have been involved with genocide, where elders and children have been killed and there have been some traumatic events in our history that don’t meet standards of honor.”
The US Board on Geographic Names has received a slew of requests since the early 1990s related to the word “squaw”, which has an unclear history but is now recognized as insulting, and has given new names to everything from mountains to waterways and neighborhood streets. Notably, in 2013, it changed Squaw Peak in Phoenix, Arizona to Piestewa Peak, after Lori Ann Piestewa, the first Native American woman to die in combat serving in the US military.
“We’d be driving down the freeway and saying: ‘Oh my God, why do we still have to look at this disparaging name?’” said Jack Jackson Jr, a lawyer and former Arizona state senate member whose father, Jack Jackson Sr, drafted several name-change bills during his 15-year career in the Arizona legislature. “Native people are always facing disparaging names and mascots.”
In 2016, the board approved changing the name of Harney Peak, a mountain in South Dakota named after the US army general William S Harney, who led troops in an 1855 battle against the Brule Sioux and killed women and children as well as warriors. Its new title is Black Elk Peak, for a man believed to be a survivor of the battle.
At Yellowstone, the name change request has so far met with resistance. Local county representatives voted against it in early May, and in a motion the county commissioner, Tim French, said a name change was like “trying to change history”. The commissioners’ opposition could prove fatal. “The board on geographic names places a good deal of emphasis on local opinion,” said Lou Yost, its executive secretary.
The board, which meets monthly, has not yet scheduled a meeting to discuss the issue because it is waiting to hear from other state and federal officials.
Scott Pruitt is out as EPA administrator. Donald Trump said Pruitt’s deputy Andrew Wheeler would take over as acting administrator from Monday. Photograph: Al Drago/Reuters
Scott Pruitt, the hugely controversial administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has resigned.
Donald Trump announced Pruitt’s departure on Twitter and said Pruitt had done an “outstanding job”. He further posted that Pruitt’s deputy Andrew Wheeler would take over as acting administrator from Monday.
Trump had repeatedly defended Pruitt following a multitude of ethics scandals.
In his resignation letter, Pruitt struck an unapologetic tone.
“It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role,” Pruitt wrote. “However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.”
Pruitt also infused several references to God while lavishing praise on the president.
“I believe you are serving as president today because of God’s providence,” he wrote. “I believe that same providence brought me into your service.”
Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma, had come under increasing pressure over issues including the use of public funds for travel and office improvements; for using an obscure provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act to give pay raises to two aides; and for having paid $50 a night to rent a room in a Capitol Hill townhouse from the wife of an energy industry lobbyist.
An EPA ethics official who initially said the condo deal was not inappropriate subsequently rowed back on that claim.
In April, Reuters cited an anonymous Republican aide who said the condo deal was being examined by the House oversight committee. The Associated Press detailed extensive spending on a “a 20-member full-time security detail” for Pruitt.
In recent weeks, the barrage of headlines over Pruitt’s alleged impropriety at the EPA escalated – prompting several staff members to resign.
A whistleblower revealed earlier this week that Pruitt kept a secret calendar to hide meetings with industry representatives. Staffers reportedly met in Pruitt’s office to alter or remove records of the meetings. It also emerged that Pruitt asked staffers to use their personal credit cards for his hotel bookings.
As of last month, Pruitt’s activities were the subject of at least 14 separate federal investigations.
Trump nonetheless continued to defend Pruitt following his resignation, telling reporters aboard Air Force One: “Scott Pruitt did an outstanding job inside of the EPA.”
“You know, obviously the controversies with Scott, but within the agency we were extremely happy,” he added.
Trump also said there was “no final straw” leading up to Pruitt’s departures and that the embattled EPA chief offered his own resignation.
“I think Scott felt that he was a distraction,” Trump said. “It was very much up to him.”
Even some Republicans, who had grown tired of defending Pruitt’s daily controversies, celebrated the news of his departure.
“Finally. Actually he did a horrible job,” Carlos Curbelo, a moderate Republican congressman from Florida, tweeted in response to Trump.
“He was a disaster and an embarrassment from day one, and the country is far better off without him.”
‘He’s so scandal-ridden’: Scott Pruitt confronted at restaurant – video
Mother and teacher Kristin Mink confronted EPA secretary Scott Pruitt as he lunched at a restaurant. In the video, she urges him to resign ‘before his scandals push him out’. The McGlynn: That a way, Gal
It was reported in April that the White House chief of staff, John Kelly, had urged Pruitt’s firing but was rebuffed by the president.
Pruitt reportedly hoped to replace Jeff Sessions as attorney general if that job became vacant.
He was an aggressive champion of Trump’s anti-regulation agenda, repealing a host of environmental protection measures, many implemented by the Obama administration.
“You know, I just left coal and energy country,” Trump said after a recent trip to West Virginia. “They feel very strongly about Scott Pruitt. And they love Scott Pruitt.”
Speaking to the Guardian before Pruitt resigned, a senior EPA official who asked not to be named said of agency management: “People are so done with these folks. We wanted and waited for some adults to show up. But the relentless tide of bullshit from Pruitt and his cronies is tough to deal with.”
Janet McCabe, a former EPA assistant administrator, said: “I think morale at the EPA is at a very low ebb. The bigger concern is the environmental mission of the agency. Substantively, what has happened in the last year is a big a threat as the agency has ever faced.”
Trump is expected to announce his supreme court pick at any moment. This time, I hope Democrats don’t let us down again
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer with other Democrats on Capitol Hill. ‘Senate Democrats need to pay attention and take a page out of Mitch McConnell’s playbook.’ Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA
As we wait for the name of Trump’s new US supreme court nominee, the name that keeps rising in my throat like bile is Merrick Garland.
Garland, of course, was Obama’s failed 2016 nominee to America’s top court. He was blocked by Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, who refused to budge on filling the supreme court vacancy until after the elections. Confident that Hillary Clinton would win, Democrats shrugged and went back to sleep.
For that reason, Garland is someone the Democrats prefer to forget. Unlike Garland, who was a centrist, it is certain that Trump’s choice will be rightwing, no matter how thin the nominee’s paper trail. The Republican base is already mobilized for a bare-knuckle fight. And though the Democrats have liberal billionaire Tom Steyer’s money and pledges from activist groups to try to block the nomination, my prediction is that Trump will win a second seat on this already right-tilting court.
My certainty is based on my reading of the Democrats. Senate Democrats simply do not know how to wage a bare-knuckle fight any more. Without Nancy Pelosi, I doubt they could have won and saved Obamacare, the last truly important battle they won.
The extreme right wouldn’t be so perilously close to consolidating a clear legal victory if the Democrats had played their cards differently when Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died in February, 2016. Instead of picking a liberal who would have excited the Democratic base, which had already taken up arms to reject the mainstream Hillary Clinton and embrace Bernie Sanders, President Obama opted for a “safe” pick. In picking Garland, Obama turned to someone so qualified and in the judicial center that even the Republicans would feel obliged to vote for him. Or, at least, that was the theory behind the choice of Garland.
The Garland nomination should be studied by anyone who wants to understand the differences between the leadership of Republicans and Democrats. McConnell, the Senate majority leader, didn’t just boldly announce that there would be no vote on the nominee. He demanded that his Republican colleagues refuse to even meet with Garland. Then he stuck to his guns.
Though Susan Collins, the woman we now place our hopes on to block a staunch anti-abortion supreme court justice, defied McConnell and met Garland, the majority flicked her off like an annoying bug and kept his ranks in line. When he most needed her vote, to confirm Neil Gorsuch after Trump won the White House, Collins was a yes. (Don’t place too much trust in her now, even with Roe v Wade on the line. Collins, a Maine moderate, is already saying some of Trump’s candidates meet her standard that they consider Roe settled law.)
The Democrats, meanwhile, basically threw up their hands. Briefly they considered tying the Senate in knots and shutting down the government over McConnell’s refusal to move the Garland nomination. But the Democratic leaders, even the sometimes feisty Harry Reid, decided such a move would be too risky and too irresponsible. It might hurt Hillary. They were afraid of getting covered in mud. Some of them even voted for Gorsuch after Hillary lost.
Now, though they are vowing to fight, the few Democratic senators and aides whom I have consulted are saying there is little they can do to stop the new nominee. They sound defeated at the starting gate. That is no way to win a knife fight. They have not learned anything from the Garland episode. They still sound unwilling to burn the house down in order to prevent a catastrophe for the country, a US supreme court that will march the country rightward for at least a generation more. A supreme court where Clarence Thomas will be in the mainstream, not on the fringe. A supreme court that overturns Roe v Wade and lets the states decide whether to allow a woman to have an abortion.
This entry was posted
on Friday, July 6th, 2018 at 12:35 pm and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.