

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The dramatic convergence of multiple crises-climate,
food and water-requires a global shift from the dominant industrial model of
agriculture toward more sustainable practices, concludes a new paper published by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Heinrich Boll
Foundation. The paper was released on the first day of the World Water Forum
in Istanbul, Turkey.
"Integrated Solutions to the Water, Agriculture and Climate Crises," by IATP's
Shiney Varghese (available at www.iatp.org), traces the role of industrial agriculture in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, water use and degradation and global hunger. The paper outlines the effects industrial agriculture has
had in driving irrigated agriculture, massive water infrastructure projects and
water withdrawals.
Small-scale producers are most affected by these three
crises, with women and children disproportionately bearing the burden.
"We can no longer afford to tackle these crises separately," said Varghese.
"We must take a comprehensive approach that supports sustainable practices
in agriculture that are good for the people and the planet, protect our water
resources and provide enough food for everyone."
The paper points to three important meetings this year as opportunities to
ensure that solutions to the three crises are integrated: the World Water Forum this week in Istanbul; the UN Commission on Sustainable Development
to be held in May in New York; and the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change to be held in Copenhagen in December.
The paper also offers a series of recommendations for governments, including:
1) an international rights-based approach that ensures water availability for
ecosystems and people; 2) support for agro-ecological practices including investments in the climate change mitigating potential of agriculture; 3) harmonization of policy approaches to water, agriculture and climate; 4) recognition
of women's involvement in farming, food production and water management;
and 5) inclusion of small-scale farmers in reforming policy.
Varghese is in Istanbul this week to attend the World Water Forum and will
be participating in panel discussions on March 18 and March 20 on the water,
agriculture and climate crises. She can be reached at: shiney@iatp.org.
Read the full report at: www.iatp.org.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
The Pentagon chief's "unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military," said the former Navy captain.
US Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, announced Monday that he "filed a lawsuit against the secretary of defense because there are few things as important as standing up for the rights of the very Americans who fought to defend our freedoms."
The Arizona Democrat is suing not only Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth but also the US Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and Navy Secretary John Phelan over the DOD leader's effort to cut Kelly's retirement pay over a November video in which he and other veterans of the military and intelligence community reminded troops that they "must refuse illegal orders."
Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) released the short video as Hegseth and President Donald Trump were in the midst of their deadly boat-bombing spree and ramping up threats against Venezuela, whose leader they have since abducted to put him on trial in the United States.
Of the six Democrats in the video, Kelly is the only one still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Given that, Hegseth initially launched a probe into the senator and threatened to call him back to active duty to face a court-martial, but ultimately revealed last week that the DOD was working to reduce his retirement pay and had issued a formal letter of censure.
"Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my 25 years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable," Kelly said Monday. "His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: If you speak out and say something that the president or secretary of defense doesn't like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted."
"In 1986, at just 22 years old, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I have fulfilled that oath every day since, but I never expected that I would have to defend it against a secretary of defense or president," said Kelly, also a former US astronaut. "But I've never shied away from a fight for our country, and I won't shy away from this one. Because our freedom of speech, the separation of powers, and due process are not just words on a page, they are bedrock principles of our democracy that has lasted 250 years and will last 250 more as long as patriotic Americans are willing to stand up for our rights."
Kelly's 46-page complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, DC, states that "defendants' actions violate numerous constitutional guarantees and have no basis in statute," citing "the First Amendment, the speech or debate clause, the separation of powers, due process, 10 USC § 1370, and the Administrative Procedure Act."
The senator is asking the court "to declare the censure letter, reopening determination, retirement grade determination proceedings, and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional; to vacate those actions; to enjoin their enforcement; and to preserve the status of a coequal Congress and an apolitical military."
"If Democrats want to win elections, they need to read the room—or I should say, they need to read literally any room anywhere in America that isn’t filled with big donors."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday warned the Democratic Party against reshaping its economic agenda in the hopes of winning over billionaire donors.
In a speech delivered before the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Warren (D-Mass.) argued that watering down a progressive economic agenda to appeal to big-money donors made little sense at a time when the richest in America are taking ever greater shares of wealth and US families are struggling to keep their heads above water.
Warren pointed to many US elites maintaining friendly relationships with the late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, even after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor, as evidence of a broken system.
"Over the past generation, the wealthy have avoided accountability time and again," she argued. "Regular Americans must play by every rule or face real consequences. You don’t need to read every news article about Jeffrey Epstein and his good buddies like [former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers and [President] Donald Trump to understand how consistently rich and powerful insiders protect each other, regardless of politics and regardless of how obscene the situation has become."
Warren acknowledged that Democrats needed to broaden their appeal to more voters given that they lost the popular vote to Trump for the first time in 2024, but she argued that targeting wealthy donors would not accomplish that goal.
"There are two visions for what a big tent means," she said. "One vision says that we should shape our agenda and temper our rhetoric to flatter any fabulously rich person looking for a political party that will entrench their own economic interests. The other vision says we must acknowledge the economic failures of the current rigged system, aggressively challenge the status quo, and chart a clear path for big, structural change."
Warren also criticized the "abundance" agenda that has been promoted by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein over the last several months as a way to fix Democrats' electoral woes.
The senator began her critique by touting what she said were good points that Klein and Abundance co-author Derek Thompson make about government needing to work more simply and efficiently to deliver benefits.
However, Warren said that what their analysis of government failures has often missed is that there are powerful interests that are working to keep these inefficiencies from being addressed.
"For years, I've fought for a simple, free government tax filing system so no one has to pay a couple of hundred bucks just to file their taxes," she explained. "Every step of the way, the giant tax prep companies have thrown up roadblocks to stop it. And when the [Internal Revenue Service] finally built a free—and wildly popular—filing option for American taxpayers, the tax prep companies swooped in to kill it the minute Donald Trump took office."
Warren also said that many major Democratic donors, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, have been latching onto "abundance" in order to drive the conversation in the party away from US wealth inequality.
"We are now in a new election cycle, and according to Axios, Reid Hoffman is sending everyone he knows a copy of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book on Abundance and backing pro-abundance candidates," Warren explained. "On his podcast, Hoffman has used the framework to argue against regulations that slow down data center construction. That’s right—when families are already getting crushed by rising costs and a data center boom means even higher utility costs... Hoffman wants Democratic candidates to stand with the billionaires for higher costs."
The senator then said that "if Democrats want to win elections, they need to read the room—or I should say, they need to read literally any room anywhere in America that isn’t filled with big donors."
Angela Davis, Naomi Klein, Sally Rooney, Tariq Ali, and George Monbiot are among the signers of a statement of support for the proscribed anti-genocide protesters, who have refused food for over two months.
More than 50 international authors and academics signed a declaration published Monday in support of hunger-striking activists allegedly linked to the banned Palestine Action movement, who are at imminent risk of death after refusing to eat for more than two months.
The brief statement—“We oppose genocide, we support the Palestine Action prisoners”—was signed by prominent figures including historian Tariq Ali; novelist Sally Rooney; former Guantánamo Bay prisoner Moazzam Begg; journalists Owen Jones and George Monbiot; and professors Angela Davis, Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, and Ilan Pappé.
The declaration echoes the message on a placard held by Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg when she was arrested last month in London protesting the imprisonment of people accused of being part of Palestine Action after the nonviolent direct action group was officially declared a terrorist organization in July by the UK government.
Since then, more than 2,000 people have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action, often while simply holding signs. Eight accused Palestine Action activists are awaiting trial for allegedly breaking into and damaging a British military base and a facility run by Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems. The defendants are facing at least 18 months behind bars before trial.
On November 2, a small group of imprisoned activists launched a hunger strike. Three people—Heba Muraisi, Kamran Ahmed, and Lewie Chiaramello—are still striking, despite imminent danger of death.
"She’s dying. She said it: ‘I’m dying,'" Francesca Nadin said of her friend Muraisi—who is on the 71st day of her strike—during a Monday interview with the Guardian.
Nadin said that the 31-year-old's body is "shutting down."
"I know mentally she’ll remain strong right to the last moment but she is dying," she added. "The government, by putting her in prison and denying her all her rights, they’re not just letting her die, they’re actively killing her.”
Ahmed, 28, has been refusing food for 64 days. Doctors have informed him that his heart muscles are shrinking and he is at risk of sudden cardiac arrest.
"He’s skinny. I describe him a bit like a piece of paper,” Shahmina Alam, Ahmed's sister, told Al Jazeera last week. "It feels like now every time you see him, it could be the last.”
Chiaramello, 22, has Type 1 diabetes and has been fasting every other day for 44 days.
A fourth person, Umar Khalid, has reportedly resumed his strike following a 13-day pause.
Despite her dire condition, Muraisi is “intent on carrying on until the demands are met," according to friend Amareen Afzal.
The strikers are demanding immediate bail, an end to censorship of their communications, a fair trial, lifting of the ban on Palestine Action, and closure of Elbit Systems' UK facilities.
"The hunger strikers’ demands seem reasonable to me," Monbiot wrote last week. "All these things, I believe, should be happening anyway. And they are of course negotiating positions. Whether all would need to be met for the strike to end cannot be known until the government engages. Its refusal to talk could condemn the strikers to death."
Standing in stark contrast with the US military's torturous force-feeding of hunger striking Guantánamo Bay prisoners during the Obama administration, the UK follows recommendations in the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Malta, which advises doctors not to force-feed prisoners who choose to hunger strike and understand the consequences of their actions.
"Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable," the declaration states.
In 1981, UK authorities allowed 10 imprisoned Irish Republican Army members, including former Member of Parliament Bobby Sands, to starve themselves to death in Northern Ireland. Their deaths occurred after between 46 and 73 days of refusing food.
A group of former hunger strikers from Palestine, Ireland, and Guantánamo on Sunday issued an urgent appeal to the UK government to save the Palestine Action strikers' lives, and condemning the terrorist designation.
Critics said that the government would be to blame should any of the hunger strikers die.
“The UK is now perilously close to full descent into authoritarian rule," said professor Peter Hallward, who signed the intellectuals' declaration. "Ministers won’t even meet with hunger strikers, who are now at death’s door."
Hallward added that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood "seem perfectly ready to let this country’s most committed and courageous opponents of an ongoing genocide waste away and die."
Israel's US-backed war and siege on Gaza following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023 has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing in Gaza and most of the coastal strip in ruins. Around 2 million Gazans have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the current cease-fire took effect three months ago. Israeli authorities are still blocking or strictly limiting the entry of critical supplies into Gaza, where 2-month-old infant Mohammed Abu Harbid over the weekend became at least the fourth Palestinian baby to freeze to death since November.
More than a dozen Palestinians—including at least five children—have been killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza in recent days.
Israel is facing a genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial body of the United Nations, where a panel of experts found last year that Israel was committing genocide. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are also wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
On Monday, a court in Edinburgh held a hearing on a petition filed by human rights campaigner and former diplomat Craig Murray seeking to lift the ban on Palestine Action in Scotland, whose judiciary is independent from the rest of the UK.
“The impact of proscription of Palestine Action has been appalling," attorney Joanna Cherry told the court. "Scores of peaceful people of entirely good character have been arrested under the absurd pretence of terrorism.”
“We are dealing with human rights and liberties—some of the most fundamental in our society," Cherry added. "If people don’t have the right to express their views and assemble to express their views, they can’t really take part in civil society properly and adequately. It’s hard to imagine a more urgent situation.”