May, 05 2011, 07:48pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Chris Pincetich, Sea Turtle Restoration Project
(415) 663-8590 x102; chris@tirn.net
Carole Allen, Gulf Director, Sea Turtle Restoration Project
(281) 444-6204; carole@seaturtles.org
Teri Shore, Turtle Island Restoration Network
(415) 663-8590 x104; tshore@tirn.net
Â
April Deadliest on Record for Gulf Sea Turtles
Unprecedented numbers of dead sea turtles wash ashore
WASHINGTON
A tally of sea turtles found dead or dying on the beaches along Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama found April to have the highest numbers every recorded in a single month, 188 as of April 28, since records began in 1986. The average annual number of sea turtles found stranded in these three Gulf states 1986-2009 is 97, but reached 600 last year due to conditions resulting from the BP oil spill.
"The health of the Gulf and local sea turtles has been impacted by the BP oil spill and now 'business as usual' shrimping operations are jeopardizing critically endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtles," said Chris Pincetich, Ph.D. with the Sea Turtle Restoration Project.
Of the 188 sea turtles found, 168 were Kemp's ridleys. This species breeds and nests entirely within the Gulf of Mexico and was pushed to the brink of extinction in the early 1980's when lingering effects of the massive Ixtoc oil spill combined with a growing shrimp trawl fleet to reduced the entire nesting population to less that 600 females.
The National Marine Fisheries Service declared an Unusual Mortality Event in mid-March when a over 30 dead sea turtles arrived in two weeks. Federal and state investigators are working to determine causes of the sea turtle strandings. Oil poisoning, harmful interactions with shrimp trawl nets, or a combination of the two are suspected.
No new protections have been put in place for endangered sea turtles since the BP spill despite ongoing Endangered Species Act review and petitions for emergency action from the conservation group the Sea Turtle Restoration Project.
Estimates calculated earlier this year by the National Marine Fisheries Service show Gulf of Mexico commercial shrimping killed 5,365 sea turtles in 2009. The species hardest hit with an estimated 4,168 killed was the critically endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle that reproduces exclusively in the Gulf.
"Based on available data, Gulf shrimping is the leading killer of sea turtles in the U.S.," says Pincetich. "The chronic effects of living in BP oil is certainly making things worse for Gulf sea turtles."
"Skimmer trawls must be required to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs), or they should be outlawed. Tow times are almost impossible to enforce and we can not rely on voluntary compliance, given the record of Gulf shrimpers," said Carole Allen, STRP's Gulf Office Director. "Research shows that even short periods of forced submergence may kill a sea turtle"
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries reported that skimmer trawls were operating illegally in closed areas during the time the increased sea turtle strandings occurred. Skimmer trawls have come under increased scrutiny for not being required to use TEDs. Louisiana state law prohibits local law enforcement from inspecting TEDs.
LINKS
National Marine Fisheries Service data on sea turtle Unusual Mortality Event
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/gulfofmexico.htm
Data showing Gulf shrimpers are leading killer of U.S. sea turtles
Environmental Report Card at BP spill one-year mark
LATEST NEWS
Sanders, Omar Lead Call for Biden to Back Global Tax on the Rich
"This is a historic opportunity for the United States to provide global leadership on tax fairness and also strengthen the administration's vital domestic efforts to achieve a fairer tax system."
Jun 11, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ilhan Omar on Tuesday led a letter calling on President Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen "to support an important initiative at the G20 to foster international cooperation on taxation of ultrawealthy individuals."
"This is a historic opportunity for the United States to provide global leadership on tax fairness and also strengthen the administration's vital domestic efforts to achieve a fairer tax system," wrote Sanders (I-Vt.) and Omar (D-Minn.), who were joined by 16 Democrats in Congress.
When Biden released his 2025 budget blueprint in March, the White House called for tackling "unfair aspects of our tax system," including by "reforming the international tax system to reduce the incentives to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions" and imposing at 25% minimum tax on Americans with wealth of more than $100 million.
The lawmakers wrote on Tuesday that "we agree with you that it is time for the very wealthiest to pay their fair share," noting research that shows the richest billionaires pay an effective income tax rate of 8.2% in the United States and as little as 2% in other countries.
"Every tax dollar not paid by a billionaire could have been used to invest in our communities, address climate change, and support public goods—from education to healthcare to infrastructure—that are critical to prosperity and a strong economy," they stressed, endorsing proposals from Biden and U.S. lawmakers "to build a more just tax system."
As the letter to Biden and Yellen details:
This year Brazil, which holds the G20 presidency, is calling for action on the taxation of wealthy individuals. They aim for increased cooperation between G20 countries to support tax progressivity and ensure the world's richest people pay their fair share. This could involve coordinated standards, information sharing, or a global minimum floor for taxation of the wealthy that could in theory be satisfied by many of the leading proposals to raise taxes on the ultrarich, including the billionaire minimum income tax. We have seen how international cooperation on taxation can deliver meaningful advances, as demonstrated by the landmark 2021 agreement by more than 130 countries to create a global tax framework on corporate taxation. This is a chance to build on what was learned and deliver better results by working together, but with a focus on individuals instead of corporations.
In April, as Common Dreamsreported at the time, Fernando Haddad, Brazil's finance minister, joined with government leaders from Germany, South Africa, and Spain to advocate for a 2% wealth tax targeting the world's billionaires to "invest in public goods such as health, education, the environment, and infrastructure."
"The argument behind such tax is straightforward: We need to enhance the ability of our tax systems to fulfill the principle of fairness, such that contributions are in line with the capacity to pay," the ministers explained. "Persisting loopholes in the system imply that high-net-worth individuals can minimize their income taxes."
Sanders, Omar, and their congressional colleagues argued to Biden and Yellen that "Brazil's G20 initiative is in the strategic interest of the United States."
International cooperation will strengthen domestic efforts to tax the wealthiest, including those that you and many of us in Congress have championed," the letter states. "We encourage your administration to join others in pledging support for this effort, and to help lead the G20 to a historic agreement that will secure a more equitable U.S. and global economy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Former Trump Aide Mick Mulvaney Floats 'Revenge-a-Thon' Against Political Foes
The former White House chief of staff suggested that there would be nothing untoward about targeting Democrats should Trump win reelection in November.
Jun 11, 2024
"What's wrong with a little revenge?"
That's what Mick Mulvaney, former President Donald Trump's one-time acting White House chief of staff—who consumer advocate Ralph Nader once described as the twice-impeached Republican's "sadist-in-chief"—asked Tuesday in a Hillopinion column suggesting that there would be nothing unseemly if his ex-boss is reelected and decides to embark on a campaign of retribution targeting Democrats.
"Would any investigation by the next Trump administration, or by an assertive state attorney general, constitute 'revenge'? Or would it simply be applying the exact same standard to Democrats that they have applied to Donald Trump?" he asked.
"Here is my question: What is the difference between 'payback' or 'a revenge-a-thon' and simply applying the same standards to other elected officials that have now been applied to Trump?" Mulvaney wrote.
"Put another way: Now that Democrats in law enforcement have established a new standard for what justifies a criminal indictment of a former elected official or a current candidate for office, what is wrong with having Republican law enforcement apply those exact same standards to Democratic officials and candidates?" he added.
Mulvaney continued:
Don't get me wrong. I abhor the fact that the standard for pursuing government leaders has been lowered so dramatically. I cringe at what precedents Trump Derangement Syndrome is bringing to our politics and civic institutions. I am extraordinarily worried over the Machiavellian trails the left is blazing in order to 'get Trump.'
But they have set the standard now. They lowered the bar. It is now not only acceptable but praiseworthy to charge a former president of the United States with 34 felonies for a bookkeeping discrepancy of which he may not even have been fully aware.
It's not just the 34 felonies in connection with hush money payments to cover up alleged extramarital affairs for which Trump was found guilty last month by a New York jury his legal team helped select. The presumptive 2024 GOP nominee also faces 54 additional federal and state criminal charges over his alleged mishandling of classified documents—including at least one file related to a foreign nation's nuclear capabilities—and his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and fomenting the January 6 Capitol insurrection.
Trump argues that he should be shielded by presidential immunity from charges in the election cases. A ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court—to which he appointed three of the six right-wing justices—is forthcoming.
Last week, a Georgia appeals court
paused proceedings in the election interference case against Trump and other defendants until an appellate panel determines whether the prosecuting district attorney should be disqualified for an alleged conflict of interest.
Trump has attempted to brush off last month's conviction by disparaging the prosecution and jury and declaring that the "real verdict is going to be November 5 by the people," a reference to Election Day.
The former president also raised eyebrows last week by threatening to imprison political opponents including the president, First Lady Jill Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Last November, Trump was accused of using Nazi rhetoric when he vowed to "root out" those he described as "radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country" if he's elected this year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Huge Win in Florida' as Judge Strikes Down Gender-Affirming Care Ban
"Today's ruling blocks the state of Florida's cruel campaign to deny fundamental rights and basic healthcare to its transgender citizens," said one LGBTQ+ advocate.
Jun 11, 2024
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that key sections of Florida's ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors—which also limits adults seeking such care—are unconstitutional and that the Republican state lawmakers and GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis were acting with "anti-transgender animus" and not in the interest of public health when they approved the legislation.
"The state of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment—treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state's full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient's transgender identity," Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, wrote in his 105-page opinion.
"Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs, but they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender," Hinkle—an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton—continued. "In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished."
"To paraphrase a civil rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice," he added, referring to a famous quote by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Hinkle also struck down a provision of the law forcing adults seeking transition healthcare to meet with a doctor in person before beginning treatment.
One year ago, Hinkle temporarily blocked portions of the law prohibiting doctors from providing, and minors from receiving, so-called "puberty blockers" and other hormonal treatments, calling the proscription "purposeful discrimination" against transgender people.
Civil rights advocates cheered Tuesday's decision.
"Today's ruling striking down Florida's discriminatory restrictions on gender-affirming medical care is a huge victory for the transgender community and for the freedom of all Floridians and their families to make their own private medical decisions," Equality Florida executive director Nadine Smith said in a statement.
"Despite the governor and his rubber-stamp GOP supermajority continuously stripping away our rights, the brave plaintiffs, legal experts, and judges have dealt another powerful blow to DeSantis' agenda of censorship, surveillance, and government intrusion into our personal healthcare decisions," Smith added.
Simone Chriss, director of the Southern Legal Counsel's Transgender Rights Initiative, said in a statement:
The federal court saw Florida's transgender minor healthcare ban and adult restrictions for what they are—discriminatory measures that cannot survive constitutional review. Today's ruling blocks the state of Florida's cruel campaign to deny fundamental rights and basic healthcare to its transgender citizens. We are so proud of our brave plaintiffs, without whom we could not have achieved this victory for the state of Florida.
DeSantis—a failed 2024 GOP presidential candidate who has centered waging what fans and foes alike have called a "war on woke"—signed the gender-affirming care ban into law in May 2023 as part of what one activist condemned as "the most extreme slate of anti-trans laws in modern history."
Among the legislation signed that day were the so-called "Don't Say They" law prohibiting transgender public school students and staff from sharing updated preferred pronouns; S.B. 1438, which bans minors from attending "adult live performances" like drag shows; and H.B. 1521, which empowers cisgender people to order transgender people to leave publicly available restrooms or face criminal trespass charges that could result in up to a year behind bars for refusal to comply.
A spokesperson for DeSantis toldThe New York Times after Tuesday's ruling that "there is no quality evidence to support the chemical and physical mutilation of children."
"These procedures do permanent, life-altering damage to children, and history will look back on this fad in horror," she added.
Lucien Hamel, an adult plaintiff in the case, said Hinkle's ruling brought relief.
"I can't just uproot my family and move across the country," Hamel said in a statement. "The state has no place interfering in people's private medical decisions, and I'm relieved that I can once again get the healthcare that I need here in Florida."
Plaintiff Jane Doe—the mother of 12-year-old transgender girl Susan Doe—asserted that the ruling "means I won't have to watch my daughter needlessly suffer because I can't get her the care she needs."
"Seeing Susan's fear about this ban has been one of the hardest experiences we've endured as parents," she said in a statement. "All we've wanted is to take that fear away and help her continue to be the happy, confident child she is now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular