

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.

Tom Waldo | Earthjustice | (907) 500‐7123 | twaldo@earthjustice.org
Gabby Brown | Sierra Club | (914) 261-4626 | gabby.brown@sierraclub.org
Randi Spivak | Center for Biological Diversity | (310) 779-4894 | rspivak@biologicaldiversity.org
Larry Edwards | Alaska Rainforest Defenders | (907) 752-7557 | Larry@LTEdwards.com
Rebecca Sentner | Audubon Alaska | (907) 276-7034 | rsentner@audubon.org
Dan Cannon | Southeast Alaska Conservation Council | (907) 586-6942 | dan@seacc.org
Eight conservation groups sued the U.S. Forest Service today to stop its authorization of the largest logging project in the national forest system in a generation, including thousands of acres of old-growth timber in the Tongass National Forest.
Today's lawsuit says the Forest Service is violating the National Environmental Policy Act and failing to comply with the agency's own management plan for the Tongass. The massive old-growth and second-growth logging project in America's largest and wildest national forest will harm habitat and wildlife, hurt the region's growing tourism industry and reduce people's outdoor recreational opportunities.
The Forest Service has approved 67 square miles of logging on Prince of Wales Island to be accessed by 164 miles of new roads over a period of 15 years. Though the agency has not yet determined the specific locations of any of this activity, the forest supervisor signed off on the final environmental review for the project in March. Without specific details of the project, the Forest Service cannot adequately assess its impact -- and the public cannot meaningfully weigh in as federal law demands.
"The uninformed approach by the Forest Service -- approving this mammoth sale before even figuring out the details -- is blatantly unlawful," said Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo. "This throwback to an old way of doing business is unacceptable and contrary to decades of court decisions."
Prince of Wales Island, the fourth largest island in the United States, is prized by residents and visitors alike for hunting, fishing, recreation, and tourism. The sale includes the logging of up to 23,000 acres of old growth national forest.
"This sale is the Forest Service's end-game for Prince of Wales Island to complete, in combination with major forestland owners, the utter decimation of the island's forests that it started in the pulp mill era," said Larry Edwards, president of Alaska Rainforest Defenders and a Tongass activist of 40 years.
The industrial-scale clearcutting of increasingly rare old-growth forest could endanger many species, including several found only on Prince of Wales Island, such as a unique subspecies of flying squirrels. The island is also home to a dwindling population of Alexander Archipelago wolves, which rely on the Tongass for their survival.
"The Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis and the condition-based NEPA process are a massive timber sale in the guise of a collaborative 'multi-use' project," said Meredith Trainor, Executive Director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. "The project funds only six of the 27 proposed watershed improvement and restoration projects in fiscal year 2019. In contrast, field studies that will result in 50 million board feet of old-growth timber being put up for sale by September 2019 are all fully funded. The reality is that this will be the largest old-growth timber sale on the Tongass in nearly 30 years, on an island where local residents will tell you that they have already lost too much old-growth habitat to logging."
"This would be the largest logging project that we have seen anywhere in our national forests in decades, destroying thousands of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forest in the Tongass National Forest. The Prince of Wales project would undercut Southeast Alaska's billion-dollar fishing and tourism industries while continuiing an unsustainable log export industry," said Kristen Miller, Conservation Director at Alaska Wilderness League. "It will damage vital wildlife habitat, impact sport and subsistence hunters, and affect recreational use of the forest. Conserving the Tongass means ensuring confidence in the jobs we already get from the forest, and the common thread behind the success of the recreation, tourism and fishing industries in Southeast is a healthy, vibrant and intact Tongass. Continuing to subsidize the timber industry like this, an industry that makes up a tiny fraction of Southeast Alaska's economy, threatens the viability of the wildlife and scenery that bring one million people to hike, hunt, fish, kayak and tour the Tongass each year."
"This massive project would wipe out critical habitat for the rare Alexander Archipelago wolf and harm the streams and river Alaska's salmon depend upon," said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaskans love the Tongass, and they want this destructive logging to stop. The Forest Service and Alaska's congressional delegation are doing the bidding of the timber industry."
If the true impact of this sale were examined and subject to a cost-benefit analysis, it would be exposed as a wasteful, destructive giveaway to a logging industry that supports less than 1 percent of the region's economy.
"This sale will have devastating results for birds, including endemic species like the Queen Charlotte Goshawk who finds nesting sites in the safety of these old-growth forest stands," said Natalie Dawson, executive director at Audubon Alaska. "The Tongass is the only national forest still implementing a logging program based on clearcutting old-growth. It is an unnecessary practice that undermines the true values of these forests for Alaskans and all Americans."
"Tongass National Forest is the crown jewel of our nation's forest system and it's no place for logging," said Alli Harvey, Alaska representative for Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign. "An accurate environmental review would have made it clear that this sale would be a threat to Alaska's extraordinary environment and our tourism and recreation economy and should never take place."
Earthjustice is representing Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, and the Center for Biological Diversity in this lawsuit.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."