September, 30 2020, 12:00am EDT
Trump Administration Set to Steamroll CDC on Cruise Ships, Prioritizing Foreign Corporations Over Public Health
Environmental advocacy groups condemn plan to restart cruising in U.S. waters this fall.
WASHINGTON
Environmental advocacy groups are condemning the news that the U.S. federal government is planning to allow cruise ships to start sailing again in U.S. waters beginning on November 1, calling out the Trump administration for choosing to play politics instead of listening to scientific experts -- yet again -- with COVID-19.
Late Tuesday evening, an Axios scoop revealed that U.S. Vice President Mike Pence had overruled Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield during private conversations in the White House Situation Room. Redfield had recommended extending the no-sail order until February 2021. It is unknown whether there will be an official announcement by the CDC later today, September 30, which is the date the current no-sail order is set to expire.
According to Axios, this undermining of the CDC "has been the source of much consternation among public health officials inside the administration, who argue that a politically motivated White House is ignoring the science and pushing too aggressively to reopen the economy and encourage large gatherings." Axios cited public health officials who have "privately complained that the thwarting of Redfield on the cruise ship ban is politically motivated because the industry is a major economic presence in Florida -- a key battleground state where the polls are statistically tied."
"That the Trump administration intervened on behalf of cruise companies over the objections of the CDC is a damning indictment of the priorities of this administration and the cruise sector. Cruise ships played a significant role in the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. With new data showing that a third wave of infections is potentially brewing in the U.S., now is not the time to sideline the agencies in charge of protecting public health in favor of corporate foreign interests and major campaign donors. The Trump administration is choosing to play politics -- yet again -- with COVID-19," said Kendra Ulrich, Shipping Campaigns Director at Stand.earth.
"The cruise industry's negligent response to COVID-19 created hundreds of new cases and helped spread the virus around the world. The industry should not restart until it is safe for passengers, crew, and communities, but the Trump administration is putting corporate interests over science and public health," said Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Program Director at Friends of the Earth. "Choosing to override the CDC's no-sail order further illustrates this administration's incompetence and inability to keep Americans safe."
"In the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the Public Investment Fund of petrostate Saudi Arabia took an 8.2% stake in Carnival Corporation, the world's largest luxury cruise company that runs its ships on exceptionally dirty fossil fuel. If the Trump White House overrides the CDC and allow Carnival Corporation and its peers to reopen cruises, this administration is yet again bailing out fossil fuel interests at the expense of public health," said Madeline Rose, Climate Campaign Director at Pacific Environment.
"Due to the threats that cruise ships pose to public health, from air pollution to COVID-19, many port communities oppose the return of cruise ships during a pandemic," said Karla Hart, a resident of Juneau, Alaska and representative for the Global Cruise Activist Network. "We've told the cruise companies what they need to do for us to welcome them back."
Despite boasting headquarters in Miami, Florida, all three major cruise companies -- Carnival Corporation, Norwegian Cruise Lines, and Royal Carribean -- pay almost nothing in U.S. taxes because their corporations are registered overseas. Additionally, because their ships are flagged in foreign countries, these companies are also sheltered from the U.S.'s strong labor and environmental laws. Earlier this year, similar concerns over U.S. taxpayer funding being used to support foreign corporations led a coalition of green groups to successfully lobby Congress to not bail out the cruise industry.
"If the Trump administration were truly concerned about public health and stopping the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be taking the recommendations of health authorities rather than championing the interests of foreign corporations. Not only did cruise ships help spread the pandemic, cruise companies boast a long track record of environment lawbreaking and they contribute to significant air and climate pollution. Climate change is already linked to an increased risk of global pandemics, and air pollution has been linked to an increased risk of severe respiratory illness. The time to take bold action to demand the transformation of this industry before its returns to sailing is now," said Ulrich.
In September, more than 50,000 people signed a petition calling for the CDC to extend the no-sail order for cruise ships. Stand.earth Friends of the Earth US, and other organizations also sent a technical letter and submitted thousands of unique comments to the CDC.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
LATEST NEWS
Abortion Rights Supporters Rally in Florida Ahead of Ballot Measure Vote
"There is no medical reason for abortion bans and there is no medical reason for the government to be forcing their way into our exam rooms," said one doctor.
Apr 14, 2024
Supporters of a Florida ballot measure that would outlaw pre-viability abortion bans kicked off the "Yes on 4" campaign in Orlando on Saturday, after the state Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the proposed amendment can be considered in November.
Abortion care patients, their partners, healthcare providers, and pro-choice politicians were among those who gathered in Lake Eola Park to express support for the proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution.
The Orlando Sentinelreported that Danielle Tallafuss spoke through tears about her decision to get an abortion in 2020 after a scan at around 20 weeks revealed a heart defect that would require multiple surgeries before age 2, if the child, whom she named Nathaniel, even lived that long.
"It was a decision we made out of love, compassion, and doing what was best not just for the son we already had at home, but for Nathaniel, who would have had to suffer through treatments that most adults wouldn't be able to handle before he could even take his first steps," Tallafuss said.
According toReuters:
Derick Cook, a Florida resident, described how his wife finally got pregnant after multiple miscarriages. But a complication at 16 weeks meant her fetus would not survive and threatened her life. Florida had enacted a 15-week abortion limit a few weeks before.
"The doctor told us that because of the ban, there was nothing he could do to help," Cook said, even though the law allows abortions when the mother's life is at risk.
Cook's wife, Anya, delivered the fetus in a hair salon the next day and nearly died at the hospital from blood loss, he said.
On the same day that Florida's right-wing Supreme Court greenlighted the ballot measure earlier this month it also upheld the state's 15-week abortion ban—and effectively approved a more recent law banning most abortions after six weeks, before many people even know they are pregnant. The stricter policy is set to take effect May 1.
The court's early-April decision to let Floridians weigh in on abortion rights "underscores the crucial role of Florida's ballot initiative process, which provides voters an important opportunity to take the reins when politicians aren't representing our interests," Yes on 4 campaign director Lauren Brenzel said earlier this month.
"Polls have consistently shown well over 60% of Florida voters support limiting government intrusion in the personal healthcare decision of accessing abortion care," she pointed out. Notably, the measure needs that percent of support to pass.
"The fact is, we can never know what someone else is going through—we're not in their shoes. That's why we must vote 'yes' on this amendment: to keep government out of our exam rooms and make sure Florida families and the doctors who treat them can make the decisions that are right for them," she added.
As Dr. Marian Sampson, an OB-GYN with Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, told the Sentinel, "Trust me when I say there is no medical reason for abortion bans and there is no medical reason for the government to be forcing their way into our exam rooms and standing between me and my patients."
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a failed Republican presidential candidate signed both the 15- and six-week bans. He was unable to run a primary campaign that could compete with former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP candidate to face President Joe Biden in November.
Trump kicked off this week by highlighting his role in reversing Roe v. Wade—appointing three right-wing U.S. Supreme Court justices willing to erase nearly half a century of abortion rights—and endorsing state-level ban efforts over a federal prohibition. He then said Friday that a nationwide policy is long longer needed "because we broke Roe v. Wade."
Biden, meanwhile, has faced some criticism for comments on abortion, but his reelection campaign has also emphasized his support for reproductive freedom, sometimes using statements from First Lady Jill Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
"Donald Trump is the architect of this healthcare crisis. And that is not a fact by the way that he hides. In fact, he brags about it," Harris said Friday. "Here's what a second Trump term looks like. More bans, more suffering, and less freedom. Just like he did in Arizona, he basically wants to take America back to the 1800s. But we are not going to let that happen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Launches Drone Attack Against Israel Over Consulate Bombing
"Netanyahu will use it as the pretext for another provocation, because he's bent on starting this war," one writer predicted.
Apr 13, 2024
This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...
Iran on Saturday launched several drones and missiles toward Israel in retaliation for the nation's deadly bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria earlier this month.
According toCNN, this statement from Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps was read on Iranian state-owned Press TV: "In response to the Zionist regime's crime in attacking the consular section of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, the IRGC's air force hit certain targets in the territories of the Zionist regime with dozens of drones and missiles."
"The United States should avoid taking any military action in connection with the Israel/Iran conflict."
Israeli and U.S. officials also
confirmed the IRGC launch, estimated by Israel to involve over 100 drones.
"A short while ago, Iran launched unmanned aerial vehicles from its territory towards the territory of the state of Israel," the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement. "The air defense array is on high alert at the same time as the air force planes and navy ships that are on a mission to protect the country's skies."
"The IDF is monitoring all targets," added the IDF, which has been waging war on the Gaza Strip since a Hamas-led attack on Israel October 7. "We ask the public to adhere to and follow the instructions of the Home Front Command and the official IDF announcements regarding the matter."
Iran's drone launch by comes after Iranian officials have reportedly been sending a message to the Biden administration through back channels: "We will attack the forces that attack us, so don't fuck with us and we won't fuck with you."
Further fueling fears of a new regional war, U.S. President Joe Biden said Friday: "We are devoted to the defense of Israel. We will support Israel. We will help defend Israel."
An American defense official said Saturday that "U.S. forces in the region continue to shoot down Iranian-launched drones targeting Israel... Our forces remain postured to provide additional defensive support and to protect U.S. forces operating in the region."
As the death toll in Gaza has mounted—the Israeli assault, which the International Court of Justice has determined is plausibly genocidal, has killed at least 33,686 people—Biden has faced intense pressure to condition or even cut off military aid to Israel.
In response to Iran's attack on Israel, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, said in a statement that "the United States should avoid taking any military action in connection with the Israel/Iran conflict or further entangle U.S. armed forces in unauthorized and dangerous fighting in the Middle East."
"The Biden administration should call on Israel to immediately announce a cease-fire in Gaza and to refrain from using U.S. weapons in any further unlawful attacks against other countries' embassies and diplomatic facilities," she added.
On top of the nearly $4 billion in military aid that the U.S. gives Israel annually, the Biden administration has been shipping arms to the IDF since October and pushing for new package worth over $14 billion that requires congressional approval.
U.S. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Saturday that "in light of Iran's unjustified attack on Israel, the House will move from its previously announced legislative schedule next week to instead consider legislation that supports our ally Israel and holds Iran and its terrorist proxies accountable."
Late Saturday, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Shucker (D-N.Y.) released a statement commending the Israeli and American troops who stopped most of the missiles and drones, condemning Iran's attack, and saying that "it is even clearer that the best way to help Israel is for the House to quickly pass the Senate's bipartisan national security supplemental next week."
Appearing on Al Jazeera Saturday, Sultan Barakat, a professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attacked the Iranian consulate to secure more U.S. weapons and try to silence anti-war critics.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights group, argued that "the Biden administration emboldened the far-right Israeli government to manufacture this crisis by repeatedly giving it carte blanche to violate international law without any accountability—from murdering journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, to expanding illegal settlements, to committing a genocide in Gaza, to bombing an Iranian embassy complex in Syria."
Sana Saeed, a media critic with
AJ+, said on social media Saturday that there will be "lots of incoming analysis for the next several hours, but there's really just one thing to know: None of this was inevitable nor did it start with Iran. This is U.S.-Israeli belligerence; this is Joe Biden's foreign policy and Israel's war expansionism as it conducts a genocide."
Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the Middle East and EVP at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, also weighed in on social media, pointing to a specific example from over 25 years ago "that shows that the Iranian retaliation against Israel could perhaps have been evaded."
"The U.S., U.K., and France prevented the U.N. Security Council from condemning the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus despite it being a flagrant violation of international law," Parsi highlighted. "The Iranians have hinted that had the UNSC strongly condemned Israel, Iran might have refrained from retaliating against it."
"Certainly, the 1998 episode does not prove that Iran's retaliation against Israel today could have been prevented. But it does suggest that there was an opportunity to de-escalate that the U.S./U.K./FR ignored or dismissed," he added. "Then again, that fits perfectly with Biden's record of the past seven months as opportunity after opportunity to de-escalate and end the war in Gaza has been actively dismissed by him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Google Slammed for 'Playing Games With California's Democracy' by Blocking News
"This is an extraordinarily inappropriate time for Google to experiment with which voters might or might not see news about elected officials and candidates for office."
Apr 13, 2024
California reporters and union leaders are calling out Google for blocking news content for some users amid consideration of a landmark proposal that would make tech giants pay media outlets for links they share—which some experts warn won't solve the journalism industry's financial problems.
To prepare for potential passage of the California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA), Google is "beginning a short-term test for a small percentage of California users," Jaffer Zaidi, the tech giant's VP for global news partnerships, explained in a Friday blog post.
"The testing process involves removing links to California news websites, potentially covered by CJPA, to measure the impact of the legislation on our product experience," he wrote. "Until there's clarity on California's regulatory environment, we're also pausing further investments in the California news ecosystem, including new partnerships through Google News Showcase, our product and licensing program for news organizations, and planned expansions of the Google News Initiative.
In response, Jon Schluess, president of the NewsGuild-CWA; Matt Pearce, president of Media Guild of the West TNG-CWA Local 39213; and Annie Sciacca, president of the Pacific Media Workers Guild TNG-CWA Local 39521 collectively called on state legislators and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to "stand united against Google's undemocratic threats to censor the work of California's journalists by shutting off news access in the middle of an election year."
"Every voter's access to information counts; California's journalists are covering an ongoing congressional election in the 16th District, where two candidates received an equal number of votes," they noted. "This is an extraordinarily inappropriate time for Google to experiment with which voters might or might not see news about elected officials and candidates for office."
While Zaidi claimed that "we've been engaging with California publishers and lawmakers throughout the legislative process and have proposed reasonable and balanced alternatives to CJPA," the trio said "Google is not engaging with California lawmakers in good faith."
"During a December informational hearing related to that bill, amid discussion about the prospect of Google banning journalism from its services in California, Google News executive Richard Gingras testified to committee Chair Sen. Tom Umberg that Google had 'no desire to stop including news in Search,'" they pointed out.
"Given today's events, obviously Google's testimony to our elected leaders was not true," the union leaders added. "Google must stop playing games with California's democracy."
However, not all Big Tech critics support the CJPA and similar legislation, including those passed in Australia and Canada.
Journalist and professor Jeff Jarvis wrote Wednesday for Nieman Journalism Lab—summarizing his lengthy white paper commissioned by the California Chamber of Commerce—that "like its federal cousin, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA)," the CJPA "is the latest in a century's attempts by the newspaper industry to diminish fair use and extend copyright for the benefit of publishers against competitors."
As The Guardianreported on the California measure:
A study conducted by Free Press Action, a media reform advocacy group, found that more than 80% of websites that would benefit from reimbursement mandated by the bill are owned by just 20 major firms. Because of this, major media companies have lobbied heavily against the legislation.
"It's a Google versus corporate media fight, and in the end California residents are the ones being harmed," said Mike Rispoli, senior director at Free Press Action. "It speaks to real challenges facing local news today when how the news is created and how it is accessed is controlled by these large corporations that are just looking after themselves."
When Canada passed its law last year and Meta—the parent company of Facebook and Instagram—announced its plans to pull content from the platforms, Free Press senior director of strategy and communications Tim Karr warned Common Dreams of the "real world impacts" while also criticizing the legislation.
"It feels to me oftentimes that the impetus of the support for the bargaining code bills in Australia, Canada, and the United States is merely to punish Big Tech—and, of course, there are things that Big Tech does that deserve to be punished, but the real goal here is not punishing Big Tech," Karr said.
"Unless we take a serious look at the shifting economics of news production and create legislation meant to address that, we're going to just be kind of bailing water out of a sinking ship," he also stressed.
Google similarly threatened to block news content over Canada's law but struck a deal with the government in November. similar threats to block content in Canada over its online news legislation before reaching a deal there with the government.
Politico noted that Meta "permanently erased news content from its social feed in Canada and has threatened to do the same if Congress and California advance similar legislation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular