Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel speaks at 2020 GOP convention
Further

No Place For Bad Actors, Thanks

Well that was blessedly quick. Less than a week after NBC said it would pay fascist bootlicker and election liar Ronna McDaniel to bootlick and lie on air - and a day after its employees loudly protested the move - NBC, citing their "legitimate concerns," said oops never mind and dropped McDaniel. Along with her colleagues, Rachel Maddow had cogently argued against giving a platform to a low-life hack who is "part of an ongoing project to get rid of our system of government."

The righteous revolt by journalists at NBC and MSNBC was swift after the network announced McDaniel's $300,000 hire Friday, two weeks after she was forced out as RNC chair to make room for Trump's even more servile daughter-in-law Lara Trump. At the time, NBC said it wanted to include news contributors representing a "diverse set of viewpoints and experiences," a dumpster-fire of an explanation blasted by enraged reporters who noted that McDaniel aiding and abetting a propaganda campaign intended to overthrow or at least undermine electoral democracy - including telling GOP canvassers in Michigan to not certify 2020 election results - is so far above and beyond a "diverse viewpoint" that Trump and multiple co-conspirators have been criminally indicted for it.

Reporters railed through Monday against McDaniel poisoning what Nicolle Wallace called "our sacred airwaves," from Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski decrying someone "who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier" to late-night Lawrence O’Donnell advising his network, "Don’t hire anyone close to the crimes." Jen Psaki rejected right-wing comparisons with her own move from politics to reporting. "That kind of experience (only) has value if it's paired with honesty and good faith," she said, especially in this fraught moment. "Our democracy is in danger because of the lies that people like Ronna McDaniel have pushed on this country...This isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats. This isn't about red versus blue. This is about truth versus lies."

Maddow joins colleagues in objecting to McDaniel for legitimizing Trump, attacking democracywww.youtube.com

Rachel Maddow devoted most of her time on air to joining the backlash, expressing solidarity with her colleagues' "loud and principled objections" to giving a voice to the willing accomplice of an aspiring strongman. En route, she highlighted our “long history of forgettable men" intent on convincing the country we need a "new system of government." “We have had a lot of these guys, but our generation’s version of this guy has gotten a lot farther than all the rest of them," she said. "And why is that? (Trump) would have been as forgotten as the rest of them had he not been able to attach himself to an institution like the Republican Party, and had the leader of that party (decide) she would not just abide him, she would help. She would help with the worst of it."

Which was, in essence, "priming your people" not to accept the next election results. "In the news business, yes, we are covering an election," she said. "We’re also covering bad actors trying to use the rights and privileges of a democracy to end democracy. The chief threat among them now is not the rioters and kooks, but the slick political professionals who are turning their considerable talents to laundering violently revolutionary claims (that) America’s election results aren’t real, and they shouldn’t be respected.” The "inexplicable" hire of McDaniel to report on election news, she suggested, was akin to hiring a mobster at a D.A.'s office or a pickpocket as a TSA airport screener. She ended with a civil, simple plea to the network: "I hope they will reverse their decision."

And so they did. Tuesday evening, Puck Newsreported NBC had dropped McDaniel in her second, well-deserved job humiliation - ever classy, even Trump mocked her - in two weeks. NBCsaid chairman Cesar Conde sent staff an email reversing the hire and apologizing to those "who felt we let them down." McDaniel is reportedly, unsurprisingly "exploring her legal options." Still, argues historian Timothy Snyder, a fat check - she may get paid in full, giving her $500 a second for one interview - will be a small price to pay. In what is "not a normal political situation where you can give a little and get a little," he says, appeasement is a lousy option: "If you practise giving things away, if you say, 'Ok, we're gonna practice appeasing a dictator so when the dictator comes we'll be better at it' - is that what you should be doing?"

SEE ALL
Greek wildfires
News

Emissions From Just 5 Oil Giants Could Kill 11.5 Million People Prematurely by 2100

A new report released Wednesday details how the emissions of just five big fossil fuel companies could lead to 11.5 million premature deaths by 2100 as continued oil and gas extraction and consumption heats the planet and sparks extreme heatwaves across the globe.

The analysis by Global Witness focused on the emissions of Shell, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron—all of which have "defied calls from scientists to rapidly reduce emissions and continue to increase oil and gas production."

ExxonMobil and Chevron have announced investments of more than $100 billion in new oil and gas reserves in recent months, even as the companies eye 2050 as the year they'll reach net zero emissions. The United Nations' Global Stocktake last September showed the five companies targeted in the report "are forecast to spend a staggering $3.1 trillion by 2050, on both existing and new oil and gas extraction"—despite the fact that the U.N. and the International Energy Agency have both warned that no new extraction is compatible with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

Global Witness cross-referenced the oil companies' plans with research out of Columbia University, which estimated that every 1 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted in 2020 will cause 226 excess heat-related deaths over the next 80 years.

The analysis "suggests that these five companies will dig up oil and gas, which when burned, will add 51 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere between now and 2050," said Global Witness. "Using Columbia's mortality cost of carbon methodology, we calculate that emissions from the supermajors' oil and gas would kill an additional 11.5 million people due to heat by 2100."

Global Witness focused on heat-related deaths specifically; a study by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air in 2020 found that air pollution from fossil fuel combustion was responsible for 4.5 million premature deaths worldwide each year.

Global Witness notes that the deaths of at least 61,000 people were linked to "searing heat across Europe" in 2022, and recent heatwaves have proven deadly in the United States, China, and South America in the past two years.

"Heat isn't a new phenomenon," said Global Witness. "But as the planet gets hotter because of human-caused emissions, scientists are detecting more heat-related deaths."

Extreme heat puts people—particularly children, elderly people, pregnant people, and outdoor workers—at risk for heat stroke, heart attacks, and exhaustion.

"Behind these figures are people," noted the group, pointing to the deaths of 72-year-old Gwendolyn Osborne in Chicago during a record-breaking heatwave in 2022 and of a 13-year-old girl who suffered deadly heat stroke in Japan last summer. "These are just a few stories from the massive and growing wave of heat-caused deaths around the world. Unless the supermajors change course quickly, the death toll will be comparable to some of history's most brutal wars."

The companies have an opportunity to save millions of lives, Global Witness noted, as the Columbia research found that with dramatically reduced emissions, the death toll from the oil giants' emissions would be cut by more than half.

Global Witness included in its analysis the companies' scope 3 emissions, which are produced when people and entities use the firms' products.

When approached by the organization, TotalEnergies objected to the inclusion of scope 3 emissions, saying fossil fuel companies are only responsible for scope 1 (the direct emissions from their facilities) and 2 (emissions from the company's use of electricity, heat, and other utilities).

The companies' net zero pledges for 2050 pertain only to scopes 1 and 2.

Global Witness compared TotalEnergies's claim to those of drug dealers who say "they aren't to blame for drug addictions" or arms dealers who "claim that they don't kill people—that they're simply supplying people with products they want."

"Oil and gas companies are solely responsible for digging up these fossil fuels, and they're doing it eyes wide open in the face of a mountain of evidence documenting the suffering and death that fossil fuels cause, while failing to make even the most basic investments in green energy," said the group.

The analysis came as The Guardianreported on consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's campaign to hold fossil fuel companies legally liable for people's deaths from extreme temperatures, climate-related hunger and disease, flooding, and wildfires.

Public Citizen has been holding events at Yale, Harvard, and New York University to discuss the idea with legal experts, and has reportedly gained some traction.

"Once I read it, I thought that it was more compelling than I had guessed it would be," former Department of Justice prosecutor Cindy Cho told The Guardian of Public Citizen's proposal. "I think that prosecutors should actively consider pursuing the theory, especially if they walk into the investigation with an understanding of the intense challenges."

Global Citizen compared the millions of deaths the oil firms are projected to cause to a chemical spill.

"When a company spills lethal chemicals into a river, and harms people, we hold it legally responsible," said the group. "The American chemical company DuPont has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars for polluting drinking water with chemicals. Will this responsibility extend to carbon emissions, which we can increasingly link to the deaths of millions of people? Certainly, it's an argument the supermajors and their legal teams will be extremely concerned about."

SEE ALL
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
News

To Unrig Economy, Dems Propose Raising Taxes on Wealth Over $50 Million

Weeks after U.S. President Joe Biden won applause from progressives for using his State of the Union address to go on the offense against the Republican Party's tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, Democrats in Congress introduced legislation aimed at raising revenue by ensuring multimillionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was originally joined by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) in 2021 to introduce the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, and the three lawmakers on Monday announced measures to strengthen the proposal.

The new legislation includes stronger anti-tax evasion rules regarding trusts, where "ultrawealthy" families frequently stash money to avoid paying taxes—costing the federal government $5 billion to $7 billion per year.

"As President Biden says: No one thinks it's fair that Jeff Bezos gets enough tax loopholes that he pays at a lower rate than a public school teacher," said Warren. "All my bill is asking is that when you make it big, bigger than $50 million dollars, then on that next dollar, you pitch in two cents, so everyone else can have a chance."

The lawmakers said the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would bring in at least $3 trillion over 10 years by requiring a 2 cent tax for every dollar of wealth over $50 million—affecting just the top 0.05% of households in the United States.

The bill includes a 3% tax on the wealthiest households overall, with a 1% annual surtax on the net worth of households and trusts over $1 billion.

Susan Harley, managing director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, said the three Democrats have zeroed in on "the only way to truly tackle the injustice of income inequality in this country... to address wealth hoarding."

"The Ultra-Millionaire Tax is a critically needed policy that would ensure that the super-rich who have benefited from a rigged system will begin to pay their fair share in taxes," said Harley.

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, economists at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that the richest 0.1% of Americans saw their share of the country's wealth triple from 7% to 20% from the late 1970s and 2019, while the bottom 90% saw their share "plummet from about 35% to 25%."

"For too long, the ultrawealthy in America have been able to dodge taxes on a large scale," said Saez and Zucman in response to the updated proposal. "As a result they often pay much less, relative to their ability to pay, than the rest of the population. The ultra-millionaire tax would address this fundamental unfairness, and raise critical revenues for much needed investments that would make the country—and us all—richer."

Boyle noted that he witnessed firsthand the loss of economic power among working Americans as the rich got richer in recent decades.

"As the son of a union household, I witnessed every day how incredibly hard my parents worked to build a middle-class life for our family. It is simply wrong that millions of hardworking families pay a higher tax rate than billionaires," said Boyle. "This legislation will fight back against Republicans' decadeslong scheme to rig our tax code against middle-class families and in favor of multimillionaires and billionaires."

The lawmakers introduced the proposal as economic justice advocates have recently cataloged price gouging and "shrinkflation" that's aimed at boosting shareholders' and CEOs' pay while working people struggle to afford necessities like diapers and groceries.

"The system is not working when the richest 1% of Americans own more than 30% of our nation's wealth but pay just 3.2% of their wealth in taxes while others pay twice as much," said Jayapal. "Our country's tax system needs urgent reform, and the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act is a major step toward making sure the wealthy finally pay their fair share. With this legislation, we can narrow the racial wealth gap and invest trillions of dollars in schools, clean energy, housing, healthcare, and more to improve lives in communities across America."

SEE ALL
Rep. Cori Bush
News

Cori Bush Demands Repeal of 'Zombie Statute' Weaponized by Anti-Abortion Zealots

Rep. Cori Bush on Tuesday called for the repeal of a long-obsolete law that anti-abortion activists, lawmakers, and judges have worked to revive as part of their nationwide assault on reproductive rights.

"The Comstock Act must be repealed," Bush (D-Mo.) wrote in a social media post on Tuesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by a group of anti-abortion doctors aiming to curtail access to mifepristone—a medication used in more than 60% of U.S. abortions.

"Enacted in 1873, it is a zombie statute, a dead law that the far-right is trying to reanimate," Bush warned. "The anti-abortion movement wants to weaponize the Comstock Act as a quick route to a nationwide medication abortion ban. Not on our watch."

Bush's office said she was the first member of Congress to demand the law's repeal since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the summer of 2022.

The Comstock Act, which hasn't been applied in a century and was repeatedly narrowed following its enactment, prohibits the mailing of any "instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing" that "may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion." Legal experts have described the dormant law as the "most significant national threat to reproductive rights."

Given that "virtually everything used for an abortion—from abortion pills, to the instruments for abortion procedures, to clinic supplies—gets mailed to providers in some form," a trio of experts wrote earlier this year, the anti-abortion movement's "interpretation of the Comstock Act could mean a nationwide ban on all abortions, even in states where it remains legal."

"Enforcing a Victorian-era law would be deeply unpopular and Democrats have a chance to sound the alarm, take action in both chambers, and run on it."

The Biden Justice Department has argued that the Comstock Act "does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully."

But the law has nevertheless been cited with growing frequency by far-right advocacy groups and judges following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

In 2023, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk, invoked the Comstock Act in a decision suspending the Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of mifepristone. In 2021, the FDA said it would allow patients to receive abortion medication by mail—which Kacsmaryk claimed the Comstock Act "plainly forecloses."

That case, which has massive implications for abortion rights nationwide, is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

During oral arguments on Tuesday, Justices Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas "repeatedly invoked the Comstock Act," The Washington Postreported, "pressing lawyers about whether the 1873 federal law should apply to abortion drugs sent through the mail today."

The justices' comments raised concerns that they could try to resurrect the Comstock Act in their coming ruling in the mifepristone case.

"While the Biden administration has issued guidance saying that the federal government will not enforce the laws," the Post noted, "a future administration seeking to restrict abortion could choose to do so."

Donald Trump, the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee, has expressed support for a national abortion ban.

Jezebel's Susan Rinkunas wrote Tuesday that "enforcing a Victorian-era law would be deeply unpopular and Democrats have a chance to sound the alarm, take action in both chambers, and run on it."

"We definitively have one lawmaker on board," Rinkunas added, referring to Bush. "Who's next?"

SEE ALL
Julian Assange protest
News

Grave 'Threat to Journalists' Remains as UK Court Delays Assange Extradition Ruling

The United Kingdom's High Court ruled Tuesday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot immediately be extradited to the United States and gave the Biden administration three weeks to provide "assurances" that the publisher's First Amendment rights will be protected and that he won't face the death penalty.

If the U.S. does not provide the requested assurances, Assange will be allowed to pursue a limited appeal of his extradition. Should the U.S. submit assurances by the April 16 deadline, a hearing will be held on May 20 to determine whether they are "satisfactory."

Assange, whose health has deteriorated badly during his five years in a high-security London jail, faces 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and a possible 175-year prison sentence in the U.S. for publishing classified information—a common journalistic practice. WikiLeaks disclosures exposed grave U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Press freedom and human rights groups say the extradition of Assange to the U.S. would set a dangerous precedent and pose a dire threat to journalism everywhere.

Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement Tuesday that "we are glad Julian Assange is not getting extradited today."

"But this legal battle is far from over, and the threat to journalists and the news media from the Espionage Act charges against Assange remains," said Timm. "Assange's conviction in American courts would create a dangerous precedent that the U.S. government can and will use against reporters of all stripes who expose its wrongdoing or embarrass it. The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all."

"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case."

The U.S., which has been aggressively pursuing Assange's extradition for years, previously provided the U.K. government with assurances that Assange would not be held at a supermax prison that's notorious for its inhumane treatment of inmates.

Human rights groups have said such assurances from the U.S. government are "inherently unreliable" and should not be taken seriously by British authorities.

"While the U.S. has allegedly assured the U.K. that it will not violate Assange's rights, we know from past cases that such 'guarantees' are deeply flawed—and the diplomatic assurances so far in the Assange case are riddled with loopholes," noted Simon Crowther, legal adviser at Amnesty International.

"The U.S. must stop its politically motivated prosecution of Assange, which puts Assange and media freedom at risk worldwide," Crowther said Tuesday. "In trying to imprison him, the U.S. is sending an unambiguous warning to publishers and journalists everywhere that they too could be targeted and that it is not safe for them to receive and publish classified material—even if doing so is in the public interest."

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, echoed that message, saying in a statement that "prosecuting Assange for the publication of classified information would have profound implications for press freedom, because publishing classified information is what journalists and news organizations often need to do in order to expose wrongdoing by government."

"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case," said Jaffer.

SEE ALL
U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller
News

US Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as 'Nonbinding'

Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel's devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.

The resolution "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire." The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.

Shortly after the resolution's approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as "nonbinding."

"It's a nonbinding resolution," Kirby told reporters. "So, there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas."

Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that "there is no such thing as a 'nonbinding' Security Council resolution."

"Israel's failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions," Ruebner wrote.

Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration's "appalling behavior" in the wake of the resolution's passage. Fihn said the administration's downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to "openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."

In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials' claim that the resolution was "nonbinding" should be seen as "setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution's terms."

While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they're difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation's planned visit to the U.S.

Israel Katz, Israel's foreign minister, wrote on social media Monday that "Israel will not cease fire."

The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.

Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was "just plain irresponsible" of U.S. officials to "suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded."

In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance."

Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including U.S.-funded flour shipments.

Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law."

"They are as binding as international laws," Haq said.

SEE ALL