(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Amy Cooter, Vanderbilt University

(THE CONVERSATION) Militias and many other Second Amendment advocates have long argued that their primary desire to own firearms often, many of them is rooted in a need to protect themselves and their families from a tyrannical federal government, or to discourage the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

But with the mayor of a major U.S. city warning that tyranny and dictatorship have already arrived on the streets in the shape of unidentified federal troops using questionable tactics militia groups appear reluctant to throw their lot in with protesters. In fact, many have been supporting government action to suppress peaceful demonstrators.

Certainly the scenes in Portland have alarmed civil liberties groups:Heavily armed and camouflaged federal officers, wearing no name tags or other insignia, are on the streets of Portland, Oregon, and have teargassed and arrested seemingly peaceful protesters with little or no provocation. President Donald Trump has said similar forces are coming to other cities many run by Democrats.

To some, it may look exactly like what the militias have been warning of.

As a scholar of the U.S. domestic militia movement, I have seen in recent months a new divide emerging in these groups.

Some, often calling themselves the boogaloo movement, see the current political unrest as an opportunity to wrest power from an overbearing federal government. Others support police and their enforcement of strict law and order, even if that means authorities using powerful weapons and overwhelming force.

Shifting online dynamics

Assessing what these groups are doing, and how they are discussing recent events, has become more difficult for observers like me in recent weeks. On June 30, Facebook announced it had removed hundreds of accounts and groups allegedly related to the boogaloo movement.

The move came in the wake of several arrests of alleged boogaloo adherents across the country, including three in Nevada accused of plotting to firebomb federal land and one in Texas accused of killing one police officer and critically injuring another.

Boogaloo groups still have a social media presence and, until recently when the portion of the site they used was closed, a large presence on the Reddit discussion site, where comments are loosely regulated and people can post anonymously.

Now the movements public face is smaller and harder to find without insider knowledge. For instance, until recently it was common to see groups with the words big igloo in their names, a play on the word boogaloo. After Facebooks crackdown, some groups are using the word icehouse or other synonyms that may not be as obvious. They are therefore harder for algorithms to find, but also for people to find whether to observe or to join in.

Backing the boog

The groups who back the boogaloo imply, or even outright declare, that the U.S. is no longer a free country, and generally call for supporters to oppose, violently if necessary, federal forces and the government they represent.

In the days after George Floyds death, I saw some of these groups call for members to participate in protests opposing police violence. But I have not seen similar calls in response to federal officers violence in Portland.

That may change if federal forces do appear in other places, especially areas geographically closer to active back the boog supporters. It is also possible that the groups are discussing protests or other actions in less public ways, in private messages or on platforms like Parler, that have marketed themselves as friendlier toward a variety of conservative views.

Backing the blue

There are still militia members who support police, often called back the blue groups. Commentators have observed that silence from them and other Second Amendment supporters certainly seems to be hypocritical, at best, and possibly supportive of tyranny in the current context.

Thats not the way they see it. They argue that one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government is to protect citizens from others who might infringe on their rights or safety. They support police who say that Portland authorities have failed to protect regular people from violent protesters.

Thats also what these groups claimed happened in Seattles autonomous zone though they rely on news sources that describe the protesters as inherently dangerous and hampering business and free association. They seemingly ignore or discount other reports that these characterizations are exaggerated. In my research, I found that militia members were likely to exclusively trust sources like Fox News or even more conservative sites for their information, and recent data confirms that such sources may strongly shape viewers understanding of political and other events.

Mistaken perceptions?

This view of protesters as violent is amplified by some back the blue members belief that the demonstrators are Marxist members of antifa, a mostly nonviolent leaderless collective movement generally opposing fascism.

For example, one Facebook group shared a video of Christopher David, the Navy veteran beaten by federal officers in Portland, talking about his experience. A commentator responded, The end of the video tell[s] the tale, hes going to raise money for [Black Lives Matter]! He is a liar he went there to stand with his commie comrades.

Scholarship on conservative groups argues that they use anti-communist language to cast political opponents as not real Americans who have thus have forfeited any protections U.S. citizens should have.

Anti-liberal rhetoric

Some other back the blue members see hypocrisy in liberals, noting that few, if any, on the left objected when federal officers killed LaVoy Finicum during the 2016 standoff between federal officials and armed supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy during a land dispute elsewhere in Oregon.

There are sharing pages like one on a well-known conservative satire site that suggests the same Oregon authorities opposing federal officers tolerate violent behavior from protesters because of identity politics the idea that certain groups favored by liberals, in this case, Black people, are held to a different and more lax standard.

Several Facebook pages shared an image of a modified Gadsden flag, with a Black Lives Matter fist and promising we will tread as proof that Portland protesters would take away others rights, including the right to bear arms, if given the chance and thus do not deserve protection themselves. One comment in support of such a post read, I[m] glad to see Im not the only person happy to see these commies being snatched up and dragged away. Yes, I know that this could just as easily be turned around and that we could also be dragged away in broad daylight. But if they arent stopped now, and they do somehow manage to gain complete power, well get dragged away anyways. Better them than us, before its too late.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Federal intervention has not stopped the Portland protests from growing, but some analysts expect Trump to increase the response in an attempt to appeal to his supporters as the country heads into the November election. Many people fear that move would spark violence.

The back the blue militia members generally respect law and order enough to not fulfill their threats of violence or criminal action but the back the boog groups may not be so restrained. The back the blue groups may also act if federal action escalates, and members believe they are needed or useful to help defend the interests of average citizens.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/militias-warning-of-excessive-federal-power-comes-true-but-where-are-they-143333.

The rest is here:

Militias' warning of excessive federal power comes true but where are they? - Thehour.com

In 1997, Jimcy McGirt, a Moscogee (Creek) Indian, was convicted of raping and sodomizing a four-year-old girl and sentenced to life in prison plus 500 years. Now 71 years old, McGirt has been appealing his conviction for years, and in July the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in his favor. Sort of.

The SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence but whether or not the state of Oklahoma had the right to try him for his crimes. Because the acts were committed on whats known as Indian land, McGirt and his lawyers argued that only the federal government could try him for his crime.

The Supreme Courts decision, wildly unpopular in Oklahoma, isnt likely to get McGirt released from prison any time soon but could throw thousands of other prosecutions into appeals chaos.

Just another thing to blame on Andrew Jackson.

As youll recall from your history books, when settlers began arriving here from England and France, they encountered tribes who had been occupying this country for generations. But settlers saw the lands potential for tobacco, cotton and other products and vowed to take them over at any cost.

George Washington wanted to civilize the tribes, converting them to Christianity and European ways, but not surprisingly, many tribes resisted. A few accommodated peacefully, relocated willingly, and got along with their new neighbors. Those Indians Choctaws, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokees-- became known as the civilized tribes.

But as more settlers arrived and wanted more land, other tribes pushed back resulting in all sorts of hostilities from skirmishes to outright massacres. Thousands were killed on both sides, but since the newcomers had better weapons, more troops and laws benefiting only themselves, Indians were the losers.

Jackson had fought in several battles against Indians and definitely thought any land, possessions or rights they had should belong to new Americans. When he became President he determined to get rid of the Indian problem. States joined his crusade, enacting laws limiting Native American sovereignty and rights and encroaching on their lands.

Southern states, in particular, dealt harshly with Native Americans and illegally transferred property rights to white Americans.

In 1830 Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which gave the federal government the ability to trade cotton-rich land in the south for barren land in the west. The Act required the government to deal fairly and peacefully with the Native Americans, but they didnt.

In the winter of 1831, soldiers forcibly removed Choctaws from Georgia and Alabama, many bound in chains, and literally walked them to the territory known as Oklahoma. Soon other tribes had to begin the often-fatal walk west, now known as the Trail of Tears. By 1840 tens of thousands of Native Americans had been driven off their lands, forced to cross the Mississippi, and survivors were promised the new lands would remain theirs forever.

Some years later Oklahoma and other territories became states, and residents assumed the old promise meant nothing anymore. Last month the Supreme Court disagreed.

Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with liberal justices, and said, Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.

All that really means right now is the McGirt will get a new trial. But in the long run, its a huge reminder of how horribly America treated minorities generations ago and a small reminder of how little things have changed since then.

I dont think Id like Mr. McGirt, but maybe his lawsuit did us all a favor.

A former assemblywoman from Jersey City, Joan Quigley is the president and CEO of North Hudson Community Action Corp.

Send letters to the editor and guest columns for The Jersey Journal tojjletters@jjournal.com.

Link:

Supreme Court ruling a reminder of how badly Native Americans have been treated | Quigley - nj.com

Environment Canada is forecasting a stormy summer day. The high is expected to reach 27C with showers and cloudy skies persisting through the day. There is also the risk of a thunderstorm later this afternoon and into the evening. Fog patches are expected overnight with a low of 16C.

A teenager from Kingston, Ont. pleaded guilty to four terrorism related charges in connection with a 2019 bomb threat. The minor was arrested and charged in January 2019 following a tip from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. The teen was charged with knowingly facilitating terrorist activity, making or possessing explosive materials, taking action with intent to cause an explosion of an explosive substance that is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to persons or is likely to cause serious damage to property as well as instructing someone else on how to place or detonate a lethal device, CBC reports.

Two occupants climbed from a small plane after it crashed on Tuesday night west of Ottawa, the Ottawa Citizen reports. A spokesperson for Renfrew Countys Paramedic Services reported that the two men were treated for only minor injuries. The plane was on route to Arnprior airport before it lost power, causing the pilot to land in a field. The plane ended upside down around 20 metres from the highway.

WE Charity co-founders, Craig and Marc Kielburger, testified before the House of Commons Finance Committee about the now cancelled contract overseeing a summer student grant program. They denied the contract had been awarded because of WEs ties to Liberal politicians. During four hours of questioning, they mentioned the charity had previously worked with NDP and Conservative politicians. The co-founders also talked about their past contracts with the federal government, as well as their financial situation when they took the contract. The brothers said the testimony was a chance to set the record straight which they welcomed. CTV News has more.

A study published in the Royal Societys journal Biological Sciences reports that a shortage of wild bees and domesticated honey bees is causing decreased pollination and yields of some crops across British Columbia and the U.S. The study examined both the pollination of crop flowers as well as crop yields from apples, highbush blueberries, sweet and tart cherries, almonds, pumpkins and watermelon. The study reported that protections for wild bees and a larger investment into honey bees would be beneficial to increase crop yields. Global News has more.

An investigation conducted by Transport Canada has found that a number of employees violated the governments code of values and ethics when they sent emails containing racist and violent language over a decade ago. The email included the link to an offensive parody song that had lyrics with racial stereotypes about travellers wearing turbans. As well, the 10 employees who shared the email worked in the section of Transport Canada that is in charge of the enforcement of Canadas no-fly list, a program which has faced backlash for incorrectly flagging some Canadians. Michael Keenan, the deputy minister of Transport Canada, said the human resources section is looking at disciplinary measures for the six employees still on staff. CBC has more.

Visit link:

In the News: Wednesday, July 29 - capitalcurrent.ca

The East Stand at Sixfields is yet to be fully completed.

The leaders of Labour and the Liberal Democrats also called for thorough due diligence to be carried out, after recent media reports that a deal on land next to the East Stand was close to being struck.

The issue was a hot topic of discussion at Mondays full council meeting (July 20), but the council stressed that no agreements were in place, and that it would carry out thorough checks before concluding any deal.

Last month, the BBC reported that a 500,000 deal was close to being struck which would allow the football club to be given an option to buy borough council-owned land next to Sixfields, on condition the East Stand was finished.

It would then see the council sharing the proceeds of any subsequent development with the club. It was also reported that a 3 million cap on the cost of completing the stand was also likely to be part of the deal.

A criminal investigation is still ongoing examining how 10.25 million of taxpayers money, lent by the borough council to the club in 2013 to complete the redevelopment at the stadium, was allegedly misappropriated.

Current Cobblers chairman Kelvin Thomas acquired the club from former chairman David Cardoza in 2015. A spokesman for the club had told the BBC last month: The overriding principle, as it always has been, is the development of the East Stand and that is an agreed point with Northampton Borough Council.

In addition, NBC will need to demonstrate best value for any disposal of the freehold land, which is also accepted by the football club.

Labour leader Councillor Danielle Stone was keen to see mistakes of the past not repeated, and tabled a number of written questions to the councils cabinet member for regeneration and enterprise, Councillor Tim Hadland.

Councillor Stone asked: Can the council confirm that all the details of the Option Agreement including any letters of intent, Memorandum of Understandings and the like will be open to scrutiny and debate by all councillors and the wider public before anything is signed?

Responding, Councillor Hadland said: We can confirm that should there be any deal acceptable to the council we will follow our established governance processes, including formal decision-making by cabinet. This will allow scrutiny by the public and councillors in accordance with our normal procedures.

Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Sally Beardsworth wanted to find out more about the structure of the reported deal, asking: The media reports state a 50/50 split of profits is agreed between NTFC and NBC from the development. Precisely, what expenditure is to be deducted from the top line sale proceeds before determining the actual divisible profit?

Councillor Hadland responded: The terms of any deal have not yet been agreed and discussions are ongoing. The council will comply with its duties to achieve best value for the taxpayers of the town.

The questions were tabled during a week in which all councillors were sent an open letter by the clubs supporters trust urging them to press for full disclosure of the deal so that taxpayers and the clubs supporters would not be ripped off all over again.

The open letter read: We believe it is the intention of those in charge of the negotiations with the owners of the football club to conclude a deal without allowing scrutiny of its details and therefore proper consideration of whether it is in the best interests of council taxpayers and the football clubs supporters.

We urge you to press for full disclosure of the deal in the interests of openness and transparency, which is the very least the long-suffering football fans and council taxpayers of Northampton deserve.

Councillor Stone ended the discussion by saying she was a bit more reassured having been told that opposition parties would be kept in the loop with regular briefings, but added: Rebuilding trust with the supporters is going to be really really important given the history of what has gone on. Speculation is very damaging to everybody, we need to be as open and transparent as we possibly can be and rebuild that trust so that everyone knows what is going on.

Below are the written questions, and answers, in their entirety from Mondays meeting.

Question from Councillor Danielle Stone (Labour leader):

We know the Memorandum of Understanding entered into in November 2015 between Northampton Borough Council and the clubs owners is legally non-binding. But why are none of its commitments being honoured? This includes the commitment of the clubs owners to complete the East Stand from their own funds given to the Council in 2015?

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland (Conservative, cabinet member for regeneration and enterprise):

For some time, the football club have been keen to pursue development of land in the area of the Sixfields Stadium, and have put forward ideas for a number of possible development schemes. Although discussions are ongoing between the club and the council there are no agreements in place and any deal must deliver best value for the taxpayer.

The non-binding commitments in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into in November 2015, were made at a point in time and have, where possible been largely honoured.

There was no commitment given in the MoU for the completion of the East Stand. In discussions with NBC, Kelvin Thomas and David Bower [club director] did make commitments at the time to build the East Stand but this was not part of the MoU or any formal binding agreement.

Question from Councillor Danielle Stone:

An article in The Athletic stated that a significant sum of money had changed hands in 2017 when the Chinese owned 5USports acquired control of NTFCs holding company, Northampton Town Ventures Ltd. No receipt of any funds is recorded in the statutory accounts of Ventures or its controlling company at that time, the English registered Fantastical Ltd.

Given the existence of serious questions surrounding this transaction, the wider ethical issue of an English local authority dealing with a company under the ultimate control of an offshore tax haven company in respect of the sale and development of public land, can you confirm that full professional due diligence has been carried out on NTFC and all its connected companies to satisfy the council of their finances, source of funds and the tracing and whereabouts of any Chinese funds?

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

As with any commercial transaction the council enters into, appropriate checks will be undertaken at the relevant time to ensure that the councils interests are protected. These checks vary in their scale according to the size and type of agreement, but we can confirm that thorough checks will be undertaken in relation to any transaction around Sixfields.

Question from Councillor Danielle Stone:

Kelvin Thomas in response to the recent media reports said in a BBC Northampton interview on June 25 that he expects any new agreement between the club and the borough to be open to public scrutiny. Can the council confirm that all the details of the option agreement, including any letters of intent, MoUs and the like will be open to scrutiny and debate by all councillors and the wider public before anything is signed?

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

We can confirm that should there be any deal acceptable to the council we will follow our established governance processes, including formal decision-making by cabinet. This will allow scrutiny by the public and councillors in accordance with our normal procedures.

Question from Councillor Sally Beardsworth (Liberal Democrat leader):

This agreement is being negotiated at a time when the CPS has not yet filed charges and the KPMG [auditors] report is not finalised. What protocols are being followed regarding delegation of authority to councillors and officers to agree terms and involving the section 151 officer [chief finance officer]?

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

Any agreement will be made in line with the councils formal procedures with recommendations being taken to cabinet for a decision to be made. Relevant officers, including the section 151 officer will be involved in the normal way. Full due diligence will be undertaken of any agreement in relation to this matter with appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Question from Councillor Sally Beardsworth:

What protections will be contained in any agreement for NTFC (meaning its supporters as distinct from its owners) concerning its original leasehold land and the future retention within the club of income from the development rather than it being moved through the club to repay debt to the clubs owners?

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

There have been no changes to the agreement with CDNL (County Developments (Northampton) Ltd) since the agreements entered into in 2015. Any new agreement will need to consider and undertake the obligations relating to the site as an Asset of Community Value. It will be up to NTFC, which is a separate legal entity to decide how it allocates its finances relating to its business.

Question from Councillor Sally Beardsworth:

The media reports state a 50/50 split of profits is agreed between NTFC and NBC from the development. Precisely, what expenditure is to be deducted from the top line sale proceeds before determining the actual divisible profit?

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

The terms of any deal have not yet been agreed and discussions are ongoing. The council will comply with its duties to achieve best value for the taxpayers of the town.

Read more from the original source:

Opposition calls for Sixfields deal to be open to scrutiny but council denies agreement is reached with Cobblers - Northampton Chronicle and Echo

Congress on Wednesday sent President Donald Trump a major, bipartisan public lands bill that has become a pillar of Republican Cory Gardners reelection campaign in Colorado, finalizing the swift passage of a measure seen as an election-year gift to the U.S. senator.

The U.S. House approved the Great American Outdoors Act, which would achieve the long-held goal of fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund while also tackling the nations massive national parks maintenance backlog, by a vote of 310-107.

Trump has said he will sign the bill.

The measure moved through Congress at lightning speed relative to the normal pace of legislation after Gardner, who was a prime sponsor of the bill, negotiated the support of Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in March. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been trying for years to secure full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

It shows what can happen when youre committed to the path of your legislation, Gardner said in an interview with The Colorado Sun on Wednesday. Every state, every county across the country will benefit.

Gardner said he believes the legislation will create thousands of jobs in Colorado at a time when people are feeling the economic effects of the coronavirus crisis. He said its one of the greatest accomplishments of his congressional tenure.

Democrats and environmental groups with a liberal lean also applauded the bills passage.

Whether its urban parks you access to escape the fast pace of the city or hiking trails in our national parks you enjoy over the weekend, Coloradans love and utilize public lands, Hannah Collazo, the state director for Environment Colorado, said in a written statement. This bill is not only an investment in outdoor spaces but also in our emotional, spiritual, and physical health as Coloradans.

Gardner, who is facing an uphill reelection battle as he seeks a second term, has capitalized on the win. During the Senates July 4 recess he toured Colorado to tout his work on the bill. His campaign has also run two television ads boasting of its passage in the Senate.

Gardners law endorsed by every environmental leader, a 30-second TV ad released this week says.

Ivanka Trump, the presidents daughter, is scheduled to make a stop in Colorado on Thursday to celebrate the bills passage at Rocky Mountain National Park with Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.

Even the president weighed in on the legislations passage Wednesday.

Thanks @SenCoryGardner and @SteveDaines for all your work on this HISTORIC BILL! Trump tweeted.

Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, R-Montana, is another GOP member of Congress facing a tough reelection bid in November.

The Great American Outdoors act has two key provisions:

The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been used to help pay for a number of projects in Colorado.

Meanwhile, the states public lands operated by the National Park Service had an estimated maintenance backlog of $2 billion in 2018. That included $84 million in needed repairs at Rocky Mountain National Park, $76 million in deferred maintenance at Mesa Verde National Park, and $21 million in put-off repairs and upgrades at the Colorado National Monument.

Democrats, while excited about the bills passage, have accused Gardner of trying to greenwash his record on the environment through the measure. They point to his decisions not to support tougher regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide and methane and his proximity to the Trump administration, which has rolled back a number of environmental regulations.

What Gardner is selling is a hollow victory, state Rep. Edie Hooton, D-Boulder, wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday by The Sun. The only thing Gardner really seems to be working on here is how to rebrand his environmental record.

Gardner has brushed off the criticism as partisan sour grapes, but questions remain about his positions on key public lands issues, namely Trumps nomination of William Perry Pendley as head of the Bureau of Land Management. Pendley has been serving as acting director of the agency.

Colorados Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet on Tuesday called for an expedited hearing for Pendley, who has been leading the BLM as acting director for about a year despite not having gone through a confirmation hearing.

Gardner has declined to say where he stands on the nomination, explaining that hes waiting for Senate hearings before making his decision. He didnt say if he supports Bennets request for expedited proceedings.

Obviously there will be a hearing, Gardner said. I dont know when that hearing will be scheduled, but hes going to face some very difficult and tough questions.

Another area where Democrats have attacked Gardner is over the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Economy Act, a massive Colorado public lands bill being run by Democratic members of the states congressional delegation. Gardner has not thrown his weight behind the measure, citing objections from U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, a Cortez Republican whose district would be affected by the measure.

Democrats added the CORE Act into the National Defense Authorization Act as it passed this week out of the U.S. House. Gardner credited U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Boulder, with tacking the measure onto the NDAA, saying it shows what somebody who is dedicated to passing the bill can make happen.

But when asked whether he would work to keep the CORE Act as part of the defense bill as it makes its way through the Senate, Gardner said I dont think it will happen. I think its too late for any amendments here.

Gardner said he didnt have information on when Trump may sign the Great American Outdoors Act into law, but that he has encouraged the president to celebrate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who pushed for the measure.

Support local journalism around the state.Become a member of The Colorado Sun today!

Read more here:

Great American Outdoors Act heads to Trump as Cory Gardner leans on measure in reelection bid - The Colorado Sun

You may have come across an advertisement that has in recent days been blaring powerfully from the television screen that recounts in song the many real or alleged achievements of the government, concluding in a high-pitched Vande Mataram invocation.

This rather overbearing call to a codified nationalism brings to my mind an instructive interaction that has remained etched in my memory.

Returning from a seminar at a university in an Uttar Pradesh city a decade or more ago, I got talking with the driver of the vehicle that was kindly organised to bring me back home.

The drivers name was Abdul Rashid, a venerable old man, who, I was to discover, to be an astonishingly learned man. I distinctly recall that he bore an uncanny resemblance to the self-taught Abraham Lincoln.

Unsurprisingly, our conversation came round to the subject of Vande Mataram, after, that is, a painful dip into the partition of India for which he told me he never forgave Jinnah, even as he held other parties guilty as well.

From a routine conditioning, I suppose, I asked him why Muslims felt so strongly about this address to the motherland (matrubhoomi).

Abdul Rashids response at first was equally conditioned and predictable: Dr Sahib, he said, our faith forbids us from bowing to anything and anyone other than the one god, Allah.

This was as much as I already knew.

Sensing that I was a liberal sort of Hindu, his articulation warmed to some elaborations on the theme that have left me thinking hard.

Dr Sahib, do you ever think about the reality that when you die, your ashes will be immersed in the Ganges, or some other water-body, and, in course of time, the waters will carry them beyond the territories of India into the sea; but when I die, my remains will be buried in our own mother earth and be mingled with it for eternity? So, I ask you, which of us has a better claim to the matrubhoomi? Is it not the case, then, that were we to say Vande Mataram, we would be committing the ultimate blasphemy of bowing to ourselvesa thought not to be entertained in the Islamic faith?

The Ganga river in Varanasi. Photo: Flickr/Eric Parker CC BY NC 2.0

I had never ever in my long life confronted this perception. The stark irony embedded in it suddenly made me feel an outsider to my own landsomething of a tenant than an owner. It was as though I had been dispossessed of a claim trumpeted over millennia of a self-evident assertion and unquestionable truth.

The recognition that my matrubhoomi was in fact eternally intimate with non-Hindu Indians, inextricably making up the soil in whose name we Hindus have so berated our Semitic fellow-Indians, was nothing less than a telling realisation, and I asked myself how so obvious a reality could remain so obfuscated from the popular Hindu mind for many centuries of conjoint living.

I was hit by the thought that where my flesh and bone would not fertilise my matrubhoomi, Abdul Rashids would.

What metaphysical rejoinders I could think up seemed puerile next to the earthy home truth Abdul Rashid had placed before me.

A litany of Muslim Indian writers sprang to my mind who have in their work celebrated their love of the matrubhoomi, and, how tragic I thought that such an abiding fact should amount to so little in the minds of those who blare their proprietorship of India as a civilisation just because Muslims will not bow to the matrubhoomi.

Bahadur Shah Zafars hauntingly poignant lament from the then Rangoon that he was not destined to two yards of earth in his motherland for burial put for me a wholly new gloss on what Abdul Rashid had taught me of loyalty to and love of matrubhoomi among Indian Muslims.

Bahadur Shah Zafar enthroned with Mirza Fakhruddin. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Ghulam Ali Khan, Smithsonian, Washington, Public Domain

I have since that day wondered how my ashes, far away from Indian shores, may look back to blare their claim to any exclusive ownership of India, that is Bharat. And why those whose meat and bone become one with the soil should be considered alien to the matrubhoomi.

I thought of Pearl S. Bucks The Good Earth as a celebratory trope so healthfully alternate to a political call of allegiance to the landone which teaches us to salute the earth for the bounties she gives us without discrimination as we labour lovingly with it. And it struck me how little the matrubhoomi cares as to whose hands work those bounties.

Badri Rainahas taught at Delhi University.

Read the original:

'Vande Mataram': My Shock Recognition About Claims to the Matrubhoomi - The Wire

Amid debates over fundamental rights and federalism, other parts of the Constitution tend to occasionally get short shrift. Not because they are no longer relevant, but because theres a sort of selective, collective amnesia that lawyers and academics (not to mention politicians and the public) tend to suffer from. I am, of course, referring to the Directive Principles of State Policy -- one of the most problematic parts of the Constitution but also one of its most meaningful. Specifically, I want to focus on the directive principle which talks about natural resources -- Article 39, in specific, clauses (b) and (c) of this Article.

Clause (b) says that the States policies should ensure that ownership and control of the material resources get distributed to subserve the common good. Clause (c) says that the States policies should make sure that the working of the economy does not cause the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

The importance of these two clauses was highlighted in the Constituent Assembly by Purnima Banerjee in her speech on November 24, 1949:

By the inclusion of these clauses, I personally feel that this Constitution has provided us with the means for changing the structure of society. It will all depend on us whether we are able to establish that sovereign democratic republic, not for the hollow benefit of registering ones vote and passing legislation, not a democracy which will simply maintain the status quo or which will take upon itself the policy of laissez-faire, but a democracy which will combine with it the healthy principle that the government governs best which governs least, with the principle that it should encourage the active citizenship of the country.

Banerjee also calls these two clauses the cornerstone of the Constitution -- a prescient verdict given the controversies in the years that have followed over the distribution and use of natural resources.

Clauses (b) and (c) have been relied on by governments in the past to push through socialist policies that provided for land redistribution, ceilings on land ownership, controlling monopolies, among other things. Theres a whole book waiting to be written on the litigation battles between governments citing these clauses and citizens citing fundamental rights over radical policies that tried to reduce inequalities and nationalised industries. With neo-liberal economic ideas being in vogue, however, one could argue that these clauses are socialist relics of old and might as well be ignored.

Not quite.

The relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles are not always antagonistic -- theyre supposed to be complementary. Although fundamental rights are enforceable and directive principles are not, courts since the 1980s have held that directive principles can be read into the fundamental rights to make them more meaningful and expansive. One of the interesting ways fundamental rights and directive principles have been read together is when Article 14 (which guarantees equality) was read together with Article 39(b) in the context of natural resources.

The distribution of natural resources by governments have become among the most contentious issues that courts have been called to decide upon, whether it is coal or spectrum. One of the most famous of these (one in which I was involved in professionally) was the dispute between the Ambani brothers over claims to natural gas deposits found offshore in the Krishna-Godavari basin, which later dragged the government into it. Eventually, the Supreme Court in 2010 held that the natural gas belonged to the people of India and that it would be the government (and not the Ambani brothers) who would decide how it would be used. In his judgement in the case, Justice Sudershan Reddy had something caustic and perceptive to say:

The concept of equality, a necessary condition for the achievement of justice, is inherent in the concept of national development that we have adopted as a nation. India was never meant to be a mere land in which the desires and the actions of the rich and the mighty take precedence over the needs of the people.

Have governments subsequently taken this message to heart? The news of the last few years suggests otherwise.

Its not always well understood but what our Constitution tells us is that natural resources are not the personal property of whoever can make a claim over them. They are not even the property of governments to dispose of as they please. They are the collective property of the citizens of the country. Governments only hold and use them as trustees on our behalf. Its up to us, as citizens, to hold the government accountable for the way our natural resources are used for our benefit.

Follow this link:

Whose natural resources are they anyway? - Deccan Herald

In May of this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his plan to formally annex Israeli settlements located in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This behavior is unsurprising given that the Palestinians have effectively been under the control of Israel for decades, but the decision to formally annex Israeli settlements is both a violation of international law and a direct threat to the autonomy and livelihood of Palestinians. Despite condemnation from Egypt, Jordan, Germany, and France, Israel plans to go through with the annexation within the coming months.

The United States boasts of its status as a liberal democracy that is very influential on the international scale, yet the Trump administration has helped lead the way for dividing the territory and has failed to accurately deem the action illegal. It is worth mentioning that the U.S. has a long-standing allyship with Israel. Trumps support of the annexation is disappointing but by no means a surprising move. With the U.S. behind the annexation, there is little hope that Palestinians will be able to uphold their right to land, putting Israeli-Palestinian relations at a crucial turning point. Here is why the U.S. peace plan to aid Israels annexation of Palestine is anything but peaceful.

The Israel-Palestine conflict dates back centuries, but the bottom line is that Palestinians and Israelis disagree about who has the historical right to the land and how it should be controlled. The Jewish state of Israel believes that they have a right to reclaim their Holy Land, but Palestinians argue that they have a right to territory that had been under Arab rule for centuries. Currently, the area of the West Bank is under the control of Palestinian authorities but occupied by Israeli troops that place restrictions on Palestinians.

The inability to provide a territorial compromise between Israel and Palestine demonstrates a long history of commitment problems within the conflict. As James Fearon explains in Rationalist Explanations of War, rationally led states may be unable to arrange a settlement that both would prefer to war due to commitment problems, situations in which mutually preferable bargains are unattainable because one or more states would have an incentive to renege on the terms. There have been several attempts at peace resolutions and international involvement, yet neither state can agree to give up on any land that they believe is rightfully theirs. There are several factors that exacerbate this issue, one of which being the involvement of extremist groups that continue to inhibit conflict resolution in this case. Hamas, an extremist faction of the Palestinian government that advocates for the liberation of Palestine, has gained substantial support throughout the conflict and often displays violence toward those who cooperate with the Israeli government. The inability to compromise only deepens cleavages and tends to spoil potential peace deals. This all-or-nothing approach has led to a long and violent conflict.

In an effort to assert power over the Palestinians, Israel has formed over 130 Israeli settlements along the West Bank that effectively cut off Palestinians from their access to their own land. Currently, there are 11,000 Palestinians who are restricted from entering Israeli land that divides up Palestinian territory. Unable to pass through the border, they cannot access employment and resources that exist east of the settlements. Despite annexation being proposed under the deceptive claim of a simple security measure, the fact that 85% of the settlements fall within the West Bank as opposed to the Green Line that divides Israel and Palestinian territory verifies that the placement of settlements is exceptionally strategic to favor Israeli interests.

Not only does it seem that the Israeli government has ulterior motives, their annexation simply violates international law. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, states shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court created a statute in 1998 that deemed the behavior a war crime within international law.

Despite ratifying the very law that makes this annexation illegal, the United States is playing a key role in Netanyahus plan. Unlike some of its allies, the U.S. has shown support for annexation. The U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman,stated that Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank. This is a clear case in which the United States has openly supported and involved itself in a policy that directly opposes that of international law. What many people do not know is that Friedman has a vested interest in the promotion of the Israeli regime. Along with being the ambassador to Israel, Friedman serves as the president of the American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which raises about $2 million in tax-deductible donations every year from settlement supporters in the U.S. There is no surprise that Friedman would capitalize on his position of ambassador to promote these personal beliefs, despite international outrage.

In taking this position, the United States is encouraging massive human rights violations. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, there have been 113,668 Palestinian civilians injured and 5,581 civilian fatalities within occupied Palestinian territory and Israel since 2008. Israel has demonstrated its capacity for violence on several occasions and the formal annexation of the Israeli settlements only adds fuel to the fire of violence that already exists in occupied Palestine.

The question we need to consider is what exactly will happen to the Palestinians if this annexation takes place. One possibility is that Israel grants Palestinians full Israeli citizenship, which is risky in terms of upholding Israel as a Jewish state. If Palestinians become citizens, the Israeli government runs the risk of being outnumbered and outvoted by Muslim Palestinians. Considering Israels efforts to establish its place as a Jewish state and Holy Land, it seems unlikely that this will be the result of the annexation. The alternative, however, indicates a grim future for Palestinians, who could be ultimately confined to small areas of land with few rights.

With the growing fortitude of Netanyahus anti-Palestine efforts, the livelihood of the Palestinian population becomes complex and unknown. There is no clear outcome to annexation other than the probable repression of Palestinian human rights. The U.S. and its role in the Israel and Palestine conflict is anything but tangential to the outcome of the annexation plans. While there are no obvious ways to resolve this conflict otherwise, the U.S. peace plan and cooperation with Netanyahus administration is a step in the wrong direction.

View original post here:

Israeli Settlements in the West Bank: Why Palestine is More Vulnerable Than Ever - International Policy Digest

I would alter that a bit to say Im really talking about the communist and Marxist left in this context. I grew up within a left-wing family where opinion was definitely divided on the question of Zionism yet, nonetheless, there was a pervasive idea that the Holocaust changed opinion universally, and everyone fell in line as soon as the details of the Holocaust were revealed, Zionist and anti-Zionist alike.

Its undeniably correct to say that without the Holocaust there probably would have been no Israel, if just for the single fact that there was a massive influx of Jewish refugees after the war who would have undoubtedly stayed in Europe otherwise. Without that influx of Jews who could fight the 1948 war and populate Israel just after, its doubtful an independent state of Israel could have succeeded.

However, one thing I found most surprising going through the Jewish left press in the 1940s publications of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party, and writings by Hannah Arendt is that even after the scope of the Holocaust was widely understood, their official position was still anti-Zionist.

They may have called for Jews to be allowed to resettle in the lands from which they were expelled or massacred, with full rights and full citizenship, be allowed to immigrate to the United States, or even be allowed to emigrate to Palestine if there was nowhere else to go (as was often the case). But they were still wholly against partition and the establishment of a Jewish-only state.

What is important to understand about that moment was that Zionism was a political choice not only by Western imperial powers, but also by Jewish leadership. They could have fought more strenuously for Jewish immigration to the United States. And a lot of the Zionist leaders actually fought against immigration to the United States.

There were a number of stories reported in the Jewish communist press about how Zionists collaborated with the British and Americans to force Jews to go to Mandate Palestine, when they would have rather gone to the United States, or England. Theres a famous quote by Ernest Bevin, the British foreign secretary, who said the only reason the United States sent Jews to Palestine was because they do not want too many more of them in New York. And the Zionists agreed with this.

While this may seem like ancient history, it is important because it disrupts the common sense surrounding Israels formation. Yes, maybe there could have been peace between Jews and Palestinians, but the Holocaust made all of that impossible. And I would say that this debate after 1945 shows that there was a long moment in which there were other possibilities, and another future could have happened.

Ironically, perhaps, the Soviet Union did more than any other single force to change the minds of the Jewish Marxist left in the late 1940s about Israel. Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Unions ambassador to the United Nations, came out in 1947 and backed partition in the United Nations after declaring the Western world did nothing to stop the Holocaust, and suddenly theres this about-face. All these Jewish left-wing publications that were denouncing Zionism, literally the next day, were embracing partition and the formation of the nation-state of Israel.

You have to understand, for a lot of Jewish communists and even socialists, the Soviet Union was the promised land not Zionism. This was the place where they had, according to the propaganda, eradicated antisemisitm.

The Russian Empire was the most antisemitic place throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, before the rise of Nazism. Many of the Jewish Communist Party members were from Eastern Europe, or their families were, and they had very vivid memories of Russia as the crucible of antisemitism. For them, the Russian Revolution was a rupture in history, a chance to start over. And, of course, this is after World War II, when the Soviet Union had just defeated the Nazis.

For the Soviet Union to embrace Zionism really sent a shockwave through the left-wing Jewish world. The Soviet Union changed its policy a decade or so later, openly embracing anti-Zionism by the 1960s. But for this brief pivotal moment, the Soviet Union firmly came down in favor of partition, and that seems to be what really changed the Jewish left.

Without this kind of legitimation, I think we are all starting to see the Jewish left such as it exists return back in an important way to the positions that it had originally held, which is that Zionism is a right-wing nationalism, and that it is also racist and colonialist. We are seeing the Jewish left return to its first principles.

View post:

The Forgotten History of the Jewish, Anti-Zionist Left - Jacobin magazine

It is also important to remember that not all vegetables are as virtuous. If food is assessed in emissions per calorie or per gram of protein, many commonly eaten fruits, salads and vegetables do not fare much better than beef or pork. Celery is terrible in terms of CO2 per calorie, as is lettuce, tomato and broccoli, largely because these plants require lots of CO2-generating inputs (fertiliser, farm machinery etc) to make them grow, but the resulting crop is largely composed of water and dietary fibre, and so extremely low in calories. Yet unlike meat, these commonly eaten foods get little criticism, largely because everyone understands that we dont eat them for calories or protein. We eat vegetables, fruits and salads because they are delicious, form an important part of our cuisine and contain vital nutrients.

Perhaps we would be better off viewing meat in a similar way. Seeing it as a vital source of nutrients. Considering it a delicious adjunct to meals, rather than the centre of every plate. Eating better meat, eating it less often, and valuing it far more. That way, we could still eat well, but with less impact upon the world. As with so many environmental decisions, we should really try and do this now when we can, rather than tomorrow because we have to.

Chicken or beef?

Is chicken better than beef? It is more efficient at converting feed into meat and has far lower carbon emissions per gram, but chickens are largely fed on human-edible food such as grain, whereas cows can convert grass into protein. Swapping some beef for chicken is probably wise, but unfortunately its complicated.

Loose vs plastic-wrapped produce?

It depends. Excess plastic packaging is certainly to be avoided, but in some cases plastic can help reduce food waste. Plastic wrapping on cucumbers and broccoli has been shown to reduce the environmental impact by extending shelf life.

Palm oil or animal fat?

Although palm oil production drives a lot of tropical deforestation, it is a very efficient, productive crop. Completely banning it may not be the best option as some of the replacements, including beef fat, might have a greater environmental impact. Instead, look for RSPO-certified palm oil that doesnt result in deforestation.

Chicken or organic chicken?

Organic food is often sold as a more sustainable option, but organic chicken requires three times the land of conventional production.

LEAF produce or regular produce?

The LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) standard is a mark of good environmental management on farms. Forty per cent of vegetables sold in the UK are LEAF-marked. Seeking out LEAF produce is a simple way of ensuring it is produced in a more sustainable way

Almond milk or oat milk?

Although almond milk production has low climate emissions and is efficient regarding land use, it uses large amounts of water, often in regions where supplies are limited. Oats are a better option as they can be grown in regions with high rainfall.

No-till or conventional?

No-till agriculture is one of the most promising farming practices in environmental terms, with many crops now being produced without any ploughing. Ploughing is known to cause soil degradation and releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is currently hard to identify food grown in this way, although some progressive farms sell produce directly.

Local or imports?

Although locally grown produce has lower transport emissions, the cost of growing things in unsuitable climates can exceed the benefit. Hot-house-grown tomatoes often have several times the climate impact of imported varieties.

Air freight or road freight?

Although the transport of food is generally a low proportion of its climate impact, air-freighted fruits and vegetables are an exception. These are best avoided or minimised.

Plastic or glass?

Although glass bottles and jars are often chosen on environmental grounds, they can have a greater impact than plastic over a full life cycle. Heavy-duty reusable plastics, or easily recycled lightweight versions, are often better options.

Cheese or meat?

Many people going vegetarian will swap meat for cheese, but there is evidence that cheese has a greater climate impact than chicken or pork (although less than beef or lamb). A note: most studies look at climate impact per gram. While eating 150g of chicken is not usual, that much cheddar would be fairly extreme.

Slow-grown chickens or standard?

Slow-grown chickens are highly prized, but the difference is often only a matter of 10-12 days. Slowly raised animals have a larger climate impact, although if choosing them means you eat less and value it more, it might still be a good choice.

Continued here:

Do we need to stop eating meat? - Telegraph.co.uk

WASHINGTON During a campaign-style speech last week in the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump lamented that his efforts to turn Joe Bidens son into a political vulnerability for the Democrat had flopped.

But Hunter wheres Hunter? Trump said, referring to the younger Bidens lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president. And you all know about Burisma, but nothing happens. Nobody cares.

Its one of many punches by Trump that have failed to land on his Democratic rival. He has called him sleepy Joe and derided him as too tired and unfit to do the job. He has mocked him for a steady stream of verbal stumbles. He has painted him as a tool of China. He has linked him to a defund the police movement that Biden has rejected. None of it is sticking.

As a result, the president and his allies have settled on a different strategy: Paint Biden as an empty vessel for socialist radicals to exploit. As Trumps new campaign manager Bill Stepien said Tuesday, We will expose Joe Biden as a hapless tool of the extreme left.

Vice President Mike Pence made the case Friday during a trip to Wisconsin.

Joe Biden would be nothing more than an auto pen, a Trojan horse for a radical agenda so radical, so all-encompassing that it would transform this country into something utterly unrecognizable, he said.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Trump said Tuesday that Biden has gone radical left and suggested he would abolish the suburbs, a reference to the Democratic Party's support for desegregation efforts. The next day he floated a conspiracy theory on Twitter about a secret pact between Biden and Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who was resoundingly defeated in the primary, that is further left than even Bernie had in mind.

The new approach comes as Bidens national lead has more than doubled to 9 points in the FiveThirtyEight polling average since the U.S. revealed its first death from COVID-19 at the end of February. Trumps declining political fortunes mirror the sinking approval of his handling of a pandemic that has killed more than 138,000 Americans and crippled the economy.

Former Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., took the narrative a step further by theorizing baselessly in an op-ed article for TheHill.com that the "socialist/progressive wing" of the Democratic Party would install a vice presidential candidate and use the 25th Amendment to topple Biden in a "coup" within months of his election.

People disparage Joe Biden. People question Joe Bidens judgment. People question Joe Bidens acuity at this point. But no one hates Joe Biden, said Michael Steel, a former aide to House Speaker John Boehner and to Jeb Bushs presidential campaign. And so the 2016 playbook that the president used successfully against Hillary Clinton just doesnt work.

Secretary Clinton was a uniquely unpopular and polarizing figure. Despite high approval as secretary of state, the negative image of her had been burned in over decades, he said. She didnt have to be a stalking horse. She motivated opposition all by herself.

Democrats say Trumps characterization of Biden as a socialist doesnt pass the smell test.

It's like saying Coca-Cola is arsenic, said Ian Sams, a former presidential campaign aide to Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., last year and Clinton in 2016. Voters are smarter than that.

Biden, who cultivated a reputation as an institutionalist in Washington through 44 years as senator and then vice president, is proving to be an elusive opponent. Hes not as loved or hated as Trump. But surveys show hes seen as more honest and trustworthy than Trump or Clinton. And polls say voters who dislike both presidential candidates prefer Biden, unlike in 2016 when Trump ultimately won them.

The Trump campaign's efforts to paint Joe Biden as something he is not is nothing new, Biden campaign spokesman Bill Russo said in a statement. The only new development here is the increasingly deranged level of desperation they are showing in trying to sell another ridiculous theory.

Biden has made some concessions to progressives in an attempt to unite the Democratic Party and avoid left-wing defections that hurt Clinton in 2016. He recently called for 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, drawing fierce criticism from the Trump campaign. But he has rejected the most liberal ideas in his party, such as a Medicare for all system that ends private insurance.

At a March 2 rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, before the pandemic caused nationwide shutdowns, Trump painted Biden as hapless, but more "moderate" than his rivals.

"I honestly don't think he knows what office he's running for, and it doesn't matter. You know, maybe he gets in because he's a little more moderate," he said. "So maybe he gets in, but he's not going to be running it."

Sahil Kapur is a national political reporter for NBC News.

Follow this link:

Unable to land hits on Biden, Trump paints him as socialist Trojan horse - NBC News

A CONTROVERSIAL decision to sell off a publicly owned field in Highbridge to make way for 110 homes will be reconsidered by the district council later this month.

In February developer Coln Residential won outline planning permission to build 110 homes, a play area and a fitness trail on land between Lakeside and Isleport despite more than 140 objections from residents.

Last month Sedgemoor District Council's (SDC) Executive met and approved the plans to sell the land but a few weeks later Liberal Democrat councillors from SDC 'called in' the Executive's decision to sell the land and a meeting was held to discuss the plans again.

At a meeting on Monday (July 13) SDC's Scrutiny Committee reviewed the decision by the Executive to dispose of the land and members of the public were able to raise their concerns to the committee.

The committee unanimously voted to send the plans back to the Executive to be reconsidered.

A meeting will be held on July 22 via Skype for Business to deal with the Corporate Scrutiny Committee's six points.

The reasons provided for the call-in are:

- The decision to sell this land acquired for Public Open Space and the failure to bring forward any such use over 20 years.

- The decision to sell green space in the Highbridge area which is deficient in this locality.

- The threat to the biodiversity of this site during a climate change crisis.

- The allocation of the S106 monies towards this site being transferred to the developer.

-The desirability of keeping open space for the health and wellbeing of local residents.

- Was sufficient weight given to the public consultation in making this decision?

A spokesperson for Sedgemoor District Council, said: "The public and press are welcome to listen in to the meeting.

"They can also speak at the meeting in line with the normal requirements for council meetings, which permits one person to speak in support and one against any item of business on the agenda.

"This is limited to 3 minutes per speaker. If you wish to register to speak at the meeting please contact Democratic Services to register.

"The public and press will be able to listen to the meeting, but you will need to pre-register with the Democratic Services Team and provide a telephone number so they can invite you to join the virtual meeting. Please email democratic.services@sedgemoor.gov.uk or telephone 0300 303 7800

"All public meetings will be recorded and the recording of the meeting will be available to view via the Councils website or on the Councils YouTube Channel, normally within 2 days of the meeting."

See the rest here:

Controversial Lakeside land decision to be reconsidered at virtual meeting this month - Burnham and Highbridge Weekly News

July 1, the date set by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank to begin, came and went and nothing was annexed. Of course, home demolitions, settler and police violence, land confiscation, and systemic discrimination against Palestinians all continue unabatedbut U.S. politicians have been scrambling to respond to the new threat of annexation. A clear division has emerged between Democrats, who mostly oppose annexation, and Republicans, who mostly support it. After decades of bipartisan agreement on policy toward Israel, the biggest recipient of U.S. foreign aid has finally become a partisan issue in Washingtonat least nominally.

A large majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate, including presumed presidential nominee Joe Biden, have come out against annexation in recent weeks. Nearly 200 House members signed onto a letter at the end of June, initiated by Rep. Ted Deutch, expressing deep concern that Israels push for unilateral annexation will make a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians toward a two-state solution harder to achieve.

Among the signatories was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a longtime ally of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a hawkish pro-Israel lobby which organizes bipartisan congressional trips to Israel. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted her support for the letter, too. In addition, 40 Senate Democrats, including some pro-Israel stalwarts who never seem to oppose anything Israel does, such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sens. Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin, have also penned their milquetoast opposition.

Meanwhile, more than 100 House Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Minority Whip Steve Scalise and Rep. Liz Cheney, signed a letter addressed to Netanyahu that reaffirms the unshakeable alliance between the United States and Israel, and indicated that Israel should do as it pleases with its sovereignty and its borders, echoing Secretary of State Mike Pompeos latest statement on the matter. Sen. Ted Cruz and several other GOP senators sent a letter to President Donald Trump not only urging the president to approve Israeli annexation but to provide any resources necessary to help streamline it.

For decades, Democrats and Republicans have both held the U.S.-Israel unbreakable bond sacrosanct, a staple of U.S. foreign policy so ingrained that it is almost never questioned. AIPACs success over the past few decades has primarily been in maintaining airtight bipartisan support for Israel. Even as Democrats and Republicans have been diametrically split on many issues, Israel never seems to be one of them. But that is changing. Now, the Democratic Party is united against annexation, while the Republican Party is united behind anything Trump doesand hence supports it.

In other words, the Democratic Partys formal position is still a negotiated two-state solution whereby an independent Palestinian state is established on roughly the pre-1967 borders. The Republican Party has effectively relinquished that position in favor of an expanded Israeli state that formalizes its sovereignty over much of the Palestinian territory it currently occupies without granting political rights to its new subjectsin other words, an apartheid regime.

Now that the partisan divide is clear, the question is, what will Democrats do? Peter Beinart, probably the most well-known liberal Zionist thinker in the United States, just published a piece in the New York Times saying he no longer believes in a Jewish state or a two-state solution and called for one binational state that can be home to both Palestinians and Israelis. The articulation of this kind of position from a prominent American Jew may embolden Democrats to move away from the two-state paradigm or at least entertain the notion that what they have done thus far simply has not worked.

But punitive policies that could actually influence the Israeli governmentsuch as supporting boycotts, divestment, and sanctionsare still off-limits. Likewise, conditioning U.S. aid to Israel, which Sen. Bernie Sanders championed during his presidential campaign, is still mostly taboo, even though Republican presidents from Gerald Ford to George H.W. Bush have engaged in it. In 1981, Reagan suspended a military arms pact with Israel over its annexation of the Golan Heights. A decade letter, George H.W. Bush threatened to withhold a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel over its expansion of settlements. Maybe the most salient example came under President Gerald Ford, in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger took a hard line with Israel and pressured it to withdraw from the Sinai. At the time, Ford told Kissinger that the United States would not isolate itself from the rest of the world to stand behind Israeli intransigencepretty much the polar opposite of U.S. policy today. In the spring of 1975, the U.S. government implemented a reassessment of U.S.-Israel relations, which included the freezing of arms deliveries to Israel.

So, for Democrats, conditioning aid to Israel should actually be a no-brainer.

A recent letter initiated by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and signed by a dozen other lawmakers, including Sanders, calls on Congress to limit or withhold U.S. aid to Israel should it go through with annexation. It notably mentions aid could be withheld for other practices as well, among them home demolitions and land expropriation. It is the only statement from Democrats against Israeli annexation that doesnt just caution against the harm to the prospects of peace and Israels international standing, but actually mentions occupied Palestinian territory, warns of apartheid, and specifically calls out the violation of Palestinian human rights. The anti-occupation group IfNotNow has endorsed this letter, and 1,000 former and current members of J Street U, the youth arm of the liberal pro-Israel lobby of the same name, have called on J Street to get behind legislation that would condition U.S. aid.

Unfortunately, this sort of language still appears to be beyond the pale for most Democrats. This month, Sen. Chris Van Hollen inched closer when he introduced an amendment that would block the Israeli government from using U.S. security assistance to fund annexation. This should be the baseline Democratic approach, but it has not garnered much support thus far, and Bidens team has notably remained silent on it. A Biden advisor reiterated in May that Biden completely opposes any restrictions on military aid to Israel. Bidens position, like that of many Democrats, that no side should take unilateral steps is therefore hard to take seriously, considering that Israels settlement enterprise is a national unilateral project for which Biden is not willing to make Israel pay any price.

In this sense, the Trump-Israel annexation plan is a real test for Democrats. They cannot just oppose annexation rhetorically; it means nothing without an actionable policy that holds Israel to account. Doing nothing will make Democrats complicit in writing a blank check to an annexationist apartheid regime. The fact that so many Democrats are uniting against annexation only highlights the obvious: that their failure until nowand particularly under former President Barack Obamato restrain Israeli settlement-building on occupied territory, which is the primary reason a contiguous Palestinian state appears impossible, has brought the world to this point. It should force the party to reckon with what it means that they have continued to give unconditional support to a country institutionalizing a 53-year military occupation.

There are several things a Democratic administration could do that would hold the Netanyahu government accountable for taking unilateral moves that imperil peacewithout being in any way anti-Israel.

The Democrats could begin with reversing some of Trumps most damaging policies. Since entering office, Trump upended decades of official U.S. policy by recognizing Israels annexation of East Jerusalem (when he moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem in 2018), and then recognized Israels annexation of the Golan Heights last year.

Biden should at minimum reverse Trumps damage and adopt a policy that would rescind U.S. recognition of Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights and move the embassy back to Tel Aviv. Without doing so, Biden would be de facto recognizing Israeli sovereignty over land it occupied in a war.

Furthermore, if Biden is as committed to a two-state solution as he has claimed, his administration could recognize East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital of a future Palestinian state. A Biden administration should not only embrace Van Hollens amendment to ensure U.S. aid is not used for annexation, but go a step further and endorse Rep. Betty McCollums year-oldHouseResolution 2407, which seeks to prohibit the transfer of U.S. funds for use by the Israeli military to detain Palestinian children. The bill does not, in fact, prescribe withholding a single dollar of U.S. assistance, but rather redirecting the funds so that none of it is spent on the incarceration of children. This would send a clear message that Democrats are not only interested in a peaceful resolution one day in the future, but committed to ending human-rights violations right now.

While it does not seem likely any of this will happen, if the Democrats genuinely oppose annexation, they must put their money where their mouth is. If they dont seize this opportunity, Israel will simply return to being a bipartisan issueexcept, in the wake of annexation, they wont just be helping an occupier anymore; both parties will be aiding and abetting an apartheid state.

Read more here:

If Democrats Win, They Must Show Israel That Unilateral Annexation Has Consequences - Foreign Policy

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe shares a laugh with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney during the Saskatchewan Oil & Gas Show in Weyburn last yearBRANDON HARDER / Regina Leader-Post

The problem isnt necessarily that the Buffalo Projects advertisement last week was a not-so-thinly veiled swipe at the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

It obviously was, but its free speech and diverse groups left or right, business or union still occasionally buy newspaper space to express views unfettered by the confines of balance insisted on by pesky journalists.

For those of partisan Liberal persuasion who complain that this is a travesty, this may be why there are so precious few of you out West. And after the WE charity scandal and the refusal to recall Parliament to debate the $323-billion budget deficit, the Liberals hardly deserve much sympathy.

The ultimate problem isnt even that the open letter is laced with undertones of soft Western separatism clumsily disguised as the opposite.

The reality is the the vast, vast majority of Westerners want to be Canadian and see talk of separation as either the the view of a comical fringe or (at best) an unserious political ploy by elite Conservatives with business and oil wealth angry there is a Trudeau in power.

But herein lies the real problem with last weeks Buffalo Project advertisement: The country, the world and certainly Western Canada that includes Saskatchewan and Alberta are in the midst of this COVID-19 pandemic.

Well-heeled oil and business types and their operativesmadeonly passing reference to this in their ad and only as a bridge to their own long-standing grievances. They basically ignored the health crisis that has shuttered the economy.

This was their opportunity to tell others what they were willing to do to lend a hand to lead.

Instead of offering a hand in troubled times truly, the Western way their focus was on old divisions we dont need right now. It is likely to only confirm suspicions about this group and their cause.

And let us make no mistake that their cause has been political.

The Buffalo Project _ a political action committee fronted by former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall (whose name was conspicuous by its absence in last weeks ad) _ was all about defeating the Rachel Notley NDP government, the Trudeau government in Ottawa and keeping the NDP out of power here in Saskatchewan. (There again, Ryan Meili and company seem pretty determined to do that themselves.)

Rather than make it about the pandemic, the concerned citizens fighting for a new deal for Alberta and Saskatchewan told us the biggest issue at play is how our heritage as traders, innovators and keepers of the land is slowly being destroyed.

Destruction of our very heritage? Really?

Their open letter addressed to Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe urged the two premiers to forge a new deal with Canada and to take steps to exert sovereignty over provincial affairs like immigration, trade, transportation corridors, and taxation. Evidently, jurisdictional squabbling is more productive and important right now than actual recovery.

And it demanded a referendum on equalization by 2021 because Saskatchewan and Alberta will no longer disproportionally support the rest of Canada, via a confusing, unfair and unresponsive transfer programs like equalization and fiscal stabilization.

It is here where things enter the realm of laughably partisan, given that we all know Wall and his Sask. Party government abandoned equalization reform in 2008 because the 2006 Conservative election promise to remove non-renewable resources from the formula was politically unpalatable for then-prime minister Stephen Harper and then-Conservative-government minister Jason Kenney.

Let us hope the Sask. Party government that suggested the letter had five concrete proposals deserving of scrutiny does unbiasedly weigh merits with the associated costs and risks. Things like access to tidewater be for fibre optics or oil do make sense.

But for now, lets hope those who purport to want to provide leadership start doing so.

Today, that means all of us lending support to a pandemic crisis rather than sowing seeds of Western discontent.

Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and Saskatoon StarPhoenix.

Original post:

Mandryk: Pandemic concerns should have trumped Buffalo grievances - The Province

19 Jul 2020 | 05:29am IST

Basilio G. Monteiro

hanks to the internet and social media, there has been recently a flurry of heartwarming news snippets about the priests in Goa engaged in agricultural/farming work along with their parishioners. The Goan diaspora is enthralled by the sight of young folks making farming cool again.

Due to many historical accidents and particularly driven by pseudo-development models fuelled by neo-liberal economics, domestic farming and self-sustenance agriculture fell out of favour.

Farming came to be seen with less dignity and derided by those aspiring to move to the ranks of the middle-class and up. The fertile land, which, for generations, reliably fed all inhabitants, has been ransacked by greedy, unscrupulous and incompetent developers in collusion with some corrupt politicians.

This pandemic lockdown, despite its built-in pain, has awakened in us a renewed appreciation for food grown in ones backyard and by oneself.

Pope Francis, in the last chapter of his letter Laudato Si, speaks about ecological education and spirituality; the farming ministry of the priests in Goa invites us to consider the frayed relationship between the human roots and the ecological crisis.

The COVID-19 lockdown underscored Pope Francis letter on the CARE of OUR COMMON HOME, in which he encourages us to act:

Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning. We are able to take an honest look at ourselves, to acknowledge our deep dissatisfaction and to embark on new paths to authentic freedom. No system can completely suppress our openness to what is good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to forget this dignity which is ours. No one has the right to take it from us (205).

A good number of priests in Goa are engaged in farming for quite some time, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Archbishop Filipe Neri Ferrao. The students at Saligao and Rachol seminaries and of the Pastoral Institute at Old Goa have been fruitfully living off the land for quite a few years.

On a recent quick survey among the priests in Goa, I discovered, with utmost delight, that a significant number of them across Goa are taking, without any fanfare, very good care of our Common Home, albeit in small patches of land in their respective backyards or in neighbouring fields.

A few examples arepaddy cultivation at Sao Jose De Areal, Quelossim, Curtorim and Benaulim (this one in an area of 6000 sq meters); farms are being fostered in Carambolim, Veluz, Old Goa and many other villages.

Rachol Seminary students have been engaged in cultivating their own paddy fields for their self-sustenance, with the collaboration of farmhands from nearby villages, who offer their services free of charge; after the paddy season is over, the fields are converted into vegetable gardens; the seminary has a productive collaboration with the Horticulture Department of the Government of Goa.

Saligao Seminary daily time-table includes work in the kitchen garden, where the students grow more than twenty kinds of vegetables, relishing them at the dining table. The efforts of the Calangute parish leadership turned to be highly influential in getting some folks from the village to cultivate their lands again, in one case after 15 years, and in another, after 25 years.

It is noteworthy that Fr Bolmax Pereira, armed with a PhD in Botany, is leading an eager generation of millennials in reclaiming the fallow lands of Chicalim; they even formed an enthusiastic Chicalim Youth Farmers Club, while the Pilar Fathers have been faithful guardians of our Common Home in Sanguem and Pilar, besides Birondem, where they run a farm belonging to the archdiocese.

The Don Bosco Agricultural Education Complex in Sulcorna, pioneered and managed by the Salesians, is where the relationship between ecology and spirituality is cultivated in the minds and the hearts of the students. Their work in the agricultural renaissance in Goa is prodigious.

The Redemptorists on the Porvorim hillock have an innovative initiative towards a sustainable planet: RED ROCK GREENS (RRG). Given the rocky 10000 sq metres at their disposal, they launched into terrace gardening, which led to a farmers market with 30 farmers participating in this collective.

Their venture in rain water harvesting, stands as a model for other villages to harvest the bountiful rainwater. Vagator parish kitchen garden serves as a small feeder to the neighbours in need and Borim parish garden generously distributes tenddli, bananas and papayas to its neighbours.

There are young fellows whom I came to know, looking for collaboration with other equally minded young Goans, such as Adv Gideon Noronha (Vasco), who is committed to a renaissance of the comunidade land, the young Lance Godinho (Verna), passionate about rainwater harvesting, and Hychinta Aguiar (Divar), who walks villages to map the biodiversity of Goa.

Farming is a collective enterprise, where human bonds are formed, nurtured, valued, and interdependency is experienced as asine qua non for healthy living. In this collective exercise we discover our common humanity and realize that well cultivated relationships in shared hardships of cultivating the land are indispensable for integral human development and integral living in the village community.

This COVID-19 pandemic woke us up to a profound spiritual reality that humans need to connect with the transcendent. Pope Francis eloquently reflects on this fundamental and noble dimension of our life intertwined between the care of the nature and care for each other:

Care for nature is part of a lifestyle which includes the capacity for living together and communion. Jesus reminded us that we have God as our common Father and that this makes us brothers and sisters. Fraternal love can only be gratuitous; it can never be a means of repaying others for what they have done or will do for us. That is why it is possible to love our enemies. This same gratuitousness inspires us to love and accept the wind, the sun and the clouds, even though we cannot control them. In this sense, we can speak of a universal fraternity (228).

The pain of the COVID-19 lockdown ought not to be in vain. The re-awakening to the fact that the soil of the earth sustains us compels us to discover our humanity, our spirituality and helps us to build and value human bonds as well as cultivate a harmonious community.

(The writer is a Diocesan priest from Goa teaching at St. Johns University, New York).

See the original post:

The Care of our COMMON HOME fires up Priests of Goa - Oherald

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the eastern half of Oklahoma could be considered Native American territory, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz voiced alarm.

Neil Gorsuch & the four liberal Justices just gave away half of Oklahoma, literally, he tweeted. Manhattan is next.

Thats absurd.

What the court did was to force state and federal officials to finally deal with a promise they made to Native Americans almost 200 years ago.

The case before the court involved Jimcy McGirt, an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma who was convicted in 1997 of sex crimes against a child on Native American land. McGirt argued the state lacked jurisdiction in the case and he should be retried in federal court.

The Supreme Court agreed.

Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law, Justice Neal Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.

Thats a statement Native Americans all over the country had been waiting to hear for a long time.

Jason Salsman, press secretary for the Muscogee nation, described his reaction in an interview with the New York Times.

It made me cry, he said. It was a powerful moment, one I wasnt ready for. It brought out emotions you didnt know would be there. It was just a promise kept. We know the history of promises that have been broken. I still get chills thinking about it.

For those unfamiliar with the history, members of the Muscogee, Cherokee, Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw nations were forced from their traditional lands in the Southeastern United States under the Indian Removal Act of 1830. When all was said and done, some 60,000 Native Americans had marched westward along what became known as the Trail of Tears. Thousands died.

Surviving members of the Muscogee nation settled on land they had been promised in Oklahoma, and that is what the Supreme Court recognized in its ruling.

We do not pretend to foretell the future, Gorsuch wrote, and we proceed well aware of the potential for cost and conflict around jurisdictional boundaries, especially ones that have gone unappreciated for so long. But it is unclear why pessimism should rule the day. With the passage of time, Oklahoma and its Tribes have proven they can work successfully together as partners.

The federal government had promised a reservation in perpetuity, Gorsuch wrote, and even though Congress might have diminished that sanctuary over time, it had never actually withdrawn the promise.

Salsman said the Muscogee nation wasnt surprised by reactions like the one shared by Cruz.

There were a lot of scare tactics: Were going to turn the prisoners loose, give us your tax dollars, your land is our land, he said. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Within hours of the ruling, the state and all five Native American nations issued a joint statement.

The nations and the state are committed to implementing a framework of shared jurisdiction that will preserve sovereign interests and rights to self-government while affirming jurisdictional understandings, procedures, laws and regulations that support public safety, our economy and private property rights, the statement read. We will continue our work, confident that we can accomplish more together than any of us could alone.

The ruling will have an impact not just in Oklahoma but in other parts of the country. At least 10 states have similar jurisdictional disputes.

The decision in this case wont resolve those fights, but its a good first step, a step that was long overdue.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the rest here:

Kelly Hawes column: Supreme Court holds government to its word - The Herald Bulletin

A gnome and a guy dressed like Zorro met for a virtual happy hour Tuesday, hours after the College Council at San Antonio College voted unanimously to expel the Ranger mascot.

Sitting in his home office, the Zorro-like figure peered into his computers camera and adjusted his flat-topped, flat-brimmed sombrero cordobs. He didnt wear his Lone Ranger mask.

I wore it for a while, but then some people thought it hinted at the image of a lawless, masked bandido, so it was decided I should ditch it, the guy formerly known as San Antonio Colleges mascot explained. I thought the look was rakish, maybe a bit naughty but certainly not offensive.

The Gnome Ranger, Zooming from the backyard, nodded knowingly while pointing at his tan vest and pointy cowboy hat, a summer cocktail in his hand.

Its not the look. Its the Ranger part thats the problem, the gnome said, taking a swig and swatting away a fly with the phone.

MORE FROM ANGLIN:A soundtrack breakdown running down his dream

You could have been dressed like a park ranger. Or an Army Ranger. Or even Aragorn from Lord of the Rings. Back in the 1920s, when San Antonio College chose a Ranger in cowboy gear as its mascot, the Texas Rangers enjoyed the ultimate good guy image even though as a group they were known and feared for doing terrible things in what we now know as South Texas. In the spirit of seeing history clearly instead of selectively, the image of the Ranger is not one that fits a South Texas community college anymore.

Yes, that means you and I are out, Antonio said. And its not Zorro cancel culture.

Its not, the gnome said. This isnt about you. Its not even about present-day Texas Rangers. Its about a place of higher education recognizing a history that people along the border have spoken of for generations. Its not as if the survivors of violence at the hands of the early Texas Rangers didnt pass down those stories they did. The Rangers were created to take care of one group of people by taking care of other groups, if you know what I mean.

History can be uncomfortable, Antonio said, reading from his smartphone. The Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum websites brief history of the Rangers tells us that when this land was still Mexico, Stephen F. Austin was told if he could get these parts populated with Americans and Europeans willing to become Spanish-speaking Mexican Catholics, hed be rewarded with land, titles and power.

Yeah, that didnt go over too well with the people who were already living the dream here, the gnome said, clinking the ice cubes in his drink.

On ExpressNews.com: Look around diverse show is America today

Cowboy lore and the storied Old West might have painted the taming of this untamed land in nostalgic sepia, but the people who were killed and whose lives were upended have a different view of history. And because we expect more from colleges and universities than we do from old radio shows and cowboy novels, it makes sense to recognize the whole story.

You know, Antonio said, sipping his second glass of wine, what if I said this feels like another lefty indoctrination move on the part of liberal academia? Or a knee-jerk consequence of the tear-down-the-statue zeitgeist?

Then Id have to replace that sombrero with a dunce cap. Just because one side of the story has gotten more run doesnt mean that seeing the entire story amounts to revisionism, the gnome said, taking off his conical hat and wiping his brow.

Colleges and universities need to lead the way when it comes to righting social wrongs. If you ask me, suiting the two of us up as mascots was just a way to soften the word Ranger. It is long past time for a change.

Telling the whole story is important, Antonio said, raising his glass and clinking the screen in agreement.

Even when its embarrassing, the Gnome Ranger said to the Masked Ranger.

mariaanglinwrites@gmail.com

Go here to read the rest:

Anglin: History illuminated as the sun sets on Ranger - San Antonio Express-News

In this time of pandemic, our authors nominate a work they turn to for solace or perspective.

Im one of those fortunate people for whom the direct experience of the COVID-19 pandemic has thus far been felt only through isolation from close friends and family and away from the pleasant routines of campus. Indirectly, however, it has been felt as a deep ultimatum from the earth about the interactions of its inhabitants.

Books are both solace and provocation at such a time. Reading Rachel Cusks latest collection, Coventry, prompted me to read her entire oeuvre in sequence, as I also did as I reread Richard Ford, and as I will now pursue with Patrick Modiano.

Why this urge to read a writers corpus in strict order? Was this my subconscious desire to restore order to a disordered world? Or just the depressing signs of a tidy mind? A linear imagination? Whatever the case, it has been satisfying.

Fords prize-winning trilogy of Frank Bascombe novels The Sportswriter (1986), Independence Day (1995) and The Lay of the Land (2006) are a landmark in recent American literature, but it is his follow-up Let Me Be Frank With You (2014) that I have most relished returning to. The four interwoven long stories (Fords term) are his poignant, often hilarious, reckoning with environmental catastrophe and mortality.

Frank is now 68 and retired eight years from the real estate business he had run along the New Jersey Shore. He has moved inland to comfortable, white, asininely Tea Party Haddam with second wife Sally Caldwell. He travels to Newark weekly to greet weary, puzzled troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reads to the blind on his local radio station. His current choice for them is V.S. Naipauls The Enigma of Arrival: theyre pissed off about the same things hes pissed off about.

Frank is dealing with his ageing body: he is recovering from prostate cancer and Sally keeps telling him to lift up his feet when he walks to avoid the gramps shuffle. Frank now listens to Aaron Copland and is trying to read The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.

Frank deals routinely, if mostly affectionately, in ethnic and racist labels. He still calls black Americans Negroes but plainly prefers them to others of his compatriots: Its no wonder they hate us, Id hate us, too. Frank is a Democrat; hes gratified that Obama likes Coplands Fanfare.

The four interwoven stories unfold across the fortnight before Christmas 2012 in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which had hit the Jersey Shore on 29 October, shattering coastal buildings and killing scores of locals.

The presidential election has just been held: an Obama-Biden sign has been repurposed to read WERE BACK. SO FUCK YOU, SANDY. Other signs along the Shore warn LOOTERS BEWARE!. One, notes Frank, merely says NOTHING BESIDES REMAINS (for victims with a liberal arts degree). His own former house on the shore has disintegrated.

Frank is awe-struck: Theres something to be said for a good no-nonsense hurricane, to bully life back into perspective but admits his fear that something bad is closing in like the advance of a shadow across a square of playground grass where I happen to be standing.

The people of the Jersey Shore have various explanations for the hurricane: his ex-wife believes it was a bedrock agent, others think it was somehow Obamas doing to prevent people voting for Mitt Romney. No-one refers to climate change.

Richard Ford interprets and survives a world undone by calamity and death through the encounters Frank has with four individuals: a former client to whom Frank had sold his own house eight years earlier; a reserved, sad and gracious black woman who visits Franks new house where 40 years earlier her father had killed her mother, brother and himself; his ex-wife Ann, who has Parkinsons and has moved to an aged-care facility determined to rebrand ageing as a to-be-looked forward-to phenomenon; and an old friend Eddie.

This novel is Ford at his finest. Sharp satire is captured in barbed turns of phrase. Unforgettable, somehow rootless, characters stud the stories. Ford combines the meticulous attention to domestic detail of contemporaries Philip Roth and John Updike with the dirty realism of Raymond Carver. His precise, gritty tone is perfect and strangely consoling.

Fords ultimate consolation offered to us is expressed through a brief final encounter, an epiphany of decency through environmental calamity and personal despair. After all, love isnt a thing, he notes, but an endless series of single acts.

Link:

Art for trying times: reading Richard Ford on a world undone by calamity - The Conversation AU

At a time when the Indian government looks to boost home-grown manufacturing and self-reliance, drones are a key focus area. While India imports sophisticated drones that are meant for the Armed Forces, there are various purposes for which home-grown options have proven their mettle. Indigenously designed and developed drones have displayed their capability in spraying disinfectants across crowded, inaccessible areas in Covid-19 hotspots and also recently in the fight against locusts.

Experts who work in the field also believe that the scaling up indigenous drone manufacturing could not only boost the local industry but also generate lakhs of jobs across sectors.

Shortly after the Covid-19 outbreak in Indias major cities in March, drones took to the skies, spraying disinfectant over vast, congested urban spaces. Drones were aiding the civic authorities efforts in fighting against the deadly pandemic. Drones from educational institutions, private companies were widely being used for disinfection of areas in a quick and efficient manner. Whats more, some of these drone models are also fulled by petrol, hence can operate for longer durations without the worry of longer charging hours.

Recently, Indias Ministry of Civil Aviation had also permitted the Agriculture Ministry to utilize engine-powered drones (with a fully-loaded weight below 50kgs) to fly night operations, sparing pesticides against locusts in Certain North-Western and Central states. So far, only the drones operated by Indias defence forces had the clearances to fly during day and night. This permission is being viewed as a major boost to the home-grown manufacturers of this technology. This could mean more opportunities for drone-makers, engineers and various others involved in the supply chain to contribute in a larger way.

Drones built by Chennais Abdul Kalam Advanced UAV Research Center in Anna University have been among the ones fighting locusts in Rajasthan. Three drones and eight pilots have been camping in the state and assisting the authorities who are also employing traditional methods to avert the locust threat.

Dr K Senthilkumar, Director, Abdul Kalam Advanced UAV Research Centre at Chennais Anna University points out that the petrol-operated drones are the future and that their applications are wide-ranging as the petrol-powered variants had several advantages over their battery-operated counterparts.

Our petrol-powered drones can fly for 40 minutes non-stop and just need maintenance after every 50 hours of operation. Battery-powered drones require the battery pack to be disposed of after every 100 flights. Our drones have a 40-minute endurance using 3.5 litres of fuel, whereas battery models fly about 10 minutes before they need to land and charge. The model being flown in Rajasthan has a tank capacity to hold 18 litres of liquid (disinfectant or insecticide) and uses an ultra-low volume atomizer spray which is highly efficient and reduces wastage. Just one of our drones can spray 5000sq meters in a single 40-minute flight, Senthilkumar told WION.

With wide-ranging applications and enhanced emphasis on indigenisation, it is needless to say that in the coming times, the sky is the limit for Indias domestic drone manufacturers. Favourable policy and liberal regulations in the relevant sectors too play a major role in generating interest from the industry.

The Ministry of Civil Aviation(MoCA) supports the use of drone-tech in agriculture. In addition to aerial surveillance and spraying, it can do wonders in crop analytics and farm yield improvement. As demand rises and prices fall, we foresee many Indian villages having their own rented drones, much like tractors and harvester combines. This will help create local entrepreneurs, jobs and higher farm earnings, Amber Dubey, Joint Secretary and Head of Drones Division at MoCA told WION.

Dr Senthilkumar adds that better engineering and modifications to drones can help allay the fears about misuse and mishaps involving these flying machines. He talks about programming the drones and limiting range in such a way that they wont fly above 20 metres in height and 300 metres in distance.

He adds that there are also methods to avoid crashes and fires that may result from them. Our drones have battery backup and can land in case of primary engine failure and we have programmed it in such a way that it will land at the take-off location. Even our petrol engine isnt a direct drive model, it works like a generator and the power is transferred to the motor. We have done several crash tests from a 100m height and observed that only the landing gear gets affected, we are also considering using a fire-resistant material for the petrol tank henceforth, Senthilkumar says.

Dr MK Surappa, the Vice Chancellor of Anna University says that drones have become widely popular in a matter of a few years and that they have unlimited potential.

After military use, it used to be a toy for some, and also meant for photographers, but there is the option of using them in swarms, as coordinated drones and what not. Its not just abut building drones, but about equipping them for Internet-of-things(IoT)and fitting more advanced sensors and cameras, thus allowing them to have software-driven functionalities. The potential here is enormous, he told WION.

Senthilkumar envisions that drones can bring about the next manufacturing revolution, like automobiles had done over the years. He estimates that India alone would need over 5 lakh engine-operated drones for civilian needs in the coming years.

This would in turn mean employment for lakhs of people ranging from engineers to drone operators, manufacturers, suppliers, service technicians and a whole lot of others, he says.

Read the original:

From fighting Covid-19 to locusts, drones showcase their potential and wide user-applications - DNA India

Women in the U.S. earn 81 cents for every dollar men make in 2020.

That's the raw gender pay gap, "which looks at the median salary for all men and women regardless of job type or worker seniority," Payscale explains in a 2020 report on the state of the pay gap.

The gap forms early and continues to grow: As data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows, men earn more from the start. And women not only earn less, but their peak earning age is lower than that of the average man.

Here's the median income American men are earning, broken down by age group, as of the second quarter of 2020.

And here's how much women earn at various ages:

Women could be disadvantaged even more due to the coronavirus pandemic. "Women have a higher risk of suffering greater penalties in earnings," Payscale notes in its report, since they make up a larger percentage of occupations in fields like social services, education and office and administrative support, which are positions that are more likely to be suspended or asked to work reduced hours.

"Women are also more likely to have to take time off work, or even resign their positions, in order to care for children who are no longer in school as well as other family members," Payscale adds.

Women overall in the U.S. earn less than men, but the disparity in pay widens for minorities. Black women, for example, earn 61 cents for every dollar that their White male counterparts are paid, according to the National Women's Law Center's analysis of 2018 Census Bureau data. That could amount to $946,120 in lost wages over a 40-year career.

Here's the median income of American White men broken down by age group, according to Q2 2020 data from the BLS:

Here's the median income of American Black men broken down by age group:

Here's the median income of American White women broken down by age group:

Here's the median income of American Black women broken down by age group:

Pay transparency, or openly sharing employee salaries, could be the top solution to closing the gap, 2020 data from PayScale shows. When companies are open about the salaries they give employees, the wage gap in most industries and at all job levels disappears, the report finds.

Another way women are able to close the gender gap, though time-consuming and oftentimes expensive, is by getting one more degree.

A 2018 wage gap report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce found that in order to earn the same salary as men, women essentially need to get one more degree. "A woman with a bachelor's degree earns $61,000 per year on average, roughly equivalent to that of a man with an associate's degree," the Georgetown CEW reports. "The same rule holds true for women with master's degrees compared to men with bachelor's degrees and for each successive level of educational attainment."

To help narrow the gap, there are a few things women can do besides getting another degree, the report notes. For starters, pick a college major that pays well: "Women majoring in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields earn $840,000 more from the base year to retirement than women who major in the liberal arts, regardless of the occupations they choose."

And when you land your first job, negotiate your starting pay well. As the Georgetown CEW report finds, "The first salary is a very important leverage point for upward mobility and can result in a slower trajectory if women aim lower to begin with."

If you're well past day one on the job and think you're being paid less than you should be, you can still negotiate for a fair salary. First, do your research on comparable salaries. A salary calculator can help you gauge your market value.

Before initiating a conversation with your manager, document a list of achievements, such as new projects you've taken on or any measurable goals you've achieved since you started.

Read up on more negotiation strategies and remember: Although only half of job seekers negotiate, the majority of those who dosucceedin getting a raise.

Don't miss:Millennials who tripled their salaries in 10 years share their best advice for getting a raise

Like this story?Subscribe to CNBC Make It on YouTube!

Continued here:

Here's how much men and women earn at every age - CNBC