United Airlines hit with record $1.9 million fine for delays that left passengers stuck on planes for lengthy periods

ztayeb@businessinsider.com (Zahra Tayeb) 

© Provided by Business Insider The fine imposed on United was the largest of its kind, according to officials. Thomas Pallini/Insider

United Airlines has been hit with a $1.9 million penalty for long tarmac delays, per Reuters.

A consent order cited 25 incidents that occurred between December 2015 and February of this year.

The airline breached federal rules by keeping passengers stuck on planes for too long.

United Airlines has been fined $1.9 million by the Department of Transportation (DoT) for keeping thousands of passengers stuck on planes for hours, in violation of federal rules, Reuters reported.

It is the largest penalty of its kind, according to the outlet.

The department said in a consent order that United failed to adhere to the assurances in its contingency plan for long tarmac delays for 20 domestic flights and five international flights at airports across the US. A total of 3,218 passengers were affected.

A tarmac delay occurs when a plane on the ground is either awaiting takeoff or has just landed and passengers do not have the opportunity to get off the plane.

In one 2019 incident, a United flight en route to Chicago was diverted to an airport in Wisconsin, due to a winter storm. It was held on the tarmac for more than four hours.

In a statement to Reuters on Friday, United said its "committed to fully meeting all DoT rules and will continue identifying and implementing improvements in how we manage difficult operating conditions."

United Airlines did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

In July 2021, airlines reported a total of 40 tarmac delays of more than three hours on domestic flights, compared with 11 the month before, per the department.

United is not the only airline to have faced sky-high penalties in recent years. In 2019, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines were fined a total of $1.75 million for long tarmac delays at US airports.

Delta said at the time that it provided customers with substantial compensation for the delays, including cash reimbursements, SkyMiles, and travel vouchers.
Read the original article on Business Insider

USA

Two-thirds of low wage workers still don't have sick days amid ongoing pandemic

ewalsh@insider.com (Emily Walsh) 

© Provided by Business Insider Westend61/Getty Images

Two-thirds of low-wage workers do not have sick days, despite the ongoing pandemic, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Overall, paid sick days have a positive benefit to employers as it reduces employee turnover.

There has been a recent push by Democratic politicians and workers in the US to secure paid leave for low-wage workers.

Two-thirds of low-wage workers do not have sick days, even during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Over three-quarters, or about 77%, of private-sector workers in the US have the ability to earn paid sick time at work, but the benefit is mostly available to higher-wage workers, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Only 33% of the lowest-paid workers are able to earn paid sick days in the US, the data found.

Low-wage workers, such as people working in education, restaurants, and manufacturing, are typically working in positions where they have more direct contact with the public, putting them at a higher risk for developing a contagious disease like COVID-19, falling ill, and subsequently being forced to miss work, the Economic Policy Institute points out.

Access to paid sick days has positive benefits to employers as it reduces employee turnover with no impact on employment, according to EPI.

Depending on where workers live can also impact their access to paid sick days, the EPI reported. 95% of private-sector workers living in the Pacific Region (California, Oregon, and Washington) have access to paid sick leave while only 67% in East South Central states (Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee) have the same access. Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee all have preemption laws prohibiting cities and counties from requiring local employers to offer paid sick leave or other forms of paid family or medical leave, according to the EPI.

There is no federal law requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.

Recently, Tyson Foods, the world's second-largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork, granted workers fully vaccinated against the coronavirus 20 hours of paid sick leave a year to incentivize employees to get the vaccine, Insider Reported.

However, Amazon, which currently employs every 1 out of 153 workers in the US, does not offer its warehouse workers paid sick leave. Amazon has come under scrutiny from its employees and labor activists for offering unsafe working conditions for its warehouse workers and delivery drivers.

The company has repeatedly said the safety of drivers and communities is its top priority and it invests millions of dollars in safety protocols for workers.

House Democrats are currently drafting a bill that includes 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for American workers. The proposed $3.5 trillion infrastructure plan, called the Build Back Better Act, would guarantee workers time off to raise newborn children or deal with a medical emergency, Insider reported.

"This is our historic opportunity to support working families and ensure our economy is stronger, more inclusive, and more resilient for generations to come," Chairman Richard E. Neal, a Massachusetts representative, previously told Insider.
Read the original article on Business Insider

CANADA

The employment insurance system is set for another round of pandemic-related changes

THE CANADIAN PRESS
Sep. 25, 2021

Canada Service centre documents that display Employment Insurance options are pictured in Ottawa on July 7, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

There are new rules about employment insurance. Here’s what you need to know.

The employment insurance system is set for another round of pandemic-related changes that come into force on Sunday. Here are a few of the key changes that will apply to new claims for benefits made beginning Sept. 26.

Eligibility

EI applicants need to have worked a minimum number of hours to qualify for benefits. In the past, that number has been about 600 hours, although the number varied in different parts of the country based on local labour market conditions.

Many workers have had their hours cut during the pandemic, meaning they may not have worked enough hours to qualify.

Over the last year, all new EI applicants received a one-time hours top-up to help them qualify, but that disappears on Sunday. In its place will be a uniform requirement to have worked 420 hours.

The uniform hours requirement will be in place for one year, until Sept. 24, 2022.

The government is also requiring anew a medical certificate proving an applicant is sick and can’t work to receive EI sickness benefits. The requirement was waived temporarily over the last year because of COVID-19.

Benefits

The weekly floor on benefits will decline to $300 from $500, in line with the value of payments under the Canada Recovery Benefit that is available for those who don’t qualify for EI.

The weekly floor is planned to apply to claims made between Sept. 26 and Nov. 20.

The duration and value of benefits will once again be calculated using regional unemployment rates that were temporarily replaced over the last year by a uniform unemployment rate of 13.1 per cent.

EI officials will also use simplified rules around severance and vacation pay so claimants should be able to start receiving benefits sooner. The payments can delay the start and value of benefits.

However, there will once again be a one-week wait before benefits flow for any new EI claims after the waiting period was waived over the last year.

Staying the same

Anyone with an existing EI claim won’t see any changes to the value or duration of their benefits with these new rules.

As well, seasonal workers in 13 regions will still be eligible for five extra weeks of EI regular benefits until October 2022.

The pilot project provides the extra weeks to seasonal workers who started a claim between Aug. 5, 2018 and this coming Oct. 30, provided they had three claims for regular or fishing benefits in the last five years, and at least two started around the same time of year.

– Jordan Press, The Canadian Press

Wind energy can be the puzzle piece that tackles global warming

It won't be enough on its own, though.

 by Fermin Koop
September 24, 2021

A rapid expansion of wind energy could achieve a reduction in global warming of 0.3ºC to 0.8ºC by the end of the century, according to a new study. While this would have to be complemented with other emission reduction strategies, it could put the world on a closer path to delivering the Paris Agreement on climate change, the researchers said

.

Image credit: Flickr / K.H Reichert.

The energy sector remains as one of the main drivers of global greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that CO2 emissions from coal combustion was responsible for over 0.3ºC of the 1ºC increase in global average temperatures since pre-industrial levels – making coal the main source of temperature rise. So if we want to tackle climate change, replacing coal with renewable energy is a great way to start.

Renewable energy, particularly solar and wind, has seen a remarkable increase over recent years. But it’s not enough yet. In absolute terms, fossil fuels are still the main dominant component of energy demand in every area and globally. That’s why the decarbonization of the energy sector remains a major goal in order to meet the Paris Agreement.

With this in mind, researchers at Cornell University wanted to explore what it would mean in terms of temperature increase for wind energy to continue growing. Onshore wind is a proven and mature technology that has gradually become one of the cheapest energy sources of electricity generation, soon followed by offshore wind.

“Early action will reap dividends,” Rebecca Barthelmie, the lead author of the study, said in a statement. “In terms of averting the worst of climate change, our work confirms that accelerating wind-energy technology deployment is a logical and a cost-effective part of the required strategy. Waiting longer will mean more drastic action will be needed.”

The expansion of wind energy

Wind turbines are currently deployed in over 90 countries. The researchers estimate that a total 742 GW of wind energy capacity was installed by 2020, 35 GW of which was offshore. A group of 12 countries has an installed capacity (IC) above 10GW and twenty above 5GW. This is mainly dominated by Asia (mainly China), Europe (mainly Germany), and the US.

Although hydro currently dominates renewable electricity generation (4325 TWh, around 16% of total electricity supply), the largest growth rates and most future scenarios envisage major expansion in the wind and solar energy. Wind energy production has expanded from 104 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2005 to 1273 TWh in 2018.

The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a leading group of climate experts, suggests that “major reductions” in all sectors are needed to meet the Paris Agreement targets. This is where wind energy enters, capable of driving greenhouse gas emissions down thanks to its fast expansion and lowering costs.

The most aggressive deployment scenarios of wind energy would reduce emissions by around five gigatons by 2030 and by over 10 gigatons by 2050, the researchers estimated. This would reduce global average temperature up to 0.8ºC by the end of the century. Still, this will require a big effort from countries to expand wind energy.

Implementation of the current climate pledges by countries would lead to only a 3.6% annual increase in deployment of wind energy over 2015–2030 compared to the 8.5% per year realized between 2010 and 2016. That’s why several energy agencies have proposed wind energy and electricity generation targets that are more ambitious.

“While the scale of anthropogenic climate change is daunting, our research illustrates that wind energy can substantially reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses at the national and global scale and measurably reduce the amount of temperature increase,” Barthelmie said. “Both technically and economically, advanced deployment scenarios are feasible.”

The study was published in the journal Climate.

'You Tell Me What We Should Cut': Sanders Not Budging on $3.5 Trillion

"Poll after poll tells me, and tells you, that what we are trying to do is enormously popular."


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a "We Can't Wait" rally on the National Mall on June 24, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)



JAKE JOHNSON

September 23, 2021


Update:

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont argued the United States needs "every penny" of the reconciliation package that is currently taking shape in Congress amid ongoing fights over its size and scope.

"The question we face right now is: at this moment, do we have the courage to keep faith with the American people and show them that their democracy in fact can work for them, and not just powerful special interests?" Sanders said. "Let us go forward, let us do the right thing, let us pass this $3.5 trillion reconciliation package."

As conservative Democrats attempt to pare back the legislation, Sanders stressed that the $3.5 trillion plan would make major investments in climate action and child care, establish universal pre-K and paid family leave, and expand Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing benefits. The Vermont senator went on to declare that the bill—which corporate lobbying groups are working hard to tank—"should and will be fully paid for" by raising taxes on the rich and big businesses, and by lowering prescription drug prices.

"This legislation takes an important step forward," Sanders said. "It doesn't go as far as it should, but it is a major step forward in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy."

Watch the full speech:



Earlier:

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday challenged members of the media—and conservative Democrats—to specifically cite which portions of the emerging budget reconciliation package they would remove to lower the proposal's $3.5 trillion price tag, which some lawmakers have characterized as excessive.

"Tell the American people and the younger people that we should not address the crisis of climate change and try to save the planet."

Asked during an appearance on "CBS Mornings" whether he would accept a package smaller than $3.5 trillion to appease Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W-Va.) and other right-wing Democrats, Sanders responded, "You tell me what we should cut."

"Tell the working families of this country that we don't need to make child care affordable," said Sanders. "Tell the American people and the younger people that we should not address the crisis of climate change and try to save the planet. Tell the homeless people that we should not build affordable housing. Tell the young people that we should not make community colleges tuition-free."

"All we are trying to do is address the crises facing working families and demand that the wealthiest people in this country start paying their fair share in taxes," he continued. "At the end of the day, I believe that we're going to prevail."

Sanders, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, reiterated that he and a majority of the Democratic caucus originally pushed for a $6 trillion bill, given the urgent need to combat the climate emergency with massive investments in green energy.

"We have already made a significant compromise," said Sanders. "Poll after poll tells me, and tells you, that what we are trying to do is enormously popular. Every single issue has widespread support not only from Democrats, but from Republicans and Independents."

Sanders' remarks came after he and other prominent progressive lawmakers met with President Joe Biden at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the reconciliation package, which Democrats hope to pass in the coming days.

"This is the president's agenda, this is the Democratic agenda, and this is what we promised voters."

But efforts to quickly advance the sprawling bill have run into opposition from conservative Democrats who, for the most part, have raised vague objections to the bill's price tag and the filibuster-proof procedure being used to pass the bill without Republican support.

Earlier this month, Manchin—a key swing vote in the Senate—urged the Democratic leadership to "hit a strategic pause" on the reconciliation process, arguing that we "must allow for a complete reporting and analysis of the implications a multitrillion-dollar bill will have for this generation and the next."

The West Virginia Democrat has reportedly voiced broad concerns about "Biden's plan to spend $400 billion for home caregivers" and expressed a desire to more aggressively means-test other proposals.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), for her part, has stated flatly that she will not support a $3.5 trillion bill without elaborating on her objections in any detail.

In an attempt to push the reconciliation package through over conservatives' protests, progressive Democrats in the House are threatening to tank a Senate-passed $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill that Manchin and Sinema helped write. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said earlier this week that "more than half" of the Congressional Progressive Caucus' 96 members are willing to vote against the bipartisan bill unless the reconciliation package is approved first.

Jayapal, the chair of the CPC, held to that position after meeting with Biden on Wednesday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has committed to holding a floor vote on the bipartisan bill by September 27, but it's far from clear that the reconciliation package will be finished by then.

"I reiterated what I have consistently said: progressives will vote for both bills because we proudly support the president's entire Build Back Better package, but that a majority of our 96-member caucus will only vote for the small infrastructure bill after the Build Back Better Act passes," the Washington Democrat said in a statement outlining what was discussed during her meeting with Biden.

"This is the president's agenda, this is the Democratic agenda, and this is what we promised voters when they delivered us the House, the Senate, and the White House," Jayapal added. "We agree with President Biden that, 'We can do this. We have to do this. We will do this.' We remain strongly committed to continuing these discussions so we are able to deliver these two important bills to his desk."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Global Peace Activists Warn of Dangers of US-Led Anti-China Pacts

"No to military alliances and preparation for catastrophic wars," anti-war campaigners from over a dozen nations write in a letter decrying the new AUKUS agreement. "Yes to peace, disarmament, justice, and the climate."

U.S. President Joe Biden hosted (from left) Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison—leaders of the Quadrilateral Security Dialog, or "Quad"—at the White House in Washington, D.C. on September 24, 2021.

 (Photo: President Joe Biden/Twitter)


BRETT WILKINS

September 24, 2021

Warning against collective defense agreements "which dangerously intensify geostrategic military tensions with China," a group of international peace advocates on Friday published a letter decrying the new trilateral pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, while calling for "peace, justice, and disarmament."

The letter, whose signatories include peace groups and activists from over a dozen nations, was released as leaders of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia—the Quadrilateral Security Dialog, or "Quad"—met in the White House to share concerns about China.

It also follows the announcement earlier this month of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) pact, which contains provisions for new weapons sales and was described by one British peace group as an "anti-China" alliance.

Read the full letter:

Meeting on the eve of the Quad alliance summit, peace, justice and common security advocates from the Quad and AUKUS member countries, and Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, India, Britain, Germany, and the U.S. met to analyze and build opposition to the dangerous and increased militarism of the Quad and AUKUS alliances.

The incipient coalition decries the Quad and AUKUS alliances which dangerously intensify geostrategic military tensions with China. In addition to increasing the dangers that accidents or miscalculations to trigger escalation to catastrophic wars, this increased military competition seriously undermines the possibility of U.S.-Chinese and broader international cooperation to reverse the existential threats of nuclear weapons, the climate emergency, and pandemics. The strategic competition between the great powers includes the danger of a great power war which will destroy the planet.

Opposing the recently announced U.S.-Australian-British alliance, Australian peace organizations are demanding that Australia not become a staging point for the U.S. military, that Australian sovereignty not be abrogated to the U.S., and their government must not encourage the nuclear proliferation and risk environmental catastrophe inherent in the agreement to purchase submarines powered by highly enriched uranium.

President Biden has spoken of an inflection point. Negotiation and announcement of the AUKUS alliance indeed marks a dangerous turning point in geostrategic situation.

Among them:
Instead of increasing stability and security, the Quad and AUKUS alliances fuel dangerously spiraling cold war-like arms races that must be reversed with common security diplomacy.
The transfer of highly enriched uranium and related technologies to Australia violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and encourages nuclear weapons proliferation. It provides Australia with resources needed to become a nuclear power, and significant political and military figures in India, South Korea, and Japan ask why they have been denied these capabilities.
Announcement of the AUKUS alliance has disastrous global strategic ramifications. Coming on the heels of the precipitous NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden Administration has again acted without consulting its NATO allies. This fuels calls from European and E.U. leaders to create an independent European military superpower. The new military alliance strengthens worldwide the arms race.
The AUKUS alliance increases pressure on ASEAN and other nations to choose between sides in a way that compromises their independence.

Forty years ago, the adoption of common security diplomacy played major roles in the negotiation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and the end of the Cold War. The new international peace coalition is committed to building international pressure for Indo-Pacific demilitarization and common security diplomacy to address and reverse the existential threats posed by nuclear weapons, the climate emergency, and pandemics.

No to military alliances and preparation for catastrophic wars. Yes to peace, disarmament, justice, and the climate.

(signatories as of 9:00 am Manila time of Sept.24)
International Peace Bureau
Asia Europe Peoples Forum—Peace and Security cluster
Independent and Peaceful Australia Network
Australian Anti Bases Campaign Coalition
Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security
Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice (Guam)
Le Mouvement de la Paix (France)
Veterans For Peace Chapter 113 Hawaii
Peace Women Partners, Philippines
Action for Sovereign Philippines
I Hagan Famalao'an Guahan, Inc. (Guam)
KILUSAN (Movement for National Democracy) Philippines
KAISAKA (Unity of Women for Liberation) Philippines
Maui Peace Action (Hawaii)
Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (Solidarity of Filipino Workers/BMP) Philippines'
Philippine Women’s Network for Peace and Security
Annette Brownlie (Independent & Peaceful Australia Network, Australia)
Hannah Middleton (Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia)
Denis Doherty (AABCC, Australia)
Ross Wynther (IPAN, Australia)
Anuradha Chenoy (Asia Europe Peoples Forum, India)
Reiner Braun (International Peace Bureau, Germany)
Michael Klare (Committee for a Sane US-China Policy)
Joseph Gerson (Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security, U.S.)
Mililani B. Trask (Hawaii)
Dave Webb (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, U.K.)
Tina Ebro (Asia Europe Peoples Forum, Philippines)
Dong Huy Cuong (Asia Europe Peoples Forum, Vietnam)
Francis Daehoon Lee (Peace MOMO, Korea)
Roland Simbulan (Professor at the University of the Philippines)
Corazon Valdez-Fabros (International Peace Bureau, Philippines)
Alain Rouy (Le Mouvement de la Paix, France)
Merci Angeles (Peace Women Partners, Philippines)
LisaLinda Natividad (Guahan)
Kevin Martin (Peace Action, U.S.)
Jim Anderson (Peace Action, National Office, U.S.)
Emily Rubino (New York Peace Action and the CPDCS, U.S.)
Cole Harrison (Massachusetts Peace Action, U.S.)
Mele Stokesberry (Maui Peace Action, Hawaii)
Kyle Kajihiro (Hawaii)
Ann Wright, Veterans For Peace Chapter 113-Hawaii
Ruchama Marton (Physicians for Human Rights, Israel)
Susan Hawthorne (Spinifex Press, Australia)
Mandira Tamrakar (Nepal)
Fabiana Elias de Mesquita (Brazil)
Maria Miel Laurinaria (Philippine Women's Network for Peace and Security)
Djoana Janier (Scrap VFA Movement, Philippines)
Dr. Kate Dewes (Aotearoa/New Zealand)
Rasti Delizo (Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino, Philippines)
Aida Fulleros Santos (International Women's Network against Militarism, Philippines)
Lot dela Cruz (Stop the War Coalition Philippines)
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Biden Decries 'Outrageous' Treatment of Haitians at Border—But Keeps Deporting Them

"I'm glad to see President Biden speak out about the mistreatment of Haitian asylum-seekers. 

But his administration's use of Title 42 to deny them the right to make an asylum claim is a much bigger issue.


President Joe Biden speaks in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2021.

 (Photo: Adam Schultz/White House)

JESSICA CORBETT

September 24, 2021

After several days of global outrage over footage of mounted U.S. agents using their horse reins as whips and menacing Black migrants at the southern border, President Joe Biden on Friday finally condemned the conduct, while his administration continued mass deportations to Haiti.

A reporter asked the president whether he takes responsibility for the "chaos that's unfolding" at the border and if he was failing to deliver on his campaign promise to restore the moral standing of the United States, in part by ending the Trump administration's immigration policies.

"Of course I take responsibility. I'm president," Biden said, adding that it was "horrible… to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It's outrageous."

"I promise you, those people will pay," he said of the mounted agents, noting that a federal investigation is underway. "There will be consequences. It's an embarrassment. But beyond an embarrassment, it's dangerous; it's wrong. It sends the wrong message around the world. It sends the wrong message at home. It's simply not who we are."

Biden had been under pressure to speak out about the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents' recent actions at the border.

"The horrific conduct by CBP in Del Rio, Texas, including officers charging into crowds of Haitian asylum-seekers on horseback, violently dispersing them, taunting them, and forcing them away from safety, is reprehensible and underscores a deeper problem of systemic and racist treatment against Haitian and other Black migrants in the U.S. and at the southern border," said Paul O'Brien, executive director at Amnesty International USA.

Former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro said Friday that "I'm glad to see President Biden speak out about the mistreatment of Haitian asylum-seekers."

"But his administration's use of Title 42 to deny them the right to make an asylum claim is a much bigger issue. End Title 42," Castro added, referring to a controversial policy first implemented under former President Donald Trump that the Biden administration is still using to swiftly deport people on public health grounds due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Castro, on Thursday, had slammed Biden's silence about the CBP agents as "baffling and disappointing," and said—referring to one of Trump's senior advisers—that "this administration's use of Stephen Miller's Title 42 policy is a terrible error—in more ways than one. It should end."

Responding to Biden's Friday comments, the humanitarian aid group No More Deaths said that federal agents attack migrants "every day in the remote desert, away from cameras," and that "the problem isn't a few bad apples… it's a system rotten to the core."

During a Friday afternoon press conference at the White House, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas addressed the agents' actions and the resulting investigation.

The secretary explained that the use of horse patrol units has been halted in the area, at least for now, and "the agents involved in these incidents have been assigned to administrative duties and are not interacting with migrants while the investigation is ongoing."

He also confirmed there are no more migrants at the encampment in Del Rio, Texas, where about 15,000 people, mostly Haitians, had gathered days earlier to seek asylum. The Biden administration has faced criticism for responding by ramping up deportations.

Daniel Foote, the administration's special envoy to Haiti, resigned in a Wednesday letter that highlighted the current conditions of the Caribbean country, which is still reeling from the July assassination of former President Jovenel Moïse that was followed by an earthquake and tropical storm.

Foote wrote that he will not be associated with the "inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs," adding that the Biden administration's "policy approach to Haiti remains deeply flawed, and my recommendations have been ignored and dismissed."

The Associated Press reports that "a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the situation said six flights were scheduled to Haiti on Friday, with seven planned Saturday and six Sunday, though that was subject to change. The official was not authorized to speak publicly."

Mayorkas said that as of Friday, about 2,000 people had been deported to Haiti over the past week on 17 expulsion flights; another 12,400 migrants will have their cases heard by an immigration judge; and 5,000 are being processed by the Department of Homeland Security.

The DHS chief also noted the limitations of the U.S. asylum system and defended the administration's Title 42 expulsions, declaring that it's a "public health imperative" not an immigration policy and has been broadly applied to migrants regardless of their home country.

"Title 42 inflicts immense harm—stranding asylum-seekers in grave danger where they are targets of brutal kidnappings and attacks, turning away Black and LGBTQ asylum-seekers to suffer bias-motivated violence, separating families, and endangering public health," Human Rights First tweeted Friday, calling on Biden to scrap the policy, which his administration is currently defending in federal court.

Noting the dire conditions in Haiti, Amnesty's O'Brien said that "these mass deportations demonstrate that the government is not committed to upholding the rights and well-being of the asylum-seekers they are sending back to danger."

"The U.S. government has a moral and legal responsibility to welcome Haitians and all people who have fled their homes in search of safety," he added, "and the Biden administration can and must do better."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

'How Many More Deaths Must It Take?' Barbados Leader Rips Rich Nations in Fierce UN Speech

"How many more variants of Covid-19 must arrive, how many more, before a worldwide plan for vaccinations will be implemented?"


Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley addresses the 76th session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2021 in New York. (Photo: John Angelillo/AFP via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

September 25, 2021

Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley delivered a scathing indictment of the rich and powerful during her address at the 76th session of the U.N. General Assembly on Friday, condemning the leaders of wealthy countries for refusing to take basic steps to end the coronavirus pandemic, tackle the climate emergency, and usher in a more just society.

"How much more global temperature rise must there be before we end the burning of fossil fuels?"

"If I used the speech prepared for me to deliver today, it would be a repetition, a repetition of what you have heard from others and also from me," Mottley said at the outset of her remarks, which came after the leaders of African and Latin American nations decried the massive, persistent inequities in coronavirus vaccine distribution that have left billions of people without access to lifesaving shots.

"How many more times will we then have a situation where we say the same thing over and over and over, to come to naught?" she asked. "My friends, we cannot do that anymore."

In the roughly 15 minutes that followed, Mottley—the leader of Barbados' Labour Party and the first woman to serve as the small island nation's prime minister—decried the international community's continued inaction in the face of intensifying global crises.

"How many more variants of Covid-19 must arrive, how many more, before a worldwide action plan for vaccinations will be implemented?" Mottley said. "How many more deaths must it take before 1.7 billion excess vaccines in the possession of the advanced countries of the world will be shared with those who have simply no access?"

Watch the full speech:



"None are safe until all are safe. How many more times will we hear that?" she continued. "How much more global temperature rise must there be before we end the burning of fossil fuels? And how much more must sea levels climb in small-island developing states before those who profited from the stockpiling of greenhouse gases contribute to the loss and damage that they occasioned, rather than asking us to crowd out the fiscal space that we have for development to cure the damage caused by the greed of others?"

Mottley went on to dismiss the notion that the international community lacks adequate resources to make transformative progress in the fight against Covid-19, the climate crisis, and global inequality.

"We have the means to give every child on this planet a tablet, and we have the means to give every adult a vaccine, and we have the means to invest in protecting the most vulnerable on our planet from a changing climate—but we choose not to," she said. "It is not because we do not have enough, it is because we do not have the will to distribute that which we have. And it is also because, regrettably, the faceless few do not fear the consequences sufficiently."

"The nation states of this assembly and the people of this world must indicate what direction we want our world to go in," Mottley added, "and not leave it to the faceless few who have worked so hard to prevent the prosperity from being shared."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Missing Voices in Broadcast Coverage of Afghan Withdrawal

Corporate journalists overwhelmingly leaned on government and military sources, while offering no clear antiwar voices and vanishingly few perspectives from civil society leaders in either Afghanistan or the United States.


Relatives and neighbors of the Ahmadi family gathered around the incinerated husk of a vehicle hit by a U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan on August 30, 2021. 

(Photo: Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

JULIE HOLLAR

September 25, 2021

 by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

As the US after 20 years finally began its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the story dominated TV news. Just as they did when the war began (Extra!, 11–12/01), corporate journalists overwhelmingly leaned on government and military sources, while offering no clear antiwar voices and vanishingly few perspectives from civil society leaders in either Afghanistan or the United States.

FAIR studied a week of Afghanistan coverage (8/15–21/21), starting with the day the Taliban took back Kabul. We looked at the three primetime broadcast news shows, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, identifying 74 sources across the three shows.

Who got to speak?

Of these sources, 23 sources were Afghans (20) or identified as Afghan Americans (3)—31% of all sources. Only 11 of these 23—fewer than half—were identified by at least a first name, and only four were women. (Afghans often have only one name.) While three Afghan sources were identified as professionals who might have offered informed commentary on the broader political or historical situation—a journalist, a member of parliament and a nonprofit director—the vast majority of questions to all Afghan and Afghan American sources were about their personal risk and situation, essentially providing “color” rather than expert opinion to the story.

Americans who were not Afghans comprised the remaining 51 sources, with no other nationalities represented. Of these US sources, 31 were non-Pentagon government officials, and 16 were current or former military, from the secretary of Defense to enlisted soldiers. The remainder were three parents of Americans killed in the war, and a non-Afghan US citizen evacuating from Afghanistan.

The partisan breakdown of US officials was 29 Democrats to eight Republicans, with President Joe Biden accounting for 14 of the Democratic sources, and other members of his administration accounting for 12.

No scholars or antiwar activists from either the US or Afghanistan were featured. Only two civil society leaders made appearances: the director of a nonprofit women’s organization in Afghanistan (8/16/21) and the president of a New York City veterans’ organization (8/16/21).

Despite the media’s emphasis on the plight of women in Afghanistan as a result of US withdrawal (FAIR.org, 8/23/21), women were rarely considered experts, or even voices worth hearing on this story: Only eight sources were female (11% of the total), two of whom were unnamed.

No independent defense of withdrawal

Biden, who played a key role in leading the country into the Iraq War (FAIR.org, 1/9/20), was essentially the strongest “antiwar” voice in the conversation. While he and his administration frequently defended their decision to uphold the withdrawal agreement, there were no other sources who did so.

Of the three non-administration Democratic sources, two encouraged an extension of the withdrawal deadline. All of the Republican sources criticized either the commitment to or the process of withdrawal. Most of the remaining sources were also critical of the process.

The final days of the occupation were without question chaotic. But by only featuring sources who emphasized the “stain” on the US’s “reputation” (Sen. Mitch McConnell, NBC, 8/16/21), or the idea that “the Americans left us behind, and left us to those people who are not human and cut our heads off in front of our families” (Abdul, ABC, 8/20/21), a discussion of the tragedy of the 20-year occupation itself was completely foreclosed.
Journalists’ continued jingoism

And corporate journalists themselves, who have often been the loudest cheerleaders for the Afghanistan War (e.g., FAIR.org, 9/17/01, 8/25/09, 1/31/19), continued their jingoism in the face of the withdrawal.

NBC‘s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel (8/16/21), for instance, offered an echo of—rather than a counterpoint to—McConnell and Abdul: “A 20-year war, the longest in US history, today ended a disgrace. The US leaving behind a country its citizens are too terrified to live in.”

Similarly, CBS‘s Norah O’Donnell (8/16/21) declared: “When America leaves, for many, so does the hope—the hope of freedom, the hope for human rights. And in its place comes the sheer terror of what’s next.” O’Donnell went on to detail the number of Americans killed and wounded, plus the unspecified “cost to America’s national security.”

Given that the withdrawal was an acknowledgement that after 20 years of occupation, the US had little control over what kind of country it would be “leaving behind,” it’s hard to imagine a withdrawal that Engel would not have considered a disgrace. But while he and O’Donnell highlighted the plight of “many” Afghans, neither made any mention of the number of Afghans killed and wounded in the 20-year war, which was at least 27 times higher than US casualties, according to the Costs of War project (9/1/21) at Brown University. That project estimated at least 46,000 Afghan civilians were killed, including more than 500 humanitarian workers and journalists, along with over 69,000 national military and police and more than 52,000 opposition fighters.

But these tallies—which do not even include the wounded, or excess (indirect) deaths—are almost certainly undercounts. New Yorker reporter Anand Gopal, who has spent years covering the war, including time in rural Afghanistan, believes that the available death tolls have “grossly undercounted” civilian casualties, as much of the ongoing conflict has taken place in outlying areas where deaths frequently go unrecorded (Democracy Now!, 9/16/21).

Gopal’s recent article (New Yorker, 9/13/21) on rural Afghan women recounted his investigation in the largely rural Helmand province, where he interviewed a random selection of 12 households, finding that each had lost, on average, 10 to 12 civilians to the war. While Taliban rule was not popular among those he interviewed, it was clearly preferred to US occupation, which had empowered even more ruthless warlords and ensured unending conflict, airstrikes and terror in the region.

This perspective was not to be found on US TV news coverage of the withdrawal, with its correspondents reporting from the airbase in Kabul, an Afghanistan a world apart from that known by the majority of the country’s population.

Rosy picture of occupation

NBC‘s Lester Holt (8/16/21), who visited Afghanistan in 2010 and 2012, offered a typical assessment, painting the occupation as a sensitive operation bringing Afghanistan out of darkness into a brighter future:

Traveling across Afghanistan a decade into the war [2012], it was hard not to feel some optimism, as if we were witness to a country emerging from darkness…. Through the war, epic American-led battles reclaim cities and villages from the Taliban. US commanders nurture trust among village elders believing in Afghanistan’s future. And now, in the chaos, we’re left to wonder how that future has been so rapidly rewritten with chapters from Afghanistan’s past.

Two weeks later, on the eve of the official withdrawal, CBS‘s O’Donnell (8/30/21) asked longtime Pentagon correspondent David Martin, “What does this moment mean?” Martin responded:

To me, it’s on all of us. All of us as American citizens. We as a country could not summon the will to outlast the Taliban. We sent more than 800,000 troops to fight in the war. The vast majority of them did everything we asked of them. They would have gone back for another 20 years if we had asked them. But the country grew tired of the war, and they elected political leaders, both Democratic and Republican, who wanted to end it. History will decide whether that was right or wrong. But either way, Norah, it’s on us.

O’Donnell herself (CBS, 8/26/21) painted a rosy picture of the occupation a few days prior :

This is what American troops were doing before terrorists struck today: feeding children, playing with kids, lending an arm to the elderly. The American military is the greatest in the world, not only because of its superior force, but because of its humanity—soldiers providing a helping hand, pulling Afghan infants to safety. This child kept warm by the uniform of a US soldier during her evacuation. This mother delivered her baby in the cargo bay of a C-17, naming the newborn Reach, after the call sign of the aircraft that rescued her.

For the last two decades, our mission has been about keeping us safe at home and improving the lives of Afghans. The 13 US service members who made the ultimate sacrifice today did not die in vain. One hundred thousand people have been evacuated because of their heroic actions. They answered the call and did what they were trained to do. A reminder of the high price of freedom. And God bless our US troops.

Obviously, the families of the thousands of Afghan civilians killed in US airstrikes—many of them children—or those victimized by rogue soldiers, might have a different perspective on the US military. Those voices, too, might have helped explain to journalists like Holt, and his viewers, why Afghanistan’s future looks the way it does, rather than the rosy, peaceful outcome those journalists seem to have expected the US to have supplied.

Veteran voices

The perspectives of US troops were occasionally presented, but segments featuring veterans’ voices seemed largely intended to reassure viewers that the 20-year war was worth it. “Some veterans are thinking, was it worth it? Were our sacrifices worth it?” O’Donnell (CBS, 8/18/21) said, followed immediately by a soundbite from a veteran: “It was worth it…. We gave Afghanistan two decades of freedom. It made the world a better place.”

Notably, post–9/11 veterans had soured on the war over the past decade. While a 2011 Pew poll found that 50% believed the Afghanistan War had been worth fighting, the outfit’s 2019 poll found that number had dropped to 38%—roughly on par with the general public. Afghanistan veterans were more likely than the general public to support the withdrawal—58% vs. 52%—even after it was well underway and the subject of widespread one-sidedly hostile media coverage (Morning Consult, 9/9/21).

© 2021 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

JULIE HOLLAR is the managing editor of FAIR's magazine, Extra!. Her work received an award from Project Censored in 2005, and she has been interviewed by such media outlets as the L.A. Times, Agence France-Presse and the San Francisco Chronicle. A graduate of Rice University, she has written for the Texas Observer and coordinated communications and activism at the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. Hollar also co-directed the 2006 documentary Boy I Am and was previously active in the Paper Tiger Television collective.

Silver-enhanced disinfectant has long-lasting effects against covid-19

MINING.COM Staff Writer | September 24, 2021

Spraying disinfectant. (Reference image from, Public Domain Pictures).

Researchers at the University of Central Florida are using an engineered nanostructure called cerium oxide modified with small amounts of silver to produce a disinfectant that can continuously kill viruses on a surface for up to seven days.


Cerium oxide is known for its regenerative antioxidant properties. Thus, this development could be a powerful weapon against covid-19 and other emerging pathogenic viruses.

The disinfectant is being created at UCF in partnership with Kismet Technologies, whose founder, Christina Drake, said she was inspired to develop it after seeing a worker at a grocery store spraying disinfectant on a refrigerator handle, then wiping off the spray immediately.

THE CERIUM OXIDE NANOPARTICLES ARE MODIFIED WITH SMALL AMOUNTS OF SILVER TO MAKE THEM MORE POTENT AGAINST PATHOGENS

“Initially, my thought was to develop a fast-acting disinfectant,” Drake said in a media statement. “But we spoke to consumers —like doctors and dentists— to find out what they really wanted from a disinfectant. What mattered the most to them was something long-lasting that would continue to disinfect high-touch areas like door handles and floors long after application.”

The cerium oxide nano-particle engineered disinfectant she came up with together with a team at UCF, is already potent but its properties increase with the added traces of silver.

“It works both chemically and mechanically,” said Sudipta Seal, nanosciences expert and co-author of the study. “The nanoparticles emit electrons that oxidize the virus, rendering it inactive. Mechanically, they also attach themselves to the virus and rupture the surface almost like popping a balloon.”

According to Seal and Drake, most disinfecting wipes or sprays will disinfect a surface within three to six minutes of application but have no residual effects. This means surfaces need to be wiped down repeatedly to stay clean. The nanoparticle formulation, however, maintains its ability to inactivate microbes and continues to disinfect a surface for up to seven days after a single application.

In its present formulation, the disinfectant has shown antiviral activity against seven different viruses, including coronavirus and rhinovirus. It also proved effective against a wide range of other viruses with different structures and complexities which — the researchers say — may make it a highly effective tool against other new emerging viruses.

The product is also free of harmful chemicals. However, more research is needed before it can go to market. This is why the next phase of the study will look at how the disinfectant performs outside of the lab in real-world applications. That work will look at how the disinfectant is affected by external factors such as temperature or sunlight.

To make this final step, the team is in talks with a local hospital network in whose facilities they would like to test the product.