NATURAL CAPITALI$M

This year's Earth Overshoot Day falls on July 28

PR Newswire

OAKLAND, Calif., June 4, 2022

The Power of Possibility web platform launches today to highlight many proven solutions to build resource security and combat climate change.

OAKLAND, Calif., June 4, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Earth Overshoot Day 2022 lands on July 28, earlier than last year. Over 50 years of global overshoot have led to a world where aggravated drought and food insecurity are compounded by unseasonably warm temperatures. As the date indicates, humanity continues to widen its annual ecological deficit two years after the pandemic-induced resource-use reductions exceptionally pushed the date back temporarily by 24 days.

"Between the pandemic, wilder weather patterns, and the resurgence or intensification of wars on several continents leading to massive food insecurity, the importance of fostering one's resource security to support one's economic prosperity is becoming ever more critical for cities, countries, and business entities," said Global Footprint Network President Mathis Wackernagel.

Many effective and economically beneficial solutions already exist today to reverse ecological overshoot and support biological regeneration. Opportunities stem from all sectors: commercially available technologies or services, local government's development strategies, national public policies, or best practices supported by civil society initiatives and academia. The Power of Possibility platform that launched today shows plenty of examples sorted by the five main pillars of intervention: healthy biosphere, energy, food, cities, and population.

For example, moving to smart grids and higher efficiency in our electric systems would #MoveTheDate 21 days. Reducing food waste by half would #MoveTheDate 13 days. Growing trees with other crops on the same land, also known as tree intercropping, would #MoveTheDate 2.1 days, among many others.

Each year, Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has used all the biological resources that Earth regenerates during the entire year. Humanity currently uses 75% more than what the planet's ecosystems can regenerate—or "1.75 Earths." From Earth Overshoot Day until the end of the year, humanity operates on ecological deficit spending. This deficit spending is currently the largest since the world entered into ecological overshoot in the early 1970s, according to the National Footprint & Biocapacity Accounts (NFA) based on UN datasets now produced by FoDaFo and York University.

Additional resources
The Power of Possibility
Press release in multiple languages
How Earth Overshoot Day 2022 was calculated
How to compare the date of Earth Overshoot Day to previous years
Ecological Footprint data for more than 200 countries and regions
Infographics and videos available for media
BLOG: 50 years since Stockholm

About Global Footprint Network

Global Footprint Network is an international sustainability organization that is helping the world live within the Earth's means and respond to climate change. Since 2003 we've engaged with more than 50 countries, 30 cities, and 70 global partners to deliver scientific insights that have driven high-impact policy and investment decisions. Together, we're creating a future where all of us can thrive within the limits of our one planet. www.footprintnetwork.org

STATEHOOD OR INDEPENDENCE

Puerto Ricans speak out on US territory's political status


FILE - The Puerto Rican flag flies in front of Puerto Rico's Capitol as in San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 29, 2015. A group of Democratic congress members, including the House majority leader, on Thursday, May 19, 2022, proposed a binding plebiscite to decide whether Puerto Rico should become a state or gain some sort of independnce. 

(AP Photo/Ricardo Arduengo, File) 

DÁNICA COTO
Sat, June 4, 2022

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Hundreds of Puerto Ricans crowded into a convention center Saturday where federal legislators held a public hearing to decide the future of the island’s political status as the U.S. territory struggles to recover from hurricanes, earthquakes and a deep economic crisis.

One by one, dozens of people ranging from politicians to retirees to young people leaned into a microphone and spoke against the island’s current territorial status, which recognizes its people as U.S. citizens but does not allow them to vote in presidential elections, denies them certain federal benefits and allows them one representative in Congress with limited voting powers.

The hearing comes two weeks after a group of Democratic congress members including the House majority leader and one Republican proposed what would be the first-ever binding plebiscite that would offer voters in Puerto Rico three options: statehood, independence or independence with free association, whose terms would be defined following negotiations.

Congress would have to accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state if voters so choose it, but the proposal is not expected to survive in the Senate, where Republicans have long opposed statehood.

“Everyone, even congress people themselves, know that the possibilities of this becoming law are minimal and maybe non-existent, but it doesn’t stop being important,” former Puerto Rico governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá told The Associated Press.

About an hour into the hearing, a small group of people including a former gubernatorial candidate who supports independence burst into the ballroom, pointed fingers at the panel of U.S. legislators and yelled, “120 years of colonialism!”

The majority of the audience booed the group and yelled at them to leave as U.S. lawmakers called for calm.

“Democracy is not always pretty, but it’s necessary,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, chairman of the U.S. House of Natural Resources Committee, which oversees affairs in U.S. territories.

The proposal of a binding plebiscite — a measure that has not yet been introduced in committee — has frustrated some on an island that already has held seven unilateral, nonbinding referendums on its political status, with no overwhelming majority emerging. The last referendum was held in November 2020, with 53% of votes for statehood and 47% against, with only a little more than half of registered voters participating.

Luis Herrero, a political consultant, said during the hearing that even if enough people support statehood, there are not enough votes in the Senate to make Puerto Rico a state: “Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Since 1898, Puerto Rican statehood has been a mirage, lip service to score cheap political points or to raise a few dollars for a campaign.”

Saturday's hearing comes amid ongoing discontent with Puerto Rico’s current political status, with the U.S. Supreme Court further angering many in April after upholding the differential treatment of residents of Puerto Rico. In an 8-1 vote, the court ruled that making Puerto Ricans ineligible for the Supplemental Security Income program, which offers benefits to blind, disabled and older Americans, did not unconstitutionally discriminate against them.

As a result, many of those who spoke at Saturday’s public hearing welcomed the proposed binding plebiscite.

“We finally see the light at the end of the tunnel,” said Víctor Pérez, a U.S. military veteran who lamented the current political status. “Even after all our service and sacrifice, we come back home and we are denied full voting rights and equality. ... We cannot vote for our president, our commander in chief, (but) they send us to war.”

Grijalva said the testimonies given Saturday will help him and other legislators revise the proposed measure, which he said is a way to make amends. He said he hopes it will go to the House floor by August. If eventually approved, it would be held on Nov. 5, 2023.

Acevedo, the former governor, said he hasn’t lost hope despite numerous attempts throughout the decades to change the political status of Puerto Rico, which became a U.S. territory in 1898 following the Spanish-American War.

“A solution to this problem of more than 120 years has to happen at some point,” he said. “When will conditions allow for it? That’s unpredictable.”

There were 200 kidnappings in Haiti in May, United Nations agency says


Odelyn Joseph/AP

Jacqueline Charles
Fri, June 3, 2022

Exactly one year after warring gangs shut down transportation links to the southern regions of Haiti, armed groups continue to restrict access to vulnerable communities in Port-au-Prince, forcing thousands of others from their homes on the eastern outskirts of the capital and creating travel problems in the north of the country, the United Nations said Friday.

At least 188 people have been killed and almost 17,000 people have been displaced from Port-au-Prince since April 24 by gangs, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said, citing data from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Humanitarian Rights and the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti.

He noted that among those killed were 96 suspected gang members. Despite efforts by police to fight armed gangs, kidnappings have continued unabated and access to violence-affected neighborhoods remains limited, leading to alarmingly high malnutrition rates among children in some capital neighborhoods.

“Incidents of kidnapping for ransom have increased dramatically with some 200 cases in Port-au-Prince, recorded in May alone,” he said. “U.N. partners have been unable to collect and deliver relief supplies due to lack of access to the port area.”

In the Cité Soleil neighborhood of the capital, malnutrition rates have risen dramatically, with 20% of children under the age of 5 suffering from not getting enough food.

“In response to the alarming numbers of malnourished children in Cité Soleil, community health workers are distributing packs of ready-to-use therapeutic food provided by UNICEF. More than 2,000 children have been assisted.”

Haiti’s instability should be high on Summit of the Americas agenda, Rubio urges

The U.N., Dujarric said, is relying more on grassroots organizations and non-governmental groups to provide services in difficult-to-reach areas of the city. Where possible, they are delivering hot meals and hygiene kits and other items. He also noted that this week marks one year since transport links to the south of Haiti were closed down by gangs after clashes erupted in the Martissant neighborhood at the southern entrance of Port-au-Prince.

The dire picture painted by the U.N. comes amid mounting concerns about the situation in Haiti, which is expected to be a focus of discussion among hemispheric leaders attending next week’s Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles. Hosted by the U.S., the event starts Monday and is expected to be attended by interim Haiti Prime Minister Ariel Henry.

‘Either you die or you succeed’: Haiti’s northwest coast spawns migration tide to Florida

In its latest report, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Humanitarian Rights noted that the situation remains highly volatile in Haiti.

Testimonies collected and cited by the office “describe extreme gang violence, including beheadings, mutilations and burning of bodies, as well as gang rapes, including of young children, used to terrorize and punish people living in areas controlled by rival gangs,” the report said.

Conservatives appalled by the ‘crazy’ were too silent for too long. Now, it’s too late | Opinion


Leonard Pitts Jr.
Fri, June 3, 2022

Where were you when we needed you?

That’s my blanket response to a persistent trickle of emails from readers who keep asking me to, in effect, stop using the word “conservative” when I mean “crazy.” “Or “fascist.” Or “mean.” Which is to say that these people, most of whom would consider themselves conservative, want me to stop using that word to describe the likes of Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ginni Thomas and other luminaries of the political right..

While “conservative” is, in fact, the descriptor self-chosen by Trump and his acolytes, these readers argue that those folks are anything but adherents to the ideas of small government, muscular foreign policy and minimum regulation by which conservatism has traditionally been defined. Rather, they are extremists who have essentially hijacked the word and bent it to their own uses. The readers are correct, as far as it goes.

There’s nothing traditionally “conservative” about scheming to overturn an election as Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence, has done. Or undermining an election as Georgia Rep. Greene has done. Or inciting an insurrection as Trump infamously did. Indeed, it’s no stretch to believe that architects of traditional conservatism like Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley would regard their ideological namesakes with contempt.

That said, I won’t be honoring my readers’ request. Here’s why:

There was a moment when every traditionally conservative voter, pundit and politician could have stood up against what conservatism has become, the rot it has inflicted. There was a time they might have even stopped it had enough of them simply spoken out. Almost none of them did.

We didn’t reach the current state of things overnight, after all. To the contrary, this has been a 30-year train wreck, a slow-motion disaster that mangled conservatism into the moral monstrosity it is today. And it’s not as if nobody saw it happening. What with Newt Gingrich’s hostage-taking approach to government and Fox’s truth-optional approach to news, it was pretty obvious.

Indeed, right-leaning pundits tacitly acknowledged the shift years ago when they began finding it necessary to use the term “thoughtful conservatives” to distinguish themselves from the demagogues and flame throwers increasingly populating their side. Yet “thoughtful conservatives” were nevertheless all too willing to make common cause with unthoughtful ones in exchange for the jolt of energy and enthusiasm the latter brought to the cause.

So they did nothing as alternate reality became the forwarding address of the movement.

As newly brazen racism and xenophobia became the heart of the movement.

As conspiracy became the voice of the movement.

As violence became the good right arm of the movement.

As Trump became the face of the movement.

They stood by and watched as the values they claimed to venerate were smeared in sludge and the name they used to brand themselves was snatched away like money by a playground bully. What it used to mean, folks, it means no more. The fringe became the mainstream. The game played the player. The tail wagged the dog.

Now, along comes that trickle of readers wanting me to know that the Trump cultists are not “real” conservatives. I’m afraid they won’t find me particularly sympathetic.

Yes, it’s a good argument.

But they’re making it to the wrong audience, about 30 years too late.

Pitts

To safely explore the solar system and beyond, spaceships need to go faster – nuclear-powered rockets may be the answer


Iain Boyd, Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder
Sat, June 4, 2022, THE CONVERSATION

Over the last 50 years, a lot has changed in rocketry. The fuel that powers spaceflight might finally be changing too.

  CSA-Printstock/DIgital Vision Vectors via Getty Images

With dreams of Mars on the minds of both NASA and Elon Musk, long-distance crewed missions through space are coming. But you might be surprised to learn that modern rockets don’t go all that much faster than the rockets of the past.

There are a lot of reasons that a faster spaceship is a better one, and nuclear-powered rockets are a way to do this. They offer many benefits over traditional fuel-burning rockets or modern solar-powered electric rockets, but there have been only eight U.S. space launches carrying nuclear reactors in the last 40 years.

However, in 2019 the laws regulating nuclear space flights changed and work has already begun on this next generation of rockets.

Why the need for speed?

The first step of a space journey involves the use of launch rockets to get a ship into orbit. These are the large fuel-burning engines people imagine when they think of rocket launches and are not likely to go away in the foreseeable future due to the constraints of gravity.

It is once a ship reaches space that things get interesting. To escape Earth’s gravity and reach deep space destinations, ships need additional acceleration. This is where nuclear systems come into play. If astronauts want to explore anything farther than the Moon and perhaps Mars, they are going to need to be going very very fast. Space is massive, and everything is far away.

There are two reasons faster rockets are better for long-distance space travel: safety and time.

Astronauts on a trip to Mars would be exposed to very high levels of radiation which can cause serious long-term health problems such as cancer and sterility. Radiation shielding can help, but it is extremely heavy, and the longer the mission, the more shielding is needed. A better way to reduce radiation exposure is to simply get where you are going quicker.

But human safety isn’t the only benefit. As space agencies probe farther out into space, it is important to get data from unmanned missions as soon as possible. It took Voyager-2 12 years just to reach Neptune, where it snapped some incredible photos as it flew by. If Voyager-2 had a faster propulsion system, astronomers could have had those photos and the information they contained years earlier.

Speed is good. But why are nuclear systems faster?

Systems of today

Once a ship has escaped Earth’s gravity, there are three important aspects to consider when comparing any propulsion system:

Thrust – how fast a system can accelerate a ship

Mass efficiency – how much thrust a system can produce for a given amount of fuel

Energy density – how much energy a given amount of fuel can produce

Today, the most common propulsion systems in use are chemical propulsion – that is, regular fuel-burning rockets – and solar-powered electric propulsion systems.

Chemical propulsion systems provide a lot of thrust, but chemical rockets aren’t particularly efficient, and rocket fuel isn’t that energy-dense. The Saturn V rocket that took astronauts to the Moon produced 35 million Newtons of force at liftoff and carried 950,000 gallons of fuel. While most of the fuel was used in getting the rocket into orbit, the limitations are apparent: It takes a lot of heavy fuel to get anywhere.

Electric propulsion systems generate thrust using electricity produced from solar panels. The most common way to do this is to use an electrical field to accelerate ions, such as in the Hall thruster. These devices are commonly used to power satellites and can have more than five times higher mass efficiency than chemical systems. But they produce much less thrust – about three Newtons, or only enough to accelerate a car from 0-60 mph in about two and a half hours. The energy source – the Sun – is essentially infinite but becomes less useful the farther away from the Sun the ship gets.

One of the reasons nuclear-powered rockets are promising is because they offer incredible energy density. The uranium fuel used in nuclear reactors has an energy density that is 4 million times higher than hydrazine, a typical chemical rocket propellant. It is much easier to get a small amount of uranium to space than hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel.

So what about thrust and mass efficiency?

Two options for nuclear

Engineers have designed two main types of nuclear systems for space travel.

The first is called nuclear thermal propulsion. These systems are very powerful and moderately efficient. They use a small nuclear fission reactor – similar to those found in nuclear submarines – to heat a gas, such as hydrogen, and that gas is then accelerated through a rocket nozzle to provide thrust. Engineers from NASA estimate that a mission to Mars powered by nuclear thermal propulsion would be 20%-25% shorter than a trip on a chemical-powered rocket.

Nuclear thermal propulsion systems are more than twice as efficient as chemical propulsion systems – meaning they generate twice as much thrust using the same amount of propellant mass – and can deliver 100,000 Newtons of thrust. That’s enough force to get a car from 0-60 mph in about a quarter of a second.

The second nuclear-based rocket system is called nuclear electric propulsion. No nuclear electric systems have been built yet, but the idea is to use a high-power fission reactor to generate electricity that would then power an electrical propulsion system like a Hall thruster. This would be very efficient, about three times better than a nuclear thermal propulsion system. Since the nuclear reactor could create a lot of power, many individual electric thrusters could be operated simultaneously to generate a good amount of thrust.

Nuclear electric systems would be the best choice for extremely long-range missions because they don’t require solar energy, have very high efficiency and can give relatively high thrust. But while nuclear electric rockets are extremely promising, there are still a lot of technical problems to solve before they are put into use.

Why aren’t there nuclear powered rockets yet?

Nuclear thermal propulsion systems have been studied since the 1960s but have not yet flown in space.

Regulations first imposed in the U.S. in the 1970s essentially required case-by-case examination and approval of any nuclear space project from multiple government agencies and explicit approval from the president. Along with a lack of funding for nuclear rocket system research, this environment prevented further improvement of nuclear reactors for use in space.

That all changed when the Trump administration issued a presidential memorandum in August 2019. While upholding the need to keep nuclear launches as safe as possible, the new directive allows for nuclear missions with lower amounts of nuclear material to skip the multi-agency approval process. Only the sponsoring agency, like NASA, for example, needs to certify that the mission meets safety recommendations. Larger nuclear missions would go through the same process as before.

Along with this revision of regulations, NASA received US0 million in the 2019 budget to develop nuclear thermal propulsion. DARPA is also developing a space nuclear thermal propulsion system to enable national security operations beyond Earth orbit.

After 60 years of stagnation, it’s possible a nuclear-powered rocket will be heading to space within a decade. This exciting achievement will usher in a new era of space exploration. People will go to Mars and science experiments will make new discoveries all across our solar system and beyond.


This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Iain Boyd, University of Colorado Boulder.

Read more:

Never mind SpaceX’s Falcon 9, where’s my Millennium Falcon?

How SpaceX lowered costs and reduced barriers to space

Mining the moon for rocket fuel to get us to Mars

Iain Boyd receives funding from the following sources, none of it is related to space propulsion: Office of Naval Research Lockheed-Martin Northrop-Grumman L3-Harris

Russia-Ukraine war has killed 'several thousand dolphins' and harmed the marine ecosystem, say Black Sea scientists

Bethany Dawson
Sat, June 4, 2022

A dolphin is seen in the Black Sea, Lazurne urban-type settlement, Kherson Region, southern Ukraine (September 22, 2020)Volodymyr Tarasov/ Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images

Scientists who study the Black Sea warn that dolphins are being killed in the Russia-Ukraine war.

One Ukrainian ecologist has said that "several thousands of dolphins have already died."

The Turkish Marine Research Foundation has said the war is causing a "crisis in biodiversity."

Scientists are reporting many dolphin deaths, with Putin's invasion of Ukraine blamed for the spike.

Dolphins are washing up on the coastline of the Black Sea (which borders Ukraine, Bulgaria, Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Romania, and Moldova), showing war-related injuries, including burn marks from bombs.

Ivan Rusev, research director at Ukraine's Tuzla Estuaries National Nature Park, has been documenting the 101 days of the war on his Facebook page, using his platform to raise awareness of the ecological effects of the invasion.

Writing on Facebook, Rusev explains how dolphins are washing up on shore with burns from bombs and landmines, internal injuries, and showing signs of not eating for days.

The ecologist states that the data collected by him and his team and other researchers around Europe show that "several thousand dolphins have already died."

"Barbarians kill not only civilized people but smart dolphins," Rusev wrote on Facebook.

Also raising the alarm on the mounting dolphin death toll is the Turkish Marine Research Foundation, which reported that the war is having "devastating effects" on the marine environment.

In a press release, the research foundation outlined the "crisis in biodiversity" caused by the war. It included the destruction of endangered red algae (which acts as a "living ground" for many marine species) and feeding grounds for fish — including dolphins — transformed into a maritime war zone.

The Russian missile cruiser Moskva sank on April 14 after it was struck by Ukrainian missiles.Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP

It also highlighted the danger of oil and gas leaking into the sea from sunken military ships.

Before the war, 100 scientists from a Conservation group for the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and contiguous Atlantic Sea surveyed marine life to determine the number of dolphins within these areas.


Their study found that over 253,000 healthy dolphins lived in the Black Sea, the New York Times reports, with this being a sign of a well-functioning ecological system.


With the war raging on and tampering efforts for data collection, it is unknown precisely how many of these quarter of a million dolphins will survive.

Biden Administration should be embracing refugees, not limiting their acceptance | Opinion


Mihir Ram
Sat, June 4, 2022

The Tennessean

The refugee crisis has long been a problem worldwide, and the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine has only worsened it. President Biden needs to help alleviate the crisis by accepting more refugees into the United States.

In the past decade, the global refugee population has more than doubled. Currently, there are estimated to be over 22.6 million refugees worldwide, and this number does not include the millions of new refugees coming from Ukraine.

Of these millions of people, only a small fraction of them are resettled, and an even smaller fraction are resettled into the United States. This seems like the case because the conversation about refugee admission into the United States always seems to create conflict.

More: What happened to Rafi Sherzad and his family after they fled Afghanistan? | Plazas

Refugee admission into the U.S. by the numbers

The president controls the refugee cap in the U.S. through a power officially known as Presidential Determination, and for the fiscal year of 2022 that cap was set to a total of 125,000 refugees.

Sarwar Hawez helps newly arrived Afghan refugees check in to a Motel in Nashville, Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2021.

This cap is quite the increase from the one set during the Trump administration, which was the lowest number in U.S. history at 18,000 refugees during the 2020 fiscal year.

However, the increase in cap size has not seen an increase in refugee admissions. Since 2017, there has only been one year, 2019, in which the cap was met, but that cap was quite low at only 30,000 refugees.

In the fiscal year of 2021, only 11,411 refugees were accepted with a cap of 62,500. Similarly, in the six months in which data has been collected for the 2022 fiscal year, the number of accepted refugees is only 8,758. The Biden administration needs to put in a greater effort towards accepting more refugees into the United States.

The argument for refugees

Despite all of the debate around refugee acceptance, studies have consistently concluded that refugees are a net-positive for the United States, no matter how you look at it.

At a press conference Wednesday, Nashville Deputy Mayor Brenda Haywood highlights the city's partnership with local faith-based nonprofits to welcome Afghan refugees in the city.

First, refugees do not pose a security risk to the U.S. All accepted refugees have undergone a vetting process from both the United Nations and the U.S. federal government that typically lasts anywhere from 18 to 24 months. So they are very unlikely to pose a risk.

Studies have also confirmed that refugees are not a risk and are less likely to commit crimes than natural-born U.S. citizens. Oftentimes, introducing refugees into communities lowers the crime rate.

Furthermore, refugees have been shown to be an economic positive. The amount of revenue a refugee provides to the U.S. is greater than the government costs of resettling and providing aid for the refugee in the long-term.

The U.S. is currently facing a labor shortage. Studies have shown that refugees do not steal jobs from the American worker, but rather they fill labor shortages, and in the long-term they create more jobs.

The United States needs refugees now more than ever, and we could look like heroes helping alleviate the refugee crisis as we solve our own problems.

Mihir Ram is a political science student at Vanderbilt University

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Refugee resettlement: Why we must embrace more newcomers in America

PRO-LIFE TILL BIRTH
Republicans Won't Renew Free School Meal Program Which Could Hurt Millions of Children

Murjani Rawls
Fri, June 3, 2022

A student picks up a free individually bagged lunch in the cafeteria during the first day of school at Stamford High School on September 08, 2020, in Stamford, Connecticut.

A pandemic program allowing waivers for schools to provide free breakfast and lunch to up to 10 million additional students is set to expire on June 30. Currently, Congress has not provided a solution to extend the program to the dismay of many advocated, Salon reports.

The waivers gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authority to lift regulatory obstacles to universal school meals, such as income-based eligibility requirements. With that new flexibility, millions of families were able to discard paperwork and red tape for kids to get fed. The National School Lunch program feeds 22.6 million school children daily.

However, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and other Republicans killed a temporary program extension in March – saying they did not see “pandemic-era flexibilities as necessary anymore.”

From Salon:
“There is no urgency and political appetite to even have this conversation,” Jillien Meier, director of the No Kid Hungry campaign, told Vox’s Rachel Cohen on Wednesday. “Frankly this is not a priority for Congress and the White House. People are really focused on having a ‘return to normal’... folks aren’t talking about it and they have no clue that this crisis is looming.

Some states around the country are taking measures into their own hands to extend the lunch program themselves. These efforts come with a high cost, given higher food prices, supply chain breaks, and staffing issues.

From Vox:
“Without them, schools will face financial penalties for not meeting federal nutrition requirements, even though they have no choice,” said Davis. “They will have fewer financial resources to meet higher prices for food and other goods, staffing, and transportation. Summer — already the hungriest time of year — will be particularly hard for kids when many summer sites will be unable to open.”

“Children in rural communities,” Davis added, “will face more barriers to accessing summer meals when important flexibilities like multiple meal pickup and delivery options disappear.”

It would only cost Congress $11 billion to reauthorize the program. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich) introduced the Support Kids Not Red Tape Act to extend the waivers, but only has support from all Senate Democrats and two lone Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.

Some representatives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) want a permanent solution. Last year, they introduced a bill to enact a permanent, universal, and nationwide free school meals program, guaranteeing free breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a snack to all school children, regardless of their family income. That proposal has not received a vote in the House or Senate.

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/06/disaster-for-millions-of-kids-looms-as.html

Mike Pompeo summoned by court to explain alleged US government plot to assassinate Julian Assange, say Spanish media reports

Alia Shoaib
Sat, June 4, 2022

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (L), WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (R).Jack Taylor/Getty Images (L), Leah Millis/Reuters (R).

Mike Pompeo has been summoned by a Spanish court to explain an alleged CIA plot to assassinate Julian Assange.

A court is probing whether a Spanish security firm spied on Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Pompeo is being asked to testify whether the US received information from the firm.

Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State under President Donald Trump, has been summoned by a Spanish court to explain an alleged US government plot to assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to ABC Spain.

The alleged plot was first revealed by Yahoo News in September, which reported that senior CIA and Trump administration officials discussed possibly kidnapping or killing Assange after being angered by Wikileaks' publication of sensitive CIA hacking tools.

The discussions took place "at the highest levels" of the Trump administration, a former senior counterintelligence official told the outlet, with officials even requesting "sketches" or "options" for how to assassinate Assange.

Pompeo has been called to appear in the Spanish court in connection with a probe into whether Spanish security firm UC Global spied on Assange while providing security for the Ecuadorian embassy in London, sources close to the case told ABC Spain.

Assange sought political asylum to live in the embassy for seven years before being ousted in 2019.

Spanish National High Court Judge Santiago Pedraz summoned Pompeo and former US counterintelligence official William Evanina as witnesses to explain the alleged assassination plot and whether they received information through the security firm.

Evanina allegedly previously confessed to having access to security camera footage and audio recordings from inside the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange's lawyers claimed in letters seen by Spanish outlet The Objective.

Aitor Martinez, a lawyer for Assange, previously claimed in court documents that the alleged spying plot "would have been orchestrated from the United States," Reuters reported.

Judge Pedraz agreed to summon Pompeo and Evanina at the urging of Assange's lawyers, the ABC Spain report says.

They have been asked to appear in the Spanish court in June and can testify via videoconference, according to the outlet.

Pompeo is yet to comment on the case and confirm whether he will appear in court.

Pompeo was the director of the CIA from 2017 to 2018 and then was appointed Trump's secretary of state in April 2018.

A Uvalde Mom Who Ran Into The School To Save Her Sons From The Shooting Spoke Out About How Police Tried To Stop Her



Steffi Cao
Sat, June 4, 2022

A Uvalde mom who says she was handcuffed by law enforcement while trying to rescue her sons from the school shooting, has claimed that authorities warned her not to speak to the media about her experience.

Angeli Gomez, a farmworker in Uvalde, spoke to CBS News on Thursday, describing how she was able to rush into Robb Elementary School and save her kids during the shooting that killed 19 children and two teachers, despite law enforcements’ attempts to stop her.

Gomez, who previously spoke to the Wall Street Journal about her experience, said she had just gone back to work after her children's graduation ceremony when she first received news about the shooting. She quickly drove 40 miles back to the school, but said that she was prevented from going inside.

“Right away, as soon as I parked my car, US Marshals started coming towards my car saying I wasn’t allowed to be parked there,” Gomez told CBS News. “He said, ‘We’re going to have to arrest you because you’re being very uncooperative,’ and I said, ‘Well, you’re going to have to arrest me because I’m going in there, and I’m telling you right now — I don’t see none of y’all in there.’”

Gomez alleged that the US Marshals handcuffed her to stop her from rushing toward the school.

"I told one of the officers, 'I don't need you to protect me. Get away from me. I don't need your protection. If anything, I need you to go in with me to go protect my kids,'" she told CBS News.

The US Marshals have previously denied handcuffing parents, telling WSJ that their deputy marshals “maintained order and peace in the midst of the grief-stricken community that was gathering around the school.”



CBS News also reported that Gomez, who is reportedly on probation for previous charges against her, claimed that she had received a call from “someone in law enforcement” telling her that if she kept talking to the media and sharing her story she might face some kind of violation for obstruction of justice.

According to CBS News, Gomez said she was able to speak out after a judge called her “brave” and told her that her probation would be shortened.

Uvalde police did not respond to requests for comment and BuzzFeed News could not independently verify Gomez’s account about the call and her probation.

Gomez said that she was able to convince local police to uncuff her, and as soon as she was free, she jumped over a fence and rushed into the building to grab her two sons, who are in the second and third grade, from inside. According to her account, police chased her while she ran towards the building.

Gomez claimed that she did not see officers inside the building while she was in there, but that she could hear gunshots coming from somewhere in the school. When she knocked on the door of her first son’s classroom, she recalled finding teachers and students hiding inside.

Gomez said the teacher asked her if they had time to get out and she replied, “Yeah you have time, I’m going to run and get my other son.’”

She said that authorities tried to escort her out of the building when she approached her other son’s classroom door, but that when she saw them opening the door, she ran back to get her child.

Gomez was captured on camera holding her sons’ hands while running out of the school.

“Nothing was being done,” she told CBS News. “If anything, [law enforcement] were being more aggressive on us parents that were willing to go in there.”

Several videos widely shared on social media showed authorities confronting desperate parents who were angrily asking why armed police officers were not rushing in to save their children during the shooting.

In one video, an officer who was seen pushing parents back, was asked by a parent why police weren’t trying to save their kids.

“Because I'm having to deal with you!" the officer replied.

The mishandling of the shooting by law enforcement has sparked national outcry after it was revealed that police did not enter the classroom to confront the shooter for more than an hour after the shooting began, and have reportedly ignored requests for follow-up interviews by Texas state investigators. The Justice Department has opened an investigation to review the police response to the attack after authorities admitted that mistakes were made.

Even as Gomez recounted being able to rescue her own children, she broke down in tears, thinking about how many other kids’ lives could have been saved if not for police inaction.

"They could have saved many more lives," Gomez said. "They could have gone into the classroom and maybe two or three would have been gone but they could have saved the whole, more, the whole class. They could have done something, gone through the window, sniped him through the window. Something, but nothing was being done."