Edelman CEO on letter to Congress: ‘We need gun safety’
 2nd Amendment ‘is just kind of an excuse for delaying’

Adriana Belmonte
·Senior Editor
Mon, June 20, 2022

The recent wave of mass shootings across the country has renewed partisan debates over gun control and the scope of the Second Amendment, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Edelman CEO Richard Edelman was one of 200 U.S. CEOs recently signed a letter demanding that Congress take action on gun safety in the form of new legislation.

"This is 10 years after Sandy Hook, and status quo just won't do," Edelman recently said on Yahoo Finance Live (video above). "Somehow, falling back on the rights of citizens to bear arms is just kind of an excuse for delaying what is inevitably in the interests of the communities."

The corporate leaders — including those of Lyft, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and Unilever — called the gun violence epidemic “a public health crisis," according to Axios.

People gather at Riverfront Park for the May Day Second Amendment rally in Salem, Oregon, U.S., May 1, 2021. REUTERS/Alisha Jucevic

"All of this points to a clear need for action: the Senate must take urgent action to pass bold gun safety legislation as soon as possible in order to avoid more death and injury," the letter stated.

A few days after Edelman spoke, the Senate reached an agreement for gun-related measures aimed at preventing future shootings akin to what recently happened in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas. However, the specific language of any potential legislation has yet to be written.

A majority of Americans (59%) support prioritizing legislation to control gun violence versus 35% who believe it's more important to protect gun rights, according to a recent Marist Poll.
'I believe in the Second Amendment'

Edelman stressed that he and his fellow chief executives are not seeking to ban all weapons.

“To be clear, what [the letter] said was nothing specific,” Edelman said. “We want something like a red flag law, or we want some limitation on age, or we want something that limits high-capacity ammunition — all of these should be on the table. It’s up to Congress to make the specifics. But we need gun safety.”

He added that “I believe in the Second Amendment, but I want to be sure that guns are used appropriately.”

Current proposals being floated include expanding background checks, expanding red flag laws, and raising the minimum age to buy an assault rifle to 21. Republican opposition is expected, though, as many are instead pushing for legislation to address mental health issues.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks at a rally demanding gun control legislation, June 8, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Finding a middle ground

While Edelman has previously been vocal about corporate leaders finding a balance between activism and appeasing stakeholders, he said this letter was about messaging to employees and elected leaders.

“I thought it was interesting the group of CEOs who did sign on,” Edelman said. “It was a mix of tech companies, younger companies, clothing companies, consumer products companies, some service companies like my own. It's a pretty unanimous kind of approach. And corporate America is saying, come on, Senate, do your job. It's time. Find a middle ground. Even if we have to settle for less than optimal from some sides or other — get to legislation.”

According to Edelman’s 2022 Trust Barometer, “more than 8 in 10 respondents want CEOs to be the face of change, leading on policy, not on politics.”

Edelman's Trust Barometer shows that CEOs are expected to inform policy, not politics. (Chart: Edelman)

For Edelman, signing a public letter calling for gun legislation does exactly that.

“Now, there can be others who are CEOs who contact their [congresspeople] or senators personally, make contributions personally — that's a perfectly plausible approach,” Edelman said. “I'm not saying that every company should use its platform to advance societal issues writ big, whether it's abortion, voting rights, or gun control. But if you are, as a citizen, convinced that this is the right thing, at least as a CEO contact your legislator and say, it's time to pass this legislation. Do it privately. That's fine too.”

The question for CEOs, he added, amounts to: “Is it the right thing to do as a public advocate, which I did yesterday on signing on to the letter, or is it better to do privately with your congressman and senator? That, again, is a perfectly plausible approach if this is going to upset your workforce or your consumer base.”

Adriana Belmonte is a reporter and editor covering politics and health care policy for Yahoo Finance. You can follow her on Twitter @adrianambells and reach her at adriana@yahoofinance.com

Russia’s World War II Invasion of Finland Eerily Mirrors Ukraine


Virginia Cowles
Mon, June 20, 20222

Geopix/Alamy Stock Photo

The war in Finland had started about three weeks before. When the headlines announced that Helsinki had been bombed I thought it would be another Poland—that the country would be obliterated so quickly there would be little chance of getting there before it was over. Then the papers began recording the amazing feats of the Finns; incredible though it seemed, the Russian “steam-roller” was being held in check.

I made my arrangements to go to Helsinki and left a few days after the New Year’s party. Maureen had a fortune-teller that night, and when he read my hand he said, “You are going on a long trip.” I was impressed until he added, “You will be surrounded by lights, gaiety, and laughter.”

I found none of those things.

It was a strange feeling flying from one war to another. The transition was a gradual one. When you took off from the aerodrome “somewhere in England” and flew over the North Sea in a plane with the windows frosted over so you couldn’t see out, it was very much World War No. 2. It was still World War No. 2 at Amsterdam and Copenhagen; but at Malmo, a port in southern Sweden, the issue began to get shaky. When you asked for the latest war news, the answer was, “Which?” And by the time you reached Stockholm there was no longer any doubt: “The war” meant Molotov cocktails and Soviet bombers.

The Jews Who Fought for Hitler: ‘We Did Not Help the Germans. We Had a Common Enemy’

Stockholm was in a state of tension. The papers carried advertisements calling for volunteers, the restaurants were filled with women canvassing for funds, and the hotels decorated with posters saying, “Defend Sweden by Helping Finland Now.” The war on the Western Front was as remote as China. I stayed there only twenty-four hours; besides a general impression of excitement and confusion I chiefly remember how cold I was. I was wearing a thick suit, fur-lined boots and a sheepskin coat, but the biting wind penetrated my bones. I had a suitcase filled with sweaters, woolen underwear, woolen socks, a ski suit, and a windbreaker. I put on everything except the ski suit and tried not to think what it would be like when I got to the Arctic Circle.

I took a trip along the coast to Hanko. Here I saw for the first time what continuous and relentless bombing was like. The deep quiet of the snow-bound countryside was broken by the wail of sirens five or six times a day as wave after wave of Soviet bombers—sometimes totaling as many as five hundred—came across the Gulf of Finland from their bases in Estonia, only twenty minutes away. All along the coast I passed through villages and towns which had been bombed and machine-gunned; in Hanko, the Finnish port which the Soviets demanded in their ultimatum, 20 buildings had been hit, and when I arrived, 10 were still burning.

It is difficult to describe indiscriminate aerial warfare against a civilian population in a country with a temperature 30 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. But if you can visualize farm girls stumbling through snow for the uncertain safety of their cellars; bombs falling on frozen villages unprotected by a single anti-aircraft gun; men standing helplessly in front of blazing buildings with no apparatus with which to fight the fires, and others desperately trying to salvage their belongings from burning wreckage—if you can visualize these things and picture even the children in remote hamlets wearing white covers over their coats as camouflage against low-flying Russian machine-gunners—you can get some idea of what this war was like.

The roads were littered with mattresses, chairs, and household articles that the soldiers had salvaged from the fire. The charred framework of the houses stood out blackly against the snow, but there were no curious pedestrians to inspect the damage, for icy winds from the sea swept through the streets. I have never felt such cold. A 20-year-old army lieutenant detailed to show us through the town forgot to pull down one of his ear tabs, and a few minutes later his ear went dead white. One of the Swedish journalists shouted at him, and he quickly rubbed it with snow. Half frozen, we finally stumbled into a corner café. The proprietor brought us hot meat sandwiches and coffee. While he was serving us, he informed us cheerfully that the top floor of the house was on fire. It had been struck by an incendiary bomb two hours before. His sons were fighting it, and he was confident everything would soon be under control. Somehow it was an odd experience to be sipping coffee in a burning building; also somewhat of a contradiction trying to get warm in a house that was on fire.

The young Finnish lieutenant had spent considerable time in America and spoke English fluently. He was an engineer in ordinary life, and now his job was to detonate unexploded bombs. He told us he had heard only that morning that his house, some distance away, had been bombed and completely destroyed. Fortunately, he had sent his wife and children away the previous week. Apart from a few reserved remarks he did not discuss the war. It was only when we left and wished him good luck that he said, “It will take a miracle to save us, but perhaps a miracle will happen.” Then, almost beneath his breath, “It must happen.” This boy was typical of many Finns with whom we talked. Although they were aware they couldn’t hold out indefinitely in such an unequal struggle, they clung to a stubborn faith that some event, unforeseen though it was, would save them from final destruction.

If you happened to be lunching at the Hotel Torni in Helsinki when the air-raid sirens sounded, you could climb up on the roof and watch the city crawl into its shell. Between the jumble of ice-covered roofs, you saw the people running for cover, the snow trucks pulling up by the roadside, and the police officers taking their positions on the street corners. Soon there was a silence so ominous that you could hear a door bang many blocks away.

The Hotel Kämp was the capital’s war-time center. When I arrived late at night it was deserted. But when I went downstairs the following morning, I found it overflowing with a noisy conglomeration of people; there were Finnish soldiers, women volunteers, politicians, and foreign journalists and photographers of a dozen different nationalities.

Out of the general confusion I managed to find Webb Miller of the United Press and had lunch with him. He had just returned from the Mannerheim Line and was filled with admiration for the Finnish soldiers. “They’re the damnedest fighters I’ve ever seen. They don’t seem to be afraid of anything. And talk about improvisation—they invent their weapons as they go along. They’ve got a new trick which is to tie a mine to the end of a string, then hide in a ditch until one of the Russian tanks comes along and jerk it across the road. I talked with a soldier who’d accounted for three 30-ton tanks this way!”

I pressed Webb with questions about the war and he told me the only way to understand what was happening was to keep in mind that two wars were taking place. The first war was the regular trench warfare, based on Western Front methods, being fought behind the Mannerheim defenses on the Karelian Isthmus; the second war was the guerrilla fighting waged through the forests on all the other fronts in Finland. In the trench war, the Russian attack on the Mannerheim Line had been repulsed; and in the guerrilla war, not only had the Russian thrusts been halted, but the Finns, by brilliant strategy and ferocious courage, had succeeded in wiping out entire divisions.

When at last we reached a rather primitive hotel in the small town of Kajaani, the proprietress looked at us in bewilderment, as though we were part of a traveling circus. Soon, I think she decided a lunatic asylum was more likely, for during the next forty-eight hours her telephone rang with calls from New York, Amsterdam. and Copenhagen, and everybody sat up all night typing out endless stories. Besides Harold Denny and myself, there was Walter Kerr of the Herald Tribune, Edward Ward of the BBC, Desmond Tighe of Reuter’s, and Ebbe Munck, a Danish journalist.

Kajaani served as GHQ for the Central Command. There in the slender waistline of Finland, some of the fiercest battles of the war were taking place. During the previous seven weeks, over a hundred thousand Russian troops had crossed the frontier, in repeated attempts to cut Finland in two. But the Finns had repulsed the onslaughts with some of the most spectacular fighting in history; they had annihilated entire divisions and hurled back others 30 and 40 miles to the border from where they started.

To understand how they did it, you must picture a country of thick-snow-covered forests and ice-bound roads. You must visualize heavily armed ski patrols sliding like ghosts through the woods; creeping behind the enemy lines and cutting their communications until entire battalions were isolated, then falling on them in furious surprise attacks. In this part of Finland skis outmaneuvered tanks, sleds competed with lorries, and knives even challenged rifles.

The evening we arrived in Kajaani we dined with General Tuompo, the brilliant 50-year-old ex-journalist general, who had only begun his military career 10 or 12 years previously and who, before the Finnish war was over, took a toll of nearly 85,000 Russian lives. He arranged for us to visit a front-line position on the Russian–Finnish frontier, where we saw the patrols at work and had our first taste of Soviet artillery fire. We started off with the idea of, perhaps, accompanying one of the Finnish border patrols on a quick jaunt into Russia and back. Not that any of us imagined the frozen Russian landscape would prove interesting, but we all thought it would be fun to step into the Soviet Union without the formality of getting a visa.

Accompanied by a Finnish army lieutenant, we left at four o’clock in the morning, hoping to arrive at the front before dawn. But the roads were so slippery our car skidded into the ditch three times, delaying us considerably; it gave us a small idea of what the mechanized Russian units were up against. We approached the village of Suomussalmi just as dawn was breaking, and here I witnessed the most ghastly spectacle I have ever seen.

It was in this sector that the Finns, a few weeks previously, had annihilated two Russian divisions of approximately 30,000 men. The road along which we drove was still littered with frozen Russian corpses, and the forests on either side had become known as “Dead Man’s Land.” Perhaps it was the beauty of the morning that made the terrible Russian debacle all the more ghastly when we came upon it. The rising sun had drenched the snow-covered forests, their trees like lace valentines, with a strange pink light that seemed to glow for miles. The landscape was marred only by the charred framework of a house; then an overturned truck and two battered tanks. Then we turned a bend in the road and came upon the full horror of the scene. For four miles the road and forests were strewn with the bodies of men and horses; with wrecked tanks, field kitchens, trucks, gun carriages, maps, books, and articles of clothing. The corpses were frozen as hard as petrified wood and the color of the skin was mahogany. Some of the bodies were piled on top of each other like a heap of rubbish, covered only by a merciful blanket of snow; others were sprawled against the trees in grotesque attitudes.

All were frozen in the positions in which they had died. I saw one with his hands clasped to a wound in his stomach; another struggling to open the collar of his coat; and a third pathetically clasping a cheap landscape drawing, done in bright, childish colors, which had probably been a prized possession that he had tried to save when he fled into the woods. They were everywhere, hundreds and hundreds of grotesque wooden corpses; in the ditches, under the trees, and even in dugouts beneath the snow where they had tried to escape from the fury of the attack. I learned, with a shock, that they had been members of the 44th Division—the same division that just a year ago I had seen swinging along the country roads in the Ukraine.

How had the Finnish Army, with a force of scarcely more than 300,000 men, been able so far to stem the sweep of the Russian tide? I think it was due first to a free people fighting, with a courage never surpassed, against an Asiatic despotism for their homes, their liberties, and their lives; second, to the brilliant strategy of the Finnish military leaders; third, to the natural obstacles of the terrain which was broken by 70,000 lakes and three-quarters covered with forests; fourth, to Soviet blunders.

From a military point of view, the Russian onslaught will be studied as one of the most fantastic campaigns in history. All through the north the Russian High Command ignored the elementary necessity of keeping open its lines of communication. Thousands of Russian soldiers were sent into the wilds of Finland to be isolated from their bases and swallowed up by the forests. This extraordinary stupidity was hard to understand. The only explanation was that Russia had reckoned on a blitzkrieg lasting only a few days and had organized the campaign accordingly. The first divisions had been equipped with an enormous amount of propaganda, banners and pennants, which they had expected to distribute among a vanquished people; and in the north, a division entered with a brass band, actually expecting to be welcomed by the people it had been sent to “liberate.” The reason the Kremlin was so grossly misinformed as to the political stamina of Finland may have been due to the fact that Soviet observers were afraid to reveal the true state of affairs for fear of being shot as saboteurs.

For days I was haunted by the scene of those frozen, twisted bodies of the 44th Division. But the story of this division (one of those, incidentally, which invaded Poland in September) was typical of the whole blundering strategy for which the dictatorship of the proletariat now paid freely with the lives of the proletariat. It had crossed into Finland on Dec. 30 to relieve the 163rd Division, which was cut off, without supplies, near the small village of Suomussalmi. It marched 20 miles along a hard, snow-packed road cut through the heart of the forest, but was unable to join forces with the other, six miles away, across a roadless country. The Finns succeeded in first routing the 163rd, then turned their attention to the 44th; they cut off its supplies, and five days later attacked and annihilated the entire division.

Before we left Kajaani, one of the Finnish press officers took us to an internment camp at Pelso, where we heard a version of the battle from a high-ranking officer of the 44th Division, who had been captured by the Finns. The officer was a clean-shaven man of middle age who had served with the Red Army for 22 years. The Finnish warden requested that we withhold his name and rank, and informed the prisoner he was not obliged to answer any questions unless he wished.

The officer, however, gave an account of the battle which dovetailed completely with the Finnish version. He said the division was cut off on Jan. 2 and was without food until the final debacle on Jan. 7. The only supplies they received were six bags of hard tack dropped by plane. He told us that on Jan. 2 several of the officers begged the commanding general, Vinogradov, to retreat, but the latter replied it was impossible without an order from the Kremlin. And the order came too late.

The officer made three points of interest: He declared that the army had been misinformed as to Finnish resistance, many of the leaders actually believing they were entering to liberate Finnish people, that the army was badly organized for a severe campaign, and that the Russian troops, superstitious by nature, were particularly unsuited to the Finnish terrain as they were mortally afraid of the dark forests.

When I questioned him regarding the commissar system, he replied evasively that the commissars were necessary to infuse the soldiers with the proper spirit. I asked what he thought the final outcome of the war would be, and he hesitated; it was only when the warden bade him give an honest opinion that he replied he felt the Soviet Union, with its preponderance of men and material, was bound to conquer in the end.

Out of the 44th Division of 18,000 men there were only a few hundred survivors. We went through the jail and talked with them, accompanied by the warden and a Russian interpreter. In the first room there was a group of 30 or 40 dressed in their brown tunic uniforms and high felt boots. Many had frozen hands and feet, wrapped in bandages; but compared to their comrades, lying in heaps along the roadside, they were lucky.

When I questioned them about the war, they replied that they had been mobilized to repel a Finnish invasion of Russia. Some of them said they now realized they had been grossly misinformed, but I was astounded to find that many of them were still unaware of the fact that they had been captured on Finnish territory; they thought the battle of Suomussalmi had been fought “somewhere in the North of Russia.”

When we questioned them about general conditions in Russia, a small, wiry little man with a black beard became the self-appointed spokesman of the group by silencing his comrades with menacing looks. With typical Slav cunning, he answered the questions in a manner which he thought best likely to please. He denounced the Soviet Union with such an exaggerated emphasis and paid the Finns compliments of so lavish a nature that his replies were obviously worthless.

The second room into which I was taken was filled with Russian lorry drivers who had been in the Army Service Corps attached to the 44th Division. Most of them, I discovered, had never had military training of any kind; they were merely truck drivers picked up off the streets of Kiev. They spoke bitterly of the fact that they had been mobilised and, pointing to one of the group, said, “And look at Feodor. He is over 40 years of age with a wife and many children.” Feodor seemed pleased to have the spotlight turned on him and nodded his head emphatically, declaring that, indeed, he was 42 years old and had never heard the sound of a gun until he found himself driving a supply truck on the Suomussalmi front.

The most amazing story of all, however, was from the Russian nurse with whom I talked. This 23-year-old girl, the only woman prisoner in Finland, was captured when the Finns routed the 163rd Division. She was a girl of medium size, with broad Slavic features and eyes which were filled with sadness. She wore a wool dress provided for her by the Finns; her only other clothes were the man’s army uniform she had been wearing when captured.

Faber and Faber

A few months before, she had been living quietly in Leningrad with her husband and small child; then she received a mobilization order. Thinking it was only for the autumn maneuvers, she was not particularly worried. In November, however, she was attached to the 163rd Division and a month later forced to cross into Finland. Although miserable and frightened, she was sent, with two other nurses, to a front-line first-aid post. The other nurses were wounded and removed to a field hospital behind the lines; when the retreat came, the girl was unable to get back to the base and for twenty-four hours wandered through the woods with a Russian doctor. The pair were finally picked up by a Finnish patrol on the shores of a lake.

The bodies of the other two nurses were later found by the Finns in the field hospital—an old farmhouse—alongside the corpses of hundreds of soldiers. Ebbe Munck, who had visited this hospital four days after the retreat, told me it was a ghastly sight. The yard at the back of the house was piled with naked bodies; when patients had died, the Russian doctors had simply thrown the corpses out of the window to make way for newcomers. Inside, hundreds of wounded men had died in their beds; when the order to retreat came, they had been abandoned. Ebbe said a man had even been left, half cut open, on the operating table.

When the Finnish warden heard this story, he remarked bitterly, “And that’s the civilization they want to bring to Finland.”

From the book LOOKING FOR TROUBLE: The Classic Memoir of a Trailblazing War Correspondent by Virginia Cowles, Foreword by Christina Lamb. Copyright © 1941 by Virginia Cowles. To be published on Aug. 9, 2022 by Modern Library, an imprint of Random House, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.

RED STATES WANT TO DESTROY TRU BLUE AMERICA

Former chief justice: Is the United States headed toward a two-state solution? | Opinion

John Broderick
Sun, June 19, 2022

Unorthodox times may require unprecedented actions. I fear that time may have arrived in America, as painful as it is to acknowledge.

Watching our democracy and its cherished values free-fall dramatically into disrepair, distrust, and dysfunction during President Donald Trump’s time in office, culminating in an insurrection on the U.S. Capitol that he helped organize and encourage, it would be foolish to see those dark days as somehow behind us.

Sadly, tens of millions of our fellow citizens embraced those cringe-worthy days as “making America great again.” Bridging that divisive chasm as “one nation under God” may no longer be possible or even advisable.

President Joe Biden is out of central casting for normal, thoughtful, and experienced leadership that allows him to intelligently tackle and discuss the vexing challenges we face at home and abroad after four years of chaos and confusion created by the norm-breaking and law-breaking Trump administration. But truth, competence and inclusion have apparently fallen out of favor these days.

White nationalist demonstrators clash with a counter demonstrator as he throws a newspaper box at the entrance to Lee Park in Charlottesville, Va., Saturday, Aug. 12, 2017. Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and police dressed in riot gear ordered people to disperse after chaotic violent clashes between white nationalists and counter protestors. 

(AP Photo/Steve Helber) (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Former President Trump, in all his bombast and disinformation, remains the odds-on favorite to get the Republican nomination in 2024. Apparently under current Republican standards, Trump, despite his four years of careening, reactive, fear-filled, anti-government government is seen by many as the logical answer to our nation’s growing challenges.

Indeed, he is seen by many as the only answer. The BIG LIE and the many kooky conspiracy theories it spawned are still very much alive and thriving. It was once said that “truth will set you free.” Republicans, with few exceptions, have now unsubscribed to that maxim.

Truth, it seems, is now the first victim in the face of inconvenient facts. What in the world has become of our country and those who purport to lead it? Is this really who we have become?

America in all its greatness cannot survive the centrifugal forces of self-destruction loosed and growing across our land. We have become incapable it appears to address pressing national problems like climate change, voter suppression, assault rifles on our streets, kids being gunned down in our schools, the dangerous rise of white nationalism and antisemitism, and the self-confident smugness of growing ignorance across a host of national issues.

American values and common ties that once proudly cemented our diverse nation are constantly being undercut by those who would turn back the clock on American progress and continue to create false-flag culture wars that turn Americans against each other.

John Broderick

Increasingly I don’t recognize my country and its growing tolerance of intolerance and its fear of the truth. What disturbs me most is my nagging belief that we have already become “two nations under God” and that without a shot being fired we might need to make that a physical reality: one nation blue and the other red.

One of those new countries (like the one I grew up in) would constantly, albeit imperfectly, strive to address the real needs of its people, understand, harness and promote its diversity and cherish its democratic values while ever-trying to become “a more perfect union” and the other could salute aggregated power, stifle dissent, declare martial law to quell protesters, build walls at its borders, rewrite history to suit its needs, disregard realities, overturn election results on false claims of voter fraud, disenfranchise women, cut taxes for the rich, arm all its citizens and ignore the global leadership responsibilities of a great nation.

Something needs to change and soon or a two-state solution for America may be exactly where we’re headed. Even more unsettling is that a two-state solution may be the only answer to America’s woes. I pray I’m wrong.

John T. Broderick Jr., former chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, is the founder of the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership and Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law.

This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Former chief justice: Are we ready for two-state solution? | Opinion

Here’s What the Insecure Insurrectionists Don’t Get About America


Evan Thies
Mon, June 20, 2022

Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

Watching the Jan. 6 committee’s new footage once again showing the violent glee of America’s would-be coup-makers more than a year later, I flashed back to a thought I had on the day of the insurrection attempt, when we first saw the barbarians wearing and waving American flags breaching the gates and attempting to depose the American government.

The traitors hate other Americans. That is how they justify their violence. A series of lies pushed at them or internalized over their life experiences had separated them from the reality that this nation is governed by stewards selected by their countrymen, and the reality that American democracy isn’t endangered by our representatives but rather depends on them to maintain it.

My question for these rioters who cosplayed as a militia: Why do you care so much about how other Americans choose to live?

Why do you care if some men wear women’s clothes? If another state—not even your own—wants to prevent people from walking around with guns? If Black people want to protest?

Don’t you have better things to do? Isn’t there a game on? All this unnecessary anger seems exhausting.

July 4 will be the 127th anniversary of the poem America the Beautiful, often referred to as our national hymn. Most Americans could sing you the first stanza about amber waves of grain and purple mountains majesty. But most Americans—and most insurrectionists—could not recite the end of the third stanza: “Till selfish gain no longer stain, the banner of the free.”

America was not actually built on unlimited individual freedom, as a shocking number of Americans seem to believe it is these days. The foundation of our nation, the bedrock of its multi-century success, is the philosophy of democratic liberalism: the government will not interfere with your pursuit of happiness unless your pursuit interferes with that of other people.

Yet American freedom has been diluted, corrupted and repackaged into hyper-individualism—substituting a social poison for the antidote to strife. The salesmen peddling this snake oil are selling the opposite of what our founders wanted. They are selling the idea that your own freedom is more important than that of your neighbors.

The insecure insurrectionists swilling that toxic “medicine” tried on Jan. 6, and are still trying now, to force it down the throat of the vast majority of Americans. They are willing to undo our nation to enforce their minority rule. They are tearing at civility and comity like a toddler ripping off its shirt in a crying fit, unaware or uninterested in their own unhappiness that others also have a right to happiness.

Instead of sharing the bountiful “fruited plains” of America the Beautiful, they want to inflict the all-against-all landscape Daniel Plainview memorably described in There Will Be Blood: “I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people. I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone. I see the worst in people. I don’t need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I’ve built my hatreds up over the years, little by little…”

The law this mad minority wants to impose would not only make Americans less safe but in doing so also infringe on our right to happiness. For instance, a national right to carry a firearm will obviously endanger the rights of millions of Americans. The lack of an assault weapons ban already does—and not just because it’s led to the murder of innocents. The fact that children now fear being shot to death in school is a direct infringement on their right to happiness, and that of their parents. One cannot be scared and happy simultaneously.

At the same time, the insurrectionists are not just trying to change the rules of our country, but also its referees. Years of methodical work to install ideological justices has put the Supreme Court on the precipice of reversing laws on abortion and guns that act as sentinels of the liberalism our founders built. And they are empowering local officials to suppress voting rights, shifting us from Constitutional democracy to autocracy of the mob.

That is the true coup. Americans will always have disagreements, even moral impasses—that is why we have duly elected and appointed officials to act as intermediaries to step in and tell us when my rights run into yours. When we remove the refs, it’s game over.

As a New Yorker, who is surrounded by and inundated by all kinds of people and cultures all of the time, I just do not understand how America got here. I go to a Polish church named after an Italian saint with an Indian priest that celebrates masses in Spanish. It’s great.

The insurrectionists should take a lesson from New York City: judge everyone, disrespect no one. Save your energy for things that matter, like getting up early for the good fresh rolls or complaining about the trash pick-up.

Have a beer. Watch the game. Grumble to your spouse. And leave our laws, our country and our civilization alone. Enjoy July 4 and your freedom to be an intolerant idiot. Sing America the Beautiful. It was written by Katharine Lee Bates, a feminist from Massachusetts.

Civil war in the US is unlikely because grievance doesn't necessarily translate directly into violence


Ore Koren, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Indiana University

THE CONVERSATION
Sun, June 19, 2022

Will the U.S. be torn apart by civil war? Paul Sancya/AP photos

The potential for violent extremism in America to erupt into full-fledged conflict across the country is a common topic of discussion nowadays.

A 2021 FBI report highlights an increasing risk of violence against government institutions, private organizations and individuals. The possible perpetrators: primarily “lone wolves,” but potentially also militias and other organized groups such as animal activists, anti-abortionists and white supremacists.

Claims that America is at the greatest risk of civil war since, well, the Civil War, recently received additional support from some experts in the field of political science.

But civil wars are rare events.

Before the 2020 election, I analyzed the risk of a so-called “Second American Civil War” that some speculated might ignite on or around Election Day. I concluded the risk was very low, while also emphasizing the uncertainty of the times.

Despite the ugly Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, and anti-racism protests of the past few years, some of which included rioting, violent confrontation, and property destruction, my analysis has held, and I remain unconvinced that America is likely to descend into civil war in the near future.

Before proceeding, I want to stress that, as a scholar who studies civil conflict, I discuss the manifestations of violence here not on the basis of their underlying political ideologies but in relation to empirical definitions of different types of political violence.
Grievance doesn’t translate into violence

Researchers usually define civil wars based on a certain threshold of combatant deaths, often 1,000 or more.

In 2020, for example, only eight conflicts crossed that threshold worldwide. They happened in countries – including Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Yemen – experiencing rampant poverty and underdevelopment, nondemocratic or dysfunctional political institutions, and a long history of conflict along ethnic and religious lines.

When trying to assess the likelihood of civil war, researchers first look at whether people are willing to engage in violence. Willingness is often attributed to anger and grievances over inequality or political marginalization.

Individuals or groups may have grievances with specific state or national policies, or with other groups. As their anger grows, these people may not only use aggressive and demeaning language, but also become more accepting of the idea of using violence.

Anger and grievances are probably the most frequently highlighted issues in the mainstream media, and especially in social media outlets. Studies of social media outlets have found that their algorithms are designed to amplify anger to appeal to wider groups.

Aggrieved people, however, exist almost everywhere, even in the world’s happiest countries. Feeling aggrieved and even using harsh and violent rhetoric does not mean a person is willing to take up arms against the government or one’s fellow citizens.
Risks to joining a rebellion

But even if they are fully willing, in almost every case, civil war will not happen unless these very angry people have the opportunity to organize and use violence on a large scale.

Joining a rebellion is extremely risky. You can die or be severely wounded. Your chances of winning are low. If you don’t win, even if you survive unscathed, you still risk prosecution and social alienation. You may lose your job, your savings and even your home and put your family at risk.

It doesn’t matter how angry you are, these considerations are usually prohibitive.

All these calculations are part of what economists call “opportunity costs.” Opportunity costs basically measure how much you would have to potentially give up if you were to engage in a given activity, such as rebellion.

In most countries afflicted by civil war, poverty, economic downturn and even food insecurity mean that these costs are relatively low. An unemployed farm laborer in rural Mozambique has, from an economic perspective at least, less to lose from joining an extremist insurgency than, say, Robert Scott Palmer, owner of a cleaning and restoration company from Largo, Florida.

Apparently willing to risk his livelihood by using violence against police during the Jan. 6 riot, Palmer was thwarted by other factors that are highly relevant in determining the potential for a full-fledged rebellion – the government’s capacity to punish and deter violence, and the opportunity, or lack of opportunity, for dissidents to organize and mobilize effectively enough to start a war.

For example, people who want to organize and rebel against the government will find it easier to do in remote areas where the government cannot know or reach them. Tora Bora – the cave complex in the mountain of eastern Afghanistan – is an example of such a place. Insurgents can hide and train there, practically unknown to, and untouchable by, Afghanistan’s military, which generally lacks the capabilities and capacity of its American counterpart.

The high levels of American policing and intelligence capacity mean that insurgency opportunities are rare in the U.S. Individuals who organize, arm themselves and decide to act against the government risk being detected and thwarted before they can become real threats.

Moreover, because of the low urban density of the U.S., even if such rebels are successful in organizing – in rural Alaska, for example – they will be unable to reach, let alone conquer, big cities or threaten American sovereignty in significant ways.
‘Intensified domestic terrorism’


These low opportunities suggest that civil war in America is still unlikely. But this does not preclude the occurrence of other forms of less intense violence. Concerns about increased violent extremism in the United States recently led the U.S. Justice Department to establish a new domestic terrorism group.

It is possible we might see a rise in the number of organized domestic terror attacks – along the lines of the British experience during its conflict with the Provisional Irish Republican Army or the U.S. experience with the Weather Underground during the 1960s and 1970s.

More likely is an increase in so-called “lone wolf” attacks, such as the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church Shooting, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shootings or the 2010 Austin suicide attack on a four-story building that housed an IRS field office. These may become more prevalent because of the spread of violent messages on social media and the “gamification” of violence, for instance via competitive point-scoring detected by the FBI among violent individuals.

Because they often involve one individual, “lone wolf” attacks are harder to identify and prevent, which increases the opportunity for individuals to engage in violence. But the costs of doing so remain high.
Start at the top

What can be done to reduce the risk of violence?

A well-functioning and effective government security organization combined with a vibrant economy lowers conflict opportunity. But taking aim at factors that make people willing to engage in violence might be another effective strategy.

This could start from the top.

The risk of radicalization is the highest when government leaders themselves attack government institutions to achieve short-term political goals.

Politicians and activists can disagree, but if they also continue to reaffirm their trust in the American political and legal systems, which are still among the world’s best in terms of ensuring equal political participation, personal freedoms and economic prosperity, that could go a long way toward discouraging willingness to engage in anti-government or other types of political violence.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Ore Koren, Indiana University.

As chemical fertilizer shortages persist, peecycling – the process of recycling human urine – could increase the yield of nutrient-rich crops.

Isabella Zavarise

Sun, June 19, 2022

Human urine could be a safer and less-polluting alternative to chemical fertilizer's.

EVARISTO SA/AFP

• Fertilizer shortages caused by the Ukrainian war are driving up global food prices.

• A researcher in France said urine is a nutrient-rich alternative and less polluting than synthetic fertilizers.

• A non-profit in Vermont, the Rich Earth Institute has a flagship urine-recycling initiative in Brattleboro.

Researchers say human urine – or peecycling – could be a liquid gold alternative to chemical fertilizers.

Fabien Esculier, a researcher at the OCAPI research program in France, told Euro News that urine is a nutrient-rich alternative filled with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Esculier said human waste is less polluting than synthetic fertilizers, which contain ammonia.

The need to find alternative sources for fertilizer has become urgent as chemical fertilizer shortages from the Ukrainian war threaten countries globally. According to analysts at Rabobank, Russia exports nearly 20% of the world's nitrogen fertilizers and – combined with Belarus – 40% of the world's exported potassium. Because of Western sanctions in response to Russia's actions, many of the world's farmers have been cut off.

A non-profit in Vermont, the Rich Earth Institute, has been working on alternative waste management options for over a decade and has a flagship urine-recycling initiative. The Institute has a research division that studies how urine can be used as a fertilizer to grow crops. It also offers community members the chance to rent urine-collecting portable toilets for public events.

In a video produced by researchers at the University of Michigan about peecycling, Abe Noe-Hays, a co-founder of the Institute, said using urine as fertilizer is a better approach in comparison to synthetic fertilizer because it's sustainably produced. "There's no doubt that urine can be a safe fertilizer for growing any kind of crop," he said.

One area of research the non-profit has been looking into is the effect of pharmaceuticals in urine and whether that would negatively impact crop growth. In a study conducted from 2014 to 2020, the team found that while there are some pharmaceuticals detectable in crop tissue, the levels are extremely small.

The New York Times reported the organization collects the urine of around 200 local volunteers to be used for research on a number of farms in the area.

"We're in a moment where chemical fertilizer has more than doubled in price and is really representing a part of our system that is way out of our control," Noah Hoskins, who uses the urine in hayfields at the Bunker Farm in Dummerston, where he raises various animals such as cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys, told The Times.

He added that he sees "strong results from the urine" and wishes the institute could provide more pee.

Millions of years ago, the megalodon ruled the oceans – why did it disappear?


Michael Heithaus, Executive Dean of the College of Arts, 

Sciences & Education and Professor of Biological Sciences, Florida International University

 THE CONVERSATION
Mon, June 20, 2022


Roaming the ancient seas eons ago, the megalodon shark eviscerated its prey with jaws that were 10 feet wide. Warpaintcobra/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.


When did the megalodon shark go extinct, and why? – Landon, age 10

Imagine traveling back in time and observing the oceans of 5 million years ago.

As you stand on an ancient shoreline, you see several small whales in the distance, gliding along the surface of an ancient sea.

Suddenly, and without warning, an enormous creature erupts out of the depths.

With its massive jaws, the monster crushes one of the whales and drags it down into the deep. Large chunks of the body are ripped off and swallowed whole. The rest of the whales scatter.

You have just witnessed mealtime for megalodon – formally known as Otodus megalodon – the largest shark ever.

About the megalodon

As a scientist who studies sharks and other ocean species, I am fascinated by the awesome marine predators that have appeared and disappeared through the eons.

That includes huge swimming reptiles like ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and the mosasaurs. These incredible predators lived during the time of the dinosaurs; megalodon would not appear for another 50 million years.

But when it did arrive on the scene, about 15 million to 20 million years ago, the megalodon must have been an incredible sight.

A fully grown individual weighed about 50 metric tons – that’s more than 110,000 pounds (50,000 kilograms) – and was 50 to 60 feet long (15 to 18 meters). This animal was longer than a school bus and as heavy as a railroad car!

Its jaws were up to 10 feet (3 meters) wide, the teeth up to 7 inches (17.8 centimeters) long and the bite force was 40,000 pounds per square inch (2,800 kilograms per square centimeter).

Not surprisingly, megalodons ate big prey. Scientists know this because they’ve found chips of megalodon teeth embedded in the bones of large marine animals. On the menu, along with whales: large fish, seals, sea lions, dolphins and other sharks.

Are scientists sure megalodon is extinct?

Internet rumors persist that modern-day megalodons exist – that they still swim around in today’s oceans.

But that’s not true. Megalodons are extinct. They died out about 3.5 million years ago.

And scientists know this because, once again, they looked at the teeth. All sharks – including megalodons – produce and ultimately lose tens of thousands of teeth throughout their lives.

That means lots of those lost megalodon teeth are around as fossils. Some are found at the bottom of the ocean; others washed up on shore.

But nobody has ever found a megalodon tooth that’s less than 3.5 million years old. That’s one of the reasons scientists believe megalodon went extinct then.

What’s more, megalodons spent much of their time relatively close to shore, a place where they easily found prey.

So if megalodons still existed, people would certainly have seen them. They were way too big to miss; we would have lots of photographs and videos.

Why megalodon disappeared

It probably wasn’t one single thing that led to the extinction of this amazing megapredator, but a complex mix of challenges.

First, the climate dramatically changed. Global water temperature dropped; that reduced the area where megalodon, a warm-water shark, could thrive.

Second, because of the changing climate, entire species that megalodon preyed upon vanished forever.

At the same time, competitors helped push megalodon to extinction – that includes the great white shark. Even though they were only one-third the size of megalodons, the great whites probably ate some of the same prey.

Then there were killer sperm whales, a now-extinct type of sperm whale. They grew as large as megalodon and had even bigger teeth. They were also warmblooded; that meant they enjoyed an expanded habitat, because living in cold waters wasn’t a problem.

Killer sperm whales probably traveled in groups, so they had an advantage when encountering a megalodon, which probably hunted alone.

The cooling seas, the disappearance of prey and the competition – it was all too much for the megalodon.

And that’s why you’ll never find a modern-day megalodon tooth.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Michael Heithaus, Florida International University.

Read more:

Making a megalodon: the evolving science behind estimating the size of the largest ever killer shark


Giant ancient sharks had enormous babies that ate their siblings in the womb

 

AMNESTY INTERATIONAL

 

Highlighting issues affecting Indigenous and LGBTQ2S

 communities  

Wedzin Kwa - "the blue and green river" - in Wet'suwet'en yintah.
Image credit: Michael Toledano.    

June 1st marked the beginning of Indigenous History Month* and Pride Month**, a time for members of these communities to celebrate their accomplishments and cultures. It is also one of the many opportunities for us to learn more about their histories and to support the continued advocacy of their rights.  

This month, Amnesty International has curated a series of guest essays directly from the perspectives of community activists and leaders of Indigenous-led and queer-led organizations to highlight various human rights issues affecting both the LGBTQ2S and Indigenous communities, such as the current barriers to justice for Two Spirit, trans, and gender non-conforming individuals; the challenges of displacement for LGBTQI+ Afghans; and the continued systemic barriers towards ending violence against Indigenous women and girls.

Conversations about missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls*** cannot be separated from the 231 Calls for Justice in the 2019 National Inquiry Final Report, which included the demand for “a world within which First Nations, Inuit, and Métis families can raise their children with the same safety, security, and human rights that non-Indigenous families do, along with full respect for the Indigenous and human rights of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis families.” Despite the legal obligation for governments to fully implement the Calls for Justice, this demand still has not yet been fully realized. 

One of the core themes explored within the Report is upholding the agency and expertise of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Our guest essay series is guided by the intent to centre their perspectives and knowledge. For National Indigenous Peoples Day, we are pleased to share two new essays, Epimotew Tastawayik Niso Askiya - Walking in Two Worlds written by Rachel Wuttunee who shares her personal and professional insights as an Indigenous Community Planner; and Industry, Police and MMIWG2S in Wet’suwet’en Yintah, by Jennifer Wickham, who writes on the gendered impacts of resource development and the actions of the RCMP in the Wet'suwet'en territory.

This past month, we have been grateful to support the visibility of organizations like JusticeTrans, Rainbow Railroad, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada and invite you to support their current campaigns, Safe Way Out and the Faceless Dolls Project.

The final essay in our series is about the lived experiences of queer Muslims and the intersections of Islamophobia and homophobia, and will be released on our blog and shared on our Twitter and Instagram accounts on June 29th.

We remain grateful for all opportunities to foster dialogue, awareness and action.

Miigwech, Nakummek. Misiyh. Thank you.

Habibah Haque
Gender Rights Campaigner
Amnesty International Canada 

*Featured in this email's graphic, the Progress Pride flag was developed in 2018 by non-binary American artist and designer Daniel Quasar. The flag includes black and brown stripes to represent LGBTQ2S communities of colour, along with the colours pink, light blue and white, which are used on the Transgender Pride Flag. 

**Bridget Tolley, from Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation in Quebec, beaded the eagle earrings featured in this email's graphic. She runs Families of Sisters in Spirit, a volunteer-run, grassroots initiative supporting the loved ones of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and Two Spirit people across Canada.

***This image depicts Indigenous women who are honouring and paying tribute to Missing and Murdered Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit people, and was generously provided by NWAC.