'An inauspicious day': the landmines ruining Myanmar lives

Agence France-Presse
November 20, 2024

A Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) member looks at a Myanmar military unexploded ordnance in Mantong town, northern Shan State (STR/AFP)

It was an unlucky day in the Burmese calendar, farmer Yar Swe Kyin warned her husband in July, begging him not to go out to check on their crops.

Hours later he was dead, killed by one of the countless landmines laid by both sides in Myanmar's three brutal years of civil war.

In the evening, "I heard an explosion from the field," she told AFP at her home in the hills of northern Shan state.

"I knew he had gone to that area and I was worried."

She had urged her husband to stay home because the traditional Burmese calendar, which is guided by lunar cycles, planetary alignment and other factors, marked it out as inauspicious.

"He didn't listen to me," she said.


"Now, I only have a son and grandchild left."

Decades of sporadic conflict between the military and ethnic rebel groups have left Myanmar littered with deadly landmines.

That conflict has been turbocharged by the junta's 2021 coup, which birthed dozens of newer "People's Defence Forces" now battling to topple the military.


Landmines and other remnants of war claimed more victims in Myanmar than in any other country last year, according to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), with the Southeast Asian country overtaking war-ravaged Syria and Ukraine.

- 'Trees were spinning' -

At least 228 people -- more than four a week -- were killed by the devices and 770 more were wounded in Myanmar in 2023, it said in its latest report Wednesday.


In eastern Kayah state, a short journey to collect rice to feed his wife and children left farmer Hla Han crippled by a landmine, unable to work and fearing for his family's future.

He had returned home after junta troops had moved out from his village and stepped on a mine placed near the entrance to the local church.

"When I woke up I didn't know how I had fallen down and only got my senses back about a minute later," he told AFP.


"When I looked up, the sky and trees were spinning."

Now an amputee, the 52-year-old worries how to support his family of six who are already living precariously amidst Myanmar's civil war.

"After I lost my leg to the land mine, I can't work anymore. I only eat and sleep and sometimes visit friends -- that's all I can do," he said.


"My body is not the same anymore, my thoughts are not the same and I can't do anything I want to... I can eat like others, but I can't work like them."

His daughter Aye Mar said she had begged him not to go back into the village.

"When my father lost his leg, all of our family's hopes were gone," she said.


"I also don't have a job and I can't support him financially. I also feel I'm an irresponsible daughter."

- 'Nothing is the same' -

Myanmar is not a signatory to the United Nations convention that prohibits the use, stockpiling or development of anti-personnel mines.

The ICBL campaign group said there had been a "significant increase" in anti-personnel mine use by the military in recent years, including around infrastructure such as mobile phone towers and energy pipelines.


The church in Kayah state where Hla Han lost his leg is still standing but its facade is studded with bullet wounds.

A green tape runs alongside a nearby rural road, a rudimentary warning that the forest beyond it may be contaminated.

Some villagers had returned to their homes after the latest wave of fighting had moved on, said Aye Mar.


"But I don't dare to go and live in my house right now."

She and her father are just two of the more than three million people the United Nations says have been forced from their homes by fighting since the coup.

"Sometimes I think that it would have been better if one side gave up in the early stage of the war," she said.


But an end to the conflict looks far off, leaving Hla Han trying to come to terms with his fateful step.

"From that instant you are disabled and nothing is the same as before."

South Africa amended its research guidelines to allow for heritable human genome editing

The Conversation
November 20, 2024 

New genome editing technologies mean that the genetic modification of embryos is a scientific possibility, and laws governing its practice require extensive public consultation. (Shutterstock)

A little-noticed change to South Africa’s national health research guidelines, published in May of this year, has put the country on an ethical precipice. The newly added language appears to position the country as the first to explicitly permit the use of genome editing to create genetically modified children.

Heritable human genome editing has long been hotly contested, in large part because of its societal and eugenic implications. As experts on the global policy landscape who have observed the high stakes and ongoing controversies over this technology — one from an academic standpoint (Françoise Baylis) and one from public interest advocacy (Katie Hasson) — we find it surprising that South Africa plans to facilitate this type of research.

In November 2018, the media reported on a Chinese scientist who had created the world’s first gene-edited babies using CRISPR technology. He said his goal was to provide children with resistance to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. When his experiment became public knowledge, twin girls had already been born and a third child was born the following year.


The fate of these three children, and whether they have experienced any negative long-term consequences from the embryonic genome editing, remains a closely guarded secret.

Controversial research

Considerable criticism followed the original birth announcement. Some argued that genetically modifying embryos to alter the traits of future children and generations should never be done.




Genetically modifying embryos to alter the traits of future children and generations has immense societal impacts. (Shutterstock)

Many pointed out that the rationale in this case was medically unconvincing – and indeed that safe reproductive procedures to avoid transmitting genetic diseases are already in widespread use, belying the justification typically given for heritable human genome editing. Others condemned his secretive approach, as well as the absence of any robust public consultation, considered a prerequisite for embarking on such a socially consequential path.


In the immediate aftermath of the 2018 revelation, the organizing committee of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing joined the global uproar with a statement condemning this research.

At the same time, however, the committee called for a “responsible translational pathway” toward clinical research. Safety thresholds and “additional criteria” would have to be met, including: “independent oversight, a compelling medical need, an absence of reasonable alternatives, a plan for long-term follow-up, and attention to societal effects.”

Notably, the additional criteria no longer included the earlier standard of “broad societal consensus.”


Nobel laureate David Baltimore, chair of the organizing committee for the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, talks about the importance of public global dialogue on gene editing.
New criteria


Now, it appears that South Africa has amended its Ethics in Health Research Guidelines to explicitly envisage research that would result in the birth of gene-edited babies.

Section 4.3.2 of the guidelines on “Heritable Human Genome Editing” includes a few brief and rather vague paragraphs enumerating the following criteria: (a) scientific and medical justification; (b) transparency and informed consent; (c) stringent ethical oversight; (d) ongoing ethical evaluation and adaptation; (e) safety and efficacy; (f) long-term monitoring; and (g) legal compliance.

While these criteria seem to be in line with those laid out in the 2018 summit statement, they are far less stringent than the frameworks put forth in subsequent reports. This includes, for example, the World Health Organization’s report Human Genome Editing: Framework for Governance (co-authored by Françoise Baylis).

Alignment with the law

Further, there is a significant problem with the seemingly permissive stance on heritable human genome editing entrenched in these research guidelines. The guidelines clearly require the research to comply with all laws governing heritable human genome research. Yet, the law and the research guidelines in South Africa are not aligned, which entails a significant inhibition on any possible research.

This is because of a stipulation in section 57(1) of the South African National Health Act 2004 on the “Prohibition of reproductive cloning of human beings.” This stipulates that a “person may not manipulate any genetic material, including genetic material of human gametes, zygotes, or embryos… for the purpose of the reproductive cloning of a human being.”


When this act came into force in 2004, it was not yet possible to genetically modify human embryos and so it’s not surprising there’s no specific reference to this technology. Yet the statutory language is clearly wide enough to encompass it. The objection to the manipulation of human genetic material is therefore clear, and imports a prohibition on heritable human genome editing.
Ethical concerns

The question that concerns us is: why are South Africa’s ethical guidelines on research apparently pushing the envelope with heritable human genome editing?

In 2020, we published alongside our colleagues a global review of policies on research involving heritable human genome editing. At the time, we identified policy documents — legislation, regulations, guidelines, codes and international treaties — prohibiting heritable genome editing in more than 70 countries. We found no policy documents that explicitly permitted heritable human genome editing.


It’s easy to understand why some of South Africa’s ethicists might be disposed to clear the way for somatic human genome editing research. Recently, an effective treatment for sickle cell disease has been developed using genome editing technology. Many children die of this disease before the age of five and somatic genome editing — which does not involve the genetic modification of embryos — promises a cure.



Somatic genome editing may provide a cure for sickle cell disease. (Shutterstock)

Implications on future research

But that’s not what this is about. So, what is the interest in forging a path for research on heritable human genome editing, which involves the genetic modification of embryos and has implications for subsequent generations? And why the seemingly quiet modification of the guidelines?

How many people in South Africa are aware that they’ve just become the only country in the world with research guidelines that envisage accommodating a highly contested technology? Has careful attention been given to the myriad potential harms associated with this use of CRISPR technology, including harms to women, prospective parents, children, society and the gene pool?

Is it plausible that scientists from other countries, who are interested in this area of research, are patiently waiting in the wings to see whether the law in South Africa prohibiting the manipulation of human genetic material will be an insufficient impediment to creating genetically modified children? Should the research guidelines be amended to accord with the 2004 statutory prohibition?

Or if, instead, the law is brought into line with the guidelines, would the result be a wave of scientific tourism with labs moving to South Africa to take advantage of permissive research guidelines and laws?

We hope the questions we ask are alarmist, as now is the time to ask and answer these questions.

Katie Hasson, Associate Director at the Center for Genetics and Society, co-authored this article.

Françoise Baylis, Distinguished Research Professor, Emerita, Dalhousie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Texas State Board of Education signals support for Bible-infused curriculum

Jaden Edison,

 Texas Tribune
November 20, 2024 

Reading the Bible (Shutterstock)

A majority of the Texas State Board of Education signaled their support Tuesday for a state-authored curriculum under intense scrutiny in recent months for its heavy inclusion of biblical teachings.

Ahead of an official vote expected to happen Friday, eight of the 15 board members gave their preliminary approval to Bluebonnet Learning, the elementary school curriculum proposed by the Texas Education Agency earlier this year.

The state will have until late Wednesday to submit revisions in response to concerns raised by board members and the general public before the official vote takes place Friday. Board members reserve the right to change their votes.

The curriculum was designed with a cross-disciplinary approach that uses reading and language arts lessons to advance or cement concepts in other disciplines, such as history and social studies. Critics, which included religious studies experts, argue the curriculum’s lessons allude to Christianity more than any other religion, which they say could lead to the bullying and isolation of non-Christian students, undermine church-state separation and grant the state far-reaching control over how children learn about religion. They also questioned the accuracy of some lessons.

The curriculum’s defenders say that references to Christianity will provide students with a better understanding of the country’s history.

Texas school districts have the freedom to choose their own lesson plans. If the state-authored curriculum receives approval this week, the choice to adopt the materials will remain with districts. But the state will offer an incentive of $60 per student to districts that choose to adopt the lessons, which could appeal to some as schools struggle financially after several years without a significant raise in state funding.


Three Republicans — Evelyn Brooks, Patricia Hardy and Pam Little — joined the board’s four Democrats in opposition to the materials.

Leslie Recine — a Republican whom Gov. Greg Abbott appointed to temporarily fill the State Board of Education’s District 13 seat vacated by former member Aicha Davis, a Democrat who ran successfully for a Texas House seat earlier this year — voted for the curriculum. Abbott handpicked Recine, potentially a deciding vote on the materials, to fill the seat through the end of the year days before the general election, bypassing Democrat Tiffany Clark. A majority of District 13 residents voted this election for Clark to represent them on the board next year. She ran unopposed.

Board members who signaled their support for the curriculum said they believed the materials would help students improve their reading and understanding of the world. Members also said politics in no way influenced their vote and that they supported the materials because they believed it would best serve Texas children.


“In my view, these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy,” Houston Republican Will Hickman said. “And there's religious concepts like the Good Samaritan and the Golden Rule and Moses that all students should be exposed to.”

The proposed curriculum prompts teachers to relay the story of The Good Samaritan — a parable about loving everyone, including your enemies — to kindergarteners as an example of what it means to follow the Golden Rule. The story comes from the Bible, the lesson explains, and “was told by a man named Jesus” as part of his Sermon on the Mount, which included the phrase, “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Many other religions have their own version of the Golden Rule.

Brooks, one of the Republicans who opposed the materials Tuesday, said the Texas Education Agency is not a textbook publishing company and that treating it like such has created an uneven playing field for companies in the textbook industry. Brooks also said she has yet to see evidence showing the curriculum would improve student learning.


Hardy, a Republican who also opposed the materials, said she did so without regard for the religious references. She expressed concern about the curriculum’s age appropriateness and her belief that it does not align with state standards on reading and other subjects.

Meanwhile, some of the Democrats who voted against the curriculum said they worried the materials would inappropriately force Christianity on public schoolchildren. Others cited concerns about Texas violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits states from endorsing a particular religion.

“If this is the standard for students in Texas, then it needs to be exactly that,” said Staci Childs, a Houston Democrat. “It needs to be high quality, and it needs to be the standard, free of any establishment clause issues, free of any lies, and it needs to be accurate.”




More than 100 Texans signed up Monday to speak for and against the state-authored curriculum.

Courtnie Bagley, education director for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank that helped develop the curriculum, told board members that the Texas Education Agency has made every effort to respond to concerns from the public. She said rejecting the lessons would give other materials not owned by the state an unfair advantage.

“It would create a double standard, as Bluebonnet Learning has been held to a different and more stringent review process than other materials under consideration,” Bagley said.

Opponents argued that revisions did not go far enough, and some questioned whether the state’s intentions with crafting a curriculum that leans heavily on Christianity are political.

“I am a Christian, and I do believe that religion is a part of our culture, but our nation does not have a religion. We're unique in that,” said Mary Lowe, co-founder of Families Engaged for an Effective Education. “So I do not think that our school districts should imply or try to overtly impress to young impressionable children that the state does have a state religion.”

Education officials say references to Christianity will provide students with a better understanding of the country’s history, while other supporters have stated their belief that the use of religious references does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Legal experts note that recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority have eroded decades of precedent and made it unclear what state actions constitute a violation of the establishment clause.

State leaders also say the materials cover a broad range of faiths and only make references to religion when appropriate. Education Commissioner Mike Morath has said the materials are based on extensive cognitive science research and will help improve student outcomes. Of 10 people appointed to an advisory panel by the Texas Education Agency to ensure the materials are accurate, age-appropriate and free from bias, at least half of the members have a history of faith-based advocacy.

The Texas Tribune recently reported how parents, historians and educators have criticized the ways the materials address America’s history of racism, slavery and civil rights. In public input submitted in response to the curriculum and in interviews with the Tribune, they have said the materials strip key historical figures of their complexities and flaws while omitting certain context they say would offer children a more accurate understanding of the country’s past and present. Board member Rebecca Bell-Metereau, a San Marcos Democrat, and other Texans referenced the Tribune’s reporting during public testimony on Monday.

In response to those concerns, the Texas Education Agency has said the lessons will provide students with “a strong foundation” to understand more complex concepts as they reach later grades. State officials have also said those materials are written in an age-appropriate manner.

Disclosure: Texas Public Policy Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Texas offers Starr County ranch to Trump for mass deportation plans

Alejandro Serrano, 

Texas Tribune
November 20, 2024 

Donald Trump reacts as a scoreboard in the background displays "Trump 45" and "Trump 47", referring to Trump as the nation's 45th president and his bid to become the 47th president, during a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S. October 22, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

The Texas General Land Office is offering President-elect Donald Trump  a 1,400-acre Starr County ranch as a site to build detention centers for his promised mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a letter the office sent him Tuesday.

Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham said in the Tuesday letter that her office is “fully prepared” to enter an agreement with any federal agencies involved in deporting individuals from the country “to allow a facility to be built for the processing, detention, and coordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history.”

The state recently bought the land along the U.S.-Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley and announced plans to build a border wall on it. The previous owner had not let the state construct a wall there and had “actively blocked law enforcement from accessing the property,” according to the letter the GLO sent Trump.

A Trump campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

A cornerstone of Trump’s campaign was his pledge to clamp down on immigration by returning policies from his first term and deporting undocumented people en masse on a scale the country has not experienced in decades. Former aides — including some who are set to rejoin him — have described incorporating staging areas near the border to detain and deport people.

In an interview with Fox News posted Tuesday, Buckingham said she was “100% on board with the Trump administration's pledge to get these criminals out of our country.”

Buckingham had previously said she approved an easement within 24 hours of acquiring the Starr County land to let the Texas Facilities Commission, which is overseeing the state’s border wall construction, to begin building a wall. In the Fox interview, she said that move was followed by “brainstorming” with her team.

“We figured, hey, the Trump administration probably needs some deportation facilities because we've got a lot of these violent criminals that we need to round up and get the heck out of our country,” Buckingham said. She noted the land is mostly flat, “easy to build on,” accessible to international airports and near the Rio Grande.

“We're happy to make this offer and hope they take us up on it,” she added.

Trump’s vow to carry out mass deportations is certain to encounter logistical and legal challenges, like the ones that stifled promises from his first campaign once he assumed office.

However, Trump’s Cabinet picks indicate he is moving ahead in trying to carry out the deportations. He has selected Stephen Miller, an architect of the previous Trump administration’s border and immigration policy, to return as a top aide and has named Tom Homan, a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to be his “border czar.”

And Texas is poised to try to help him implement the policies. After Trump left office in 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott launched an unprecedented border enforcement operation that included building a military base in Eagle Pass and the deployment of thousands of Department of Public Safety troopers and state National Guard troops to the border.

CNN reported Saturday that Texas’ “border czar” — Michael Banks, who serves as a special adviser to Abbott — has been a part of behind-the-scenes discussions with Trump’s team about immigration initiatives.

Disclosure: The Texas General Land Office has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/19/texas-border-starr-county-ranch-trump-deportation/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Don't say his name - Trump is the Voldemort of G20 summit

Agence France-Presse
November 20, 2024 

A cardboard cutout of Donald Trump as Uncle Sam at a march in support of the Palestinian people in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ahead of the G20 Summit (Luis ROBAYO/AFP)

For world leaders and diplomats at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, US President-elect Donald Trump was the man who cannot be named.

Almost nobody would mention the next occupant of the White House directly, even as his impending return to power hung over the meeting.

Leaders would instead talk in coded terms about the "next administration," "turbulence" and "change."

But it was clear what they meant, even as they sought to avoid falling out with the man who will be at work in the Oval Office from January 20.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who expended considerable effort trying to win over Trump during the American's first term, made veiled comments at the summit about tariffs and climate.

"Any fragmentation or fracturing of the international order by tariff policies which are carried out by the strongest simply leads all others not to respect it," Macron said -- without referring to Trump by name.


Trump has pledged to impose sweeping tariffs on imports into the United States, including on goods from Europe and as much as 60 percent on goods from China.

Macron also referred to "fragile" climate policies, with Trump threatening to take the United States back out of the Paris accords that are aimed at reducing global warming.

- Swerve -


It was the same whenever leaders spoke, as they seemingly treated Trump like the villain Voldemort in the Harry Potter films and books, whose name the heroes cannot mention.

UN chief Antonio Guterres swerved any head-on mention of Trump when he talked of the "very important" U.S. role on climate and how he was "deeply confident" that America would "move in the direction of climate action."

The only places Trump's face could be seen were on placards held by protesters outside the summit venue -- and on the social media feed of Argentina's right-wing, Trump-supporting president.


Javier Milei reposted a meme contrasting a photo of himself meeting the smiling Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort after the election, with another of Milei beside a grim-faced Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Behind the scenes, officials were circumspect.

One European diplomat said that the continent had "worked with him before" and would do so again.

- 'Decisions' -

US officials insisted time and again that Trump's name did not come up in outgoing President Joe Biden's final meetings with his counterparts, or even that it was a major consideration.

"I don’t think we are expecting some major reorientation of how other countries look at the world or look at their relationship with us," Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer told reporters.

"They will make those decisions for themselves based on their interests, in January."

Perhaps it was partly out of deference to Biden, making his swan song on the international stage.

Biden himself skirted round the issue -- in fact he has long resisted mentioning the name of the man he often calls "my predecessor," who is now his successor.

The 81-year-old Biden tried to shore up his legacy while his fellow summiteers looked over his shoulder.

As Biden remarked that it was his final summit, he called for leaders to "keep going -- and I’m sure you will, regardless of my urging or not."

On the final day, Biden seemed to realize that the return of he-who-cannot-be named was nigh.

"I have much more to say," Biden said, before stopping himself and adding: "I'm not going to."

G20

Biden becomes first US president to visit Amazon as Trump signals climate policy shift


Joe Biden became the first US president to visit the Amazon on Sunday, flying over drought-hit regions and fire-damaged rainforests, in a bid to highlight climate change's toll on the vital ecosystem. His visit to Latin America comes as the incoming Trump administration signals reduced US climate commitments.


Issued on: 18/11/2024 
By: NEWS WIRES
Video by: FRANCE 24

00:54

US President Joe Biden walks with Henrique Pereira, Director of the National Institute for Research in the Amazon, as he tours the Museu da Amazonia in Manaus, Brazil on November 17, 2024. © Leah Millis, Reuters




Joe Biden toured the drought-shrunken waters of the Amazon River’s greatest tributary Sunday as the first sitting American president to set foot in the legendary rainforest, while the incoming Trump administration seems poised to scale back the US commitment to combating climate change.

The massive Amazon region, which is about the size of Australia, stores huge amounts of the world’s carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that drives climate change when it's released into the atmosphere. But development is rapidly depleting the world's largest tropical rainforest, and rivers are drying up.

Flying over a stretch of the Amazon in a helicopter, Biden saw severe erosion, ships grounded in the Negro River tributary, and fire damage. He also passed over a wildlife refuge and the expansive waters where the Negro River joins the Amazon. He was joined by Carlos Nobre, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist and expert on how climate change is harming the Amazon.

Biden met indigenous leaders — introducing his daughter and granddaughter to them — and visited a museum at the gateway to the Amazon as he looks to highlight his commitment to the preservation of the region. Three indigenous women shook maracas as part of a welcoming ceremony.

Read more  Macron and Lula announce €1 billion investment plan for the Amazon

“I’m proud to become the first sitting president to visit the Amazon,” Biden said before he signing a US proclamation designating Nov. 17 as International Conservation Day.

His administration announced plans last year for a $500 million contribution to the Amazon Fund, the most significant international cooperation effort to preserve the rainforest, primarily financed by Norway.

So far, the US government said it has provided $50 million, and the White House announced Sunday an additional $50 million contribution to the fund.

“It’s significant for a sitting president to visit the Amazon. ... This shows a personal commitment from the president,” said Suely Araújo, former head of the Brazilian environmental protection agency and public policy coordinator with the nonprofit Climate Observatory. “That said, we can’t expect concrete results from this visit."

She doubts that a “single penny” will go to the Amazon Fund once Donald Trump is back in the White House.

The incoming Trump administration is highly unlikely to prioritize the Amazon or anything related to climate change. The Republican president-elect already said he would again pull out of the Paris agreement, a global pact forged to avert the threat of catastrophic climate change, after Biden recommitted to the accord.

Deforestation fell in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest by 30.6 percent in the year-to-year period beginning in August 2023, according to the National Institute for Space Research (INPE). © Mauro Pimentel, AFP

Trump has cast climate change as a “hoax” and said he will eliminate energy efficiency regulations by the Biden administration.

Still, the Biden White House on Sunday announced a series of new efforts aimed at bolstering the Amazon and stemming the impact of climate change.

Among the actions is the launch of a finance coalition that looks to spur at least $10 billion in public and private investment for land restoration and eco-friendly economic projects by 2030, and a $37.5 million loan to an organization to support the large-scale planting of native tree species on degraded grasslands in Brazil.

Biden also plans to highlight that the US is on track to reach $11 billion in spending on international climate financing in 2024, a sixfold increase from when he started his term.

The Amazon is home to Indigenous communities and 10% of Earth’s biodiversity. It also regulates moisture across South America. About two-thirds of the Amazon lies within Brazil, and scientists say its devastation poses a catastrophic threat to the planet.

The forest has been suffering two years of historic drought that have dried up waterways, isolated thousands of riverine communities and hindered riverine dwellers’ ability to fish. It's also made way for wildfires that have burned an area larger than Switzerland and choked cities near and far with smoke.

When Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took office last year, he signaled a shift in environmental policy from his predecessor, far-right Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro prioritised agribusiness expansion over forest protection and weakened environmental agencies, prompting deforestation to surge to a 15-year high.

Lula has pledged “zero deforestation” by 2030, though his term runs through the end of 2026. Forest loss in Brazil’s Amazon dropped by 30.6% in the 12 months through July from a year earlier, bringing deforestation to its lowest level in nine years, according to official data released last week.

In that 12-month span, the Amazon lost 6,288 square kilometers (2,428 square miles), roughly the size of the US state of Delaware. But that data fails to capture the surge of destruction this year, which will only be included in next year’s reading.

Despite the success in curbing Amazon deforestation, Lula’s government has been criticized by environmentalists for backing projects that could harm the region, such as paving a highway that cuts from an old-growth area and could encourage logging, oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River and building a railway to transport soy to Amazonian ports.

While Biden is the first sitting president in the Amazon, former President Theodore Roosevelt traveled to the region with the help of the American Museum of Natural History following his 1912 loss to Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt, joined by his son and naturalists, traversed roughly 15,000 miles, when the former president fell ill with malaria and suffered a serious leg infection after a boat accident.

Biden is making the Amazon visit as part of a six-day trip to South America, the first to the continent of his presidency. He traveled from Lima, Peru, where he took part in the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and met with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

After his stop in Manaus, he was heading to Rio de Janeiro for this year's Group of 20 leaders summit.

(AP)

Drill Baby Drill Returns as G20 Drops Fossil Fuel Phase-Out from Final Draft

By Julianne Geiger - Nov 19, 2024 

The G20 just fumbled the fossil fuel debate. Or did it?

Rio’s final G20 statement dropped any explicit call to phase out oil, gas, and coal. Instead, it offered vague applause for the UAE Consensus from COP28. This wasn’t an oversight. It was a decision.

At COP28, 200 countries agreed to phase out fossil fuels by 2050. The G7 doubled down earlier this year. COP29 in Baku was supposed to build on this. Then Rio happened.

Now, G20 leaders are dodging the hard part. No one should be shocked. The idea that “inexperienced aides” missed the memo on the importance of banning fossil fuels? Please. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Here’s the dynamic: COP talks big. G20 delivers (or doesn’t). COP says, “let’s save the planet.” G20 says, “who’s paying for it?” This time, they didn’t even fake enthusiasm.

Some are calling Rio a win, pointing to the G20’s promise to scale up climate finance “from billions to trillions.” But this comes wrapped in vague promises, with no details on timelines or mechanisms. Critics are already calling it hollow rhetoric, masking the absence of real action on fossil fuels.

Trump’s reelection played its part. His pro-oil stance and “drill, baby, drill” battle cry have reshaped global climate diplomacy—all without being armed with more than mere words and a healthy show of voter support. G20 leaders were always going to tread lightly. The political reality now favors fossil fuels, and that was reflected in Rio’s final language—or lack of it.

The implications are huge. Without G20 backing, COP29 is hanging by a thread. Negotiators in Baku are scrambling. Pro-oil nations like Azerbaijan are seizing the moment. Argentina didn’t even bother to show up.

Blame is flying everywhere. Some point fingers at Brazil’s leadership for mishandling the language. Others blame a fractured G7. But blaming bureaucratic missteps misses the point. This was never about incompetence. It was about priorities.

The G20 has spoken—just not in words. Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere fast. The tide hasn’t just turned; it’s gone out completely. Anyone surprised by this wasn’t paying attention.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

Why Big Oil Is Scaling Back Renewables Investment

By Tsvetana Paraskova 

- Nov 19, 2024

Big Oil’s returns in the renewables business were slim, at best, even before the 2022 energy and inflation shocks.

To shore up share prices and close that gap with the U.S. giants, BP and Shell changed tack and returned to their roots.

While the majors aren’t abandoning all the renewable projects they embarked on in 2020 and 2021, they have started to scale back investments.



Europe’s biggest oil and gas companies have changed their approach to energy supply twice over the past five years.

First came the ambitions to become major players in the renewables sector and goals to reduce oil and gas production by the end of the decade. That was in 2019 and early 2020 when Big Oil firms were racing to announce major shifts in strategy toward conventional and green energy.

This strategy held for about two years until the energy market shocks from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the financial shocks of soaring inflation and rising interest rates upended everything again.

Poor Returns, Soaring Costs

Big Oil’s returns in the renewables business were slim, at best, even before the 2022 energy and inflation shocks. Following these shocks, the soaring costs made investments unprofitable, and the European majors Shell, BP, and Equinor took millions of U.S. dollars in impairments on European and U.S. projects in 2023.

Meanwhile, oil and gas production and trading were reaping high returns, and the majors’ profits skyrocketed to all-time highs. European oil and gas giants saw their valuation gap widen to the U.S. peers, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

To shore up share prices and close that gap with the U.S. giants, BP and Shell changed tack and returned to their roots—the core business of pumping and trading conventional energy, which they see (again) as crucial to delivering to consumers while the world moves forward with the energy transition.

Scaling Back Renewables

While the majors aren’t abandoning all the renewable projects they embarked on in 2020 and 2021, they have started to scale back investments and are streamlining these on developments and energy solutions that they see as profitable.

France’s TotalEnergies is the outlier in the group, as it has continued to focus on growing renewable energy capacity and power generation through acquisitions and joint ventures globally.

But the others—Shell, BP, and Equinor—have all reviewed or are reviewing their involvement in clean energy solutions.

BP, for example, said in June that it was scaling back plans for the development of new sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable diesel biofuels projects at its existing sites, pausing planning for two potential projects while continuing to assess three for progression.

“This is aligned with bp’s drive to simplify its portfolio, focusing on value and returns,” the UK-based supermajor said.

Weeks later, the other UK-based giant, Shell, said it was pausing on-site construction work at a biofuels plant in Rotterdam amid weak market conditions, taking a $780-million impairment charge for the second quarter for this.


The pause at the 820,000 tons-a-year biofuels facility at the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Rotterdam in the Netherlands was needed “to address project delivery and ensure future competitiveness given current market conditions,” the company said.

Shell has also sold its retail home energy businesses in the UK and Germany.

In the summer of 2023, the supermajor unveiled its new strategy to continue investing in oil and gas production and selectively pour capital into renewable energy solutions, angering climate activists and some institutional investors.

Shell’s CEO Wael Sawan has said that reducing global oil and gas production would be “dangerous and irresponsible” as the world still needs those hydrocarbons.

Earlier this year, Shell reaffirmed its ambitions to be a net-zero energy business by 2050 but eased its carbon intensity target for 2030 as it has shifted away from clean power sales to retail customers.

Most recently, on the Q3 2024 earnings call, CEO Sawan said, commenting on the company’s focus on its core business, “We start from the perspective of believing that oil and gas have a critical role in the energy transition for a long time to come.”

“We fundamentally believe that this energy transition is going to be a multi-decadal journey,” Sawan added.

“We fundamentally believe that you’re going to require multiple energy forms to be able to navigate the energy transition and we do see that the energy system will start to see more uncertainty and more volatility in the context of geopolitical changes, demand supply cycles and the like, of course the intermittency of renewables as well.”

BP, for its part, is reportedly scrapping a previous target to reduce its oil and gas production by the end of the decade.

The company is also reportedly considering a potential sale of a minority stake in its offshore wind business in a move to reduce spending on project developments in the sector.

In the Q3 results release, CEO Murray Auchincloss said “In oil and gas, we see the potential to grow through the decade with a focus on value over volume.”

“We also have a deep belief in the opportunity afforded by the energy transition,” Auchincloss added.

Norway’s Equinor is reviewing its renewables business, although it continues to bet big on offshore wind in the long term, evident in the recent acquisition of 9.8% in Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore wind farm developer.

Equinor has time to wait for a better investment climate in some of the offshore wind opportunities, chief financial officer Torgrim Reitan told analysts on the Q3 earnings call.

“It will come, but for the time being, we are doing some changes organizationally to focus on business development activity, to reduce our cost levels and set ourselves up for playing this in the long run as such.”

“There is very high inflation within the renewable business and there are clear bottlenecks in the supply chains,” Reitan noted.

By Tsvetana Parakova for Oilprice.com

What delusions can tell us about the cognitive nature of belief

The Conversation
November 19, 2024 

Chess Pieces Nikolay Litov/Shutterstock, CC BY-SA

Beliefs are convictions of reality that we accept as true. They provide us with the basic mental scaffolding to understand and engage meaningfully in our world. Beliefs remain fundamental to our behavior and identity, but are not well understood.

Delusions, on the other hand, are fixed, usually false, beliefs that are strongly held, but not widely shared. In previous work, we proposed that studying delusions provides unique insights into the cognitive nature of belief and its dysfunction.

Based on evidence from delusions and other psychological disciplines, we offered a tentative five-stage cognitive model of belief formation.

When faced with an unexpected sensory input or social communication, we seek to account for this based on existing beliefs, memories, and other social information. We then evaluate our account in terms of how well this explains our experiences and how consistent it is with our prior beliefs. If it passes these criteria, the belief is accepted. It then guides what we pay attention to and what other ideas we may consider.

We propose that delusions can arise at different stages in this model. Our approach highlights the importance of the individual’s search for meaning and social context in shaping delusions. It also draws attention to the impact of a delusion, once formed, on subsequent perceptions and thinking.

This model linking delusions and beliefs differs from earlier accounts that suggested delusions were distinct from belief or arise as a largely passive response to anomalous sensory input such as a hallucination. Previous research, for example, has found that some people who believed that family members were replaced by impostors (known as Capgras delusion) had deficits in processing familiar faces, which could have generated this idea.

Based on this, some have suggested that other delusions arise in a similar way, but in combination with an as yet undiscovered deficit in the cognitive process of evaluating our beliefs.

But these accounts didn’t fully consider other contributing factors, such as the individual’s prior beliefs, social context and their personal attempts to explain their experiences.

Informative case study

The study of delusions has been informed by select informative case studies. Unlike large group studies, case studies allow researchers a more detailed exploration of the origins and course of clinical features not explained by current theories.

We recently published a paper in the international journal Cortex that describes a unique case study of a woman who temporally experienced compelling delusions during a brief hospital admission for postpartum psychosis, which can give rise to hallucinations, delusions, mood swings and confusion. This is a rare complication of pregnancy, affecting around 1-2 in 1,000 women, thought to be due to hormonal changes or immunological factors.

Natalie (a pseudonym) had no previous medical or psychiatric history. She developed postpartum psychosis while in hospital after the birth of her second child.

As part of her condition, Natalie reported several delusions, including the belief that strangers were her parents-in-law in disguise (known as Fregoli delusion). Natalie recovered quickly with treatment. The combination of interviews and observations while she was experiencing the delusions and her later retrospective account offered a unique window into the onset and experience of her delusions.

Following a full recovery, Natalie confirmed that she considered her delusions to be strongly held beliefs. She likened them to her conviction that her husband was her husband. This is contrary to some views that suggested that delusions are different from normal beliefs.

Natalie was able to identify specific features that contributed to her delusions. In the case of believing that strangers were her in-laws, Natalie identified mannerisms, behaviors and speech patterns of the strangers that reminded her of her in-laws. This suggested that the delusion could have arisen from inappropriate activation of memory representations of familiar people based on these cues and other factors.


Natalie also recalled other beliefs, including that she was dead (known as Cotard delusion), which she did not share with clinicians at the time. She noted that she entertained this idea due to the failure of other explanations to account for her strange experiences and an idea from a television show.



Rational thought can be involved in delusional thinking. Pormezz/Shutterstock


Natalie said she eventually dismissed this idea as implausible, while still holding other delusional ideas. This suggests that belief evaluation may involve different thresholds for different delusions. It also highlights the private nature of some delusions.

Across all of her delusions, Natalie described her active involvement in trying to explain and manage her experiences. She reported considering different explanations and testing these by seeking further information. For example, she asked questions of the people she thought were her in-laws. This suggests a surprisingly similar approach to how we typically form beliefs.

Natalie recalled the influence of television and movies on her ideas. She also recalled how she elaborated on her delusions, once formed, based on information in her surroundings.

These features challenge theories that delusions simply arise from anomalous sensory data. They instead highlight the role of the individual’s search for meaning and social context, as well as the subsequent impact of delusions on perception and thinking.
Implications

As a case study, Natalie’s experiences are not necessarily representative of all people who experience delusions or postpartum psychosis. However, Natalie’s case presents informative features that theories of delusions need to account for.

In particular, Natalie’s personalized insights highlight the critical role of the individual in actively trying to understand their experiences and bestow meaning. This is opposed to just passively accepting beliefs in response to anomalous sensory data or neuropsychological deficits. This suggests psychological therapies may be useful in treating psychosis, in combination with other treatments, in some cases.

More generally, Natalie’s account reveals commonalities between delusions and ordinary beliefs and supports the view that delusions can be understood in terms of cognitive processes across the stages of normal belief formation that we identified.

While there remain challenges in investigating delusions, further study may offer insights into the underpinnings of everyday belief and, in turn, of ourselves.

Michael Connors, Conjoint Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry, UNSW Sydney and Peter W Halligan, Hon Professor of Neuropsychology, Cardiff University


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

BE AFRAID, VERY AFRAID

'Cast of dangerous clowns': Columnist claims Cabinet picks reflect 'allure of Trumpism'

Kathleen Culliton
November 19, 2024 9

RAW STORY

People dressed as clowns attend the Zombie Walk, October 20, 2024. REUTERS/Pablo Sanhueza

The kind of man Stephen King would depict luring unsuspecting children into sewers is the kind President-elect Donald Trump would pick for the secretary of education, a political columnist argued Tuesday.

Salon writer Amanda Marcotte on Tuesday made the case that Trump is actively seeking out men accused of sexually assaulting women for top positions in his administration or, as she calls it, his "cast of dangerous clowns."

"It's not just that Trump doesn't care about sexual assault," wrote Marcotte. "He appears to see it as a bonus if one of his nominees or allies has faced such allegations."

Three men Trump has tapped for Cabinet have faced sexual assault accusations, reports show.

The congressional Ethics committee investigated whether former Rep. Matt Gaetz sexually assaulted an underage girl, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been accused of sexually assaulting his children's babysitter and Fox News personality Pete Hegseth has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room, reports show.

The three men have publicly denied the accusations.

Marcotte argued Tuesday that the denials — and the accusations — don't matter to Trump or his voters.

"He expects his base voters to see these ... like they see him, as an aspirational figure," Marcotte wrote. "And not because they believe they're innocent men done wrong, either. The ability to commit crimes — even sex crimes — and get away with it is part of the allure of Trumpism."

Marcotte argued Trumpism came as response to the #MeToo movement that sought to hold men such as film mogul Harvey Weinstein — the convicted rapist Trump recently complained had been "schlonged" — accountable for attacking women.

"Defending a man's 'right' to have sex with underage girls would be making good on a campaign promise," she wrote. "It's tempting to hope this will anger the public and result in consequences for Trump, but frankly, that's unlikely."

'Apparently not a joke': Critics stunned as WWE co-founder reportedly expected for Cabinet as Education Secretary
Matthew Chapman
November 19, 2024 8:01PM ET

Donald Trump is reportedly expected to appoint Linda McMahon, the former co-founder of WWE and the chief of the Small Business Administration in his previous presidency, to head up the Department of Education.

The appointment, which swiftly followed Trump's announcement of TV personality and former Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz to head up the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, prompted an instant reaction from commenters on social media.

"Linda McMahon being tipped for Trump’s education secretary," wrote Telegraph editor Gareth Davies on X, attaching a clip of "Stone Cold" Steve Austin's famous "Stunner" finishing move. "Another senior US politician who has been Stunnered."

"Cause nothing says educating our children like being an ex-professional wrestling performer and running the @WWE, which has allegedly failed to protect employees from workplace harassment and sexual misconduct," wrote Kendra Barkoff Lamy, a former spokesperson to President Joe Biden while he served as vice president.

In addition to the reaction on X, others commented on the site's growing competitor, Bluesky.

"And, in further 'apparently not a joke' news, Linda McMahon of the WWE for Secretary of Education. LULZ PWNED as a theory of governance, I guess," wrote McGill University professor and Niskanen Center fellow Jacob T. Levy.

"Sort of like Oz at CMS, it’s not clear to me that McMahon would have an agenda of her own, but that might not be a problem for an administration that wants to shrink and eliminate much of DOE," wrote Yahoo Finance's Jordan Weissmann.

"I wonder if Linda McMahon will allow Jim Jordan and @timgill924.bsky.social [to] settle education policy disagreements in the ring?" wrote Michigan State University professor Brendan Cantwell.

'Betsy DeVos 2.0': Trump education pick raises alarms

Jake Johnson
Common Dreams

November 20, 2024

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced late Tuesday that he intends to nominate Linda McMahon, the billionaire former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, to lead the Department of Education, a key agency that Republicans—including Trump and the authors of Project 2025—have said they want to abolish.

McMahon served as head of the Small Business Administration during Trump's first White House term and later chaired both America First Action—a pro-Trump super PAC—and the America First Policy Institute, a far-right think tank that has expressed support for cutting federal education funding and expanding school privatization.

Trump touted McMahon's work to expand school "choice"—a euphemism for taxpayer-funded private school vouchers—and said she would continue those efforts on a national scale as head of the Education Department.

"We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and Linda will spearhead that effort," Trump said in a statement posted to his social media platform, Truth Social. (McMahon is listed as an independent director of Trump Media & Technology Group, which runs Truth Social.)

The National Education Association (NEA), a union that represents millions of teachers across the U.S., said in response to the president-elect's announcement that McMahon is "grossly unqualified" to lead the Education Department, noting that she has "lied about having a degree in education," presided over an organization "with a history of shady labor practices," and "pushed for an extreme agenda that would harm students, defund public schools, and privatize public schools through voucher schemes."

"During his first term, Donald Trump appointed Betsy DeVos to undermine and ultimately privatize public schools through vouchers," NEA president Becky Pringle said in a statement. "Now, he and Linda McMahon are back at it with their extreme Project 2025 proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, steal resources for our most vulnerable students, increase class sizes, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families, take away special education services for disabled students, and put student civil rights protections at risk."

"The Department of Education plays such a critical role in the success of each and every student in this country," Pringle continued. "The Senate must stand up for our students and reject Donald Trump's unqualified nominee, Linda McMahon. Our students and our nation deserve so much better than Betsy DeVos 2.0."

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, took a more diplomatic approach, saying in a statement that "we look forward to learning more about" McMahon and that, if she's confirmed, "we will reach out to her as we did with Betsy DeVos at the beginning of her tenure."

"While we expect that we will disagree with Linda McMahon on many issues, our devotion to kids requires us to work together on policies that can improve the lives of students, their families, their educators, and their communities," Weingarten added.

McMahon is one of several billionaires Trump has selected for major posts in his incoming administration, which is teeming with conflicts of interest. During Trump's first term, McMahon and her husband, Vince McMahon, made at least $100 million from dividends, investment interest, and stock and bond sales.

The Guardian noted Tuesday that "in October, [Linda] McMahon was named in a new lawsuit involving WWE."

"The suit alleges that she and other leaders of the company allowed the sexual abuse of young boys at the hands of a ringside announcer, former WWE ring crew chief Melvin Phillips Jr," the newspaper reported. "The complaint specifically alleges that the McMahons knew about the abuse and failed to stop it."

'Declaration of war on expertise': Experts explain danger of Trump 'MAGA zealot' nominees

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump is interviewed by Fox and Friends co-host Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, U.S. April 6, 2017. 

REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

David Badash

November 20, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump has surprised and even alarmed many across the country, and “puzzled” and “baffled” some within his own party, with his Cabinet and other top White House nominations. Critics on the left have denounced his picks for their apparent lack of experience or qualifications for the roles they are expected to take on, noting some hold controversial or even false positions in the fields they may soon direct policy on. Meanwhile, experts in the fields of government, fascism, and democracy, are raising serious concerns about the potential “danger” some nominees represent, drawing comparisons to the “professional propagandists” often found in authoritarian regimes.

Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an NYU professor of history and a recognized expert on fascism and authoritarianism, on Wednesday pointed to this report on one of Trump’s most-recent nominations, Linda McMahon:





McMahon was Trump’s former administrator of the Small Business Administration, and is a former CEO of WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), a major GOP donor, and has recently been the chair of a pro-Trump Super PAC, the board chair of a pro-Trump think tank, and the co-chair of Trump’s second transition team.

“Trump’s cabinet picks are a declaration of war on expertise and facts (that’s why there are several Fox hosts in the mix). The con artists, fraudsters, and professional propagandists that populate authoritarian governments see facts and laws as impediments to their goals,” Dr. Ben-Ghiat wrote.

READ MORE: JD Vance Accidentally Reveals FBI Director Wray Is Likely Being Replaced

Trump, announcing McMahon’s nomination, claimed, “Linda will use her decades of Leadership experience, and deep understanding of both Education and Business, to empower the next Generation of American Students and Workers, and make America Number One in Education in the World.”

McMahon’s only brush with the field of education came about 15 years ago, when she served on the Connecticut State Board of Education. She resigned after 15 months. At the time, her appointment was controversial, with one lawmaker lamenting, “her depth of knowledge regarding education is lacking.”




McMahon is far from the only controversial nominee.

On Tuesday, the vice chair of the powerful House Rules Committee Jim McGovern (D-MA) blasted Trump’s nominees as “beyond insane.”

“Someone who is credibly accused of having sex with an underage girl. Someone who sucks up to foreign dictators and has attracted major concern that they can’t be trusted to protect America’s secrets from our adversaries. Someone who paid hush money to cover up a sexual assault accusation, you know, to lead our military, he’s picked because Donald Trump likes him on Fox News? Someone who says that tap water turns kids gay? I mean, this is the dream team? This is the dream team? Really?”

He appeared to be referring to Attorney General presumptive nominee Matt Gaetz, Director of National Intelligence presumptive nominee Tulsi Gabbard, Defense Secretary presumptive nominee Pete Hegseth, and HHS Secretary presumptive nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Democratic Association of Secretaries of State posted video calling Trump’s nominees “a trainwreck.”

“Gaetz, Gabbard, RFK – none of them have the experience or qualifications for the positions they’re seeking, in addition to the fact they’re all dangerous MAGA zealots,” the organization declared. They posted a video clip (below) from MSNBC with a chyron that noted opposition from the right to Trump’s Attorney General nominee, Matt Gaetz.

MSNBC’s justice and legal affairs analyst Anthony Coley told viewers that Gaetz, the recently resigned U.S. Congressman, “has no national security experience—not anything meaningful—little anti-trust experience, and he certainly has no experience with criminal law, except for being the target of a federal criminal investigation looking into inappropriate sexual contact, allegedly, with a minor.”

Trump has also just appointed his former acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, a strong Trump loyalist, to be the U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

“Whitaker has little evident foreign policy or national security experience, making him an unknown to many in U.S. security circles,” The Associated Press reports. “Previous ambassadors to NATO have generally had years of diplomatic, political or military experience.”

“Before serving Trump,” Mother Jones notes, “he helped a company hawk bizarre products like a ‘masculine toilet’ to help ‘well-endowed men’ avoid unwanted contact with water.”

But The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a former U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia and nuclear weapons, served up this warning: “This is just hilarious, but the danger here is that it makes him Senate-confirmed and available for other stuff later.”

In other words, assuming Whitaker is confirmed, Trump could nominate him to another, even more critical role, declaring he’s qualified because he’s already been Senate-confirmed.

Last week, Nichols declared that Trump’s “nominations for intelligence, defense, and justice were revenge on people he thinks are his enemies. This is just endangering millions of innocent people.”

On Monday on MSNBC, Nichols went much further, delivered a scathing analysis of Trump’s nominees, calling them “an all-fronts assault on American democracy,” in another warning.

Trump, he said, is “trying to break the institutions of American government and American society, and what you’ve been seeing for the past few weeks is an all-fronts assault on American democracy, especially with these nominations.”

“I think the most dangerous of these nominations is actually [Pete] Hegseth,” Nichols explained. “And I’m kind of startled that we’re not sitting here talking more about taking a morning Fox [News] host and sticking him in the nuclear chain of command, to lead the largest—one of the largest—bureaucracies in the United States, in the world, including the person that’s supposed to look after the most powerful fighting force on the planet.”

And he concluded, “it’s also important to recognize that we could be in the first phases of a major constitutional crisis, even before Trump is sworn in.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

Dr. Oz nomination seen as potential boon for Medicare privatization

Donald Trump looks on as Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks at a pre-election rally to support Republican candidates in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, U.S., November 5, 2022. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo
Donald Trump looks on as Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks at a pre-election rally to support Republican candidates in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, U.S., November 5, 2022. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo

Eloise Goldsmith, 

Common Dreams

November 21, 2024

Dr. Mehmet Oz, whose unsuccessful 2022 Pennsylvania Senate bid included pitching voters on a plan to expand the privatized Medicare Advantage program, is now in a position to potentially actualize that plan.

President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Oz, also known by his TV personality name Dr. Oz, is his pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

"Dr. Oz—a massive investor in Pharma—told the voters of Pennsylvania his plans to privatize Medicare… and they rejected him. Now Trump is giving him the authority to see his industry-approved plan carried through," wrote the progressive-leaning outlet The Lever, which covered Oz's support for Medicare Advantage back in 2022.

Through Medicare Advantage, which has been promoted by Trump and other congressional Republicans, seniors can opt out of traditional government-run Medicare health plans and instead choose plans administered by private insurers, such as UnitedHealthcare and Cigna.

According to The Lever's 2022 reporting, Oz pushed Medicare Advantage plans on his show The Dr. Oz Show and co-wrote a 2020 column for Forbes with a former healthcare executive in which they argued that a "Medicare Advantage For All" plan can "save" our healthcare system. In the column, Oz and his co-author articulated a plan to expand Medicare Advantage by imposing a 20% payroll tax.

Oz "is not a good pick for a very powerful position in charge of a trillion dollars of healthcare spending," wrote Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project on X, in reference to The Lever's investigation.

The Lever also reported that Oz's plan to expand private plans under Medicare Advantage could "boost companies in which he invests." For example, Oz and his wife owned up to $550,000 worth of stock in UnitedHealth Group, at the time of reporting. UnitedHealthcare and Humana account for nearly half, or 47%, of Medicare Advantage enrollees nationwide, according to the health policy organization KFF.

Additionally, a 2022 investigation by The New York Timesfound that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to boost their profits by billions of dollars.

Project 2025, a list of right-wing policy proposals led by the Heritage Foundation that Trump has tried to distance himself from, calls for making Medicare Advantage the default option for Medicare beneficiaries, which, if enacted, "would be a multibillion-dollar annual giveaway to corporations at the expense of Medicare enrollees and taxpayers," according to the liberal research and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress.

Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, offered a related critique of Oz: Americans "need someone who will crack down on insurers who want to deny care to the sick, providers who skimp on quality healthcare, corporations that want to privatize Medicare, and Big Pharma profiteers and ideologues who want to slash Medicaid and refuse care to low-income people. What they do not need is a healthcare huckster, which unfortunately Dr. Mehmet Oz appears to have become, having spent much of his recent career hawking products of dubious medical value."

In addition to the potential boon for private insurers, some researchers, news outlets, and members of Congress have also raised concerns about the quality of care administered under Medicare Advantage.

A 2022 government report found that "[Medicare Advantage Organizations] sometimes delayed or denied Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' access to services, even though the requests met Medicare coverage rules" and also "denied payments to providers for some services that met both Medicare coverage rules and [Medicare Advantage Organization] billing rules."

In October, a group of three Democratic lawmakers wrote to the current CMS administrator about increasingly widespread abuses and care denials by for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers.

"We are concerned that in many instances MA plans are failing to deliver, compromising timely access to care, and undermining the ability of seniors and Americans with disabilities to purchase the coverage that’s right for them," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter.

"We continue to hear alarming reports from seniors and their families, beneficiary advocates, and healthcare providers that MA plans are falling short, and finding a good plan is too difficult," they wrote.


In particular, they pointed to Medicare Advantage plans' growing reliance on prior authorization, a complex, barrier-ridden process whereby doctors must demonstrate a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.

"Overuse of prior authorization is not only harmful to patients, it hinders healthcare providers' ability to offer best-in-class service," they added.

Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, warned in a social media post Tuesday that "Dr. Oz wants to fully privatize Medicare."

"That's why Donald Trump put him in charge of Medicare," the group added. "We will fight to stop this charlatan from getting anywhere near our Medicare system."

Trump nomination of crypto banker Howard Lutnick another 'win for the billionaire class'

Howard Lutnick, Chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, gestures as he speaks during a rally for Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden, in New York, U.S., October 27, 2024. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

Julia Conley

Common Dreams

November 20, 2024

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen feigned surprise on Wednesday over President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Wall Street CEO Howard Lutnick to lead the U.S. Department of Commerce.

"Oh look, another billionaire has made his way into Trump's Cabinet," said the group, noting Lutnick is also a promoter of cryptocurrency and a Trump megadonor. "The conflicts of interest are almost too many to count."

Among the conflicts are Lutnick's involvement in the crypto industry and federal and state cases against Cantor Fitzgerald.

In addition to running the Wall Street firm, Lutnick is a banker for the "stablecoin" company Tether; purchasers receive a Tether token for $1, with the proceeds invested in reserves and Treasury bonds managed by Lutnick's Cantor Fitzgerald.

As Public Citizen noted, New York Attorney General Letitia James found in 2021 that Tether and another crypto firm "recklessly and unlawfully covered up massive financial losses to keep their scheme going and protect their bottom lines."

The company is also reportedly under federal investigation over alleged criminal violations of anti-money laundering rules and sanctions.

Public Citizen also said that while co-chairing Trump's transition team, Lutnick "may also have helped arrange a meeting between Trump and Coinbase chief Brian Armstrong," who "helped steer a record amount of political spending from the crypto industry into the 2024 election."

Crypto firms poured over $119 million into directly influencing the 2024 federal elections, Public Citizen found in August, making the industry's spending second only to that of fossil fuel companies.

As Politico reported in October, even other members of Trump's inner circle have accused Lutnick of using his transition team co-chair position to take meetings on Capitol Hill and "talk about matters impacting his investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald—including high-stakes regulatory matters involving its cryptocurrency business."

Lutnick's nomination, said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, serves as a reminder that "Trump serves the oligarchy, not the people."

"Debris from crypto's political spending tsunami will jam up more halls in Washington than ever before if Lutnick is confirmed as secretary of commerce," said Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for Public Citizen. "The president-elect, who once correctly called bitcoin a scam, now surrounds himself with even more crypto enablers. Cryptocurrency won't return good jobs to the heartland or reduce food prices; it will only thin the wallets of those vulnerable to a now government-legitimized con."

Government watchdog Accountable.US pointed to more than $19 million in political donations Lutnick has made since 2009, nearly all of which went to GOP candidates and political action committees. He contributed $6 million to Trump's super PAC, Make America Great Again, Inc., in 2024 alone.


"Howard Lutnick's questionable qualifications to lead the Department of Commerce begin and end with his loyalty to the president-elect," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk.

Tether isn't the only Lutnick-linked company that's been investigated for wrongdoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Cantor Fitzgerald $1.4 million in 2023, saying the company repeatedly failed "to identify and report customers who qualified as large traders." The company also agreed to pay $16 million in fines to the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2022 for using unauthorized communication channels.

Should Lutnick be confirmed as commerce secretary, Accountable.US said a "major regulatory conflict" could arise due to a dispute between the BGC Group, a spin-off brokerage of Cantor Fitzegerald, and futures and commodities exchange CME Group, over a competing trading platform BGC Group is launching.

"Lutnick's company's violations resulting in financial regulator fines and millions in right-wing political donations shows that political devotion takes precedence over actual experience to do the job in Trump's Cabinet," said Carrk.

Trump campaigned as a champion of working people as he railed against high grocery prices. As The New Republicreported on Tuesday, Lutnick has showered Trump's plan for across-the-board tariffs with effusive praise—even as leading economists warn the plan to impose tariffs on foreign imports will pass higher costs onto consumers, not foreign countries.

"In September, Lutnick told CNBC that 'tariffs are an amazing tool for the president to use—we need to protect the American worker,'" wrote Edith Olmsted. "Lutnick also gushed about tariffs at Trump's fascistic rally in Madison Square Garden last month, claiming that America was better off 100 years ago, when it had 'no income tax and all we had was tariffs.' His high praise for tariffs came even as he admitted Americans would face higher prices as a direct result."

Lutnick's nomination, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "is a win for the billionaire class at the expense of working people.


"The across-the-board tariff plan," she said, "is a distraction from the MAGA scam to extend tax giveaways for giant corporations and billionaires like Howard Lutnick."

Trump's Cabinet of horrors exposes his totalitarian drift

John Stoehr
November 19, 2024 

Former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attends a campaign rally of Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump in Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S. October 22, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Donald Trump nominated an alleged rapist and sex trafficker to be attorney general. He picked a Russian asset to be director of national intelligence. He chose a religious fanatic and Kremlin stooge to be secretary of defense. And for secretary of health and human resources, he selected an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist who once had a literal brain worm, and who habitually takes (“legal”) steroids to maintain, at the age of 70, the appearance of a physique of a man half his age.

There are the obvious things to say about this motley crew. Matt Gaetz, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr are , respectively, not qualified to lead the agencies they have been chosen to lead. None has managed anything larger than an office. None has the expertise required. Gaetz has never worked in law enforcement, Gabbard in intelligence, Hegseth in military leadership or Kennedy in public health. Their only qualification is their loyalty to the man who picked them, and how they look to him when they are on television.

Right now, the discussion seems to be concentrated on the Senate Republicans, who will have majority control of that chamber in January. They will be responsible ultimately for vetting Trump’s cabinet picks. The question is whether they will find the courage to restrain the President-elect or roll over, either by approving them or by letting Trump have what he wants through recess appointments.

Among liberals, the discussion seems to be limited to the absurdities each of these people brings to governance as well as the dangers they pose. “Yes, shake your head at the seeming absurdity of these picks,” wrote MSNBC’s Jen Psaki. “But don’t stop there. These choices aren’t just controversial; they require us to stay vigilant about how each potential new Cabinet member could negatively affect our lives.”

But I think we’re missing the bigger picture. These nominations signal the totalitarian drift that’s coming to Washington and the country. Yes, that’s right. No, I’m not exaggerating. It’s time to start using that word.

Totalitarianism seeks dominion over the individual to the point where individuality is erased. That’s what happened to the Republican Party. Individuals have looked the same, talked the same, acted the same and thought the same for a long time. (The men sometimes literally dress the same as Donald Trump, with a blue suit and a long red tie.) After the election, however, Republican behavior has finally been totalized.

As one GOP congressman said, Trump “is the leader of our party. … His goals and objectives, whatever that is, we need to embrace it. All of it. Every single word. If Donald Trump says jump three feet high and scratch your head, we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads.”

The objective is forcing the rest of America to conform the way the Republican Party has conformed. This can be seen in the anger expressed by some MAGAs. It wasn’t enough to win. Losers must now shut up and get in line, too. As a Trump attorney said recently: “You’ve got to own when you lose and say: this is America. We have to stand behind President Trump.” Senate Republicans are likely to approve his picks, no matter how bad, because the losers must be taught a lesson.

Totalitarianism also seeks to dominate the individual’s mind by going to war against facts, reason, science and any useful meaning of the word “proof.” In normal times, pre-Trump, we could expect the Senate to have a spirited debate over a President-elect's cabinet nominations, beginning with whether they’re qualified. Such debate is going to be impossible now, because “being qualified” is a meaningless term.

It is a stone-cold fact that Kennedy’s views on vaccines are not only insane, but in direct opposition to the moral principles of public health. But that fact won’t be accepted as fact. It will be taken as evidence of Trump’s enemies trying to sabotage his presidency. And there’s no way to break through this "conspiracist mindset," as Lindsay Beyerstein calls it. It is impervious, she said. “When scientists or the government or journalists come forward with evidence that vaccines save millions of lives and prevent untold suffering, the conspiracist answer is: Well, that’s what conspirators to kill our children would say.”

Because there’s no empirical anchor to conspiratorial thinking, totalitarians can make reality into whatever they want. Up is down, left is right – or in the words of the totalitarian regime in George Orwell’s 1984: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Therefore, the Republicans are likely to see nothing wrong with his picks. His nominee for the law is anti-law. His nominee for national intelligence is anti-intelligence. His nominee for national defense is anti-defense. His nominee for science is anti-science. But there’s no dissonance in the world of conspiratorial thinking. Up is the new down, and the only measure of morality is whether it pleases the dear leader.

The drift toward conformity and away from individualism isn’t limited to the GOP. Thanks to the right-wing media apparatus, which is global in scale, totalizing groupthink has also been growing in the culture at large. The trick is that it comes disguised as subversive individualism.

During his interview with Trump, popular podcaster Joe Rogan said, “the rebels are Republicans now. They’re like, you want to be a rebel? You want to be punk rock? You want to, like, buck the system? You’re a conservative now. That's how crazy. And then the liberals are now pro-silencing criticism. They’re pro-censorship online. They’re talking about regulating free speech and regulating the First Amendment.”

If you are listening to liberals directly, you know there are no such efforts. But if you are listening to the right-wing media apparatus, or if you just feel the conspiratorial ambiance that it generates, it’s possible to cast yourself as a person who’s bucking the system, as if the party of billionaires is the party of the common people, as if people who look the same, talk the same, act the same and think the same are punk rock.

But the strongest evidence of totalitarian drift is the plain awfulness of Trump’s cabinet picks. They have not earned the right to be called on. They haven’t studied or mastered their disciplines. They haven’t built reputations among leaders, peers and professionals in their fields. They haven’t overcome adversity and hardship. They haven’t reached high and achieved. They certainly haven’t followed the road toward the American dream, which asks us to work hard and play by the rules.

And that’s the point. Totalitarians fear individual excellence, first because they can’t understand it, and second because excellence threatens their goal of totalizing conformity. They are not humble enough to admit that they are mediocre people but they are arrogant enough to believe they can force the rest of us down to their level.


With this cabinet, Trump can pick up where his second campaign left off, which is a movement toward “the consistent persecution of every higher form of intellectual activity …” as Hannah Arendt once wrote.

“Total domination does not allow for free initiative in any field of life, for any activity that is not entirely predictable,” she said. “Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty” (my italics).