AOC says if Biden is elected he should appoint progressive leaders when asked if Bernie Sanders should get cabinet position

Inyoung Choi BI 25/10/2020

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., attends a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Wednesday, July 17, 2019. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden should appoint progressive leaders should he win the presidency in November.

"I believe that it's critically important that the Biden administration appoint progressive leaders," Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN Sunday when asked if Biden should appoint Sen. Bernie Sanders to cabinet if he is elected.

Ocasio-Cortez said while she will advocate for progressive issues if Biden is elected, Democrats "need to focus on winning the White House first."

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden should appoint progressive leaders in his administration should he be elected, in response to a question on whether he should give Senator Bernie Sanders a seat in the cabinet.

In an interview with AOC on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, host Jake Tapper pressed on her thoughts on whether Bernie Sanders should be given a cabinet seat if Biden were elected.

"I believe that it's critically important that the Biden administration appoint progressive leaders, " Ocasio-Cortez said.

"This isn't just about the progressive movement," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "This is about making sure we're not just going back to how things were and rewinding the tape before the Trump administration, but this is about making sure how are we going to not just make up for lost time but leap into the future and actually ensure that we are making the investments and policy decisions that will create an advanced American society."

"And frankly, conservative appointments will not get us there," she added.
—State of the Union (@CNNSotu) October 25, 2020

Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders have both issued their support for Biden in the November election.

In April, following Biden's nomination, Ocasio-Cortez said it would be a "tightrope" to balance her support for the Democratic presidential nominee while backing a progressive movement. She made clear that in the event Biden is elected in November, she will advocate for progressive policies like the Green New Deal.

"It's just about making sure that you continue to advocate for the issues that we find to be most important," Ocasio-Cortez previously told Insider.

Also on Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez, who opposes fracking, told CNN that she would ask Biden to reconsider his position on banning fracking, which the Democratic nominee said he would not do.

"It will be a privilege to lobby him should we win the White House, but we need to focus on winning the White House first," Ocasio-Cortez said.
—State of the Union (@CNNSotu) October 25, 2020

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily favored to win her reelection race. Her challenger has still raised $10 million because Republicans are desperate to beat her.
Theron Mohamed 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the overwhelming favorite in her reelection race in New York's 14th Congressional district.

Her Republican opponent, John Cummings has still raised $9.6 million — seemingly a sign of how keen conservatives are to challenge her.
"I guarantee you 75% of his contributors don't know anything about him," a Republican strategist told The New York Times.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is widely expected to win reelection next month as the US Representative for New York's 14th district.

Her Republican challenger, John Cummings, has still managed to raise $9.6 million, in a sign of how desperate her critics are to beat her, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

"I guarantee you 75% of his contributors don't know anything about him," Tom Doherty, a Republican strategist, told the newspaper of Cummings, a former Bronx schoolteacher and police officer.

"The people that are interested in that race financially are giving because it's AOC," he said.

Ocasio-Cortez, who has raised $17.3 million so far, champions progressive policies such as public healthcare, tuition-free public college, the abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the rollout of a Green New Deal that would transform the US economy to combat climate change and protect the environment.

The lawmaker's bold proposals have polarized Americans, winning her passionate support among liberals and making her a popular target for conservatives.

The result is that more money has poured into backing her and her opponents than in any House of Representatives race in the country bar one, The New York Times said.

More then $30 million has flowed into the campaign, most of it going to Ocasio-Cortez and Cummings.

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC anchor who lost to Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic primary, has also raised $2.4 million and loaned $1 million to her campaign in order to run against Ocasio-Cortez again as the candidate for the Serve America Movement.

Cummings' campaign staff knew they could capitalize on Ocasio-Cortez's public profile to raise money from across the country.

"I just sensed that national fund-raising against someone like AOC would be successful," Chapin Fay, Cummings' campaign manager, told The New York Times.

Read more

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put up ridiculous numbers on her Twitch stream, hitting more than 400,000 viewers

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked the SEC to investigate secretive data firm Palantir before it hit the stock exchange

Energy Department's plan for faster dishwashers draws environmental worries

By Caroline Kelly, CNN
Fri October 23, 2020
NOW PLAYING
Trump berates quality of toilets and appliances at rally

(CNN)The Department of Energy announced Friday that it had finalized a rule allowing for a new class of dishwashers with cycle times of an hour or less and different energy and water conservation standards -- a move that critics charge would circumvent key environmental regulations.
"Today the Trump Administration reaffirmed its commitment to reducing regulatory burdens and reinstating consumer choice for American families," Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said in a statement. "With this final rulemaking, we are once again letting the American people -- not Washington -- decide what appliances to use in their homes."
The rule's advancement comes as President Donald Trump has referenced suburban women's alleged dissatisfaction with dishwashers while pleading for their support in the final weeks before the election.
The rule would create a product class of dishwashers "with a cycle time for the normal cycle of one hour or less from washing through drying." The department will "determine the specific energy and water conservation standards for the new product class" at a later time, according to the rule.


Trump has repeatedly mentioned dishwashers in his characterizations of interactions with female voters. In Nevada last Sunday, the President told rallygoers to "go buy a dishwasher."
"I said what's wrong with this thing? It doesn't clean the dishes right," he continued. "The women come up to me, the women who they say don't like me -- they actually do like me a lot. Suburban women, please vote for me. I'm saving your house. I'm saving your community. I'm keeping your crime way down."
At a Michigan rally late last year, Trump said that while dishwashers used to generate an "explosion" at the push of a button, "now you press it 12 times, women tell me."
According to the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, today's average dishwasher cycle is more than two hours, compared with one hour "decades ago." Blaming "government regulations supposedly aimed at increasing energy efficiency," according to its website, the institute says it petitioned the Energy Department to address the issue in 2018.
In the new rule, the department referenced a shortened cycle in the context of a requirement for "a product class with a higher or lower energy use or efficiency standard than the standards applicable to other dishwasher product classes."
While some dishwashers feature cycles shorter than an hour, the department said in the rule finalized Friday that it could not confirm that they "operate within the confines of current energy and water consumption standards," which are applied to "normal" cycles.
Some opponents of the new rule charge that it will result in certain new dishwashers flouting energy and water regulations.
Joe Vukovich, energy efficiency advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement that "wasting energy and water doesn't help anyone."
"Today's dishwashers do a great job cleaning dishes, and they already have optional quick cycles for when consumers want to clean their dishes as quickly as possible," he continued. "U.S. consumers lose when DOE spends its time with needless, harmful actions like this."
Asked for comment, the Energy Department didn't respond to Vukovich's assertions.

Protesters gather in Bangkok after PM snubs call to resign

Demonstrators seeking to keep up pressure on the government ahead of Monday’s special parliament session.

The protesters' core demands also include a more democratic constitution and reforms to the monarchy (Photo by Mladen ANTONOV / AFP) (AFP)
25 Oct 2020
VIDEO https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/25/protesters-gather-in-bangkok-after-pm-snubs-call-to-resign

Protesters have gathered in Bangkok, seeking to keep up pressure on the government one day ahead of a special session of Parliament called to try to ease political tensions.

The rally took place on Sunday at the busy Rajprasong intersection, in the heart of the capital’s shopping district, an area that usually draws large weekend crowds.

The rallies were called on Saturday night after Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha ignored the protesters’ deadline to step down.

The protesters’ core demands include a more democratic constitution and reforms to the monarchy.

Public criticism of the monarchy is unprecedented in a country where the royal institution has been considered sacrosanct.

The protesters charge that Prayuth, who led a coup in 2014 as the army chief, was returned to power unfairly in last year’s general election because laws had been changed to favour a pro-military party.


The protesters also say that the constitution, written and enacted under military rule, is undemocratic.

Prayuth’s government called parliament into a session – expected to start Monday and last two days – in an effort to defuse weeks of almost daily protests.

“The only way to a lasting solution … is to discuss and resolve these differences through the parliamentary process,” he said last week.

Prayuth also lifted a state of emergency on Thursday that he had imposed a week earlier that made the protest rallies illegal.

The protesters were not impressed by his efforts to appease them, declaring them insincere.

Several have noted on social media that the points of discussion submitted by the government for debate were not intended to deal with protesters’ concerns but were thinly disguised criticisms of the protests themselves.

The rallies were called Saturday night after PM Prayuth Chan-ocha ignored the protesters’ deadline to step down [Mladen Antonov/AFP]Al Jazeera’s Tony Cheng, reporting from Bangkok, said the protesters are in full voice and reiterating their demands.


“There are thousands of protesters on the streets. The mood is more relaxed than we have seen in recent weeks. There are police here but they are standing back and directing traffic where they can. Authorities haven’t closed down the transport system, which they have done previously,” Cheng said.

Protest organisers have called for a march on Monday afternoon that will take them to the German Embassy in central Bangkok, far from the parliament complex which is on the outskirts of the city.

The march is apparently to draw attention to the protesters’ contention that King Maha Vajiralongkorn spends too much of his time in Germany.

Treaty banning nuclear weapons to enter into force

Campaigners hail ‘historic milestone’ as treaty banning nuclear weapons reaches the 50 ratifications needed to take effect.

The treaty requires ratifying countries to 'never ... develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices' [File: Rod McGuirk/ AP]

25 Oct 2020

Fifty countries have ratified an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons, the United Nations has announced, allowing the “historic” text to enter into force in 90 days.

Honduras became the 50th country to ratify the landmark Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the UN said on Saturday, in a move hailed by anti-nuclear activists but strongly opposed by the United States and the other major nuclear powers.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commended the 50 states and saluted “the instrumental work” of civil society in facilitating negotiations and pushing for ratification, his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said on Saturday.

The UN chief said the treaty’s entry into force on January 22, 2021, crowns a worldwide movement “to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and “is a tribute to the survivors of nuclear explosions and tests, many of whom advocated for this treaty”.

According to Dujarric, Guterres also said the treaty “represents a meaningful commitment towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations”.
‘UN at its best’

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize-winning coalition whose work helped spearhead the nuclear ban treaty, called the development a “historic milestone”.

“This moment has been 75 years coming since the horrific attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the founding of the UN which made nuclear disarmament a cornerstone,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN.

“The 50 countries that ratify this Treaty are showing true leadership in setting a new international norm that nuclear weapons are not just immoral but illegal,” she said.

The 50th ratification came on the 75th anniversary of UN Day, commemorating the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations, which officially established the UN.

“The United Nations was formed to promote peace with a goal of the abolition of nuclear weapons,” Fihn said. “This treaty is the UN at its best – working closely with civil society to bring democracy to disarmament.”

The treaty requires that all ratifying countries “never under any circumstances … develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” It also bans any transfer or use of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices – as well as threatening to use such weapons – and requires parties to promote the treaty to other countries.

Once it enters into force, all countries that have ratified it will be bound by those requirements.

The group of nuclear-armed states, including Britain, China, France, Russia and the US, have not signed the treaty.

However, campaigners hope that it coming into force will have the same impact as previous international treaties on landmines and cluster munitions, bringing a stigma to their stockpiling and use, and thereby a change in behaviour even in countries that did not sign up.
‘Strategic error’

The US had written to treaty signatories saying the administration of US President Donald Trump believes they made “a strategic error” and urging them to rescind their ratification.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press news agency, claimed the new treaty was “dangerous” to the half-century-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which sought to prevent the spread of nuclear arms beyond the five original weapons powers.

Fihn dismissed the claim, saying: “There’s no way you can undermine the Nonproliferation Treaty by banning nuclear weapons. It’s the end goal of the Nonproliferation Treaty.”

Francesco Rocca, president of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said: “The simple reality is that the international community could never hope to deal with the consequences of a nuclear confrontation. No nation is prepared to deal with a nuclear confrontation. What we cannot prepare for, we must prevent.”

There are more than 14,000 nuclear bombs in the world, thousands of which are ready to be launched in an instant, Rocca said. The power of many of those warheads is tens of times greater than the weapons dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima, who has been an ardent campaigner for the treaty, said: “When I learned that we reached our 50th ratification, I was not able to stand.”

“I remained in my chair and put my head in my hands and I cried tears of joy,” she said in a statement. “I have committed my life to the abolition of nuclear weapons. I have nothing but gratitude for all who have worked for the success of our treaty.”
SOURCE : AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

VIDEOS https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/25/un-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-to-enter-into-force

Now that nuclear weapons are illegal, the Pacific demands truth on decades of testing

With a 50th nation ratifying it, the treaty outlawing nuclear weapons for all countries will come into force in 90 days

A French nuclear test on Mururoa atoll in 1971. Photograph: AFP
Supported by

About this content

Dimity Hawkins
Sun 25 Oct 2020 01.00 GMT

Nuclear weapons will soon be illegal. Just over 75 years since their devastation was first unleashed on the world, the global community has rallied to bring into force a ban through the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Late on Saturday night in New York, the 50th country – the central American nation of Honduras – ratified the treaty.


'Poisoning the Pacific': New book details US military contamination of islands and ocean

It will become international law in 90 days.

For many across the Pacific region, this is a momentous achievement and one that has been long called for. Over the second half of the 20th century 315 nuclear weapons tests were conducted by so-called “friendly” or colonising forces in the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Australia and Maohi Nui (French Polynesia).

The United States, Britain and France used largely colonised lands to test their nuclear weapons, leaving behind not only harmful physical legacies but psychological and political scars as well.

Survivors of these tests and their descendants have continued to raise their voices against these weapons. They are vocal resisters and educators, the reluctant but intense knowledge holders of the nuclear reality of our region.

Anti-nuclear protesters march in the capital of Tahiti in French Polynesia in September 1995 to denounce the French nuclear testing in Mururoa atoll. Photograph: Romeo Gacad/AFP

In the formation of the nuclear ban treaty, Pacific survivor voices were prominent alongside those of Hibakusha survivors from Japan.

Pacific islands were early adopters of the treaty. Fiji, Kiribati, Palau, Samoa, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, New Zealand and Nauru have signed and ratified. Niue and Cook Islands have acceded.

Australia is notably absent, reflecting the vested interests of its alliance partner the United States, and a misplaced reliance on outdated and opaque doctrines of extended nuclear deterrence.

And the treaty is set to become law despite opposition from the five original nuclear powers, the US, Russia, China, Britain and France. The Trump administration has written to treaty signatories saying the treaty is “a strategic error” and urging them to rescind their ratifications.

In contrast, for many Pacific nations the lived experience of 50 years of nuclear testing still drives their stance today.

On the day Fiji ratified the treaty this year, the country’s high commissioner to the United Nations, Dr Satyendra Prasad, said:

Pacific Islanders continue to be exposed to nuclear radiation. Nuclear explosions, we know very well, do not observe national borders, they don’t respect visa regimes, nor does nuclear waste respect time – it remains for generations.

For many survivors the intergenerational impacts of the testing remain central to justice.

Aunty Sue Coleman-Haseldine, a Kokatha-Mula woman from South Australia, was a child when she was subjected to nuclear fallout from the British nuclear testing in the 1950s.

She declared in an address to a UN conference in 2014: “We want nuclear weapons permanently banned and the uranium that can create them left in the ground. If you love your own children and care for the children of the world, you will find the courage to stand up and say ‘enough’.”

A French nuclear test at Mururoa, French Polynesia. Photograph: AFP

The unresolved injustice in the region drives many to support the new treaty, which bans the use, threat of use and the testing of nuclear weapons.

Amongst its objectives, there are what are termed “positive obligations”. These include assistance to victims of nuclear weapons use and testing, as well as environmental remediation for areas affected — a marked shift to include humanitarian law alongside more traditional nuclear disarmament law.


The treaty calls for “age and gender-sensitive assistance … including medical care, rehabilitation and psychological support”. But importantly it does not abrogate responsibility for those who used nuclear weapons.

A former Marshall Islands foreign minister, the late Tony de Brum, spoke often of the long-term impact of US nuclear testing on his people. He frequently recalled his own childhood experience of the tests.


Every time one of those things went off, it was yet another trauma – I would challenge anyone to live through 12 years of testing in the Marshalls, that does not come away with a permanent scar somewhere in your system. That is a mark of that period.

The legacy of environmental, human and cultural harms is compounded by immense grief and frustration due to opaque record keeping and deliberate subterfuge on behalf of the states responsible for the testing.

Historical truth-telling will be key to nuclear justice for many across the Pacific.

Calling for an opening up of nuclear testing records held by the US, de Brum said: “You cannot continue to withhold the necessary information that we need in order to make decisions on issues that are fair and proper for our people.”

'Will to fight together': Fiji's has taken another bold step in the battle against nuclear weapons

We need a new commitment to transparency and accountability from all nations involved in historic nuclear testing. After generations of nuclear experimentation, the impacts of these weapons tests and resulting nuclear waste across lands and ocean remain to be studied across the Pacific.

The removal of historical silences is necessary for such studies to even begin.

This new treaty enters international law with many promises for nuclear justice.

It is well past time.

Dimity Hawkins AM is a PhD candidate at Swinburne University researching nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific. She is a co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican), which won the 2017 Nobel peace prize

Treaty to ban nuclear weapons made official with 50th UN signatory


Production, use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons illegal from January 2021 though nuclear-armed states have not signed up

The mushroom cloud rises over Hiroshima after the dropping of the atomic bomb in 1945. Photograph: US ARMY/AFP/Getty Images

Sun 25 Oct 2020

An international treaty banning nuclear weapons has been ratified by a 50th country, the UN has said, allowing the historic though essentially symbolic text to enter into force after 90 days.

While nuclear powers have not signed up to the treaty, activists who have pushed for its enactment hold out hope that it will prove to be more than symbolic and have a gradual deterrent effect.


Honduras became the 50th country to ratify.

The UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, called it “the culmination of a worldwide movement to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”, according to a statement from his spokesman.

Now that nuclear weapons are illegal, the Pacific demands truth on decades of testin

“It represents a meaningful commitment towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations.”


NGOs also welcomed the news, including the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican), a coalition that won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its key role in bringing the treaty to fruition.

“Honduras just ratified the Treaty as the 50th state, triggering entry into force and making history,” Ican announced.

Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said in a statement: “Today is a victory for humanity, and a promise of a safer future.”

The 75th anniversary of the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, marked in August, saw a wave of countries ratify the treaty.

They included Nigeria, Malaysia, Ireland, Malta and Tuvalu. Thailand, Mexico, South Africa, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Vietnam and the Vatican are among the countries that had already ratified it.

The treaty would come into force on 22 January 2021, the UN said.


Building the atom bomb: the full story of the Nevada Test Site

Declared nuclear-armed states including the US, Britain, France, China and Russia have not signed the treaty.

The US has written to treaty signatories saying the Trump administration believes they made “a strategic error” and urging them to rescind their ratification.

The letter, obtained by the Associated Press, said the five original nuclear powers – the US, Russia, China, Britain and France – and America’s NATO allies “stand unified in our opposition to the potential repercussions” of the treaty.

However campaigners hope the treaty will have the same impact as previous international treaties on landmines and cluster munitions, bringing a stigma to their stockpiling and use, and thereby a change in behaviour even in countries that did not sign up.

Ican said in a statement that it expects “companies to stop producing nuclear weapons and financial institutions to stop investing in nuclear weapon-producing companies”.

The coalition’s executive director, Beatrice Fihn, called it “a new chapter for nuclear disarmament”.

“Decades of activism have achieved what many said was impossible: nuclear weapons are banned.”

Saying his country had played a “decisive role” alongside others, Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz wrote on Twitter it was “an important step toward our goal of a world without nuclear arms”.


Revealed: Saudi Arabia may have enough uranium ore to produce nuclear fuel

Nuclear-armed states argue their arsenals serve as a deterrent and say they remain committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Separately, Russia and the US have been seeking to break an impasse in long-running talks aimed at extending a nuclear arms deal between them.

The two sides have struggled to find common ground over the fate of the New START treaty, which limits both sides to 1,550 deployed warheads but is due to expire next February.

While the US wants to rework the deal to include China and cover new kinds of weapons, Russia is willing to extend the agreement for five years without any new conditions – and each side has repeatedly shot down the other’s proposals.

With Agence France-Presse and Associated Press

Uber, Lyft and allies spend record sum on California ANTI-gig worker initiative

Posted Oct 24, 2020


FILE - In this July 9, 2019, file photo a Lyft ride-share car waits at a stoplight in Sacramento, Calif. A battle between the powerhouses of the so-called gig economy and big labor could become the most expensive ballot measure on Nov. 3, 2020, in California history. Voters are being asked to decide via Proposition 22 whether to create an exemption to a new state law aimed at providing wage and benefit protections to Uber, Lyft and other app-based drivers.AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File

By Jeong Park | The Sacramento Bee and Tribune News Service

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A fight over the future of California gig drivers has drawn nearly $220 million in political spending, making it the most expensive initiative in the history of the state.

The latest campaign finance reports filed Thursday show that the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign has received nearly $200 million, mostly from five tech companies: Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart.

Uber has been the biggest contributor to the campaign, which aims to largely exempt app-based gig economy drivers from a state law that requires companies to provide more employment benefits to their workers. The company spent more than $57 million for the initiative.

Lyft spent nearly $49 million. Instacart put in nearly $32 million, followed by Postmates which contributed more than $13 million.

Those companies have said the current state law raises the cost of doing business for them. They have also said without Proposition 22, they will have to cut thousands of drivers and significantly raise the costs of their service, although the initiative’s opponents dispute those claims.

Nearly $10 million of the contributions didn’t come in cash. Uber, for instance, reported contributing $116,000 of its employees' time for the campaign in October. A number of companies reported providing the campaign with “consumer lists” and “driver lists,” to be used in sending messages supporting Proposition 22 to apps' drivers and users.

The campaign has spent $183 million as of Oct. 17.

Between Sept. 20 and Oct. 17, the campaign spent more than $67 million, mostly on television and digital ads, according to the reports. The campaign also put out about $150,000 worth of print ads in that period, some at targeting Black newspapers.

On the No on Proposition 22 side, which aims to have drivers be employees and receive full benefits such as paid sick leave, the campaign has raised just over $19 million according to the reports.

Most of the money came from labor unions, including more than $5 million from various chapters of SEIU, nearly $4 million from UFCW and $2 million from Teamsters.

The campaign has spent $12.7 million as of Oct. 17, including $8 million on television ads and more than $2 million on digital ads.

‘That’s no way to talk about friends’: Biden scolds Trump over ‘filthy’ India

Donald Trump had sought to defend his record on climate crisis and his decision to exit the Paris Accord, alleging the global agreement was partial to India, China and Russia that were more polluting.

WORLD Updated: Oct 25, 2020
Yashwant Raj
Hindustan Times, Washington

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks about his plans for combatting the coronavirus pandemic at The Queen theater on October 23.(AFP)


Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden slammed US President Donald Trump on Saturday for calling India “filthy” and admonished him for speaking that way about “friends”.

“President Trump called India ‘filthy’,” Biden wrote in a tweet. “It’s not how you talk about friends—and it’s not how you solve global challenges like climate change.”


He added, referring to his Indian-descent running mate Kamala Harris, “@KamalaHarris and I deeply value our partnership—and will put respect back at the center of our foreign policy.”

During an exchange at their final presidential debate on Thursday, Trump had sought to defend his record on climate crisis and his decision to exit the Paris Accord, alleging the global agreement was partial to India, China and Russia that were more polluting.

“Look at China, how filthy it is. Look at Russia. Look at India, it’s so filthy, the air is filthy,” the American president had said.

“The Paris accord I took us out because we were going to have to spend trillions of dollars, and we were treated very unfairly when they put us in there, they did us a great disservice,” he had added.

Indian Americans and surrogates of the Biden campaign had responded angrily at the time. “His rhetoric has proven time and time again that he has disdain for India, as well as for people who draw their heritage from South Asia,” South Asians for Biden, a group of backers and surrogates, said in a tweet.

A congressional aide who spoke on background had said it was a “bizarre comment from a president who is trying to court India as a key part of his national security strategy in the Indo-Pacific”. And it was “oddly timed, especially when his secretary of state and defence (Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper) are headed to India next week to meet with their Indian counterparts”. The aide was referring to the 2+2 ministerial dialogue in New Delhi on October 27.

Indian Americans have been courted in this election like never before. Both the Biden and Trump campaigns have reached out to the community extensively, each arguing they would be better shepherds of the bilateral relationship with India.

There are an estimated 1.9 million eligible Indian American voters. A recent poll of the community showed an overwhelming 72% of them will vote for Biden and 22% for Trump (an earlier survey with smaller sample size was more generous to Trump — 28% to vote for him, 66% for Biden).

Ethiopia Blasts Trump Remark That Egypt Will 'Blow Up' Dam
By Associated Press
October 25, 2020 12:27 AM

FILE - This frame grab from a video obtained from the Ethiopian Public Broadcaster on July 24, 2020, shows an aerial view of water levels at the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in Guba, Ethiopia.


ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA - Ethiopia on Saturday denounced “belligerent threats” over the huge dam it has nearly completed on the Blue Nile River, a day after U.S. President Donald Trump said downstream Egypt will “blow up” the project it has called an existential threat.

Ethiopia's foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to seek clarification, saying “the incitement of war between Ethiopia and Egypt from a sitting U.S. president neither reflects the longstanding partnership and strategic alliance between Ethiopia and the United States nor is acceptable in international law governing interstate relations,” a statement said.

Without naming Trump or the U.S., Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s office issued a separate critical statement amid an outcry in Ethiopia over Trump’s latest threat over the dam. The $4.6 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is a source of national pride, aimed at pulling millions of people from poverty.

Trump made the comment while announcing that Sudan would start to normalize ties with Israel. Downstream Sudan is a party to the talks with Ethiopia and Egypt over the disputed dam. “They (Egypt) will end up blowing up the dam,” Trump said. “And I said it and I say it loud and clear … they’ll blow up that dam. And they have to do something.”

The U.S. president earlier this year told the State Department to suspend millions of dollars in aid to Ethiopia because of the dam dispute, angering Ethiopians who had accused the U.S. of being biased during its earlier efforts to broker a deal on the project among Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan. Ethiopia walked away from those talks.

“They will never see that money unless they adhere to that agreement,” Trump said Friday.

“Occasional statements of belligerent threats to have Ethiopia succumb to unfair terms still abound,” the statement by the Ethiopian prime minister's office said. “These threats and affronts to Ethiopian sovereignty are misguided, unproductive, and clear violations of international law.”
 

FILE - A handout satellite image shows a closeup view of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and the Blue Nile River in Ethiopia, June 26, 2020.

It added: “Ethiopia will not cave in to aggressions of any kind.”

There was no comment from the Egyptian government on Trump’s remarks, but pro-government media covered them extensively. Egypt has repeatedly said it wants to settle the dispute through diplomatic means, but it has said it would use “all available means” to defend the interests of its people.

Ethiopia celebrated the first filling of the dam in August, citing heavy rains, to the dismay of Egypt. Ethiopia later banned flights over the dam amid concerns over possible military action by Egypt.

Now, with Trump’s new remarks, some Ethiopians are urging Ethiopian Americans to help vote him out of office in next month’s election.

Worried by the prospect of further friction between two of Africa’s most powerful and populous countries, European Union representative Josep Borrell said in a statement that “now is the time for action and not for increasing tensions,” adding that a deal on the dam is within reach.

The statement by Abiy’s office said the talks with Egypt and Sudan have shown significant progress since the African Union has stepped in to oversee them. Trump’s statement could undermine that process, said Abel Abate Demissie, an associate fellow at Chatham House.

Ethiopia says the colossal dam could help it become a major power exporter. Egypt depends on the Nile to supply its farmers and a booming population of 100 million with fresh water.

Negotiators have said key questions remain about how much water Ethiopia will release downstream if a multi-year drought occurs and how the countries will resolve any future disputes. Ethiopia rejects binding arbitration at the final stage.

A military strike on the dam would be disastrous, one water expert warned. The dam already has more than 4.9 billion cubic meters of water in its reservoir,” Abebe Yirga told The Associated Press. “It will affect thousands of people along the way if this huge amount of water gushes out of the dam.”

The Blue Nile joins the White Nile in Sudan to become the Nile, and about 85% of the river's flow originates from Ethiopia. Officials hope the dam, now more than three-quarters complete, will reach full power-generating capacity in 2023.

 

UN expert calls for Israel to end practice of administrative detention

By agency reporter

OCTOBER 25, 2020

Israel should release a Palestinian detainee who has been on hunger strike for close to 90 days and end its practice of administrative detention, under which people can be held indefinitely without trial, sometimes for years, says a UN special rapporteur.

Maher Al-Akhras began a hunger strike in late July after he was arrested. Israeli security forces accuse him of being a member of Islamic Jihad, a charge he denies. The Israeli Supreme Court has rejected his petitions for release three times.

“Mr. Al-Akhras is now in very frail condition, having gone without food for 89 days,” said Michael Lynk, special rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967. “Recent visits by doctors to his hospital bed in Israel indicate that he is on the verge of suffering major organ failure, and some damage might be permanent.”

Al-Akhras was arrested on 27 July in his hometown of Selit El Dahir in the West Bank. An administrative detention order was issued against him on 7 August to run until 26 November 2020. In 2009 he was administratively detained for 16 months, and again in 2018 for 11 months.

“Administrative detention is an anathema in any democratic society that follows the rule of law”, Lynk said. “When the democratic state arrests and detains someone, it is required to charge the person, present its evidence in an open trial, allow for a full defence and try to persuade an impartial judiciary of its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Administrative detention, in contrast, allows a state to arrest and detain a person without charges, without a trial, without knowing the evidence against her or him, and without a fair judicial review,” he said. “It is a penal system that is ripe for abuse and maltreatment.”

International law allows a state to use administrative detention only in emergencies, and only if a fair hearing can be provided where the detainee can challenge the allegations against her or him. In an occupation, Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention only permits an occupying power to employ administrative detention “for imperative reasons of security.”

Israel has been regularly criticised by international human rights organisations for its promiscuous use of administrative detention. According to Israeli Prison Services data obtained by B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, there were 355 Palestinians being held in administrative detention by Israel as of 31 August 2020.

While Israeli courts allow for a form of judicial review for administrative detainees, the Israeli Supreme Court (sitting as the High Court) has regularly approved the practice and refused Mr. Al-Akhras’s request for release in a ruling in mid-October. Two previous petitions for his release had been rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court.

Israel also regularly incarcerates its Palestinian administrative detainees in Israeli prisons, a violation of Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which says protected people under occupation should be detained in the occupied territory

“The Israeli security forces who arrested and detained Mr. Al-Akhras have not provided any persuasive evidence in an open hearing to justify its allegations that he is a genuine security threat”, Lynk said. He called upon Israel to release Al-Akhras immediately if it could not provide persuasive evidence on a high standard that he has broken laws that would be acceptable in any democratic state.

“I also call upon Israel to abolish its practice of administrative detention, release those detainees it presently holds, and strictly follow international law in the application of its security operations”, Lynk said.

Michael Lynk was designated by the UN Human Rights Council in 2016 as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967. Professor Lynk is Associate Professor of Law at Western University in London, Ontario, where he teaches labour law, constitutional law and human rights law. Before becoming an academic, he practiced labour law and refugee law for a decade in Ottawa and Toronto. He also worked for the United Nations on human rights and refugee issues in Jerusalem. 

* Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/Home.aspx

[Ekk/6]