We need to stop our children being monetised

By Bernadette Meaden

OCTOBER 7, 2020

Student accommodation is a lucrative business. One investment website says gross yields can be around 10-15 per cent, and adds, “Following the 2008 global downturn, it consistently remained one of the world’s best performing asset classes. Today, despite wider economic concerns, it remains one of the most popular investments in the UK and US respectively.”

These investments can change hands for huge sums. Earlier this year it was reported that New York-based private equity firm Blackstone had done the largest-ever private property deal in the UK, by agreeing to buy student accommodation company iQ  from Goldman Sachs – for £4.7 billion. 

The plight of students now locked down and studying online in this expensive accommodation is rightly receiving considerable attention, and the monetisation of university education and the student experience is being discussed – perhaps in part because people in the media can easily identify with the students, or may have family members affected.

But – providers of student accommodation do at least supply rooms or flats in a suitable location, ie near the university. Some of our most disadvantaged and traumatised children and young people do not even get that consideration, and few people in the media identify with their plight.

Children who are taken into care are often moved long distances away from their home areas, far from everything and everybody they know. Andrew Fellowes of the NSPCC has pointed out that these children are more likely to go missing, and says, “There needs to be coordinated action from national and local governments to provide high quality accommodation options close to where children live." 

One would think this was the least we could expect from a state which had any thought for the welfare of some of its least fortunate children – that some careful planning would go into where children’s homes are needed, and to establish them there.

But the reality is that, like so much these days, the care of vulnerable children is increasingly subject to market forces. The care of some of our youngest and most severely deprived and disadvantaged children have, like University students, become a source of big profits, and if there’s one thing we all know about profits, it’s that they are usually maximised where possible.

So perhaps it is no surprise to learn that a quarter of all England’s children’s homes are located in the North West, and that London children who go into care are quite likely to be sent far away from home. It seems likely that a big factor in this is property prices. If you were setting up a children’s home for profit, would you buy an expensive property in the South East, or a cheap one in the North West? So, children in care are shunted around the country.

Perhaps if we were confident that children would receive good care when they got there, location wouldn’t be so important. But sadly, we can’t be. In the latest government figures, for example, it was revealed that two large private providers had 28 per cent of their homes listed as “Requires improvement to be good”. 

What does it mean, for the children who have to live in homes that are not as good as we would hope? What is it like? Sometimes, not at all like a home in any real sense of the word. Ofsted inspection reports can tell a grim story.

For instance, on 11 August 2020, following a complaint, Ofsted carried out a monitoring visit to a children's home in Warrington. The previous inspection in 2019 had rated the home as Good. On this visit inspectors found, “Staff and managers are not meeting children’s basic day-to-day needs and physical necessities. This may re-enforce previous experiences for children and this does not meet the therapeutic approach described in the home’s statement of purpose." And then, sadly: ”The physical environment of the home needs improvement. For example, carpets in the home were stained and had burn marks on them. Basic items such as bathroom fittings and bedroom furniture were missing. This does not provide a homely environment for the children to live in.” The company that operates this children’s home was purchased in 2017 by a private equity company based in Savile Row, Mayfair, London. 

Last year the Local Government Select Committee investigated the funding of children’s care, and said, ‘Concerns were raised about local authorities’ reliance on private providers and the cost and quality of some of this care. Professor Jones [Emeritus Professor of Social Work, Kingston University and St George’s, University of London] told the Committee: “at the moment, 40 local authorities do not provide any residential childcare themselves; they buy it all in the market”. He considered that the overdependence on the private sector meant “the market is now escalating the price [of residential care] because they can afford to, because they have local authorities over a barrel”. He also considered that “the same is true of independent foster care agencies”.’ 

Then in January 2020, research commissioned by the Local Government Association found, “Professional investors and markets have brought financial engineering techniques to the children’s services sector, and these include significantly increasing debt levels and their associated risk.”

Financial engineering techniques. It’s disturbing to remind ourselves that we are talking about the care of traumatised, unhappy and suffering children, being treated as income streams for big businesses and hedge funds to gamble with. This, to me, indicates how unjust and money-driven our society has become, and how the lives of those most in need are too often disregarded and ignored – at great cost to them, and to us. Many of the costs, in personal and social harm, are unquantifiable. But the financial costs alone can be quite staggering.

In September 2020 the Children’s Commissioner reported: “local authorities can pay extortionate amounts for residential care – usually more than £4,000 a week, with local authorities reporting that the costs of such placements are rising sharply.” When children are 16 or older they may go into ‘unregulated accommodation’, where they receive support rather than care – again often provided by private companies at a profit, sometimes of poor quality (caravans and even tents have been reported) and often at great cost. The Children’s Commissioner said “we have heard evidence of one local authority being charged £9,000 per week for a place in unregulated accommodation” 

Even foster care, where an individual or family opens their homes and their hearts to children, the epitome of kindness and generosity, has been affected by this monetisation, as private equity firms have moved into this sector too. The three dominant independent groups in the foster care ‘industry’ are all backed by private equity.

It is of course essential to say that the actual foster carers and staff who are working on the front line in children’s care will be doing everything they can to keep children safe and improve their quality of life and prospects. This is emphatically not intended as a criticism of those dedicated people who are working so hard, but of a system that allows profit to be a priority, and sees growing amounts of public money channelled into the bank accounts of hedge funds.

And if, thanks to the support of good people and their own determination and talent, children survive and go to university, they may remain a source of profit, for investors in student accommodation.

* I became aware of these issues through the work of Martin Barrow, a local authority foster carer and journalist who tirelessly campaigns for scrutiny, transparency, and accountability in children’s social care. Follow him on Twitter @MartinBarrow

-

-----------   

© Bernadette Meaden has written about political, religious and social issues for some years, and is strongly influenced by Christian Socialism, liberation theology and the Catholic Worker movement. She is an Ekklesia associate and regular contributor. You can follow her on Twitter: @BernaMeaden

 

Climate crisis reducing food supply for Canada's First Nations

By agency reporter

OCTOBER 22, 2020

Climate change is taking a growing toll on First Nations in Canada, depleting food sources and affecting health, Human Rights Watch says in a new report. The Canadian government is not adequately supporting First Nations’ efforts to adapt to the mounting crisis and is failing to do its part to reduce the global greenhouse gas emissions that are driving it.

The 120-page report, ‘My Fear is Losing Everything’: The Climate Crisis and First Nations’ Right to Food in Canada, documents how climate change is reducing First Nations’ traditional food sources, driving up the cost of imported alternatives, and contributing to a growing problem of food insecurity and related negative health impacts. Canada is warming at more than twice the global rate, and northern Canada at about three times the global rate. Despite its relatively small population, Canada is still a top 10 greenhouse gas emitter, with per capita emissions three to four times the global average.

“Climate change is pushing increasingly dangerous levels of food poverty in First Nations”, said Katharina Rall, senior environment researcher at Human Rights Watch. “By flouting its emissions-reduction commitments, Canada is contributing to the global climate crisis that, within its borders, is being felt most acutely by Indigenous people who live off the land.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 120 people, including residents, chiefs, and council members in First Nations in Yukon, northwestern British Columbia, and northern Ontario, as well as medical providers, educators, and environment and health experts, including Indigenous mental health counsellors and staff of Indigenous representative organisations. Human Rights Watch also reviewed academic research and peer-reviewed scientific studies documenting and projecting the impact of climate change in the areas studied, and contacted federal, provincial, and territorial government officials about the issues.

In the three geographic locations studied, residents reported drastic reductions in the quantity of food they are able to harvest, and increased difficulty and danger associated with harvesting food from the land. These changes are being driven in significant part by climate change impacts on wildlife habitat, including changing ice and permafrost conditions, more and increasingly intense wildfires, warming water temperatures, changes in precipitation and water levels, and unpredictable weather.

Households must supplement their traditional diet with more purchased food. But grocery stores are often remote and the prices for nutritious foods prohibitive. As a result, people said, they tend to eat more affordable but less nutritious foods, compounding existing health conditions resulting from historic marginalisation and poor access to health care in rural and remote Indigenous communities. Children, older people, and people with chronic diseases are particularly affected. Some children go to school hungry, and some older people cut down on their food. People with chronic diseases often cannot afford to follow medically recommended diets. Access to adequate and sufficient food corresponding to cultural traditions is an essential component of the human rights to food and health.

Across the country, First Nations are working to address the impact of the climate crisis. Some maintain strong traditional food sharing networks, while others have created monitoring systems for climate change impacts on their environment. Yet, all these efforts require resources and capacity, which many communities lack, and the federal and provincial governments are not doing enough to support them, Human Rights Watch found.

Federal climate change policies have largely ignored the real impact of climate change on First Nations. While climate change is already exacerbating historic inequalities experienced by First Nations, most existing policies fail to monitor – let alone address – current human rights impacts in these settings.

Subsidies, health resources, and other resources needed to respond are often not available, insufficient, or do not reach those who need them most. The federal government’s Nutrition North programme subsidises transporting nutritious foods from registered southern retailers, but healthy store-bought food options remain financially out of reach for many in remote and northern communities.

Canada is also not doing its part to advance global efforts to address climate change. Canada has not set adequately ambitious carbon emissions reduction targets consistent with the goal of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C, in line with the Paris Agreement, and the government is not even on track to meet its own targets.

The federal government acknowledged that food security is a critical issue and that more work is needed to cut emissions and meet First Nations food security needs. But it has not clarified how it will curb emissions or concretely address climate-exacerbated food insecurity.

Provincial and territorial government responses varied. The Yukon territorial government has committed to monitoring and tracking food insecurity and acknowledged the need to address the unique impact on Indigenous peoples. Ontario’s government, by contrast, has cancelled numerous climate adaptation and mitigation programs that benefited First Nations.

British Columbia has collaborated with First Nations to develop a climate adaptation strategy but did not respond to requests for further information on the details of this strategy, due to be released this year. Neither Yukon, Ontario, nor British Columbia have made any significant progress in reducing their emissions.

“If Canada does not urgently scale up its efforts to reduce emissions, it will continue to fuel the global climate crisis that is already having an outsized impact on First Nations”, Rall said. “The government should also urgently provide financial and technical support to First Nations already facing the devastating impacts of climate change.”

Kyle Linklater, a resident of Weenusk First Nation, Ontario said: “My biggest fear of climate change [is] losing everything. Losing our tradition over the weathers, over melting ice. [I]f we lose what we have now, what will we have to show our children in the future?”

Chief Madeek, Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief, of Skeena River watershed, British Columbia said: “Climate change is really affecting First Nations right now. There is no food for animals to eat. The animals won’t be there for us to hunt.”

* Read the report ‘My Fear is Losing Everything’ here

* Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/

[Ekk/6]

I wouldn't have insurance without the Affordable Care Act. Now Trump is working to deprive millions of struggling Americans health insurance.
Bobbi Dempsey,
Opinion Contributor

Hundreds of people line up for assistance with their unemployment claim. Because of the pandemic, millions of Americans are out of work and don't have health insurance. Bryan Woolston/Reuters

Many Americans lost their jobs and/or their health insurance this year, leading to a surge in applications for medical coverage through Healthcare.gov and other government programs. 

People suffering from COVID-related medical issues during and after the pandemic will need the Affordable Care Act (ACA) more than ever. 

The Trump administration still hasn't yet unveiled any alternative healthcare plan, meaning the abolishment of the ACA would leave millions of Americans with no recourse.

Sitting at my desk, I can clearly hear my son hacking and wheezing in his bedroom upstairs. He's had a persistent cough for a while now, which is more than a little alarming, given the current landscape.

It isn't just the possibility of my child being infected with COVID-19 — and the serious and terrifying health risks that go along with it — that frighten me. It's also the realization that we cannot afford to pay for treatment he might need to save his life. Out of my three young adult children, only one currently has medical insurance. Unfortunately for the cough-plagued son in question, he is not so fortunate. 

Trump is trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act while millions are sick, dying, and out of work.

When faced with a deadly virus that's killing in staggering numbers, people shouldn't have to think about whether they can afford access to treatment that could possibly mean the difference between life and death. But that's the reality in a country where private healthcare is typically tied to employment, and the most vulnerable and needy people must rely on a patchwork of programs that make up our shredded safety net.

Right now, the combination of a pandemic and economic disaster means many Americans are experiencing parallel feelings of panic: struggling to survive financially, while also hoping they survive, period.


Given that harsh reality, it is mind boggling to me that the Trump administration would choose this particular time — during a global pandemic when more than 220,000 Americans have died and many more are sick and struggling — to try and rip healthcare away from vulnerable Americans who desperately need it now more than ever.

The Trump administration is currently urging the Supreme Court to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Depending on how the Court decides on the specific questions involved, the decision could invalidate the entire law completely and deprive millions of Americans of their only access to health insurance.

Ironically, the administration's initial Supreme Court filing came at almost the same time as a news release from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — a division of the Department of Health & Human Services — announcing that nearly 500,000 Americans had applied for new healthcare coverage through Healthcare.gov due in large part due to coronavirus-related job losses. That figure included people who applied through a special enrollment period for those who qualified based on loss of minimum essential coverage, and specifically focused on data for a period which ran from the end of the Open Enrollment Period last fall through May of this year.

The more recent data about healthcare coverage (or lack thereof) paints an equally grim picture. A news update from the CMS on September 30 showed more than 4 million new Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollments between February and June 2020. This represents an increase of nearly 5.7 percent since March.

Highlighting the need for universal coverage

The crisis that would result from the loss of the ACA underscores the problem with having no universal healthcare coverage that's available to all citizens, and not tied to employment.

The United States is the only industrialized country that lacks some form of universal healthcare. Some countries, like Australia, have a dual-track system with both public and private options. Other countries like Canada and the United Kingdom have what most people envision when they think of universal healthcare: a government-run system where all citizens have access to coverage.

The public programs are typically funded through taxes, and insured citizens usually pay minimal premiums or none at all. Critics of universal healthcare programs point out some common complaints, such as long wait times and the challenge of getting pricey treatments approved without a fight. However, many Americans — especially those who have tried to get medical care while uninsured — also frequently encounter similar issues, without the benefits of universal coverage.

Giving scared people reason to panic about whether they would be able to get medical treatment if they should get sick at a time when so many are dying or facing life-threatening illness seems intentionally cruel.


This adds significant and unnecessary anxiety to what is already an emotionally stressful time, particularly for those worried about symptoms they or loved ones may be facing.

I am extremely grateful that this is one of the rare times in my life when I have decent health insurance. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, my children and I were unable to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. However, I am still trying to pay off the bills for my out-of-pocket costs from a major surgery I had last fall. And my children have all reached an age where they can no longer be covered under my policy. (Important to note, though, that they would have been dropped from this coverage years earlier were it not for the protections made possible by the ACA.)

This crisis should serve as a wake-up call — a clear illustration of the pitfalls of forcing people to rely on employers or ravaged safety net programs for healthcare coverage. It should be crystal clear that we can no longer wait to initiate a universal healthcare program. During a pandemic, the last thing a sick person should worry about is whether they can scrape together enough cash for cough medicine or if they can afford to pay an ER bill.

And none of us should have to live in fear that the federal leaders who first failed to protect us from an impending pandemic will then further abandon us by ripping away our ability to get basic medical treatment that could mean the difference between life and death.

Bobbi Dempsey is a freelance writer and an economic justice fellow at Community Change.

Joe Biden is doubling down on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour despite the economic downturn. It could bump paychecks for over 27 million workers.

Joseph Zeballos-Roig


Biden is pushing ahead with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour even as the downturn takes a toll on small businesses.

The Biden campaign hasn't laid out a timeline to implement it, and it did not respond whether it supported a House bill that would raise it to that level by 2025.

Congress last raised the federal minimum wage in 2009. It's the longest stretch without a wage hike in US history.

Republicans oppose it, arguing it hurts employers and causes job losses.
A growing amount of economic research so far indicates employment hasn't been negatively impacted in states and cities that implemented hourly wage increases.


Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is sticking by his push to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, a move that would bump paychecks for millions of low-wage workers hit hard by the pandemic.

Biden and President Donald Trump clashed on the issue at Thursday's presidential debate. Asked about increasing workers' pay when many small businesses are struggling, Biden responded he still believed it was necessary to increase the hourly wage to $15.

"I do, because I think one of the things we're going to have to do we're going to have to bail them out too — we should be bailing them out now, those small businesses," Biden said.

Trump, however, argued lifting wages would harm employers and said it should be left up to the states. "I think it should be a state option. Alabama is different than New York, New York is different from Vermont," he said. "Every state is different."


The president has adopted various positions to a minimum wage hike since 2016, having previously expressed an openness to a higher wage floor.

The divide between the candidates highlights many years of heated economic debate on the impact of raising minimum wages on employment levels. A growing body of research so far indicates that some state and city-wage increases in recent years hasn't set back the ability of employers to hire more workers. Evidence of job losses has not been consistent.

Read more: An investing shop overseeing $476 billion analyzed 650 stocks to fine-tune its election strategy. The firm's experts break down the trades to make around a Biden win — and explains how investors can keep portfolios safe.

Last year, the Democratic-led House approved a plan to gradually lift the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. The GOP-controlled Senate dismissed the legislation and never took it up.


Biden has unveiled a plan to increase the federal minimum wage and index it to the median hourly wage, so low-wage employees' incomes keeps pace with those of salaried middle-income workers. The campaign hasn't laid out a timeline to implement a $15 hourly wage. It did not respond to a request for comment on whether it supported the House bill, called the "Raise the Wage Act."

"One other thing that people may not realize is we've raised the minimum wage in weak economies in the past," Jared Bernstein, an outside economic advisor to Biden and formerly a top aide during his vice presidency, told Business Insider. "The results have been the same."
The push for $15 an hour and its possible impacts

A nonpartisan analysis of the House Democratic proposal produced mixed findings. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it could increase paychecks for 27.3 million low-wage workers and lift 1.3 million workers out of poverty. It also suggested the economy could shed 1.3 million jobs.

Ben Zipperer, an economist at the progressive Economic Policy Institute, argues lifting wages would boost workers' incomes during a period when wage growth tends to sharply slow down and even decline.


"Workers really need the money during a downturn, especially the one now when high levels of unemployment are putting significant downward pressure on wages," Zipperer told Business Insider. "That's especially true for people at the bottom of the wage distribution where a lot of the employment losses have been in the pandemic."

But conservative economists say the opposite. They claim setting a $15 hourly wage would increase labor costs, constraining business growth and hurt the economy as a result.

Read more: Strategists at JPMorgan's $1.9 trillion asset management arm share 5 investing tips for navigating the fast-approaching election — including the sectors poised to profit from every possible outcome

"The U.S. economy will be very weak throughout 2021. The nation will need more business income, not less; more jobs, not fewer; and faster, not slower, economic growth," Michael Strain, the director of policy studies at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a Bloomberg op-ed. "A $15 minimum wage would move the economy in the wrong direction across all these fronts."

Trump echoed that during the debate as well. "How are you helping your small businesses when you're forcing wages?" he said. "What's going to happen, and what's been proven to happen, is when you do that, these small businesses fire many of their employees."

"I think many of these folks are impervious to evidence," Bernstein, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said. He also argued raising wages would stimulate demand by providing more money to workers who are the likeliest to spend it.

A 2019 analysis of over 130 minimum wage increases implemented since 1979 indicated the decline in jobs paying the hourly wage were offset by a rise in the number of jobs that paid more.

Americans overwhelmingly back a $15 minimum wage

Congress last raised the federal minimum wage from $6.55 an hour to $7.25 an hour in 2009 during the Great Recession. The current wage amounts to $15,000 a year for a person working 40 hours a week.


In the past decade, lawmakers have not authorized any hourly pay hikes, the longest the US has gone without one since a wage floor was enacted in 1938. Republicans rejected attempts from Democrats to raise it during Barack Obama's presidency.

Many states and local governments increased minimum wages on their own, said Ernie Tedeschi, a policy economist at Evercore ISI, which helped lift incomes. Currently, 29 states plus the District of Columbia have implemented higher wages than what the federal government mandates.

Federal inaction also spurred a drive among progressive activists to raise it, culminating in the "Fight for $15" movement. The position garnered traction in last year's Democratic primary, with most presidential candidates endorsing a $15 hourly wage as part of their platforms. Now 22 mostly large cities — including San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles — have a minimum wage that's $15 or above.

Surveys have found widespread public approval for the measure as well.

—Will Jordan (@williamjordann) October 23, 2020



A Pew Research Center poll last year indicated 67% of US adults favored raising the wage floor to $15 an hour. Only 33% opposed it. A Business Insider poll conducted last summer found similar levels of support for it as well.

"Five to ten years ago, a $15 minimum wage was not a national issue. Now it is," Zipperer said. "It's both a combination of the success of a labor movement and people's growing awareness of how poorly some people in our economy are paid."

Many states and local governments increased minimum wages on their own, said Ernie Tedeschi, a policy economist at Evercore ISI, which helped lift incomes. Currently, 29 states plus the District of Columbia have implemented higher wages than what the federal government mandates.

Federal inaction also spurred a drive among progressive activists to raise it, culminating in the "Fight for $15" movement. The position garnered traction in last year's Democratic primary, with most presidential candidates endorsing a $15 hourly wage as part of their platforms. Now 22 mostly large cities — including San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles — have a minimum wage that's $15 or above.

Surveys have found widespread public approval for the measure as well.

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