Friday, July 30, 2021

Dog days in prehistoric Europe
Remains suggest wild hunting dogs arrived in Europe more than 1.7 million years ago.



A pack of Eurasian hunting dogs chasing prey. Credit: Mauricio Antón with the scientific supervision by D. Lordkipanidze and B. Martínez-Navarro.


Scientists have unearthed the earliest evidence of wild hunting dogs in Europe, from more than 1.7 million years ago – and they may have lived alongside early humans.

A team led by Saverio Bartolini-Lucenti from the University of Florence, Italy, found a large canine at the archaeological site of Dmanisi in Georgia. This site is renowned for yielding the earliest direct evidence for humans out of Africa, dating back 1.8 million years.

This new discovery is the first record of a dog from the site, and the remains have been dated back to between 1.77 and 1.76 million years.

3D scans of the hemimandible fragments of the Eurasian hunting dog, Canis (Xenocyon) lycaonoides, from Dmanisi (specimen number D6327) superimposed on a mandible of the same species. Credit: S. Bartolini-Lucenti.

By looking at the dog’s dental remains, the researchers found that it likely belonged to a young adult dog weighing about 30 kilograms – the size of a Labrador. The teeth had distinctive characteristics resembling other wild dog species from the same era, showing that it was highly carnivorous, and the researchers matched the remains to the species Canis (Xenocyon) lycaonoides.

Otherwise known as the Eurasian hunting dog, this species originated in East Africa and is potentially the ancestor of living species such as the endangered Indian dhole and African hunting dog.

“Much fossil evidence suggests that this species was a cooperative pack‑hunter that, unlike other large‑sized canids, was capable of social care toward kin and non‑kin members of its group,” the authors write in their paper, published in Scientific Reports.

While the evolution of these dogs is still largely unknown, they are thought to have originated in Asia and then moved into Europe and Africa somewhere between 1.8 million and 800,000 years ago. This finding is the earliest known instance of these dogs near Europe, showing that the species was on the move by 1.7 million years ago.

This may suggest the ecological conditions favoured migration at the time.


A group of Homo erectus sharing food with an old and toothless individual who lived several years without teeth. Credit: Mauricio Antón with the scientific supervision by D. Lordkipanidze and B. Martínez-Navarro.

“Interestingly, its dispersal from Asia to Europe and Africa followed a parallel route to that of hominins, but in the opposite direction,” the authors write.

At this same Dmanisi archaeological site, previous research teams have found the oldest direct evidence of hominins outside of Africa (though slightly earlier artefacts have been found in southern China). This indicates the two species may have shared the location at this time.

The authors note that hominins and wild hunting dogs are the only two mammal species in this era with proven altruistic behaviour towards their group members, which may have been a survival strategy that played a role in their successful migrations.

“The co-occurrence of two highly social species in the same locality around 1.8 Ma…raises interest in the role played by social behaviour and by mutually-beneficial cooperation and reciprocity in the geographic expansion of these species,” they conclude.

Is the truth out there?
How the Harvard-based Galileo Project will search the skies for alien technology.


Artist’s impression of interstellar asteroid 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)
Credit: European Southern Observatory / M. Kornmesser


30 July 2021 The Conversation
By Ray Norris, Western Sydney University

Can we find alien technology? That is the ambitious goal of the Galileo Project, launched this week by Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb with substantial private financial backing.

The project is far from the first attempt to detect signs of civilisations beyond Earth. Loeb has been criticised in the past for his dismissive approach to previous efforts to find extraterrestrial life and his argument that an alien artefact passed through our solar system in 2017.

So why do Loeb and his collaborators think they have a chance of finding something where others have failed? There are three triggers that suggest they might.
Exoplanets, ‘Oumuamua, and UFOs

First, years of painstaking observations have shown that many stars host Earth-like planets. There is a real chance these “exoplanets” might be home to alien civilisations.

Second, five years ago, an interstellar visitor, dubbed ‘Oumuamua, tumbled though our solar system. It was a skinny object about 400 metres long, and we know from its speed and trajectory that it arrived from outside our solar system. It was the first time we had ever seen an interstellar object enter our neighbourhood.

Unfortunately it caught us on the hop, and we didn’t notice it until it was on its way out. So we didn’t get a chance to have a really good look at it.

Scientists were divided on the question of what ‘Oumuamua might be. Many thought it was simply an interstellar shard of rock, even though we had no idea how such a shard might be produced or slung our way.

Others, including Loeb, thought there was a chance it was a spacecraft from another civilisation. Some scientists felt such claims to be far-fetched. Others pointed out that science should be open-minded and, in the absence of a good explanation, we should examine all plausible solutions.

Today, the question is still hanging. We don’t know whether ‘Oumuamua was a spaceship or merely an inert lump of rock.

The third trigger for the Galileo Project came from the US military. In June, the Office of the US Director of National Intelligence announced that some military reports of UFOs, or UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) as they are now known, seem real.

Specifically, the report said some UAPs “probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors” and there was no known explanation for them.

In other words, they aren’t meteorological phenomena, or faulty instruments, or weather balloons, or clandestine military experiments. So what are they?

Again, the question is left hanging. The report seems to rule out known technology, and suggests “advanced technology”, but stops short of suggesting it is the work of aliens.
Science to the rescue

Loeb takes the view that instead of debating whether either ‘Oumuamua or UAPs provide evidence of alien intelligence, we should do what scientists are good at: get some reliable data. And, he argues, scientists are the people to do it, not politicians or military staff. As the US report says, the sensors used by the military “are not generally suited for identifying UAP”.

Few subjects divide scientists as much as the existence of aliens. On one hand, there are serious SETI (Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence) projects, such as Project Phoenix and Breakthrough Listen, that use the world’s largest telescopes to search for signals from some extraterrestrial intelligence.

At the other extreme, few scientists are persuaded by the fuzzy photos and dubious eyewitness accounts that seem to characterise many UFO reports.

The Galileo Project is very different from SETI searches or collections of UFO sightings. Instead, it will explicitly search for evidence of alien artefacts, either in space or on Earth.
But is it science?

Is this science? Loeb is convinced that it is. He argues the Galileo Project will bring scientific techniques and expertise to bear on one of the most important questions we can ask: are we alone? And the project will build purpose-designed equipment, optimised for the detection of alien artefacts.

Will it find anything? The odds are poor, as Loeb admits. In essence it’s a fishing expedition. But if there is a prima facie case for the existence of alien technology, then science has a duty to investigate it.

But suppose they do find something? Will we get to hear about it, or will it be locked up in some future Area 51?

The Galileo Project has promised all data will be made public, and all results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Indeed, one of the reasons it will not use existing military data is because much of it is classified, which would restrict the project’s freedom to make the results public.

Or perhaps the project will find natural explanations for ‘Oumuamua and UAPs. But even that will be a new scientific discovery, perhaps revealing new natural phenomena.

As Loeb says:


Whenever we look at the sky in a new way, we find something new. We will find something exciting no matter what.

Ray Norris, Professor, School of Science, Western Sydney University

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

Government watchdog denies protests of SpaceX's lunar lander contract

An illustration depicts a SpaceX Starship rocket outfitted as a 
lunar lander on the moon. Photo courtesy of SpaceX

ORLANDO, Fla., July 30 (UPI) -- A U.S. government watchdog denied protests Friday of NASA's nearly $3 billion contract award to Elon Musk's SpaceX to build a lunar lander for astronaut missions.

In denying the arguments made by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Alabama-based Dynetics, the Government Accountability Office noted that NASA's options for the contract were restricted by a lack of congressional funding.

NASA's description of the contract competition had stated that the outcome would depend on that funding, Kenneth Patton, a GAO managing associate general counsel, said in a emailed statement.

"In addition, the announcement reserved the right to make multiple awards, a single award, or no award at all," Patton wrote. "The protesters could not establish any reasonable possibility of competitive prejudice."

Blue Origin and Dynetics filed the protests in April when they were shut out of the three-way competition.

NASA had said it would like at least two finalists to build two unique landers for upcoming Artemis moon missions. The agency requested $3.4 billion this year for the lunar Human Landing System program, but the Congress appropriated just $850 million.

Since April, several members of Congress have introduced a bill to boost NASA's current funding by $10 billion to make another award under the program. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a June congressional hearing that the agency was prepared to move quickly once the GAO made its decision.

Blue Origin will continue to press for a contract despite the GAO ruling, according to an emailed statement.

RELATED NASA moves ahead with plan to support private space stations


"We've been encouraged by actions in Congress to add a second provider and appropriate additional resources to NASA's pursuit to return Americans to the moon," the company wrote.

Blue Origin's bid was evaluated by NASA to cost of $5.99 billion, about twice that of the SpaceX proposal. But Bezos said in an open letter to NASA on Monday that the company would permanently waive $2 billion in payments and absorb the cost of a pathfinder mission to fly its lander in Earth orbit as a preliminary test.

The first Artemis mission, an uncrewed test flight of the SLS rocket and Orion capsule, is scheduled for launch from Florida later this year.
Deliveroo unveils plans to pull out of Spain in wake of ‘rider law’

THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY WORKERS BASIC BENEFITS

Delivery firm says ‘disproportionate level of investment’ would be needed to achieve top-level market position

The changes in Spain will mean a worker is presumed to be an employee 
rather than self-employed contractor. 
Photograph: Albert Gea/Reuters

Jasper Jolly
@jjpjolly
Fri 30 Jul 2021


Deliveroo has announced plans to pull out of Spain only months after the government promised a law to give gig economy workers greater employment rights.

Deliveroo, which is headquartered and listed in London, said remaining in Spain would require too much investment compared with its other markets, given the scale of its operations in the country.

The takeaway app company blamed its relatively small market share, saying that “achieving and sustaining a top-tier market position in Spain would require a disproportionate level of investment with highly uncertain long-term potential returns that could impact the economic viability of the market for the company”.

A spokesman for Deliveroo said Spain’s employment rights law was not the determining factor, but added that it had resulted in an earlier withdrawal from the country

The Spanish government announced plans in March to legislate to give workers at food delivery companies and other online platforms more employment rights after a landmark legal ruling, as the first EU country to do so.

Known as the “rider law”, the changes will mean a worker is presumed to be an employee rather than self-employed contractor. The changes will also force food digital platforms to inform delivery riders about how computer algorithms and artificial intelligence affect their working conditions.

Deliveroo said its withdrawal from Spain was subject to a month-long consultation with affected employees, beginning in September, with its services in the country halting in October.

The firm indicated the move would not have a significant financial impact,with less than 2% of its gross sales in Spain. Deliveroo operates in 12 markets, including Australia, Belgium, France, Hong Kong, and Italy, but the UK and Ireland account for half of its revenues.

Although the company did not explicitly mention the Madrid government’s changes as it announced the move on Friday, the Spanish reforms have been seen as a direct challenge to the business models of companies such as Deliveroo, which rely on farming out delivery jobs to workers who are classified as independent contractors.

Deliveroo says this gives workers desired flexibility, but some workers have campaigned for rights such as sick pay and holiday.

Deliveroo workers in the UK are still treated as contractors. In June, the company successfully argued in the court of appeal that workers were self-employed, to the dismay of unions seeking to improve conditions in the gig economy. However, the UK’s supreme court had previously found that Uber workers should be treated as employees.

The status of workers was deemed a particular issue by big City investment funds, with some major investors saying it was a key reason for not buying shares in a disappointing initial public offering of Deliveroo stock in March. One investor told the Guardian labour issues were a “ticking bomb” for the company.

The plan to pull out of Spain comes as Deliveroo has faced stiff competition from rivals, including Uber Eats, which is owned by the US taxi app company Uber, Anglo-Dutch Just Eat Takeaway, and homegrown Spanish competitor Glovo.

Glovo has said it plans to hire 2,000 delivery riders permanently, but will still try to retain some independent workers. Uber Eats is outsourcing its rider services to other companies.

“The decision to propose ending our operations in Spain is not one we have taken lightly,” said Hadi Moussa, Deliveroo’s chief business officer for international. He thanked its riders, and said employees would be supported throughout the consultation period.
EU fines Amazon close to $900M for breaching data protection laws

"We strongly disagree with the ruling," an Amazon spokesperson said of the penalty



"Maintaining the security of our customers' information and their trust are top priorities," Amazon said in a response to the penalty. File Photo by Friedemann Vogel/EPA-EFE

July 30 (UPI) -- The European Union has fined retail giant Amazon close to $900 million for, according to investigators, running afoul of the alliance's data protection laws.

The fine was imposed a couple weeks ago, but disclosed on Friday in a securities filing by Amazon.

The penalty was given by the EU's National Commission for Data Protection, which said Amazon failed to comply with a data protection law.

The watchdog said Amazon data-processing practices were not in line with the statute.

As part of the penalty, the commission urged Amazon to change certain business practices.

The retail giant said in a response to the fine that none of its practices have violated the EU law.

"The decision ... relies on subjective and untested interpretations of European privacy law, and the proposed fine is entirely out of proportion," Amazon said, according to The Wall Street Journal.

"Maintaining the security of our customers' information and their trust are top priorities," the company added, according to CNBC.

Regulators last month had proposed a $425 million fine for Amazon.

In its response, Amazon said it's planning to appeal the punishment.

"We strongly disagree with the CNPD's ruling," a spokesperson for the company said, according to the CNBC report.

The disclosure of the fine came a day after Amazon reported $113 billion in second-quarter revenue. The April-July period was third straight quarter of at least $100 billion, but missed most analysts' expectations by about $2 billion.

Amazon is the not the only tech company to be targeted as of late. Google recently faced fines in France for $267 million for abusing its power in the online marketplace and $600 million earlier this month related to content.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange stripped of Ecuadorian citizenship
Agence France-Presse
July 28, 2021

 (AFP)

Ecuador has revoked the citizenship of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who is currently in a British prison.

Ecuador's justice system formally notified the Australian of the nullity of his naturalisation in a letter that came in response to a claim filed by the South American country's Foreign Ministry.

A naturalisation is considered damaging when it is granted based on the concealment of relevant facts, false documents or fraud.

Ecuadorian authorities say Assange's naturalisation letter had multiple inconsistencies, different signatures, the possible alteration of documents and unpaid fees, among other issues.

Carlos Poveda, Assange's lawyer, told The Associated Press the decision was made without due process and Assange was not allowed to appear in the case.

"On the date (Assange) was cited he was deprived of his liberty and with a health crisis inside the deprivation of liberty center where he was being held," Poveda said.

Poveda said he will file appeals asking for an amplification and clarification of the decision. "More than the importance of nationality, it is a matter of respecting rights and following due process in withdrawing nationality."

Assange received Ecuadorian citizenship in January 2018 as part of a failed attempt by the government of then-President Lenín Moreno to turn him into a diplomat to get him out of its embassy in London.

On Monday, the Pichincha Court for Contentious Administrative Matters revoked this decision.

Ecuador's Foreign Ministry told AP the court had "acted independently and followed due process in a case that took place during the previous government and that was raised by the same previous government."

Assange, 50, has been in London' high-security Belmarsh Prison since he was arrested in April 2019 for skipping bail seven years earlier during a separate legal battle.

Assange spent seven years holed up inside Ecuador's London embassy, where he fled in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

U.S. prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published.

Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment freedom of speech protections for publishing documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, Britain's High Court granted the U.S. government permission to appeal a decision that the WikiLeaks founder cannot be sent to the United States to face espionage charges.

In January, a lower court judge had refused an American request to send Assange to the U.S.

(AP)
HIV-positive man's arrest puts Mexican law in spotlight
Agence France-Presse
July 28, 2021

Gay Pride in Mexico ( Guillermo Arias AFP/File)

The arrest of a man accused of failing to tell a partner that he had HIV has sparked fresh controversy about a Mexican law that campaigners say is outdated and discriminatory.

Prosecutors in the capital drew criticism for releasing images of the man, identified as Juan "N," after his detention in June at a time when the country was celebrating sexual diversity and inclusion.

In Mexico, knowingly putting someone in danger of infection with a sexually transmitted or serious disease is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

"What the crime does is criminalize people who live with any health condition, be it HIV or any other," said Geraldina Gonzalez de la Vega, president of the Mexico City authorities' Council to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination.

Alleged breaches of the law have escalated amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

In 2020, prosecutors in the capital opened 78 investigations into accusations of people putting others in danger of infection.

Another 52 have been launched this year, according to official data that does not specify the diseases involved.
Report Advertisement

But compared with the nine such complaints in 2018 and 12 in 2019, the impact of the coronavirus is evident.

- 'Stigmatizing' -


Although there are no reports of new detentions, Gonzalez de la Vega considers it "deeply stigmatizing" to criminally investigate a Covid-19 patient.
Report Advertisement

With 2.7 million confirmed coronavirus cases and more than 238,000 deaths, Mexico is one of the countries hardest hit by the pandemic.

The law was prompted by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which led to a toughening of the capital's penal code in the 1990s.

But it is unnecessary because someone who fraudulently infects another can be prosecuted under other laws used to deal with inflicting injuries, Gonzalez de la Vega said.

Academic studies have argued that the law reflects decades-old moralisms in the Catholic-majority country, such as punishing promiscuous behavior.

Jaime Morales, director of sexual diversity for the capital government, now works to train and sensitize the personnel who revealed the man's identity.

"It is illegal," Morales said.

The man's detention, which lasted a week, followed a complaint by his ex-partner who, lawyers allege, was deceived and put at risk.

The prosecution said Juan "N" was arrested for failing to respond to subpoenas.

The judge granted him release pending trial.

AFP contacted Juan "N" and his defense team, but they declined to comment while legal proceedings are underway.

- 'Intervention by the state' -

The crime of which the man is accused is also anachronistic from a medical perspective, campaigners say.

For two decades, antiretroviral drugs have successfully reduced HIV until it is undetectable and therefore non-communicable, while prevention methods including condoms can also significantly reduce the risk of infection.

"A person who has it totally under control does not transmit the virus to their partners," said Sergio Montalvo, a doctor at a public clinic in the capital specializing in HIV.

Any person with HIV has the choice whether to share their diagnosis, he said.

In 2020, 342 new cases of HIV were diagnosed in Mexico City, out of 9,220 throughout the country, according to official figures.

The case of Juan "N" has opened the door to the possible repeal of the contentious law.

Temistocles Villanueva, a lawmaker for the ruling Morena party, plans to present such a proposal in the capital's legislature in August.

"It is an intervention by the state in people's private life, in their sexual relations," said Villanueva, who does not believe criminalization reduces infection.

"What it does is make people hide their state of health so as not to risk being accused," he said.
DEMOCRATS FAIL 2

House adjourns for recess without passing bill to extend federal eviction ban

BY CRISTINA MARCOS,SCOTT WONG AND MIKE LILLIS 
- 07/30/21 04:00 PM EDT

House Democratic leaders failed to round up enough votes on Friday to pass legislation extending the federal ban on evictions just two days before it is set to expire, ultimately adjourning the chamber for a long summer recess with no path forward on the issue.

After hours of inactivity on the House floor as Democratic leaders worked to corral support for legislative action, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) tried to pass a bill by unanimous consent that would have renewed the moratorium through Oct. 18, but Republicans objected.

While Republicans objected to the bill’s passage on the floor, the House’s inability to advance legislation was also a result of Democrats’ inability to unite around the best path forward — a failure they blamed on the short, one-day notice they’d been given by the Biden administration.


"We only learned of this yesterday — not enough time to socialize it within our caucus as well as to build the consensus, especially in a time of COVID,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) explained after the failed vote.

Party leaders are now vowing to keep working on the legislation to win more Democratic support, with designs to vote on the bill in the coming weeks, when the House may reconvene to deal with a budget package under consideration in the Senate.

“We have advised members that they may well be back here in a fashion ... which would keep this issue very much alive [and] very much in our focus and ready to act," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

The diplomatic sentiments from party leaders disguised the underlying internal tensions that hounded the day’s debate and will now carry into the August break.

Moderate Democrats, eager to leave Washington, were fuming at leadership for keeping the caucus in town until late in the day.

Liberals, fighting for the most robust renter protections they could muster, were furious with the Biden administration for waiting so long to request a congressional fix; with moderates, for prioritizing the vacation over the renter assistance; and with leadership, for adjourning the chamber without adopting a fix.

And even party leaders — loath to break with President Biden — were notably agitated with the administration for its 11th hour entreaty that Congress act before a deadline that all parties knew for weeks was coming.


Pelosi couldn’t quite find the right word to describe her feelings toward the White House, but others were happy to help out.

"Unfortunate," said Hoyer.

"Inconvenient," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

And liberals were even more fierce.

“The fact that this statement came out just yesterday is unacceptable,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “I want to make that very clear. Because the excuses that we've been hearing about it, I do not accept them."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the head of the House Financial Services Committee and author of the eviction moratorium bill, took the remarkable step of breaking with Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn by refusing to endorse their strategy of rushing the bill to the floor by unanimous consent — a gambit doomed from the start. Waters wanted the bill to go through the regular order and receive a recorded vote.

“I did not sign on to the statement or join any of them because I just thought that we should have fought harder,” a frustrated Waters told reporters just off the chamber floor. “I agree that we didn’t have the votes. But what I did not agree to was that we didn’t take it up.”

Just steps away, looking on as she spoke, were Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn.

Researchers at the Aspen Institute estimated this week that as many as 15 million people could be at risk of facing evictions with the expiration of the federal moratorium, which ends on Sunday. And liberal members of the "squad" were irate that the House was leaving town without helping them.

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), who lived out of her car for a time and has been evicted three times, pressed her colleagues to show more empathy for people at risk of eviction.

"I know firsthand the trauma and devastation that comes with the violence of being evicted, and we have a responsibility to do everything we can to prevent this trauma from being inflicted on our neighbors and communities," she wrote in a letter to colleagues.

Democrats were caught by surprise on Thursday when Biden urged Congress to extend the eviction ban, which has been in place since last September and was renewed as recently as June 24.

Biden insisted that his administration no longer has the authority to unilaterally extend the moratorium due to a Supreme Court ruling last month.

That left House Democratic leaders scrambling to round up enough votes in their own caucus, given Republican opposition to extending the moratorium.


Even if House Democrats had passed a bill, it would have all but certainly failed in the Senate due to widespread opposition from Republicans — a dynamic that seemed to contribute to Pelosi’s decision to adjourn Friday without a deal.

“The prospect in the Senate did not look too good,” she said.

Shortly before the House adjourned, Biden issued a statement Friday calling on state and local governments "to take all possible steps to immediately disburse" emergency rental assistance funds.

"Every state and local government must get these funds out to ensure we prevent every eviction we can," Biden said.

Pelosi and her team initially pushed for an extension that would last until Dec. 31. But the vote count fell far short amid resistance from moderates and housing industry groups.

House Democrats can currently afford only three defections and still pass bills on their own without support from Republicans. Democratic sources said Friday they were short by more than a dozen votes, which proved to be insurmountable despite more than a day of persuasion attempts by party leaders.

Pelosi later proposed a compromise of only extending the eviction ban to Oct. 18, in part to appease centrists who preferred ending the moratorium by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The Oct. 18 date would have coincided with the end of the public health emergency declaration issued by the Biden administration.


Lawmakers expressed frustration that the $46.5 billion in rental aid allocated by Congress by pandemic relief measures is still largely unspent, with only $3 billion distributed to renters by state and local governments thus far. Indeed, Clyburn, the whip, said that issue was the single greatest barrier to achieving a deal on Friday.

"A lot of the members were very concerned that this money's all bottled up. And they want to know: what can we do to get the money out of these offices and into the landlords' and tenants' pockets? You can extend it, and it's still bottled up,” Clyburn said. “That gave our members more angst than anything else."

But Democrats pushing to extend the moratorium argued that renters shouldn’t be evicted in the meantime as a result of bureaucratic failures.

“There cannot be mass evictions right now,” said Ocasio-Cortez.

The National Association of Realtors urged lawmakers to direct rental assistance toward housing providers in a statement opposing another extension of the eviction moratorium.

"Nearly half of all rental housing in America is a mom-and-pop operation, and these providers cannot continue to live in a state of financial hardship," said Shannon McGahn, chief advocacy officer for the group.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renewed the eviction ban on June 24 through the end of July, saying it would be the last extension.


The Supreme Court warned the Biden administration on June 29 that the CDC did not have the authority to issue the ban and that any further extensions would need to be enacted by Congress.

With the increased threat of the delta variant of the coronavirus, the White House pushed for another extension of the eviction ban on Thursday.

“Given the recent spread of the delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available," she added.

The eviction moratorium bill wasn’t the only measure scrapped from Friday’s House floor schedule due to Democratic leaders' inability to round up enough votes in their caucus.

The House was also set to possibly consider an annual appropriations bill this week to fund the departments of Justice and Commerce in the next fiscal year. But Democrats couldn't secure enough votes due to internal divisions over police reform.

“This is a balance between providing the resources that we need for our police and our police departments, and making sure that there are the safeguards in terms of making sure that we're moving in the direction of reform,” House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told The Hill.

Updated at 8:30 p.m.

'People will die': Congress blasted for failing on eviction moratorium — then going on 7-week vacation

Bob Brigham
July 30, 2021

Homeless man with sign (Shutterstock)

The Democratic-led Congress was blasted on Friday for going on vacation after failing to protect renters before a Saturday deadline.

"House Democrats on Friday failed to push through a last-minute extension of the federal eviction moratorium that expires Saturday, leaving town for a seven-week recess without holding a vote," NBC News reported. "About a dozen House Democrats opposed the measure and were unwilling to budge, two senior Democratic aides told NBC News."

The sponsor of the renter protection legislation, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reportedly disagreed about holding a public vote.

"Waters wanted a vote, which would have allowed progressive activists to blame specific Democratic lawmakers for its failure, while Pelosi didn't want to expose some of her caucus members to the wrath of the base, according to the second aide," NBC News reported. "Ultimately, the effort died when Majority Leader Steny Hoyer tried to pass the measure by unanimous consent — a process that doesn't require a vote — and a Republican member objected."

The House of Representatives is not scheduled to be in session until September 20th.

Here's some of what people were saying:


DEMOCRATS FAIL 1

Pelosi calls on CDC to extend eviction moratorium unilaterally

BY MIKE LILLIS - 07/30/21 12:01 PM 





As House Democratic leaders struggle to find enough party support to extend an eviction moratorium, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is advocating a temporary fix, urging the Biden administration to act unilaterally to help the nation's most vulnerable renters.

The Speaker said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has instituted a ban on evictions through the end of Saturday, should extend the deadline further, giving House Democrats more time to codify the extension in legislation.

"I think this is something that we'll work out. It isn't about any more money — the money is there, resting in localities and governors' offices across the country," Pelosi said Friday morning during a press briefing in the Capitol. "So we'd like the CDC to expand the moratorium. That's where it can be done."


The remarks come as Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are scrambling to locate the votes to extend the eviction moratorium legislatively — a request that President Biden made only Thursday.

The Rules Committee considered the topic on Friday morning, debating a proposal sponsored by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), head of the Financial Services Committee, which initially would have extended the moratorium through the end of the year.

But a number of moderate Democrats are opposed to the bill — one put the number of Democratic opponents at 14 — citing the length of the extension. That opposition led Democratic leaders to shrink the window of the benefit to expire on Oct. 18, although it remains unclear if that concession is enough to win the support of the centrist holdouts.

"It is our hope that we could pass a bill extending the eviction moratorium to that date immediately," Pelosi wrote to Democrats Friday afternoon.

Meanwhile, Democrats of all stripes are grumbling that Biden waited until Thursday — just two days before the House is scheduled to leave Washington for a long summer vacation — to request that Congress take up the issue.

“I quite frankly wish he had asked us sooner,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), chairman of the Rules panel, during a Friday morning hearing.

Biden's request came weeks after the Supreme Court, on June 29, had warned that the CDC lacks the authority to extend the moratorium beyond July 31 without congressional action.

Pelosi, however, has a different view. Calling the extension "an imperative," she said the House will eventually work out its differences and pass the Waters bill, which extends the moratorium through the end of the year.

"We are not going away from this issue, whether it's now or shortly thereafter," she said. "We're going to have to find a solution."

In the meantime, however, she's calling on the nation's governors to use billions of dollars Congress has already allocated to help renters — she put the figure at $46 billion in unspent assistance.

"The fact is, almost $50 billion was allocated — $46 billion. Less than 10 percent of that has been spent, around $3 billion," she said. "Why should the renters be punished for the fact that the system did not put money in their pockets to pay the rent to the landlords?

She also argued that the CDC does have the authority to extend the moratorium on its own — Supreme Court ruling or none.

"I think the CDC can," she said.

Scott Wong and Sylvan Lane contributed.

Updated 2:31 p.m.

House panel takes up long-shot effort to extend eviction moratorium



By Emily Jacobs
July 30, 2021 | 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a "Dear Colleague" letter calling on members to extend the eviction ban.Getty Images

A House panel will convene Friday morning to try to push a long-shot effort to extend the federal eviction moratorium after the Biden administration said it would let it expire Saturday.

The group will gather at 8 a.m. ET Friday, not long after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released a “Dear Colleague” letter Thursday night calling on her members to honor the president’s request.

Warning that “families must not pay the price” for the slow distribution of congressionally approved funds, the top-ranking House Democrat went on to say, “Extending the eviction moratorium is a moral imperative — and one that is simple and necessary, since Congress has already allocated resources that assist both renters and housing providers.”

The White House confirmed earlier Thursday that President Biden would allow the moratorium to expire, but called on Congress to pass new protections due to the spread of the highly contagious Delta variant of COVID-19.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki defended the move, arguing the commander-in-chief’s hands were tied by a recent Supreme Court decision that found there would need to be congressional authorization to extend a CDC-imposed ban on evictions beyond July 31.The Biden administration plans to let the moratorium expire this Saturday.Oliver Contreras / Pool via CNP

“Given the recent spread of the Delta variant … Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium,” Psaki said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available,” she added.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the president calls on Congress to extend the eviction moratorium to protect such vulnerable renters and their families without delay.”

SEE ALSO
Supreme Court leaves CDC eviction ban in place through July 31


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) slammed the Biden administration over the move to Punchbowl News on Thursday night.

“For the White House to do this right before we’re about to leave [on August recess] is just, it’s ridiculous,” the far-left pol said.

“I don’t want to hear any of the spin about how they’ve been trying this whole time, there has not been the advocacy, the voice, et cetera, that we needed to have on this issue. I sit on Financial Services, which has jurisdiction over housing, we have the secretary right there. And we asked about the administration’s stance. And we weren’t getting any commitment on advocacy for extension. So I’m not here for the excuses about how this is the court’s fault. This is on the administration.”

The CDC’s eviction moratorium was set up last year by President Donald Trump after Congress deadlocked on COVID-19 relief legislation that would have extended an initial legislated moratorium.

Although the CDC moratorium was legally dubious, Trump said he had to act due to partisan gridlock. Trump also unilaterally resurrected a federal unemployment supplement and paused federal student loan payments and interest.A patchwork of state and local policies will replace the federal evictions ban.AFP via Getty Images

A patchwork of state and local policies will replace the federal evictions ban, and the White House has said it’s encouraging states to adopt diversion plans for people who agree to get back on track with rent.

A wave of evictions could lower soaring real estate prices and allow owners to get back on their feet by getting rid of non-paying tenants.

But it’s also a political liability for Biden, who regularly emphasizes the effects of the pandemic on lower-income people, especially on mothers unable to work due to increased child care duties caused by schools closing.The CDC’s eviction moratorium was set up last year by President Donald Trump after Congress deadlocked on COVID-19 relief legislation.Getty Images

It is not clear what the outcome of the Rules Committee efforts Friday will be. Even if such an effort was able to pass the House, it would face a bleak future in the Senate.

The Senate is split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, though Vice President Kamala Harris, as Senate president, has a tie-breaking vote.

Still, 51 votes are not enough under current rules to break through the filibuster, the Senate rule requiring 60 members to end debate on most topics and move forward to a vote.
Questions raised about Trump's pledge to donate all of his presidential paychecks

Tom Boggioni
July 30, 2021

Donald Trump on Fox News. (Screengrab)

According to a report from the Washington Post's David Fahrenthold, who has been tracking Donald Trump's financial dealings dating back to when he began his only term as president in 2016, the ex-president's pledge to donate all of his government paychecks seems to have fallen by the wayside during the last six months he spent in office.

With great fanfare when he entered the Oval Office, Trump declared he would not take one penny of his $400,000 annual salary and would instead donate his monthly paychecks.

While the White House under Trump was very forthcoming for most of his tenure as to where the checks went, just prior to the 2020 election that Trump lost, no mention was made to whom Trump bestowed a check and now close aides are refusing to provide the info when asked.

As the report states, "Trump's White House never said where — or even if — he donated the last $220,000 of his salary, covering the final six months of 2020 and the first 20 days of 2021. Now, six months after he left office, it's not clear where Trump donated that remaining salary — or if he donated it at all. Trump had given all his previous donations to federal agencies, paying out $100,000 every quarter. But The Washington Post surveyed all major federal agencies, and none has reported receiving anything from Trump after a gift in July 2020."

According to Fahrenthold, recent questions to aides to the ex-president have first been met with a promise to get back with the information and then -- silence.

Trump's last known gift came on July 23, 2020, according to government documents. Trump gave to the Park Service again, 'to support its efforts in repairing and restoring our national monuments," according to a letter that Trump's attorney Sheri Dillon sent the Park Service along with the check," he wrote before adding, "After that gift: nothing. Or at least, nothing public. Neither Trump nor his White House announced any further donations."

"In recent weeks, The Post contacted 15 major federal departments, including the eight that Trump had given to before, plus five agencies whose leaders attend Cabinet meetings. None provided any confirmation of a gift from Trump after July 2020," Fahrenthold reported before conceding, "That is not proof that the gifts were not made, however. Some of the major departments declined to comment. And The Post did not survey every single agency or office of the federal bureaucracy — a list so long that even the government itself has trouble counting it."

However, Trump's former and current spokespeople could clear up the mystery of whether he stood by his promise until his last days in office. But they are not talking.

"The Post also contacted two different spokespeople for Trump's post-presidential office. On June 10, spokesman Jason Miller wrote back, 'Let me inquire and get back to you.' But he did not provide details, and later left Trump's office," Fahrenthold reported. "Liz Harrington replaced Miller as Trump's spokesperson. 'I will try to track this down, she wrote on July 21, when The Post asked again. Since then, Harrington has not responded to queries about the pledged donations."

You can read more here.
Josh Hawley just proposed a deranged law that is little more than a testament to racist hatred

Thom Hartmann, Independent Media Institute
July 30, 2021

Republican senator Josh Hawley. (Screenshot)

Sen, Josh Hawley, of the former slave state of Missouri, doesn't want America's white children to be exposed to the simple reality that slavery was not only legal at the founding of our country but was, in several places, written into our Constitution.

And that the rest of America subsidized the slave-owners' states and continues to subsidize them to this day.

Hawley, of course, is the guy who gave a fist-salute to the armed white supremacist traitors who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to assassinate Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi. He hopes to ride his white supremacy shtick to the White House.

Doubling down on the GOP notion that America is a nation exclusively of, by and for white people, Hawley has now proposed a law he calls "The Love America Act of 2021." The bill is only three and a half pages long. There's a bit of legalese to make it into legislation, defining what "school" means, etc., but this is what it says:


RESTRICTION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TEACHING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY OR RACISM — …[N]o Federal funds shall be provided to an educational agency or school that teaches that the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States is a product of white supremacy or racism,

That's it. That's the gist of the entire bill.


In other words, public schools that teach the actual history of our Constitution lose all their federal funds — our tax dollars — and essentially go out of business. It's really just that simple: White supremacist Republicans like Hawley don't want your kids to know the true history of America.

Black children, they say, are old and tough enough to experience racism, but white children are just waaay too young and fragile to learn about it.

Hawley's protests notwithstanding, racism and white supremacy were very much a part of our founding documents. Consider "Father of the Constitution" (and slaveholder) James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.

It was the third week of August and the issue of America taxing "property" (a code word for slaves) got tied to the debate about how many representatives each state should have in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The five slave states wanted all their enslaved people counted toward representation — even though they couldn't vote or enjoy any of the rights of citizenship — but didn't want to pay any "property tax" on them. The eight "free" states vehemently objected both to counting enslaved people to increase the slave states' representation in Congress and to subsidizing them via tax law.

It produced one of the great speeches at the Constitutional Convention, which Madison dutifully transcribed.

Gouverneur Morris ("Gouverneur" was his first name, not his title) represented Pennsylvania, and single-handedly wrote the preamble to the Constitution. He was 35 years old, a lawyer and a graduate of Kings College (what we now call Columbia University). And he was an ardent abolitionist.

"He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery," Madison wrote, summarizing Morris' speech. "It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed."

Warming to his topic, Morris began an extended rant about how destructive slavery was to the new nation they were birthing. It illustrates how wrong Hawley is in saying that racism and white supremacy had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

"Compare the [slave]-free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the people," Morris said, "with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other states having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery."

Morris said the enslavement of people was a curse on America that was visible to anybody who simply looked. The free North was prosperous; the South, where people were enslaved, was poor.

"The moment you leave the Eastern [slave] States," he said, "and enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings."

But the white supremacist slaveholders representing the slave states in the Convention wanted more power in Congress and lower taxes in their own states, much like today's Republicans. The key to that, they believed, was having some or all of their states' enslaved Black people counted toward representation in Congress, even though they were in chains and unable to vote.

In an echo of this very argument last month, the white supremacists of the Georgia legislature passed, and Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law in front of a painting of a slave plantation, legislation that would give Georgia's Republicans the ability to simply toss out the votes of people in largely Black districts with the excuse that they "suspect," with or without evidence, that "fraud" happened.

Georgia has already begun to purge local voting officials in Black districts, replacing them with safe white Republicans who will make sure elections produce the "right" outcome.

It's such a radical law that the CEO of the Stacey Abrams-founded New Georgia Project, Nsé Ufot, bluntly told Politico that unless the law is overturned by ending the filibuster and passing the For the People Act, "we're fucked."

As if we're torn in half through some weird time machine, Madison continued with his transcription of Gouverneur Morris' speech.

"Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation?" Morris demanded of his colleagues. "Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included [in determining representation]? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina."

And then Morris nailed down precisely how and why racism and white supremacy were written into the Constitution with the so-called "three-fifths compromise" (among other places) that gave Southern states more members in the House of Representatives than their white population would justify.

"The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this, — that the [white] inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who go to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes … than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views, with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice."

It was all about using racism and white supremacy to increase the power of white people in the South, and then force the rest of the country to subsidize them.

Keep in mind that Democrats in the U.S. Senate today represent 41 million more people than do the Senate's Republicans. And, echoing 1787, Georgia and 17 other Republican-controlled mostly-former-slave-states have now put into law the power for them to deny the vote to Black people or simply refuse to count their votes.

But back to 1787: Morris paused to gather his thoughts, and then, Madison noted, continued, this time calling out the Southern oligarchs who flaunted their riches made possible by slave labor while asking the Northern states to pay for their defense and otherwise subsidize them with Northern tax dollars.

"He would add," Madison wrote, "that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy."

Morris was probably shouting at this point; such language is rarely found in our founding documents and may help explain why Madison kept his "notes" secret until his death nearly 50 years later. Morris pointed out how the South was essentially demanding that the North subsidize them financially, something that continues to this day.

"And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States," Morris demanded, "for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? … The … tea used by a northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave...."

Morris lost the argument and the Southern slave states got extra representation in Congress along with no federal taxation of their "property." But the GOP sure doesn't want you or your kids to know that.

If Hawley's bill were to become law, any public school that taught Morris' anti-slavery speech would lose all federal funding. This is how white supremacy works today and, indeed, has worked in this nation since our founding.

Their strategy is straightforward: Control history (from Texas editing Martin Luther King Jr. out of its textbooks to generations of statues of Confederate generals), suppress the political power of Black people while subsidizing red states, and do it all with a thin patina of legalese.

Northern states generally make it easy for all people to vote while former slave states do everything they can to suppress the Black vote (along with the votes of young people and older Social Security voters).

Former slave states like Hawley's Missouri represent the overwhelming majority of states to have passed voter suppression legislation. And they're still hustling tax dollars from the rest of us, just as Morris complained about in 1787.

Northern states get back a fraction of every dollar they send to Washington, while former slave states get as much as $2 for every tax dollar they send the federal government.

As the AP noted in 2017:
Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.
Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.


White supremacy, racism and the rest of America subsidizing red states weren't just realities in 1787: They're alive and well today.

Hawley and his white supremacist buddies in the GOP want to keep it that way, and their hateful "Love America Act" is just the latest disgusting part of their strategy. We've been tolerating and subsidizing these losers since 1787 and it's time to stop.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.