US, in reversal, does not support Brazil's entry to OECD

JUSTINE COLEMAN. The Hill. October 10, 2019


The U.S. government has reportedly rejected Brazil's attempt to enter the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in a reversal after backing its bid for months.


Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denied a petition to consider opening up the OECD to Brazil, according to a letter sent to OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria on Aug. 28 that was obtained by Bloomberg. Pompeo said in the letter the U.S. only supported Argentina and Romania joining the 36-member group.


“The U.S. continues to prefer enlargement at a measured pace that takes into account the need to press for governance and succession planning,” Bloomberg reported the letter said.


President Trump had announced in a March press conference with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro that he backed Brazil entering the OECD. Brazil submitted its application in May 2017. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross confirmed Trump's announcement when visiting Brazil, according to Bloomberg.


A senior official told Bloomberg that the U.S. is supportive of an eventual Brazilian entry to the group but wants to prioritize Argentina and Romania because of their economic reform and free market commitment.


Membership in the nearly 60-year-old OECD is typically viewed as a sign of a country's developed economy.


OECD spokesperson in Washington confirmed that six prospective members have applied and are under consideration but declined to comment on the "confidential" discussions regarding the application approval.


The Hill reached out to the State Department for comment.

'A New Normal That Is Not Normal': 2.5 Million to Lose Power Across Northern California to Prevent Wildfires

"Climate change isn't tomorrow. Climate change is now. This is it."

Julia Conley, staff writer

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/10/new-normal-not-normal-25-million-lose-power-across-northern-california-prevent

The reality that an estimated half million people or more across North California on Thursday entered the second day of planned power outages in order to prevent a repeat of deadly and extreme wildfires in the region is prompting outrage across the region as critics condemn the failures and greed of PG&E, the state's largest utility, as unacceptable in this age of climate-related disasters.

The scheduled power outage over the coming days could affect 34 of California's 58 counties and 2.5 million people by the time it ends.

In the Sacramento Bee, columnist Marcos Breton wrote an op-ed calling the controlled outage, the largest blackout in California history, "a new normal that is not normal."

"Climate change isn't tomorrow," Breton wrote. "Climate change is now. This is it. We're living it now. And if that sounds like stating the obvious, well, then it's still worth repeating because not enough people believe the obvious."

PG&E commenced the blackout amid 20 to 45 mile-per-hour wind forecasts that were similar to those which affected the area two years ago and contributed to wildfires that tore through 1.2 million acres of forested land. Last year, historic wildfires in California destroyed at least one town and killed 86 people.

In a scathing editorial in The Mercury News, the newspaper argues that only PG&E, which it calls the state's "least trusted utility," could make such an epic mess of a public safety issue like this.

"Safety, of course, comes first," reads the editorial. "No one wants a repeat of the deadly blazes of 2017 and 2018. But the utility's plan for a massive shutdown of 800,000 customers cannot become the new normal."

It continues, "the size of the shutdown is an admission that PG&E has yet again failed to adequately maintain its power lines. Consumers should be outraged that the utility, a convicted felon, has subjected them to some of the highest rates in the nation and then routinely failed to meet basic safety standards."

The outage has already been linked to a number of traffic accidents as Californians navigate intersections where stop lights are not working and grocery store customers reported hours-long lines as they attempt to stock up on essentials. Lines at gas stations "were 20 cars deep on Tuesday night" as residents prepared for shortages, the New York Times reported.

Rafael Navar, California State Director for Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) presidential campaign, released a statement Wednesday saying Sanders's Green New Deal proposal and plan to invest $526 billion in a modern electrical grid could prevent PG&E from using controlled blackouts as a means to stem the deadly impact of the climate crisis.

Sanders "is the only candidate with a plan that will end the greed in our energy system and will distribute power through public power districts, municipally- and cooperatively-owned utilities with democratic, public ownership, and other existing utilities that demonstrate a commitment to the public interest," Navar said.

"No one in this country should be losing power in their home because large corporations have failed to invest in a smart, safe, and modern electrical grid," he added.

Earlier this year, a federal judge slammed PG&E for doling out $4.5 billion in dividends to its shareholders while spending insufficient funds on its tree-trimming budget in an effect to prevent forest fires.

But Breton warned that to solely blame PG&E for its neglect and its handling of the blackout was akin to ignoring the true culprits behind more frequent and destructive wildfires as well as other extreme weather events:

Do we fully understand what is amiss here? If your answer stops at PG&E then the answer is no. We don't get it.

Too many of us—myself included—have viewed climate change as a tomorrow problem. Or as a partisan argument.

But that's where we've been wrong—terribly, frighteningly, mortally wrong.

At Slate, April Glaser expressed hope that millions of Californians who could be without power for days would help convince lawmakers of the numerous present-day effects of the climate crisis and continued investment in climate-warming fossil fuels.

"What we do need is for our federal, state, and local politicians to feel immense pressure now to realize this problem is only going to keep getting worse, unless they do something," Glaser wrote. "We can't keep hopping from crisis to crisis like this. We need to realize that we are living in climate change, and this is the cost. But my fear is that once the lights go back on, things will go back to normal until the next disaster strikes again." 

Breton pointed out that while the phrase "new normal" has been used in recent years for drought, extreme heat, and wildfires, it must now be applied to "going dark."

"We have a new normal in which our lives are disrupted by climate change," Breton wrote. "The science is irrefutable and the impacts are being felt by Californians today. They are sitting in darkened houses. They are stuck at intersections where the signal lights are off. They are paying through the nose for generators. They are frightened by high winds, praying for rain."

Law Professor's Advice to House Democrats: Arrest Rudy Giuliani

"The House arresting someone would be explosive and clearly should not be undertaken lightly. But the very explosiveness of it would be a way for the House to signal the seriousness of White House obstructionism to the public."

Eoin Higgins, staff writer

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/10/law-professors-advice-house-democrats-arrest-rudy-giuliani

Faced with an intransigent White House unwilling to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's pressuring of the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival former Vice President Joe Biden, the House should take aggressive action including arresting Rudy Giuliani, a law professor argues in a column for The New York Times Thursday. 

"The answer is unlikely to be found in a courtroom," writes law professor Josh Chafetz. 

The White House has repeatedly refused to answer subpoenas and on Tuesday afternoon, as Common Dreams reported, announced in an eight page letter that the administration will flatly refuse to cooperate in the inquiry, a move that could set up a constitutional crisis.

"There is no legal basis for Trump's position," NBC analyst Katie Phang said on Twitter Tuesday. "Hard stop."

House Democrats need to think outside the box, Chafetz argues.

"The House should instead put back on the table the option of using its sergeant-at-arms to arrest contemnors—as the person in violation of the order is called—especially when an individual, like Rudy Giuliani, is not an executive branch official," Chaftez writes.

Chafetz acknowledges that the move was extreme, but said that the net benefits of taking things to that level would outweigh the possible negatives of such an action and allow for the House to open the door to other punitive actions seen as less radical.

"The House arresting someone would be explosive and clearly should not be undertaken lightly," says Chafetz. "But the very explosiveness of it would be a way for the House to signal the seriousness of White House obstructionism to the public."

On Thursday, Common Dreams reported that two associates of Giuliani's were arrested for campaign finance violations due to their contributions to Trump in 2016 and 2018.

A number of legal observers endorsed the theoretical framing of Chafetz's piece while urging readers to manage expectations. 

"An aggressive strategy might work in Congress's favor, or it might backfire," tweeted George Mason University political science professor Jennifer N. Victory. "We cannot underestimate the importance of public reaction for providing legitimacy to government actions when we're in uncharted water."

University of Denver professor Seth Masket said he saw the logic in that but inaction could prove more costly. 

"Agreed that this is a risky strategy, but the idea of doing nothing, and letting congressional subpoenas become voluntary, is likely far more dangerous in the long run," said Masket. 

In his conclusion, Chafetz recognizes the pitfalls of an aggressive approach, but posits that taking such an action is necessary given the administration's behavior.

"In the end, whether the House wins that fight, like whether it wins a fight over arresting a contemnor, would be a function of which side best convinces the public," writes Chafetz. "But President Trump is deeply unpopular, and the public supports impeachment. If necessary, the House should be willing to have these fights."

'Heaven Help the Opposition': Team Bernie Says Progressive Champion Emerging From Minor Heart Attack Stronger Than Ever

"He is the most effective possible weapon we have against Trump, and his presidency would be an opportunity for an unprecedented transformation of the political system."

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/10/heaven-help-opposition-team-bernie-says-progressive-champion-emerging-minor-heart

If the emerging corporate media narrative is to be believed, Sen. Bernie Sanders's minor heart attack last week dealt a devastating, and possibly insurmountable, blow to the Vermont senator's bid for the White House.

But prominent campaign surrogates, advisers, and supporters in recent days have forcefully pushed back against that notion and argued Sanders—with his grassroots army as enthusiastic and motivated as ever—is well-positioned to compete for and ultimately win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a video statement released on Thursday, Sanders himself spoke to supporters and the American public directly about his recent heart attack and said that he's "feeling really good and getting stronger every day."

Watch:

Thanking supporters for their well-wishes, Sanders said his recovery and rest time has allowed him to reflect on the kinds of adversity that tens of millions of Americans face each and every day.

"But at the end of the day, if you're going to look at yourself in the mirror and you're going to say, 'Look, I go around once. I have one life to live, what role do I want to play?'" Sanders says in the video. "It speaks to the need to create the kind of country that we can become, where people are working hard to serve each other—to understand each other. That is the country we can become—we really can. But we have to have the courage to take on some enormously powerful special interests."

James Zogby, a committed Sanders backer and president of the Arab American Institute, said that when the senator returns to the campaign trail after fully recovering from his heart stent procedure, he will be greeted by "an invigorated campaign with a staff and a support base that has doubled down in their efforts to make this happen."

"Because they realize that for them—and for me—he's the critical choice," Zogby told HuffPost.

Speaking to reporters outside of his Vermont home Tuesday, Sanders said he plans to make adjustments to his schedule—which, before his health scare, frequently included three or four rallies per day on top of other campaign activity—to ensure he can sustain his presidential bid over the long haul.

"We're gonna probably not do three or four rallies a day," Sanders said, adding that he will likely attend two rallies a day.

Pundits and major media outlets quickly seized upon the senator's remarks as evidence that he is dramatically dialing back his campaign activity or even, in the words of FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver, "entering a phase where his goal is to pull the nominee to the left and/or to build a movement rather than to actually win."

The campaign, and Sanders himself, quickly and aggressively disputed both claims.

"As Bernie said, we are going to have an active campaign," Faiz Shakir, Sanders's campaign manager, told Common Dreams. "Instead of a breakneck series of events that lap the field, we are going to keep a marathoner's pace that still manages to outrun everyone else."

In an interview with NBC News Wednesday, Sanders said he plans to "start off slower" once he hits the trail again "and build up and build up and build up."

"We're going to get back into the groove of a very vigorous campaign," Sanders said. "I love doing rallies and I love doing town meetings."

The senator also dismissed the notion that his campaign was not sufficiently transparent about his health, a line some political reporters pushed after the campaign announced last Friday that Sanders had a heart attack.

"That's nonsense. I don't know what people think campaigns are, you know we're dealing with all kinds of doctors and we wanted to have a sense of what the hell was going on really," Sanders told NBC. "So the first thing that we're trying to do is understand what's going on and not run to the New York Times and have to report every 15 minutes. You know, this is not a baseball game. So I think we acted absolutely appropriately."

David Welch, a recently retired cardio rehab nurse in California who supports Sanders for president but has no affiliation with the campaign, wrote in a Common Dreams op-ed Thursday that the senator's heart attack is not a concern for him.

Based on his 36 years as a health professional working with cardiac patients, Welch said that given what is known about Sanders' heart attack and the stent procedure which followed, there's no reason to be worried about his ability to return to full health and the campaign.

"Remember, those arteries had been narrowed for a long time," writes Welch. "Even with narrowed arteries the senator has been keeping up a pace that most younger people couldn't hope to match.  Now, they are wide open and he's probably had no significant heart damage...  Honestly, the people who should be most worried right now are the campaign staff who will have to keep up with him now that the arteries are fully open."

In an op-ed for CNN Wednesday, Adam Kassam and Ben Eschenheimer wrote that "of course" Sanders could still serve as president following his heart attack.

"The suggestion that Sanders should stand down and endorse another candidate because of a health condition that many Americans live and work with is not only callous, but carries a bitter flavor of discrimination," wrote Kassam and Eschenheimer. "Indeed it scans as ableism, a shameful undercurrent that has pervaded discussions of the 2020 election, along with ageism."

While Sanders has been off the trail for several days to rest after his procedure, his grassroots campaign operation does not appear to have lost any momentum. Last week, just hours after news of Sanders' heart stent procedure, the campaign worked the senator's health scare into the case for Medicare for All.

"As you see the headlines about Bernie today, send him your good vibes—and remember how important the fight for Medicare for All really is," said Sanders speechwriter David Sirota.

On Tuesday, the campaign announced that volunteers made 1.3 million calls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, California, Colorado, and Oklahoma, easily hitting their goal of a million calls over a 10-day period.

As HuffPost's Daniel Marans reported, the campaign surpassed its goal after experiencing "a spike in volunteers" in the wake of news last Wednesday that Sanders had been hospitalized after experiencing chest discomfort on the trail in Nevada.

The campaign said the senator also received 8,000 donations on Wednesday, just a week after team Sanders announced it raised $25.3 million from an average donation of $18 in the third quarter of 2019—the largest haul in the Democratic field, fueled by contributions from teachers and employees of Starbucks, Amazon, and Walmart.

"It was like a rallying cry. It was incredible," RoseAnn DeMoro, former executive director of National Nurses United and prominent Sanders backer, told HuffPost of the flood of support for Sanders following his procedure. "That's the difference between having a movement as opposed to just a campaign."

Speaking to the Associated Press, DeMoro stressed that Sanders's heart attack was "minor" and that the "stents will be extremely helpful in terms of blood flow."

"I assume he'll be far more vigorous," DeMoro said. "Heaven help the opposition."

For Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs magazine and unabashed Sanders supporter, the senator's health scare brought into sharp relief the urgency of nominating Sanders to take on President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.

In an article titled "Why Bernie Has to Win," published just days after Sanders's hospitalization, Robinson echoed a prescient argument he made in the midst of the 2016 Democratic primary: Sanders represents the best chance to both defeat Trump and enact a transformational progressive agenda.

"I actually feel like Bernie's hospitalization is a sign that we have to do more to get him elected," Robinson wrote. "He is the most effective possible weapon we have against Trump, and his presidency would be an opportunity for an unprecedented transformation of the political system."

Robinson continued:

To be honest, Bernie shouldn't have to be exerting himself in the way he has been. Because this campaign isn't about him. In fact, if Bernie is elected, he shouldn't have to be doing the bulk of the work. He is a vehicle for the creation of a people's presidency. We are not nominating him because he is a messianic leader who will solve our problems and personally guide us to the promised land. We are nominating him because his is the name we put on the ballot in order to achieve power. This campaign isn't about Bernie Sanders, it's about getting the Bernie Sanders agenda passed: Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free college, workplace democracy.

"We have one last shot," Robinson concluded. "Are we going to sit and Raise Questions from the stands or are we going to commit ourselves to making sure that this time, we do not let Donald Trump win the presidential election? Bernie will fight until his very last breath to make this a humane country that cares for its people... That's what he will do. So what will you and I do to help?"

New Study Warns 5 Billion People Could Face Higher Risk of Climate-Related Coastal Storms, Water Pollution, and Crop Losses by 2050

"If we continue on this trajectory, ecosystems will be unable to provide natural insurance in the face of climate change-induced impacts on food, water, and infrastructure."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/10/new-study-warns-5-billion-people-could-face-higher-risk-climate-related-coastal

By 2050, five billion people across the globe—disproportionately those in poorer communities—could face a higher risk of enduring coastal storms, water pollution, and crop losses linked to the human-caused climate crisis, warns a study published in the journal Science and reported on Thursday by The Scotsman.

"Our analyses suggest that the current environmental governance at local, regional, and international levels is failing to encourage the most vulnerable regions to invest in ecosystems," said study co-author Unai Pascual, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

"If we continue on this trajectory," Pascual added, "ecosystems will be unable to provide natural insurance in the face of climate change-induced impacts on food, water, and infrastructure."

According to The Scotsman:

The research team set out to understand and map where nature contributes the most to people's lives, and how many people might be impacted by climate change and changes in the way fossil fuels are used.

They focused on three areas in which nature is considered to be hugely beneficial to people—water quality regulation, protection from coastal hazards, and crop pollination—and analyzed how they might change using open-source software.

People in Africa and South Asia were projected to be most disadvantaged by "diminishing contributions" from nature.

"Determining when and where nature is most important is critical to understanding how best to enhance people's livelihoods and well-being," said study co-author Stephen Polasky of the University of Minnesota.

The researchers have developed an online, interactive map for their findings. Lead author Becky Chaplin-Kramer of Stanford University said the group hopes the study will help inform and "further galvanize global action."

"We're equipped with the information we need to avert the worst scenarios our models project and move toward an equitable, sustainable future," she added. "Now is the time to wield it."

The study's warnings echo findings from previous research about the near-future consequences of human-driven global warming—such as a study from September on climate-related droughts and wheat production—and come as people around the world have taken to the streets since Monday for Extinction Rebellion's two weeks of action to pressure policymakers to pursue bolder climate action plans.

Alongside demands from scientists and activists that governments worldwide urgently work to transition energy systems away from fossil fuels to fully renewable sources, experts and campaigners are now promoting the restoration of nature to help prevent more catastrophic impacts of rising temperatures.

One such effort is the Natural Climate Solutions campaign, which launched in April and received renewed attention during last month's global climate strikes. It calls for protecting and restoring ecosystems such as forests to draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and lock it away to prevent further warming.

'Tip of the Iceberg': Prosecutors Allege Vast Criminal Conspiracy by Giuliani Associates to Funnel Foreign Cash to Trump and GOP

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Common Dreams

"To a prosecutor's eye, this really looks increasingly like one big scheme, overseen by Trump and Giuliani, to obtain illegal assistance from Ukraine in the 2020 election."

Jake Johnson, staff writer

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/10/tip-iceberg-prosecutors-allege-vast-criminal-conspiracy-giuliani-associates-funnel

Federal prosecutors on Thursday charged two associates of President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani with a sprawling scheme to oust the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine by funneling foreign money into the campaign coffers of Trump and an unnamed congressman believed to be former Republican Rep. Pete Sessions.

"These allegations are not about some technicality, a civil violation, or some error on a form. This investigation is about corrupt behavior, deliberate lawbreaking," William Sweeney, assistant director in charge at the FBI's New York field office, said Thursday during a press conference detailing campaign finance charges against Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.

The two men were arrested Wednesday evening at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C. as they were waiting to board a one-way overseas flight.

Parnas and Fruman, both witnesses in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry into Trump, had lunch with Giuliani at the Trump International Hotel in Washington hours before they were arrested Wednesday, according to the Wall Street Journal.

CNN reported that "prosecutors were not intending to unseal the indictment against the Giuliani associates" on Thursday, but "their hand was forced by an attempt by Fruman and Parnas to leave the country."

Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said during Thursday's press conference that Fruman and Parnas "broke the law to gain political influence while avoiding disclosure of who was actually making the donations and where the money was coming from."

"They sought political influence not only to advance their own financial interests," said Berman, "but to advance the political interests of at least one foreign official, a Ukrainian government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine [Marie Louise Yovanovitch]."

The 21-page indictment (pdf) unsealed Thursday alleges that Parnas and Fruman "met with Congressman-1 and sought Congressman-1's assistance in causing the U.S. government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine."

HuffPost reported that "Congressman-1 is former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking for Marie Yovanovitch to be removed as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine" following his meeting with Parnas and Fruman in May of 2018.

That same month, the two men also made a $325,000 donation to a pro-Trump super PAC through Global Energy Producers LLC, which prosecutors said is a shell corporation that claimed to be involved in the liquified natural gas industry.

Trump personally ordered Yovanovitch removed from her post in May of 2019, according to the Wall Street Journal, following complaints from Giuliani and others that she was undermining the U.S. president and "obstructing efforts to persuade Kyiv to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden."

Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and current Washington Post columnist, tweeted that "to a prosecutor's eye, this really looks increasingly like one big scheme, overseen by Trump and Giuliani, to obtain illegal assistance from Ukraine in the 2020 election."

House Democrats subpoenaed Parnas and Fruman on Thursday as part of the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Former Trump attorney John Dowd, who is now representing Parnas and Fruman, signaled in a letter to House investigators last week that his clients will not cooperate with Democrats' probe.

Paul S. Ryan, vice president for policy and litigation at watchdog group Common Cause, said in a statement that the charges against Parnas and Fruman "paint a troubling picture of the free flow of foreign money into our elections due to insufficient safeguards and lax enforcement."

"Today's indictments, though, likely represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of foreign meddling in general but also by Parnas and Fruman," said Ryan. "Both men were also heavily involved in the efforts by the White House and President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate unsubstantiated allegations against Trump's political rival Joe Biden."

FDR’s Letter To Corporate Democrats Will Blow Your Mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBvWk-W5Jqs