The Evening Blues - 5-24-19
Hey! Good Evening!
This evening's music features Chicago blues musician Mighty Joe Young. Enjoy!
Mighty Joe Young - Drivin' Wheel
“To say Congress is spending like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors.”
-- Ronald Reagan
News and Opinion
Apparently, the Senate Armed Services Committee is mostly composed of drunken sailors.
If it passes the House and Senate, the bill would authorize the second major defense spending increase in two years. Last year, despite initial objections to President Donald Trump’s proposed budget hikes, the House and Senate went far beyond what the administration had asked for, approving an almost $80 billion increase over its spending in fiscal year 2018 and bringing the total defense spending to $716 billion.
The Senate version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act would raise military and other defense spending to levels not seen since 2009, when more than 180,000 troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The Pentagon forecasts that in years to come, its budget requests will keep rising to levels not seen since the World War II.
In some areas, the Senate bill even exceeds what the Trump administration requested. According to a summary document provided by committee staff, the bill authorizes $10 billion for 94 F-35 Fighters — 16 more than the Pentagon asked for.
In a statement prepared for a press conference on Thursday, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, James Inhofe, stressed that he believes $750 billion is the “minimum” budget needed as the U.S. moves toward major power competition.
In an effort to rein in the bloated military-industrial complex and free up funds for "programs that nurture human lives rather than take them away," a coalition of nearly two dozen progressive advocacy groups on Thursday launched a campaign urging 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to support cutting the Pentagon budget by at least $200 billion per year. Over the next decade, the "People Over Pentagon" agenda would make at least $2 trillion in spending available for essential domestic needs and ambitious programs like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, said the coalition, which includes Win Without War, Public Citizen, 350.org, and other grassroots organizations.
"I've always found it remarkable that when it comes to war, fighter jets, and bombs, most politicians never ask how we'll pay for it, but when it comes to progressive policies like Medicare for All, some members of Congress pretend we can't afford to foot the bill," Heidi Hess, co-director of CREDO Action, said in a statement. ...
Presidential hopefuls Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also voted against the 2019 military budget. ...
On Thursday, the coalition sent letters to all 26 Democratic presidential hopefuls, urging them to commit to the following three goals:
- Pentagon spending should be reduced by at least $200 billion annually, freeing up $2 trillion or more over the next decade for domestic and human needs priorities;
- The United States should never again go to war without congressional authorization, and Congress should not authorize military action without identifying revenue to pay for current and future costs, including taking care of injured veterans;
- By adhering to our values and promoting international cooperation, we can prevent war, address the underlying causes of conflict and meet humanitarian imperatives.
"Pentagon spending has spiraled out of control," the letters read. "It is long past time to eliminate excess Pentagon spending and invest the savings in urgent domestic and human needs priorities—environmental protection, education, infrastructure, healthcare, and more—that will make the United States stronger and more just."
The new campaign to shift funds from the American war machine to domestic programs and international diplomatic efforts comes as the Trump administration continues to escalate tensions with Iran, heightening the chances of yet another devastating war of choice in the Middle East.
The Trump administration notified Congress today that it plans to send about 1,500 additional troops to the Middle East amid heightened tensions with Iran, officials said.
Members of Congress were notified a day after a White House meeting to discuss Pentagon proposals to bolster the US force presence in the Middle East. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the troop plans have not yet been formally announced, the AP reported.
The forces would number “roughly” 1,500 and would deploy in the coming weeks “with their primary responsibilities and activities being defensive in nature,” according to a copy of the notification obtained by The Associated Press.
Their mission would include protecting US forces already in the region and ensuring freedom of navigation, the notification said. Earlier this week, officials said Pentagon planners had outlined plans that could have sent up to 10,000 military reinforcements to the region.
The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Julian Assange under the Espionage Act Thursday in a serious escalation of the Trump administration’s war on the press. The 18-count indictment charges Assange with several crimes, namely unlawfully obtaining and disclosing national defense information. The charges revolve around Assange’s interaction with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who shared hundreds of thousands of classified documents with WikiLeaks in 2010 that offered unvarnished windows into the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
The indictment alleges that Assange went beyond normal reporting techniques and effectively aided Manning in her alleged attempts to steal cables from Pentagon computer systems. “Assange was knowingly receiving such classified records from Manning for the purpose of publicly disclosing them on the WikiLeaks website,” the indictment reads.
The new charges come several weeks after British authorities hauled the WikiLeaks co-founder out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London in connection with an extradition request by Sweden for a previous sexual assault charge. At the time, U.S. authorities also filed an extradition request for Assange after U.S. prosecutors slapped him with conspiracy charges related to his interactions with Manning. Thursday’s indictments charge Assange with 17 additional charges.
“This is madness,” WikiLeaks tweeted in response to the indictment. “It is the end of national security journalism and the First Amendment.”
Julian Assange faces a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison in the US if convicted of all the charges against him.
WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson, labelled the new charges facing Assange as “the evil of lawlessness in its purest form”. He added: “With the indictment, the ‘leader of the free world’ dismisses the First Amendment - hailed as a model of press freedom around the world - and launches a blatant extraterritorial assault outside its border, attacking basic principles of democracy in Europe and the rest of the world.” ...
The new indictment, approved on Thursday by a grand jury in Virginia, detailed how Assange and WikiLeaks published troves of documents that they received from Chelsea Manning, then a US army intelligence analyst. ... Manning was convicted in 2013 under the Espionage Act for stealing classified records. She was released from a military prison in Kansas in May 2017 after serving seven years of a 35-year sentence. Barack Obama granted Manning clemency during his final days in office.
The former army private is currently also behind bars after she was returned to jail last week for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury that is presumed to relate to the Assange proceedings. This is the second time Manning has been jailed for contempt of court for defying a grand jury; in addition, she is now being fined $500 for every day she declines to testify.
Manning and her lawyers argue that her captivity amounts to an unwarranted punishment. Grand juries are designed to assist prosecutors in deciding whether or not to bring an indictment, not in preparing for trial, and it is unclear why she is still being detained even though Assange has now been charged. ... “It’s telling that the government appears to have already obtained this indictment before my contempt hearing last week,” she said. “This administration describes the press as the opposition party and an enemy of the people. Today, they use the law as a sword, and have shown their willingness to bring the full power of the state against the very institution intended to shield us from such excesses.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) expressed concerns Thursday about Espionage Act charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, warning of a potential chilling effect on the First Amendment.
“This is not about Julian Assange. This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information,” Wyden said in a statement. “I am extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment.”
The question isn't whether Assange is a journalist, but whether the government's legal theory threatens freedom of the press. It does. 2/x
— Carrie DeCell (@cmd_dc) May 24, 2019
The government alleges that Assange agreed to help crack a password. But even if that agreement counted as direct involvement in the illegal acquisition of classified information, it would have no bearing on the 100,000s of documents Manning had provided Assange before then. 4/x
— Carrie DeCell (@cmd_dc) May 24, 2019
But for the most part, the charges against him broadly address the solicitation, receipt, and publication of of classified information. These charges could be brought against national security and investigative journalists simply for doing their jobs, and doing them well. 6/x
— Carrie DeCell (@cmd_dc) May 24, 2019
The First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information on matters of public concern--information the public has a right to know, no matter who publishes it. 7/7
— Carrie DeCell (@cmd_dc) May 24, 2019
And there it is. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been charged by the Trump administration’s Justice Department with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison. Exactly as Assange and his defenders have been warning would happen for nearly a decade.
The indictment, like the one which preceded it last month with Assange’s arrest, is completely fraudulent, as it charges Assange with “crimes” that are indistinguishable from conventional journalistic practices. The charges are based on the same exact evidence which was available to the Obama administration, which as journalist Glenn Greenwald noted last year declined to prosecute Assange citing fear of destroying press freedoms. ...
One of the versions of the New York Times’ report on the new Assange indictment, which has since been edited out but has been preserved here in a quote by Slate, said that “officials would not engage with questions about how the actions they said were felonies by Mr. Assange differed from ordinary investigative journalism. Notably, The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government.”
Press freedom organizations have been condemning these new espionage charges in stark and unequivocal language. ... Also opposing the new indictment, far too late, have been popular pundits from mainstream liberal news outlets.
“The Espionage indictment of Assange for publishing is an extremely dangerous, frontal attack on the free press. Bad, bad, bad,” tweeted MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. “Today the Trump DOJ becomes the first administration to ever charge a publisher with *espionage* — an assertive, unprecedented legal crackdown on the traditional rights and protections for publishers,” tweeted MSNBC’s Ari Melber. ... One need only to look at the outraged “this is a horrible take” comments underneath these tweets to see that these condemnations are coming long after the propaganda they’ve helped advance against WikiLeaks has seeped well into the bloodstream. It’s impossible to tell the same group of people day after day that Assange is an evil Nazi Putin puppet rapist who smells bad and mistreats his cat, and then persuade them to respond to a depraved Trump administration agenda against that same person with an appropriate level of resistance.
“I find no satisfaction in saying ‘I told you so’ to those who for 9 years have scorned us for warning this moment would come,” tweeted WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson. “I care for journalism. If you share my feeling you take a stand NOW. Either you are a worthless coward or you defend Assange, WikiLeaks and Journalism.” Indeed, WikiLeaks staff and their supporters have been warning of this for many years, only to be dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists and rape apologists by smearers who insisted Assange was merely avoiding rape charges by taking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London back in 2012. There are many tweets by the WikiLeaks Twitter account warning that the US is trying to charge Assange under the Espionage Act all the way back in 2010, and they’ve been warning about it over and over again ever since, but nobody’s listened. ...
Assange has been warning for years that this was coming. He’s been unequivocal about the fact that he was perfectly willing to participate in the Swedish investigation from the beginning and was only taking asylum with Ecuador due to fear of extradition and political prosecution in the US, which Ecuador explicitly stated were its reasons for granting him asylum. He was absolutely correct. He’s been correct the entire time. History has vindicated him. He was right and his critics were wrong.
We are also already seeing Assange vindicated in his warnings of what his prosecution would mean for the free press. He hasn’t even been extradited yet and we’re already seeing a greatly escalated war on journalism being implemented, with new developments in just the last few days like a San Francisco journalist now being charged with conspiracy for receiving internal documents from the San Francisco Police Department, and a prominent French journalist being summoned by police for reporting on corruption in the Macron government.
Theresa May has bowed to intense pressure from her own party and named 7 June as the day she will step aside as Conservative leader, drawing her turbulent three-year premiership to a close.
Speaking in Downing Street, May said it had been “the honour of my life” to serve as Britain’s second female prime minister. Her voice breaking, she said she would leave “with no ill will, but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love”.
The prime minister listed a series of what she said were her government’s achievements, including tackling the deficit, reducing unemployment and boosting funding for mental health. But she admitted: “It is and will always remain a matter of deep regret to me that I have not been able to deliver Brexit.” ...
The prime minister will remain in Downing Street, to shoulder the blame for what are expected to be dire results for her party from Thursday’s European elections – and to host Donald Trump when he visits. The 1922 Committee will set out the terms of a leadership contest, to kick off on 10 June, which is expected to last perhaps six weeks.
The deepening trade and technology war between the US and China has sent global stock markets sharply lower and prompted a warning from the IMF of the increasing risks to the global economy. Shares fell sharply in Asia, Europe and North America on a day that saw investors alarmed by the intensifying war of words between Washington and Beijing, poor news on the American economy, and political chaos in Britain.
Hours after the Japanese conglomerate Panasonic joined the list of companies cutting its ties with the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei, the US secretary of state Mike Pompeo on Thursday accused Huawei’s chief executive of lying when he said the company had no links to China’s communist government.
In a marked toughening of its rhetoric, China demanded that Donald Trump’s administration change course, while the country’s charge d’affairs in London said the UK could suffer “substantial” loss of investment if Huawei were banned from involvement in Britain’s 5G network. ...
Wall Street’s Dow Jones industrial average closed down 286 points, or 1.1%, with the mood not helped by a snapshot of US business activity dropping to its lowest level in three years. Both France’s CAC index and the German DAX lost about 1.7% of their value.
The IMF used a blog co-authored by its chief economist, Gita Gopinath, to express its concerns. “US-China trade tensions have negatively affected consumers as well as many producers in both countries. The tariffs have reduced trade between the US and China, but the bilateral trade deficit remains broadly unchanged,” the IMF said. “While the impact on global growth is relatively modest at this time, the latest escalation could significantly dent business and financial market sentiment, disrupt global supply chains, and jeopardise the projected recovery in global growth in 2019.”
We caught up with @AOC & asked about Big Tech after the House Oversight Committee hearing on facial recognition today. “I don’t want to see an authoritarian surveillance state, whether it’s run by a government or whether it’s run by five corporations” pic.twitter.com/jwVlOsl3m6
— Davey Alba (@daveyalba) May 23, 2019
President Trump has ordered U.S. intelligence officials to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr's investigation into "surveillance activities" directed at the president's 2016 campaign, the White House said Thursday. Trump also gave Barr "full and complete authority" to declassify information related to the investigation, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.
The notice comes as Barr is conducting a review of what he has described as "spying" on members of the Trump campaign during the investigation into Russian interference. Sanders said Trump had directed the intelligence community to "quickly and fully" cooperate with the investigation at Barr's own request. ...
The Justice Department inspector general has already been reviewing whether the FBI followed applicable rules in applying for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, a probe Barr expects to be completed in May or June. ...
Trump has previously sought to declassify and release materials from the Russia investigation, including the application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to surveil Page, but backed off after U.S. allies objected.
Civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit to stop Alabama from implementing a law making abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of Alabama abortion providers, seeks to block the near-total abortion ban before it can take effect. ...
The lawsuit argues that the ban blatantly violates the supreme court’s landmark ruling legalizing abortion in the Roe v Wade case – which supporters of the legislation have acknowledged is the case. Their hope is to get to the high court and get that ruling overturned. ...
Both sides expect the legislation to be blocked by lower courts, which must follow supreme court precedents. The complaint was filed on Friday in US federal court for the middle district of Alabama. It asks for an order declaring the ban unconstitutional and blocking it from being enforced.
Standing outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday morning, congressional lawmakers announced the introduction of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which pushes back against the flood of abortion restrictions and outright bans on access that have been moving at a record pace through state legislatures. The bill “enshrines” in federal law “a woman’s right to receive abortion services and a provider’s right to perform abortion,” said Rep. Judy Chu, a lead sponsor of the bill. “Our bill finally puts a stop to the state-based attacks that anti-abortion advocates have been trying to use to undermine or even reverse Roe.”
The bill, which has been introduced before, would block states from placing any medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion care — from medically-inaccurate informed consent requirements to gestational bans. “It prohibits any non-medical restrictions on our bodies — that means no heartbeat bills, no requirements that clinic doors be a certain width, no waiting periods or unnecessary ultrasounds. It means no abortion bans,” Chu said. And it affirms “our rights to our bodies, our rights to make our own medical decisions, and our rights to choose what is best for us and our families.”
Reintroduction of the bill, which already has 169 sponsors in the House, comes at a critical moment as state lawmakers have shifted their strategy around abortion. They’re seemingly abandoning the longtime tactic of chipping away at the right to end a pregnancy — by enacting needless restrictions that make access difficult, if not impossible — and instead pushing for an all-out ban on access.
This is something that Sanders is doing right:
McDonald’s workers striking across the country Thursday have several demands, including raising their minimum wage to $15 minimum. And one of the policy’s biggest proponents, 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, emailed his supporters to rally people to the picket lines. It’s not uncommon for members of the 2020 Democratic field to show up to picket lines or tweet out their support to striking workers. But Bernie is taking labor solidarity to a new level by tapping into his campaign’s massive listservs to mobilize support for striking workers. It’s an extraordinary and possibly unprecedented move, according to labor historians and union organizers.
The Vermont senator's presidential campaign sent geo-targeted emails Tuesday to supporters in or around 10 cities throughout the U.S. to support striking McDonald’s workers, according to the campaign. Employees at the fast-food chain are staging one-day walkouts and other work actions to fight for a $15 minimum wage, union rights, and workplaces free of sexual harassment. “Bernie Sanders is joining in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Dallas, and you can do the same right here in Iowa,” reads one of the emails. “Showing up at a picket line for striking workers is an incredible act of solidarity to show that you support their fight for a better life.” The emails then include an address where picketers are gathering as well as an RSVP link. ...
“This definitely sets a new bar for politicians who want to earn labor's support. We've seen Democratic politicians join workers at high-profile protests and on picket lines for years, especially during election seasons, but those appearances have sometimes felt very transactional in nature,” said Ethan Miller, a longtime union organizer and secretary-treasurer of the Nonprofit Professional Employees Union, IFPTE Local 70, which organizes workers at nonprofits in Washington, D.C.
It remains to be seen how many people will show up, and it’s impossible to tally how many supporters show up as a result of Bernie’s email. His campaign said the idea is to not only gather support for Bernie in his quest for the White House but to build a mass network of progressive-minded activists throughout the U.S. “We're building the largest volunteer army in the nation not just to win the Democratic nomination, but also to mobilize people to show up in key fights where people's lives and livelihoods are on the line," Claire Sandberg, Bernie 2020 National Organizing Director, said in a statement to VICE News. “We are proud to uphold Bernie’s commitment to workers, and we will continue to activate our supporters and urge them to join picket lines across the country to support the fight for a strong labor movement."
Under Fire From Progressives, DCCC Chair Backs Out of Fundraiser for Anti-Choice Democrat Dan Lipinski
After facing intense backlash from progressives for planning to star at a fundraiser for an anti-choice Democrat amid a wave of Republican attacks on abortion rights, DCCC chair Cheri Bustos announced late Wednesday that she has decided to back out of the high-dollar event.
"I'm proud to have a 100 percent pro-choice voting record and I'm deeply alarmed by the rapidly escalating attacks on women's access to reproductive care in several states," Bustos, a congresswoman from Illinois, said in a statement announcing her withdrawal from the fundraiser for Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), who is facing a progressive primary challenge from Marie Newman.
"While Congressman Lipinski and I do not agree on women's reproductive healthcare," said Bustos, "this does not change how I will work as DCCC chair to protect our big tent Democratic caucus." Bustos's decision to drop out of the planned $1,000-per-person fundraiser for Lipinski comes as Republicans are racing to overturn Roe v. Wade with state-level attacks on abortion rights in Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and elsewhere.
Speaking to the New York Times, Lipinski said he doesn't blame Bustos for backing out of the event and complained that "there are people in the party who are not tolerant" of his anti-choice views.
'What Could Be More Important?': World Leaders, Media Ignore Biodiversity Report Detailing Mass Extinction Event Now Underway
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species—but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
Deutsche Welle reported Thursday that partially because the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released its report on what it called nature's "unprecedented" decline on the same day that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had their first child, news reports on the study's grave implications were few and far between.
ABC, NBC, and MSNBC did not air a single prime-time mention of the major new U.N. biodiversity report warning of ecosystem collapse. The new royal baby got airtime, though. By @theodorejay. https://t.co/EQPe2qnNJx #CoverClimate #CoveringClimate #ClimateCoverage #EndClimateSilence
— Lisa Hymas (@lisahymas) May 8, 2019
Deutsche Welle's report was mirrored by revelations in a Media Matters report published earlier this week which showed that ABC News devoted more time to covering the royal baby's birth in the week after the child was born than it had to stories about the climate crisis in all of 2018—even as organizers like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg led worldwide climate strikes. ...
Scientists have published more than 20,000 articles in 45 languages on the subject of biodiversity loss in recent years, Deutsche Welle reported.
Without the media reporting on and lawmakers expressing the urgency of the biodiversity crisis, the public has found little reason to become interested in the issue. The same day most news outlets devoted their coverage to the royal baby, Google searches for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle outnumbered those for biodiversity by 14 and 31 to one, respectively.
Worth a full read, these new (ALEC backed) anti-first amendment laws are a travesty.
Opponents of oil and gas pipelines in three states are fighting back against new anti-protest laws aimed at suppressing fossil fuel industry dissent. Two lawsuits in Louisiana and South Dakota, and a promised suit in Texas, are the first signs of a concerted pushback against a nationwide, industry-led effort to halt the most confrontational arm of the climate movement. Since Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, at least 17 states have introduced laws that create new penalties for pipeline protesters.
It began in Oklahoma in May 2017. Gov. Mary Fallin quietly signed a law that made it a felony to trespass on property considered “critical infrastructure.” Perhaps even more egregious was language stating that any organization “found to be a conspirator” in the trespass would face fines of up to $1 million. With the Dakota Access pipeline fight at Standing Rock only recently winding down, and activists promising new protests against Oklahoma’s Diamond pipeline, it was clear what this was about. “Critical infrastructure” was defined to include oil and gas pipelines. ...
Louisiana and South Dakota will be the first to test the constitutional waters. A total of 19 anti-pipeline activists and organizations have signed on as plaintiffs in two lawsuits arguing that the states’ anti-protest laws are unconstitutionally vague and violate the First Amendment. The Louisiana law was drafted by Tyler Gray, president and general counsel of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and was introduced in the midst of construction of the 162-mile Bayou Bridge oil pipeline, which runs through 700 bodies of water. Arrests began just over a week after it went into effect on August 1 of last year, eliminating any question about its purpose. More than a dozen pipeline opponents have been charged under the law, providing the first real test in the nation of critical infrastructure laws’ utility. ...
The remote swampland on which Anne White Hat allegedly trespassed is co-owned by more than 100 landowners — passed down, undivided, to a growing diaspora of family members for generations. Normally, if a company wants to build a pipeline on private property, it either negotiates permission from the landowner or obtains eminent domain in court. The Bayou Bridge Pipeline Company, or BBP, which is owned by Dakota Access parent corporation Energy Transfer, didn’t bother to do either and began construction without the legally required permissions. In response, landowner Peter Aaslestad sought an injunction against BBP on July 26, 2018.
A handful of owners who opposed BBP’s actions gave permission for pipeline protesters to access their land — and alerted the local St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Department. White Hat, a 51-year-old Lakota grant writer and herbalist who lives in New Orleans, says she arrived on September 3 to the contested land, which was now under construction, with no intention of being arrested. Fifty others joined her to oppose the operation, she said. On September 18, as she was boarding a boat bound for the bayou to monitor construction for violations, White Hat was arrested and charged with two felonies under the new law, for trespassing two weeks before. She paid a $21,000 bond to get out of jail.
It’s unclear whether White Hat’s felony charges will stick. Louisiana has four years to decide whether to pursue the charges, which together carry a maximum of 10 years’ prison time. ... For now, she has joined two other pipeline opponents, an independent journalist, six landowners, and three environmental justice organizations in suing Louisiana’s attorney general, district attorney, and the sheriff of St. Martin Parish. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday by the Center for Constitutional Rights, argues that the law is “so vague, overly broad, and sweeping in scope that people in the state cannot be sure of where in the vicinity of Louisiana’s vast 125,000-mile network of pipelines they can legally be present, who decides where they can be present, or what conduct is prohibited.”
“Its actual aim,” the suit continues, “is to chill, and harshly punish, speech and expression in opposition to pipeline projects.”
Also of Interest
Here are some articles of interest, some which defied fair-use abstraction.
A Little Night Music
Mighty Joe Young - That's All Right
Mighty Joe Young - Teasing The Blues
Mighty Joe Young - Baby, Please
Mighty Joe Young - Why, Baby
Mighty Joe Young - Empty Arms
Mighty Joe Young - Big Talk
Mighty Joe Young - Voo Doo Dust
Mighty Joe Young - I Want A Love
Mighty Joe Young - Hey Baby
Mighty Joe Young & His Orch. - Suffering soul
Mighty Joe Young - Hard Times (Follow Me)
Mighty Joe Young - Lookin' For You
Mighty Joe Young - Rome Wasn't Built In A Day