Hey! Good Evening!

This evening's music features blues singer and piano player Charles Brown. Enjoy!

"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent."

-- Louis D. Brandeis

News and Opinion

Oh, my. It looks like the government has discovered a new group of terrorists that they have to fight, domestic this time, so all of those terrorist-fighting tricks that were learnt overseas will now come home to our happy little surveillance state.

Buckle up, the War on Terra is comin' home!

Racist extremists pose most deadly terrorist threat to US, intelligence report warns

Racially motivated extremists pose the most lethal domestic terrorism threats to the US, according to an unclassified intelligence report that warned that the threats could grow this year. The blunt assessment, in a report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, echoes warnings made by US officials, including the FBI director, Christopher Wray, who testified earlier this month that the threat from domestic violent extremism was “metastasizing” across the country.

Merrick Garland, the attorney general, has also described it as a top priority as his justice department works to prosecute hundreds of people who participated in the mob attack on the US Congress in January. The riot laid bare the threat posed by domestic extremists and led Joe Biden to assign his intelligence officials the task of studying the scope of the problems. A brief and unclassified summary of that threat assessment was made public Wednesday; a full classified report was presented to the White House and Congress.

“Today’s report underscores how we face the greatest threat from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, especially white supremacists, and militia violent extremists,” said the Democratic representative Adam Schiff of California, the chair of the House intelligence committee. ...

Other domestic extremist categories that concern government investigators include animal rights and environmental activists, anti-abortion protesters, anarchists and people who call themselves sovereign citizens who “believe they are immune from government authority and laws”.

Russia recalls envoy after Biden says 'killer' Putin will 'pay the price'

'It takes one to know one' Putin retorts after Biden says he thinks he is a killer

President Vladimir Putin retorted on Thursday that it takes one to know one after U.S. President Joe Biden said he thought the Russian leader was a killer and already poor relations between Moscow and Washington sank to a new post-Cold War low. Putin was speaking on television after Biden, in an ABC News interview that prompted Russia to recall its Washington ambassador for consultations a day earlier, said “I do” when asked if he believed Putin was a killer. ...

Putin, responding to Biden’s characterisation of him, said he knew the U.S. leader personally, and, in an apparent reference to Biden’s age (78), said he sincerely wished him good health.

Suggesting Biden was hypocritical in his remarks, Putin said that every state had to contend with “bloody events” and added Biden was accusing the Russian leader of something he was guilty of himself.

“I remember in my childhood, when we argued in the courtyard with each other we used to say: it takes one to know one. And that’s not a coincidence, not just a children’s saying or joke. The psychological meaning here is very deep,” Putin said. “We always see our own traits in other people and think they are like how we really are. And as a result we assess (a person’s) activities and give assessments,” he said.

Warmonger Biden Unironically Calls Putin "A Killer"

“Immoral & Illegal”: US & UK Move to Expand Nuclear Arsenals, Defying Global Disarmament Treaties

Biden: 'Tough' to withdraw from Afghanistan by May

Withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by May 1 as called for in a deal between the United States and the Taliban would be "tough," President Biden said in an interview that aired Wednesday.

The president added he is still deciding whether to go through with the withdrawal.

“It could happen, but it is tough,” Biden told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos about withdrawing by May 1. ...

“The fact is that that was not a very solidly negotiated deal that the president, the former president worked out,” Biden said in the interview. “And so we’re in consultation with our allies, as well as the government.”

Biden added he does not think his decision on whether to withdraw will take “a lot longer,” attributing delays in coming to a decision to the Trump administration’s obfuscation during the presidential transition. Biden officials have previously said Afghanistan was one area where they were not getting answers from the Trump administration.

Burmese Protesters Continue to Demand Democracy as Authorities “Shoot to Kill” in Sweeping Crackdown

Biden backing wrong horse:

Biden Persists with Failed Venezuela Policy

Recent statements made by U.S. officials suggest that Washington will continue to pursue a hardline policy on Venezuela. ... U.S. State Department Spokesperson, Ned Price, remarked on Feb. 3 that he “certainly” does not “expect this administration to be engaging directly with (President) Maduro.” Namely, Price expects that the Biden administration will adhere to the strategy of its predecessor, which is predicated on completely ignoring the current government in Caracas.

Moreover, the Biden government will also continue to dialogue with Venezuela’s opposition leader, Juan Guaido. On March 2, Guaido conversed with the new American Secretary of State Antony Blinken. It was the highest-level U.S. contact with the increasingly-discredited and isolated Guaido since Biden’s inauguration last January. In their exchange, Blinken and Guaido agreed on the “importance of a return to democracy in Venezuela through free and fair elections.” ...

Venezuela’s most recent legislative elections last December have also reflected the deep divisions among the country’s opposition parties, where some strictly adhered to the boycott of the elections while others participated. The outcome was a decisive victory for Maduro’s United Socialist Party, which now has complete control over the country’s political institutions. France24 news agency captured this new reality in this headline: “New Venezuela Parliament leaves Western-backed Guaido out in cold.”

Financial Press Fears Brazilians Will Be Allowed to Elect President of Their Choice

The Brazilian Supreme Court this month dismissed all charges against former President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva. A towering figure in national politics, Lula was the country’s president for eight years between 2003 and 2011. He was later convicted on highly dubious corruption charges and spent 18 months in prison, where his plight drew worldwide attention, making him, in the estimation of Noam Chomsky, the “world’s most prominent political prisoner.”

Lula’s incarceration directly led to far-right authoritarian Jair Bolsonaro coming to power, as Lula, the overwhelming favorite in the polls, was barred from running against him. Sergio Moro, the judge who imprisoned Lula—and secretly worked with the prosecution to convict him—became President Bolsonaro’s justice minister. The journalist who exposed Moro’s secret dealings, Glenn Greenwald, was charged with cybercrimes as a result of his reporting. (The charges were later dismissed.)

The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves Lula free to run against Bolsonaro in 2022—and gives Brazilians a chance to vote for the leader of their choice. But far from celebrating the news, the financial press is very disappointed that the world’s most popular politician is finally free again. “Stock Exchange Loses 4% and Dollar Rises After Lula Charges Annulled,” ran Forbes Brasil’s headline (3/8/21). “Markets Reacted Badly to the Announcement,” wrote the Financial Times (3/8/21).

Also seemingly disconsolate at the news was Reuters (3/9/21), who went with “Brazil Markets, on Shaky Foundations, Rocked by Lula Bombshell,” telling readers that investors were “gasping for air.” The report quoted a former central banker saying that Lula’s release would have “dire consequences.” Not for people or democracy—Reuters was not interested in that—but for “asset prices in general.”

“Lula’s Comeback Adds to Long List of Brazil Investor Woes,” read Bloomberg’s headline (3/9/21). Its article quoted one consultant warning that Lula “will seek revenge, and he will blame the markets, the media and business leaders for the downfall of the Workers’ Party.” Why these institutions are not to blame was not explained.

The financial press has long been afraid of what Lula’s liberty would mean for the profits of its readers. The “worst-case scenario,” Forbes (11/10/19) wrote in 2019, would be if he returned to politics and began “rabble rousing” people against Bolsonaro. What he had already done in undermining confidence in the administration was “deeply irresponsible,” reporter Kenneth Rapoza wrote, noting that his criticism of the government that was then imprisoning him merely increased “polarization” and “pain” throughout the country.

A great many articles characterized Lula as “polarizing”—a media codeword used extensively in reporting on the Global South, meaning “enacting policies rich people don’t like.” CNBC (3/8/21), for instance, explained that the decision to drop charges against Lula would “polarize voters,” and that financial markets were “roiled” by the latest news.

This is in complete contrast to two years ago, when the financial press lauded the election of the fascist Bolsonaro (FAIR.org, 10/31/18). The Financial Times (10/8/18) and CNBC (10/2/18) both noted that markets were “cheering” Bolsonaro’s lead in the polls, while Bloomberg (10/30/18) excitedly reported that he would be an “extraordinarily pro-business” president. “Jair Bolsonaro is a dangerous populist, with some good ideas,” said the Economist (1/5/19). It was the Wall Street Journal (10/29/18) that went furthest, however, endorsing him as a “credible” “reformer” and an “antidote” to the greed and corruption of Lula’s Workers’ Party.

Since then, corporate media have cooled on Bolsonaro: not because of his openly declared racism, sexism, homophobia or nostalgia for dictatorship, but mostly because he has failed to fully carry out many of his promised “reforms”—another media codeword for pro-business policies which usually hurt the majority (FAIR.org, 2/16/18, 5/8/16; CounterSpin, 8/28/15, 11/29/18). What Bolsonaro’s “reforms” entailed, JP Morgan (12/13/19) helpfully explained: a firesale of state-owned assets, huge cuts to public pensions, tax cuts for the wealthy and wage reductions for state employees.

Even worse, Lula’s release, the press explained, would close the door on these policies. As CNBC wrote (3/8/21):

Financial analysts said the prospect of Lula candidacy would likely drive Bolsonaro to abandon economic reforms he ran on in 2018 and further embrace populist measures to shore up support.

To decode this: CNBC and others who similarly predicted the end of Bolsonaro’s reform agenda (Financial Times, 3/8/21; Bloomberg, 3/9/21, Reuters, 3/9/21), were tacitly admitting that free-market shock therapy is exceptionally unpopular, and has no chance of implementation unless all credible opposition to it is forcefully suppressed.

If this were purely about profits, Lula should not generate such antagonism. “The financial press’ hostility and fear is pointless,” Brazilian journalist Nathalia Urban told FAIR:

The market performed well with him for the eight years he was president, and with Dilma Rousseff for six years afterwards. If the market wants to make money by investing in production and having a strong consumer market, it has to like a government that has one of its pillars to increase the power of expenditure of the working class.

Instead, it is Lula’s position as an independent actor who has consistently stymied US imperial ambitions in Latin America and beyond that is the real problem. Washington was also deeply implicated in his arrest and imprisonment, although corporate media have been hesitant to explore this connection (FAIR.org, 3/8/21).

The dismay over the freeing of the world’s most prominent political prisoner illustrates the opposition of the business press to human rights and the rule of law. Financial media were all too happy to see a far-right authoritarian gain power, as long as he implemented pro-rich policies. No matter what the evidence, the press’ response suggests they think that they still believe democracy just isn’t good for business.

Biden defends move not to punish Saudi crown prince over Khashoggi killing

Joe Biden has defended his decision to waive any punishment for Saudi Arabia’s crown prince in the murder of a US-based journalist, claiming that acting against the Saudi royal would have been diplomatically unprecedented for the United States.

In an ABC News interview that aired on Wednesday, the US president discussed his administration’s decision to exempt Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from any penalties for the October 2018, killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Last month, the Biden administration released a declassified US intelligence report which concluded that the crown prince authorized the team of Saudi security and intelligence officials that killed Khashoggi.

“We held accountable all the people in that organization – but not the crown prince, because we have never, that I’m aware of … when we have an alliance with a country, gone to the acting head of state and punished that person and ostracized him,” Biden said in his first extended public comments on his administration’s decision.

Biden overstated the US relationship with Saudi Arabia.

The United States has no treaty binding itself with Saudi Arabia, and the kingdom is not one of the Arab countries designated as a major non-Nato ally. The US often refers to the kingdom as a strategic partner because of its oil production, its status as a regional counterbalance to Iran and its counterterrorism cooperation.

GOP Admits UTTER FAILURE On Opposition To Stimulus Bill

I bet the Korporate Kongress will love this one:

Sanders Bill Would Hike Taxes on Big Corporations That Pay CEOs Over 50 Times More Than Median Worker

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Wednesday unveiled legislation that would hike taxes on large corporations that pay their CEOs over 50 times more than the median worker, an effort to combat the decades-long trend of skyrocketing inequality in the United States.

Under the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act (pdf), the "corporate tax rate would increase by 0.5% for those companies reporting a [CEO-to-median-worker pay] ratio of 50 to 1, and grow to a rate of 5% for those companies reporting a ratio of 500 to 1 or higher," according to a summary of the proposal released by Sanders' office.

"The bill also requires the Treasury Department to issue regulations to prevent tax avoidance, including against companies that increase the use of contractors rather than employees," the summary notes. "Pay-ratio data for privately held corporations would also be made public, just as publicly held corporations are required to make public under current law."

The Vermont senator's new legislation—co-sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—came as he presided over budget committee hearing Wednesday that will focus primarily on wealth and income inequality.

According to Sanders' office, the new legislation would bring the federal government around $150 billion in revenue over a decade if current corporate pay patterns continue.

I wonder how long it will take the Korporate Kongress to dispatch this one:

Jayapal, Dingell Introduce Medicare for All Act With 112 Co-Sponsors

Affirming that healthcare is a basic human right and that people must come before profits, Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Debbie Dingell introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2021 on Wednesday, exactly one year after the first coronavirus cases were confirmed in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Dingell (D-Mich.) unveiled the landmark legislation at a virtual town hall Wednesday afternoon, where they highlighted the devastating effects of a virus that has killed more than 537,000 people in the United States while leaving millions more uninsured due to pandemic-related job loss and underemployment.

The bill (pdf)—backed by a record 112 House co-sponsors—guarantees healthcare to every U.S. resident as a human right. It provides comprehensive benefits including primary care, vision, dental, prescription drugs, mental health, long-term services and supports, reproductive healthcare, and other services. It eliminates copays and private insurance premiums.

"Our movement is growing," Jayapal said at the opening of the town hall. "We are joining together at this pivotal moment for healthcare across America. It was exactly one year ago that every single state across this country had a confirmed Covid-19 case, and in the 365 days since, the case for Medicare for All has never been clearer."

In a statement introducing the bill, Jayapal noted that the country is currently experiencing the highest increase in uninsured people ever recorded.

"While this devastating pandemic is shining a bright light on our broken, for-profit healthcare system, we were already leaving nearly half of all adults under the age of 65 uninsured or underinsured before Covid-19 hit," said Jayapal. "And we were cruelly doing so while paying more per capita for healthcare than any other country in the world."

On Tuesday, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen published a report showing that around 40% of U.S. Covid-19 infections and 33% of virus deaths are attributable to a lack of adequate health insurance coverage. At the onset of the pandemic, around 87 million Americans were uninsured or underinsured.

Jeff Stein: Will Stimulus Lead To MASSIVE Economic Boom?

Keiser report | The 40 Year Bond Bull is Over?

Amazon Retaliated Against Chicago Workers Following Spring Covid-19 Protests, NLRB Finds

In April 2020, as the world was coming to terms with the new coronavirus pandemic, workers at an Amazon sorting facility in Chicago launched a series of safety strikes to demand Covid-19 protections for all staff. It was one of several organized protests by Amazon workers nationwide, and the actions in Chicago, at the DCH1 delivery station in Pilsen on the south side of the city, came after management announced in late March that a worker had tested positive for the virus. ... Roughly 70 to 80 workers participated in the four safety strikes. Among other things, the Chicago workers demanded that their warehouse be shut down for two weeks and cleaned; that Amazon cover the costs of any medical bills for workers who get sick on the job; that the warehouse pause processing nonessential items; and that management provide immediate transparency if and when anyone else got infected.

Following the strikes, DCH1 Amazon workers said they faced retaliation in the form of intimidation and disciplinary write-ups. ... The workers banded together and filed a charge with their regional National Labor Relations Board office. Their charge, known as an unfair labor practice, or ULP, included five allegations of National Labor Relations Act violations. The workers accused their site lead, Domonic Wilkerson, of unlawfully disciplining them for protected activities, unlawfully interrogating them, unlawfully engaging in surveillance, unlawfully breaking up their gatherings, and maintaining an “overly broad rule” that precluded gatherings on Amazon’s property outside their normal shifts.

In text messages reviewed by The Intercept, the NLRB regional agent assigned to the case informed the workers on February 24 that the federal agency had reached a decision and found merit to the workers’ claims. On March 10, the NLRB told the workers that “Amazon has stated its intent to settle” and that the agency was working with the company to clarify an agreement. (A settlement would lay out how Amazon will remedy the violations, but if Amazon does not ultimately agree to settle, then the NLRB would issue a complaint and schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge.) The timeline is not clear, but as redress, the workers requested that Amazon provide notice, both physically and electronically, to all relevant employees about what happened and make clear that their rights will not be violated again. ...

While the workers are celebrating their not-yet-official victory at the NLRB, their latest fight is against a new policy Amazon began rolling out in January known as “megacycle” shifts. These 10 1/2-hour shifts, which run from 1:20 a.m. to 11:50 a.m., were presented to DCH1 workers as new nonnegotiable work schedules going forward. Vice reported in February that the megacycle shifts were being rolled out quietly at delivery stations nationwide, collapsing multiple shorter shift options into one long one. Workers noted that the new option leaves no flexibility for parents and caretakers. Amazon also recently announced it would be closing the DCH1 warehouse, shutting down operations on April 2.

Biden’s Justice Department Is Defending a Trump Rule That Restricts Options for Immigration Relief

A federal judge in California last week ordered the federal government to temporarily suspend implementation of a rule that would severely limit avenues for relief in immigration court. The rule went into effect during the final week of Donald Trump’s presidency, and the Biden administration has defended its issuance in two lawsuits challenging its implementation. The measure codified a push by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other anti-immigration hardliners, concentrating decision-making power in the hands of a person selected by a political appointee and restricting the ability of people seeking immigration relief to present evidence that might keep them from being deported.

A coalition of immigration advocacy groups sued over the rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on January 11, just days before it went into effect January 15. Several other legal services organizations sued over the rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 19, one day before President Joe Biden took office. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs had asked the court for a preliminary injunction on the rule’s implementation as well as a stay of the rule in its current form and that it eventually be found unlawful and set aside. While the plaintiffs have argued that the courts have the power to put the rule on hold because it was unlawful at inception, the Justice Department has argued that the rule can’t be undone in court and must instead go through a regulatory process.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary nationwide injunction in the case she is overseeing last Wednesday, meaning that the rule is now temporarily on hold and the Justice Department is barred from enforcing it while it undergoes further examination by the court. In light of the ruling from California, the parties in the Washington, D.C., suit filed a request to postpone their case; on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon denied that request in part but gave the parties more time to file briefings on whether he has authority to stay the rule. ...

[T]he Justice Department’s defense of the immigration proceedings rule puts the president at odds with his promise to make the immigration system more humane. “We were somewhat surprised at how vigorously the administration was defending this rule,” said Victoria Neilson, managing attorney for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network’s Defending Vulnerable Populations Program, an organizational plaintiff in the Washington, D.C., suit. One part of the rule, which would prohibit judges from reopening certain old orders for removal, “basically would result in separated families,” Neilson said, giving as an example a situation where someone with an old removal order receives approval for a family visa that would allow them to be reunited with their family; under the rule, a judge would no longer have the ability to reopen the old deportation order in the interest of justice and vacate it, which would prevent the person from using the visa. “So we were surprised that they were fighting so hard against even putting the rule on a pause.”

Saagar Enjeti: Journos FALSELY Claim AGAIN Hunter Biden Laptop Is 'Russian' Plant

Biden warns that Putin will pay a price for interfering in 2020 US election

Joe Biden said the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, will face consequences for directing efforts to swing the 2020 US presidential election to Donald Trump, and that they would come soon. ...

Biden’s comments come after a US declassified intelligence report on Tuesday bolstered longstanding allegations that Putin was behind Moscow’s election interference, by proliferating “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations” largely designed to denigrate Joe Biden and boost Trump’s re-election, some fed through allies of Trump. ...

Russia responded by recalling its ambassador for consultations, but even as relations between the countries lurched into crisis, Moscow stressed it wanted to prevent an “irreversible deterioration” in relations. “The main thing for us is to determine the ways in which the difficult Russian-American relations that Washington has led into a dead end in recent years could be rectified,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

In his interview, Biden also expressed a hope that the US could cooperate with Russia on issues such as arms control, saying that the US and Russia can “walk and chew gum” at the same time.

Bernie Raises Money For NV Dems After Establishment Tries To CRUSH Them

After Introduction of For the People Act, Senate Dems Told to 'End the Filibuster and Pass' It

Amid the GOP's nationwide voter suppression onslaught that threatens to restrict ballot access for tens of millions of Americans, Senate Democrats' introduction of the For the People Act on Wednesday was welcomed by progressives who also emphasized that passing the comprehensive plan to strengthen the country's democracy through the Senate will require the upper chamber's majority to scrap the anti-democratic 60-vote filibuster.

"While GOP lawmakers across the country propose legislation that would strip millions of Americans of their right to vote, Senate Democrats have introduced sweeping legislation that would protect voting rights, reduce the impact of big money in our elections, and add tens of millions of eligible Americans to the voter rolls," Stand Up America president Sean Eldridge said in a statement.

Though he applauded "the congressional Democrats who have championed the For the People Act in both chambers," Eldridge added that "too much is at stake to delay a vote on this critical legislation or to allow archaic Senate rules to kill the bill."

"The only path forward now for Democrats to stop Republicans from suppressing the vote is to swiftly end the filibuster and pass the For the People Act now," Eldridge said Wednesday, echoing what he and other voting rights advocates said earlier this month when the Democratic-controlled House passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1, without the support of a single Republican.

If the filibuster is allowed to stand, passing S. 1, the Senate's version of the For the People Act, would depend on 10 Republican senators joining every member of the Democratic caucus in supporting one of the majority party's top legislative priorities—a highly unlikely event even though the transformative package of pro-democracy reforms is popular among voters across the political spectrum.

During a press conference held to introduce the For the People Act, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that "everything is on the table" to pass the landmark bill.

"We will see if our Republican friends join us. If they don't join us, our caucus will come together and decide the appropriate action to take," Schumer said. "Failure is not an option."

Cuomo CAUGHT Trying To Smear Accusers, Staff Refused To Back Him

21 states sue Biden for revoking Keystone XL permit

A coalition of states with Republican attorneys general sued President Biden on Wednesday over his decision to revoke a key permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The lawsuit from 21 states, led by Texas and Montana, argues that revoking the cross-border permit is a "regulation of interstate and international commerce" that should be left to Congress and that Biden's move was an overreach.

The Republican attorneys general also argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Some of the states represented in the lawsuit have Democratic governors, including Kentucky and Kansas, though all of them have Republican attorneys general.

"Cabinet Defendants' actions ... have the possibility of depriving States and local governments of millions of dollars in revenues. Yet, far from providing a reasoned explanation for why they are taking their actions, they have not provided any reason at all," the suit states.

Sperm whales in 19th century shared ship attack information

A remarkable new study on how whales behaved when attacked by humans in the 19th century has implications for the way they react to changes wreaked by humans in the 21st century. The paper, published by the Royal Society on Wednesday, is authored by Hal Whitehead and Luke Rendell, pre-eminent scientists working with cetaceans, and Tim D Smith, a data scientist, and their research addresses an age-old question: if whales are so smart, why did they hang around to be killed? The answer? They didn’t.

Using newly digitised logbooks detailing the hunting of sperm whales in the north Pacific, the authors discovered that within just a few years, the strike rate of the whalers’ harpoons fell by 58%. This simple fact leads to an astonishing conclusion: that information about what was happening to them was being collectively shared among the whales, who made vital changes to their behaviour. As their culture made fatal first contact with ours, they learned quickly from their mistakes.

“Sperm whales have a traditional way of reacting to attacks from orca,” notes Hal Whitehead, who spoke to the Guardian from his house overlooking the ocean in Dalhousie, Nova Scotia, where he teaches. Before humans, orca were their only predators, against whom sperm whales form defensive circles, their powerful tails held outwards to keep their assailants at bay. But such techniques “just made it easier for the whalers to slaughter them”, says Whitehead. ...

The hunters themselves realised the whales’ efforts to escape. They saw that the animals appeared to communicate the threat within their attacked groups. Abandoning their usual defensive formations, the whales swam upwind to escape the hunters’ ships, themselves wind-powered. ‘This was cultural evolution, much too fast for genetic evolution,’ says Whitehead.

And in turn, it evokes another irony. Now, just as whales are beginning to recover from the industrial destruction by 20th-century whaling fleets – whose steamships and grenade harpoons no whale could evade – they face new threats created by our technology. ‘They’re having to learn not to get hit by ships, cope with the depredations of longline fishing, the changing source of their food due to climate change,’ says Whitehead. Perhaps the greatest modern peril is noise pollution, one they can do nothing to evade.

Climate Crisis Displaced Over 10 Million People in Past Six Months: Red Cross

The world's largest humanitarian network warned Wednesday that urgent international action is needed to address the rising risk of climate-related displacement, highlighting data that shows disasters such as storms, droughts, fires, and floods internally displaced more than 10 million people from September to February.

"In just the last six months, there have been 12.6 million people internally displaced around the world and over 80% of these forced displacements have been caused by disasters, most of which are triggered by climate and weather extremes," said Helen Brunt of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

"Asia suffers much more than any other region from climate disaster-related displacements," noted Brunt, IFRC's Asia Pacific Migration and Displacement coordinator. "These upheavals are taking a terrible toll on some of the poorest communities already reeling from the economic and social impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic."

The new report, entitled Responding to Disasters and Displacement in a Changing Climate (pdf), draws data from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center. According to the IDMC, about 2.3 million displacements over the past six months are related to conflict compared with 10.3 million due to disasters.

Bottom trawling releases as much carbon as air travel, landmark study finds

Fishing boats that trawl the ocean floor release as much carbon dioxide as the entire aviation industry, according to a groundbreaking study. Bottom trawling, a widespread practice in which heavy nets are dragged along the seabed, pumps out 1 gigaton of carbon every year, says the study written by 26 marine biologists, climate experts and economists and published in Nature on Wednesday.

The carbon is released from the seabed sediment into the water, and can increase ocean acidification, as well as adversely affecting productivity and biodiversity, the study said. Marine sediments are the largest pool of carbon storage in the world.

The report – Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate – is the first study to show the climate impacts of trawling globally. It also provides a blueprint outlining which areas of the ocean should be protected to safeguard marine life, boost seafood production and reduce climate emissions.

Only 7% of the ocean is under some kind of protection. The scientists argue that, by identifying strategic areas for stewardship – for example, regions with large-scale industrial fishing and major economic exclusion zones or marine territories – nations could reap “significant benefits” for climate, food and biodiversity. Protecting “strategic” ocean areas could produce 8m tonnes of seafood, they say.

“Ocean life has been declining worldwide because of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change,” said Dr Enric Sala, explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society and lead author of the paper. “In this study, we’ve pioneered a new way to identify the places that – if strongly protected – will boost food production and safeguard marine life, all while reducing carbon emissions.

Also of Interest

Here are some articles of interest, some which defied fair-use abstraction.

Glenn Greenwald: Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Yesterday Spread a Significant Lie All Over Twitter

WSJ Rage at ‘Woke’ China Foreshadows New Redbaiting of Social Justice Activists

White Supremacists, Conspiracy Theorists Are Targeting Cell Towers, Police Warn

Teens, Fight for the Future Sell 'Invisiclip' to Counter 'Menace of Facial Recognition'

MONARCH Act Introduced to Ensure 'Beloved Pollinator' Is Around for Future Generations

‘They aren't used to losing’: wealthy New York enclave battles over offshore windfarm

Why mushrooms are the new houseplant everybody's growing

Space oddity Oumuamua probably shard of Pluto-like world, scientists say

Jimmy Dore: AOC Theatrically Gaslights Working People Over Stimulus Bill

Jimmy Dore: "Bitcoin To Hit $220,000 This Year" predicts Max Keiser

Krystal Ball: Cardi B vs. Candace Owens Shows Nature Is HEALING

A Little Night Music

Charles Brown & Dr John - A Virus Called The Blues

Charles Brown - I Want To Go Home

Charles Brown - These Blues

Charles Brown - Confidential

Charles Brown - Hard Times

Charles Brown - (Gets your kicks on) Route 66

Charles Brown (feat.Shuggie Otis) - Trouble Blues

Charles Brown - Early in the Morning

Charles Brown - Seven Long Days