#Annual Governance Framework

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The Canadian and Ecuadorian governments continue to forge ahead with free trade agreement (FTA) plans, despite opposition from social movements and Indigenous Peoples within Ecuador, along with rampant instability. In these negotiations, the spotlight is on the Canadian mining industry. Canadian mining investments in Ecuador are valued at $1.8 billion, with Canada’s trade commissioner noting that Canadian companies are “leading investors” in Ecuador’s mining sector. The trade commissioner also praises Ecuador’s “mining-friendly legal framework.” On March 5, Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa met with Justin Trudeau in Ottawa. Both leaders welcomed “the imminent launch of negotiations toward a Canada-Ecuador free trade agreement.” The day before, Noboa spoke at the 2024 convention of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), an annual event that promotes Canadian mining interests globally. March 4 was “Ecuador Day” at PDAC, and Noboa used the opportunity to promote his country as a “mining destination” to Canadian investors. This is despite what MiningWatch Canada calls “serious human rights violations [that shed] light on the state of conflict over mining projects in peasant and Indigenous territories” in Ecuador.

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland @allthegeopolitics

[komsomolka]

In July, the Iraqi Central Bank halted all foreign transactions in Chinese Yuan, succumbing to intense pressure from the US Federal Reserve to do so. The shutdown followed a brief period during which Baghdad had allowed merchants to trade in Yuan, an initiative intended to mitigate excessive US restrictions on Iraq’s access to US dollars. While this Yuan-based trade excluded Iraq’s oil exports, which remained in US dollars, Washington viewed it as a threat to its financial dominance over the Persian Gulf state. [...]

Since the signing of Executive Order 13303 (EO13303) by President George W Bush on 22 May 2003, all revenues from Iraq’s oil sales have been funneled directly into an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. EO13303, titled “Protection of the Development Fund for Iraq and Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest,” has been renewed annually by every US president, including Joe Biden in 2024. This executive order essentially places control over Iraq’s oil revenues under the discretion of the US President, leaving Baghdad with limited control over its resources and earnings. [...]

Whenever Washington feels that Iraq is not compliant with US regional goals, these fund transfers can be delayed or reduced. In January 2020, for instance, after the Iraqi Parliament voted to expel US troops following the assassination of Iranian Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Deputy Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Trump administration threatened to freeze Iraq’s access to its oil revenues. [...] The country’s inability to control its own funds has prevented long-term reconstruction and development, forcing it to rely on international loans. [...]

Iraq ceased to be under occupation, at least formally, when it signed the “Strategic Cooperation Framework” agreement with the US in 2008, which says that American forces are present in Iraq only at the request of the Iraqi government.

Attempts by the UN to restore Iraq’s control over its finances have largely failed. In 2010, UNSC Resolution 1956 demanded the closure of the DFI by no later than 30 June 2011 and the transfer of all proceeds to the Iraqi government. Despite these clear legal directives, the DFI account remains under US control at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in defiance of the UN Security Council resolution. Worse yet, enduring US dominance over Iraq’s financial resources has deeply exacerbated the corruption and dysfunction plaguing the country. [...]

Today, both the US Administration of Joe Biden and the Iraqi government led by Mohammad Shia al-Sudani – which has not taken steps to free Iraq’s sovereign funds – can be considered in violation of United Nations Resolution 1956 issued in 2010.

[sharpened--edges]

The consequences of [the summer 2020] events are still underestimated by commentators and activists alike. Some suffer induced amnesia about the revolt; others have moved on to simple commemoration; still others continue isolated but no doubt justified forms of subversive action. Meanwhile, forces in local and federal government, business associations, police departments, and armed militias have continuously worked to make sure a popular uprising does not reoccur.

In addition to passing laws and killing dissidents, this institutional reaction has focused on managing public perception. Industrial interests and private investment companies have conducted influence campaigns using local news outlets—40% of which are owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, a right-wing organization with ties to former US President Donald Trump. Between Sinclair, Nexstar, Gray, Tegna, and Tribune, this coordinated reframing of events has damaged the way that many sectors of the television-viewing public perceive the revolt and its consequences.

In the wake of the uprising, a false narrative circulated to the effect that the police, demoralized and underfunded, could not control the “crime wave” sweeping the country. This narrative, orchestrated in response to the popular demand to “defund the police” advanced by some sections of the 2020 revolt, has shaped the imaginations of suburban whites, small business owners, and many urban progressives. The “crime wave” framework implied that police departments around the country had in fact been defunded or had their powers curtailed and were consequently unable to assure social peace or free enterprise. In reality, the vast majority of police departments received an annual increase in their budgets, as they normally do. If anything, they accrued more power following the events of 2020, from the political center as well as the right—witness the accession of Eric Adams to mayor of New York City.

CrimethInc., "The City in the Forest: Reinventing Resistance for an Age of Climate Crisis and Police Militarization," 11 April 2022.

[fatehbaz]

Most books on the Bengal delta begin by describing it as “riverine,” [...] the land is the product of fluvial action [...]. [I]n thinking about Bengal, one tends to imagine the ricepaddy fields [...]. It was not so all the time; Bengal was [...] [not] really a land of [such extensive] farming [...]. Traveling through Bengal in the eighteenth century, the French traveler Orme saw a highly sophisticated water-based economy - the blessing of rivers - irrigated [...] by the monsoon rains and annual flooding. [...] The rivers were not just channels of water; they carried a thriving trade, transporting people and goods from one part of the delta to another. Today, Bengal is generally seen as comprising lush green rice paddies [...]. Rivers are often presented as causing immense grief [through seasonal flooding] [...]. Clearly, there is a mismatch here. [...] How (and when) did Bengal’s social milieu transform from water-based to land-based? [...] Bengal’s essential character as a fluid landscape was changed during the colonial times through legal interventions that were aimed at stabilizing lands and waters, at creating permanent boundaries between them, and at privileging land over water, in a land of shifting river courses, inundated irrigation, and river-based life.

Such a separation of land and water was made possible not just by physical constructions but first and foremost by engineering a legal framework that gradually entered the popular vocabulary. [...] BADA, which stands for the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, [was] a law passed by the colonial British rulers in 1825, following the Permanent Settlement of 1793. [...] The environment of Bengal can be described as hybrid, where the demarcation between land and water is neither well-defined nor permanent. Nature here represents a borderless world, or at best one in which borders are not fixed lines on the ground demarcating a territory, but are negotiated spaces or zones. Such “[...] spaces” comprise “not [only] lines of separation but zones of interaction…transformation, transgression, and possibility” (Howitt 2001, 240).

---

Current boundaries of land and water are as much products of history as nature and the colonial rule of Bengal played a key role in changing the ideas and valuations of both. [...] The debate on what constituted productive and unproductive uses of land preceded the application of English property law not only to establish permanent zamindari (a common term for the system of landlordism) settlement of land tenure in India, but also to valorize land in what had essentially been a land-water hybrid environment. The colonial land revenue system, by seeing land as more productive (being able to yield revenue) and useful, began the long historical process of branding the rivers of Bengal as uncivil and in need of control. [...] The problem with deltaic land is its non-permanent nature, as silt is stored by rivers: rivers do not always flow along a certain route [...]. The laws that the colonial British brought to Bengal, however, were founded upon the thinking of land as being fixed in place. [...]

---

Experiments to fine-tune the land-based economy began in 1760 when Bengal, and its ceded territories, came under the East India Company rule. [...] To entrench the system, the Permanent Settlement of 1793 created zamindars (or landlords) “in perpetuity” - meaning for good. The system was aimed at reducing the complexities of revenue collection due to erratically shifting lands and unpredictable harvests in a monsoon-dependent area [...]. Alarmed at the possibility of dismemberment of their estates, the zamindars decided to bind tenants to the same conditions to which they themselves were bound by the colonial government, and one of their actions was to create patni tenures or perpetual leases. [...]

It also meant that the right to collect rent from the tenants, often through the use of force, devolved to the lower layers, making the upper-layer zamindars more of a juridical rather than a real social entity in the eyes of the peasants. The patnidars, finding how much trouble this arrangement took off their own back, created dar-patnis or patnis of the second degree [...]. The dar-patnis created se-patnis or patnis of the third degree. The East India Company, therefore, had to legalize, through Regulation VIII of 1819, the creation of such formations, thus giving a de jure recognition post facto [...].

---

The regulation, although innocuous and simple, was of great historical potency: it became the key that unlocked the door to environmental and socio-economic changes of unparalleled magnitude. From a riverine community, within a hundred years, Bengal was transformed into a land-based community. [...]

---

The meaning of property also changed as a result of this law: the cultivators began to lose the right to occupy the land that they had enjoyed since ancient times [...].

[T]he Company then began to contemplate the problematic issue of legalizing the fictional entities of chars [...]. The law that was created for this purpose - and still rules the rights of ownership of charlands - is the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation Act (BADA) of 1825. [...] BADA was meant to establish a set of rules to guide the courts to determine the claims to land “gained by alluvion” or accretion, and the resurfaced land previously lost by diluvion or erosion. Even if one takes it for granted that chars are technically non-land in the sense that they exist within river banks, the difficulty remains that when a piece of land is lost to bank erosion, it may not arise in exactly the same location or arise at all within the foreseeable future. This means the owner has no certainty that they will get it back when it resurfaces or when another char rises nearby. [...] Thus, the key to establishing land rights in the court of law remained the payment of rent, even on diluviated land. [...] New accretions in large navigable rivers would be the property of the state [...].

---

All text above by: Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt. “Commodified Land, Dangerous Water: Colonial Perceptions of Riverine Bengal.” In: “Asian Environments: Connections across Borders, Landscapes, and Times.” Edited by Ursula Munster, Shiho Satsuka, and Gunnel Cederlof. RCC Perspectives, no. 3, 17-22. 2014. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary teaching purposes.]

[mariacallous]

In January 2020, Mexico made history as the first Latin American country to adopt a feminist foreign policy. Pioneered by Sweden six years earlier in 2014, feminist foreign policy (FFP) initially began as a niche effort in the Nordic region. For many years, Sweden stood alone on the global stage, emphasizing that its FFP focused on enhancing women’s “rights, resources, and representation” in the country’s diplomatic and development efforts worldwide. That effort was the result of the vision and leadership of Sweden’s foreign minister at the time, Margot Wallström, although there was widespread support for the policy across the government and it was continued by subsequent ministers.

It would be another three years before other nations followed suit: In 2017, Canada announced a Feminist International Assistance Policy. At the end of 2018, Luxembourg’s new coalition government committed to developing a FFP in their coalition agreement. And in 2019, Mexico and France pledged to co-host a major women’s rights anniversary conference in 2021 while beginning to explore the development of feminist foreign policies simultaneously.

I had an inside view on that process having convened the existing FFP governments and numerous international experts just before Mexico’s announcement. Together, we developed a global definition and framework for FFP. As I wrote for this magazine in January 2020, this approach was largely followed by the Mexican policy. The goals for Mexico in adopting an FFP were to increase the rights of women and LGBTQ+ individuals on the world stage, diversify their diplomatic corps, boost resourcing for gender equality issues, and ensure that internal policies within the foreign ministry aligned with this approach, including a zero-tolerance policy toward gender-based harassment.

Now, under the leadership of a new female foreign minister, Alicia Bárcena, and following the election of Mexico’s first woman president, Claudia Sheinbaum, I was excited to travel to Mexico City in July as it hit another milestone: becoming the first country outside Europe to host the annual ministerial-level conference on FFP. It was an opportunity for me to take stock of what Mexico has achieved since it adopted an FFP, and to see what progress it has made toward its goals.

Initially convened by Germany’s Annalena Baerbock in 2022 and then by the Dutch last year, Mexico took a unique approach to the conference by focusing it on a specific policy issue—in this case, the forthcoming Summit of the Future. This conference, taking place at the U.N. General Assembly in September, aims to begin laying the groundwork for the successor goals to the Sustainable Development Goals framework. It is already a fraught and polarized process, and progressive leadership is sorely needed.

Last week provided clear evidence that Mexico is making progress in modeling that leadership—including in consistently advocating for progressive language in often contentious international multilateral negotiations, such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP). For example, in its interventions at the latest COP, Mexico placed human rights, intersectionality and gender equity at the heart of climate action and recognized the role of women environmental defenders and Indigenous women in a just transition.

“Mexico is often a lone voice in holding the line on critical human rights, Indigenous rights and gender equality language at the climate talks, even among the FFP countries,” said Bridget Burns, the executive director of the Women’s Environment and Development Organization who has spent the last 15 years organizing women’s rights activists in climate negotiations and attended the July conference to speak on the sustainable development panel.

Mexico’s decision to link their hosting of the FFP Conference to the Summit of the Future—as evidenced in an outcome document they published and are circulating for signature ahead of the General Assembly’s high-level week in September—challenged FFP governments to engage a feminist approach in mainstream foreign policy dialogue, not just in gender-related discussions like the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. “The Summit of the Future aspires to a better tomorrow, but lofty goals won’t translate to real systemic change without feminist civil society,” said Sehnaz Kiymaz, senior coordinator of the Women’s Major Group.

On the multilateral front, Mexico has shown leadership by co-chairing the Feminist Foreign Policy Plus Group (FFP+) at the UN, alongside Spain. This body held the first ministerial-level meeting on FFP at the General Assembly last year and adopted the world’s first political declaration on FFP. Signed by 18 countries, governments pledged “to take feminist, intersectional and gender-transformative approaches to our foreign policies,” and outlined six areas for action in this regard. This was the first time FFP countries publicly pledged to work together as a group to address pressing global challenges through a feminist approach. While smaller subsets of this cohort have worked together multilaterally to condemn women’s rights rollbacks in Afghanistan or in support of an international legal framework on the right to care and be cared for, the first big test of this more systematic approach will be the forthcoming Summit of the Future, where feminists have been advocating for gender to be referenced as a cross-cutting priority.

Mexico has also recently ratified two international instruments to directly benefit women: Convention 189 of the International Labor Organization (ILO) on domestic workers and Convention 190 of the ILO on violence and harassment in the workplace. Under the mantle of its FFP, Mexico has championed the importance of care work in the advancement of women’s rights and countries’ development at the U.N. Human Rights Council and at the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean through the Global Alliance for Care Work.

While international women’s rights activists at the conference largely gave positive feedback on Mexico’s track record, the response from Mexican civil society was more critical. Activists organized a side event to present their more skeptical view of Mexican FFP. María Paulina Rivera Chávez, a member of the Mexican coalition and an organizer of the event, argued a conference could only go so far. “It is fundamental to decenter the state, understanding that feminist foreign policies must be horizontal,” she said.

A major theme of that side event and of Mexican activists’ interventions in the official ministerial conference was the incongruence of the Mexican government’s leadership on feminist approaches internationally while women’s human rights at home have suffered. Such criticisms of the Andrés Manuel López Obrador government are not unfounded. In one particularly troubling interview a few years ago, he suggested that Mexico’s high rate of femicide—11 women are murdered daily, with rates on the rise compared to other crimes—was merely a false provocation by his political opponents. Negative biases against women are pervasive in Mexico, with 90 percent of the population holding such biases.

Mexico has made strides in improving gender equality in other areas, however. Women now make up half of the Mexican legislature and have been appointed to lead high-level institutions, such as the Supreme Court, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Central Bank, with cascading positive effects on gender equality. Bárcena, for instance, clearly asserted from her first speech on the job that Mexico’s FFP would remain a top priority. This is no accident. At the federal level, significant efforts have been made to enforce gender parity laws and implement more than 80 percent of the legal frameworks promoting, enforcing and monitoring gender equality as stipulated by international benchmarks. Mexican women have also seen some improvements in maternal mortality rates, access to internet services, and protections to the right to abortion, with numerous national commitments to improve gender equality, such as measures to alleviate the burden of care on women.

But while there has been an increase in the number of women in the legislature and government positions, women from Indigenous, Afro-descendent, and working-class backgrounds continue to be underrepresented in political roles. And there has been a steady increase over the last decade in femicides, disappearances and sexual violence which Mexican feminist organizations and international actors have found are directly linked to the militarization of law enforcement under the guise of Mexico’s war on drugs and organized crime.

Additional criticisms of the Mexican FFP itself include the foreign ministry’s insularity and reluctance to engage with Mexican feminist activists in the development and implementation of its FFP. There was also a hesitation by the previous foreign ministry leadership to collaborate with Inmujeres, Mexico’s gender ministry, preferring to keep control of the FFP within the foreign ministry alone. It is not uncommon for gender ministries to be excluded in foreign policymaking as they are often perceived as lacking the necessary expertise or authority on foreign policy. However, Inmujeres is an exception in this regard and the criticism was valid. This was on my mind as I participated in the conference last month, and straight out of the gate I could observe a clear departure from the past approach under Bárcena’s leadership: The foreign ministry officially partnered with Inmujeres to co-host the conference, and the heads of both agencies were equally prominent voices throughout the three-day event. Similarly, the foreign ministry also made efforts to engage Mexican feminist civil society in conference planning, inviting civil society to a consultation day in the weeks leading up to the conference.

Following the right-wing electoral successes and likely abandonment of FFP in countries like Sweden, Argentina, and potentially the Netherlands, the success of a Mexican model of FFP is all the more important. Mexican activists I spoke with expressed optimism about Bárcena’s leadership, which they had not extended to her predecessor. Certainly, there is some cynicism about whether Mexico’s next president, a woman, will be any better on the issue of femicide than her mentor and predecessor, López Obrador, but there is some room for hope. If the leadership of a female foreign minister like Bárcena has been more effective in mobilizing political and convening power behind FFP, there’s potential that Sheinbaum will also show more interest than her predecessor.

While Mexican civil society has critiqued that Sheinbaum did not present a plan on how she would continue and improve the country’s FFP and repair the government’s relationship with feminist civil society, Sheinbaum’s plan—entitled 100 Pasos Para La Transformación—takes a human rights-based approach to gender equality. This is promising, because political approaches, which are more common, tend to reduce the human rights of women, girls, and gender-diverse persons as a means to an end, such as better economic, education, or health outcomes. The plan proposes measures to alleviate the care burden on women, safeguard sexual and reproductive health and rights, protect LGBTQ+ communities, promote gender parity in cabinets, improve land rights for rural women, reduce femicides, and more.

That Sheinbaum has not explicitly addressed the importance of Mexico’s FFP is not necessarily surprising. Most feminist and women’s rights organizations are understandably more focused on issues within their own borders, and foreign policy rarely drives political power and the focus of the electorate. Discussion of feminist foreign policy is thus typically the domain of the foreign minister and in some cases other relevant ministers—such as international development in Germany, or the trade ministry in Sweden under its previous government. (Canada’s Justin Trudeau stands out as a rare exception, having championed feminism and Canada’s feminist approach to policymaking at the Group of Seven and international gender equality forums throughout his tenure as prime minister.)

But even without top-down leadership from a president, savvy officials within the Mexican foreign and gender ministries are using FFP to make progress. While there has not yet been a public accounting of the progress made in implementing FFP, the clear leadership Mexico is demonstrating on the world stage in key negotiations, its successful conference, and the anticipated new government set the stage for Mexico to boldly advance its FFP. It will serve as a valuable example to the world.

[submalevolentgrace]

Rough sleepers who present as suicidal to hospitals are being turned away or discharged back into homelessness due to a lack of beds, emergency housing and mental healthcare availability. In two cases identified by the Guardian, homeless Indigenous men linked their hospital presentation directly to their homelessness. One told staff: “It is hard to find a reason to live when you have nowhere to live.” They were discharged and found dead a short time later. Rough sleepers are dying needlessly after encounters with police and the justice system on trivial matters, which lead to use of force or deaths in custody. In at least four cases seen by the Guardian, deaths occurred after arrests for minor public order offences, such as drinking in public and public urination. Frontline workers say the chronic underfunding of specialised homelessness health services means easily treatable injuries and illnesses are being missed in early stages. This is compounding the significant toll homelessness causes on physical and mental health. Homeless Australians are being subjected to brutal, sometimes fatal violence while sleeping rough, and being found in parks, squats and on the street shot, stabbed or bashed. In one case, that of Sydney rough sleeper Roger Davies, police decided there were “no suspicious circumstances” despite evidence he had sustained fractures to nine ribs about the time he died and had complained of being subjected to violence and constant robberies while sleeping in a burnt-out squat house in Granville. They then failed to notify his family until more than two years after Davies was buried in a pauper’s grave. In Western Australia, Indigenous families say the state government is evicting public housing residents even when it knows this will lead to homelessness. Guardian Australia is aware of at least two families whose loved ones died by suicide shortly after losing housing and becoming homeless. The state’s department of communities said terminations are sought only as a “last resort” and that they provide support to tenants facing eviction.

The Australian government does not count the number of homelessness deaths each year, setting it apart from other western nations. Correspondence seen by the Guardian show the former federal government and state governments rejected or ignored the homelessness sector’s pleas in 2021 to build an annual tally, including by commissioning the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to develop a reporting framework for hospitals, homelessness services and coroners.

[covid-safer-hotties]

The Long Covid Groups say patients are being abandoned as dedicated clinics close despite a rise in UK cases - Published Sept 8, 2024

As the UK Covid-19 Inquiry resumes with a focus on healthcare systems in each of the four nations, the Long Covid Groups (comprising Long Covid Support, Long Covid SOS, Long Covid Physio and Long Covid Kids) are shocked and deeply concerned to learn that Long Covid clinics are being closed at a time when reported cases are continuing to rise.

Charities and many medical experts have long maintained we are in the midst of a global health crisis. Without a concerted effort to address this issue, the closures will only add to the significant burdens already being faced by healthcare systems and economies.

Recent data from the US has suggested that Long Covid may affect up to 7% of the population and prevalence could rise further. The latest ONS updates have shown that incidence of long-term sickness is at record levels and has been on an upward trajectory since early 2020. Staff shortages and high levels of school absenteeism are frequently reported across the UK. The annual productivity loss in the UK resulting from Long Covid is currently estimated to be £1.5 billion.

This stark picture contrasts with the lack of support Long Covid patients are receiving. At the start of the year, there were close to 100 Long Covid clinics for adults and 13 hubs for children and young people (CYP) in England. Earlier this year however, the highly regarded NHS England national programme was stood down with responsibility for Long Covid services being delegated to each of the Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). In recent months, patients and staff have reported the closure and a severe scaling back of clinics including Devon, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Lancashire and Surrey. Key personnel and resources are being subsumed into other NHS services and, in some cases, staff are leaving the NHS altogether. Some CYP hubs are being forced to take on patients from those that have already closed with no extra funding.

In the other UK nations, the provision of Long Covid services is individual to each health board with no centrally agreed model on what Long Covid clinics should look like. They mostly focus on therapies designed to help patients manage their conditions rather than being clinician led. There is only one service dedicated to paediatrics in Scotland with none in Northern Ireland and Wales.

The Long Covid Groups urge all governments and healthcare providers to adopt a service model that prioritises dedicated clinics supported by experienced clinician-led, multidisciplinary teams. Given the complexity and multi-faceted nature of the condition, the Long Covid Groups stress that specialists from each of the relevant disciplines should work collaboratively. In partnership with patients, they call for a healthcare framework that is dedicated to successfully diagnosing, treating and preventing Long Covid; this will contribute towards relieving the operational and financial pressures on the NHS.

Amitava Banerjee, Professor of Clinical Data Science and Honorary Consultant Cardiologist & Long Covid SOS Trustee

“The evidence for the health, healthcare and economic effects of Long Covid, whether on individuals or societies, is unequivocal. Therefore, we must ensure that coordinated research and care are prioritised for Long Covid."

Sammie McFarland, CEO & Founder, Long Covid Kids

"Appropriate funding and resources would provide clinicians with the best possible opportunity to improve patients' lives, but this hasn't been forthcoming. Rising school absenteeism and Long Covid in children are red flags demanding immediate action. Closing specialised clinics risks creating a healthcare vacuum with far-reaching consequences for healthcare, education, families, and the future workforce."

Professor Mark Faghy, Vice-Chair of Long Covid Physio

“The scaling back and closure of services around the UK at a time when the prevalence of Long Covid is rising seems counterintuitive. Before these decisions were made, there were calls from patients and healthcare workers to grow services and ensure consistency across the UK but it seems to be going the other way.”

Nikki Smith, Founding Member, Long Covid Support

“With many people now getting Covid-19 multiple times, the risk of having on-going symptoms of Long Covid is increasing, which will result in more pressure on the NHS, fewer people able to work and an even bigger hit on the economy. It must be a priority of our new public service Government to ensure effective Long Covid clinics that are up to date with the latest research, are accessible by all.”

[girlactionfigure]

🟣 ISRAEL REALTIME - Connecting to Israel in Realtime

Morning Report - Monday

⭕ BARRAGE OF HAMAS ROCKETS at near Gaza towns (20) from Khan Yunis.

▪️MORE WAYS TO READ.. for those who prefer X or Facebook, we are now there:

🔸X (twitter) - https://x.com/IsraelRealtime

🔸Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558471625976

▪️HAMAS WEAPONS MAKING VIDEO.. The military arm of Hamas is trying very hard to show that it continues to produce explosives even during the war, by showing someone spray painting Chinese HEAT warheads and attaching instructions in Arabic.

▪️RELEASED TERRORISTS.. this morning the IDF released the director of Shifa hospital aka Hamas HQ together with 50 captured terrorists.  Speaking out about the release were both opposition party leader Israel our Home MK Liberman, and coalition party leader Otzma Yehudit MK Ben Gvir, who both had harsh words for releases while our hostages remain held.  Various other MK’s and ministers are FURIOUS that the IDF and Shin Bet made this release.

(Amit Segal commentary: ) “If it turned out that the manager of Sheba hospital in Tel Aviv was hiding hundreds of drug dealers in the institution, he would go to prison for the rest of his life.  So why is it that when the director of Shifa in Gaza hides thousands of terrorists, and he is released after 8 months?”

▪️PROTEST - ANTI-GOVT.. Demonstrators against the government block highway 40 near Magashim intersection.

▪️PROTEST - ANTI-DRAFT TURNS VIOLENT.. Jerusalem: arrests for attempts to harm the police officers, the police arrested 5. Two for attacking police officers and 3 for throwing stones or objects. 

▪️RETAIL - EV CARS.. The purchase tax on an electric vehicles will jump in January, but no one knows by how much.

▪️POLITICS - NEW PARTY FOR THE WIN?  Initial polls show a potential party of Israel our Home MK Liberman + former PM Bennett + former Mossad head Yossi Cohen would be a winner!   Early reports say leadership terms are difficult - the party may not happen.

▪️HIGH COURT CASE - ISRAEL MUST TAKE WOUNDED GAZANS?  Moked for the Protection of Individuals and Doctors for Human Rights petition the High Court to obligate Israel to evacuate wounded Gazans into Israel.  

▪️NEW NUKES.. “It is estimated” that Israel invested over a billion dollars in nuclear weapons in the last year (2023) according to the fifth annual report of the International Movement for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and “it is estimated” that Israel has 90 nuclear weapons, putting it just behind India and Pakistan in nuclear arsenal… on the basis of “estimates”.

▪️ON CHAREDI DRAFT.. The head of the Council of Torah Sages, Rabbi Moshe Maya: “If military frameworks are established following the advice of the rabbis, which will certainly protect every ultra-Orthodox recruit and with legal validity - those who do not study can be recruited.”

♦️US DESTROYS 3 SUICIDE BOATS from the Houthis in the RED SEA.

⭕ ANTI-TANK MISSILES from HEZBOLLAH at Metulla.

⭕ SHIA MILITIA IRAQ CLAIM ATTACK ON EILAT.. no such attack known.

[starseedpatriot]

Regarding UN Sustainable Development Goals

An excellent reply by Alexandra Latypova when asked how her company would meet the UN SDG’s:

“UN is an unelected, unaccountable organization whose pronouncements have no bearing on our company's bylaws, management principles and corporate governance. We resent the implication that they do.  

We do not support UN's "Sustainable Development Goals" and related ideology as we believe it is vague, self-contradictory, unimplementable and overall damaging framework designed to promote the interests of wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations at the expense of the working people globally. 

"Sustainability" is a purposefully undefined but pleasantly sounding nonsense.  The 17 "goals" made up by overpaid bureaucrats are designed to obfuscate the reality - the monopolizing of control over the world's resources and subjugation of the people who never consented to be governed in this manner.  

As an example of absurdity, the core of the SDG program for development and poverty reduction relies on industrial growth — ever-increasing levels of extraction, production, and consumption.

Goal 8 calls for 7% annual GDP growth in the least developed countries and higher levels of economic productivity across the board, calling for less and more at the same time.  

The most recent example of SDG in action is the devastating collapse of the entire country of Sri Lanka precipitated by capricious "sustainability" burdens such as bans on fertilizer and ban on non-organic farming which led to widespread hardship and civil unrest. 

Widespread protests of farmers are currently ongoing in the Netherlands and other European countries.  The hardworking people are pushed to the brink of despair by the SDG inspired "green" nonsense while UN's corporate sponsors like Bill Gates are simultaneously purchasing all arable land in sight. 

“Sustainable water" agenda comes with Nestle's sponsorship which aims to have all freshwater on Earth owned by corporations. 

“Health" goals are sponsored by the global pharmaceutical companies and, unsurprisingly, aim at increasing government purchases of drugs, elimination of individual health choices and informed consent as already demonstrated by the global covid-19 policies to date. 

In summary, we do not support UN and its agenda 2030.  We think nobody should. 

Collectivist utopias have led to devastation both human and environmental every single time they were attempted, and UN's SDG is yet another attempt. 

We strongly believe in the individual rights to free thought, expression and self-determination, as only truly free individuals can build a just, moral, non-fraudulent society for common good.”

https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel

[icontherecord]

ODNI Releases the Intelligence Community's 11th Annual Statistical Transparency Report

April 30, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) today released the Annual Statistical Transparency Report Regarding the Intelligence Community’s (IC) Use of National Security Surveillance Authorities for Calendar Year 2023 (ASTR). The ASTR provides the public both statistics and contextual information regarding the scope of the government’s use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorities, National Security Letters, and other national security authorities. The report also provides insights into the rigorous, multi-layered oversight framework that governs the IC and which is designed to protect the civil liberties and privacy of persons whose information is acquired pursuant to these national security authorities. The release of this report is consistent with the requirement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended (codified in 50 U.S.C. § 1873(b)), and the IC’s commitment to the Principles of Intelligence Transparency .

This report, along with prior year ASTRs and additional public information on national security authorities are available on www.dni.gov and www.intel.gov.

[reasonsforhope]

The new 'compost obligatoire' rules came into force on 1 January 2024. Here's what they entail.

As of 1 January 2024, organic waste recycling is mandatory in France under new 'compost obligatoire' rules.

With support from the government’s Green Fund, municipalities must provide residents with ways to sort bio-waste, which includes food scraps, vegetable peels, expired food and garden waste.

Households and businesses are required to dispose of organic matter either in a dedicated small bin for home collection or at a municipal collection point. Previously, only those who generated over five tonnes of organic waste per year were required to separate it.

The waste will then be turned into biogas or compost to replace chemical fertilisers. Alternatively, it can be composted at home.

The obligation is currently on local authorities to provide an easy means for households to compost or separate organic waste.

While facilities are rolled out, there will not be fines imposed for non-compliance. It is yet to be seen whether stricter rules will be imposed in future. 

One-third of household waste is bio-waste

Organic waste from food and gardens accounts for almost one-third of household waste. When it is mixed with other rubbish, it typically ends up in landfills or incinerators, where it produces heat-trapping greenhouse gases like methane and CO2.

Food waste is responsible for about 16 per cent of the total emissions from the EU food system, according to the European Commission. Globally, food loss and waste generates around 8 per cent of all human-caused emissions annually, the UN says.

It can also contaminate packaging destined for recycling like paper, plastic and glass.

In 2018, only 34 per cent of the EU’s total bio-waste was collected, leaving 40 million tonnes of potential soil nutrients to be discarded, according to NGO Zero Waste Europe.

In France, an estimated 82 kg of compostable waste per person is thrown away each year.

Is bio-waste separation mandatory in other European countries?

Under the EU’s Waste Framework Directive, bio-waste collection is being encouraged this year, but it stops short of setting mandatory targets.

In many European countries, organic waste separation has already been implemented at the municipal level.

Milan in Italy has been running a residential food waste collection programme since 2014. Households were given dedicated bins and compostable bags to kick off the scheme.

Elsewhere, taxes or bans on incinerating bio-waste have encouraged similar schemes, with separate bins and home composting widespread in Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium.

The UK announced plans to roll out separate food waste collection in 2023. It remains voluntary for households in England, but is more strictly enforced in Wales and for business owners.

How to sort your bio-waste

Ideally, all waste - including organic matter - should be kept to a minimum.

This can be achieved through careful meal planning. Consuming, freezing or preserving food before it expires along with using every part of an ingredient also help to reduce waste. Some food waste can even be repurposed into animal feed.

Any food waste that cannot be saved or repurposed should be either composted or separated for collection. This includes uneaten food scraps, baked goods, dairy products, eggshells, fruit and vegetables and their peels, mouldy food, pet food, raw and cooked meat and fish, bones, tea and coffee grounds.

Liquids, non-food products and packaging should not be placed in bio-waste bins.

-via EuroNews.Green, January 2, 2024

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The Town of Stony Plain and other municipalities across Alberta are wondering how to best approach a population influx alongside long-standing infrastructure deficits given annual funding from the province fell well short of their request. The Alberta government in its annual budget, which was introduced last week, committed $722 million towards the new Local Government Fiscal Framework (LGFF) capital program. The LGFF replaces the Municipal Sustainability Initiative as the province's primary funding foundation for municipal infrastructure. Stony Plain Mayor William Choy says the funding simply isn't enough for the Edmonton bedroom community of 18,000 as it addresses $28 million in infrastructure projects this year. The town is receiving $2.1 million in provincial funding this year for infrastructure through the LGFF.

Continue Reading

Tagging @politicsofcanada @abpoli

[simply-ivanka]

CALVIN COOLIDGE

30thPresident of the United States

Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

July 05, 1926

Fellow Countrymen:

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the 4th day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience

It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its Members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.

This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the administration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be underestimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.

But if these truths to which the Declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirely by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our Declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, of Connecticut, as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that--

The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people. The choice of public magistrates belongs to the people by God's own allowance.

This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise entitled "The Church's Quarrel Espoused" in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise. It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.

That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent." It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to very man." Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth * * *."

And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine." And still again, "Democracy is Christ's government in church and state." Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed state by Hooker as early as 1638.

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the Colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if it roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man - these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government - the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ's government * * *."

The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook to balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guarantees of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meetinghouse. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Calvin Coolidge, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

[thoughtlessarse]

Donald Trump’s new term as US president poses a grave threat to the planet if it blows up the international effort to curb dangerous global heating, stunned climate experts have warned in the wake of his decisive election victory. Trump’s return to the White House is widely expected to result in the US, yet again, exiting the Paris climate agreement and may even remove American involvement in the underpinning United Nations framework to deal with the climate crisis. While campaigning for president, Trump has called climate change “a big hoax”, scorned wind energy and electric cars and vowed to gut environmental rules and the “green new scam” of the Inflation Reduction Act, a major bill passed by Democrats to support clean energy projects. Trump’s agenda, analysts have found, risks adding several billion tonnes of extra heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, further imperiling goals to stave off disastrous global heating that governments are already failing to meet. Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that the US is now a “failed democracy” and that “we now pose a major threat to the planet.” The election result will send shockwaves through annual UN climate talks that start in Azerbaijan on Monday. “The election of a climate denier to the US presidency is extremely dangerous for the world,” said Bill Hare, a senior scientist at Climate Analytics, who warned a Trump administration would likely “damage efforts” to keep the world from heating by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, a Paris target that now appears even further out of reach. While Joe Biden’s administration will send a delegation to the Cop29 summit next week, this will be overshadowed by an incoming Trump government that threatens to disengage with other major carbon emitters, such as China, to address the climate crisis. “The nation and world can expect the incoming Trump administration to take a wrecking ball to global climate diplomacy,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

continue reading

[andiatas]

Last year, the Royal House received 167,9 million SEK in state funding from the government, including an extra grant of 18,7 million SEK due to the King's Golden Jubilee. The money is to be used for everything from salaries [for palace staff] to security, official assignments and much more.

Since 2018, the Royal Court has also reported a so-called framework amount for the members of the royal household who are allowed to share in the apanage.

The King and Queen received 8,486,000 SEK – an increase of 334,000 SEK from 2022.

Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel received 4,774,000 SEK - an increase of 188,000 SEK from 2022.

Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia received 1,167,000 SEK - an increase of 46,000 SEK from 2022.

In total, 14,427,000 SEK was allocated to the royals' more private expenses. The framework amount includes, for example, costs for accommodation at royal residences, certain household services, part of car and transport costs, certain security costs, clothing for public representation, and other private costs.

Princess Madeleine received no apanage at all last year. This is because she lives in the USA and does not represent Sweden and the Royal Family to the same extent as the rest.

It does not rule out that she can receive compensation when she carries out an official engagement on behalf of the King.

The annual report also states that the Royal Palaces and other places open to the public have not had as many visitors as before the pandemic. In 2023, they did not completely catch up with visitor revenue.

The Royal Court is conducting a dialogue with the Ministry of Finance about how to finance the business without being too dependent on events in the world and in Sweden that can affect it.

Last year, Marshal of the Realm Fredrik Wersäll told Svenska Dagbladet that the court must save 20-25 million SEK in 2024. For example, several castles previously open for viewing may have to be closed.

- The royal cultural heritage will not be as accessible to the public next year, and we deeply regret that, said Wersäll at the time.

Facts: The apanage

The state grant to the Royal Court is also called apanage and consists of two parts. One goes to the Court State and the other to the Castle State.

The Court State's money goes, among other things, to salaries, representation, and the purchase of necessary office items, as well as certain housing and security expenses and living expenses.

The Castle State's money goes to the operation and maintenance of castles and related activities, as well as art collections and other items that belong to our cultural heritage.

In 2024, the King will receive 162,8 million SEK.

Translation, and editing for clarity, done by yours truly of an article by Jenny Alexandersson for Aftonbladet, published on April 30, 2024, at 16:02.

[mariacallous]

Congress may be closer than ever to passing a comprehensive data privacy framework after key House and Senate committee leaders released a new proposal on Sunday.

The bipartisan proposal, titled the American Privacy Rights Act, or APRA, would limit the types of consumer data that companies can collect, retain, and use, allowing solely what they’d need to operate their services. Users would also be allowed to opt out of targeted advertising, and have the ability to view, correct, delete, and download their data from online services. The proposal would also create a national registry of data brokers, and force those companies to allow users to opt out of having their data sold.

“This landmark legislation gives Americans the right to control where their information goes and who can sell it,” Cathy McMorris Rodgers, House Energy and Commerce Committee chair, said in a statement on Sunday. “It reins in Big Tech by prohibiting them from tracking, predicting, and manipulating people’s behaviors for profit without their knowledge and consent. Americans overwhelmingly want these rights, and they are looking to us, their elected representatives, to act.”

Congress has tried to put together a comprehensive federal law protecting user data for decades. Lawmakers have remained divided, though, on whether that legislation should prevent states from issuing tougher rules, and whether to allow a “private right of action” that would enable people to sue companies in response to privacy violations.

In an interview with The Spokesman Review on Sunday, McMorris Rodgers claimed that the draft’s language is stronger than any active laws, seemingly as an attempt to assuage the concerns of Democrats who have long fought attempts to preempt preexisting state-level protections. APRA does allow states to pass their own privacy laws related to civil rights and consumer protections, among other exceptions.

In the previous session of Congress, the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committees brokered a deal with Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, on a bill that would preempt state laws with the exception of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the Biometric Information Privacy Act of Illinois. That measure, titled the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, also created a weaker private right of action than most Democrats were willing to support. Maria Cantwell, Senate Commerce Committee chair, refused to support the measure, instead circulating her own draft legislation. The ADPPA hasn’t been reintroduced, but APRA was designed as a compromise.

“I think we have threaded a very important needle here,” Cantwell told The Spokesman Review. “We are preserving those standards that California and Illinois and Washington have.”

APRA includes language from California’s landmark privacy law allowing people to sue companies when they are harmed by a data breach. It also provides the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, and private citizens the authority to sue companies when they violate the law.

The categories of data that would be impacted by APRA include certain categories of “information that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to an individual or device,” according to a Senate Commerce Committee summary of the legislation. Small businesses—those with $40 million or less in annual revenue and limited data collection—would be exempt under APRA, with enforcement focused on businesses with $250 million or more in yearly revenue. Governments and “entities working on behalf of governments” are excluded under the bill, as are the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and, apart from certain cybersecurity provisions, “fraud-fighting” nonprofits.

Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called the draft “very strong” in a Sunday statement, but said he wanted to “strengthen” it with tighter child safety provisions.

Still, it remains unclear whether APRA will receive the necessary support for approval. On Sunday, committee aids said that conversations on other lawmakers signing onto the legislation are ongoing. The current proposal is a “discussion draft”; while there’s no official date for introducing a bill, Cantwell and McMorris Rodgers will likely shop around the text to colleagues for feedback over the coming weeks, and plan to send it to committees this month.