Share:
Ukraine urges evacuation in southern Kherson region ahead of counter-attack
Ukraine’s deputy prime minister on Sunday urged residents in the southern region of Kherson to evacuate ahead of a Ukrainian counter-attack against Russian forces.
Iryna Vereshchuk went on Ukrainian national television to warn of fighting and artillery shelling in the coming days, according to Reuters.
“I know for sure that there should not be women and children there, and that they should not become human shields,” Vereshchuk said.
Russia’s war in Ukraine, approaching its fifth month, is now primarily being fought in the Donbas, the industrial heartland of the country located in the east.
Russian forces captured the city of Kherson, located northwest of the Crimean Peninsula, early in the invasion this spring. Russian troops have since gained control of other key cities, including Sievierdonetsk and Lysychansk.
After losing ground, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky vowed to reclaim control of all the territory Russia has captured.
“Let them really evaluate what they got over this time and how much they paid for it. Because their current reports will turn into dust, just as the previous ones,” Zelensky said earlier this month.
It’s unclear how many residents remain in the Kherson region, but around 300,000 people lived there before the war.
While Russia assumed control of the city of Kherson early on, Ukrainian troops have continued to fight to regain control of the city. Russia lost partial control of Kherson toward the end of May.
Kherson is a strategic city in the eastern Donbas, especially if Russia moves to capture the port city of Odessa.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Buttigieg defends anti-Kavanaugh protesters outside Morton's: 'People are upset'
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Sunday defended protesters against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who gathered earlier this week outside Morton’s steakhouse, where he was eating dinner.
Reports emerged on Friday that Kavanaugh exited the back of the D.C. restaurant Wednesday night to avoid the protesters, who were demanding that management kick him out.
Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, tweeted in response to the news: “Sounds like he just wanted some privacy to make his own dining decisions,” a shot toward Kavanaugh’s vote to overturn Roe v. Wade last month, ending a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” moderator Mike Emanuel asked Buttigieg if his husband’s tweet about the incident was “appropriate.”
“Look, when public officials go into public life, we should expect two things. One, that you should always be free from violence, harassment, and intimidation,” Buttigieg replied. “And two, you’re never going to be free from criticism or peaceful protest, people exercising their First Amendment rights.”
Buttigieg also noted that Kavanaugh didn’t even notice the protesters outside the establishment, but was told about them before his departure. The secretary then ripped the justice over his abortion decision.
“Not only the right to choose, by the way, but this justice was part of the process of stripping away the right to privacy,” Buttigieg told Emanuel, adding that Kavanaugh told senators that he considered Roe v. Wade settled law.
“So, yes, people are upset,” Buttigieg concluded. “They’re going to exercise their First Amendment rights.”
In a statement, Morton’s condemned the incident, saying “Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner.”
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Twitter hires law firm to prepare to sue Elon Musk over scrapped deal
Twitter has hired a large New York-based law firm as it prepares to sue Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk after he scrapped a deal to purchase the social media company last week.
Bloomberg reported on Sunday that Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz is representing Twitter after Musk on Friday dumped a deal to purchase the company for $44 billion.
Twitter will file its lawsuit in Delaware next week, according to Bloomberg, which cited people familiar with the matter. Musk is being represented by the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
The Hill has reached out to Twitter as well as both law firms for comment.
Musk, who bought up a roughly nine percent stake in Twitter before moving to purchase the company earlier this year, abandoned the deal ostensibly because company officials failed to provide accurate and comprehensive information on “fake or spam” accounts.
After news of the deal was reported, Twitter shares fell five percent while Tesla shares climbed more than two percent. Twitter board chair Bret Taylor said the company would take Musk to court in order to force the completion of the sale.
Musk, with his more than 100 million followers, initially expressed excitement about championing free speech on the platform when news of his takeover bid first emerged, but he quickly pivoted to raising concern over how many bots are on the platform.
But his motives have been called into question by some experts who have pointed out the proliferation of spam accounts on Twitter have been public knowledge for years, well before his takeover bid.
Twitter also said it provided detailed information to Musk on the bots; removes around 1 million spam accounts a day; and insists that the number of active bot accounts on the platform remains below five percent.
In Delaware, the corporate home for many public companies, the Chancery Court often rules on mergers and other business disputes without a jury.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Leaked 'Uber files' show how company capitalized on violence against drivers
Leaked internal communications reveal how rideshare giant Uber exploited violence against its drivers to boost public opinion, and sometimes flouted laws, as the company battled against taxi drivers and regulators in its rapid expansion in cities across the world.
After Uber drivers were sent to a taxi-industry protest in France in 2016, co-founder and then-CEO Travis Kalanick reportedly sent a text saying the risk to drivers’ safety was “worth it” and that “violence guarantees success.”
Kalanick’s comment is among the “Uber Files,” 124,000 documents leaked to The Guardian and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and other major outlets including the Washington Post.
“Get some sleep when you can,” said Nairi Hourdajian, Uber’s head of communications, to one of its lobbyists in Europe in 2014. “Remember that everything is not in your control, and that sometimes we have problems because, well, we’re just f—— illegal.”
After four Uber drivers were attacked in 2015 by taxi drivers in the Netherlands — protesting Uber’s use of nonprofessional drivers on the grounds that it was illegal — the company’s general manager in Belgium, Niek Van Leeuwen, apparently wrote to Kalanick and others: “We keep the violence narrative going for a few days, before we offer the solution.”
By prolonging the narrative of violence, executives hoped to pressure politicians to weigh in on the issue and pump up publicity in Uber’s favor.
“Excellent work. This is exactly what we wanted and the timing is perfect,” wrote Uber’s head of public policy for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Mark MacGann, after the incidents.
Discussing an attack by taxi drivers against one of its cars in Belgium, company lobbyist Cristian Samoilovich wrote, “We need to use this in our favour.”
The Guardian’s Uber Files also found that French President Emmanuel Macron, then France’s finance minister, helped Uber access the French cabinet – and that U.S. President Biden, then vice president, changed a speech to refer more favorably to the company after a meeting with Kalanick in 2016.
In a statement released Sunday, a spokesperson for Kalanick denied allegations that Uber acted illegally.
Uber acknowledged that its “mistakes” under Kalanick “culminated in one of the most infamous reckonings in the history of corporate America,” but that the company has changed since it ousted its founder and hired new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi in 2017.
But the company continued to grapple with controversy: just last month, it shared a report cataloging nearly 4,000 sexual assault claims on its rides in 2019-20, which was a decline on previous years.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Is federal government dooming efforts to address climate change?
A 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court restricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to limit power plant emissions is the latest blow to U.S. efforts to fight climate change, contributing to a renewed sense of pessimism that the U.S. political system will address the issue at the federal level.
While the decision backed by the new conservative majority on the court does not negate efforts by state governments to take action for the planet, it puts a new limitation on the EPA.
It also signals the Supreme Court’s openness to limiting the administration’s authority at the EPA and beyond going forward. The three conservative justices nominated by former President Donald Trump have shifted the court sharply to the right — a change that could shadow the court for decades.
Republican officeholders also remain resistant to taking action to address climate change, and appear poised to win back the House majority this fall and possibly the Senate as well.
And even if Democrats retain the Senate, they have been unable thus far to push through major legislation to address climate change because of opposition from one of their own — Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
The Biden administration has set a number of ambitious targets related to climate change, including halving the country’s emissions by 2030. President Biden also signed an executive order that would make the federal government carbon neutral by 2050.
But decisions like the one handed down by the Supreme Court this week as well as gridlock in Congress threaten those targets, as does the prospect of a presidential bid by former President Trump, who withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accord and expressed doubt about science on climate change.
Barry Rabe, a professor of environmental policy in the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment, called the conservative Supreme Court and sharply divided Congress a “serious set of constraints on the executive branch.”
“I think Congress still has enormous latitude if it chooses to use it,” Rabe said, but “I think there are some real questions [on] how far the court is going on restricting federal agencies.”
Democratic-run states can pick up some of the slack on environmental policy. California has enacted the strictest vehicle emissions standards in the nation and a dozen others have since adopted them, resulting in a patchwork approach across the U.S.
“Given gridlock in Congress, action at the state level is essential,” said Jason Smerdon, a professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Still, experts say that action at the state level cannot supplant that at the federal level.
“Climate policy is environmental policy and it’s economic policy and it’s going to require, most likely, the development of many different policy levers and actions over time to meaningfully address the issue,” said Sasha Mackler, executive director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s energy program.
Democrats in Congress are currently taking another stab at a reconciliation package that could include funding for climate programs, like a clean energy tax credit, in addition to other Biden priorities. But the last effort to pass the bill along party lines fell apart in December amid opposition from Manchin, dampening optimism for now on its prospects.
Advocates say the time for action is now given the possibility the House could be Republican run in January. The GOP needs to pick up just a handful of seats to take back the majority, and it seems highly doubtful that climate measures will be on a House GOP majority agenda.
“They have an extremely narrow window of opportunity, and they need to take it,” Ellen Sciales, communications director for the Sunrise Movement, said of the current Congress.
Josh Freed, who leads the climate and energy program at centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, said that a targeted reconciliation package that includes clean energy investment, coupled with the bipartisan infrastructure law passed last year, would have significant impact on the federal fight against climate change.
“If they don’t get it done, it will make it more difficult to scale the market demand for clean energy and get it deployed at the rate we need to,” he said.
Still, some like Mackler are more optimistic than others that Congress can bipartisan action on climate even if Republicans take the House majority.
Mackler pointed to the strategy on climate and energy unveiled by House Republicans last month, arguing that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle could assemble a package that touches on production and supply as well as energy transition proposals.
“I do think that there are certainly Republicans that are getting much more serious about the climate change challenge,” he said.
Advocates like Sciales are pushing Biden to get more involved in shepherding a reconciliation package through Congress, conscious of the limited time that Democrats are guaranteed majorities in both the House and Senate. They are also pressing Biden to take other unilateral actions, like phasing out oil drilling on federal lands, something the president has actually been encouraging more of as an immediate fix to high gasoline prices.
“That’s really a shortsighted decision in light of the fact that, in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we can’t burn what we have currently let alone create new sources,” said Smerdon.
Experts say industry has a critical role to play to shift toward clean energy sources. Industries could of course take steps on their own, but it is broadly accepted that government intervention is required to sufficiently speed up the process.
Mackler said he remains optimistic about the U.S. ability to meet its climate targets through public-private collaboration, noting the growth in the solar industry that he said would have defied expectations a decade ago.
But, he warned: “The longer we wait, the harder and the steeper the hill to climb.”
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Zelensky planning cabinet reshuffle to reduce government waste
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is reportedly set to reorganize his cabinet and cut the headcount at ministries by nearly half as he looks to secure global confidence — and funding — for his post-war planning.
The changes are meant to cut down on corruption, reduce government waste and prepare the country to enter the European Union, according to reporting from Bloomberg. Bloomberg reported that the number of ministries could be reduced from 20 to about 12.
It would also mean fundamental changes for Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which oversees Ukraine’s relations with other nations.
Zelensky dismissed Ukrainian ambassadors to the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Norway and India on Saturday, saying in a video address that “this rotation is a normal part of diplomatic practice.” The president added that next week will bring “important news” from government officials.
After a conference in Lugano, Switzerland, to discuss Ukraine’s reconstruction last week, countries signed on to the “Lugano Declaration,” a document calling for increased government transparency and a crackdown on corruption in order to facilitate post-war recovery.
Zelensky also announced in Lugano a $750 billion recovery plan, calling for support from allies in the democratic world.
The plan would funnel funds into key infrastructure like water and gas, and support the rebuilding of hospitals, schools and homes – requiring “colossal investments — billions, new technologies, best practices, new institutions and, of course, reforms,” the president said in a July 2 address.
The recovery efforts comes as many areas in the east remain occupied by Russia or under attack by its forces.
“In many cities in the rear there is a feeling of relaxation now,” Zelensky said, “but the war is not over — it goes on. Unfortunately, its cruelty is increasing in some places, and it cannot be forgotten.”
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Rage Against the Machine says 'Abort the Supreme Court' in return to stage
In their first show in eleven years, alternative rock band Rage Against the Machine used their set to channel their frustration over the Supreme Court’s ruling last month to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Performing at Wisconsin’s Alpine Valley Music Theatre on Saturday, the band had numerous captions appear on a screen on stage that called out the decision to overturn Roe, citing certain circumstances and issues that pertain to the matter, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
“Forced birth in a country that is the only wealthy country in the world without any guaranteed paid parental leave at the national level,” one caption read.
“Forced birth in a country where Black birth-givers experience maternal mortality two to three times higher than that of white birth-givers,” another caption read as lead singer Zack de La Rocha screams “freedom” repeatedly. “Forced birth in a country where gun violence is the number one cause of death among children and teenagers,” another caption read.
As the sequence ended, a bold caption that read “ABORT THE SUPREME COURT” appeared on the screen.
The band, whose last studio album was released in 2000, joins a growing list of celebrities and artists who have shared their disapproval over the Supreme Court ruling to overturn the landmark abortion rights decision.
During his band’s performance in London last month, Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong announced that he plans to renounce his U.S citizenship due to the overturn of Roe, saying “there’s just too much f—ing stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f—ing excuse for a country.”
Last month, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the constitutional right to an abortion. As a result of the ruling, multiple GOP-led states have either implemented or enacted their own abortion bans and restrictions.
President Biden on Friday signed an executive order that is intended to protect abortion and contraception access in the country.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
America will never achieve racial justice without reforming our broken tax code
As inflation continues to impact working-class Americans across the country, reports show that Black Americans are being hit the hardest. On top of the massive economic inequalities caused by the pandemic, rising costs for housing, food, and gas are making it virtually impossible for Black communities to improve their financial conditions in material ways.
My grandfather — as a young person — met people who had been wealthy slave owners before the Civil War. It has only been a few generations since more of America’s wealth was derived from enslaved people rather than farmland or factories. We have come a long way since then.
Unfortunately, there is still a very long way to go. Black Americans continue to face systemic discrimination in virtually every corner and every institution in America. One of the most salient yet overlooked places where Black Americans encounter bias, however, is our nation’s tax code. Its preferential treatment of existing wealth over income leaves the Black community at a permanent disadvantage when compared to their significantly wealthier white counterparts.
As a result of decades of racist federal policies like redlining, Black Americans hold nowhere near the level of wealth that white Americans do. The ratio of white-to-Black wealth in America today is 6 to 1; for every dollar the average white American holds, the average black American holds only 17 cents. If Black Americans held a share of national wealth that was equal in proportion to their share of the population, they would hold $12.68 trillion in total wealth instead of $2.54 trillion, which puts the total racial wealth gap at $10.14 trillion. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a situation where Black Americans are overrepresented among the poor and underrepresented among the rich, making up 26% of the poorest fifth of the country and just 3% of the richest fifth.
With such a significant racial wealth gap, any tax policy that gives advantages to the already-rich will definitionally give a disproportionate amount of its benefits to white Americans. Our tax code currently taxes labor income at roughly double the rate that it does income from stocks, bonds, and other investments, or passive income on pre-existing wealth. And while it taxes labor income on a regular, annual basis, it only taxes investment income when investors decide to sell assets, giving them the ability to pick and choose when to pay taxes. This is a problem for everyone who needs to work for a living in America, but it particularly hurts the Black community.
The American Dream has been fading from view for a few decades as it has become harder and harder for workers to improve their lots. But the sad fact of the matter is that the American Dream has never at any point in our nation’s history been a reality for Black people. From 250 years of slavery, to 100 years of Jim Crow segregation, to decades of redlining and employment discrimination, Black Americans have time and again been locked out of critical opportunities to build wealth and realize the American Dream for themselves and their progeny.
You need wealth to build wealth in this country, and Black Americans unfortunately have never had it. And if the best way to make money is to already have money, a pre-existing wealth gap is only going to grow. As a result, the racial wealth gap has actually grown in recent years, not shrunk.
Despite the complexities of the matter, there’s one simple solution that would help address this problem. Wealthy, predominantly white investors should be asked to pay taxes just like people who work for a living while workers should be given some more financial breathing room. We should be making it easier, not harder, for Black workers (and workers of all races) to save and spend their hard-earned cash and build better lives for themselves, their families, and their communities, while asking more from the ultra-wealthy who can easily afford to pay more.
I myself am a wealthy, white investor living in the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It would be fun to think that I am where I am today because I worked hard and had some talent in my career on Wall Street. But I also recognize that my success is due to sheer luck in the skin color lottery in America. My parents were able to financially support me, in part because they had a government-subsidized mortgage in the 1960s that simply was not available to Black Americans. Now, my adult sons are today better off financially than typical Black people their age on account of the simple fact that I was born white.
It’s time we strengthen our resolve to right the wrongs of the past by reforming the tax code and removing yet another advantage rich white men like me have over the rest of the country. It is by no means the only policy solution that is needed to fill America’s $10.14 trillion racial wealth gap, but it is a crucial and necessary step to take if we want to move our country forward in its long, slow march towards racial justice.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Bannon willing to testify at public Jan. 6 hearing as contempt trial looms
Steve Bannon is willing to testify publicly before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, his lawyer told the panel in a letter Saturday, in a stark change of course after former President Trump said he would waive executive privilege.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House panel, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that Bannon’s attorney had sent a letter to the committee indicating his willingness to testify. Multiple outlets published the letter later on Sunday morning.
“President Trump has decided that it would be in the best interests of the American people to waive executive privilege for Stephen K. Bannon, to allow Mr. Bannon to comply with the subpoena issued by your Committee,” Bannon attorney Robert Costello wrote in the letter.
“Mr. Bannon is willing to, and indeed prefers, to testify at your public hearing.”
Bannon is set to go on trial later this month for defying a subpoena from the House panel. The Justice Department indicted Bannon in November after the full House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.
Costello’s letter contained an attachment signed by Trump, which the former president also posted on his Truth Social platform, stating he would waive executive privilege if Bannon reaches an agreement on the time and place for his testimony.
“When you first received the subpoena to testify and provide documents, I invoked executive privilege,” Trump wrote. “However, I watched how unfairly you and others have been treated, having to spend vast amounts of money on legal fees, and all of the trauma you must be going through for the love of your Country, and out of respect for the Office of the President.”
Multiple members of the panel have signaled a desire to hear testimony under oath from anyone with relevant information to the committee’s investigation. Lofgren on Sunday told CNN it was likely Bannon would testify.
The Hill has reached out to the Jan. 6 committee, Bannon’s attorney and Trump’s team for comment.
In the attached letter signed by Trump, the former president railed against the House committee’s work, labeling the investigation a “partisan kangaroo court” and calling the panel’s members “thugs” and “hacks.”
Source: TEST FEED1