Alfred Eisenstaedt The kiss (V-J Day in Times Square) 1945
Way ahead of you: “We will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling, and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake.”
A group of 16 states has filed a lawsuit in a Northern California federal court against President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, calling the president’s decision to use executive power to fund a border wall unconstitutional. The complaint filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks to bar the administration from using emergency powers to divert money from other programs to a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, marking the start of a legal battle anticipated by both the president and his opponents. “The President has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency,” the plaintiffs wrote in California et al. v. Trump et al.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, says that the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to control spending, not the president. Trump declared the emergency on Friday to free up billions of dollars for construction of a long-promised border wall, after Congress passed a spending bill that allocated just $1.375 billion for its construction. The president says he plans to allocate a total of $8 billion to the wall, including redirecting $3.6 billion in military construction funds and $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense’s counter-drug activities. Trump acknowledged the likelihood of legal challenges, saying on Friday, “We will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling, and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake.”
The White House has argued that the move is routine. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, presidents have declared national emergencies 60 times, including Trump, since the power was codified in the National Emergencies Act of 1976. But Democratic critics, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have advanced the same argument as the California-led lawsuit, claiming Trump’s declaration violates lawmakers’ power to set spending priorities. Experts seem to think the courts are likely to defer to the president on the question of whether there is an emergency, NPR’s Nina Totenberg has reported, and the legal fight is likely to boil down to whether the president has the right under existing law to “reprogram” money Congress has appropriated.
I meant to do that.
The US Justice Department official who once oversaw the Russia probe, Rod Rosenstein, plans to resign in mid-March, US news outlets reported. Rosenstein’s departure from his post as deputy attorney general has been expected for some time. CNN late Monday quoted a department official as saying it has nothing to do with recent explosive claims by the former acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. McCabe has said that Rosenstein raised the idea of wearing a wire to tape President Donald Trump and talked about removing him from office under the 25th Amendment after Trump fired FBI director James Comey in May 2017.
CNN said Rosenstein has widely been expected to leave his job after Bill Barr is confirmed to fill the vacant post of attorney general. The network said that a departure by Rosenstein next month could suggest the Russia probe being carried out by special counsel Robert Mueller is nearing completion. Trump abruptly fired Comey as pressure rose over the Russia investigation, setting off alarm bells in the FBI and Justice Department. According to McCabe, in a lengthy interview that aired Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Rosenstein brought up the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution, which provides for the removal of a sitting president for incapacity.
“..the attempt by CBS-News to sell “the sterling career” story of Andrew McCabe (as Mr. Pelley put it), is really just a way for the network to cover its own ass..”
Apparently, one of the main objectives in the 60-Minutes story was to paint Mr. McCabe as an heroic patriot defending America against the wicked, shape-shifting, all-powerful Russia, which had made Mr. Trump its captive. The 60-Minutes piece happens to coincide exactly with the release of Mr. McCabe’s ass-covering book: The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump. (Real superheroes fight both.) It also sets up a nice contrapuntal battle between the enigmatic Rod Rosenstein and Mr. McCabe vis-à-vis the idea of “wearing a wire” to record the President en route to running him over with the 25th Amendment. According to Mr. McCabe, there was a lot of lively discussion around this plan.
Mr. Rosenstein has brushed it off as a gag. Mr. McCabe, apparently, thought it was dead serious. They never did get their stories straight. In the meantime, Mr. McCabe’s own colleagues in the FBI’s ethics office and its Inspector General charged him with lying repeatedly about his role in this matter. You had to wonder whether the attempt by CBS-News to sell “the sterling career” story of Andrew McCabe (as Mr. Pelley put it), is really just a way for the network to cover its own ass in acting as a propaganda patsy in the long-running RussiaGate affair. The 60-Minutes segment also coincided with William Barr’s confirmation last week by the senate as the Attorney General, as well as official reports issued by both house and senate committees stating that they found no evidence for the Trump/Russia collusion story.
The ground is shifting under all this seditious hugger-mugger. Whether you are a Trump cheerleader or not (I’m not), there is a reality-based chain of events behind the FBI’s actions from early 2016 on — and the actions of other official players in government — that can only be clarified now in the courts, and chances are pretty good that they will be. It concerns me because the specter of massive institutional failure in federal law enforcement and the news media bodes very darkly for this country’s future.
Let’s start with no longer calling it a growth industry. And then execute a controlled demolition. There are enough cars already.
The U.S. auto industry urged President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday not to saddle imported cars and auto parts with steep tariffs, after the U.S. Commerce Department sent a confidential report to the White House late on Sunday with its recommendations for how to proceed. Some trade organizations also blasted the Commerce Department for keeping the details of its “Section 232” national security report shrouded in secrecy, which will make it much harder for the industry to react during the next 90 days Trump will have to review it.
“Secrecy around the report only increases the uncertainty and concern across the industry created by the threat of tariffs,” the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association said in a statement, adding that it was “alarmed and dismayed.” “It is critical that our industry have the opportunity to review the recommendations and advise the White House on how proposed tariffs, if they are recommended, will put jobs at risk, impact consumers, and trigger a reduction in U.S. investments that could set us back decades.” The industry has warned that possible tariffs of up to 25 percent on millions of imported cars and parts would add thousands of dollars to vehicle costs and potentially devastate the U.S economy by slashing jobs.
Actually, “For 2018, the drop was 4.1%, marking the first decrease since the early 1990s.”
Car sales in China continued their relentless descent in January, falling 17.7%, as we recently expected would happen when discussing Europe’s tumbling January auto sales. This follows the country’s first full year slump (2018) in more than two decades and it puts further pressure on the state of the global automotive market. The drop marked the eighth monthly retail sales decline in a row and was the biggest one-month drop in seven years. Gu Yatao, a Beijing-based auto analyst with Roland Berger, confirmed to Bloomberg that the “downward pressure is still there. The government isn’t adopting stimulating policies to give the market a shot in the arm.”
The contraction in China comes at the same time that auto markets in Europe and North America continue to shrink as a result of car sharing services and slowing economies. As we have been reporting for months, the slowdown in China continues to be a result of the country’s slowing economy, coupled with the lagging trade war with the United States. Even discounts for the Chinese New Year, which traditionally can help spur sales, weren’t enough to keep consumers in showrooms early this year. It’s a “historic slump” for China: the wholesale decline in January, to 2.02 million units, accelerated from December’s 15.8% slump. For 2018, the drop was 4.1%, marking the first decrease since the early 1990s.
Honda has confirmed the closure of its Swindon factory with the loss of 3,500 jobs, dealing another huge blow to Britain’s car industry in the run-up to Brexit. The Japanese carmaker announced it would shut the factory, its only European production site, in 2021, when the current model’s production cycle ends. The Swindon factory produces 150,000 Honda Civics a year – most of them for export to the EU – amounting to about a tenth of total UK vehicle production. It employs 3,500 people but supports many more jobs in the supply chain. Greg Clark, the UK business secretary, said Honda’s plan was “a devastating decision” for Swindon and the UK. “This news is a particularly bitter blow to the thousands of skilled and dedicated staff who work at the factory, their families and all of those employed in the supply chain.”
He said Honda’s move was a “commercial decision based on unprecedented changes in the global market”. Katsushi Inoue, the chief officer for European regional operations and president of Honda Motor Europe, said: “In light of the unprecedented changes that are affecting our industry, it is vital that we accelerate our electrification strategy and restructure our global operations accordingly. “As a result, we have had to take this difficult decision to consult our workforce on how we might prepare our manufacturing network for the future. This has not been taken lightly and we deeply regret how unsettling today’s announcement will be for our people.”
— AngelCakeLIVERPOOL (@angelcakepics) February 19, 2019
Talking about cars…
How Reuters can write this without indicating with whom Germany has its main surpluses is a valid question.
Germany’s current account surplus shrank but remained by far the world’s largest last year due to strong exports, according to data from the Ifo institute on Tuesday that is likely to renew criticism of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s fiscal policies. The IMF and the European Commission have urged Germany for years to do more to lift domestic demand as a way to boost imports, stimulate growth elsewhere and reduce global economic imbalances. Since he took office, U.S. President Donald Trump has also criticized Germany’s export strength.
Germany’s current account surplus, which measures the flow of goods, services and investments, was the world’s largest for the third year running in 2018 at $294 billion, followed by Japan with $173 billion, the Ifo figures showed. Russia came in third with a surplus of $116 billion. When measured in relation to economic output, Germany’s current account surplus shrank for the third year in a row, however, falling to 7.4 percent in 2018 from 7.9 percent the previous year, according to the Ifo figures. Since 2011, Germany’s current account balance has been consistently above the European Commission’s indicative threshold of 6 percent of GDP and the surplus reached a record high of 8.9 percent in 2015.
And according to the report, that would be a bad thing.
A new survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) ahead of European Parliament elections in May has found that Euroskeptic parties are on course to win a third of the seats in the assembly, which could potentially undermine the European Union’s cohesion and security. “In the longer term, their ability to paralyze decision-making at the center of the EU would defuse pro-Europeans’ argument that the project is imperfect but capable of reform. At this point, the EU would be living on borrowed time,” said the report, “The 2019 European Elections: How anti-Europeans plan to wreck Europe and what can be done to stop it.” Mark Leonard, director of the London-based think-tank, said that the warning contained in the report, that anti-European parties are gaining strength and could paralyze the EU, should focus the minds of pro-Europeans.
“They must not become trapped into becoming defenders of the status quo in Europe or allowing the election to become a referendum on the issue of migration – which is exactly the battleground that the anti-Europeans want,” he said. “Instead, pro-Europeans need to unmute the silent majority by fighting different elections that Europe’s different publics will vote on – such as the climate change election, the ‘Facebook’ election for those concerned about their data and privacy, the election for those worried about Russian aggression, the prosperity election for those worried about stalled living standards, the rule of law election for those worried about democratic backsliding, and the ‘saving Europe’ election for the EU’s most ardent defenders.”
Antisemitism sells as much as Trump does. People eat it up.
Jeremy Corbyn faces a historic Labour rupture after being warned that more MPs are ready to follow the seven who dramatically quit his party on Monday. The leader publicly appealed for unity while his supporters launched savage attacks on the MPs, branding them “cowards”, “traitors” and “splitters” and demanding they give up their seats. But as the crisis deepened, deputy leader Tom Watson said other MPs are also considering leaving Labour, a party he admitted he sometimes no longer recognises, amid visceral anger over antisemitism, Brexit and Mr Corbyn’s leadership. The breakaway MPs headed by prominent backbenchers Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger said they would form a new “Independent Group” in the House of Commons and invited people from other parties to join.
There were some early signs on Monday evening that they might attract support from disenfranchised Conservatives to the new centre-ground anti-Brexit grouping in the chamber. The group who left Labour, in the first major split of a British political party since the SDP were formed in 1981, also included Angela Smith, Gavin Shuker, Mike Gapes, Chris Leslie and Ann Coffey. Shortly after the announcement, Mr Corbyn wrote to every party member expressing his disappointment that a “small group” had left and urged the party “must be united”. But in a longer filmed statement, Mr Watson lamented their departure and in particular the antisemtic abuse suffered by Ms Berger that had preceded her announcement.
He said: “Even a single incident of antisemitism in the Labour Party shames us. Now we have lost Luciana, one of our most dedicated and courageous MPs. “If someone like Luciana no longer believes there is a home for her in the Labour Party then many other colleagues will be asking themselves how they can stay. “That’s why time is short for us. To confront the scale of the problem and meet the consequences. To keep others from leaving.” [..] As she resigned, Ms Berger said Labour had become “institutionally antisemitic”, while Mr Gapes, a former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told the press conference Labour is now a “racist, antisemitic party”. He added: “Jeremy Corbyn and those around him are on the wrong side on so many international issues – from Russia, to Syria, to Venezuela. A Corbyn Labour government would threaten our national security and international alliances.”
Less than 40 days before Brexit. So what do you do? Of course.
It has no name, no logo, no staff and no money. Yet those who packed into the tiny room above Westminster Bridge as seven MPs announced they were quitting the Labour party were left in no doubt that this was the beginning of a new political party. “The crucial word is yet,” one of the MPs said afterwards. “We are not a new party – yet.” As of Monday, the group are independents with no special status in the House of Commons. They hope to be something much more concrete, depending on their success in persuading other MPs to join them. In the short term the group has one central task – to convince 29 more disgruntled MPs from any party colour to join their group.
That would give them official third party status – overtaking the SNP and access not just to more “Short money” but also a prized guaranteed slot for the group’s leader at every PMQs, replacing the SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford. Those MPs involved in the new group’s organisation stress that they hope this week will be dominated by several news cycles’ worth of new developments, including an expectation of more defections. If they do not materialise, the group will find it hard to maintain momentum. Two names mentioned as the most likely Conservative targets are the Tory MPs Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston, both independent-minded and supporters of the People’s Vote campaign.
The most crucial name on the list of seven is Luciana Berger, the MP for Liverpool Wavertree who has faced a slew of antisemitic abuse including death threats that have seen more than one abuser put behind bars. Berger, who is nine months pregnant, had not often been talked about in the same breath as MPs like Chuka Umunna and Chris Leslie who have been on the brink of quitting for many months over the party’s Brexit policy. Yet it was she who strode into the room first and chaired the event, looking the most like the group’s leader.
What more to say about this display of dumb f*ckery? The entire article doesn’t mention the Parthenon Marbles even once. But between the lines groups them together with a giant sloth. And some art historian says “[museums] are going to have to figure it out or someone is going to figure it out for them..” Nonsense. Just give it back. You stole it.
Neanderthal skulls and the remains of an extinct sloth named after Charles Darwin are among the items requested for repatriation from British institutions, as documents reveal museums are facing calls to return some of their most treasured items to their places of origin. The pressure on museums to grapple with the provenance of their collections has been revealed by freedom of information requests submitted by the Guardian. A series of high-profile restitution claims have been received by institutions including the British Museum and the Natural History Museum in recent months. They include a call from the government of Gibraltar for the return of Neanderthal remains, including the first adult skull to be discovered by scientists, and a request from Chile for the repatriation of the remains of a now extinct giant ground sloth.
The letters, almost all of which resulted in the requests being rejected, show that long-running restitution claims for high-profile exhibits such as the Parthenon marbles are the tip of the iceberg as debate rages over the right of museums to keep hold of contested collection items. Last month the Egyptian government called on the National Museum of Scotland to produce certification documents for its Egyptian antiquities after a row broke out over plans to display a casing stone from the Great Pyramid of Giza. In October last year, the British Museum faced calls to return Hoa Hakananai’a, a basalt statue taken from Easter Island in 1868 and given to the museum by Queen Victoria the following year. In April, the ministry of cultural heritage in Italy requested the return of a marble relief depicting the freedmen Publius Licinius Philonicus and Publius Licinius Demetrius.
The Hoa Hakananai’a statue from Easter Island is among the artefacts displayed in the British Museum asked to be returned. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA
The art historian Alice Procter, whose Uncomfortable Art Tours seek to inform visitors about the colonial history of museums, said British institutions would increasingly be forced into “soul-searching” about the provenance of their items – and whether they should be returned. “This is a really critical time for museums to work out where they stand on these questions,” she said. “Stop hiding behind historical acts. They have little justification for continuing to cite something like the British Museum Act.” Procter referred to a recent report commissioned by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, which caused a stir in the museum world last November with a call for thousands of African artworks held by French museums to be returned to their countries of origin. “It’s one of those situations where [museums] are going to have to figure it out or someone is going to figure it out for them,” said Procter.
But 47% already reward their CEOs for climate performance. Wonder what pot of money that comes out of.
Most European companies have no target for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions even though 80% see climate change as a business risk, a survey has found. Among those that have set climate goals, only one in three stretch beyond 2025, according to the annual Carbon Disclosure Project report. Instead, corporate action has focused in the boardroom, with 47% of firms rewarding their CEOs for climate performance, and a quarter tying incentives to environmental goals. European firms now make up half of the CDP’s environmental “A-list” and the managing director for Europe, Steven Tebbe, praised climate disclosure’s entry into the financial mainstream.
“The next decade is vital if our shift to a sustainable economy is to be successful, and companies lie at the heart of this transition,” he said. A-list companies on the Stoxx global climate change leaders index outperformed their peers by 5.5% per annum this decade, he noted. Although 53% of companies surveyed did not yet have climate goals, 58% reported carbon cuts in 2018, amounting to a total reduction of the equivalent of 85m tonnes of CO2 – as much as Austria’s annual emissions. One third of companies reported increased emissions. One A-listed property management firm, Landsec, has cut its greenhouse gases by 17% since 2014 – on the way to a planned 40% tail-off by 2030.
There is essentially zero need for palm oil. But Europe throws it in its biofuels. And all of its food. Because Sumatran tigers, Sumatran rhinos and orangutans don’t protest.
Zombies ‘R’ Us. We kill anything for profit, including ourselves.
Once upon a time in a land far, far away, there grew a magical fruit. This fruit could be squeezed to produce a very special kind of oil that made cookies more healthy, soap more bubbly and crisps more crispy. The oil could even make lipstick smoother and keep ice-cream from melting. Because of these wondrous qualities, people came from around the world to buy the fruit and its oil. In the places where the fruit came from, people burned down the forest so they could plant more trees that grew the fruit – making lots of nasty smoke and sending all of the creatures of the forest scurrying away. When the trees were burned, they emitted a gas that heated up the air. Then everybody was upset, because they loved the forest’s creatures and thought the temperature was warm enough already. A few people decided they shouldn’t use the oil any more, but mostly things went on as before, and the forest kept burning.
This is a true story. Except that it is not magic. The fruit of the oil palm tree (Elaeis guineensis), which grows in tropical climates, contains the world’s most versatile vegetable oil. It can handle frying without spoiling, and blends well with other oils. Its combination of different types of fats and its consistency after refining make it a popular ingredient in packaged baked goods. Its low production costs make it cheaper than frying oils such as cottonseed or sunflower. It provides the foaming agent in virtually every shampoo, liquid soap or detergent. Cosmetics manufacturers prefer it to animal tallow for its ease of application and low price. It is increasingly used as a cheap raw material for biofuels, especially in the European Union.
Orangutans rescued near a palm oil plantation in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Photograph: Vier Pfoten/Four Paws/Rex
It functions as a natural preservative in processed foods, and actually does raise the melting point of ice-cream. Palm oil can be used as an adhesive that binds together the particles in fibreboard. Oil palm trunks and fronds can be made into everything from plywood to the composite body of Malaysia’s national automobile. Worldwide production of palm oil has been climbing steadily for five decades. Between 1995 and 2015, annual production quadrupled, from 15.2m tonnes to 62.6m tonnes. By 2050, it is expected to quadruple again, reaching 240m tonnes. The footprint of palm oil production is astounding: plantations to produce it account for 10% of all global cropland. Today, 3 billion people in 150 countries use products containing palm oil. Globally, we each consume an average of 8kg of palm oil a year.
Of this, 85% comes from Malaysia and Indonesia, where worldwide demand for palm oil has lifted incomes, especially in rural areas – but at the cost of tremendous environmental devastation and often with attendant labour and human rights abuses. Fires set to clear forests and create land for more palm plantations are the top source of greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia, a country of 261 million people. The financial incentive to produce more palm oil is helping to warm the planet, while destroying the only habitat of Sumatran tigers, Sumatran rhinos and orangutans – driving them towards extinction.