#in a state of enforced reduction of ability because the resources exist to live our lives to the fullest | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

berniesrevolution · 6 years

Photo

This plan is called a Green New Deal.

So far, a comprehensive progressive vision of a Green New Deal has not been presented. This report articulates a vision for a broad set policy goals and investments that aim to achieve environmental sustainability and economic stability in ways that are just and equitable.

This proposal recognizes:

A Green New Deal is necessary to meet the scale and urgency of environmental challenges facing the United States, based on the best available research.

A Green New Deal can bring job growth and economic opportunity, with particular focus on historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities.

A Green New Deal is popular among American voters and can mobilize them in 2018.

A Green New Deal can be executed in a way that is environmentally just and distributes benefits equitably.

A Green New Deal is financially feasible and necessary

A Green New Deal is a broad and ambitious package of new policies and investments in communities, infrastructure, and technology to help the United States achieve environmental sustainability and economic stability.

The original New Deal was a series of financial reforms, farmer relief programs, public works projects, and other social programs enacted by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930’s. The New Deal was an economic and job stimulus to meet the needs of the time, designed to put Americans back to work, restore dignity, and bring stability during the Great Depression. Even with its mixed effectiveness, the New Deal was not perfect and displayed an exclusionary racial bias whose effects are still felt today.

America faces different challenges today that are unsustainable and existential.

Despite the achievements in environment regulation over the past 50 years, incremental policy changes and small shifts in market trends are no longer sufficient to meet the scale and urgency of the problems facing Americans and the world today. American lives and livelihoods rely upon clean air and water; healthy forests, farms, and fisheries; and communities resilient to the worst effects of climate change—such as extreme weather, drought, and sea-level rise. The effects of pollution and exposure to toxins persist, and climate change worsens. On top of it all, these all affect low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately.

We need to shift to a new sustainable environment and economy.

Sustainability is about utilizing and preserving resources in ways that meet the needs of today’s generation without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

A Green New Deal recognizes that economic stability is not independent of environmental sustainability.

The trade-off between the environment or the economy is a false one. The goal of a Green New Deal is to build the 21st century economy, which by design will mitigate the causes of climate change while building resilience to its effects, restore the American landscape, and improve access to clean air and water—all in ways that prioritize justice and equity, and grow the economy and jobs.

Environmental regulation and climate action often receive less attention because they are perceived to compete with other local priorities--such as crime, schools, jobs, and potholes. A Green New Deal is not a distraction from local priorities but works to solve many of them.

We agree on the problems, now we need to agree on the solutions.

A Green New Deal is more than just renewable energy or job programs. It is a transition to the 21st century economy. It is a holistic combination of solutions at every level—federal, state, and local—and addresses many problems simultaneously. It does this because it must.

It must meet the scale and urgency of the problems facing America and Americans. It must also meet the level of progressive ambition looking to transform the economy and the environment in ways that achieve sustainability, equity, justice, freedom, and happiness.

This section summarizes specific progressive goals. For complete policy details, download the full report.

TRANSFORM TO A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY

The United States needs to reduce its annual greenhouse emissions from 2016 by 16 percent to achieve our 2025 reduction target communicated through the Paris Agreement[1], and 77 percent to reach our 2050 target.[2] To strive for the global goal of a 1.5-degree future, the U.S. should aim for zero net emissions by mid-century. This requires massive economic and technological transformation in how we create and consume energy, build structures, and transport people and goods. This transformation must accelerate now.

CLEAN & RENEWABLE ENERGY

✔ 100% Clean and Renewable Electricity by 2035

All electricity consumed in America must be generated by renewable sources, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and renewable natural gas, as well as clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.

✔ Zero Net Emissions from Energy by 2050

We must end all emissions from fossil fuels. The full U.S. economy can and must run on a mix of energy that is either zero-emission or 100 percent carbon capture by mid-century.[3] This includes residential, commercial, and industrial electricity; thermal energy; and transportation.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

✔ 100% Net-Zero Building Energy Standards by 2030

Buildings can stand and operate for over 100 years, and current building standards are not in line with goals for deep decarbonization. Yet buildings also have the highest potential for low-cost emission reductions of all sectors. We must start constructing and retrofitting to the highest performance standards now to avoid locking in outdated technology and to reach these goals by mid-century. New technological innovation every year will push the potential of building and industrial efficiency, helping American citizens and businesses lower energy costs and be more competitive.

TRANSPORTATION

✔ 100% Zero Emission Passenger Vehicles by 2030

The technologies already exist; we only need to scale-up charging infrastructure and consumer incentives to transition 100 percent of sales to zero emission passenger and light duty vehicles by 2030, followed with a swift phase out of internal combustion engines.

✔ 100% Fossil-Free Transportation by 2050

To reach decarbonization goals, we must transition away quickly from the use of fossil fuels in aviation, heavy duty vehicles, and rail. Not everything can be electrified, meaning we must innovate and scale up the next generation of biofuels and carbon-neutral fuels.

CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER NEED TO BE A RIGHT

While air and water quality have dramatically improved in the U.S. since the passage of landmark environmental regulations in the 1950s and 1970s, progress has slowed.[4] Too many Americans live without access to consistent clean air and clean water. Air pollution from vehicles and smokestacks cause 200,000 early deaths each year and led to negative health effects such as asthma and lung disease.[5] America’s drinking water and waterways are threatened by aging infrastructure and pollution from fossil fuel production. We cannot guarantee clean air and clean water without cutting emissions and fossil fuel extraction.

CLEAN AIR

✔ National Clean Air Attainment

Forty-two percent of the U.S. population--over 130 million Americans--live in areas that still have not attained national Ambient Air Quality Standards as ozone and particulate matter pollution are still too high.[6] While the EPA continually eases air quality regulations, 22 states do not meet ozone standards.[7] Ground-level ozone, or smog, has worsened significantly in recent years as higher average temperatures and more days of extreme heat intensifies smog.[8] Reductions in fossil fuel combustion and certain industrial activities will reduce ozone and particulate pollution across the country, especially in urban areas where air quality tends to be worse.

✔ Cut Methane Leakage 50% by 2025

Methane, a greenhouse gas 28-36 times more potent than carbon dioxide, is the second-largest industrial source of climate pollution from the oil and gas industry. Methane leaks from oil and gas production and distribution cost the U.S. economy approximately $2 billion annually.[9] These leaks are enough to power 6.5 million homes a year. Much of the pollution can be curbed with existing low-cost technologies that can improve air quality and reduce emissions.[10]

CLEAN WATER

✔ National Lead Pipe Replacement & Infrastructure Upgrades

America’s problems with lead in drinking water extend well beyond Flint, Michigan. In 2015, 18 million people were served by water systems with lead violations.[13] We need to remove lead service lines and fix other water problems with a prioritization of underserved communities. This requires meaningful investments in water treatment infrastructure upgrades across the nation. And yet, federal investment in local water infrastructure has declined from covering 63 percent of costs in 1977 to just 9 percent today.[14] By investing in clean water infrastructure, it will stimulate the development of economically-critical projects that will create jobs and increase American economic competitiveness.[15]

✔ Guarantee Access to Affordable Drinking Water

To keep up with the mounting costs of water infrastructure needs, many utilities across the country have been increasing water rates. In some cities, the average monthly cost of water for a family of four has increased 30 percent since 2011.[16] In 2015, 1 in 9 households in Detroit had their water shut off because of prohibitively high water bills. The EPA needs to establish more consistent and comprehensive standards on water affordability, protecting low-income residents from extreme price increases.

✔ Protect Two Million New Miles of Waterways

The quality of our water supply also depends on the restoration, conservation, and sustainable land management of forests and wetlands. The 2015 Clean Water Rule, if fully enforced, would extend protections to two million new miles of streams and tributaries, and 20 million acres of wetlands. Protecting our watersheds and waterways, particularly upstream, benefits our natural environment, human health, and food supplies, as well as enhances the resiliency of our built infrastructure. Waterways and their related forests and wetlands constitute a natural infrastructure that saves money and produces additional benefits such as reduced emissions, jobs, and habitat protection.[17]

RESTORE THE AMERICAN LANDSCAPE

It is hard to envision America without picturing its glorious landscape—whether it is the rolling plains and hills, wide rivers, snow-capped mountains, sandy coastlines, great lakes, or rich forests. The American landscape is not only our heritage but also a vital resource. Our lives and livelihoods rely upon the landscape for food, fiber, minerals, homesteads, protection, wildlife, and recreation. Clean air and clean water are not possible without healthy, robust lands. This landscape is our largest natural emissions sinks, literally absorbing millions of tons of greenhouse gases out of the air annually. We must tend to it.

FORESTS

✔ Reforest 40 Million Acres of Public and Private Land by 2035

America’s forests are 25 percent smaller than they were when settlements began around 1630, and only a fraction of what remains is old-growth forest, while the rest is regrowth of deforestation.[20] Forested lands continue to come back slowly, but it is well below the pace needed. To reach a net-zero emission economy by mid-century, we must reforest land—in other words, the remaining emissions our economy still creates are canceled out by the emissions absorbed by land. Similarly, many forests are badly in need of restoration, threatened by drought, wildfire, and invasive species, which are only exacerbated by climate change.

Expanding forests by 40-50 million acres by 2035 could achieve reductions of 600 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050. With forests as part of a holistic plan, the full land carbon sink could offset up to 45 percent of economy-wide emissions annually by 2050. [21]

WETLANDS

✔ Restore 5 Million Acres of Wetlands by 2040

Wetlands—including swamps, marshes, and peatlands—are vital ecosystems for all types of wildlife and biodiversity. They support seafood, recreation, and tourism industries; protect American shorelines from storm surge; filter water; and absorb carbon. America has lost over half of its original wetlands.[22] The rate of loss is increasing, and a third of what remains is in poor condition.[23],[24],[25]

SUSTAINABLE FARMING & SOIL

✔ Expand Sustainable Farming and Soil Practices to 30% of Agricultural Land by 2030 and 70% by 2050

A thriving agricultural sector relies upon healthy soil. Healthy soil also supports carbon sequestration, flood protection, reduced erosion, and pest and plant disease control. Beyond the field, the excess use of pesticides and fertilizers affect soil and water quality, leading to such effects as deadly hypoxia and algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. It also diminishes property values and recreational uses of nearby waters, costing the U.S. at least $2.2 billion annually.[26] Sustainable farming and soil practices are not only practical but also economically beneficial to farmers.

Increasing uptake of key soil carbon-beneficial conservation practices to 70 percent of U.S. cropland could result in an increased soil carbon sink of over 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equiv. per year by 2050—this represents half of current agricultural emissions. [27]

BROWNFIELDS & HAZARDOUS SITES

✔ Cleanup Brownfields and All Hazardous Sites

A brownfield is a previously occupied property of which its redevelopment or reuse is complicated due to the presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States[28] and 1,343 sites listed on the Superfund National Priority List, which are locations with significant hazardous material contamination.[29]

Neighborhoods adjacent to brownfields are more likely to be low-income and minority neighborhoods.[30] Cleaning up and redeveloping these sites is not only important for human health and the environment, but it can increase local tax revenues, grow jobs, lift property values, and ease development pressure off undeveloped lands.[31],[32]

[READ FULL REPORT HERE]

#politics #the left #Data for Progress #green new deal #progressive #progressive movement #ecosocialism #democratic socialism #socialism

312 notes · View notes

argotmagazine-blog · 6 years

Text

Envisioning a New World: Restorative Justice in Activist Communities

Content Warning: Sexual Assault

A pale person with wavy red hair and cranberry lipstick, dressed in all black, spoke in front of a circle of people sitting in metal folding chairs.

“We’re thinking about activities we agree to do or not do. That comes up often when we’re organizing, whether we’re organizing events, whether we’re trying to get people to come to our direct actions, we want people to wheatpaste with us or whatever your anarchy flavor is,” they said, adding quickly, “Or not not anarchy. I don’t know how you identify.”

The person in black is Anna Kark, a social justice and harm reduction educator who brought a consent workshop to a DC church. They worked with an organization called Collective Action for Safe Spaces (CASS). The church was full of people who do anti-oppression work, Kark told me. The International Workers of the World and No Justice No Pride worked with CASS to teach activists how to incorporate consent into every part of their lives, from consenting to specific organizing to consenting to sex. This included antiracist organizing, organizing your workplace, antifascist work, and more.

“I don't think there will ever be a cohesive definition or understanding of the DC left. It's probably very complicated and about how capitalism crushes our ability to organize with each other. But for whatever value of self-identification there is, that is who I selected to be apart of this workshop,” Kark said.

Anna Kark is a DC activist who has experienced sexual assault within their own activism community. They were the survivor in an accountability process, which means that they and their community tried to hold the person who assaulted them accountable and educate the person as a response to the assault.

The person was not pushed out of the community, but regularly asked to acknowledge what they did wrong and take steps to learn how to be better. An accountability process is just one of many ways activists in these networks are trying to make their spaces safe for everyone. Activists are also trying to hold each other accountable for other ways people push each other’s boundaries, learn bystander intervention techniques, and build mechanisms to ensure activists who refuse to accept what they did wrong and change can’t simply move on to other activism circles.

Why activists want transformative justice

The accountability process is not supposed to be a panacea for harassment and assault, Kark points out. It’s just one tool. But activists want alternatives to involving police officers and meting out justice through what some might call “carceral feminism,” or relying on the justice system for solutions to violence that is usually carried out by men on women. For activists who acknowledge that police often brutalize people of color and are responsible for sexual violence themselves and as people who fight for prison abolition, it’s necessary to have alternatives. However, Kark said that doesn’t mean activists try to dissuade survivors from reporting to police. Activists are also focused on looking at the entire community and systems of oppression that contributed to sexual violence, not simply one individual who carried out the violence.

This a necessary step, since media often seems transfixed with the personality of serial sexual abusers, and how to armchair diagnose them, usually to let them off the hook. As a society, we’re obsessed with going over the details of the assault in question to determine exactly what we think the victim should have done to avoid assault and sometimes, because people derive some form of enjoyment from their pain. Like so-called “poverty porn” which media creators claim is about exposing the damage of poverty, many unnecessarily detailed descriptions of sexual assault are often more about exploitation of someone’s pain for the purpose of spectacle.

As we saw last fall during the avalanche of sexual assault stories in the news, numerous people of all genders enabled these perpetrators. By demanding that we consider an entire community’s responsibility, we are moving away from those unhealthy tendencies and are working to reduce the likelihood of future harm.

I have experienced sexual violence and harassment, like many women, and some of that violence came from people who belong to marginalized communities that are targeted by police. I also do not trust police to address sexual assault survivors in a responsible way, knowing how police themselves target and retraumatize sexual assault survivors. I don’t trust employers to address sexual harassment. Employers see the primary purpose of sexual harassment training and human resources responses as legal protection for themselves, assuming they don’t circumvent the process entirely to protect a perpetrator they consider less disposable than the victim. That means I’m not going to get what I need out of the process and neither will the person who harassed me.

I see why this approach would be preferable for many survivors. It isn’t necessarily a flawless practice or above criticism and personal biases against marginalized groups are still present, but I one would argue the justice system’s response is usually far worse. The justice system puts survivors’ emotional needs second, punishes men of color to a very different degree compared to their white counterparts and, sometimes, wrongly imprisons them. It counts on the threat of incarceration and incarceration itself to prevent or change a person’s behavior, which simply doesn't work. It nourishes the idea that victims must be white women and women who perform femininity correctly in order to deserve the justice system’s protection. The stakes are incredibly high, and when you lose, as many marginalized groups do, you lose big.

The justice system requires that in order for perpetrators to receive some form of accountability, they must be cruel evil men who have never been loved or supported by their families and communities; men who don’t really exist. Additionally, officers who were supposed to help survivors at their most vulnerable have subjected them to more violence. When it’s working, the accountability process also demands that communities look at the environment that allowed violence and harassment to happen, not simply an individual person. It demands that survivors needs are considered paramount and that communities acknowledge the humanity of perpetrators through education.

Kark said by having a community behind them, people aren’t asked to process what happened to them alone. This is particularly important for people who are experiencing poverty or financial precarity.

“I started a community accountability practice [last] spring when I was raped,” Kark said. “It is very difficult to do because all of the functions of capitalism prevent you from being able to do that work, right? You’ve got police state telling you conflict can only be mediated by a court of law, which is untrue. You’ve got poverty, which prevents people from people able to seek appropriate resources from their community because they have to focus on immediate material consequences within their lives.”

Kark said their anarchism makes it difficult for them personally to turn to “disposing of people as a first response.” This language about not disposing of people and healing from harm in a way that excludes punishment is consistent in anarchism. Cindy Milstein writes in her book, Anarchism and Its Aspirations, “... anarchism serves unflinchingly as a philosophy of freedom, as the nagging conscience that people and their communities can always be better.”

How the process works

Akosua Johnson, who has been involved in these processes before, said that the first step in an accountability process is to be open about the harm that the perpetrator committed. But the survivor gets to tell activists what they are comfortable with the community knowing. Then activists who are part of the process, usually activists who have participated and conducted this process before, gather information about what happened and how the person was harmed so that perpetrator understands what they did wrong. Activists acknowledge that some people may not know what they did wrong because we have all grown up in a society that normalizes sexual violence as a “natural” expression of masculinity.

Johnson said the next step is to educate the person who harmed the survivor. Then people close to the perpetrator need to make it clear to them that they need to be held accountable for their actions. The perpetrator also needs to fully understand what they did harmed someone else.

“That makes it more meaningful and more effective as opposed to some stranger coming up to the perp and saying, ‘You did something bad!’” Johnson said.

Activists need to ensure that the perpetrator and surrounding community prevent anything like that from happening again, Johnson said, but it’s important to look at the entire community’s role in what happened. Enablers and people who simply didn’t notice how this person’s behavior affected others have to sit with their own actions and learn how to hold themselves accountable for that.

“This is not simply an individual acting in a vacuum. It’s the community around that person that allows those ideas and actions to occur, so you spread it out in terms of educating in a ripple out from perpetrator,” Johnson said. “You’re making sure there is accountability not just for the perpetrator but people in the perpetrator’s life who may have excused or allowed behavior that is harmful or violent.”

Sometimes that starts with enforcement of boundaries in all activism practices, to build a culture of consent. For example, that means not putting fellow activists on the spot when determining who will do what for an event or protest, such as becoming a street medic or bringing food to an event. People in the activism community need to ask people if they want to put in a Signal group and be clear about how long a training will take. During the consent workshop, people took turns to be the person asking for things and the person saying no in response, to normalize the process of asking for consent and enforcing boundaries. It felt good to practice saying “No” to requests for information I didn’t want to give, as benign as those requests were, such as “Where did you get your shoes?” because I’ve been socialized to give reasons for saying no. In this space, it was clear that we didn’t need a reason and that it isn’t rude not to give one. People were learning to accept a no and not be personally offended by it, Kark explained.

Jen Deerinwater, a community organizer and freelance journalist and Citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, said that until activist communities respect femmes in all contexts, including meetings and inclusion in leadership, harassment and sexual violence will be a problem. In queer activism spaces, queer people can also be “misogynistic and chauvinistic,” Deerinwater added. “There is definitely an idea that for those of us who are more feminine, we have to do all of the caregiving work. We’re not as respected as those who are more masculine of center.”

A common complaint from women and nonbinary people in the movement is that men aren’t doing enough to address sexual violence and provide other forms of care that are considered traditionally feminine.

Although folks should get training to avoid asking questions that enforce rape myths, Belinda Rodriguez, an activist whose organizing focuses on climate, racial, and economic justice, said that starting with a sincere commitment to care for another person’s wellbeing goes a long way. She said the most common response she sees is a “deer in headlights” response where people don’t know how to react and ending up doing nothing rather than risk giving the wrong response.

“People are afraid to deal with the situation and so they don't do anything,” she said. “That’s why it’s important for people to read about this stuff in advance and have conversations with each other about what kind of response they would like to see before shit hits the fan. I think that's really important so that trust is already there when something goes down because inevitably, at some point it does, and we will all have a friend who is in a shitty situation or we’ll be in a shitty situation.”

Kark said that they’ve seen other activists become more aware of harassment as well as behavior that can be labeled “boundary-crossing.” For example, they were recently street harassed while a few of their male activist friends watched and did nothing to intervene. But months later, after talking to a partner about what happened, one of those men reached out to talk to Kark about what they should have done differently.

On another occasion, two activists had a difficult time working together because another kept pushing their boundaries, such as touching the person without asking. The activist who wasn’t comfortable being hugged and otherwise touched told the person to receive education and talk to someone in their community about how to be better about understanding people’s boundaries. The person did seek out that education and now they have a healthier relationship, with the person whose boundaries they crossed, Kark said.

“The person who was on receiving end of harm wanted that relationship to continue and believed in that person’s capacity to change,” they said.

Within an entirely punitive and faceless justice system, you don’t really get to ask the person who harmed you to consider what they did and take steps to change in any meaningful way. Any relationship with the person who harmed you can be used against you as evidence that you weren’t actually harmed. It isn’t very realistic to expect people who faced harassment or violence from someone close to them, someone in whom they’ve seen sparks of kindness, to end all contact if they want to seek accountability. And the people who have harmed us are usually people we know.

That doesn’t mean the person who was responsible for that harm is going to be interested in being held accountable, however. Some activists have gone as far as to offer to pay for someone’s therapy if it would help them process what they did and change their behavior. But they don’t always accept that help, Chris, who does antiracist and anticapitalist activism work in DC, explained.

“I’ve had long-term friendships end over trying to hold someone accountable.” he said.

In one case, over a few months, it became clear to Chris and other activists that the perpetrator of the sexual violence wouldn’t take those steps. At first, the person seemed willing to participate and then it became apparent to Chris that their actions were only performative. Soon, he only responded to him on social media. But one day he ran into him on the street.

“I just knew the last time I saw him, he cried in my arms and said, ‘I’ve done terrible things,’” he said. “I said, ‘We’ve all done terrible things.’ And he wouldn't go any further on that.”

Sometimes survivors don’t want to move forward with an accountability process either, and fellow activists have to respect that, Chris said, even if others in the community would like to move forward. The priority is with the survivor's needs. And there are good reasons not to stick with a one-size-fits-all approach, BR explained. A survivor could be living with the perpetrator or share an employer and it’s important to be sensitive to their needs across these different circumstances.

In an accountability process, when survivors do move forward with the process and perpetrators won’t respond to the community's requests, Kark said they aren’t forced to leave but rather decide to leave because their friends won’t stop asking them to take steps to change. They gave one example.

“The process of being asked about that was so difficult for him that he voluntarily left and I think that happens a lot. Being accountable is a lot harder than being punished.”

When that a serial abuser leaves, however, they can go to another activism community where people don’t know what they did, which activists are concerned about. Johnson said this happens often and that they repeat the same behavior. They said they are working on developing a larger accountability communication network with other activists in DC to prevent this from happening.

Power differences

Still, that decision of how to respond -- whether or not to alert other communities, tell someone they can’t continue being in a space with the person they harmed so the survivor’s activism isn’t hindered, or welcome them back into certain spaces -- has to be weighed carefully.

Rodriguez said the specific harm by the perpetrator took, the risk of future harm, and the power differences on all sides need to be considered in crafting a response. Rodriguez noted an example where a young man of color was shunned from a predominantly white space without being given the chance to understand what he did wrong, where a white man was allowed to stay indefinitely, despite displaying repeated harmful behavior and showing no interest in accountability.

“This kid seemed very disposable in a way that a white dude in the same circle was not,” she said. “I have seen white men consistently be really problematic and manipulative and people tolerate them. I definitely have seen abusive behavior. But they were tolerated because they had more access to power and people were more afraid to push them out as opposed to this kid who became completely disposable, even though he was trying to be accountable and didn’t seem like he posed a risk of causing future harm.”

Often, people with more access to power are allowed to get away with bad behavior unchecked, and Rodriguez explained that she has seen movement organizations give prominent leaders a pass at egregiously mishandling situations, because they don’t want to sever their ties with someone who is high profile.

Deerinwater said that when there is violence within any activist community, there is a concern that it will provide ammunition for the government.

“There is this feeling that women and whoever is being assaulted just need to shut up and take it out of fear it will hurt the movement. Not everyone feels that way. I personally don't. I feel like that has hurt our movement already,” Deerinwater said.

There are challenges, however, since activists will try to insist that the community can’t afford to lose their support. Akosua Johnson, an activist who has worked on accountability processes for the DC activist community, said there is a tendency for people to try to leverage their cause to discourage people from holding them accountable.

“They get agitated and angry and they get into a regression. I don't know if you’ve heard this before, but ‘If you're not nice to me, I’m not going to help your cause,’” they said.

Activism communities face many barriers to tackling power differences within networks when sexual violence and harassment occurs, ensuring that efforts to handle accountability processes and care for survivors are spread evenly, and that people are prepared to handle accountability thoughtfully. But by talking about consent in all contexts, not just sexuality, activists are fostering an entire culture of consent where sexual violence is less likely to thrive. By turning attention to the community as a whole when sexual assault happens, activists are less likely to pretend that you only need to get rid of one person to make a space safe for all activists. And when we don’t see violation of consent as something only monsters do, but as something everyone is capable of, it becomes something everyone must watch out for and prevent. Our justice system and other institutions often fail us because, by their very design, they aren’t supposed to accomplish these things.

“I want to live in a world where someone can hurt me and then they can apologize and actually take responsibility for their actions,” Kark said. “In order for us to be able to get to that world, we have a long way to go.”

Casey Quinlan is a policy reporter for ThinkProgress who writes about education, labor, and criminal justice issues. Her work has appeared publications such as Bustle, The Establishment, The Guardian, In These Times, Glamour, Autostraddle, Dame Magazine, and The Crime Report.

#abuse

1 note · View note

nigeiadigitalmarketingcompany · 5 years

Text

Restoring the Commons

Digital Elixir Restoring the Commons

Yves here. Even though this article implicitly accepts the idea of growth, which too often turns out to be groaf, relying more on commons-type structure is likely to become more and more important in an era of resource scarcity and relocalization.

By Douglas Rushkoff, host of the Team Human podcast and author of Team Human as well as a dozen other bestselling books on media, technology, and culture, including, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity. He is Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics at CUNY Queens College. Originally published at Evonomics

The economy needn’t be a war; it can be a commons. To get there, we must retrieve our innate good will.

The commons is a conscious implementation of reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruists, whether human or ape, reward those who cooperate with others and punish those who defect. A commons works the same way. A resource such as a lake or a field, or a monetary system, is understood as a shared asset. The pastures of medieval England were treated as a commons. It wasn’t a free-for-all, but a carefully negotiated and enforced system. People brought their flocks to graze in mutually agreed- upon schedules. Violation of the rules was punished, either with penalties or exclusion.

The commons is not a winner-takes-all economy, but an all-take-the-winnings economy. Shared ownership encourages shared responsibility, which in turn engenders a longer-term perspective on business practices. Nothing can be externalized to some “other” player, because everyone is part of the same trust, drinking from the same well.

If one’s business activities hurt any other market participant, they undermine the integrity of the marketplace itself. For those entranced by the myth of capitalism, this can be hard to grasp. They’re still stuck thinking of the economy as a two-column ledger, where every credit is someone’s else’s debit. This zero-sum mentality is an artifact of monopoly central currency. If money has to be borrowed into existence from a single, private treasury and paid back with interest, then this sad, competitive, scarcity model makes sense. I need to pay back more than I borrowed, so I need to get that extra money from someone else. That’s the very premise of zero-sum. But that’s not how an economy has to work.

The destructive power of debt-based finance is older than central currency—so old that even the Bible warns against it. It was Joseph who taught Pharaoh how to store grain in good times so that he would be able to dole it out in lean years. Those indentured to the pharaoh eventually became his slaves, and four hundred years passed before they figured out how to free themselves from captivity as well as this debtor’s mindset. Even after they escaped, it took the Israelites a whole generation in the desert to learn not to hoard the manna that rained on them, but to share what came and trust that they would get more in the future.

If we act like there’s a shortage, there will be a shortage.

Advocates of the commons seek to optimize the economy for human beings, rather than the other way around.

One economic concept that grew out of the commons was called distributism. The idea, born in the 1800s, holds that instead of trying to redistribute the spoils of capitalism after the fact through heavy taxation, we should simply predistribute the means of production to the workers. In other words, workers should collectively own the tools and factories they use to create value. Today, we might call such an arrangement a co-op—and, from the current examples, cooperative businesses are giving even established US corporations a run for their money.

The same sorts of structures are being employed in digital businesses. In these “platform cooperatives,” participants own the platform they’re using, instead of working for a “platform monopoly” taxi app or giving away their life data to a social media app. A taxi app is not a complicated thing; it’s just a dating app combined with a mapping app combined with a credit card app. The app doesn’t deserve the lion’s share of the revenue. Besides, if the drivers are going to be replaced by robots someday, anyway, at least they should own the company for which they’ve been doing the research and development. Similarly, a user-owned social media platform would allow participants to sell (or not sell) their own data, instead of having it extracted for free.

Another commons-derived idea, “subsidiarity,” holds that a business should never grow for growth’s sake. It should only grow as big as it needs to in order to accomplish its purpose. Then, instead of expanding to the next town or another industry, it should just let someone else replicate the model. Joe’s pizzeria should sell to Joe’s customers. If they need a pizzeria in the next town, Joe can share his recipe and let Samantha do it.

This is not bad business—especially if Joe likes making pizza. He gets to stay in the kitchen doing what he loves instead of becoming the administrator of a pizza chain. Samantha may develop a new technique that helps Joe; they can even federate and share resources. Besides, it’s fun to have someone else to talk with about the pizza business. They can begin to develop their collaborative abilities instead of their competitive ones.

Bigger isn’t necessarily better. Things in nature grow to a certain point and then stop. They become full-grown adults, forests, or coral reefs. This doesn’t mean they’re dead. If anything, it’s the stability of adulthood that lets them become participating members of larger, mutually supportive networks.

If Joe has to grow his business bigger just in order to keep up with his rising rent and expenses, it’s only because the underlying economy has been rigged to demand growth and promote scarcity. It is this artificially competitive landscape that convinces us we have no common interests.

We know that nothing in nature can sustain an exponential rate of growth, but this doesn’t stop many of our leading economists and scientists from perpetuating this myth. They cherry-pick evidence that supports the endless acceleration of our markets and our technologies, as if to confirm that growth- based corporate capitalism is keeping us on track for the next stage of human evolution.

To suggest we slow down, think, consider—or content our- selves with steady profits and incremental progress—is to cast oneself as an enemy of our civilization’s necessary acceleration forward. By the market’s logic, human intervention in the machine will only prevent it from growing us out of our current mess. In this read of the situation, corporations may be using extractive, scorched-earth tactics, but they are also our last best hope of solving the world’s biggest problems, such as hunger and disease. Questioning the proliferation of patented, genetically modified seeds or an upgraded arsenal of pesticides just impedes the necessary progress. Adherents of this worldview say that it’s already too late to go back. There are already too many people, too much damage, and too much dependence on energy. The only way out is through. Regulating a market just slows it down, preventing it from reaching the necessary level of turbulence for the “invisible hand” to do its work.

According to their curated history of humanity, whenever things look irredeemably awful, people come up with a new technology, unimaginable until then. They like to tell the story of the great horse manure crisis of 1894, when people in England and the United States were being overwhelmed by the manure produced by the horses they used for transportation. Luckily, according to this narrative, the automobile provided a safe, relatively clean alternative, and the streets were spared hip-deep manure. And just as the automobile saved us from the problems of horse-drawn carriages, a new technological innovation will arise to save us from automobiles.

The problem with the story is that it’s not true. Horses were employed for commercial transport, but people rode in electric streetcars and disliked sharing the roads with the new, intrusive, privately owned vehicles. It took half a century of public relations, lobbying, and urban replanning to get people to drive automobiles. Plus, we now understand that if cars did make the streets cleaner in some respects, it was only by externalizing the costs of environmental damage and the bloody struggle to secure oil reserves.

Too many scientists—often funded by growth-obsessed corporations—exalt an entirely quantified understanding of social progress. They measure improvement as a function of life expectancy or reduction in the number of violent deaths. Those are great improvements on their own, but they give false cover for the crimes of modern capitalism—as if the relative peace and longevity enjoyed by some inhabitants of the West were proof of the superiority of its model and the unquestionable benefit of pursuing growth.

These arguments never acknowledge the outsourced slavery, toxic dumping, or geopolitical strife on which this same model depends. So while one can pluck a reassuring statistic to support the notion that the world has grown less violent— such as the decreasing probability of an American soldier dying on the battle field—we also live with continual military conflict, terrorism, cyber-attacks, covert war, drone strikes, state- sanctioned rape, and millions of refugees. Isn’t starving a people and destroying their topsoil, or imprisoning a nation’s young black men, a form of violence?

Capitalism no more reduced violence than automobiles saved us from manure- filled cities. We may be less likely to be assaulted randomly in the street than we were in medieval times, but that doesn’t mean humanity is less violent, or that the blind pursuit of continued economic growth and technological progress is consonant with the increase of human welfare—no matter how well such proclamations do on the business best- seller lists or speaking circuit. (Businesspeople don’t want to pay to be told that they’re making things worse.)

So with the blessings of much of the science industry and its collaborating futurists, corporations press on, accelerating civilization under the false premise that because things are looking better for the wealthiest beneficiaries, they must be better for everyone. Progress is good, they say. Any potential impediment to the frictionless ascent of technological and economic scale— such as the cost of labor, the limits of a particular market, the constraints of the planet, ethical misgivings, or human frailty— must be eliminated.

The models would all work if only there weren’t people in the way. That’s why capitalism’s true believers are seeking some- one or, better, something to do their bidding with greater intelligence and less empathy than humans.

Restoring the Commons

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2YGEhDT via IFTTT

#Digital Marketing #SEO #Social Media Marketing #Nigeria Digital Marketing Company #Lead Generation

0 notes

bikethevote · 5 years

Text

2019 L.A. City Council District 12 Candidate: Carlos Amador

Candidate campaign page: https://carlosforla.com/

Carlos Amador’s response to our questionnaire is informed by his own experience as a survivor of a hit-and-run, car-vs.-bicycle collision that sent him to the emergency room. Citing that experience, Amador supports prioritizing safety improvements on L.A.’s High Injury Network and implementing protected bike lanes on streets like Parthenia Street. He opposes raising speed limits on 12th District streets and supports alternatives to traffic enforcement, including redesign of neighborhood streets and educational programs.

Amador offers a range of helpful policy ideas to improve mobility options and help key segments of the 12th District community to get around without driving, including leveraging Measure M funds to improve street safety; creating more affordable housing for workers and students; and providing more tailored transportation options for seniors. With that kind of platform, voters and safe streets advocates will be well-served by Amador as councilmember.

Bike The Vote L.A. 2019 Primary Grade: A

(See below for full candidate questionnaire response)

1. What role do you see for walking, transit, and biking in the getting residents and students in Council District 12 to and from local businesses, parks, and schools?

The city of Los Angeles seems to be living two different realities. On the one hand, we have some regions with forward-looking developments of biking infrastructures like the ones seen in downtown LA, pedestrian-friendly initiatives with diagonal crosswalks, and public transportation infrastructure booms that aim to make the city more accessible to the residents and less reliable on cars. At the same time, there are parts of the city, including the Council District 12, that have been neglected on developing a vision to make the streets in the region more bike-friendly, pedestrian accessible, and transit reliable.

There is that same-old argument that it is the “car culture” of Los Angeles that does not allow for such people-centered models in the city to take place. But, I believe, it is the city’s leaders who have not allowed for such initiatives to really flourish and change the culture in our region. I believe that if we want to see our city, and in particular the northwest San Fernando Valley, be fully accessible to all. There is a critical role that walking, biking, and transit accessibility for residents, workers, and students will play in improving the health of our communities, tackling climate change, and have a true right to the city. My role as a city council member to achieve this vision will be to provide the existing resources for the community, champion the necessary policy changes, and facilitate the conversations at the district level.

2. Thirty-eight percent of Cal State University, Northridge students do not have access to a car for their daily commute. What actions can Los Angeles take to make the CSUN campus more accessible for students, staff, and faculty including better bike, pedestrian, and transit connectivity around the campus? Additionally, do you support implementation of protected bike lanes on Parthenia Street to connect Metrolink Northridge Station to existing protected bike lanes on Reseda Boulevard?

Cal State University, Northridge, in many ways, is the heart and soul of the San Fernando Valley. It is the only public university in the valley where the next generation of workers, thinkers, and leaders go to gain the tools to improve their communities. It is also a cultural and economic center, providing opportunities to the surrounding communities to access jobs, education, and cultural events beyond the classroom. But, access to the university continues to be an issue for students, staff, and faculty alike. As a city council member, I will work with university administrators, state, county, and city officials to expedite the transit developments in the northwest San Fernando Valley under Measure M and other transit funded projects. This will help increase the accessibility to the university for everyone. I will work on expanding the current bus routes connectors, and work with university administrators in seeking avenues to expand the funding for vanpools and public transit passes. I am in full support of implementing protected bike lanes on Parthenia St. to connect the Metrolink Northridge station to existing bike lanes on Reseda Boulevard. I will also support the implementation of additional protected bike lanes in the surrounded areas, expanding the network beyond the immediate university radius. Finally, I believe that we must look into community-conscious affordable housing development so students, staff, and faculty can live closer to campus and decrease the need to travel long distances.

3. CD12 sees some of L.A.’s worst speeding and street racing, with three out of the top five most dangerous intersections in all of California located within the District. In response to the condition of dangerous streets across the city, Los Angeles adopted a ‘Vision Zero’ program with the goal of significantly reducing the 240+ annual roadway deaths that the City currently sees. Do you support prioritizing safety on L.A.’s High Injury Network streets in CD12 such as Reseda, Roscoe, and Balboa Boulevards, even when there may be trade-offs in terms of automotive travel time or on-street parking?

As a bicycle rider, a survivor of a car-bicycle collision, and parent of a four year old girl who enjoys riding her own bike, I am in strong support of policies that strengthen protections for bicycle riders, pedestrians, and people moving through our streets in alternative modes of transportation.

In December 2011, while heading home from work on my bicycle, I was struck by a vehicle in a hit-and-run collision. The exact moment of the impact has been erased from my memory due to the concussion, but as I recovered my consciousness laying on the pavement, I remember asking a passer-byer to call my wife. The next memory I have is riding on the ambulance to the emergency room. That night I spent it in the emergency room recovering from the injuries. Thankfully, the injuries that I endured during the accident were relatively minor. And, I am happy to be able to continue to ride my bicycle.

Because of my own experience, I know first hand the importance of having strong policies in place to decrease the number of accidents and fatalities in our streets. To tackle street racing, we must take a community-driven approach where stakeholders from across the district come together and chart out a plan of action. As a council member I will bring community leaders, leaders of neighborhood councils, schools, surrounding colleges, and LAPD, to design and launch a program that creates education and community-accountability to decrease the number of street races in the valley.

And, I am in support of prioritizing safety on LA’s High Injury Network streets in Council District 12. Ultimately, the vision zero program should not only be about how we reduce the staggering numbers of roadway deaths, but how we envision a city where pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle drivers, can co-exists in an equitable way.

4. LADOT has determined that speed is the predominant factor in whether traffic collisions are deadly. Despite this fact, Los Angeles recently increased speed limits on 100 miles of local streets to abide by state law, including raising the speed limit to 45 mph on Winnetka Ave., Wilbur Ave. & Reseda Blvd. in CD12. Would you support implementation of lane reductions and other traffic calming infrastructure in order to reduce vehicle speeds on surface streets in CD12?

I agree that a main factor on whether a collision leads to a death has to do with the speed that the cars are traveling at. I also agree that there is a speeding problem across the city that must be addressed. But, I disagree with the decision to increase the speed limits in order to enforce speeding laws. The way to address speeding issues in our streets is not by following the framework a decades-old state law, nor is it by setting speed traps across the city. As a council member, I will support alternative models to address the issue of speeding on our streets, including lane reductions, radar speed signs to alert drivers, and community educational programs, among others.

5. Los Angeles’ traffic woes are compounded by the reality that many parents, students, and workers don’t feel safe commuting even short distances or performing school drop-offs walking, rolling, or by bike. What would you do as Councilmember to improve active transportation options around schools, public transit, and in commercial districts to provide better mobility options for CD12 residents?

Our city streets should be equally shared with pedestrians and bicycle riders. But, one of the main reasons why community members do not feel safe traveling short distances on foot or by bike is the lack of safety on the streets. As a council member of the 12th district, I will work with community-based groups and transportation groups to identify and implement a robust protected bike lane system throughout the region. Everyone should have the opportunity to walk, ride their bikes, or use public transportation, whether to do school drop-offs, grocery runs, or do the daily errands. But, another factor that impacts the ability to walk or bike to do errands on the regular basis is the fact that for the majority of working adults in the district, their jobs are not close by. That means that working people need to spend longer times commuting to and from work, which limits the amount of time available to do school drop-offs or do errands by foot or bike. As a city council member, I will focus on bringing and keeping good-paying jobs in and around the district, so working people can spend less time commuting and more time in their communities. I will also take advantage of the Measure M transit infrastructure projects in the region to develop more Transit Oriented Communities. Developing community-conscious housing around major transit projects will shift our communities from being car-reliant, to becoming oriented around the local community.

6. While one of Los Angeles most recently developed districts, CD12 also has the largest senior population by percentage in the city. What improvements to mobility options would you implement to empower CD12's senior population to comfortably age in place?

Our government bodies at every level have fallen behind on adapting and supporting programs that assist the aging populations. As a social worker, I am aware of the needs that these community members have as they age with dignity. As a council member, I will support and expand the public transportations systems to make the district and the region more accessible for seniors. I will work to expedite the transit developments established through Measure M funding and other transit funded projects. I will also work with community stakeholders, city agencies like the City Department of Aging, and County Departments, to assess the development of more community resource centers, in-home assistance, and tailored transportation support for the aging community.

#bikethevote #cd12

0 notes

fitnesswomenshealth-blog · 6 years

Text

Trump's pollution rules rollback to hit coal country hard

New Post has been published on https://cialiscom.org/trumps-pollution-rules-rollback-to-hit-coal-country-hard.html

Trump's pollution rules rollback to hit coal country hard

Fascinated in Donald Trump?

Include Donald Trump as an curiosity to continue to be up to day on the most up-to-date Donald Trump information, video clip, and assessment from ABC Information.

It truly is coal persons like miner Steve Knotts, 62, who make West Virginia Trump Country.

So it was no shock that President Donald Trump picked the point out to announce his program to roll back again Obama-period air pollution controls on coal-fired ability vegetation.

Trump left just one point out of his remarks, although: northern West Virginia coal region will be floor zero for greater fatalities and ailments from the rollback on regulation of damaging emission from the nation’s coal electric power plants.

An assessment accomplished by his own Environmental Defense Company concludes that the program would direct to a higher selection of people right here dying prematurely, and struggling wellbeing challenges that they or else would not have, than somewhere else in the region, when compared to health and fitness impacts of the Obama prepare.

Knotts, a coal miner for 35 decades, isn’t really fazed when he hears that warning, a pair of days following Trump’s West Virginia rally. He claims the final detail individuals in coal country want is the government slapping down more controls on coal — and the air below in the remote West Virginia mountains would seem good to him.

“Folks here have had it with other folks telling us what we require. We know what we will need. We need a job,” Knotts explained at lunch hour at a Circle K in a small town between two coal mines, and 9 miles down the street from a coal electrical power plant, the Grant City plant.

The sky close to Grant City is shiny blue. The mountains are a stunning green. Paw Paw Creek gurgles previous the town.

Clean-air controls considering that the 1980s largely turned off the columns of black soot that utilized to increase from coal smokestacks. The restrictions slashed the national loss of life fees from coal-fired electric power vegetation considerably.

These days pollutants increase from smoke stacks as gases, prior to solidifying into fine particles — however invisible — smaller sufficient to pass as a result of lungs and into bloodstreams.

An EPA investigation claims people pollutants would increase beneath Trump’s strategy, when as opposed to what would transpire underneath the Obama plan. And that, it suggests, would lead to thousands more coronary heart assaults, asthma issues and other ailments that would not have happened.

Nationally, the EPA suggests, 350 to 1,500 more people would die every single yr under Trump’s strategy. But it’s northern two-thirds of West Virginia and the neighboring element of Pennsylvania that would be strike most difficult, by far, according to Trump’s EPA.

Trump’s rollback would eliminate an added 1.4 to 2.4 persons a calendar year for each 100,000 folks in individuals hardest-hit regions, in comparison to beneath the Obama prepare, according to the EPA investigation. For West Virginia’s 1.8 million persons, that would be equivalent to at the very least a few dozen additional fatalities a year.

Trump’s acting EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler, a previous coal lobbyist whose grandfather worked in the coal camps of West Virginia, headed to coal states this 7 days and final to endorse Trump’s rollback. The federal government’s retreat on regulating air pollution from coal electrical power plants was “good information,” Wheeler explained to crowds there.

In Washington, EPA spokesman Michael Abboud claimed Trump’s plan nevertheless would result in “remarkable reductions” in emissions, fatalities and health issues as opposed to the status quo, as an alternative of to the Obama plan. Obama’s Clean up Power Plan specific weather-changing carbon dioxide, but given that coal is the major supply of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, the Obama strategy would have curbed other dangerous emissions from the coal-fired power vegetation as nicely.

About 160 miles to the south of Grant City, in the vicinity of the condition funds of Charleston, store owner Doris Keller figures that if Trump thinks something’s for the greatest, which is fantastic plenty of for her.

“I just know this. I like Donald Trump and I think that he is carrying out the ideal matter,” reported Keller, who turned out to aid Trump Aug. 21 when he promoted his rollback proposal. She life 5 miles from the 2,900-megawatt John Amos coal-fired ability plant.

“I believe he has the finest interests of the standard widespread men and women at the forefront,” Keller suggests.

Trump’s Economical Cleanse Power application would dismantle President Barack Obama’s 2015 Thoroughly clean Power Program, which has been caught up in court docket battles devoid of still getting applied.

The Obama program targeted local weather-switching emissions from electricity vegetation, in particular coal. It would have improved federal regulation of emissions from the nation’s electrical grid and broadly promoted all-natural gasoline, solar energy and other cleaner electricity.

Trump’s strategy would cede a lot of the federal oversight of existing coal-fired electric power crops and drop formal marketing of cleaner vitality. Specific states mainly would choose how a great deal to control coal energy vegetation in their borders. The program is open up for public overview, ahead of any final White House selection.

“I am receiving rid of some of these absurd guidelines and regulations, which are killing our providers … and our careers,” Trump stated at the rally.

There was no mention of the “little increases” in harmful emissions that would outcome, when compared to the Obama prepare, or the wellbeing dangers.

EPA charts place numbers on just how numerous a lot more folks would die just about every calendar year because of those people elevated coal emissions.

Abboud and spokeswoman Ashley Bourke of the National Mining Affiliation, which supports Trump’s proposed regulatory rollback on coal emissions, mentioned other federal packages previously regulate dangerous emissions from coal ability plants. Bourke also argued that the well being scientific tests the EPA employed in its loss of life projections date as significantly back again as the 1970s, when coal vegetation burned dirtier.

In response, Conrad Schneider of the environmental nonprofit Clean Air Job Power claimed the EPA’s mortality estimates had taken into account current regulation of plant emissions.

Additionally, health and fitness scientific studies made use of by the EPA appeared at particular ranges of publicity to pollutants and their impact on human wellbeing, so continue to be frequent around time, claimed Schneider, whose team analyzes the EPA projections.

With level of competition from purely natural gasoline and other cleaner vitality aiding to destroy off extra than a 3rd of coal careers more than the past decade, political leaders in coal states are in no situation to be the kinds charged with enforcing general public-well being protections on surviving coal-fired electricity crops, stated Vivian Stockman of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.

“Our point out is beholden to coal. Our politicians are beholden to coal,” Stockman said outside Trump’s West Virginia rally, where by she was protesting. “In the meantime, our persons are staying poisoned.”

And when it will come to coal electricity vegetation and hurt, Schneider mentioned, “when you might be at Grant Town, you might be at Ground Zero.”

Retired coal miner Jim Haley, living 4 miles from the town’s coal-fired electric power plant, has difficulty telling from the smokestack when the plant is even working.

“They have received steam coming out of the chimneys. That’s all they have coming out of it,” Haley mentioned.

Parked in close proximity to the Grant Town publish office, where by another resident was rolling down the peaceful key street on a tractor, James Perkins listened to phrase of the EPA’s wellbeing warnings. He cast a appear into the rear-look at mirror into the backseat of his pickup truck, at his 3-calendar year-outdated grandson, sitting down in the again.

“They need to make that safe and sound,” reported Perkins, a health-care worker who experienced opted not to adhere to his father into the coal mines. “Men and women received minor little ones.”

———

Raby described from Charleston, West Virginia. AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed from Washington.

Resource link

0 notes