ANONYMOUS - OUR VOICE

The controversial autopsy at the heart of the Chauvin trial, explained

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VH3rpTomyLeaP5g0t4VeS1G4FII=/0x289:4048x2408/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22429335/GettyImages_1232132203.jpg" /></div>
On May 25, 2020, the world witnessed the final moments leading up to George Floyd’s death: Police officer Derek Chauvin pinned a handcuffed Floyd to the ground with his knee for more than nine minutes until he became unresponsive. The bystander video of the incident, with Floyd muttering his last words, “I can’t breathe,” sparked racial justice protests around the globe. Now, nearly a year later, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/3/27/22350040/derek-chauvin-murder-trial-george-floyd">Chauvin is on trial</a> facing charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
But despite what people saw, both virtually and in person last May, at the center of the trial is the question: What ultimately killed Floyd? The prosecution has argued that it was Chauvin’s knee, constricting Floyd’s neck and airway, that ultimately led to his death. Meanwhile, the defense has argued that it was Floyd’s history of drug use and underlying conditions that caused his death.
Two autopsy reports — one by a private medical examiner commissioned by Floyd’s family and another by the <a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf?referringSource=articleShare">Hennepin County Medical Examiner</a> — reached the same conclusion: that Floyd died of homicide, meaning death at the hands of someone else. But the <a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/05/read-george-floyd-autopsy-report-with-cause-of-death-and-other-factors/">medical examiner report also highlighted</a> that Floyd suffered from other “significant conditions,” such as fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use. These latter conditions are what the defense is using to argue that Chauvin is not responsible for Floyd’s death.
On Friday, Hennepin County chief medical examiner Andrew Baker, who performed the county autopsy, took the stand. In documents last year, Baker described the “<a href="https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/new-court-docs-say-george-floyd-had-fatal-level-of-fentanyl-in-his-system/89-ed69d09d-a9ec-481c-90fe-7acd4ead3d04">fatal level of fentanyl</a>” in Floyd’s system and told federal investigators that if the victim was “found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be an acceptable overdose.” Baker also cautioned, “I am not saying this killed him.”
During cross examination, Baker clarified further. When the defense asked Baker whether fentanyl could have caused the abrasions on Floyd’s lung that were revealed during the autopsy, Baker said that underlying health conditions were “contributing” and not “direct causes” of Floyd’s death.
“In my opinion, the law enforcement, subdual restraint, and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions,” Baker said.
Floyd’s history of drug use is expected to be the most contentious part of the trial. So far, the prosecution had Floyd’s girlfriend take the stand to preemptively humanize his addiction. “Our story is a classic story of how many people get addicted to opioids,” Courtney Ross said during her testimony. “We both had prescriptions but ... we got addicted and tried really hard to break that addiction many times.”
The prosecution also brought in witnesses, such as the paramedics and the doctor who treated Floyd as well as a police surgeon and national breathing expert, who have said Floyd died due to a lack of oxygen. Even Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, the city’s first Black chief, testified that Chauvin pinned Floyd for too long and that restraints should have stopped “once Mr. Floyd stopped resisting.”
To get a conviction, prosecutors don’t have to prove that Chauvin’s actions were the sole cause of Floyd’s death, according to the <a href="https://www.startribune.com/cause-of-death-at-issue-in-chauvin-trial-as-prosecution-questions-medical-examiner-s-findings/600041966/?refresh=true">state’s jury instruction guidelines</a>. “The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability,” the guidelines note. By emphasizing Floyd’s drug use, the defense is just trying to muddy the waters, john powell, a law professor at the University of California Berkeley and civil rights scholar, told Vox.
“The prosecutors shouldn’t have to make the case that Floyd didn’t have drugs in his body or that drugs were a contributing factor,” powell said. “All they have to do is make the case that Chauvin’s knee on the neck for nine minutes and 20 seconds substantially contributed to Floyd’s death.”
Despite similar conclusions ruling Floyd’s death a homicide, there is a key difference in accounts of what caused it. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office states that the cause of death was a “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” — which means physical restraint (handcuffs and Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck) was a significant factor in Floyd’s cardiac arrest. But the private autopsy report found the cause was actually “mechanical asphyxia” that made Floyd’s heart stop, implying that there were no underlying conditions that may have played a role.
In their opening statement, prosecutors said they would make the case that Floyd died of asphyxia, or insufficient oxygen, which was not mentioned in the county report. On Monday, the prosecution brought to the stand Bradford Wankhede Langenfeld, a senior resident at the Hennepin County Medical Center who worked to recover Floyd but eventually pronounced him dead. Langenfeld said that based on the information he had, asphyxia was “more likely than other possibilities” to have caused Floyd’s cardiac arrest. But under cross-examination by the defense, Chauvin’s attorney Eric Nelson stuck with questioning Floyd’s use of drugs and asked if high levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine could also cause insufficient oxygen. The doctor agreed.
Martin J. Tobin, a pulmonologist and breathing expert, offered perhaps the most striking medical testimony in the prosecution’s case. On Thursday, Tobin took the stand and provided a detailed account of how Floyd died — including that Chauvin had placed more than 90 pounds on Floyd’s neck and that 85 percent of Floyd’s airways were restricted. Ultimately, Tobin said, Floyd died from “a low level of oxygen” caused by police restraint. “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died,” he said.
Tobin pushed back against Nelson’s questioning about Floyd’s drug use, saying he saw no evidence of an overdose in the footage, as Floyd seemed to be breathing fine before police restrained him. Seven medical experts who spoke to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html">Washington Post</a> last month also warned against calling the situation an overdose, arguing that Floyd wouldn’t have had the same energy or behavior interacting with the police as he did if he were on his way to an overdose.
In his testimony Friday, Baker clarified why he ruled Floyd’s death a homicide. According to Baker, Floyd had severe underlying heart disease and hypertensive heart disease, meaning his heart weighed more than it should. But these conditions didn’t cause Floyd’s death. What caused Floyd’s death were conditions created by Chauvin and other officers that caused Floyd’s heart to work harder to provide oxygen during the encounter. He also explained the language he used on Floyd’s death certificate — “complicating” means “in the setting of.” In other words, Floyd’s heart stopped because of Chauvin’s neck restraint.
So far, the defense’s argument has relied largely on Floyd’s history of drug use and the result of the Hennepin County toxicology report. But Baker’s testimony — that drugs were “not a direct cause” — has hindered this argument.
The defense’s strategy of focusing on Floyd’s drug use has drawn parallels to <a href="https://www.vox.com/first-person/22373806/george-floyd-trial-derek-chauvin-minneapolis-black-lives-matter">a long history of painting Black men killed by police as criminals and drug addicts</a>. “Part of the [defense’s] argument is really just saying Floyd is not worthy of our concern and respect, and you saw this on Fox News like ‘why are people so upset this guy has a criminal record, he was on drugs, he was trying to pass off a fake dollar bill, he’s not a hero,’” powell said. “It’s like immediately Floyd became on trial. It’s not the police on trial; it’s the person who has been killed who is on trial. It’s Michael Brown. It’s Eric Garner. … It’s Rodney King.”
While the prosecution has called a handful of medical experts to the stand so far, the defense has 15 medical experts queued up as potential witnesses when it presents its case next week — though it is unknown how many will testify. Multiple medical testimonies, notes powell, may confuse and overwhelm the jury.
“The defense has to prove that there’s reasonable or some doubt,” powell said. “Sometimes, what lawyers do is that if you have good facts, you try to confuse people, so any contradiction or anything to make the jury question like, ‘When you look at all these things are you sure this is what caused his death?’”
The trial’s outcome may hinge on whether the prosecution has built a strong enough case with medical and police testimony to erase doubt that Chauvin played “a substantial causal factor in causing” Floyd’s death. The proceedings are expected to last another two weeks.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/22373351/george-floyd-autopsy-medical-examiner-report">https://www.vox.com/22373351/george-floyd-autopsy-medical-examiner-report</a>

vox The controversial autopsy at the heart of the Chauvin trial, explained

On May 25, 2020, the world witnessed the final moments leading up to George Floyd’s death: Police officer Derek Chauvin pinned a handcuffed...

Why the author of Girl, Stop Apologizing had to apologize twice in a week

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Tj_N4St-KQp48U-QNHbcQ0Az0yA=/892x835:5132x3055/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22433299/1129475700.jpg" /></div>
Earlier this week, influencer and bestselling self-help author Rachel Hollis apologized for appearing to compare herself to Harriet Tubman. “I know I’ve caused tremendous pain by mentioning prominent women — including several women of color — whose struggles and achievements I couldn’t possibly understand,” the author of Girl, Wash Your Face and Girl, Stop Apologizing wrote <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CNTwpjNBU3B/">in an Instagram post</a>. The post served as her second apology over the controversy, which has been roiling on social media for nearly two weeks.
Hollis’s ill-fated Harriet Tubman comparison emerged in a now-deleted TikTok video posted in late March, in which she responded to charges that when she talks about “this sweet woman” in her employ who “cleans the toilets,” she sounds “unrelatable.”
“What is it about me that made you think I want to be relatable?” Hollis asked rhetorically. “No, sis. Literally everything I do in my life is to live a life that most people can’t relate to.”
After outlining some of the ways in which she sees herself as exceptional, including her willingness to wake up at 4 am and fail publicly when she has to, Hollis comes to her conclusion: “Literally every woman that I look up to is unrelatable,” she says. “If my life is relatable to most people, I’m doing it wrong.”
The video’s caption reads, “Harriet Tubman, RBG, Marie Curie, Oprah Winfrey, Amelia Earhart, Frida Kahlo, Malala Yousafzai, Wu Zetian … all Unrelatable AF. Happy Women’s History Month.”
For many observers, the post appeared clumsy at best and racist at worst. Was Hollis really saying that her struggles to build a brand as a lifestyle guru — a brand built on the sense she has created that she is just like her fans — was the same as Harriet Tubman escaping slavery and then going back to help other enslaved people escape? And was she really trying to tell her followers that she never wanted to be relatable after selling thousands of books telling them all the ways in which <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/how-rachel-hollis--a-texas-mom-of-four--ended-up-writing-one-of-the-years-biggest-books/2018/11/10/59d3e89e-d9e1-11e8-a10f-b51546b10756_story.html">she was the same kind of person they were</a>? And was she really doing it while simultaneously referring to her housekeeper as the “woman who cleans her toilets”?
“EVERYONE works as hard as you do,” <a href="https://twitter.com/bittergertrude/status/1378560835602157572">wrote one Twitter responder</a>, “especially the woman on her hands and knees scrubbing your toilet while you prance around making videos abt how much better you are than she is & call it ‘work.’”
“The privilege to fail so majorly so often is one I, or any Black woman, do not have,” <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CNQAcvqMlQ0/">said the self-help author Luvvie Ajayi Jones on Instagram</a>. “People try to destroy us for much less. Meanwhile, she goes to sell 2 million books without effort while saying appalling things. She still has 1.7 million followers. That is privilege.”
On April 4, Hollis made her first apology — but it was an apology that displaced all blame for what happened onto those who, Hollis said, had misinterpreted her, and a “team” that had failed to do its job correctly. In a now-deleted Instagram post, she maintained that <a href="https://twitter.com/irenemcho/status/1378727101700796424?s=20">she had not actually been comparing herself</a> to any of the women that she had mentioned, and that “to believe that because I mentioned them, I am comparing myself to them is ludicrous.”
She added that she had waited so long to respond to the backlash over her original video because she believed her “team” when they said they could handle things, and instead, “I should have listened to my gut.”
In the face of widespread criticism, Hollis would eventually delete this apology and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CNTwpjNBU3B/">replace it with another</a>. “I am so deeply sorry for the things I said in my recent posts and the hurt I have caused in the past few days,” she wrote, adding, “By talking about my own success, I diminished the struggles and hard work of many people who work tirelessly every day.”
The Rachel Hollis controversy has had legs for a few reasons. There’s the hypocrisy of an influencer claiming that her goal has never been to be relatable, when relatability is at the core of her brand. There’s the implication that her achievements as a self-help author are on the same level as the achievements of women like Harriet Tubman. There’s the casual dehumanization involved in referring to a housecleaner as someone who “cleans the toilets.” There’s Hollis’s insistence that the reason other people are not as successful as she is — including, we would have to presume, her housecleaner — is that they are not working as hard as Hollis is at her job as a lifestyle and self-help influencer.
But the controversy is also lasting as long as it has because it is in certain ways unsurprising.
It has become bizarrely common in recent years for prominent figures in the quasi-feminist “lean in, girl” corporate white women’s empowerment movement to compare their own struggles to the much higher-stakes obstacles faced by famous women of color.
Hollis herself has cycled through variations of this controversy before. In 2019, she <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/rachel-hollis-girl-wash-face-accused-plagiarizing-quotes">appeared to plagiarize multiple inspirational quotes on her Instagram</a>, mostly quotes from women of color. She’s fond of sassy white lady use of African-American Vernacular English, from her choice to call her imagined interlocutor “sis” in the Harriet Tubman video to the title of the Girl, Wash Your Face franchise.
But Hollis is not the only white figure who has appropriated the struggles of women of color to dress up her own. Ivanka Trump’s 2017 self-help book Women Who Work used a quote from Toni Morrison’s Beloved, about an enslaved woman who killed her baby in order to prevent the child from being taken into slavery, to introduce the idea that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-quotes-toni-morrison-on-slavery-2017-5">women who work are sometimes slaves to their schedules</a>.
And this sense of appropriation goes all the way to the roots of the self-help movement Hollis champions. Hollis’s Girl, Wash Your Face brand is based on the idea of wellness and self-care, on the notion that putting in the work to care for one’s self is a brave and radical act, and that it can look as simple as, well, washing your face.
But when self-care was invented, it was an explicitly political act. “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence,” wrote Audre Lorde in A Burst of Light and Other Essays in 1988, in a phrase that has now been reproduced on inspirational Instagrams across the internet. “It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.”
Lorde’s self-care was different from the bath bombs and yoga classes today’s wellness influencers prescribe. Lorde was a Black lesbian poet who got a single mastectomy after she was diagnosed with cancer. She was someone who our culture treated as disposable, and she was trying to love herself and care for herself anyway, with honesty, in the best way that she could.
So self-care for Lorde meant refusing to get a breast implant or wear a false breast after her mastectomy. It meant insisting on dressing and grooming herself well, even single-breasted, as a sign that she valued herself when the world refused to value her. That insistence on self-care was genuinely subversive and anti-capitalist — and it was part of how Lorde readied herself to engage in political activism. She took care of herself so that she could find the strength to change the world.
The wellness and self-care at the center of Hollis’s brand is not about changing the world, and it is not anti-capitalist. It is about buying stuff, and specifically about buying Hollis’s books and tickets to her retreats ($65 a ticket for the virtual version).
“Wellness is being commodified,” <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CNNVrYnnz1P/">wrote the influencer Rachel Cargle on Instagram</a> in response to the Hollis controversy, urging her followers to “meditate AND call your senator. Go to yoga AND vote.”
In the caption of her text post, Cargle added, “The issue I have with many celebrated white wellness spaces and women’s empowerment influencer or brands is that they oddly seem to equate ‘success’ to getting what white men have and wielding that power in the exact same oppressive inhumane way that white men have been doing for generations.”
The issue Cargle identifies is, in the end, the biggest act of appropriation in the entire corporate white feminist enterprise, the whole project that Hollis is selling. It’s the decision to take a political movement built to deconstruct our existing systems of power — and use it to do nothing but support the status quo.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/22373865/rachel-hollis-controversy-harriet-tubman-girl-wash-your-face-stop-apologizing-unrelatable">https://www.vox.com/culture/22373865/rachel-hollis-controversy-harriet-tubman-girl-wash-your-face-stop-apologizing-unrelatable</a>

vox Why the author of Girl, Stop Apologizing had to apologize twice in a week

Earlier this week, influencer and bestselling self-help author Rachel Hollis apologized for appearing to compare herself to Harriet Tubman....

The British media narrative of Prince Philip’s death is about Meghan Markle

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dGT0yDNXncgSLE42ZQCNpWVsTA4=/0x682:3996x2774/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22433083/1305952186.jpg" /></div>
Ordinarily, the death of a 99-year-old man wouldn’t raise much suspicion. But because Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, isn’t your typical long-lived man, his death on April 9 provides a window into the recent woes of the British royal family — and the media’s fixation on its contentious relationship with Meghan Markle.
Prince Philip was <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56413762">hospitalized for a full month</a> in February, reportedly for treatment of a preexisting heart condition. As he was nearing his 100th birthday, his death is hardly a surprise. According to the royal family’s <a href="https://www.royal.uk/announcement-death-duke-edinburgh">official statement</a>, His Highness “passed away peacefully this morning at Windsor Castle.”
It didn’t take long, however, for anticipation to spread throughout social media that the press would find a more disruptive cause for Prince Philip’s death than illness or old age. Amid the many memes that began circulating online once the news broke, a prominent theme emerged: British media placing the blame on Meghan Markle.
Markle has spent the last year mired in controversy, first for <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/19/harry-and-meghan-make-final-split-with-british-royal-family.html">formally resigning</a> her royal duties along with her husband Prince Harry and second for a <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/22319714/meghan-markle-prince-harry-oprah-interview-cbs-explained">March 7 interview with Oprah Winfrey</a> in which the couple spoke out against the family’s treatment of her. Among the most shocking revelations to come out of that interview were the couple’s statements that the family had professed “<a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/22318918/meghan-markle-oprah-race-archie-harry-british-royal-family">concerns</a>” over the color of their unborn child’s skin, had refused to provide the couple with a security detail in violation of protocol, and had refused to help Markle seek treatment after she became suicidal — in part due to a barrage of racist harassment from the press.
It’s no secret that the British media, particularly tabloid journalism, has lost little love for Markle since she became the latest member of the royal family. From the moment she began dating Prince Harry in 2016, Markle has faced <a href="https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/1/17/21070351/meghan-markle-prince-harry-leaving-royal-family-uk-racism">racist and sexist backlash</a>, criticizing everything from her perceived unlikability to her “exotic DNA.”
And in the aftermath of the Oprah interview, <a href="https://twitter.com/eliseb009/status/1380490837348474880">Piers Morgan</a>, in particular, has led the charge of many British journalists in accusing Markle of, essentially, <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22323961/meghan-markle-fakery-piers-morgan-authenticity">lying about everything</a> — pushing an unsubstantiated idea of “fakery” that led to him <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/piers-morgan-quits-good-morning-britain-following-meghan-markle-comments">walking off and ultimately quitting his news show Good Morning Britain</a>. Hence the nearly immediate assumption that the British press would find a way to <a href="https://twitter.com/timelinetBACKUP/status/1380477890492575747">shift the focus</a> off Prince Philip and <a href="https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1380503080245063681">onto Markle</a>.
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Two pieces Daily Mail columnists can have ready to go right now:
1. Why Meghan Markle’s presence at the funeral is an insult, designed to overshadow a somber occasion.
2. Why Meghan Markle’s absence from the funeral, is an insult, designed to overshadow a somber occasion.
— Alex Andreou (@sturdyAlex) <a href="https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1380503080245063681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2021</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sometimes the <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanPieNews/status/1380502602257948677">predictions</a> that a narrative around “Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview contributing to Prince Philip’s untimely death” were uncanny in how they bore out.
It didn’t take long, for example, for <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1380518817860829189">the Daily Mail to trot out a piece that emphasized Prince Philip’s “tough final year”</a> and the way the end of his life was marred, in part, by “bitter fallout from ‘his favourite’ grandchild Harry and Meghan’s decision to quit ‘the firm.’”
Notably, however, it was American outlet Fox News that seemed to get there first.
The predictability of this response by certain media outlets, particularly conservative ones, cannot be overstated. It suggests that, at least where the royal family is concerned, a uniformly monotone kind of coverage has been established: Foment outrage and fear, attack, repeat. The fact that memes anticipating precisely this kind of news coverage preceded the coverage itself suggests that racist press coverage of Markle has been both transparently flimsy and largely ineffective as a form of persuasion to the average media consumer — whether they’re thoroughly informed or only half-paying attention on social media.
Markle and Prince Harry, by giving such a momentous interview to Oprah Winfrey, explicitly engaged the American public in the broader debate over the family’s treatment of them. One result is a clear assumption on the part of many observers worldwide, and Black observers in particular, that any and all coverage of struggle or tragedy within the royal family will somehow involve a return to implicit racism toward and perpetual attacks against Markle.
The “Meghan is to blame” memes — and the overall tone of the other snarky, cynical, and critical memes that have emerged — also suggest a distinct breakdown between media coverage of Prince Philip’s death and the popular impression of it.
While plenty of news outlets have struck a more typical tone of somber respect, social media has largely been full of irreverence, with users across various platforms employing memes and general insouciance to <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%22one%20less%20nazi%22">remind</a> us that Prince Philip <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/12/185268/prince-philip-sister-cecile-nazi-the-crown-season-2">came from a family with Nazis in it</a> (though he opposed Hitler), to imagine Princess Diana <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=diana">greeting him</a> in heaven with animosity (in fact they were <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/prince-philip-dianas-dearest-pa-letter-duke-of-edinburgh-offered-help-princess-949373">very close</a>), and to recall his <a href="https://twitter.com/SNM1Michael/status/1380523429149937669">long history</a> of alleged racist remarks — with the kind of bluntness the press has largely eschewed.
For example, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10224525">one BBC obituary</a> glossed over the issue of Prince Philip allegedly making racist comments by framing them as part of his “tendency to be forthright” and offering other euphemistic spins — which led to <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1380483869602938880">criticism</a> of both Philip and the outlet.
Along with mournful “RIP” threads, Twitter has been rife with people celebrating Philip’s death on behalf of Black citizens presumably offended by his treatment of Markle.
The levity isn’t all related to politics: On TikTok, <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/princephilip?lang=en&is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1">memes about Philip’s death</a> have been circulating for the past few weeks, with the jokes largely centering on the prince’s suspected immortality — or suspicions that he actually already died weeks ago. But that more typical flavor of online humor has been vastly overshadowed by the recent royal family brouhaha. It’s a reminder that the family is no closer to figuring out how to handle strong, independent women in its midst today than it was <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/22323456/harry-meghan-markle-diana-oprah-interview-cbs">during Diana’s ascendance</a>.
TikTok’s take on the topic seems closer to the truth than that of the tabloids: The Duke of Edinburgh was 99 years old. Any efforts to place blame for his death reveal far more about the state of the media than about Meghan Markle.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2021/4/9/22375557/prince-philips-death-meghan-markle-british-media-racism">https://www.vox.com/culture/2021/4/9/22375557/prince-philips-death-meghan-markle-british-media-racism</a>

vox The British media narrative of Prince Philip’s death is about Meghan Markle

Ordinarily, the death of a 99-year-old man wouldn’t raise much suspicion. But because Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, isn’t your typical ...

What a fair climate target looks like for the US, the largest historical carbon emitter

On April 22, President Biden will convene global leaders for a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/26/president-biden-invites-40-world-leaders-to-leaders-summit-on-climate/">virtual climate summit</a> in a bid to reassert US leadership and motivate countries to cut emissions much more aggressively.
Of course, the US is only just recommitting to climate action itself after a long leadership vacuum. During his presidency, Donald Trump tore down <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html?te=1&nl=climate-fwd:&emc=edit_clim_20210120">dozens</a> of environmental regulations and withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement, undermining global progress to reduce emissions.
Now, to reassure the world that the US takes the climate threat seriously, Biden plans to announce a new 2030 climate target under the Paris agreement ahead of the summit.
The administration is considering a goal to cut emissions somewhere between 48 and 53 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-07/white-house-considering-nearly-doubling-obama-s-climate-pledge?sref=PqmVp1JY">Bloomberg</a> reported Wednesday. This is in line with proposals from many green groups, which have <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063728291">coalesced</a> around a 50 percent reduction target. While that goal will require significant changes, to take place in less than a decade, many <a href="https://climatenexus.org/international/international-cooperation/ndc-nationally-determined-contribution/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=120333978&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--gfvWJ4eCR6EzPNLJQ_AURxJCF6FIB8fkbmo7SBxVLpR_AS6LxS0mE6RE8nuqtZRYmfk3xz5HJdVfH9hwEAJ7vWFirdw&utm_content=120333978&utm_source=hs_email">recent studies</a> show it is within reach.
But a <a href="http://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/USA_Fair_Shares_NDC.pdf">new report</a>, produced by a group of environmental organizations including Friends of the Earth and the youth-driven Sunrise Movement, approaches the question from a different angle. Instead of determining what is feasible for the US, they start by asking: What should the US’s responsibility be in reducing global emissions to keep the planet from warming to dangerous levels?
The result is a much more audacious vision for US emissions reductions in 2030: 195 percent.
That’s right — they are proposing that the US’s true responsibility isn’t just to eliminate all its emissions by 2030 (which would be 100 percent) but to go even further.
The advocacy groups acknowledge that it isn’t actually feasible for the US to pull this off within its own borders. Instead, they suggest that the country reduce its domestic carbon footprint by 70 percent and contribute the remaining 125 percent by financing developing countries’ emissions reductions.
The authors argue that if the US hit these targets, it would be contributing its “fair share” toward tackling climate change, as the world’s largest historical emitter and wealthiest nation.
Still, the number stretches the imagination compared to other proposals that hew closer to the political reality. But that’s the point. “If we frame our understanding always relative to what we can actually imagine this current Senate doing, it’s not a discussion about what’s actually needed,” said Sivan Kartha, a US-based senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute and co-author of the report.
Biden’s new target will inevitably be politically constrained. But as we hurtle toward a future climate that will unleash severe impacts on the people <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/climate-change-economic-inequality-growing">least responsible</a> for the problem, it is worth pausing to consider this question of fairness further.
To come up with an idea of what the US owes the rest of the world in the climate fight, a broader coalition of civil society groups under the US Climate Action Network met to forge the 195 percent proposal <a href="http://usfairshare.org/files/US_Climate_Fair_Share_Backgrounder.pdf">last summer</a>.
The process, they argued, should start by casting back in time. As the animation below shows, the US stands out as the biggest historical emitter by a wide margin.
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Animation: The countries with the largest cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750
Ranking as of the start of 2019:
1) US – 397GtCO2 
2) CN – 214Gt 
3) fmr USSR – 180 
4) DE – 90 
5) UK – 77 
6) JP – 58 
7) IN – 51 
8) FR – 37 
9) CA – 32 
10) PL – 27 <a href="https://t.co/cKRNKO4O0b">pic.twitter.com/cKRNKO4O0b</a>
— Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief) <a href="https://twitter.com/CarbonBrief/status/1120715988532629506?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The groups <a href="https://usfairshare.org/backgrounder/">chose</a> to look at the emissions since 1950, when the global economy and emissions really took off. The cumulative emissions figure is relevant because once carbon dioxide molecules enter the atmosphere, they linger for hundreds of years — so past emissions are still very much shaping the trajectory of global warming.
The other major factor in the coalition’s fairness calculation is the capacity any given nation has to tackle the problem. They use a nation’s income as an approximation for capacity but exclude income from individuals below a certain poverty level.
Between these two factors, the coalition concluded that the US is responsible for 39 percent of the global effort to tackle climate change. (You can play around with the <a href="https://calculator.climateequityreference.org/">Climate Equity calculator</a> to see the assumptions behind the final outcome.)
To take on that share of the burden, the US would have to reduce emissions by 195 percent, or 14 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent, by 2030 from the 2005 level in order to stay in line with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has showed is required to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
But, as mentioned above, the coalition proposes the US only cut its own emissions 70 percent, or by about <a href="https://usfairshare.org/backgrounder/">4 gigatons</a> domestically.
“The 70 percent is not our fair share, it’s what we can manage to do if we really put our minds and muscles to it with the US proper, and the rest of that fair share [...] would need to be done by cooperating with other countries — poorer countries,” Kartha explained.
<figure class="e-image"><picture class="c-picture" data-cid="site/picture_element-1618007797_984_79297" data-cdata='{"asset_id":22430157,"ratio":"*"}'><source srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0VAYiky_ZWLUp3eg0mhR_962SiY=/0x0:1226x684/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5If73slxeJ4v0iT8BiKR1eGjcFw=/0x0:1226x684/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/v7ic5ddIcMcXqYdPf5GVne1BfP8=/0x0:1226x684/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/YA9eevRMOB-EOvJheneSYPoszCQ=/0x0:1226x684/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/RfsM0ijIdKk75sDWZB8jwoHK3fI=/0x0:1226x684/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zlPmDqKlLcZrioRgrNxwCDYQ4jc=/0x0:1226x684/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7FBNwVp_rgojwyg12cAw6uxsjFw=/0x0:1226x684/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lPMCdS_qYxgrwhszf142DHNw0nk=/0x0:1226x684/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/CzY3EnO2C8K-3zg-esTqCyESMs8=/0x0:1226x684/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1920w" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" type="image/webp" /> <img alt="" data-upload-width="1226" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1N_GWLopNtsu4baovi1AzaCum8k=/0x0:1226x684/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png" srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/CNtDu_PBqn1PsMl8FGbtEusW0Ng=/0x0:1226x684/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0LvlqA7nrU22gVbnHrxHNko2ar4=/0x0:1226x684/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/awIgEfdDCtooIN1WkWxdPdqtaOg=/0x0:1226x684/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Yh3Cat5n7cEGQjX_7zIHcc1Jz3M=/0x0:1226x684/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/No4p0C74bcGemQmq6j_eqf7BwFY=/0x0:1226x684/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/OFN_9AHXDedB3o_m6DQLlOOq1Y8=/0x0:1226x684/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/FBIbGXg8se6HrGDpEXoJLqSmQ6I=/0x0:1226x684/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/w728N1_KVvIGNCXWRKLf133KkW0=/0x0:1226x684/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fyygtzgqS0ggLR-GSyDDO2mHTYY=/0x0:1226x684/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1226x684):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22430157/Screen_Shot_2021_04_08_at_11.12.46_AM.png 1920w" /></picture> <cite><a class="ql-link" href="http://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/USA_Fair_Shares_NDC.pdf" target="_blank">USA Fair Shares NDC Report</a></cite></figure>
As for the US responsibility to help other countries, the new report also proposed a corresponding financial commitment. Using a low estimate for the cost of reducing a ton of carbon, the authors calculate that it would cost the US $570 billion by 2030 to help other countries reduce emissions enough to meet their 195 percent goal.
But to also begin to compensate countries for the impacts of climate change already in motion from current warming, they argue that the US should funnel similar amounts to adaptation and “<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-dealing-with-the-loss-and-damage-caused-by-climate-change">loss and damage</a>.”
While funding adaptation would help countries reduce suffering caused by a warmer climate in the near term, funding for “loss and damage” would serve as a form of reparations to compensate countries for irrecoverable damage, say, from sea level rise. The total, then, would be somewhere in the order of $1.6 trillion by 2030.
These are just initial estimates because these losses are so difficult to calculate. “The questions on the finance side are actually way more — painfully — complex,” said Kartha.
To give some perspective, Biden recently proposed spending roughly <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/3/31/22360801/biden-infrastructure-plan-jobs-climate-change-transportation-electricity-justice-labor">$1 trillion</a> on the US clean energy transition over the next eight years, and progressives have called for that amount to be spent annually.
Still, $1.6 trillion for other countries is way beyond anything the US has ever openly contemplated. So far, we have only given <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-usa-finance-analysis-t/analysis-as-u-s-rejoins-paris-pact-hopes-rise-for-reopening-of-climate-finance-tap-idUSKBN2AJ1BH">$1 billion</a> total in funding to the Green Climate Fund, the United Nations mechanism that supports developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change, because Trump refused to provide further support.
The coalition isn’t entirely alone in pushing for a much more ambitious 2030 target. The think tanks Climate Analytics and the NewClimate Institute also <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/documents/846/2021_03_CAT_1.5C-consistent_US_NDC.pdf">proposed</a> a similar fair share: 75 percent for domestic cuts, with further support given to overseas efforts.
But the question looms: How technically feasible would achieving such a target be?
The new report <a href="https://equitableclimateaction.org/economy-wide-target/">doesn’t reference</a> any particular study informing the choice of a 70 percent domestic target. A 71 percent target was featured in Sen. Bernie Sanders’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/8/22/20827396/bernie-sanders-2020-climate-policy-green-new-deal">climate plan</a> as a presidential candidate. Most studies have focused on lower targets, although engineer-inventor Saul Griffith has <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-change-fossil-fuels-rewiring-america-electrify">modeled</a> a path to 70 to 80 percent cuts by 2035.
Dan Lashof, US director for the World Resources Institute, which has recommended a target of <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2021/02/5-reasons-us-should-cut-its-ghg-emissions-half-2030">50 percent</a>, said, “Scientifically there is a good case for going much further. I personally don’t see the political or economic forces aligning to get us up into the range of 60 to 70 percent reductions from 2005 levels by 2030. I would love to be wrong, but that’s my judgment.”
Just reaching 50 percent cuts will require a significant <a href="https://climatenexus.org/international/international-cooperation/ndc-nationally-determined-contribution/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=120333978&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--gfvWJ4eCR6EzPNLJQ_AURxJCF6FIB8fkbmo7SBxVLpR_AS6LxS0mE6RE8nuqtZRYmfk3xz5HJdVfH9hwEAJ7vWFirdw&utm_content=120333978&utm_source=hs_email">economy-wide effort</a>, including phasing out all US coal plants by 2030. And the Trump years have put the US at a disadvantage compared to other developed countries like the UK and EU where a stable political commitment to climate action has allowed governments to target <a href="https://www.vox.com/22175698/climate-change-treaty-trump-china-eu-uk-paris-agreement-biden">68 and 55 percent</a> cuts, respectively.
“There’s no question that the four years under the Trump administration put the US behind the eight-ball and makes the job harder,” said Lashof.
Karen Orenstein, the climate and energy director of the environmental nonprofit Friends of the Earth, who also co-authored the new report, acknowledged that it is unlikely to gain traction politically. “I don’t expect many members of Congress to embrace these numbers, but I also think that you see more new and existing progressive members who are talking about a sea change in how we approach these things,” she said.
While Biden himself is unlikely to embrace the proposal, Orenstein argued that it reflects his approach to addressing racial and social injustice through climate action domestically, including by allocating 40 percent of the benefits of climate investments to disadvantaged communities. To be a global climate leader, Biden should extend that focus on equity overseas as well. “Biden so far has done a good job talking about centering environmental justice,” she said, “and you can’t restrict that to US borders.”
Clarification, April 9, 2021: The story has been updated to clarify that the estimated cost of reducing one ton of carbon that the report authors used to arrive at a proposal of $570 billion in US climate mitigation finance to other countries is a low estimate, but emissions are currently being eliminated at <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/2/27/20994118/carbon-offset-climate-change-net-zero-neutral-emissions">lower costs</a>.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/22373740/biden-climate-change-2030-united-states-paris-agreement-emissions">https://www.vox.com/22373740/biden-climate-change-2030-united-states-paris-agreement-emissions</a>

vox What a fair climate target looks like for the US, the largest historical carbon emitter

On April 22, President Biden will convene global leaders for a virtual climate summit in a bid to reassert US leadership and motivate count...

Saudi Arabia’s Yemen blockade is starving millions. Democrats want Biden to stop it.

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0qvvXcGUpSOqDuUbTjqupiYHthY=/0x0:3216x1684/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22432757/940530346.jpg" /></div>
Saudi Arabia is continuing its six-year air and sea <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/middleeast/saudi-yemen-peace-initiative-intl/index.html">blockade of Yemen</a>, starving millions of Yemenis and deepening the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Anger from Democrats and progressives in the US isn’t just directed at Riyadh, though. It’s also aimed at the Biden administration for failing to fully pressure Saudi Arabia to lift the restrictions.
When Saudi Arabia and its allies launched a war against the Houthis in 2015 — with US support — Saudi used its military to block <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-blockade-biden-pressure-saudi-arabia-democrats">planes from landing and ships from docking in Yemen</a>, saying such measures were necessary to stop the Houthis from <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-blockade-biden-pressure-saudi-arabia-democrats">smuggling in weapons</a>, including from Iran.
The Saudi coalition is fighting to oust the Houthi rebels, who overthrew the internationally recognized government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur al-Hadi in 2015, and return al-Hadi, who currently lives in exile in Saudi Arabia, to power.
But critics warned the blockade would keep much-needed food, fuel, medicine, and humanitarian aid from reaching desperate Yemenis, including millions of <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/11/19/yemens-children-a-crisis-within-a-crisis/">children</a>, who are caught in the middle of the fighting.
That concern proved devastatingly prophetic.
The <a href="http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1152947/?iso3=YEM">Integrated Food Security Phase Classification</a>, the world’s top authority on food security, said last year that 47,000 Yemenis were suffering from famine-like conditions and that more than 16 million — over half of Yemen’s population — couldn’t reliably and adequately feed themselves. Multiple United Nations agencies have said that at least <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/yemen-security-malnutrition-int/at-least-400000-yemeni-children-under-5-could-die-of-starvation-this-year-un-agencies-idUSKBN2AC18V">400,000 Yemeni children</a> could die this year alone if conditions don’t improve.
In early February, President <a href="https://www.vox.com/22268082/biden-yemen-war-saudi-state-speech">Joe Biden</a> promised the US would stop supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations in the war. But, he added, “We’re going to continue to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.”
Some analysts believe Riyadh took that as implicit support for the blockade, even as the Biden administration has consistently expressed the free flow of fuel and goods into Yemen is “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/07/politics/democrats-reaction-yemen-blockade/index.html">critical</a>.”
That may partly explain why Saudi Arabia has kept the restrictions in place. In March, for instance, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/10/middleeast/yemen-famine-saudi-fuel-intl/index.html">CNN</a> found that Saudi warships had kept all oil tankers from docking in the Houthi-controlled port of Hodeidah since the start of the year.
“The Saudi vessels that patrol the waters of Hodeidah have control over which commercial ships can dock and unload their cargo,” CNN reported. “Some goods are getting through — CNN witnessed aid being loaded on to trucks at the port after being delivered by ship — but not any fuel to deliver them.”
Now, Democrats want Biden to push Riyadh to end the blockade once and for all. Nearly <a href="https://debbiedingell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/yemen_blockade_letter_with_signers_final.pdf?utm_campaign=1069-404">80 Democrats</a> made that clear in a Tuesday letter to the president.
“We ask you to take additional steps to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to lift this blockade immediately, unilaterally, and comprehensively,” wrote the lawmakers, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the House Intelligence Committee chair. Among other things, they want the Saudis to “[guarantee] that humanitarian and commercial imports can freely enter Yemen” and “[ensure] that and crossings for commercial and civilian traffic are permanently opened.”
“Every day that we wait for these issues to be resolved in negotiations is another day that pushes more children to the brink of death,” the letter added.
It’s unclear if the White House will listen to their plea. The <a href="https://www.vox.com/22268082/biden-yemen-war-saudi-state-speech">Biden administration’s current approach toward the conflict</a> is to try to broker a peace deal between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis. Some progressive activists accuse the president and his team of wanting to keep the blockade in place to serve as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
“They support the blockade currently,” said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, a progressive foreign policy group. “The administration would only want it lifted as part of a comprehensive agreement.”
Other analysts disagree. “That’s hyperbolic,” said Seth Binder, an advocacy officer at the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) in Washington, DC, noting that Biden’s team <a href="https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/03/yemen-humanitarian-aid-restore-houthis-biden-lenderking.html">restarted humanitarian funding for northern Yemen</a> cut by the Trump administration and repeated calls for open trade.
Still, Binder said the president and his aides “could and should be sharpening their rhetoric” toward Saudi Arabia about ending the blockade.
Days after <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/10/middleeast/yemen-famine-saudi-fuel-intl/index.html">CNN</a>’s March report exposing the disastrous effects of the blockade, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud proposed to reopen the airport in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a and allow food and fuel imports at Hodeidah.
“The initiative will take effect as soon as the Houthis agree to it,” the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-offers-peace-yemen.html">minister</a> said. It was the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/middleeast/saudi-yemen-peace-initiative-intl/index.html">first time</a> Riyadh openly acknowledged carrying out a deliberate blockade in Yemen.
Hodeidah is vitally important to Yemen’s economy. It’s the country’s largest and most important port, and it’s crucial to the nation’s trade and taxation efforts, said Shamiran Mako, an assistant professor at Boston University.
But the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/980031673/yemen-saudi-arabia-proposes-a-peace-deal-but-houthis-say-its-not-enough">Houthis almost immediately rejected the Saudi plan</a>, saying it didn’t fully lift the long-imposed restrictions. “Opening the airports and seaports is a humanitarian right and should not be used as a pressure tool,” said Mohammed Abdulsalam, the Houthis’ chief negotiator. The Houthis, however, are also known to <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/09/14/deadly-consequences/obstruction-aid-yemen-during-covid-19">divert aid</a> away from the population and to their own officials, supporters, and fighters.
Since then, the Saudi-led coalition has allowed at least <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-ports/saudi-led-coalition-clears-four-fuel-ships-to-dock-at-yemens-hodeidah-port-sources-idUSKBN2BG12N">four fuel ships in Hodeidah’s port</a>, even as Riyadh has gone back to denying restrictions exist.
“There is no blockade,” the Saudi foreign minister told <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/04/05/ctw-saudi-fm.cnn">CNN</a> in an interview this week, saying that 67 ships had docked in Hodeidah over the last three months and that the flow of goods continues at other crossings.
But experts say that’s still not enough to ease the humanitarian crisis. And they say Saudi Arabia won’t change its tune unless the Biden administration exerts significant pressure.
One way it could do that, POMED’s Binder said, is to threaten to further downgrade the US-Saudi relationship if such restrictions persist. “That gives the administration the most leverage” throughout the diplomatic process. For example, the US could further restrict arms sales to the kingdom or curtail economic ties.
Meanwhile, pressure from Democrats and activists has become more visible. Activists from Detroit and Dearborn, Michigan, have been on a <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2021/04/08/united-states-blockade-yemen-detroit-activists/7123968002/">hunger strike</a> for more than 10 days, calling for an end to the blockade. Their effort has the support of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who joined one of the striking activists, 26-year-old Iman Saleh, outside the White House for a press conference on Friday. It was Saleh’s 12th day without food.
Between the letter from lawmakers and increased activity from anti-blockade activists, it looks like Biden will continue to face criticism on the issue.
“Democrats are starting to get concerned and wanting to push the administration more,” Binder told me. “The honeymoon phase is coming to an end.”
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/4/9/22375381/saudi-arabia-yemen-blockade-biden-letter">https://www.vox.com/2021/4/9/22375381/saudi-arabia-yemen-blockade-biden-letter</a>

vox Saudi Arabia’s Yemen blockade is starving millions. Democrats want Biden to stop it.

Saudi Arabia is continuing its six-year air and sea blockade of Yemen , starving millions of Yemenis and deepening the world’s worst humani...

Watch: Bombshell Interview Exposes Migrant Crisis on America’s Southern Border

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://api-assets.infowars.com/2021/04/MigrantRivGetty4921.jpg" /></div>
Tune in and share this bombshell interview hosted by Delora O’Brien of The Gathering that covers a gripping firsthand account of the migrant crisis unfolding on America’s southern border. Tonight’s show begins at 6:00 PM Central.
[embedded content]
Watch <a href="https://banthis.tv/">Banthis.tv</a> for the latest on <a href="https://banthis.tv/channel/southern-border-crisis">America’s southern border crisis</a> & more!
Don’t miss:
Disturbing footage captures a woman with infamous cartel tattoos <a href="https://banthis.tv/watch?id=60709b617dc7fe13e40f83b3">moving a baby at an airport.</a>
 
 
source <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-bombshell-interview-exposes-migrant-crisis-on-americas-southern-border">https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-bombshell-interview-exposes-migrant-crisis-on-americas-southern-border</a>

news Watch: Bombshell Interview Exposes Migrant Crisis on America’s Southern Border

Tune in and share this bombshell interview hosted by Delora O’Brien of The Gathering that covers a gripping firsthand account of the migra...