In this 29 May 2019 video, a raccoon looks for food at a bird feeder. But then, something happens …
Jose van Bruggen made this video in her garden in the Netherlands.
In this 29 May 2019 video, a raccoon looks for food at a bird feeder. But then, something happens …
Jose van Bruggen made this video in her garden in the Netherlands.
This 2010 video from the USA says about itself:
By Jake Johnson in the USA:
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Highlighting the chasm between two of the top 2020 presidential contenders when it comes to commitment to bold climate action, a scorecard released by Greenpeace Thursday placed Sen. Bernie Sanders at the front of the list of leading Democratic White House hopefuls and ranked former Vice President Joe Biden dead last.
“Sen. Sanders has championed bold climate action for years,” Greenpeace noted in its assessment of the Vermont senator’s record and current platform, which earned him a B+ grade.
“In Congress, Sen. Sanders co-sponsored the ‘100 by 50 Act’ and ‘Keep It In the Ground Act’ to cut off federal support for coal, oil, and gas while ushering in 100 percent clean energy by 2050,” said Greenpeace, which ranked candidates on the basis of their support for the Green New Deal, commitment to rejecting fossil fuel cash, and other metrics.
“Sen. Sanders co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution and has pledged to halt new federal fossil fuel projects if elected—but has yet to call for a full, managed phase-out of the fossil fuel industry,” Greenpeace said. “He also has yet to put forth a detailed plan to tackle the climate crisis. Keep it comin’, Sen. Sanders!”
Biden, by contrast, has neither backed the Green New Deal resolution nor taken the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, a vow to reject “any contributions over $200 from the PACs, lobbyists, or executives of fossil fuel companies.”
Greenpeace said that while Biden—who received a D- grade—”introduced the first-ever climate bill in Congress back in 1987, he has yet to release a plan that tackles the climate crisis if elected in 2020.”
According to a Reuters report earlier this month, Biden’s 2020 campaign is crafting a “middle ground” approach to the climate crisis that would reject progressive demands for transformative action while leaving the door open to so-called “fossil fuel options.” …
President Donald Trump, meanwhile, received an F from Greenpeace—specifically a zero out of possible score of 100—for “putting the most vulnerable communities and our very future at risk.”
“Far from championing bold climate action,” Greenpeace said, “President Trump has denied the reality of the climate crisis and actively promoted fossil fuel production at the expense of communities and a safe climate future.”
In a statement on Thursday, Greenpeace USA climate campaign director Janet Redman urged the candidates who have committed to bold climate action to “keep it up.”
To those at the bottom of the pack, Redman said, “step it up.”
“The bar is high because nothing less than transformational action can guide us out of this crisis,” Redman said. “Show us you have the mettle to take on the oil executives standing in the way of progress towards the green, prosperous future our country deserves.”
“We are in a climate emergency,” Redman added. “In 2020, true climate leadership means nothing less than saying ‘yes’ to a Green New Deal and ‘no’ to fossil fuels.”
Big Oil Pushes Corporate-Friendly Carbon Tax to Halt Green New Deal Wave: here.
Let’s Be Clear, Says Mexico Environment Minister, ‘Parasitic and Predatory Neoliberalism’ to Blame for Climate Crisis. “Human beings are not responsible for global warming,” said Secretary Víctor Manuel Toledo Manzur, but elite capitalists and industry powerbrokers are.
Thousands of birds perished in the Bering Sea. Arctic warming may be to blame. Emaciated puffins and other birds washed ashore on an Alaskan island in unusually high numbers. By Carolyn Gramling, 1:30pm, May 31, 2019.
This video from Bermuda says about itself:
Watch a land crab slowly creep into the Bermuda Petrel nesting burrow and make its way around the sleeping chick. The crab doesn’t stay for long; it scuttles away as soon as the large nestling is awakened.
This 18 December 2018 video from the USA says aboout itself:
How Big Pharma is Preying on Poor Americans
The 20 billion dollar blood-plasma industry is preying on poor Americans to ‘donate’ blood with dangerous frequency, then selling to countries with more stringent patient care laws.
I think we can all agree that giving blood is good. But what about when pharma companies use money to get people to give more blood than their bodies can handle? That is: not good! And that’s happening – right here in the United States.
Now, when I talk about blood – what I mean is blood plasma: an essential part of many life-saving treatments, for things like blood loss, hemophilia, burns, and cancer. Millions of people around the world donate their blood plasma to those who need it. Thanks, nice people who donate blood!
But donating too much plasma can be extremely harmful, that’s why most countries ban giving plasma more than once every two weeks, because they, you know, care about the health of donors. However – here in the US, big pharma companies have been making laws allowing people to donate a lot more frequently – dangerously frequently.
Up to two plasma donations a week, every week! Hey, if people want to donate sweet sweet blood, who are we to stand in their way?! Oh, except we’re actually giving them cash money for their sweet sweet blood, so technically it’s not donating, they’re selling –– but that’s doesn’t blur the lines of medical ethics or anything.
In most countries, donating plasma is a TRUE BLUE donation – you don’t get paid, and the centers are often run by charities like the Red Cross.
BUT in the US – the home of capitalism – plasma has become a 20 billion dollar industry. Hence why medical companies have started paying people for the sweet sweet blood. And – these for-profit medical companies are asking people to donate 4 times more than what the World Health Organization considers ‘safe’.
So, what exactly happens if you keep dishing out your plasma, [more] than advised? According to a volume of scientific research: extreme weight loss, debilitating fatigue, passing out – including passing out whilst driving – as well as severe pain, loss of muscle control, and severe dehydration.
Here seems as good a time as any to state this FUN FACT: 80% of plasma collection centers are located in impoverished neighborhoods. And what makes this practice even more predatory is that the side effects of donating are often compounded by poor nutrition and lack of medical care – issues that come hand in hand with poverty.
This story gets even worse, because many donors don’t even know they’re at risk, because they’re being lied to. The literature provided at U.S. centers ubiquitously states that “donating plasma is safe.” Its side effects are limited to “mild faintness and bruising”, with some brochures adding, “Other possible side effects will be explained by our medical staff”.
Just when you thought this story couldn’t get worse – here’s another fact: The U.S. now supplies 94 PERCENT of the world’s paid plasma. Working class US citizens are being targeted by big predatory medical companies, who then sell their plasma to countries with more stringent patient care laws.
… So basically, medical companies have built a pool of poverty-stricken human victims, who are sucked for their blood and tossed aside when they’ve been bled dry. And since donors sign a waiver … they can’t access medical treatment or compensation if donating blood makes them sick.
By Carlos Delgado in the USA:
Kalamazoo, Michigan: “I don’t like the idea of selling my blood plasma for money, but I have to do what I’ve got to do”
US blood plasma industry targets poor and working class
28 May 2019
As living conditions for workers in the United States continue to decline rapidly under the weight of decades of wage stagnation and bipartisan cuts to social spending, increasing numbers of US workers are turning to selling their blood plasma in order to cover basic necessities. Billions of dollars in profits are being made in an industry that quite literally thrives on sucking the blood from workers and the poor.
The US blood plasma industry has grown significantly in recent years, from just over $5 billion in global sales in 2000 to over $21 billion in 2017. According to a Market Research Engine forecast, the industry is on track to cross $44 billion by 2024.
Global demand for blood plasma has risen in part due to its irreplaceable role in many important medical therapies, including for patients with antibody deficiencies and hemophilia. Blood plasma can only be obtained from donors and cannot be artificially replicated.
Roughly 70 to 80 percent of global plasma supply is provided by paid donors from the United States, which, unlike the United Kingdom and other developed nations, does not ban the practice of paying donors for their blood. The United States also has fewer restrictions on how often someone can donate plasma, with donors permitted to undergo the process twice a week, every week, all year long.
Plasma donations in the United States have tripled from 12 million per year in 2006 to 38 million per year in 2016, according to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association. At the same time, the number of donation centers has doubled, from 300 sites in 2015 to more than 600 today.
Blood plasma donation takes a serious toll on the health of the donor, especially for long-term, repeated donors. After a blood draw, donors can experience weakness, bruising, dehydration or fainting. A 2010 study found that frequent paid donors have lower levels of proteins in their blood, increasing their risk of infection and liver and kidney disorders.
While providing plasma to those in need is a social necessity, the capitalist private profit system has endowed the practice with distinctly parasitic characteristics. The global plasma supply is provided largely by the poorest sections of the working class, driven to sell off parts of their bodies in order to make ends meet.
A 2018 study by researchers at Case Western Reserve University found that states with a higher number of plasma donation centers were also more likely to have a higher population of low-income and minimum-wage workers. The study also found a higher prevalence of donation centers in states with less cash assistance available to low-income individuals. One researcher, Heather Olsen, stated that plasma donation companies are “surgically placing” donation centers in destitute neighborhoods.
Additionally, the study noted that, due to inadequate health care coverage, “Significant numbers of donors…would not be able to afford the lifesaving therapies created by their own plasma contributions.”
A survey conducted by the Case Western researchers at a donation center in Cleveland, Ohio, found that 57 percent of donors surveyed make more than a third of their monthly income from donating plasma. Fully 70 percent have experienced a side effect from donation. When asked what donors spend the money on, which can be as little as $30 to $50 for a donation that can be sold for $300 on the wholesale market, respondents said they largely spent money on basic necessities such as food, gas and rent.
Reporters from the World Socialist Web Site spoke with donors at a donation center in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Brandon is a working-class college student who uses the donation money to cover basic necessities. “It’s an easy way to get money for the rent,” he said. “At the school I go to, I’m in class with CEOs’ daughters and all of that. So as a blue-collar kid, I’m a minority. My financial aid is good, but not good enough. I need to find other ways to get the money, and plasma is an easy way to do it.
“I’ve been donating to this center for a couple months,” Brandon continued. “Back home, I was doing it for about a year. Coming from a working-class family and being a first-generation college student, there’s a lot of what-ifs and unknowns. You’ve got to find the money where it is.
“Obviously, this is a huge industry. Unfortunately, there’s not much I can do. What they give me for what I donate is what they give me. Would I like more of the pie, especially since it’s literally me giving a part of myself? Yes. I’m well aware that I’m getting ripped off for this, but money is money. And obviously I don’t have much of it.”
Brandon spoke of how social inequality drives workers and youth like himself to become plasma donors. “I go to school with a lot of upper-class kids. And even though they have so much, they still fight and claw for more. It’s capitalism. The upper class succeeds. The rest of us fight like hell. The political spectrum is set up to where the rich get richer and where the working class have to suffer. A lot of bills that Congress passes favor the rich, even though promises are made throughout the campaigns that they’re going to help the working class. But it’s going to take a lot more than one person to change that.”
Izzy is a student at Western Michigan University who works in the food service industry. She recently had her hours cut, so she is selling her blood plasma to cover necessities. “I use the extra money on gas, groceries, things like that,” she said. “I know for some people, though, it’s like a job, and they earn a living from donation. It’s sad but true. My friend works here, and she sees the same people every week.
“There’s a whole profit scheme,” Izzy continued. “They give us so little, but they get so much. It’s like a typical medical industry stunt. It’s the same thing with big pharma. They want you to get addicted to opioids so they sell more of them. They want your plasma because it’s expensive. But they don’t want to pay you, so they go to the poorest places and pay the least amount they can.”
Izzy noted the contradiction between providing a socially necessary service and the way that service is exploited for profit. “I feel okay about donating in some respects. There are pregnant mothers who need plasma, babies who need it, and kids who need it. But at the same time, I hate that I’m feeding into the big pharmacy companies.”
Mark recently moved to Kalamazoo from Flint, Michigan. “Currently I’m waiting for a call back from a job,” he said. “Money is tight, so I came here to donate so I could get gas and food, some hygiene things, basic needs like that. I don’t donate very often, but I do it when I’m in a serious need. I don’t like donating, because I don’t like the idea of selling my blood plasma for money. But I have to do what I’ve got to do, really.”
Mark spoke about the social conditions in Flint, which has been ravaged by decades of industrialization and the enduring water crisis. “It’s horrible in Flint. It’s a ghost town. There’s abandoned places everywhere, abandoned houses. There’s drug addicts, drug dealers, shootings, missing kids. The whole area is bad. There’s no jobs at all. The only jobs that are really good are factory jobs, but the factory jobs don’t pay what they actually should. GM is barely paying anything.
“We’re not robots. We’re not just people you can give a job to and just lay off. We have lives. We have families. We have kids. We depend on jobs.”
Quwanda has been donating blood plasma for over 10 years. She said that she has been fighting to get better pay for donors. “For a long time, when I’d go to the center I would talk to the managers about getting us more pay. It does take a lot out of us when we come out of there. We are giving our immune system away. I understand completely the whole process and what they’re using it for. I worked as a nurse for 20 years. I’ve always thought that we should be getting more money, especially with what they’re getting paid from our plasma.”
She spoke of the debilitating effects that frequent donation has on her physical health. “I’ve experienced a lot of weakness. It drains you. Even on a sick day, when you really need some money, you come in here. You’re at your worst when you come out. That’s basically what you have to deal with if you need to get by.”
“I’ve done plasma donation in a lot of different cities and states,” she said. “Every place is different, but they still pay very low. The economy doesn’t help any, and gas is high. So you have to get it from somewhere. We get gas money from here. If we need Pampers, milk for the baby, toiletries, that’s what we’ll come in here for. I think more people might come if they were giving more money. A lot of times I do feel sick and queasy afterwards. I eat and drink plenty of water, but it’s the simple fact that they’re taking your immune system. It’s draining.”
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), South Asia is now the leading transplant tourism hub globally, with India among the top kidney exporters. Each year more than 2,000 Indians sell their kidneys, with many of them going to foreigners: here.
This 1 May 2019 video says about itself:
The Croc That Ran on Hooves
In the Eocene Epoch, there was a reptile that had teeth equipped for biting through flesh, its hind legs were a lot longer than its front legs and instead of claws, its toes were each capped with hooves. How did this living nightmare come to evolve?
By Will Morrow:
French government threatens “national security” charges against journalists who revealed Yemen war arms sales
30 May 2019
The Macron government is threatening to lay charges carrying a five-year jail sentence against journalists who exposed its secret provision of arms for Saudi Arabia’s illegal war in Yemen, in which tens of thousands of civilians have been killed.
On April 15, the journalistic organization Disclose published a classified 15-page document prepared last October by the direction of army security for the president and leading ministers. It provided precise information of the use of French arms by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, including tanks, missiles and laser-guiding systems. The document also proved that multiple French officials, including Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly, had repeatedly lied by denying that French arms were being used in this war crime.
Shortly after the report was published, the Macron government summoned three journalists involved in the exposure for questioning by the General Directorate for Internal Security: Geoffrey Livolsi and Mathias Destal, the co-founders of Disclose, as well as Benoit Collombat of Radio France.
On May 14, Disclose tweeted a statement reporting on the questioning that took place that afternoon in north-western Paris, protesting the far-reaching attack on the freedom of the press by the Macron administration.
According to the statement, the journalists were each informed at the start of their questioning that the investigation was being opened under laws of “terrorism and attack on national security”. “This”, Disclose writes, “deprives the Disclose journalists of protections guaranteed by the law of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press.” The police sought to coerce them into identifying their source.
“The formulation of questions had the singular objective of violating the fundamental protections of the right of the press to secrecy of sources, a critical element of the freedom of the press.” They were questioned about their personal Twitter and Facebook postings, “including some which had no relation to the topic of the interview. Another attempt at intimidation.”
“Before exercising their right to silence, Mathias Destal and Geoffrey Livolsi therefore declared to the investigators that they were acting in their mission of informing the public,” it said. On May 28, a third Disclose journalist, Michel Dispratz, was questioned by the intelligence service.
The Macron administration will likely lay charges against the journalists under an extraordinary, anti-democratic law passed in July 2009, on “security of defense secrets”. It makes it illegal for anyone to come into possession, “destroy”, or “bring to public knowledge” any document deemed by the government to be important to “national security”. It includes a maximum 5 years’ jail term upon conviction, and a 75,000 euro fine.
The Macron government’s actions are part of a drive by capitalist governments around the world—assisted by the state stenographers in the corrupted corporate media—to criminalize whistleblowing and destroy the freedom of the press.
The Trump administration, with the support of the Australian and British governments, is seeking to extradite Assange from the UK for having exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to try him under the Espionage Act, for which he faces a sentence of 170 years or the death penalty. At the same time, Manning, WikiLeaks’s source, is being held indefinitely in jail in the US for contempt of court, after she refused to testify before a grand jury impaneled to bring further frame-up charges against Assange.
Those political forces and publications, including Le Monde in France, that have promoted the slanders used to justify Assange’s persecution, bear responsibility for creating the political environment in which Macron is able to carry out these actions.
The Disclose report makes clear that the French government violated international law, including a 2014 European treaty on arms sales, by selling arms with knowledge that they would be used in war crimes. Yet as in the case of Assange and Manning, those facing criminal charges are not the perpetrators of the crime, but the journalists and whistleblowers who exposed it to the population.
Livolsi told the Intercept on May 17 that “they want to make an example of us because it’s the first time in France that there have been leaks like this. They want to scare journalists and their sources away from revealing state secrets.”
The Macron government is utilizing the case to make clear that it is completely unaccountable to the population. It says it will not comment on the content of the leaks, which have been read by hundreds of thousands of people, because they are “classified.” Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly gave an interview with BFM-TV host Jean-Jacques Bourdin on May 8, in which the following exchange took place:
Bourdin: Do you have in your possession the 15-page report edited by the direction of military security on the security situation in Yemen?
Parly: I have many reports in my possession.
Bourdin: Do you have this report in your possession? Yes or no?
Parly: It’s a report that I have had in my possession. I am a recipient of this document. I’m even an authorized recipient, in contrast to others, who have procured it, who should not have had it in their possession because they are classified files.
Bourdin: Well, these are journalists who obtained the documents.
Parly: In violation of all the rules and laws of our country.
Bourdin: What does the document say?
Parly: I’m not at all in the habit of commenting on classified notes.
Bourdin: These journalists, Florence Parly, have revealed what is in this note, this confidential document.
Parly: I have nothing to say since, because it’s classified, one can reveal things which are not contained in it.
Bourdin: What they have revealed is not actually in the note?
Parly: I have nothing to say. I’ve said that when one divulges classified documents, one opens oneself up to charges, and it is not the minister of the army, who I am, who is going to comment in affirming or confirming what is in this note.
Parly spoke before an armed services and national defense commission hearing of the National Assembly on May 7, and not only defended the arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but also declared that the French state must in general be able to sell arms to countries carrying out war crimes.
“Once a war is launched, when our partners use force in a manner that does not appear to us to be compatible with international humanitarian law, we do not hesitate to tell them,” she said. “But should we cease all sales of arms to these countries and interrupt the servicing of equipment that has already been provided? I believe that in this situation, we must exercise our discretion.”
She added: “It would be a serious blow to the reputation of France in the eyes of our clients to give the impression that we may desert our partners mid-way through their journey if we disapprove of such and such actions. In the end, it would disrupt an entire industrial and technological ecosystem in our country, which depends upon our exports contracts.”
These remarks point to the real considerations behind the Macron government’s persecution of the Disclose journalists. Having participated in numerous illegal neo-colonial wars over the past 25 years, including the 2011 rape of Libya, the French ruling class is preparing for wars that would involve crimes on a scale that has not been seen in the lifetime of the current generation. It also knows there is mass opposition in the working class to militarism and war and to social inequality and poverty, expressed in the mass “yellow vest” protests over the past six months. It is accordingly building up a police state to suppress any and all opposition.
As young people took part in a music festival on June 21 on a wharf in Nantes, western France, police forces launched a violent assault on the concert. In the course of the police crackdown, 14 people fell seven meters into the Loire river. One young man, since identified as 24-year-old Steve Caniço, is missing and is feared to have drowned in the river during the attack: here.
Dutch secret service sues journalist about ‘state secrets’: here.
This 29 May 2019 video shows a young northern lapwing.
Harry Brummelhuis in the Netherlands made this video.