President Biden First 100 Days
Ahavati said:
Edible. You did NOT edit out "Ahavati said" until a moderator told you to correct it with a warning. I don't give a shit what else you did. I specifically asked you, repeatedly in this thread and the other misinformation thread to remove "Ahavati said" and you refused UNTIL a moderator instructed you to with a warning.
Period.
Here’s exactly what you really said to me the first time.
Ahavati said:Edible you have deliberately attributed someone else's quote to me. I have reported your post as blatantly false, being you are more than aware of how to use the quote function, as demonstrated by your second quote.
I would also greatly appreciate you providing source links whenever you quote me, as well as the headline screenshot you posted.
What I did FIRST was comply with your original complaint.
My bad was not interpreting your words they way you meant them. I also failed to add a link until later. I was rushing at that time.
Ahavati said:
No; it's not. Remove " Ahavati said " as I have requested.
That didn’t exactly reflect what you originally said, did it?
If you can refrain from quoting, commenting about or debunking my posts, I will attempt to return the favor going forward. I will not needlessly alter past posts to appease you when any reasonable person can easily understand the thread as it stands.
I stand by these words. Nothing wrong with them.
Edible. You did NOT edit out "Ahavati said" until a moderator told you to correct it with a warning. I don't give a shit what else you did. I specifically asked you, repeatedly in this thread and the other misinformation thread to remove "Ahavati said" and you refused UNTIL a moderator instructed you to with a warning.
Period.
Here’s exactly what you really said to me the first time.
Ahavati said:Edible you have deliberately attributed someone else's quote to me. I have reported your post as blatantly false, being you are more than aware of how to use the quote function, as demonstrated by your second quote.
I would also greatly appreciate you providing source links whenever you quote me, as well as the headline screenshot you posted.
What I did FIRST was comply with your original complaint.
My bad was not interpreting your words they way you meant them. I also failed to add a link until later. I was rushing at that time.
Ahavati said:
No; it's not. Remove " Ahavati said " as I have requested.
That didn’t exactly reflect what you originally said, did it?
If you can refrain from quoting, commenting about or debunking my posts, I will attempt to return the favor going forward. I will not needlessly alter past posts to appease you when any reasonable person can easily understand the thread as it stands.
I stand by these words. Nothing wrong with them.
EdibleWords said:
That didn’t exactly reflect what you originally said, did it?
Let's play a game, Edible. Go back in this thread and the misinformation thread and count how many times I requested that you remove "Ahavati said". . .then then refer to the above quote ( bolded ) in my last post as to your FINAL response, which was, basically. No, I'm NOT going back to change it.
Oh here! let me:
Ahavati said:
No; it's not. Remove " Ahavati said " as I have requested.
Ahavati said:
False. She has not removed " Ahavati said" atop the quote box, nor attributed the name of the author; thus, misleading readers to believe I said it.
Ahavati said:
[ . . . ]You came into MY thread and deliberately mis-attributed a quote ( which you STILL have not corrected ). That is the reason this is here. Correct it NOW by removing "Ahavati said". And please refrain from the thread and/or addressing me henceforth.
Then a moderator steps in and WALLAH! You change it! Abracadabra!
You see, it doesn't matter what my first request was. I clarified it VERY CLEARLY in my second, and my third. You blatantly REFUSED to edit "Ahavati said" because, well, as you said, any reasonable person could understand the thread as it was. . .
EdibleWords said:
If you can refrain from quoting, commenting about or debunking my posts, I will attempt to return the favor going forward. I will not needlessly alter past posts to appease you when any reasonable person can easily understand the thread as it stands.
Well, apparently a moderator wasn't reasonable enough to understand the thread as it was, was he, edible? Thus the warning.
I have no idea why you could not just CHANGE IT after I requested 3 times instead of needing to be warned about it.
I don't care anymore. I think you're attempting to gaslight the hell out of me when you know exactly what you did - you refused me ( above quote ) and heeded a moderator's warning immediately.
Now leave me alone. Stay out of this thread and away from me. I THINK you are a dangerous person mentally, and I feel threatened by you and your actions.
That didn’t exactly reflect what you originally said, did it?
Let's play a game, Edible. Go back in this thread and the misinformation thread and count how many times I requested that you remove "Ahavati said". . .then then refer to the above quote ( bolded ) in my last post as to your FINAL response, which was, basically. No, I'm NOT going back to change it.
Oh here! let me:
Ahavati said:
No; it's not. Remove " Ahavati said " as I have requested.
Ahavati said:
False. She has not removed " Ahavati said" atop the quote box, nor attributed the name of the author; thus, misleading readers to believe I said it.
Ahavati said:
[ . . . ]You came into MY thread and deliberately mis-attributed a quote ( which you STILL have not corrected ). That is the reason this is here. Correct it NOW by removing "Ahavati said". And please refrain from the thread and/or addressing me henceforth.
Then a moderator steps in and WALLAH! You change it! Abracadabra!
You see, it doesn't matter what my first request was. I clarified it VERY CLEARLY in my second, and my third. You blatantly REFUSED to edit "Ahavati said" because, well, as you said, any reasonable person could understand the thread as it was. . .
EdibleWords said:
If you can refrain from quoting, commenting about or debunking my posts, I will attempt to return the favor going forward. I will not needlessly alter past posts to appease you when any reasonable person can easily understand the thread as it stands.
Well, apparently a moderator wasn't reasonable enough to understand the thread as it was, was he, edible? Thus the warning.
I have no idea why you could not just CHANGE IT after I requested 3 times instead of needing to be warned about it.
I don't care anymore. I think you're attempting to gaslight the hell out of me when you know exactly what you did - you refused me ( above quote ) and heeded a moderator's warning immediately.
Now leave me alone. Stay out of this thread and away from me. I THINK you are a dangerous person mentally, and I feel threatened by you and your actions.
Ahavati said:
Well, apparently a moderator wasn't reasonable enough to understand the thread as it wasm was he, edible? Thus the warning.
I understand how you read that. But I meant I would not make changes that didn’t need to be made. If more than one person feels it isn’t fixed, I take it more seriously. Even if I still disagree.
In this case, as I said, I didn’t understand you to be talking about it the way you were. Frankly, I didn’t even read it as deeply or I would have put it all together. I had my own quote of somebody else, so the first time you said “the second quote box” I thought it sounded like nonsense. (I should have realized - the first sign I was being slow)
After all, my quoted person had to have a different styled box, to indicate that it didn’t come from your quote but mine. You didn’t use a quote box inside your post so I didn’t think it mattered to do that until you objected.
The more I reread it the more i see of other perspectives. That’s on me.
I have no idea why you could not just CHANGE IT after I requested 3 times instead of needing to be warned about it.
I changed it 3 times, FYI.
I don't care anymore. I think you're attempting to gaslight the hell out of me when you know exactly what you did - you refused me ( above quote ) and heeded a moderator's warning immediately.
Now leave me alone. Stay out of this thread and away from me. I THINK you are a dangerous person mentally, and I feel threatened by you and your actions.
I have to give a public statement to my intent, so this post is more for all witnesses than for you.
I am not dangerous to anyone here. I’m 26 weeks pregnant. This will be my 11th. I don’t want any more stress. This has been harder on me than you, if your words are serious when you said you weren’t stressed. I feel harassed. I would not even have spoken up but you could not leave me alone.
Well, apparently a moderator wasn't reasonable enough to understand the thread as it wasm was he, edible? Thus the warning.
I understand how you read that. But I meant I would not make changes that didn’t need to be made. If more than one person feels it isn’t fixed, I take it more seriously. Even if I still disagree.
In this case, as I said, I didn’t understand you to be talking about it the way you were. Frankly, I didn’t even read it as deeply or I would have put it all together. I had my own quote of somebody else, so the first time you said “the second quote box” I thought it sounded like nonsense. (I should have realized - the first sign I was being slow)
After all, my quoted person had to have a different styled box, to indicate that it didn’t come from your quote but mine. You didn’t use a quote box inside your post so I didn’t think it mattered to do that until you objected.
The more I reread it the more i see of other perspectives. That’s on me.
I have no idea why you could not just CHANGE IT after I requested 3 times instead of needing to be warned about it.
I changed it 3 times, FYI.
I don't care anymore. I think you're attempting to gaslight the hell out of me when you know exactly what you did - you refused me ( above quote ) and heeded a moderator's warning immediately.
Now leave me alone. Stay out of this thread and away from me. I THINK you are a dangerous person mentally, and I feel threatened by you and your actions.
I have to give a public statement to my intent, so this post is more for all witnesses than for you.
I am not dangerous to anyone here. I’m 26 weeks pregnant. This will be my 11th. I don’t want any more stress. This has been harder on me than you, if your words are serious when you said you weren’t stressed. I feel harassed. I would not even have spoken up but you could not leave me alone.
Why did one of Bidens executive orders give China access to our energy grid?.... I am in shock!!!!! Press secretary had no comment.... None the less...It's seens people's feeings are hurt from my comments and my tone about mass'er Biden. There is not only a drawer full of video were he talks Jim Crow but voted into the record supporting segregation. I heard... "Your a Nazi racist" anti white bigot shit from the left for four years and watched more than one video of a kid getting beat up because of a MAGA hat. Never happened before Trump. I don't care if someone's feeling are hurt while condoning leftist racism and violence in the streets. Juicy Smuya had to make up a story about MAGA hat villian's in Chicago because of the lack of real one's. Even the capitol deaths had to be falsely reported( no murders... heat attack, stokes, police shooting), like the false evidence on the faux impeachment and soon after withdrawal and forced vote. Whatever brain Biden had left, is gone. I am in full shock about the grid. When, in the world, did Trump ever compromise our country like that? The opposite happen. He was practically an isolationist in comparison. Maybe I am not supposed to understand it.??
Rather than post an article, I thought an excerpt fro today's Letters from an American by Heather Cox Richardson would be warranted. For those of you who don't know who Heather Cox Richardson is, or for those who don't follow the Letters From an American thread, she is an American historian and Professor of History at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians. She previously taught at MIT and the University of Massachusetts.
If interested, you can read the full context of the Letter in the Letters to an American thread here:
https://deepundergroundpoetry.com/forum/speakeasy/read/11722/
February 18, 2021
[. . . ]
As we dive into the Biden presidency, I have some observations:
It is much harder and more complicated to build something, as the Democrats are trying to do, than it is to destroy something. This means it will be harder to give a clear daily picture of the Biden administration than it was of the previous administration. The status of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, for example, is not clear right now because it is being marked up in committees, as such a bill should be. While the contours are likely what they were when they went in, what will emerge and then be put into a draft bill is not yet clear enough that we can talk about it definitively.
Biden also appears to favor making a number of changes in different programs to achieve a goal, rather than moving a single large piece. On the table right now, for example, is the question of the forgiveness of up to $50,000 in student loan debt. Biden said yesterday he did not favor excusing more than $10,000, but White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said tonight he has asked the Department of Justice to look into whether he has the constitutional power to excuse the debt, something that is not at all clear.
My guess is that his administration will try to avoid legal questions by getting rid of predatory lending and chipping away at debt in limited, clearly legal ways, rather than facing the issue in one fell swoop. So, for example, the coronavirus relief bill contains rules that will prevent for-profit colleges from taking advantage of military veterans. It will be important to look at the big picture of Biden's policies, rather than taking stock of them in pieces.
There are two big questions the Biden administration is going to have to negotiate. One is the conflict between the constitutional role of Congress and the increasingly powerful presidency. In our system, it is Congress that is supposed to pass the nation’s laws. The president’s job is to make sure the laws are executed. But the presidency has taken on more and more power since at least the time of Richard Nixon’s administration, using the president’s direction of the executive branch to determine where the money Congress appropriates goes, for example, and sending troops to engage in military actions without a congressional declaration of war. As the Senate under McConnell has increasingly refused to act, more and more power has flowed to the White House.
Biden is an institutionalist who values the role of Congress—he was, after all, a senator for more than 35 years-- and yet the refusal of Senate Republicans to agree to any Democratic legislation means that he has launched his presidency with a sweeping range of executive actions. This runs the risk of alienating not only Republicans, but also those of his supporters who worry about the concentration of power in the presidency. His apparent refusal to use an executive order to cancel student debt without a firm declaration of legality from the Department of Justice suggests he’s trying not to push this boundary too far.
And yet, how can he preserve the power of Congress to pass legislation if it refuses to? How can the Democrats pass popular legislation if the Republican senators refuse to budge? Observers note that Biden’s coronavirus plan is exceedingly popular: 64% of voters want to see it happen. But Republican lawmakers are all opposed to it. It’s a conundrum: how can the Democrats both preserve the power of Congress and, at the same time, actually pass popular legislation over the obstructionist Republicans who appear to be out of step with the American people?
Democrats are committed to passing the coronavirus relief measure with or without Republican votes, and they predict they can do so by the end of next week. But then they are hoping to pass a $3 trillion infrastructure package, and there is little hope of finding Republican votes for it. The Democrats can pass an infrastructure bill through the budget reconciliation process or by getting rid of the filibuster, but doesn’t it set a bad precedent to spend almost $5 trillion by partisan votes alone? They would prefer to negotiate with Republicans.
The question of how—or if—that can happen is tied to the other big question the Biden administration will have to deal with, and that is whether it will be the Democrats or the Republicans who manage to advance their plan for voting rights. While the first measures Democrats introduced in this session of Congress were bills to expand and protect voting, Republicans in state legislatures across the nation are considering measures to limit voting. Expanded voting rights will encourage lawmakers to vote for laws that are popular; voter suppression will make that less important. What happens in state legislatures will echo at the national level.
So there is a lot on the table going forward.
But for today, it is a bit of a wonder that the news is no longer absorbed by the latest outrage from the presidential administration. The big story continues to be the disaster in Texas… along with the landing of NASA’s Perseverance rover on Mars, where it will explore the Jezero Crater. Almost four billion years ago, this was the site of a lake, and the rover will look for microfossils to bring back to Earth. It will also look for signs of life, and record sound on the planet for the first time ever.
Biden was quick to claim the theme of Perseverance for today’s nation. “Congratulations to NASA and everyone whose hard work made Perseverance’s historic landing possible,” he tweeted. “Today proved once again that with the power of science and American ingenuity, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility.”
——
Submitted February 19, 2021
If interested, you can read the full context of the Letter in the Letters to an American thread here:
https://deepundergroundpoetry.com/forum/speakeasy/read/11722/
February 18, 2021
[. . . ]
As we dive into the Biden presidency, I have some observations:
It is much harder and more complicated to build something, as the Democrats are trying to do, than it is to destroy something. This means it will be harder to give a clear daily picture of the Biden administration than it was of the previous administration. The status of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, for example, is not clear right now because it is being marked up in committees, as such a bill should be. While the contours are likely what they were when they went in, what will emerge and then be put into a draft bill is not yet clear enough that we can talk about it definitively.
Biden also appears to favor making a number of changes in different programs to achieve a goal, rather than moving a single large piece. On the table right now, for example, is the question of the forgiveness of up to $50,000 in student loan debt. Biden said yesterday he did not favor excusing more than $10,000, but White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said tonight he has asked the Department of Justice to look into whether he has the constitutional power to excuse the debt, something that is not at all clear.
My guess is that his administration will try to avoid legal questions by getting rid of predatory lending and chipping away at debt in limited, clearly legal ways, rather than facing the issue in one fell swoop. So, for example, the coronavirus relief bill contains rules that will prevent for-profit colleges from taking advantage of military veterans. It will be important to look at the big picture of Biden's policies, rather than taking stock of them in pieces.
There are two big questions the Biden administration is going to have to negotiate. One is the conflict between the constitutional role of Congress and the increasingly powerful presidency. In our system, it is Congress that is supposed to pass the nation’s laws. The president’s job is to make sure the laws are executed. But the presidency has taken on more and more power since at least the time of Richard Nixon’s administration, using the president’s direction of the executive branch to determine where the money Congress appropriates goes, for example, and sending troops to engage in military actions without a congressional declaration of war. As the Senate under McConnell has increasingly refused to act, more and more power has flowed to the White House.
Biden is an institutionalist who values the role of Congress—he was, after all, a senator for more than 35 years-- and yet the refusal of Senate Republicans to agree to any Democratic legislation means that he has launched his presidency with a sweeping range of executive actions. This runs the risk of alienating not only Republicans, but also those of his supporters who worry about the concentration of power in the presidency. His apparent refusal to use an executive order to cancel student debt without a firm declaration of legality from the Department of Justice suggests he’s trying not to push this boundary too far.
And yet, how can he preserve the power of Congress to pass legislation if it refuses to? How can the Democrats pass popular legislation if the Republican senators refuse to budge? Observers note that Biden’s coronavirus plan is exceedingly popular: 64% of voters want to see it happen. But Republican lawmakers are all opposed to it. It’s a conundrum: how can the Democrats both preserve the power of Congress and, at the same time, actually pass popular legislation over the obstructionist Republicans who appear to be out of step with the American people?
Democrats are committed to passing the coronavirus relief measure with or without Republican votes, and they predict they can do so by the end of next week. But then they are hoping to pass a $3 trillion infrastructure package, and there is little hope of finding Republican votes for it. The Democrats can pass an infrastructure bill through the budget reconciliation process or by getting rid of the filibuster, but doesn’t it set a bad precedent to spend almost $5 trillion by partisan votes alone? They would prefer to negotiate with Republicans.
The question of how—or if—that can happen is tied to the other big question the Biden administration will have to deal with, and that is whether it will be the Democrats or the Republicans who manage to advance their plan for voting rights. While the first measures Democrats introduced in this session of Congress were bills to expand and protect voting, Republicans in state legislatures across the nation are considering measures to limit voting. Expanded voting rights will encourage lawmakers to vote for laws that are popular; voter suppression will make that less important. What happens in state legislatures will echo at the national level.
So there is a lot on the table going forward.
But for today, it is a bit of a wonder that the news is no longer absorbed by the latest outrage from the presidential administration. The big story continues to be the disaster in Texas… along with the landing of NASA’s Perseverance rover on Mars, where it will explore the Jezero Crater. Almost four billion years ago, this was the site of a lake, and the rover will look for microfossils to bring back to Earth. It will also look for signs of life, and record sound on the planet for the first time ever.
Biden was quick to claim the theme of Perseverance for today’s nation. “Congratulations to NASA and everyone whose hard work made Perseverance’s historic landing possible,” he tweeted. “Today proved once again that with the power of science and American ingenuity, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility.”
——
Submitted February 19, 2021
Biden Addresses Munich Security Conference
"America is Back"
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/biden-stresses-importance-of-partnership-with-europe-at-the-munich-security-conference-101291589644
"America is Back"
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/biden-stresses-importance-of-partnership-with-europe-at-the-munich-security-conference-101291589644
© Doug Mills/Pool via Getty Images, FILE Flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, President Joe Biden signs an executive order repealing the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military.
'I'm still here': Transgender troops begin new era of open military service
As the U.S. military adapts to evolving and increasingly complex global threats, highly-trained cyber warriors like Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Brock Stone are at the tip of the spear.
"All the adversaries you hear about in the news are always out to get us. Not all those people speak English," Stone said, "and that's where I come in."
Stone, a cryptological technician who speaks three languages, has been analyzing electronic threats and deciphering foreign intelligence in the Navy for 15 years. But in 2017 President Donald Trump suddenly wanted him gone, simply because he's transgender.
"I went to Afghanistan. I did all these things. I mean, what does that tell me? That tells me I'm not welcome," Stone told ABC News Live in an interview. "That tells me that I am not respected as myself."
For years under Trump's policy, imposed abruptly by tweet, openly transgender service members were sidelined, effectively forced from the ranks or denied enlistment. Late last month, President Joe Biden lifted the ban.
"The biggest myth is that we're something other than an ordinary sailor who is just here to do a job," said Navy Chief Petty Officer Melody Stachour of Virginia. "Trans people in the military are here to do a job. They want to do it well."
The Pentagon had maintained that trans Americans could serve the country but only if they suppressed their identity, assuming the gender role of their assigned sex at birth.
Biden's reversal, which was widely expected, begins a new era of open military service for Americans regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
"If you're fit and you're qualified to serve, and you can maintain the standards, you should be allowed to serve," said new Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in announcing the change.
[ . . . ]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/im-still-here-transgender-troops-begin-new-era-of-open-military-service/ar-BB1dW2K0?ocid=msedgdhp
https://youtu.be/wUwu--_HZko
The struggle against child trafficking that was ramped up during the last administration has been dialed back. Why? Perhaps people believe media as they ignore it or unholy-wood as they mock the idea. If protecting children is just a conspiracy theory, then why are there so many organizations domestic and global waging war against this "hidden" evil. My sadness out weighs my anger. We are close to the point of no return. One executive order at a time. This post is for non leftists to read and watch. Leftist will try to deny it.
The struggle against child trafficking that was ramped up during the last administration has been dialed back. Why? Perhaps people believe media as they ignore it or unholy-wood as they mock the idea. If protecting children is just a conspiracy theory, then why are there so many organizations domestic and global waging war against this "hidden" evil. My sadness out weighs my anger. We are close to the point of no return. One executive order at a time. This post is for non leftists to read and watch. Leftist will try to deny it.
Biden orders a review of US supply chains for vital goods
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed an executive order Wednesday intended to boost manufacturing jobs by strengthening U.S. supply chains for advanced batteries, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and semiconductors.
The United States has become increasingly reliant on imports of these goods — a potential national security and economic risk that the Biden administration hopes to address with the planned 100-day review and the possibility of increased domestic production. However, Biden will also look to work with international partners to ensure a stable and reliable supply chain.
[ . . . ]
White House officials emphasized that the order would help to create manufacturing jobs, a promise made by past presidents with decidedly mixed results. There are 12.2 million manufacturing jobs in the United States, down from 17 million in 2000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[ . . . ]
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-global-trade-health-coronavirus-pandemic-b08eb8f76932cc71049732ddd60a035d
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed an executive order Wednesday intended to boost manufacturing jobs by strengthening U.S. supply chains for advanced batteries, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and semiconductors.
The United States has become increasingly reliant on imports of these goods — a potential national security and economic risk that the Biden administration hopes to address with the planned 100-day review and the possibility of increased domestic production. However, Biden will also look to work with international partners to ensure a stable and reliable supply chain.
[ . . . ]
White House officials emphasized that the order would help to create manufacturing jobs, a promise made by past presidents with decidedly mixed results. There are 12.2 million manufacturing jobs in the United States, down from 17 million in 2000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[ . . . ]
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-global-trade-health-coronavirus-pandemic-b08eb8f76932cc71049732ddd60a035d
US Bombs Facilities in Syria Used by Iran-Backed Militia
The U.S. military conducted airstrikes against facilities in eastern Syria that the Pentagon said were used by Iran-backed militia groups, in response to recent attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States launched airstrikes in Syria on Thursday, targeting facilities near the Iraqi border used by Iranian-backed militia groups. The Pentagon said the strikes were retaliation for a rocket attack in Iraq earlier this month that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a U.S. service member and other coalition troops.
The airstrike was the first military action undertaken by the Biden administration, which in its first weeks has emphasized its intent to put more focus on the challenges posed by China, even as Mideast threats persist. Biden's decision to attack in Syria did not appear to signal an intention to widen U.S. military involvement in the region but rather to demonstrate a will to defend U.S. troops in Iraq.
“I’m confident in the target that we went after, we know what we hit,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters flying with him from California to Washington. Speaking shortly after the airstrikes, he added, “We’re confident that that target was being used by the same Shia militants that conducted the strikes," referring to a Feb. 15 rocket attack in northern Iraq that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a U.S. service member and other coalition personnel.
Austin said he recommended the action to Biden.
“We said a number of times that we will respond on our timeline,” Austin said. "We wanted to be sure of the connectivity and we wanted to be sure that we had the right targets.”
Earlier, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the U.S. action was a “proportionate military response” taken together with diplomatic measures, including consultation with coalition partners.
“The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel," Kirby said. "At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to deescalate the overall situation in eastern Syria and Iraq.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-25/us-bombs-facilities-in-syria-used-by-iran-back-militia
The U.S. military conducted airstrikes against facilities in eastern Syria that the Pentagon said were used by Iran-backed militia groups, in response to recent attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States launched airstrikes in Syria on Thursday, targeting facilities near the Iraqi border used by Iranian-backed militia groups. The Pentagon said the strikes were retaliation for a rocket attack in Iraq earlier this month that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a U.S. service member and other coalition troops.
The airstrike was the first military action undertaken by the Biden administration, which in its first weeks has emphasized its intent to put more focus on the challenges posed by China, even as Mideast threats persist. Biden's decision to attack in Syria did not appear to signal an intention to widen U.S. military involvement in the region but rather to demonstrate a will to defend U.S. troops in Iraq.
“I’m confident in the target that we went after, we know what we hit,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters flying with him from California to Washington. Speaking shortly after the airstrikes, he added, “We’re confident that that target was being used by the same Shia militants that conducted the strikes," referring to a Feb. 15 rocket attack in northern Iraq that killed one civilian contractor and wounded a U.S. service member and other coalition personnel.
Austin said he recommended the action to Biden.
“We said a number of times that we will respond on our timeline,” Austin said. "We wanted to be sure of the connectivity and we wanted to be sure that we had the right targets.”
Earlier, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the U.S. action was a “proportionate military response” taken together with diplomatic measures, including consultation with coalition partners.
“The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel," Kirby said. "At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to deescalate the overall situation in eastern Syria and Iraq.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-25/us-bombs-facilities-in-syria-used-by-iran-back-militia
An Apache activist dancer performs in a rally to save the Oak Flat area, in front of the U.S. Capitol.
Photo: Molly Riley (AP)
Biden Rescinds Trump Decision to Turn Sacred Arizona Land Into a Copper Mine
In a victory for Indigenous rights and conservation activists, the Forest Service rescinded its decision to permit a controversial mining project to be built within Arizona’s Tonto National Forest on Monday.
The decision comes six weeks after the subagency issued an environmental impact statement greenlighting the project on land known as Oak Flat in January. The move reflects the sea change between the Biden and Trump administrations’ approaches to land, extraction, and Indigenous rights.
“This is tremendous news for Oak Flat, tribal communities and everyone who loves this special place,” Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote in an email.
Oak Flat is a lush, 6.7-square-mile (17.4-square-kilometer) stretch of forest just east of Phoenix. To the local Apache people, who call it Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, the area is holy. It lies at the center of four sacred mountains, and has been the site of spiritual and cultural ceremonies for centuries. The richly biodiverse oak groves it contains are important sources of acorns and other food sources for the Apache. It is also the location of burial sites and ancient rock carvings, as well as a popular campsite.
[ . . . ]
https://www.latestmedianews.com/biden-rescinds-trump-decision-to-build-copper-mine-on-sacred-land/
^ I pulled this off of Quora
Arizona is the only state with all four North American deserts.
The southwestern quadrant of AZ is mostly Sonoran Desert, and the northwestern quadrant has a bit of the Mojave Desert.
The Great Basin Desert makes several intrusions along the northern edge of Arizona, and the Chihuahuan Desert barely makes its way into the southeastern quadrant.
I don’t know what percent of the total land area of AZ is made up of deserts, but it’s perhaps about half.
Yeah, that made sense. Mine the parts that were and are inhabitable, as opposed to the desert.
* rolls eyes *
Arizona is the only state with all four North American deserts.
The southwestern quadrant of AZ is mostly Sonoran Desert, and the northwestern quadrant has a bit of the Mojave Desert.
The Great Basin Desert makes several intrusions along the northern edge of Arizona, and the Chihuahuan Desert barely makes its way into the southeastern quadrant.
I don’t know what percent of the total land area of AZ is made up of deserts, but it’s perhaps about half.
Yeah, that made sense. Mine the parts that were and are inhabitable, as opposed to the desert.
* rolls eyes *
