July 23
The Guardian on the climate summit: 100 days to save the world

The global reality of the climate crisis could hardly be more stark. A common theme is clear, from western Germany, where about 200 people perished in floods, to Henan province in central China, where at least 50 have died and about 400,000 have been evacuated after overwhelming downpours, to western Canada and the US, where a blistering set of heatwaves has provided the tinder for wildfires on a growing scale, through to the Middle East, where drought threatens communities from Algeria to Yemen, triggering unrest and regional disputes. On this planet there is no hiding place.
A hundred days now remain before the nations gather in Glasgow at the United Nations Cop26 climate conference on 31 October. More than 190 world leaders are expected. The UK government calls the summit the world’s last best chance. That is true. Yet words are cheaper than actions and sustained effort, especially when Boris Johnson is involved, and the last best chance is at serious risk of being lost. As things currently stand, the governments of the world, the UK included, are heading to Glasgow without having made the ambitious strategic decisions and collective sacrifices that might enable Cop26 to mark a genuine turning point that is needed in the battle to contain and reverse global heating.

This week, environment ministers from the G20 powers – representing more than 90% of the world’s economic production – have been meeting in Naples. This gathering ought to have provided a tremendous springboard towards Cop26. But the meeting has been short on concrete joint policy commitments of the kind that might create the necessary new political momentum. At the heart of the problem is the failure of the G20 to agree on actions and timetables to achieve global net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This is umbilically linked to the similar failure to set the more ambitious global goal of restricting global heating to an increase of 1.5C in the same period. Reports suggest that the ministers will recognise that 1.5C is preferable to 2C but not do enough about it.

This is unacceptable, but it is characteristic of a world struggling to recover economically from the pandemic. Governments’ recovery plans are increasingly falling short of what is needed to reach existing climate goals, never mind new ones. Globally, carbon emissions are again set to rise in 2023, not fall. The world is in danger of losing the path towards net zero. That failure comes down partly to money and partly to politics. Today, as in the past, responsibility should be widely shared. European countries, the UK included, often talk a better game than they play. On Thursday, Angela Merkel admitted as much about Germany’s record. ”We can’t continue at the current pace but have to up the tempo,” she conceded.

There is little concrete evidence that Britain, as the Cop26 host nation, has done enough to make sure this happens. The task remains urgent. Without big developing countries such as Brazil and India on board, agreement is difficult, and these countries know they have bargaining power. The biggest carbon emitter remains China, where totals are still rising, and the US, whose emissions are falling but historically (and per capita) far exceed China’s. Together they are responsible for 40% of global emissions, so without them nothing decisive is achievable. The US climate change special envoy, John Kerry, is pledging extra money to support global climate initiatives but insists there will be no trade-off with China on human rights in order to secure a stronger climate deal. If an adequate agreement can still be reached, then Cop26 may yet be a success. But the clock is ticking and the stakes are getting ever higher.

___
July 28
The Kansas City Star on making lists of abusive Catholic priests more accessible:
The Catholic Church’s attempt to repair the damage caused by decades of priestly abuse would be vastly improved by a full, transparent, easy-to-use national list of abusive clerics. And no, that still doesn’t exist.

Two years ago, many dioceses — but not all — began publishing lists of priests ”credibly accused” of abusive behavior. But these are too often incomplete, as well as difficult to find and use.

”There are far more names out there now than ever before,” said David Clohessy of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP. ”Is it anywhere near the totals? Absolutely not. … Bishops always have, and still, put out the very least amount of information as possible.”

The Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, for example, has published a list of ”substantiated abuse allegations” against nearly two dozen clerics. Yet the list lacks photographs of the offenders, or full work histories, or the names of any lay offenders.
Other dioceses provide this critical information. A comprehensive list would better notify the community.

More fundamentally, the Church’s decision to allow each diocese to decide for itself how to compile and publish abuse lists virtually assures that they will be incomplete and confusing. A church member, or abuse victim, seeking information about a priest must sort through dozens of lists in different jurisdictions — all using different standards.

”Each diocesan bishop makes the decision whether or not to publish a list of credibly accused clerics,” said a statement from Ashlie Hand, speaking for the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese.

”This decision is based on multiple factors informed by each bishop’s advisors and state laws that impact the consequences of the level of detail shared,” she said.
Private groups have stepped forward to aggregate the information as best they can. More than a year ago, ProPublica published a searchable database of abusive priests, drawing information from published diocesan lists and other records.

”The list does not constitute a government-run sex-offender registry,” ProPublica said when it published the database, ”but it does raise important questions about the men, such as their location, access to minors or vulnerable adults, and whether or not they can be realistically and properly supervised.”

The website Bishopaccountability.org also contains in-depth information about abusive priests and the abuse crisis.

But the Catholic Church itself has failed to assemble all of the information it has in one central place, for easy use and consultation by the public.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has long said they haven’t produced a comprehensive list because of varying state laws. ”The decision of whether and how to best release lists and comply with varying civil reporting laws have been the responsibility of individual dioceses,” said Chieko Noguchi, a USCCB spokeswoman, last year.

Clohessy isn’t convinced. ”If they genuinely want to protect kids, and genuinely want to heal victims, and genuinely want the trust of their flock, why would they not put out a national list?” he asked.

That’s a valid question.

This is not about punishing the Catholic Church, or extending the crisis of clergy abuse. The church — or any organization with a similar record of ignoring and hiding predatory behavior — will only find absolution after full transparency.

For Catholics, nothing can be more important than fully facing the long history of clerical abuse, and demanding full transparency and accountability from church leaders today.

A national clearinghouse and database, compiled and published by the Catholic Church itself, would be a good step in that direction.

___
July 27
The Minneapolis Star Tribune on getting to the bottom of Jan. 6:

On Jan. 6, Americans witnessed on live television what few could have imagined: a violent, real-time invasion of the U.S. Capitol as part of an attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next.

It has taken until now, seven months later, to even begin the congressional investigation that should have begun soon after these events. But that delay has not dimmed the power of the gut-twisting testimony offered Tuesday by four police officers who found themselves in hand-to-hand combat that day, determined to protect the Capitol and its inhabitants at the risk of their lives.

That it has taken so long to investigate is shameful testament to Republican leaders who are more worried about crossing former President Donald Trump than they are about defending our democracy. Of the 211 Republicans in Congress, only two — Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — had the courage and integrity to step forward and serve on the House Jan. 6 commission. Kinzinger, a former military officer, fought back tears listening to the officers’ testimony, saying, ”You guys may individually feel a little broken … but you guys won. You guys held.”
He noted, correctly, that the reason not enough is known about that day is because ”many in my party have treated this as just another partisan fight.” He said this was ”toxic and a disservice” to those who served at the Capitol, the American people and ”the generations before us who went to war to defend self-governance.”
If that sounds a bit grandiose, it’s not after hearing testimony from officers. U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, said rioters called him a traitor and said, ”If you shoot us, we all have weapons and we’ll shoot back.” Gonell was kicked, punched, sprayed. Rioters, he said, used hammers, police shields, rebar, knives, batons, bear spray and officers’ own weapons against them. ”It was like a medieval battle,” he said.

Officer Daniel Hodges described lines of men fully outfitted in tactical gear who appeared to be coordinating efforts. At one point, there were nearly 10,000 rioters by some estimates, against 150 officers. This was no spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand, but a coordinated effort that took hours to push past barriers, viciously attack police and finally breach the Capitol itself.

Hodges heard rioters informing him, ”You’ll die on your knees.” It was Hodges who was caught on a now infamous video clip, bleeding from the mouth and screaming while being crushed by the mob as he braced himself against a door, trying to prevent their entry.

Washington, D.C., Officer Michael Fanone went voluntarily to the Capitol because he ”could not ignore what was happening.” He was beaten unconscious, tased repeatedly at the base of his skull and suffered a heart attack, concussion and brain injury in the battle. At one point, he heard, ”Kill him with his own gun,” as rioters attempted to wrest his firearm from him. Still, Fanone said, ”nothing has prepared me to address those elected members of government who deny the events of that day and in doing so betray their oath of office — those I was fighting so desperately to defend.”
”It’s disgraceful,” he said, giving the table at which he was sitting a hard slap.

Capitol Officer Harry Dunn started his testimony asking a moment of silence for Officer Brian Sicknick, who died of a stroke the day after the battle. Dunn, who is Black, told of how he was repeatedly called the N-word, the first time that had ever happened while he wore a police uniform. He urged committee members to get to the bottom of the events of that day.

Cheney is right when she says that the investigation must know what happened every minute of that day in the White House, every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during and after the attack. Tuesday’s testimony, as powerful as it was, was only Step 1 in what must be a fearless and relentless look into what led up to the invasion of the Capitol. Officers testified that at a Black Lives Matter protest the previous summer, Capitol Police had ample resources and reinforcements in place from the start. What happened this time?

The committee will need access to phone records, texts and other documents. They should subpoena whoever they need testimony from, up to and including the former president and the current minority leader.

Dunn noted that Cheney and Kinzinger were being praised for their courage in stepping forward to be on the panel but questioned why. ”Because they told the truth? Why is telling the truth hard? I guess in this America, it is,” he said.
It shouldn’t be.

Washington Post Editorial Board:
July 28 at 3:06 PM ET

When protests broke out on July 11 in the Cuban town of San Antonio de los Baños, the marchers were visible from the apartment window of 26-year-old Yoan de la Cruz. He didn’t participate, but took out his phone and made a video of people demanding liberty and an end to dire food and electricity shortages. He then broadcast the demonstration on Facebook, where it went viral and sparked discontent across the island. On July 23, he was arrested.

Gabriela Zequeira, 17, an accounting student, was going to a hairdresser in the municipality of San Miguel del Padrón in Havana when the demonstrations broke out. She was arrested by the special Cuban security brigades known as “black wasps,” who grabbed her and threw her into a police van. She was sentenced to eight months in prison.

Anyelo Troya, a videographer, helped make the music video “Patria y Vida” that has become the anthem of the protest movement in Cuba. He was arrested for participating in the July 11 protests, and then quickly tried and sentenced to one year in prison. No family or lawyers were present for the proceedings.

These cases are just a glimpse of how Cuba’s dictatorship has responded to the largely peaceful demonstrations: a wave of detentions, followed in some cases by summary trials and accusations of contributing to “public disorder.” By several different tallies, some 600 to more than 700 people have been investigated, detained, disappeared or formally charged with crimes after what was overwhelmingly an exercise in free speech.

The leadership of President Miguel Díaz-Canel appears to be repeating the same repressive tactics used in the “Black Spring” of 2003, when 75 advocates of the Varela Project, a citizen petition for democracy, as well as journalists and others were arrested and given long prison terms.

This time, the dragnet was much larger, seemingly aimed at anyone who was on the streets. Some, such as Mr. Troya, were tried, then released pending appeal; others have been put under house arrest with a future trial date. In Santiago de Cuba, 40 young people were named in a single indictment, accusing them of public disorder, “illicit” demonstrations and using computer platforms “with servers abroad,” among other things.

Perhaps seeking to avoid another explosion, the regime has let some of those arrested, including Ms. Zequeira, go home pending further proceedings. Meanwhile, security forces have been conspicuously stationed on street corners in Havana and elsewhere. Another partial Internet disruption hit the island July 26, just as protests against the regime were being held abroad.

Nonetheless, “there is no turning back,” Dagoberto Valdés Hernández, an outspoken Catholic lay leader and advocate for change in Pinar del Río, wrote Monday. “Cuba spoke.”

The regime fears its own people — what they say in the streets and what they see on their screens. But the yearning for liberty and the discontent brought on by hunger cannot be snuffed out with a blanket of repression and harsher prison sentences.