Latest news with #Orwellian
Miami Herald
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Republicans echo Trump's absurd claims justifying Iran bombing
'Peace through strength.' It's one of those deliberately vague phrases that sounds like both a euphemism and a paradox, repeated so many times that it's practically lost all meaning. President Donald Trump insists that his bombing of Iran is a perfect example of this so-called strategy, despite the fact that it stands in stark contrast to the anti-interventionist image he cultivated on the campaign trail, and to the 'peacemaker and unifier' he promised to be. Republicans are happy to defend him. The most absurd of the defenses came Monday when Rep. Pat Harrigan, who represents North Carolina's 10th congressional district, appeared on Fox News to discuss the strikes. 'We're trying to lower the temperature of global conflict while simultaneously kind of raising it here in order to lower it,' Harrigan, who is a former Army Special Forces officer, said. What? When you're trying to cool down your house, do you turn up the heat before you blast the AC? When your friends are fighting, do you intentionally inflame the situation before trying to diffuse it? The answer to that, of course, is no. So it stands to reason that raising the 'temperature of global conflict' may not be the best strategy if the goal is actually to lower it. In theory, 'peace through strength' is meant to be a strategy of deterrence. The idea is that if you build up a strong enough military that's capable of delivering a swift and devastating retaliatory response, it discourages other countries from messing with you. Whether or not it's actually a good strategy, however, depends on how you define strength. If strength means investing more into the military, that's one thing. But if you define it as deliberately escalatory and violent actions, such as bombing your enemy or floating the idea of regime change on social media, that doesn't sound like a means of achieving peace. It sounds like diving into a conflict instead of trying to avoid one, especially when there was no imminent threat. Trump and his fellow Republicans have touted the strikes as a victory because of what they supposedly 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program. That contradicts early Pentagon assessments that reportedly found that the strikes likely only set the program back by months, so the actual success is yet to be determined. Trump also helped negotiate a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which he claims is 'unlimited' and will 'go forever.' A Georgia congressman has even nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Another example of Republican word salad: Vice President J.D. Vance claimed in a recent interview that 'we're not at war with Iran — we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' That's some awfully crafty language that sounds like something straight out of '1984.' 'Peace through strength' can too easily shift into the Orwellian paradox of 'peace through war.' Rather than lauding Trump's decision, Republicans should take a more cautious approach. They should be troubled that the strikes occurred without consulting Congress and therefore may not have even been legal. They should be skeptical of Trump's claims that Iran is actively building a nuclear weapon when his own intelligence director testified that it is not. And they should be concerned about the fact that the attack may now incentivize Iran to actually develop such a weapon and make peaceful negotiation all the more difficult. Vance acknowledged the concerns of starting another war in the Middle East, but insists it's nothing to worry about with Trump. 'I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents and now we actually have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives,' Vance told ABC News. But there's a reason why previous presidents never made the choice that Trump did, and Trump's refusal to even acknowledge the possibility of failure is what makes his behavior so reckless. In attacking Iran, Trump took an extraordinary gamble with extraordinary risks. To cheer it on without expressing even the slightest reservation will only embolden him. Cheering, it seems, has become reflexive for Republicans who want to stay on the president's good side. We can't bomb our way to peace, and just because we were lucky enough to avoid disaster this time doesn't mean we always will.
The Hindu
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Practising equality in constitutional courts
Recently, the Supreme Court of India decided to refix the methodology and the criteria for designating lawyers as senior lawyers. In Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt.) of NCT Of Delhi (2025), the Court revisited the earlier judgments in the Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India cases of 2017 and 2023 and directed the High Courts in the country to frame rules in the light of the instant judgment. Delivered on May 13, 2025, it did not earn much public attention because of an erroneous notion that it dealt with an internal issue within the judiciary. The legal profession has a public character. Therefore, the inequality within the judiciary impacts not only judicial democracy but also the country's political democracy. The legal plutocracy in India is essentially systemic and it is perpetuated by the political and judicial wings of the state. The Orwellian notion that some are more equal than the others was imported to the legal profession in the country as Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It classifies advocates into two: senior advocates and advocates. It says that, based on ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, a 'deserving' advocate could be designated by the constitutional courts as a senior advocate. The very incorporation of this provision in the statute was problematic as it accepted the idea of unequal treatment of those who are otherwise equals. This led to a sharp division in the legal profession and created a legal oligarchy, which in turn deeply impacted our idea of justice. This division also had the tendency to accelerate the commercialisation of the legal profession, making it almost resemble the scene in the United States. Situation in the U.S. A Reuters report titled 'The Echo Chamber' (2014) says that in the U.S, 'an elite cadre of lawyers has emerged as first among equals, giving their clients a disproportionate chance to influence the law of the land'. The report added that a survey of cases between 2004 and 2012 showed that '66 of the 17,000 lawyers who petitioned the Supreme Court succeeded at getting their clients' appeals heard at a remarkable rate'. The report demonstrates that during this period, less than 1% of lawyers were handling 43% of the appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. It adds that 51 out of 66 were the most influential members of the profession and represented the corporate firms. This resulted in 'a decided advantage for corporate America, and a growing insularity at the court', says the report. It is not as if we have followed suit in India. The point is that our system is vulnerable to the danger indicated by the U.S experience. Therefore, India must guard against the perils of growing inequality in the legal profession. The judgments in Indira Jaising and Jitender fail to address this fundamental issue and endorse Section 16 of the Advocates Act with inadequate reasoning. By way of these judgments, not only has the Court failed to put its house in order but has also perpetuated the inequality that can damage the justice delivery system enormously. The basic judgment in Indira Jaising (2017) authored by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, sought to 'reform' the existing practice. The Court also considered a writ petition by the National Lawyers' Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, that challenged the classification of lawyers. The validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act alongwith the corresponding provisions in the Supreme Court Rules 2013, were assailed. The prescription for pre-audience for senior advocates was also challenged. The Court, however, did not accept the contentions. In Jitender also, the Court endorsed the validity of these clauses and asked for peripheral reforms in the process of finding out the most 'deserving'. Unaddressed questions The latest judgment said that the point-based assessment followed hitherto 'can hardly be objective' and that 'it tends to be highly subjective'. Yet, the Court permitted the application system to continue, saying that the application for designation could be treated as a consent for designation, as required by the Statute. That the Court wanted the High Courts to frame new rules for 'designation' does not eliminate the possibility for errors or extraneous considerations. Thus, the questions whether there could be a classification among lawyers at all and whether it passes the constitutional muster remain unaddressed. The Court, in Indira Jaising (2017) said that the wrong or improper exercise of power is not a ground to invalidate the provision in the Act. But the contention was that the classification is inherently arbitrary and discriminatory. It was argued that 'even if an objective criteria is laid down and is followed, the distinction between the two classes of advocates has no nexus with…. (the) advancement of the legal system, which in any case is also and in fact, effectively serviced by advocates who are not designated as senior advocates'. The Court, however, ignored this submission by saying that as long as the parameters to be followed could be prescribed by the Supreme Court, the classification would hold good. This answer begs the question. It is ironic that these norms and guidelines laid down in 2017 are held to be fallacious and subjective by the Court in 2025 in Jitender. Yet, the Court did not revisit the basic contention against the offending clauses in the laws on lawyers, by referring the case to a larger Bench. Towards a fairer system The Indian legal profession has a symbiotic relation with the country's freedom struggle. The national movement, which was led predominantly by lawyers, presented a legal fraternity that was deeply societal and sacrificial. This was followed by the political era of Nehruvian socialism which lasted a few decades after Independence, visualising India as a socialist republic. The word 'socialist' was added in the Preamble, with effect from January 3, 1977, by way of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. Instead of taking note of this historical trajectory in light of the equality clauses in the Constitution, the Court, in Jaising, rather mechanically noted the practice in other jurisdictions such as Nigeria, Australia, Singapore and Ireland. That there has been such a practice of classification elsewhere cannot justify its adoption when the statutory scheme was seriously challenged on constitutional and empirical grounds in the Indian context. The result was devastating: The lack of objectivity in the process led to arbitrariness that created a legal plutocracy. Jurist F.S. Nariman lamented that we have established a caste system among lawyers. It is widely felt that the judges often get impressed by persons in their own image in the matter of designation. This is termed as 'homo social morphing' in academic circles. In this, women and the marginalised groups were sidelined. A creamy layer was segregated based on parameters which are flawed, as acknowledged by the Court. The systemic disparity within the legal fraternity is so horrendous that thousands of eligible and deserving lawyers remain unheard and go unnoticed in court halls in India. Very often, 'star lawyers' monopolise the system, without any legitimacy whatsoever, leading to intellectual apartheid. This situation negates judicial diversity based on a sense of egalitarianism and deprives the Court of the representative character of the bar. Sometimes, important national issues are adjudicated based on submissions of a chosen few, as illustrated by the recent Waqf (Amendment) Act Challenge. This too creates a situation where litigation, especially in the Court, becomes the privilege of the rich which is incompatible with India's constitutional scheme. In a profession where equality is an imperative, the Court ought not to have abetted the prevailing disparity. Kaleeswaram Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India
19 hours ago
- Politics
Louisiana is latest state to redefine natural gas -- a planet-warming fossil fuel -- as green energy
Louisiana is the latest state to redefine natural gas as green energy under a new law the Republican governor signed this week, even though it's a fossil fuel that emits planet-warming greenhouse gases. Three other states led by Republicans— Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee— have passed similar legislation. In some Democratic-led states, there have been efforts to phase out natural gas. New York and California cities like San Francisco and Berkeley have moved to ban natural gas hookups in new buildings, though some of these policies have been successfully challenged in court. President Donald Trump has signed a spate of executive orders promoting oil, gas and coal, which all warm the planet when burned to produce electricity. The European Union previously designated natural gas and nuclear as sustainable, a move that Greenpeace and the Austrian government are suing over. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a major booster of the state's petrochemical industry, says the new law 'sets the tone for the future' and will help the state 'pursue energy independence and dominance.' Environmental groups say these new laws are part of a broader push by petrochemical industry-backed groups to rebrand fossil fuel as climate friendly and head off efforts to shift electric grids to renewables, such as solar and wind. It's "pure Orwellian greenwashing,' said Tim Donaghy, research director of Greenpeace USA. Globally, the term green energy is used to refer to energy derived from natural sources that do not pollute — solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal energy. Louisiana's law could enable funds slated for state clean energy initiatives to be used to support natural gas. Natural gas has been the top source of electricity generation in the United States for about a decade, since surpassing coal. Coal and natural gas both produce carbon dioxide that warms the planet when burned, but coal produces over twice as much. Switching from coal to natural gas lowers carbon dioxide emissions, but it can increase emissions of methane. The primary component of natural gas, methane is an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas, more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide and responsible for about 30% of today's global warming. Besides coal, everything else is better than gas for the planet, said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist. Building new gas plants locks in fossil fuel emissions for decades, he added. Louisiana's law orders state agencies and utilities regulators to 'prioritize' natural gas, along with nuclear power, on the grounds that it will improve the affordability and reliability of the state's electricity. The law's author, Republican Rep. Jacob Landry, runs an oil and gas industry consulting firm. 'I don't think it's anything crippling to wind or solar, but you got to realize the wind don't blow all the time and the sun don't shine every day,' Landry said. The legislation 'is saying we need to prioritize what keeps the grid energized,' he added. Landry told The Associated Press that he used a model bill by the American Legislative Exchange Council as a template. ALEC is a conservative think tank with ties to the oil and gas industry's billionaire Koch family. ALEC helped shape Ohio's 2023 law to legally redefine natural gas as a source of green energy, according to documents obtained by the watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute and first reported by the Washington Post. ALEC spokesperson Lars Dalseide said that just because an Ohio lawmaker left the 2022 ALEC convention with what he described as a model for legislation to define natural gas as clean energy does not mean the group shaped Ohio law. Dalseide said the convention is 'a place where legislators from across the country gather to exchange ideas.' Ohio's legislation was also heavily influenced by an advocacy group led by Republican megadonor Tom Rastin, a now retired gas industry executive. According to Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute, these laws are part of a long-running disinformation campaign by the gas industry to cast their product as clean to protect their businesses and prevent a shift to renewable energy sources that will address the climate crisis. 'The goal is to elbow out competition from renewables from wind and solar, and in some cases preempt localities' ability to choose to pursue 100% truly clean energy,' Anderson said, adding that ALEC's legislation makes natural gas 'eligible for state and local clean energy standards and funding.' Gov. Landry and other proponents of the new law said they want to make sure that residents and businesses have a reliable electric grid. Nearly 80% of Louisiana's grid is already powered by natural gas. Landry said that businesses will come to Louisiana if they know they can count on the state's electric grid. He highlighted Meta's plan to build a massive AI data center powered by three natural gas plants. Louisiana's law orders utilities providers to prioritize nuclear energy as well. Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases while producing electricity. However, critics say it is more expensive than solar and wind and the U.S. does not have a sufficient long-term solution for storing the waste. Consumer advocates say states do not need to embrace natural gas at the expense of wind, solar and other technologies to have a reliable grid. Legally mandating that utilities prioritize natural gas is 'blind to innovation, market evolution, and the practical demands of modern electric systems,' Jeffrey Clark, president of the Advanced Power Alliance, a renewable energy advocacy group, wrote in a statement opposing Louisiana's law. It's unclear to what extent Louisiana's utilities regulators will act on the order to prioritize natural gas over renewable energy. While Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis, a Democrat, called the law 'unenforceable' and pledged to ignore it, his Republican counterpart Jean-Paul Coussan said promoting natural gas 'aligns well' with the state's economic growth. ___ McDermott reported from Providence, Rhode Island. ___ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
West Australian
a day ago
- Business
- West Australian
US states redefine gas as green energy
Louisiana is the latest US state to redefine natural gas as green energy under a new law - even though it's a fossil fuel that emits planet-warming greenhouse gases. Three other states led by Republicans— Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee— have passed similar legislation. In some Democratic-led states, there have been efforts to phase out natural gas. Cities in New York and California have moved to ban natural gas hook-ups in new buildings, though some of these policies have been successfully challenged in court. President Donald Trump has signed a spate of executive orders promoting oil, gas and coal, which all warm the planet when burned to produce electricity. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, a major booster of the state's petrochemical industry, says the new law "sets the tone for the future" and will help the state "pursue energy independence and dominance." Environmental groups say these new laws are part of a broader push by petrochemical industry-backed groups to rebrand fossil fuel as climate friendly and head off efforts to shift electric grids to renewables, such as solar and wind. It's "pure Orwellian greenwashing," said Tim Donaghy, research director of Greenpeace USA. Globally, the term green energy is used to refer to energy derived from natural sources that do not pollute — solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal energy. Louisiana's law could enable funds slated for state clean energy initiatives to be used to support natural gas. Natural gas has been the top source of electricity generation in the United States for about a decade, since surpassing coal. Apart from coal, everything else is better than gas for the planet, said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist. Building new gas plants locks in fossil fuel emissions for decades, he added. The law's author, Republican Jacob Landry, runs an oil and gas industry consulting firm. "I don't think it's anything crippling to wind or solar, but you got to realise the wind don't blow all the time and the sun don't shine every day," Landry said. The legislation "is saying we need to prioritise what keeps the grid energised," he added. According to Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute, these laws are part of a long-running disinformation campaign by the gas industry to cast their product as clean to protect their businesses and prevent a shift to renewable energy sources that will address the climate crisis. "The goal is to elbow out competition from renewables from wind and solar, and in some cases preempt localities' ability to choose to pursue 100 per cent truly clean energy," Anderson said. The European Union has previously designated natural gas and nuclear as sustainable, a move that Greenpeace and the Austrian government are suing over.
Perth Now
a day ago
- Business
- Perth Now
US states redefine gas as green energy
Louisiana is the latest US state to redefine natural gas as green energy under a new law - even though it's a fossil fuel that emits planet-warming greenhouse gases. Three other states led by Republicans— Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee— have passed similar legislation. In some Democratic-led states, there have been efforts to phase out natural gas. Cities in New York and California have moved to ban natural gas hook-ups in new buildings, though some of these policies have been successfully challenged in court. President Donald Trump has signed a spate of executive orders promoting oil, gas and coal, which all warm the planet when burned to produce electricity. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, a major booster of the state's petrochemical industry, says the new law "sets the tone for the future" and will help the state "pursue energy independence and dominance." Environmental groups say these new laws are part of a broader push by petrochemical industry-backed groups to rebrand fossil fuel as climate friendly and head off efforts to shift electric grids to renewables, such as solar and wind. It's "pure Orwellian greenwashing," said Tim Donaghy, research director of Greenpeace USA. Globally, the term green energy is used to refer to energy derived from natural sources that do not pollute — solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal energy. Louisiana's law could enable funds slated for state clean energy initiatives to be used to support natural gas. Natural gas has been the top source of electricity generation in the United States for about a decade, since surpassing coal. Apart from coal, everything else is better than gas for the planet, said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist. Building new gas plants locks in fossil fuel emissions for decades, he added. The law's author, Republican Jacob Landry, runs an oil and gas industry consulting firm. "I don't think it's anything crippling to wind or solar, but you got to realise the wind don't blow all the time and the sun don't shine every day," Landry said. The legislation "is saying we need to prioritise what keeps the grid energised," he added. According to Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute, these laws are part of a long-running disinformation campaign by the gas industry to cast their product as clean to protect their businesses and prevent a shift to renewable energy sources that will address the climate crisis. "The goal is to elbow out competition from renewables from wind and solar, and in some cases preempt localities' ability to choose to pursue 100 per cent truly clean energy," Anderson said. The European Union has previously designated natural gas and nuclear as sustainable, a move that Greenpeace and the Austrian government are suing over.
