-------------------------------------------
10 Common Myths About the United States Government - Duration: 14:43.
The United States government was built by the founders with many, many layers in order
to ensure a better union.
By having so many checks and balances and separation of powers, anyone who tried to
pull a hostile takeover of the government, or turn it into something less democratic,
would find an incredible amount of resistance from multiple angles, and would have to take
years just to advance in any significant way.
While this system has a lot of advantages, it can also be very confusing even to many
living in the United States, because of the staggering complexity of the entire system.
The United States government and many of its functions or responsibilities are often misunderstood
by the average citizen.
10.
There Is No "The Government" In The United States
One of the favorite claims you will hear from any conspiracy theorist is that there is something
called "the government."
These theorists seem convinced that the United States government is a vast, monolithic entity
that is always sharing information and working towards the same goals.
In a way, it seems to give them a feeling of security that the government is all powerful
and able to watch out for them and protect them, despite their constant fear mongering.
However, they are greatly exaggerating the competence and coordination of the United
States government.
The government is made up of the legislative, judicial and executive branches, all of which
have people within them with radically opposing viewpoints.
These people all have their goals to make the world a better place, and like most politicians
they have secrets.
The USA also has powerful state governments, with similar setups.
Dotted throughout the country are police departments that rarely have to answer to much of anyone
and cooperate with each other on mostly a good faith basis — then there are all the
sheriff's departments as well, which are elected officials and have different rules
and authority than the police.
And then, if that wasn't enough, there are many spy agencies, and several different military
branches with many subgroups within them.
Many of these groups, for secrecy reasons, only share information on a strictly need
to know basis, so they may share certain surface details to avoid bungling into each other,
but it is highly unlikely in most cases that they know exactly what the other agencies
or military branches full plans are, and what their eventual goals are.
In a way, the United States government is like a centipede with all the legs moving
awkwardly in different directions.
9.
The Claims Of Military Dominance Are True But Also Somewhat Misleading
One of the proudest boasts of the United States and many of their citizens is that they spend
more on military, and have a more powerful and well upgraded military than anyone in
the world.
Now, we aren't saying this boast isn't true — although Russia has a few more nukes
— but it does leave out some important details.
Diplomacy is a subtle game, and showing off your military dominance is often a great way
to get enemies to the negotiating table without you having to lift a finger.
However, if this type of diplomacy is done in a less subtle way, your enemy may become
even more belligerent, and now you risk either looking weak or being forced to invade.
Now, the United States could probably invade and take out a lot of small nations, but they
do not want to be forced to do so.
The truth is that much of the military spending actually goes towards maintenance on even
some fairly recent equipment, because maintaining the most powerful military in the world is
incredibly expensive — and as you can imagine, going to war is going to greatly increase
your maintenance bill.
However, that is only a small part of the cost of a sustained occupation, which can
cause a real hit to the budget of even a world superpower like the United States of America.
Despite taking control of Iraq and Afghanistan fairly easily initially with almost no losses,
the actual sustained occupation was extremely costly in both money and lives.
8.
The Power Of The President Is Still Greatly Exaggerated
Many people have been trying to educate others on this one for some time, but it does not
really seem to take hold.
While many people will always be angry with whoever is in the presidential office and
direct most of their anger toward them, they are allowing others at fault to conveniently
avoid any real attention, and keep up their work completely unheeded.
The president of the United States of America does have a certain number of powers, but
outside of signing or vetoing legislation, actions made by the president can be reversed
by the next president to take power — as they are not permanently binding without a
full act of congress — and could be fairly easily blocked by congress or the courts.
One of the greatest real powers of the president is simply the amount of attention they get,
which they can use to shape the public mindset and act as a leader for their party, or for
a specific ideology.
However, their power is much more limited than many people realize.
The leaders of the House and Senate have great power to bring forth legislation to the president's
desk, and it is extremely rare to see the house or senate minority or majority leader
running for president.
They already have an extremely powerful position, and they do not have to deal with nearly as
much of people's ire if they dislike a decision — many of them would likely see the presidency
as a downgrade.
There are also those in the judicial branch, especially the supreme court, who wield tremendous
influence and power.
A swing vote on the Supreme Court can shape the face of the country, and they have their
position until they retire or death claims them.
7.
Free Speech Only Applies To The Government Limiting Your Speech
This pops up on message boards, and in public places of business, and just about everywhere
else you can imagine.
People will be told in some way by someone in authority to be quiet, or tone down the
type of thing they are saying, and the person will go on a rant about freedom of speech,
and how their first amendment rights are being violated.
Or some public figure will lose their job for something they said in an interview, and
their fans will claim the first amendment is being stomped on.
However, the first amendment is very specific and isn't really interested in what private
citizens or places of business do.
The first amendment states that the government cannot abridge your speech, or the speech
of the press, and that people have a reasonable right to public assembly to address their
grievances — in a public place.
All this means is that the government has to give you a reasonable accommodation if
you ask for a public protest, and cannot punish you for what you say and put you in jail for
it.
However, this does not mean a private place of business, or a private website, has to
put up with you, nor does it mean your employer has to give you a platform to express views
that are antithetical to them.
Free speech protects you from government retaliation, but retaliation from any sort of private entity
is another matter.
6.
Anti-Discrimination Laws Are On The Books, But That Doesn't Mean Proving It Is Easy
Sometimes it happens that someone gets kicked out of an established place of business that
is open for the public.
For whatever reason, the incident gets attention and people argue about whether the people
involved were racist or not, when the people kicked out were not white.
Now, this is understandable considering the history of the United States, but in all of
these cases many people are incensed that no prosecutor or lawyer seems interested in
trying to punish someone with a civil rights violation, or prosecute them with a hate crime.
While it may seem obvious to some people watching a video from a distance, proving something
like intent in a court of law can be a whole lot more difficult.
While civil rights laws now disallow discrimination based on skin color and the like, public businesses
can refuse to serve anyone for really any non-illegal reason they want, and as long
as they can come up with something remotely reasonable sounding, the police will make
you leave and ask you not to come back.
In some cases perhaps the person who was asked to leave was a victim of racial discrimination
and did nothing wrong, but the trick is proving that this has actually happened.
If taken to court, the owner or manager of the establishment could just give some kind
of reason like they were making staff uncomfortable, or customers had complained, or something
hard to disprove.
To win a case like this, you would practically have to have tape of someone calling someone
racial slurs or the like, and it is fairly rare for that type of outburst to be caught
on film.
5.
The Post Office Is A Part Of The Government, But Requires No Tax Revenue
The United States Postal Service is an agency that has confused a lot of people.
Some people actually believe it is completely distinct from the United States government
— this is not the case — or that it is a private corporation owned by the government,
kind of like Amtrak.
However, the USPS was actually founded back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, who became
the first Postmaster General.
He wanted the agency to have a certain level of independence, but he still wanted it to
be a part of the United States government.
The Postal Reconstruction Act of 1971 did change the USPS, but it did not remove it
from the federal government, or make it a private entity, and USPS employees are still
federal employees with all of the related benefits.
The confusion likely stems from the fact that since this act, the USPS is expected to take
care of all of its operating expenses simply by the costs it charges for its services.
It does not exist to make a profit, and it does not take your tax dollars — it takes
a fair price for the service provided, and does its constitutionally mandated duty to
provide that service to all Americans no matter what.
4.
Yes, Puerto Rico Is Indeed Part Of The United States Of America
Recently there was a news story about a Puerto Rican couple being turned away by a clerk
at a Motel 6, who told them that he needed an American ID, and that an ID from Puerto
Rico did not count as such.
Some people thought that the clerk was being malicious, but it is more than likely that
he was honestly confused.
The truth is that over 40% of Americans are actually completely unaware that Puerto Ricans
are fellow citizens and that their territory is considered part of America.
Now, this is possibly in part due to the fact that Americans get little exposure to the
United States territories.
The Hawaiian islands are a very popular tourist destination, but Puerto Rico, Guam, the US
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands are as isolated from the mainland
as Hawaii and are simply not nearly as popular spots.
It would do well however, for Americans to get a better knowledge of all US territories,
and learn more about the intricacies of all of what makes up America.
The only thing a Puerto Rican needs to get into the United States of America and stay
as long as they wish is their Puerto Rican ID or passport, since they have already been
in America their entire lives to begin with.
3.
English Is Not The Official Language Of The United States Of America
Sometimes people will get confused and start talking about how in America, you speak English,
and not any other language.
They will demand this of others, and suggest people should be forced to assimilate, or
they should leave.
Now, this misunderstanding stems partly from the fact that English is by far the most spoken
language in the country and is used for almost everything written, but that doesn't mean
it is correct.
There are roughly 500 languages that are spoken in the United States today, and the federal
government of the United States does not recognize any of them as the official language of the
country.
It has been proposed before, but it has never succeeded, except on a state level.
At this point several states have passed laws stating that their state's official language
is English, but this still does nothing, at least yet, to change any federal laws or statutes.
In truth, there is really no point to making anything official — most people speak it,
and most people use it for written communication, and there is rarely any confusion — there
is also the argument that making an official language would violate the first amendment.
Even if it were made the official language, there are still some people who would struggle
with it, and keep speaking mostly in their native language, and other citizens would
be happy to use their own language skills to help them fit in, as humans like to do.
2.
The Jury System Is Not Foolproof, Jury Nullification Can Be Used For Good Or For Ill
The jury system and justice system in general, on its face, seems like a really, really good
idea.
Everyone has to have a fair and speedy trial, and no cruel or unusual punishment is allowed.
Forced interrogations are a thing of the past and people are presumed innocent instead of
guilty.
In many ways it is a paragon of proper justice, but every system has flaws, and one of the
biggest ones in the United States is the ability for juries, if the entire group is in sync,
to simply to decide to do what they want and tell the judge to take his instructions, and
the law and witnesses to take what they told them, and stuff it.
This is something called jury nullification, but it can also be used to ensure someone's
guilt.
Now, it says you will have a jury of your peers, but this is extremely dubious.
No precedent has ever been followed to make sure the people judging you are part of your
peer group, so you end up with whoever is local to that courthouse.
In some cases to prevent abuse a trial is moved to an entirely different geography for
jury toxicity reasons, but this is not always possible.
In the old south in the United States of America, many people who were obviously guilty of lynching
got away with it due to friendly juries, and many black people saw themselves jailed with
what was basically nothing more than a cursory examination from the jury.
This isn't to say the system is biased all or much of the time, but perhaps emphasizing
the peers part in jury selection would help improve the fairness of the process overall.
1.
The Supreme Court May Seem Insanely Powerful, But They Do Not Have The Final Say
Many people get very, very upset when the Supreme Court does something, and people from
both parties will accuse them of being activist judges or something similar.
It is quite common to suggest that the Justices are actually trying to legislate from the
bench, and using their lifelong position to control the country in an entirely inappropriate
way.
This misconception likely stems from people thinking that the Supreme Court has the final
say on everything.
The Supreme Court's job is not to legislate or tell politicians what to do, it is to evaluate
laws based on the constitution and decide if the constitution is being properly respected.
However, laws can be changed to narrowly fit requirements and they can be passed again,
or a constitutional amendment can be made to override the Supreme Court entirely.
If something like this were to occur in response, it's not like the Supreme Court could just
step in.
Even if the Justices thought the new constitutional amendment was incompatible with the rest of
the constitution without more drastic changes, they could not actually do anything until
someone had challenged it in court, and it had properly worked its way up the ladder.
Even if they wanted to hear a case as soon as possible, they have to wait for it to reach
them.
In the end, as much as some people may complain about them, they are just interpreters of
the constitution — they are not legislators or executives.
-------------------------------------------
U.S.-backed coalition in Yemen accused of 'unlawful' conduct - Duration: 5:02.
JUDY WOODRUFF: As the ongoing civil war in Yemen is leaving more and more civilians dead,
Nick Schifrin looks at the United States' role in the conflict.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Since early 2015, a Saudi-led coalition has been fighting Iranian-aligned
Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Yesterday, the Houthis and the U.N. blamed the coalition for an attack in Yemen's west
that reportedly killed 30 people, including women and many children.
The coalition disputes that claim.
Earlier this month, the U.N. says a coalition airstrike hit a school bus, killing at least
51 people, including 40 children.
The U.S. provides support to the coalition.
And now some in Congress are calling for the Pentagon and White House to better describe
that support.
Some on Capitol Hill want the U.S. to cease its involvement altogether.
For more on this, we're joined from Beirut by Kristine Beckerle, the Yemen researcher
at Human Rights Watch, and the author of a report released today, "Hiding Behind the
Coalition: Failure to Credibly Investigate and Provide Redress for Unlawful Attacks in
Yemen."
Kristine Beckerle, thank you very much for joining us.
The U.S. says it only provides midair refueling and does not provide any targeting.
Is that what you understand?
KRISTINE BECKERLE, Human Rights Watch: So, first of all, thank you for having me.
And I think the big issue on the U.S.' side is similar to what we're pointing out in the
new report, which is, basically, there's been an incredible dearth of transparency, or,
to put it more bluntly, the U.S. has been quite tight-lipped about what support they're
actually providing to the coalition.
So, what we do know is, they are providing this midair refueling, but the U.S. won't
tell us which aircraft, for example, it refueled.
Did it refuel the coalition aircraft that bombed a market, a home, a hospital, a wedding?
And we know that they're providing munitions to the side of the coalition that have repeatedly
landed and shown up at the site of apparently unlawful attacks.
Now, the reason this is all very, very concerning is that it raises questions regarding the
U.S.' own complicity in some of these unlawful attacks.
NICK SCHIFRIN: A State Department official I was speaking to earlier said that they have
been pressing coalition partners at the highest levels to mitigate the conflict's impact on
civilian -- are you seeing evidence of that?
And are you seeing any results from that pressure?
KRISTINE BECKERLE: So there's been this narrative amongst coalition allies -- and I think probably
-- amongst coalition states -- that the coalition is -- quote -- "serious" about improving,
working to minimize civilian casualties.
But given how little transparency there is about how the coalition actually operates,
it's very difficult for independent observers to basically check them on that claim.
But there's two things I would point to, is that since the coalition has made these promises
to minimize civilian casualties, Human Rights Watch Amnesty, the U.N., other Yemeni rights
groups have repeatedly documented apparently unlawful coalition attacks in 2015, 2016,
2017, and 2018.
And, further, one of the things that coalition allies like the U.S. tend to point to is the
fact that, well, the coalition is investigating, so they must be serious about working to minimize
civilian casualties.
What our report does is show that those investigations are by no means a sufficient assurance to
coalition allies continuing to ship weapons to Saudi Arabia, because those investigations
themselves raise serious red flags about the way in which one coalition body is thinking
about international law and legal obligations.
NICK SCHIFRIN: U.S. officials have been trying to get the Saudi air force, the Saudi military
to be better at targeting and be better at waging this war.
And there's an investigative body that is part of that -- attempts to improve what the
Saudis are doing.
Do you see any evidence that investigative body is actually doing its work correctly?
KRISTINE BECKERLE: I think, to be very blunt, is that, at this point, the investigative
body is serving more to shield coalition states from any real form of accountability than
to credibly investigate unlawful attacks, hold anybody responsible or provide civilian
victims redress.
And the reason I say that is, Human Rights Watch analyzed the work of that coalition
body over the last two years.
They basically cleared the coalition of legal fault in the vast majority of attacks investigated.
Their findings showed some pretty egregious, fundamental failings in terms of the ways
in which they were thinking about both the facts on the ground and the laws that applied.
And I think, perhaps even more condemnatory, is that this investigative body that the U.S.
continuously points to, say, for example, after the coalition once again bombs and kills
kids that didn't need to die, like the bus in Saada that was hit recently, the U.S. says,
well, coalition, you should investigate.
But, listen, two years on, that coalition body has not credibly investigated.
So, the question I really think is, how many more children in Yemen basically need to die,
how many more buses need to be bombed, weddings bombed, before the U.S. realizes that calling
on the coalition to investigate itself is by no means an adequate response to what's
going on in Yemen?
NICK SCHIFRIN: Kristine Beckerle of Human Rights Watch joining us from Beirut, thank
you very much.
KRISTINE BECKERLE: Thanks so much for having me.
-------------------------------------------
US economy sees surge on tax cuts: Billionaire investor Foster Friess - Duration: 5:10.
For more infomation >> US economy sees surge on tax cuts: Billionaire investor Foster Friess - Duration: 5:10. -------------------------------------------
On the U.S.-Mexico border, water shortages loom as the region races for solutions - Duration: 7:13.
>> Sreenivasan: THE RIO GRANDE
RIVER IS BOTH A BORDER, AND AN
IMPORTANT SOURCE OF WATER FOR
THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DEPEND ON THE
RIVER FOR DRINKING WATER AND
AGRICULTURE.
AS THE POPULATION IN THE REGION
GROWS, AND CLIMATE CHANGE BRINGS
LONGER-LASTING DROUGHTS, THERE
ARE SOME PREDICTIONS OF A
REGIONAL WATER SHORTAGE.
IN A NINE-PART SERIES CALLED
"SHALLOW WATERS" "QUARTZ" AND
THE "TEXAS OBSERVER"
INVESTIGATED THE POTENTIAL WATER
SCARCITY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
BORDER.
RECENTLY I SPOKE WITH ZOE
SCHLANGER, AN ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTER AT "QUARTZ," ABOUT THE
CHALLENGES FACING THE RIO
GRANDE.
ZOE SCHLANGER, THANKS FOR
JOINING US.
YOU TAKE A LONG LOOK OVER A
SERIES OF STORIES ABOUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON THE BORDER.
OUR BORDER WITH MEXICO IS ONE
THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY A RIVER
FOR MOST OF IT AND THE RIVER
DOESN'T ACTUALLY CARE WHO'S ON
WHICH SIDE, AND A RIVER'S A
NATURAL BODY THAT WILL ADJUST
WITH FLOODPLAINS AND SO FORTH.
SO, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF SAYING WE WANT
TO PUT UP A WALL OR AT LEAST
FIRM THAT WALL UP?
WHAT HAPPENS ECOLOGICALLY ON
BOTH SIDES OF THAT WALL?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK MOST AMERICANS NOT IN
THE REGION DON'T QUITE REALIZE
THAT WHERE THE WALL WILL BE
PLACED IS ALONG A RIVER THAT
BOTH SIDES DEPEND ON.
SIX MILLION PEOPLE DRINK FROM
IT.
BOTH IN THE U.S. AND MEXICO.
AND IF YOU PUT A WALL UP AGAINST
THE RIVER OR EVEN SOMETIMES A
MILE AWAY YOU HAVE A FLUCTUATING
RIVER BODY, EXACTLY AS YOU SAID,
AND WE'VE ALREADY SEEN A FEW
YEARS BACK IN 2014, AND THE
SECTION OF A BORDER WALL ALREADY
PUT UP-- NOGALES, SONORA AND
NOGALES, ARIZONA THAT BORDER
AREA, IT CAUSED A FLOOD BECAUSE
WALLS ACT LIKE DAMS.
AND SO, WHEN THE RIVER SWELLS
AND THERE'S MASSIVE RAINFALL
DURING A MONSOON SEASON THE
DEBRIS JUST PILES UP AND WATER
CAN'T PASS.
AND SO, IN THAT INSTANCE TWO
PEOPLE DIED IN THOSE
FLOODWATERS.
SO, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
TO THINK ABOUT.
>> Sreenivasan: THESE ARE HUGE
FLOODPLAINS ON EITHER SIDE WHERE
PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DEPENDENT ON
THIS TO GROW CROPS, TO DRINK
WATER AS YOU SAID.
SO, IS THERE COOPERATION BETWEEN
THE TWO COUNTRIES TO KIND OF
SAY, "OKAY, THERE'S THE POLITICS
OF IT, BUT THERE'S ALSO JUST THE
FACT THAT WE NEED THIS WATER ON
BOTH SIDES TO SURVIVE?"
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THERE'S KIND OF A SECOND SET OF
POLITICS HAPPENING ALONG THE
BORDER AS IT PERTAINS
SPECIFICALLY TO WATER THAT MOST
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, BUT THE
STATE DEPARTMENT HAS AN EMPLOYEE
WHO NEGOTIATES DIRECTLY WITH
MEXICO AND THEY MEET AND THEY
TALK ALL THE TIME.
I'VE MET BOTH THE MEXICAN
COMMISSIONER AND THE U.S.
COMMISSIONER AND SEEN THEM EAT
LUNCH TOGETHER.
IT'S A VERY COLLEGIAL
RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE IT HAS TO
BE.
BECAUSE WE RELY ON MEXICO AND
THE U.S. FOR DRINKING WATER IN
THAT AREA AND IN MEXICO THEY
RELY ON US FOR A DIFFERENT
PORTION OF THE RIVER FOR
DRINKING WATER.
SO THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE AN
OPTION NOT TO TALK TO EACH OTHER
AND MAINTAIN A FRIENDLY
ENVIRONMENT DESPITE CHANGES IN
ADMINISTRATION OR ANYTHING ELSE
GOING ON.
>> Sreenivasan: LET'S TALK IN A
LONGER TIME SCALE, WHAT'S
HAPPENING TO THE RIVER AND
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE SORT OF
WATER TABLE THAT'S UNDERNEATH
IT?
IS THERE GREATER STRESS ON IT
NOW THAN THERE WAS 30, 40 YEARS
AGO?
>> YEAH, THERE REALLY IS.
IT HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE
FASTEST GROWING REGIONS IN THE
U.S. AND THE U.S. SIDE.
AND THE POPULATION IS GOING UP
EVEN FASTER ON THE MEXICAN SIDE.
YOU HAVE A REGION THAT'S SET TO
DOUBLE IN POPULATION BY 2060 AND
A RIVER THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGES WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO MEET DEMAND BY THAT
SAME YEAR, BY 2060.
WE'RE LOOKING AT WAY LESS
SNOWFALL, WHERE THE RIVER IS FED
FROM SNOWFALL IN THE COLORADO
MOUNTAINS AND THE MONSOON RAINS
ARE CHANGING ON THE MEXICAN
SIDE.
SO BASICALLY YOU HAVE INCREASED
POPULATION, MORE PEOPLE NEEDING
TO DRINK WATER AND WAY
DIMINISHED WATER RESOURCES.
>> Sreenivasan: AND YOU HAVE A
HUGE CHUNK OF THIS THAT ACTUALLY
GOES THROUGH A DESERT.
>> THERE ARE PARTS OF THE RIVER
THAT COMPLETELY DRY OUT IN THE
DRY SEASON AND YOU HAVE DROUGHTS
THAT ARE INCREASING.
AND SCIENTISTS SAY THIS IS DUE
TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND DUE TO
MORE ARIDITY AND LESS RAINFALL.
SO, WITH DROUGHTS GOING UP AND
POPULATION INCREASING IT'S A
PRETTY TOUGH SPOT.
>> Sreenivasan: BUT YOU HAVE
ALSO A STORY ON EL PASO WHICH I
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT WAS ACTUALLY
RELATIVELY SPEAKING A LEADER ON
TRYING TO CONSERVE THE AMOUNT OF
WATER AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING
THIS FOR DECADES.
>> YEAH.
EL PASO AN INCREDIBLE CASE STUDY
IN WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO REALLY
ADDRESS THE FACT THAT YOU LIVE
IN A DESERT AT A TIME OF
INCREASING ARIDITY, THEIR-- ED
ARCHULETA, THEIR WATER
COMMISSIONER DECIDED ABOUT 30
YEARS AGO TO START DRASTICALLY
CUTTING WATER PER PERSON AND
EDUCATING CHILDREN.
HE WOULD GO INTO THE SCHOOLS AND
TELL THEM ABOUT HOW THEY REALLY
LIVE IN A DESERT.
THEY HAVE TO ACT LIKE DESERT
ANIMALS.
WHEN THERE'S LESS WATER, YOU USE
LESS WATER.
AND SO NOW THEY'RE AT THIS POINT
WHERE THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING
REALLY GROUNDBREAKING FOR THE
U.S. AND FOR THE WHOLE WORLD,
REALLY, WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING
TO TREAT WASTEWATER.
THEY'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR
RIVER THAT THEY DEPEND ON AND
THAT MEXICO DEPENDS ON TOO, IS
GOING TO BE GONE SOON.
AND SO NOW THEY'RE GOING TO
START TREATING WASTEWATER AND
PUTTING IT THROUGH THE PIPES
BACK TO THEIR POPULATION.
AND BECAUSE EL PASO PEOPLE HAVE
BEEN TAUGHT FOR DECADES NOW THAT
THEY LIVE IN A DRY PLACE AND
NEED TO RESPECT THAT, THEY'RE
OPEN TO THIS IN A WAY THAT I
THINK MANY OTHER CITIES IN THE
U.S. WOULDN'T FATHOM THE IDEA OF
DRINKING THEIR OWN WASTE WATER,
THIS KIND OF CLOSED LOOP WATER
CYCLE.
>> Sreenivasan: HOW DID THEY
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO THINK LONG
TERM?
BECAUSE OFTENTIMES, ESPECIALLY
POLITICIANS CAN'T SEE PAST THE
NEXT TWO YEARS ELECTION CYCLE OR
RE-ELECTION CYCLE.
>> ED ARCHULETA HAD SO MUCH TO
DO WITH THIS.
HE OFFERED SUBSIDIES TO PEOPLE
WHO WOULD RIP UP THEIR LAWNS.
IN THE 1980s IN EL PASO, LAWNS
WERE THE THING.
EVERYONE HAD REALLY LAVISH
GARDENS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND HE CUT THAT OUT.
HE SAID, "I'LL PAY YOU A DOLLAR
PER CUBIC FOOT OF LAWN THAT YOU
RIP OUT AND HELP YOU PUT IN MORE
DESERT PLANTS OR ROCKS," OR
THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO NOW YOU GO TO EL PASO YOU
DON'T SEE THOSE LAWNS ANYMORE.
IT'S JUST BEEN THIS KIND OF SLOW
REEDUCATING PEOPLE ON WHAT THEY
NEED TO DO TO MAKE THAT CITY
SURVIVE.
>> Sreenivasan: AND THAT'S
BECOME A MODEL FOR OTHER DRY
CITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY AND
POSSIBLY AROUND THE WORLD AS
WELL.
THIS WAS A SERIES IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE "TEXAS OBSERVER."
AS YOU WENT THROUGH THIS, WHAT
WAS THE "AHA" MOMENT FOR YOU IN
THE REPORTING?
>> YES, SO NAVEENA SADASIVAM AND
I AT THE "TEXAS OBSERVER" HAD
BEEN TALKING TO POLITICIANS AND
FARMERS AND SO MANY DIFFERENT
PEOPLE WHO HAD STAKES IN THIS
RIVER.
AND I THINK AS A REPORTER BASED
IN NEW YORK, IT WAS INCREDIBLE
FOR ME TO REALIZE HOW BORDER
POLITICS ON THE GROUND ARE SO
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HEAR IN
THE NEWS WHEN BOTH SIDES KNOW
THAT THEY NEED EACH OTHER FOR
THIS RESOURCE.
THEY CAN'T-- NO ONE CAN LIVE
WITHOUT WATER.
NO ONE CAN FARM WITHOUT WATER.
THERE'S SO MUCH MORE
COLLABORATION THAN YOU'D THINK
OF.
SO REALLY RIGHT NOW IT SOUNDS
LIKE EVERYONE'S KIND OF HOLDING
AND WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS
ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL WITH THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT
THAT WILL-- HOW THAT WILL AFFECT
THINGS ON THE GROUND FOR THEM.
BUT ON THE WHOLE, THERE'S SO
MUCH MORE COLLABORATION THAN
PEOPLE THINK ABOUT.
I THINK WHAT REALLY HIT HOME
WITH THAT FOR ME IS THE FACT
THAT IN NOGALES, ARIZONA THERE'S
A PIPE THAT GOES RIGHT THROUGH
THE BORDER WALL TO NOGALES,
SONORA IN MEXICO TO FEED A HOTEL
AND SOME OTHER BUSINESSES WATER.
SO, THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE
WHEN, I MEAN, THE WATER
COMMISSIONER THERE SAID THE
BORDER BACK THEN WAS LIKE,
BARELY A FENCE.
MAYBE IT WASN'T EVEN THERE AT
ALL WHEN THEY STARTED THIS
COLLABORATION, THIS INFORMAL
WATER SHARING PRACTICE.
AND THEY STILL DO IT.
THERE'S STILL-- WE WENT DOWN AND
SAW IT AND THERE'S JUST A PIPE
STRAIGHT THROUGH THE WALL
CARRYING WATER.
>> Sreenivasan: ALL RIGHT.
THE SERIES IS CALLED "SHALLOW
WATERS," YOU CAN FIND IT ONLINE.
IT'S A JOINT REPORTING PROJECT
BETWEEN "QUARTZ" AND THE "TEXAS
OBSERVER."
THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US,
ZOE SCHLANGER.
>> THANK YOU.
-------------------------------------------
US, China trade talks is at a standstill: Gordon Chang - Duration: 4:10.
For more infomation >> US, China trade talks is at a standstill: Gordon Chang - Duration: 4:10. -------------------------------------------
U.S. Postal Service operations, mail delivery changes as Lane weakens to tropical storm - Duration: 1:03.
For more infomation >> U.S. Postal Service operations, mail delivery changes as Lane weakens to tropical storm - Duration: 1:03. -------------------------------------------
US Attorney General Backs Plan To Build Muslim Cemetery In Farmersville - Duration: 2:03.
For more infomation >> US Attorney General Backs Plan To Build Muslim Cemetery In Farmersville - Duration: 2:03. -------------------------------------------
TN State Rep. Antonio Parkinson Hands Out Backpacks To Students At Aspire Coleman - Duration: 0:43.
For more infomation >> TN State Rep. Antonio Parkinson Hands Out Backpacks To Students At Aspire Coleman - Duration: 0:43. -------------------------------------------
US sanctions on Russia tied to UK nerve agent attack to kick in on Monday - Duration: 3:19.
US sanctions on Russia tied to UK nerve agent attack to kick in on Monday
US sanctions on Russia tied to UK nerve agent attack to kick in on Monday.
US sanctions against Russia tied to a nerve agent attack in Britain, which were announced earlier this month, will officially take effect on Monday, according to a notice posted on Friday at the Federal Register.
The measures will terminate foreign assistance and some arms sales and financing to Russia, as well as deny the country credit and prohibit the export of security-sensitive goods and technology.
They will be formally published and come into effect on August 27, according to the notice in the register, a daily catalogue of actions and regulations at government agencies.
Plans to impose the sanctions, which add to a raft of existing US sanctions against Russia, were announced by the Trump administration on August 8 for what the state department said was Moscow's use of a nerve agent against a former Russian agent and his daughter in Britain.
Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's GRU military intelligence service, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found slumped unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of Salisbury in March after a liquid form of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to his home's front door.
Both survived the attack.
The US sanctions would cover sensitive national-security controlled goods under the 1991 Chemical and Biological Weapons and Warfare Elimination Act.
A second batch of penalties will be imposed after 90 days unless Russia gives "reliable assurance" that it would no longer use chemical weapons and allow on-site inspections by the UN or another international observer group.
Space flight activities, government space co-operation and areas covering commercial aviation safety would be exempted from the limits, according to the notice in the Federal Register, which said the exemptions are "essential to the national security interests of the US." Urgent humanitarian assistance and food would also be allowed, the notice said.
The measures will add to existing US sanctions on Russia, including those imposed for its alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.
Moscow has denied involvement in the nerve agent attack in Britain, and has also denied interference in the 2016 election. .
-------------------------------------------
Teller County honors fallen U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Eric V. Dickson - Duration: 1:03.
For more infomation >> Teller County honors fallen U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Eric V. Dickson - Duration: 1:03. -------------------------------------------
State of Ohio may take money cities who use traffic cameras - Duration: 2:52.
For more infomation >> State of Ohio may take money cities who use traffic cameras - Duration: 2:52. -------------------------------------------
Former IPSB employees case heads to US court of Appeals - Duration: 0:34.
For more infomation >> Former IPSB employees case heads to US court of Appeals - Duration: 0:34. -------------------------------------------
US sanctions to stay until Russia changes - Duration: 0:53.
Speaking at a news conference in Kiev, Bolton added he had told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that Moscow should not meddle in Ukraine's presidential vote next year
Washington has imposed economic sanctions against Russia over its alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential election
Moscow denies the allegations.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét