• Écrire un commentaire
  • @cdb_77
    CDB_77
    2
    @simplicissimus
    @02myseenthis01
    2

    The Danger of Anti-Immigrant Extremism Posing as Environmentalism—and Who Funds It

    With President Joe Biden in the White House and Vice President Kamala Harris providing the deciding vote in the Senate, a range of long-sought Democratic policy goals are back in play, albeit just barely. That includes ambitious agendas on immigration and the environment.

    Could this be the administration that pushes through comprehensive immigration reform after decades of failed attempts? Will youth activists and the burgeoning movement for a Green New Deal provide a pathway to major climate legislation? If so, advocates and their funders alike face a tough road ahead, including an obstructionist congressional minority and opponents on both fronts that will look to appeal to the public’s darkest impulses to build opposition.

    At this inflection point, a report this month from the Center for American Progress, “The Extremist Campaign to Blame Immigrants for U.S. Environmental Problems,” offers a timely overview of the history of how opponents of immigration falsely portray it as a threat to the natural world—a strategy we’re likely to see more of in the months ahead. The report offers a valuable review of these efforts, ranging from the past anti-immigrant stances of some of the nation’s best-known environmental groups to the funders that have bankrolled the nation’s largest anti-immigration groups.

    Four years of an administration defined by its opposition to immigration, plus growing attention to climate change, breathed new life into the toxic and racist narrative of immigrants as a cause of environmental degradation. As the report lays out, this argument—often part of a right-wing, white supremacist ideology known as ecofascism, though CAP’s report does not use the term—found allies in the top echelons of government and media, including a former head of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

    In contemporary politics, this strategy is mainly seen as a right-wing phenomenon or an artifact of the racist and Eurocentric early history of conservation. Yet the fact that anti-immigrant sentiment found a home within top environmental groups, including Earthfirst! and the Sierra Club, which had a major faction in support of these ideas as late as 2004, is a reminder that it has found fertile soil in a variety of political camps. That makes the narrative all the more dangerous, and one against which funders working in both immigration and the environment ought to take a firm and vocal stance.

    Who’s funding anti-immigration work in the name of the environment?

    Although not comprehensive, the report highlights three funders as key backers of anti-immigration groups: Colcom Foundation, Weeden Foundation and Foundation for the Carolinas. The first two are, in their branding and language, environmental funders—and make those grants in the name of preventing further damage to the natural world.

    Colcom, founded by Mellon Bank heir Cordelia Scaife May, is far and away the largest funder. With a roughly $500 million endowment, it has provided a large share of the support for a network of groups founded by John Tanton, a Sierra Club official in the 1980s, whom the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) calls “the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement.”

    Recipients include NumbersUSA, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the Center for Immigration Studies, which we once called “Trump’s favorite immigration think tank.” The latter two are classified as hate groups by the SPLC, a designation the organizations reject.

    In keeping with the bending of reflexive political categories, it’s worth noting that May—who died in 2005—was also a substantial funder of Planned Parenthood due to her prioritization of “population control” as a means of achieving conservation. In 2019, the New York Times documented May’s dark journey to becoming a leading funder of the modern anti-immigrant movement, and the millions her foundation continued to move, long after her death, in support of ideas that gained a receptive audience in a nativist Trump administration. May’s wealth came from the Mellon-Scaife family fortune, which yielded several philanthropists, including another prominent conservative donor, Richard Mellon Scaife.

    Weeden, led by Don Weeden, has funded a similar who’s who of top anti-immigration groups, as well as lower-profile or regional groups like Californians for Population Stabilization, Progressives for Immigration Reform—which CAP calls the “most central organization in the anti-immigrant greenwashing universe”—and the Rewilding Institute.

    Both Weeden and Colcom, as well as the groups they fund, generally say they are neither anti-immigrant nor anti-immigration. Aside from restrictionist policy positions and racist comments by former leaders, it is revealing that the groups they fund are the favored information sources for some of the most virulently anti-immigrant politicians, both historically and among those who rose prominence during the Trump administration. For a deeper dive on Weeden and Colcom, see my colleague Philip Rojc’s excellent 2019 piece on these grantmakers.

    Finally, there is the Foundation for the Carolinas, which in many ways is a typical community foundation, with initiatives on topics from COVID-19 relief to local arts. But it also hosts a donor-advised fund that has supported several anti-immigration groups, including Center for Immigration Studies, FAIR and NumbersUSA. That fund channeled nearly $21 million to nine such groups between 2006 and 2018, according to the report.

    There’s a connection here to a larger problem of private foundations and DAFs, some of which are housed at community foundations, supporting 501(c)(3) nonprofits identified as hate groups, according to a recent analysis from the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Foundation for the Carolinas also made its list of top donors to these groups.

    An ideology funders must fight against

    As the debates over both immigration and climate policies move forward under this new administration, and the opposition marshals efforts to defeat them, this report offers a helpful guide to this enduring and noxious myth. It’s also an important reminder that if these ideas are not called actively combated, they can take root within well-intentioned efforts. Though it seems only a small number of foundations directly fund groups advancing these ideas, anti-immigrant sentiment is insidious.

    For example, while some commentators are suggesting that acceding to Trump-fueled demands for a border wall is how Congress could reach bipartisan action on immigration reform, the report notes how the existing sections of wall are ineffective against furtive crossings, disruptive to species migration, and in violation of Indigenous sacred sites. These facts—and more broadly, the connection to white supremacist and fascist movements—should put foundations on guard, whether they support grantees pushing for immigration reform, action on climate or both.

    With the United States and other nations facing greater and greater pressures from climate change—particularly as it forces migration from regions like Latin America and the Middle East—philanthropy would do well to be proactive now and draw a bright line in countering this ideology’s propagation.

    ▻https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2021/2/24/anti-immigrant-environmentalism-is-resurgent-new-report-looks-at
    #extrême_droite #anti-migrants #USA #Etats-Unis #environnementalisme #environnement #migrations #nature #dégradation_environnementale #écofascisme #éco-fascisme #suprématisme_blanc #extrême_droite #Ann_Coulte #Tucker_Carlson #racisme #Earthfirst #Sierra_Club #deep_ecology #fondations #Colcom_Foundation #Weeden_Foundation #Foundation_for_the_Carolinas #Mellon_Bank #Cordelia_Scaife_May #mécénat #John_Tanton #NumbersUSA #Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform (#FAIR) #Center_for_Immigration_Studies #Planned_Parenthood #démographie #contrôle_démographique #néo-malthusianisme #néomalthusianisme #protection_de_l'environnement #philanthropie #Richard_Mellon_Scaife #Weeden #Don_Weeden #Californians_for_Population_Stabilization #Progressives_for_Immigration_Reform #Rewilding_Institute

    CDB_77
    • @cdb_77
      CDB_77

      The Extremist Campaign to Blame Immigrants for U.S. Environmental Problems

      With growing frequency over the past four years, right-wing pundits, policymakers, and political operatives have fiercely and furiously blamed immigrants for the degradation and decline of nature in the United States. William Perry Pendley, who temporarily ran the U.S. Bureau of Land Management under former President Donald Trump, saw “immigration as one of the biggest threats to public lands,” according to an agency spokesperson.1 A handful of right-wing anti-immigration zealots, including Joe Guzzardi, have repeatedly misused data published by the Center for American Progress on nature loss to make xenophobic arguments for anti-immigration policies.2 This so-called “greening of hate”—a term explored by Guardian reporter Susie Cagle—is a common refrain in a wide range of conservative and white supremacist arguments, including those of Ann Coulter, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, and the manifestos of more than one mass shooter.3

      The claim that immigration is to blame for America’s environmental problems is so absurd, racist, and out of the mainstream that it is easily debunked and tempting to ignore. The scientific community, and the little research that has been conducted in this area, resoundingly refutes the premise. Consider, for example, the environmental damage caused by weak and inadequate regulation of polluting industries; the destruction of wildlife habitat to accommodate wealthy exurbs and second homes; the design and propagation of policies that concentrate toxic poisons and environmental destruction near communities of color and low-income communities; the continued subsidization of fossil fuel extraction and trampling of Indigenous rights to accommodate drilling and mining projects; and the propagation of a throw-away culture by industrial powerhouses. All of these factors and others cause exponentially more severe environmental harm than a family that is fleeing violence, poverty, or suffering to seek a new life in the United States.

      The extremist effort to blame immigrants for the nation’s environmental problems deserves scrutiny—and not merely for the purpose of disproving its xenophobic and outlandish claims. The contours, origins, funding sources, and goals of this right-wing effort must be understood in order to effectively combat it and ensure that the extremists pushing it have no place in the conservation movement. The individuals and organizations that are most fervently propagating this argument come largely from well-funded hate groups that are abusing discredited ideologies that were prevalent in the 19th-century American conservation movement in an attempt to make their racist rhetoric more palatable to a public concerned about the health of their environment.

      While leaders of the contemporary, mainstream environmental movement in the United States have disavowed this strain of thought and are working to confront the legacies of colonialism and racism in environmental organizations and policies, a small set of right-wing political operatives are trying to magnify overtly xenophobic and false environmental arguments to achieve specific political objectives. In particular, these right-wing political operatives and their deep-pocketed funders are seeking to broaden the appeal of their anti-immigration zealotry by greenwashing their movement and supplying their right-wing base with alternative explanations for environmental decline that sidestep the culpability of the conservative anti-regulatory agenda. In their refusal to confront the true reasons for environmental decline, they are hurting the people—immigrants, Indigenous peoples, and people of color—who bear a disproportionate burden of environmental consequences and are increasingly the base of the climate justice and conservation movements.

      (...)

      ▻https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2021/02/01/495228/extremist-campaign-blame-immigrants-u-s-environmental-problems

      CDB_77
    Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire
  • @hackernoon
    Hacker Noon CC BY-SA

    Leaving #apple and Google: a message to /e/ users and supporters!
    ▻https://hackernoon.com/leaving-apple-and-google-a-message-to-e-users-and-supporters-f4535a53f03

    https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/320/1*-ZoTTNUjRMxHaA4M_CHZbg.png

    This is the end of 2018, and this year has been incredible.By the end of 2017, I posted a few messages here about my quest for more data #privacy, and corresponding plans to “Leave Apple and Google”. At this time, I thought I would just customize an #android ROM a bit and that it would be enough for my use and a few others.But the story has been “a little” differentThanks to the support for thousand people, thanks to the contributions of many, thanks to the hard work of the /e/ core team, we have been able to deliver a great “/e/ MVP” (Minimal Viable Produc), as a beta, three months ago.It comes as an installable Android-based ROM that can run most Android apps without Google services, it doesn’t have default settings to Google services anymore, it includes a different choice of default (...)

    #open-source #foundation

    Hacker Noon CC BY-SA
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @bce_106_6
    bce_106_6

    Philanthropiques, mais pas toujours éthiques Pauline Gravel - 7 Décembre 2018 - Le Devoir
    ▻https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/science/543021/fiancement-de-la-science-les-fondations-philanthropiques-profitent-aussi-d

    Plusieurs des grandes fondations philanthropiques privées du monde qui subventionnent la recherche scientifique font fructifier leurs avoirs dans des paradis fiscaux, révèle une enquête menée par la revue Science (en anglais).

    Aussi contradictoire que cela puisse paraître, ces #fondations investissent parfois même dans des compagnies qui contribuent aux problèmes qu’elles désirent résoudre en octroyant des subventions de recherche.

    https://media1.ledevoir.com/images_galerie/nwd_678719_522992/image.jpg

    Photo : Alastair Grant Associated Press Une employée de la fondation Wellcome Trust se tient devant l’image d’une vue en coupe d’un cerveau à l’exposition « Brains — The Mind as Matter », tenue à Londres en mars 2012.

    Le journaliste Charles Piller, du département des nouvelles de la revue Science, a fait cette découverte en consultant les déclarations de revenus et les états financiers rendus publics par les fondations, ainsi que 13,4 millions de documents confidentiels ayant fait l’objet de fuites (dans les Paradise Papers) et qui ont été partagés par le Consortium international des journalistes d’investigation (CIJI).

    M. Piller donne en exemple Wellcome Trust, une des fondations philanthropiques privées les plus riches du monde, qui a notamment financé une longue étude menée par chercheurs des universités de Hong Kong et de Birmingham ayant démontré que les résidents âgés de Hong Kong qui étaient exposés à des niveaux élevés de smog, particulièrement aux minuscules particules de suie générées par la combustion de carburants fossiles, étaient plus susceptibles de mourir d’un cancer que les personnes respirant un air pur.

    Or, peu avant la publication de cette étude dans la revue Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers Prevention, en 2016, Wellcome est devenu actionnaire de #Varo_Energy, une compagnie basée en Suisse qui vend principalement du #diesel à moteurs de navires, un résidu sulfureux et bon marché du raffinage du pétrole qui génère une importante pollution en particules de suie.

    « Les chercheurs ont estimé que les particules présentes dans la fumée sortant des cheminées de bateau contribuent au décès prématuré de 250 000 personnes annuellement », souligne le journaliste Piller, avant de préciser que Wellcome n’a pas investi directement dans Varo Energy, mais plutôt dans un fonds de placement étranger, #Carlyle_International_Energy_Partners, basé aux #îles_Caïmans, lequel fonds détient une participation dans Varo Energy.

    En parfaite contradiction
    À l’instar de maintes autres riches entreprises, les fondations philanthropiques se tournent donc couramment vers des paradis fiscaux dans le but de maximiser les rendements de leurs investissements, puisque notamment elles y paieront beaucoup moins d’impôts que dans leur pays d’origine, voire pas du tout, et parce que les réglementations y sont plus souples et leur permettent d’économiser d’importants frais d’administration.

    « Bien que les investissements dans les paradis fiscaux puissent être légaux, ils sont controversés, en partie parce que les activités de ces fonds sont toujours tenues secrètes », fait remarquer Piller avant d’ajouter que « ce type d’investissements diminue, voire nie les nobles missions sociales, éducatives et de soutien à la recherche affichées par ces fondations qui subventionnent la science ».

    Cette façon de faire fructifier leur capital est même parfois en parfaite contradiction avec leur mission philanthropique, comme l’illustre l’exemple de Wellcome, qui subventionne nombre d’études en sciences de l’environnement dans le cadre de son engagement à rendre « les villes plus saines et environnementalement durables », comme elle le souligne sur son site officiel, et ce, alors qu’une partie des 1,2 milliard de dollars que la fondation a donnés annuellement à des chercheurs ces dernières années provenait d’investissements dans des compagnies qui participent aux problèmes mêmes que sa mission philanthropique vise à résoudre.

    Plusieurs voix s’élèvent pour critiquer cette pratique. L’une d’elles souligne le fait qu’en investissant dans les paradis fiscaux, ces fondations qui bénéficient d’une réputation exceptionnelle de par leur mission sociale contribuent à légitimer des tactiques financières qui sont utilisées pour contourner ou enfreindre la loi par des investisseurs soucieux d’éviter de payer des impôts, ou par des criminels cherchant à cacher des profits gagnés illégalement.

    Une autre voix fait valoir que de telles pratiques privent les gouvernements de revenus qui pourraient être consacrés à « des services publics et qu’elles transfèrent le fardeau fiscal des compagnies et des plus riches vers la classe moyenne ».

    Pour le bien commun ?
    Par le passé, de nombreuses organisations philanthropiques voyaient ces moyens d’échapper à l’impôt comme honteux. Plus maintenant. Aux États-Unis, la plupart des « fondations considèrent que minimiser les impôts qu’elles doivent payer est une nécessité » pour respecter « leur obligation d’enrichir leur fonds de dotation ».

    « Ces fondations ne doivent-elles pas être plus que des compagnies d’investissements privées qui utilisent leurs surplus pour le bien commun ? » s’insurge Dana Bezerra, une avocate new-yorkaise spécialisée dans l’#investissement_éthique, dans la revue Science.

    « La logique des gestionnaires de ces fondations est purement économique et ne vise qu’à maximiser les profits. Ils vont là — notamment dans les paradis fiscaux — où les intérêts générés sont plus élevés, et que les impôts et les frais administratifs, plus bas qu’ailleurs. […] Ils ont une mentalité d’optimisation qui ne tient pas compte de ce que veut dire la philanthropie éthique. Dans cet article, on découvre qu’être philanthrope n’est pas synonyme d’éthique et que les fondations qui se disent philanthropes contredisent ainsi leur finalité », fait remarquer Yves Gingras.

    Ce sociologue des sciences à l’UQAM rappelle que les fondations philanthropiques ont déjà des avantages fiscaux au Québec et ailleurs, et qu’elles « subventionnent des recherches scientifiques avec de l’argent qu’elles ont gagné en ne payant pas de taxes et en allant faire fructifier leurs avoirs dans des paradis fiscaux, ce qui veut donc dire que les contribuables ont payé une partie de leur soi-disant philanthropie ».

    Il souligne également que compte tenu du déclin des investissements gouvernementaux en recherche, les chercheurs dépendent de plus en plus de ces fondations.

    « Les #chercheurs doivent courir pour trouver de l’argent, et pour en avoir, ils ferment les yeux sur beaucoup de choses. Leur éthique devient de plus en plus élastique à mesure qu’ils ont plus de difficulté à obtenir des subventions », dit-il.

    Les sept fondations privées visées par l’enquête de « Science »
    • #Bill_&_Melinda_Gates Foundation : 51,8 milliards $US de dotation, aucun investissement dans des paradis fiscaux ;
    • #Wellcome_Trust : 29,3 milliards $US de dotation, 926 millions $US investis dans les paradis fiscaux ;
    • #Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute : 20,4 milliards $US de dotation, 891 millions $US investis dans les paradis fiscaux ;
    • #Robert_Wood_Johnson Foundation : 10,8 milliards $US de dotation, plus de 3 milliards $US investis dans les paradis fiscaux ;
    • #William_and_Flora_Hewlett Foundation : 9,9 milliards $US de dotation, 168 millions $US investis dans les paradis fiscaux ;
    • #David_and_Lucile_Packard Foundation : 7,9 milliards $US de dotation, 140 millions $US investis dans les paradis fiscaux ;
    • #Gordon_and_Betty_Moore #Foundation : 6,9 milliards $US de dotation, 40 millions $US investis dans les paradis fiscaux.

    bce_106_6
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @kassem
    Kassem CC BY-NC-SA
    1
    @reka
    1

    Washington’s Sketchy Pro-Israel/Anti-Iran Camp | The Nation
    ▻http://www.thenation.com/blog/180939/washingtons-sketchy-pro-israelanti-iran-camp

    One of the most active and most hardline groups on Iran, of course, is the #Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies (#FDD), whose influence Eli and I discussed at length in our recent Nation feature. (UANI and FDD officials have appeared together at events sponsored by dedicated pro-Israel groups.) The neoconservative think-tank is certainly no exception to the pro-Israel bent of Iran hawks in D.C. But even the extent to which the group serves as a pro-Israel outfit has been obscured in the course of its thirteen-year history.

    Kassem CC BY-NC-SA
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @soon7
    soon7

    des colonnes avec la même hauteur avec le #framework #foundation
    ▻http://www.soon7.com/developpements/des-colonnes-avec-la-meme-hauteur-avec-le-framework-foundation

    Foundation est un framework #CSS vraiment performant permettant de créer des interfaces fonctionnelles et responsives, que vous pouvez découvrir ici : ►http://foundation.zurb.com Lorsque vous créez vos différentes colonnes en utilisant la grid, il se peut que vous ayez besoin à un moment donné que une 2 ou plusieurs colonnes aient la même hauteur. Voici une solution […]

    #Dév_&_Code

    soon7
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @aris
    aris  CC BY-SA

    Foundation - Un framework CSS / JS complet et responsive - La Ferme du web
    ►http://www.lafermeduweb.net/billet/foundation-un-framework-css-js-complet-et-responsive-1217.html

    C’est la mode des frameworks CSS/JS complets permettant de bien démarrer dans le développement de ses webdesign. Après Twitter et son Twitter Bootstrap, c’est au tour de Zurb.com de lancer Foundation, encore plus complet et avec une touche de responsive webdesign.

    #css" #JavaScript #webdev #webdesign #framework #foundation

    aris  CC BY-SA
    Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire
  • @fil
    Fil
    1
    @aris
    1
    @clochix

    #freedombox #foundation
    ►http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org

    le nouveau projet d’Eben Moglen se structure un peu :

    Freedom Box is the name we give to a personal server running a free software operating system, with free applications designed to create and preserve personal privacy.

    Because social networking and digital communications technologies are now critical to people fighting to make freedom in their societies or simply trying to preserve their privacy where the Web and other parts of the Net are intensively surveilled by profit-seekers and government agencies. Because smartphones, mobile tablets, and other common forms of consumer electronics are being built as “platforms” to control their users and monitor their activity.

    Freedom Box exists to counter these unfree “platform” technologies that threaten political freedom. Freedom Box exists to provide people with privacy-respecting technology alternatives in normal times, and to offer ways to collaborate safely and securely with others in building social networks of protest, demonstration, and mobilization for political change in the not-so-normal times.

    (voir ►http://seenthis.net/messages/8120 )

    RT @clochix

    Fil
    Écrire un commentaire
  • Écrire un commentaire