Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author: shailender

Eric Holder accuses GOP of ‘stealing seats’ while defending ‘fair’ Democratic redistricting push

Eric Holder accuses GOP of ‘stealing seats’ while defending ‘fair’ Democratic redistricting push

Top Virginia redistricting proponent and former Attorney General Eric Holder defended Democrats’ proposed changes to the Old Dominion’s congressional map, accusing Republicans of “stealing seats” in Missouri and Texas. Voters go to the polls Tuesday to decide whether to “restore fairness” — in the words of the Democrat-crafted referendum itself — by essentially approving a new congressional map that would redraw Virginia’s districts to favor Democrats over Republicans 10-1. In a CBS News interview, anchor Margaret Brennan pressed Holder on the need for a new map, noting that a president’s party — in this case the GOP — already historically underperforms in midterm elections. Holder denied the move is an acknowledgment that the Democratic Party can’t win “on its own” and said that they can definitely win if it is a fair fight. GLENN YOUNGKIN ACCUSES GOV SPANBERGER OF ‘ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL’ GERRYMANDERING IN VIRGINIA MAP FIGHT “What were we supposed to do, nothing?” Holder asked, citing Texas’ decision to redraw its districts at the behest of President Donald Trump and similar Republican-led redistricting efforts in Missouri and North Carolina. Holder did not mention that Indiana legislative Republicans balked at calls to similarly redraw their map to favor the GOP, and Maryland Democrats also rejected a push to redraw their districts, ultimately preserving House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris’ Eastern Shore seat. Holder said Democrats couldn’t allow Republicans to “stack the deck” nationally and “try to steal seats.” “All we are trying to do is meet them and try to make the system as fair as it possibly can be, and that’s all this is about,” he said. Holder’s comments sparked online criticism, as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and others pushed back on the former Obama “wingman’s” logic. “It’s only partisan gerrymandering and ‘stealing seats’ when Republicans do it,” Lee said on X. VA DEM REJECTS ‘POWER GRAB’ CLAIMS ON SPANBERGER REDISTRICTING AS GOP WARNS 10–1 MAP WOULD SPLIT RURAL VOTE “When it’s Democrats, it’s about ‘making the system as fair as it can be’ — Democrat logic is exhausting.” Fox News contributor and media critic Joe Concha noted that Brennan also did not bring up several recent case of Democrats doing exactly what Holder criticized Republicans for. “Margaret didn’t bother to push back and bring up the fact that several blue states have done this for years,” Concha said. Critics have often pointed to the fact that the entirety of New England lacks a Republican member of congress, despite the true D-to-R population proportion. Like the proposed Virginia map, which includes several districts painstakingly drawn into Fairfax County and another intentionally drawn to connect interior cities like Charlottesville, Lynchburg and Roanoke, Democratic states like Illinois have created similar awkwardly-drawn maps. Reps. Eric Sorensen and Nikki Budzinski’s districts notably form thin, arcing lines connecting various Illinois cities that are otherwise nowhere near each other and not in a straight line or contour. Sorensen’s covers Rockford, Moline, Peoria and Bloomington, while Budzinski’s snakes from East St. Louis to Decatur and Urbana while incidentally collecting a thin line of rural areas that happen to be in between. In Maryland, until recently, the third district was in several distinct pieces connected only by waterways and tributaries — to the extent a federal judge derisively called it a “broken-winged pterodactyl” flying over Balt-Wash suburbs.

Tight security in Islamabad as US-Iran talks set to go ahead

Tight security in Islamabad as US-Iran talks set to go ahead

NewsFeed Security is on lockdown in Islamabad where preparations are being made for new US‑Iran talks despite questions over Iran’s participation. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett reports from the Pakistani capital, where an expanded police presence is tightly controlling access around the talks venue. Published On 20 Apr 202620 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)

Powerful states are trying to sabotage decarbonisation of shipping

Powerful states are trying to sabotage decarbonisation of shipping

The global fallout of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz may create the impression that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single industry can and must decarbonise. For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technological solutions exist and a single United Nations agency can set legally binding rules for all ships. The first steps have already been made. In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they opted to postpone a decision on formal adoption of this landmark agreement. This delay is emblematic of obstructive tactics used by countries opposing climate action. The IMO Framework – the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter – took years of compromises and watering-down. As it stands, it is the lowest possible bar Pacific Island states like the one I represent can accept. We cannot give in another inch. While I join the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable way. The delegates of Vanuatu who travel to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year. Should anyone reopen the framework to water it down, our position is clear: We will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide. Advertisement Last year my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not nearly ambitious enough. Even so, it is a starting point we can work with. But since then, the tide has shifted dramatically. After the delay in adoption, a small group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the ambition in the framework to meet the demands of particularly influential states whose current policy positions are not aligned with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic as reducing our collective actions to align with those that want no climate action at all is incompatible with our people’s continued survival. The world’s poorest countries, and the planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table. The framework, as it is, gives the world and the industry some chance of meeting the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way. The NZF introduces penalty fees – eg emission pricing for noncompliance with the regulation. This provides the regulation with a “stick” to ensure ships comply or else they must pay. The penalties also represent revenues, up to $10bn to $12bn a year, to both incentivise industry transition and enable a fair transition for all. This fund is a lifeline for developing – and especially least developed – states to be able to afford clean maritime energy upgrades and compensate for the rising trade costs because of this transition. Some claim that revenues raised by the NZF will blow out transport costs. This is preposterous. The penalties charged through this framework come down to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being – although the biggest polluters should pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population foots this bill, it adds up to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year, which the world’s richest can easily spare. Losing both financial penalties for noncompliance and financial support for countries like mine in the name of a political compromise with rich oil-producing states is a bad deal. Not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for the industry that demands and deserves clarity. If anything, we need more action and more ambition in the framework. For years, Pacific states have pushed for the IMO regulation to be in the form of a universal levy on emissions, by pricing all emissions. We managed to get the majority of IMO member states on board, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, as well as important Global South states, such as Panama and Liberia. However, the US has been very effective in exerting its influence in this area, which is resulting in shifts to some positions to the detriment of us all. Advertisement Our position was always backed by the best available scientific evidence. A levy on all shipping emissions is the best way to send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! The revenues, up to 10 times more than those from the NZF, serve as both a bigger stick for polluters and a bigger carrot for first movers and cash-poor countries. This is not a handout: Hitting net zero by 2050 is not possible if our countries cannot invest in clean ships. The bridge we have built in the form of the NZF through years of compromise and evidence is still standing. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed without any further dilution. Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand, and we call on our partners to stand with us. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Adblock test (Why?)

Cloud over US-Iran talks: What are the key sticking points?

Cloud over US-Iran talks: What are the key sticking points?

United States President Donald Trump has claimed a second round of negotiations with Iran will take place in Pakistan on Tuesday as mediators try to revive negotiations before the end of an ongoing yet fragile two-week ceasefire. The announcement on Sunday came alongside a sharp escalation in rhetoric. Trump warned that Iran must agree to a deal “one way or another – the nice way or the hard way” and threatened to target key infrastructure if negotiations fail. He also renewed his threat of striking “bridges and power plants”, which experts said could amount to war crimes under international law. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Iran, however, has so far denied it will participate in the talks, accusing the US of “armed piracy” after US forces struck and seized an Iran-linked tanker on Sunday, further heightening tensions between the longtime adversaries. What has the US said? On Sunday, Trump announced that US negotiators would travel to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Monday for talks aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran. In a social media post, the president did not say which officials would be sent to the talks. Last weekend’s first round of talks, at which Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation, ended without a deal. Trump accused Iran of violating their two-week ceasefire, which is due to expire on Wednesday, by opening fire on Saturday in the Strait of Hormuz. The US president threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran if it doesn’t accept the terms of the deal being offered by the US. Advertisement “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. In a further escalation, Trump said an Iranian-flagged ship called the Touska was “stopped” by US forces in the Gulf of Oman “by blowing a hole in the engine room”. He said it was trying to get past the US naval blockade of Iranian ports. US forces boarded the ship and took physical control of the vessel. How has Iran responded? Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military headquarters confirmed the US attack on the Iranian-flagged tanker and said it would “respond soon”. Then, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported that Iranian forces had sent drones in the direction of US military ships. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee, told Al Jazeera that Iran’s actions during talks with the US are strictly guided by national interests and security. When asked if Tehran intends to participate in the talks in Islamabad, he said, “Iran acts based on national interests.” “We see the current negotiations as a continuation of the battlefield, and we see nothing other than the battlefield in this,” he said. “If it yields achievements that sustain those of the battlefield, then the negotiation arena is also an opportunity for us … but not if the Americans intend to turn this into a field of excessive demands based on their bullying approach.” What are the key points of friction now? Since the start of the war on February 28, a number of new sticking points have emerged – alongside old challenges: Strait of Hormuz A central dispute is over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. One-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait before the war began. Iran insists on sovereignty over the waterway, which lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and does not fall into international waters, and stated that only “nonhostile” ships could pass. It has also floated the idea of levying tolls while Washington demands full freedom of navigation. After the war began, Iran in effect closed the strait by forbidding transits, attacking ships and reportedly laying sea mines. Shipping traffic has since dropped by 95 percent. A week ago, the US implemented a blockade of its own. Its Navy has been blocking Iranian ports to pressure Tehran to reopen the vital waterway, adding another obstacle to the talks. Advertisement According to Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King’s College London, Trump’s stance on the strait has shifted during the conflict and remains unclear. “We’ve had Trump say that he would be open to jointly controlling the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, where both sides collect a toll for shipping,” Geist Pinfold noted, calling this “completely different to the demands of the US on paper but also the demands of the US’s regional allies like the Gulf states and Israel, … who would regard any deal that entrenches Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz … as a stab in the back”. “This isn’t just between the US and Iran. It’s about the US having to keep its regional allies on side,” Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera. Enriched uranium Another core issue is Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly its stock of enriched uranium. The US and Israel are pushing for zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon while providing no evidence for their claims. Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In 2015, the US was a signatory to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under then-US President Barack Obama. In that agreement, Iran pledged to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, which is substantially below weapons grade, and to comply with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to insure it wasn’t developing nuclear weapons. In return, international sanctions on Iran were lifted. However, in 2018, during his first term, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard,