Category: Op-Ed

  • I wasn’t surprised when the test results from my rheumatologist showed no COVID-19 antibodies, even though I had received all five doses of the vaccine that have been FDA-approved for immune-compromised folks like me. I knew the heavy dose of immune suppressants I take for my connective tissue disease made it likely that I would be in the estimated 3 percent of “moderately to severely”…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This story was originally published by Prism. “America is revealing a visage stark with harshness. Nowhere is that face more contorted than in the dark netherworld of prison, where humans are transformed into nonpersons, numbered beings cribbed into boxes of unlife, where the very soul is under destructive onslaught.”–Mumia Abu-Jamal Whatever we allow to happen to people incarcerated in prisons…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • For many of us, the fall of Roe v. Wade was one of the most devastating events of 2022. When Politico published a leaked draft of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, I was deeply rattled. My intellectual awareness that such an outcome was likely, given the Republican’s seizure of the Supreme Court, had not prepared me emotionally for the sight of those…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • William Clay didn’t realize this was the weekend fossil fuel billionaires’ intentional actions would lead to his death, but that’s what happened. He died in Buffalo on his 56th birthday, Christmas Eve, and was found frozen to death about a mile from his house, attempting to walk home from the store. While Buffalo is famous for the intensity of its winter storms, this appears to be worse than…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • If the typical CEO of a large U.S. corporation clocks in at 9 am on January 2, by 3:37 pm that afternoon he’ll have earned $58,260 — the average annual salary for all U.S. occupations. In other words, in less than seven hours on the first workday of the New Year, that CEO will have made as much as the average U.S. worker will make all year. I took a look at the even wider disparities for various…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The extreme weather that has battered much of the U.S. in 2022 doesn’t just affect humans. Heat waves, wildfires, droughts and storms also threaten many wild species — including some that already face other stresses. I’ve been researching bee health for over 10 years, with a focus on honey bees. In 2021, I began hearing for the first time from beekeepers about how extreme drought and rainfall were…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • What would happen if everyone who celebrates Christmas in the U.S. agreed to forget the presents, the stockings and the parties, and instead use the day to act on the actual message of the Christmas story? For Christians in the U.S., December 25 is widely described as a holiday of “comfort and joy,” but if those of us who celebrate this holiday actually sit with the Christmas story that we’re…

    Source

  • Originally published by Prism Heading home for the holidays can bring all the feelings: joy, exhaustion, excitement, overwhelm, stress, and comfort. And even in the best circumstances, worries about which invasive questions you’ll be asked and which topics of political fervor will spur intense conversations are real. The constant need to decide how much energy to exert in a debate can be…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Brittney Griner had barely landed in the U.S. before the right-wing media blasted the prisoner trade agreement that secured her freedom in exchange for the release of Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout. “To exchange the Merchant of Death for this,” sneered GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy on CNN, “It’s made us weaker, it’s made Putin stronger.” Former President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • For the first time in the history of the United States, a committee of Congress has recommended to the Department of Justice that it prosecute a former U.S. president. The bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol unanimously referred four federal criminal charges against Donald Trump to the Justice Department. One of the charges — “Incite,”…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • I love the long nights of this time of year. I can feel Hanukkah coming. We will eat sweet and savory potato pancakes and jelly donuts. Each night, as the sun sets a little earlier, we will kindle one more candle on the menorah and watch the flames reflected in the windowpane. As the candles burn, it will be time to play dreidel. This is my 4-year-old’s favorite part: spinning the top and eating…

    Source

  • Well, we’ve entered what is supposedly “the most wonderful time of year” — a span that might rather be called “the most exploitative time of the year,” if workers had anything to say about it. Holiday retail sales have been increasing steadily since 2020, and U.S. retailers are hoping for a strong winter retail season this year, but the labor issues that have plagued the pandemic economy — supply…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is ascendant in U.S. politics, with new polling indicating that Donald Trump would now lose to DeSantis if Republican voters were given a choice today about who to vote for in a presidential primary for 2024. But what mainstream media are too often failing to recognize is how DeSantis’s political actions — from his shameful treatment of migrants to his use of election…

    Source

  • There’s going to be one less prison in California. On September 8, visiting Lassen County Judge Robert F. Moody dismissed a lawsuit by the town of Susanville that intended to force the continued operation of the California Correctional Center (CCC), a 60-year-old state prison requiring $503 million in repairs. Judge Moody’s ruling marks the end of the town’s year-long fight to stop CCC from…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Joe Biden has directed the Democratic National Committee to reduce the danger that progressives might effectively challenge him in the 2024 presidential primaries. That’s a key goal of his instructions to the DNC last week, when the president insisted on dislodging New Hampshire — the longtime first-in-the-nation primary state where he received just 8 percent of the vote and finished fifth in the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Salinas Grandes-Laguna de Guayatayoc is a region located in the province of Jujuy, in the north of Argentina. The 33 Indigenous communities that live around the area belong to the Kolla and Lickan Antay (Atacama) Indigenous people. These territories are high-altitude lakes of salt and minerals that form a closed basin often surrounded by volcanoes and mountains, which communities consider sacred…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Paid sick leave policy was brought to the forefront of U.S. public discourse this past week after President Biden and congressional leaders moved to block a nationwide rail strike over union workers’ objections to the lack of sick leave policies in their contract. Under the imposed deal, workers receive no paid sick days. Four unions had already voted against the contract. Congress’s move to block…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The new mayor of New York City wants to use the police to clear the streets and subways of homeless people and send them straight to hospitals. No mental health teams, no offer of shelter, no medical evaluation to determine whether they pose a threat to anyone — just a bunch of police officers determining if they think someone has the capacity to think clearly. The decision to use police to round…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An increasing number of Republican Party politicians have been speaking out against former President Donald Trump following his decision to dine with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, a notorious white nationalist, at Mar-a-Lago two days before Thanksgiving and with Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West. The dinner invite was, apparently, issued to Ye, who has been busy burning many bridges…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • To be Black in the U.S. is to hope in the face of a continuum of social, political, economic and psychological “death sentences.” As Black people, many of us have learned to hope against hope. It is hard because it is such a fragile thing — to hope that we might be shown grace. Despite what I have come to know about the anti-Black hydraulics of the criminal legal system…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Earlier this year, I passed a major milestone in my graduate education: I passed my qualifying exams and defended my prospectus. I had just begun looking seriously at my data and engaging with a new set of literature with an eye toward completing the dissertation when my union, UAW 2865, voted to go on strike. The vote was nearly unanimous. Of 48,000 academic workers at the University of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Over the past two years, despite President Joe Biden’s campaign promises to bring fairness to the immigration system, the current administration has quadrupled the number of people enrolled in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) so-called “alternatives to detention” (ATD) surveillance program, and has doubled the number of people held in immigration jails. There is no acceptable…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Just in case you didn’t notice, authoritarianism was on the ballot in the 2022 midterm elections. An unprecedented majority of candidates from one of the nation’s two major political parties were committed to undemocratic policies and outcomes. You would have to go back to the Democratic Party-dominated segregationist South of the 1950s to find such a sweeping array of authoritarian proclivities in an American election. While voters did stop some of the most high-profile election deniers, conspiracy theorists, and pro-Trump true believers from taking office, all too many won seats at the congressional, state, and local levels.

    Count on one thing: this movement isn’t going away. It won’t be defeated in a single election cycle and don’t think the authoritarian threat isn’t real either. After all, it now forms the basis for the politics of the Republican Party and so is targeting every facet of public life. No one committed to constitutional democracy should rest easy while the network of right-wing activists, funders, media, judges, and political leaders work so tirelessly to gain yet more power and implement a thoroughly undemocratic agenda.

    This deeply rooted movement has surged from the margins of our political system to become the defining core of the GOP. In the post-World War II era, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s to Barry Goldwater’s run for the presidency in 1964, from President Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy, President Ronald Reagan, and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in its current Trumpian iteration, Republicans have long targeted democratic norms as impediments to establishing a neoliberal, race-based version of all-American authoritarianism. And that movement has been far too weakly opposed by far too many Democratic Party leaders and even some progressives. Don’t think of this phenomenon as right-wing conservativism either, but as a more dangerous, even violent movement whose ultimate aim is to overthrow liberal democracy. The American version of this type of electoral authoritarianism, anchored in Christian nationalist populism, has at its historic core a white nationalist pushback against the struggle for racial justice.

    Liberal Democracy for Some, Racial Authoritarianism for Others

    Liberal democracy had failed generations of African Americans and other people of color, as, of course, it did Native Americans massacred or driven from their ancestral lands. It failed African Americans and Latinos forced to work on chain gangs or lynched (without the perpetrators suffering the slightest punishment). It failed Asian Americans who were brutally sent to internment camps during World War II and Asians often explicitly excluded from immigration rosters.

    The benefits of liberal democracy — rule of law, government accountability, the separation of powers, and the like — that were extended to most whites existed alongside a racial authoritarianism that denied fundamental rights and protections to tens of millions of Americans. The Civil Rights reforms of the 1960s defeated the longstanding, all-too-legal regime of racist segregationists and undemocratic, even if sometimes constitutional, authority. For the first time since the end of the Reconstruction era, when there was a concerted effort to extend voting rights, offer financial assistance, and create educational opportunities for those newly freed from slavery, it appeared that the nation was again ready to reckon with its racial past and present.

    Yet, all too sadly, the proponents of autocratic governance did anything but disappear. In the twenty-first century, their efforts are manifest in the governing style and ethos of the Republican Party, its base, and the extremist organizations that go with it, as well as the far-right media, think tanks, and foundations that accompany them. At every level, from local school boards and city councils to Congress and the White House, authoritarianism and its obligatory racism continue to drive the GOP political agenda.

    The violent insurrection of January 6, 2021, was just the high (or, depending on your views, low) point in a long-planned, multi-dimensional, hyper-conservative, white nationalist coup attempt engineered by President Donald Trump, his supporters, and members of the Republican Party. It was neither the beginning nor the end of that effort, just its most violent public expression — to date, at least. After all, Trump’s efforts to delegitimize elections were first put on display when he claimed that Barack Obama had actually lost the popular vote and so stolen the 2012 election, that it had all been a “total sham.”

    During the 2016 presidential debates, Trump alone stated that he would not commit himself to support any other candidate as the party’s nominee, since — a recurring theme for him — he could only lose if the election were rigged or someone cheated. He correctly grasped that there would be no consequences to such norm-breaking behavior and falsely stated that he had only lost the Iowa caucus to Senator Ted Cruz because “he stole it.” After losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College in 2016, Trump incessantly complained that he would have won the popular vote, too, if the “millions” of illegal voters who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton hadn’t been counted.

    Donald Trump decisively lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, 74.2 million to 81.2 million in the popular vote and 232 to 306 in the Electoral College, leaving only one path to victory (other than insurrection) — finding a way to discount millions of black votes in key swing-state cities. From birtherism and Islamophobia to anti-Black Lives Matter rhetoric, racism had propelled Trump’s ascendancy and his political future would be determined by the degree to which he and his allies could invalidate votes in the disproportionately Black cities of Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, and Latino and Native American votes in Arizona and Nevada.

    The GOP effort to disqualify Black, Latino, and Native American votes was a plot to create an illegitimate government, an unholy scheme that took an inescapably violent turn and led to an outcome for which the former president has yet to be held accountable. Sadly enough, the forces of authoritarianism were anything but dispatched by their defeat on January 6th. If anything, they were emboldened by the failure so far to hold responsible most of the agents who maneuvered the event into motion.

    Democracy, Authoritarianism or Fascism?

    The last decade has exposed a severely wounded American democratic experiment. Consider it Donald Trump’s contribution to have revealed how spectacularly the guardrails of liberal democracy can fail if the breaking of laws, rules, and norms goes unchallenged or is sacrificed on the altar of narrow political gains. The most mendacious, cruel, mentally unstable, thin-skinned, vengeful, incompetent, narcissistic, bigoted individual ever elected to the presidency was neither an accident, nor an aberration. He was the inevitable outcome of decades of Republican pandering to anti-democratic forces and white nationalist sentiments.

    Scholars have long debated the distinction between fascism and authoritarianism. Fascist states create an all-engulfing power that rules over every facet of political and social life. Elections are abolished; mass arrests occur without habeas corpus; all opposition media are shut down; freedoms of speech and assembly are curtailed; courts, if allowed to exist at all, rubber-stamp undemocratic state policies; while the military or brown shirts of some sort enforce an unjust, arbitrary legal system. Political parties are outlawed and opponents are jailed, tortured, or killed. Political violence is normalized, or at least tolerated, by a significant portion of society. There is little pretense of constitutional adherence or the constitution is formally suspended.

    On the other hand, authoritarian states acknowledge constitutional authority, even if they also regularly ignore it. Limited freedoms continue to exist. Elections are held, though generally with predetermined outcomes. Political enemies aren’t allowed to compete for power. Nationalist ideology diverts attention from the real levers and venues of that power. Political attacks against alien “others” are frequent, while public displays of racism and ethnocentrism are common. Most critically, some enjoy a degree of democratic norms while accepting that others are denied them completely. During the slave and Jim Crow eras in this country — periods of racial authoritarianism affecting millions of Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans — most whites in the South (and perhaps a majority outside of it) either tolerated or embraced the disavowal of democracy.

    Under the right confluence of forces — a weakened system of checks and balances, populist rhetoric that taps into fears and perceived injustices, an anemic and divided opposition, deep social or racial divides, distrust of science and scientists, rampant anti-intellectualism, unpunished corporate and political malfeasance, and popularly accepted charges of mainstream media bias — a true authoritarian could indeed come to power in this country. And as history has shown, that could just be a prelude to full-blown fascism.

    The warning signs could not be clearer.

    While, in many ways, Trump’s administration was more of a kakistocracy — that is, “government by the worst and most unscrupulous people,” as scholar Norm Ornstein put it — from day one to the last nano-seconds of its tenure, his autocratic tendencies were all too often on display. His authoritarian appetites generated an unprecedented library of books issuing distress signals about the dangers to come.

    Timothy Snyder’s 2017 bestseller On Tyranny was, for instance, a brief but remarkably astute early work on the subject. The Yale history professor provided a striking overview of tyranny meant to dispel myths about how autocrats or populists come to and stay in power. Although published in 2017, the work made no mention of Donald Trump. It was, however, clearly addressing the rise to power of his MAGA right and soberly warning the nation to stop him before it was too late.

    As Snyder wrote of the institutions of our democracy, they “do not protect themselves… The mistake is to assume that rulers who came to power through institutions cannot change or destroy those very institutions — even when that is exactly what they have announced that they will do.” He particularly cautioned against efforts to link the police and military to partisan politics, as Trump first did in 2020 when his administration had peaceful protesters attacked by the police and National Guard in Lafayette Square across from the White House so that the president could take a stroll to a local church. He similarly warned about letting private security forces, often with violent tendencies (as when Trump’s security team would eject demonstrators from his political rallies) gain quasi-official or official status.

    The period 2015 to 2020 certainly represented the MAGAfication of the United States and launched this country on a potential path toward future authoritarian rule by the GOP.

    The Vulnerabilities of Democracy

    Journalists have also been indispensable in exposing the democratic vulnerabilities of the United States. The New Yorker’s Masha Gessen has, for instance, been prolific and laser-focused in calling out the hazards of creeping authoritarianism and of Trump’s “performing fascism.” She writes that while he may not himself have fully grasped the concept of fascism, “In his intuition, power is autocratic; it affirms the superiority of one nation and one race; it asserts total domination; and it mercilessly suppresses all opposition.”

    While Trump is too lazy, self-interested, and intellectually undisciplined to be a coherent ideologue, he surrounded himself with and took counsel from those who were, including far-right zealots and Trump aides Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, and Stephen Miller. Bannon functioned as Trump’s Goebbels-ish propagandist, having cut his white nationalist teeth as founder and executive chair of the extremist Breitbart News media operation. In 2018, he told a gathering of European far-right politicians, fascists, and neo-Nazis, “Let them call you racist. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.”

    Someone who knows the former president better than most, his niece Mary Trump, all too tellingly wrote that her uncle “is an instinctive fascist who is limited by his inability to see beyond himself.” For her, there is no question the title fits. As she put it, “[A]rguing about whether or not to call Donald a fascist is the new version of the media’s years-long struggle to figure out if they should call his lies, lies. What’s more relevant now is whether the media — and the Democrats — will extend the label of fascism to the Republican Party itself.”

    Mainstreaming Extremism and Democracy’s Decline

    Given these developments, some scholars and researchers argue that the nation’s democratic descent may already have gone too far to be fully stopped. In its Democracy Report 2020: Autocratization Surges — Resistance Grows, the Varieties of Democracy (VDem) Project, which assesses the democratic health of nations globally, summarized the first three years of Trump’s presidency this way: “[Democracy] has eroded to a point that more often than not leads to full-blown autocracy.” Referring to its Liberal Democracy Index scale, it added, “The United States of America declines substantially on the LDI from 0.86 in 2010 to 0.73 in 2020, in part as a consequence of President Trump’s repeated attacks on the media, opposition politicians, and the substantial weakening of the legislature’s de facto checks and balances on executive power.”

    These findings were echoed in The Global State of Democracy 2021, a report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance that argued, “The United States, the bastion of global democracy, fell victim to authoritarian tendencies itself, and was knocked down a significant number of steps on the democratic scale.”

    The failure of Donald Trump’s eternally “stolen election” coup attempt and the presidency of Joe Biden may have put off the further development of an authoritarian state, but don’t be fooled. Neither the failure of the January 6th insurrection nor the disappointments suffered in the midterm elections have deterred the ambitions of the GOP’s fanatics. The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, however slim, will undoubtedly unleash a further tsunami of extremist actions not just against the Democrats, but the American people.

    Purges of Democrats from House committees, McCarthyite-style hearings and investigations, and an all-out effort to rig the system to declare whoever emerges as the GOP’s 2024 presidential candidate the preemptive winner will mark their attempt to rule. Such actions will be duplicated — and worse — in states with Republican governors and legislatures, as officials there bend to the autocratic urges of their minority but fervent white base voters. They will be supported by a network of far-right media, donors, activists, and Trump-appointed judges and justices.

    In response, defending the interests of working people, communities of color, LGBTQ individuals and families, and other vulnerable sectors of this society will mean alliances between progressives, liberals, and, in some instances, disaffected and distraught anti-Trump, pro-democracy Republicans. There are too many historical examples of authoritarian and fascist takeovers while the opposition remained split and in conflict not to form such political alliances. Nothing is more urgent at this moment than the complete political defeat of an anti-democratic movement that is, all too sadly, still on the march.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Recent exposés have uncovered an emerging pattern of improper lobbying of right-wing Supreme Court justices by wealthy evangelicals. They reveal serious threats to the independence of the judiciary. But equally alarming is that the Supreme Court is unconstrained by a code of judicial ethics.

    From 1995 to 2018, the right-wing evangelical nonprofit Faith and Action executed “Operation Higher Court.” It was an organized and systematic campaign “to wine, dine and entertain conservative Supreme Court justices while pushing conservative positions” on social issues pending before the court, Politico reports.

    Faith and Action “would rehearse lines” in order “to influence the justices while steering clear of the specifics of cases pending before the court.” Faith and Action reportedly arranged for 20 couples to travel to Washington, D.C. to wine and dine Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

    In 2014, Alito dined with evangelical lobbyists who left with inside knowledge that Burwell v. Hobby Lobby would go their way. Sure enough, three weeks later, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hobby Lobby, holding that corporations that claim religious objections can refuse to fund contraception required by the Affordable Care Act. Alito wrote the majority opinion.

    Alito authored the court’s decision once again in 2022, this time in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Four months before Dobbs came down, Alito’s draft majority opinion was leaked to Politico. The final opinion largely tracked the draft.

    It is likely not a coincidence that both decisions served the conservative evangelical agenda and both were leaked by people with advance knowledge of the results. Although the right-wing members of the court had probably already made up their minds in these two cases, the leaks were apparently designed to strengthen their resolve.

    The “Ministry of Emboldenment”

    The operation was called the “Ministry of Emboldenment,” Jodi Kantor and Jo Becker reported in their explosive November 19 New York Times article, quoting whistleblower Rev. Rob Schenck who used to run Faith and Action. Its goal was to “embolden the justices” to write “unapologetically conservative dissents.”

    Schenck “said his aim was not to change minds, but rather to stiffen the resolve of the court’s conservatives in taking uncompromising stances that could eventually lead to a reversal of Roe,” Kantor and Becker wrote.

    For years, Schenck was at the center of the anti-choice movement. “He gained access through faith, through favors traded with gatekeepers and through wealthy donors to his organization, abortion opponents whom he called ‘stealth missionaries,’” according to Kantor and Becker. Schenck even bought a building across the street from the Supreme Court to facilitate his campaign.

    Schenck recruited rich donors and urged them to invite some members of the Supreme Court to dinner, vacation homes and private clubs. He encouraged them to contribute to the Supreme Court Historical Society, schmooze the members of the court at their functions and invoke “biblical truth.” Schenck established close relations with court officials who provided him with access.

    “You can position yourself in a special category with regard to the Justices,” Schenck told The Times. “You can gain access, have conversations, share prayer.”

    Alito, Thomas and Scalia were receptive to these overtures. Schenck prayed with Scalia and Thomas in their chambers, invoking “the sanctity of human life” to encourage them to end abortion.

    In June 2014, Gayle Wright, one of Schenck’s largest donors, had dinner with Alito and his wife Martha-Ann. Schenck said that the “Wrights had strongly conservative views on abortion, homosexuality and gun rights, and dedicated themselves to reinforcing the Supreme Court justices’ own conservative views on these issues.”

    The next day, Wright emailed Schenck, “Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails.” Schenck said that Wright told him Hobby Lobby would be decided the way they wanted and Alito would write the majority opinion.

    Both Alito and Wright denied the truth of Schenck’s report.

    But The Times located contemporaneous conversations and emails, and Politico provides a timeline that corroborates Schenck’s account of what Wright told him.

    Schenck reported to the Christian magazine Charisma that he met and prayed with Scalia just 24 hours after the court issued Bush v. Gore, which handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush.

    “The Supreme Court is the most insulated and isolated branch of the U.S. government,” Schenck told Charisma. “They do not interface with the public, so we’ve literally had to pray our way in there each step of the way.”

    Now Schenck’s views on abortion have changed. He broke with the religious right and seeks to establish himself as a progressive evangelical leader. “What we did was wrong,” he said.

    “If evangelical activists or lawyers are wining and dining judges and/or Supreme Court Justices, that certainly creates an appearance of impropriety,” Suffolk Law School Professor Emeritus Michael Avery told Truthout. “The justices are not subject to the Judicial Conduct Code, but they should be,” added Avery, who is coauthor of The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals.

    Other Judges Must Avoid Even the Appearance of Impropriety

    The Code of Conduct for United States Judges (“Code of Conduct”) requires an independent judiciary. Although lower court judges are bound by it, the Supreme Court is not. Chief Justice John Roberts, however, claims that the members of the court “consult” the Code of Conduct.

    Here are some of the provisions of the Code of Conduct:

    Canon 1 requires judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. That depends “on their acting without fear or favor.”

    Canon 2 says that judges “should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” and “not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.”

    “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”

    Canon 2 also states that judges should not “convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”

    Canon 3 says that a judge must disqualify herself or himself “in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That includes a situation in which the judge’s spouse has an “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.”

    Canon 4 forbids a judge from participating “in extrajudicial activities” that “reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality.” That canon says: “A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.”

    Supreme Court Members Must Recuse Themselves When Impartiality Might Reasonably Be Questioned

    Supreme Court members, like other judges, must recuse themselves from cases in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. But members of the Supreme Court rarely provide reasons for their failure to recuse and there is no means of enforcement if they refuse to properly recuse themselves.

    Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or when his spouse “is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

    Clarence Thomas’s wife Virginia (“Ginni”) has been a prominent proponent of the “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. She texted then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows 29 times urging him to reverse the election results and falsely told Republican state legislators in Arizona and Wisconsin that the authority to choose electors was “theirs and theirs alone.” This implicates the “independent state legislature” theory, which maintains that only state legislatures can draw congressional maps with no review by state courts. That theory is at issue in Moore v. Harper which is now pending in the Supreme Court.

    Thomas, however, is unlikely to recuse himself in Moore. He issued a temporary stay of a federal appellate court ruling ordering Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) to comply with a subpoena to testify before a Georgia state grand jury in a criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The full Supreme Court later lifted Thomas’s stay and ruled that Graham must testify.

    Congress Should Pass Supreme Court Ethics Law

    On September 7, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Henry Johnson — chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Federal Courts Subcommittees — wrote a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. They asked the Supreme Court to list dinners, travel, lodging, and other hospitality received by the justices and paid for by Faith and Liberty, and its predecessor Faith and Action. They also asked if any justices were aware of Operation Higher Court at any time before the recent news reports. And they asked whether any of the justices who accepted dinners, travel or lodging knew that the gifts were part of Operation Higher Court. They also urged the court to adopt a code of conduct without delay.

    On November 7, Roberts and Supreme Court legal counsel Ethan Torrey answered Whitehouse and Johnson’s letter. They wrote that “the Justices rely on the Code of Conduct for United States Judges in evaluating ethics issues.” But they did not respond to the chairmen’s questions about the relationship between the justices and Operation Higher Court.

    On November 20, Whitehouse and Johnson wrote a letter to Roberts and Torrey, asking whether the court had opened an investigation into the allegations involving Faith and Action. The two chairmen also asked whether the court had reevaluated any of its practices, procedures or rules on judicial ethics and the receipt and reporting of gifts and travel.

    But as Dahlia Lithwick wrote at Slate, “this court will keep burning its own legitimacy candle at both ends. They don’t even recognize it as a problem. The unfettered and lucrative sucking up, lobbying, and currying of favor — and the attendant rewards — are all recast as harmless socializing.”

    Indeed, on November 28, Torrey wrote to Whitehouse and Johnson, reiterating the denials by Alito and Wright and stating, “There is nothing to suggest that Justice Alito’s actions violated ethics standards.”

    In their November 20 letter, Whitehouse and Johnson wrote, “If the Court, as your letter suggests, is not willing to undertake fact-finding inquiries into possible ethics violations that leaves Congress as the only forum.”

    Congress should enact the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2022, which was passed by the House Judiciary Committee in May.

    “We expect the justices of our nation’s highest court to hold themselves to the highest standards of ethical conduct, but, in fact, their conduct too often falls below the standards that most other government officials are required to follow,” Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said. He cited “recent, high profile ethical lapses on the Supreme Court, including Justice Thomas’s refusal to recuse himself from a case regarding his wife’s involvement in January 6th activities.”

    There are calls for an investigation of Schenck’s disturbing allegations. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately move to investigate the apparent leak by Justice Alito,” Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, said. “The whistleblower in this report, Rev. Rob Schenck, should be called to testify about both the leak and the years-long lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As President Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping arrived on the resort island of Bali, Indonesia, for their November 14th “summit,” relations between their two countries were on a hair-raising downward spiral, with tensions over Taiwan nearing the boiling point. Diplomats hoped, at best, for a modest reduction in tensions, which, to the relief of many, did occur. No policy breakthroughs were expected, however, and none were achieved. In one vital area, though, there was at least a glimmer of hope: the planet’s two largest greenhouse-gas emitters agreed to resume their languishing negotiations on joint efforts to overcome the climate crisis.

    These talks have been an on-again, off-again proposition since President Barack Obama initiated them before the Paris climate summit of December 2015, at which delegates were to vote on a landmark measure to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (the maximum amount scientists believe this planet can absorb without catastrophic consequences). The U.S.-Chinese consultations continued after the adoption of the Paris climate accord, but were suspended in 2017 by that climate-change-denying president Donald Trump. They were relaunched by President Biden in 2021, only to be suspended again by an angry Chinese leadership in retaliation for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s August 2 visit to Taiwan, viewed in Beijing as a show of support for pro-independence forces on that island. But thanks to Biden’s intense lobbying in Bali, President Xi agreed to turn the interactive switch back on.

    Behind that modest gesture there lies a far more momentous question: What if the two countries moved beyond simply talking and started working together to champion the radical lowering of global carbon emissions? What miracles might then be envisioned? To help find answers to that momentous question means revisiting the recent history of the U.S.-Chinese climate collaboration.

    The Promise of Collaboration

    In November 2014, based on extensive diplomatic groundwork, Presidents Obama and Xi met in Beijing and signed a statement pledging joint action to ensure the success of the forthcoming Paris summit. “The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China have a critical role to play in combating global climate change,” they affirmed. “The seriousness of the challenge calls upon the two sides to work constructively together for the common good.”

    Obama then ordered Secretary of State John Kerry to collaborate with Chinese officials in persuading other attendees at that summit — officially, the 21st Conference of the Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP21 — to agree on a firm commitment to honor the 1.5-degree limit. That joint effort, many observers believe, was instrumental in persuading reluctant participants like India and Russia to sign the Paris climate agreement.

    “With our historic joint announcement with China last year,” Obama declared at that summit’s concluding session, “we showed it was possible to bridge the old divides… that had stymied global progress for so long. That accomplishment encouraged dozens and dozens of other nations to set their own ambitious climate targets.”

    Obama also pointed out that any significant global progress along that path was dependent on continued cooperation between the two countries. “No nation, not even one as powerful as ours, can solve this challenge alone.”

    Trump and the Perils of Non-Cooperation

    That era of cooperation didn’t last long. Donald Trump, an ardent fan of fossil fuels, made no secret of his aversion to the Paris climate accord. He signaled his intent to exit from the agreement soon after taking office. “It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; and Pittsburgh, PA, along with many, many other locations within our great country, before Paris, France,” he said ominously in 2017 when announcing his decision.

    With the U.S. absent from the scene, progress in implementing the Paris Agreement slowed to a crawl. Many countries that had been pressed by the U.S. and China to agree to ambitious emissions-reduction schedules began to opt out of those commitments in sync with Trump’s America. China, too, the greatest greenhouse gas emitter of this moment and the leading user of that dirtiest of fossil fuels, coal, felt far less pressure to honor its commitment, even on a rapidly heating planet.

    No one knows what would have happened had Trump not been elected and those U.S.-China talks not been suspended, but in the absence of such collaboration, there was a steady rise in carbon emissions and temperatures across the planet. According to CO.2.Earth, emissions grew from 35.5 billion metric tons in 2016 to 36.4 billion tons in 2021, a 2.5% increase. Since such emissions are the leading contributor to the greenhouse-gas effect responsible for global warming, it should be no surprise that the past seven years have also proven the hottest on record, with much of the world experiencing record-breaking heatwaves, forest fires, droughts, and crop failures. We can be fairly certain, moreover, that in the absence of renewed U.S.-China climate cooperation, such disasters will become ever more frequent and severe.

    On Again, Off Again

    Overcoming this fearsome trend was one of Joe Biden’s principal campaign promises and, against strong Republican opposition, he has indeed endeavored to undo at least some of the damage wrought by Trump. It was symbolic indeed that he rejoined the Paris climate accord on his first day in office and ordered his cabinet to accelerate the government’s transition to clean energy. In August, he achieved a significant breakthrough when Congress approved the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which provides $369 billion in loans, grants, and tax credits for green-energy initiatives.

    Biden also sought to reinvigorate Washington’s global-warming diplomacy and the stalled talks with China, naming John Kerry as his special envoy for climate action. Kerry, in turn, reestablished ties with his Chinese colleagues from his time as secretary of state. At last year’s COP26 gathering in Glasgow, Scotland, he persuaded them to join the U.S. in approving the “Glasgow Declaration,” a commitment to step up efforts to mitigate climate change.

    However, in so many ways, Joe Biden and his foreign policy team are still caught up in the Cold War era and his administration has generally taken a far more antagonistic approach to China than Obama. Not surprisingly, then, the progress Kerry achieved with his Chinese counterparts at Glasgow largely evaporated as tensions over Taiwan only grew more heated. Biden was, for instance, the first president in memory to claim — four times — that U.S. military forces would defend that island in a crisis, were it to be attacked by China, essentially tossing aside Washington’s longstanding position of “strategic ambiguity” on the Taiwan question. In response, China’s leaders became ever more strident in claiming that the island belonged to them.

    When Nancy Pelosi made that Taiwan visit in early August, the Chinese responded by firing ballistic missiles into the waters around the island and, in a fit of anger, terminated those bilateral climate-change talks. Now, thanks to Biden’s entreaties in Bali, the door seems again open for the two countries to collaborate on limiting global greenhouse gas emissions. At a moment of ever more devastating evidence of planetary heating, from a megadrought in the U.S. to “extreme heat” in China, the question is: What might any meaningful new collaborative effort involve?

    Reasserting the Climate’s Centrality

    In 2015, few of those in power doubted the overarching threat posed by climate change or the need to bring international diplomacy to bear to help overcome it. In Paris, Obama declared that “the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.” What should give us hope, he continued, “is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something about it.”

    Since then, all too sadly, other challenges, including the growth of Cold War-style tensions with China, the Covid-19 pandemic, and Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, have come to “define the contours” of this century. In 2022, even as the results of the overheating of the planet become ever more obvious, few world leaders would contend that “it is within our power” to overcome the climate peril. So, the first (and perhaps most valuable) outcome of any renewed U.S.-China climate cooperation might simply be to place climate change at the top of the world’s agenda again and provide evidence that the major powers, working together, can successfully tackle the issue.

    Such an effort might, for instance, start with a Washington-Beijing “climate summit,” presided over by presidents Biden and Xi and attended by high-level delegations from around the world. American and Chinese scientists could offer the latest bad news on the likely future trajectory of global warming, while identifying real-world goals to significantly reduce fossil-fuel use. This might, in turn, lead to the formation of multilateral working groups, hosted by U.S. and Chinese agencies and institutions, to meet regularly and implement the most promising strategies for halting the onrushing disaster.

    Following the example set by Obama and Xi at COP21 in Paris, Biden and Xi would agree to play a pivotal role in the next Conference of the Parties, COP28, scheduled for December 2023 in the United Arab Emirates. Following the inconclusive outcome of COP27, recently convened at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, strong leadership will be required to ensure something significantly better at COP28. Among the goals those two leaders would need to pursue, the top priority should be the full implementation of the 2015 Paris accord with its commitment to a 1.5-degree maximum temperature increase, followed by a far greater effort by the wealthy nations to assist developing countries suffering from its effects.

    There’s no way, however, that China and the U.S. will be able to exert a significant international influence on climate efforts if both countries — the former the leading emitter of greenhouse gasses at this moment and the latter the historic leader — don’t take far greater initiatives to lower their carbon emissions and shift to renewable sources of energy. The Inflation Reduction Act will indeed allow the White House to advance many new initiatives in this direction, while China is moving more swiftly than any other country to install added supplies of wind and solar energy. Nevertheless, both countries continue to rely on fossil fuels for a substantial share of their energy — China, for instance, remains the greatest user of coal, burning more of it than the rest of the world combined — and so both will need to agree on even more aggressive moves to reduce their carbon emissions if they hope to persuade other nations to do the same.

    The Sino-American Fund for Clean Energy Transitions

    In a better world, next on my list of possible outcomes from a reinvigorated U.S.-Chinese relationship would be joint efforts to help finance the global transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Although the cost of deploying renewables, especially wind and solar energy, has fallen dramatically in recent years, it remains substantial even for wealthy countries. For many developing nations, it remains an unaffordable option. This emerged as a major issue at COP27 in Egypt, where representatives from the Global South complained that the wealthy countries largely responsible for the overheating of the planet weren’t doing faintly enough (or, in many cases, anything), despite prior promises, to help them shoulder the costs of the increasingly devastating effects of climate change and the future greening of their countries.

    Many of these complaints revolved around the Green Climate Fund, established at COP16 in Cancún. The developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion annually to that fund by 2020 to help developing nations bear the costs of transitioning to renewable energy. Although that amount is now widely viewed as wildly insufficient for such a transition — “all of the evidence suggests that we need trillions, not billions,” observed Baysa Naran, a manager at the research center Climate Policy Initiative — the Fund has never even come close to hitting that $100 billion target, leaving many in the Global South bitter as, with unprecedented flooding and staggering heat waves, climate change strikes home ever more horrifically there.

    When the U.S. and China were working on the climate together at COP26 in Glasgow, filling the Green Climate Fund appeared genuinely imaginable. In their Glasgow Declaration of November 2021, John Kerry and his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, affirmed that “both countries recognize the importance of the commitment made by developed countries to the goal of mobilizing jointly $100b per year by 2020 and annually through 2025 to address the needs of developing countries [and] stress the importance of meeting that goal as soon as possible.”

    Sadly enough, all too little came of that affirmation in the months that followed, as U.S.-China relations turned ever more antagonistic. Now, in the wake of Biden’s meeting with Xi and the resumption of their talks on climate change, it’s at least possible to imagine intensified bilateral efforts to advance that $100 billion objective — and even go far beyond it (though we can expect fierce resistance from the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives).

    As my contribution to such thinking, let me suggest the formation of a Sino-American Fund for Green Energy Transitions — a grant- and loan-making institution jointly underwritten by the two countries with the primary purpose of financing renewable energy projects in the developing world. Decisions on such funding would be made by a board of directors, half from each country, with staff work performed by professionals drawn from around the world. The aim: to supplement the Green Climate Fund with additional hundreds of billions of dollars annually and so speed the global energy transition.

    The Pathway to Peace and Survival

    The leaders of the U.S. and China both recognize that global warming poses an extraordinary threat to the survival of their nations and that colossal efforts will be needed in the coming years to minimize the climate peril, while preparing for its most severe effects. “The climate crisis is the existential challenge of our time,” the Biden administration’s October 2022 National Security Strategy (NSS) states. “Without immediate global action to reduce emissions, scientists tell us we will soon exceed 1.5 degrees of warming, locking in further extreme heat and weather, rising sea levels, and catastrophic biodiversity loss.”

    Despite that all-too-on-target assessment, the NSS portrays competition from China as an even greater threat to U.S. security — without citing any of the same sort of perilous outcomes — and proposes a massive mobilization of the nation’s economic, technological, and military resources to ensure American dominance of the Asia-Pacific region for decades to come. That strategy will, of course, require trillions of dollars in military expenditures, ensuring insufficient funding to tackle the climate crisis and exposing this country to an ever-increasing risk of war — possibly even a nuclear one — with China.

    Given such dangers, perhaps the best outcome of renewed U.S.-China climate cooperation, or green diplomacy, might be increasing trust between the leaders of those two countries, allowing for a reduction in tensions and military expenditures. Indeed, such an approach constitutes the only practical strategy for saving us from the catastrophic consequences of both a U.S.-China conflict and unconstrained climate change.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On December 6, Purdue University President Mitch Daniels and former U.S. President George W. Bush will appear together on a Purdue stage at an event billed by the university as a conversation on “leadership and citizenship.” Daniels is completing a nearly 10-year term as Purdue president. Previously, Daniels served from 2001-2003 as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush White House. The event is meant to celebrate both of their legacies.

    Plans are underway for Daniels and Bush to be greeted that night by Purdue students, faculty and community members there for a different reason: to protest Bush and Daniels’s roles in the murderous U.S. war against the people of Iraq in the name of the “war on terror.”

    As president, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, supposedly in retaliation for 9/11. As his budget director, Daniels priced the war for him at $50-60 billion. The subsequent U.S. onslaught produced devastation for the Iraqi people. More than 200,000 civilians died and more than 9.2 million Iraqis were displaced by the U.S. war. Kali Rubaii, a Purdue professor of anthropology, has documented high rates of birth defects in Iraq that may be the result of uranium and heavy metal exposure from U.S. weapons and burn pits meant to destroy the detritus of war. At least 800,000 Iraqi children were made orphans by the war. And despite Daniels’s original low projections, the U.S. has now spent approximately $2 trillion to date on the Iraq war, while more than 4,500 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives fighting it. All of this carnage against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Even U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s notorious allegations of Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” were later admitted by Powell himself to have been the result of deceitful intelligence.

    The Bush-Daniels summit meeting at a public university seeking to glorify and whitewash Iraq’s apocalypse might be seen as a parable for the rise of what Henry A. Giroux has called the “Military-Industrial-Academic Complex” (MIAC). In his 2007 book, The University in Chains, Giroux documented how since the Cold War the U.S. academy had been a recurring site for research, investment and collaboration with the U.S. military-state in proliferating war and war profiteering across the planet. This trend was massively jumpstarted by 9/11. The Department of Homeland Security, created by the Bush administration, distributed billions of dollars to universities to support national security research and programming.

    In January 2006, at the University Presidents Summit, then-President Bush announced the “National Security Language Initiative,” funneling millions of dollars from the Departments of State, Education and Defense to promote the study of Arabic as a part of the state’s Islamophobic security apparatus. In 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates launched the “Minerva Research Initiative,” providing university grants for social science research that focuses “on areas of strategic importance to the U.S. national security policy.” To date, the initiative has funded hundreds of university faculty projects intended to improve “our basic understanding of security.” Funded faculty projects include “Combatting Chinese Influence in Contested and Non-Contested Territories” and “Foreign Military Training: Building Effective Armed Forces in Weak States.”

    For Giroux, the MIAC’s function has been not only to support the advent and advance of U.S. wars, but to link the privatization of public education to the eradication of critical thinking about the contours of U.S. political and economic empire. Indeed, Daniels’s reign at Purdue is a continuation of the university’s own long promotion of academic militarization. In 2002, it opened the Purdue Homeland Security Institute, one of the first in the United States. The institute partners with U.S. military branches, the Department of Homeland Security, the Indiana Department of Homeland Security and Indiana State Police to conduct research into topics like “active shooter” situations. It also offers no-cost graduate education to active-duty military officers.

    Since Daniels’s arrival as president in 2013, the university has further muscled up its military bona fides. In 2019, the Swedish manufacturer Saab announced it would build the airframe for the T-7A Redhawk fighter jet at Purdue’s Discovery Research Park to help train the “next generation of fighter and bomber pilots.” Daniels extolled the collaboration as a chance for Purdue to lead in “protecting the security of Americans.” In February 2021, Purdue received Department of Defense funding to participate in a consortial research project into advancing the adoption of lead-free electronics in defense systems. More recently, in August 2022, Department of Defense Deputy Secretary Kathleen Hicks was given a tour of the campus’s research and development facilities, including its nanotechnology. “We are investing heavily in the infrastructure, human and physical, to design, test and develop the systems necessary to protect the freedoms Americans enjoy,” said Daniels of the visit.

    Daniels’s enthusiasm for war-making in the name of empire is a grisly but logical evolution of his role preparing the budget for a national war his then-boss President Bush described as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” But as Giroux has argued, the militarization of the American state and the militarization of the American university are symptomatic of other forms of racial, political and economic violence at work in the U.S.

    Daniels, for example, earned himself the nickname “The Blade” while working as White House budget director for his alleged budget-balancing feats and commitment to austerity. Yet many students at Purdue, especially students of color, will tell you that Daniels’s weaponized nickname cuts in more than one way.

    For example, in November 2019, Daniels drew national fire for telling a group of Black students that the university was recruiting “one of the rarest creatures in America,” a leading Black scholar. Daniels later apologized for the comment, but it reminded many students that the university leader had been conspicuously unsupportive when openly white supremacist posters were found tacked up on the university campus in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s election. Daniels first said of the posters it was “not at all clear what they mean” despite their use of classic Nazi imagery. Demanding a stronger condemnation of the posters, students occupied the university administration building. When the president refused to meet with them, they remained in the building throughout the spring term.

    Student vulnerabilities reflected the general rise of racist militarization on college campuses in the U.S., such as the white nationalists who began their murderous feats at the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally in 2017 with a torch-lit march across the University of Virginia campus. Trump as a presidential candidate frequently invoked 9/11, then enacted a Muslim ban once elected. International student applications to the U.S. dropped accordingly.

    Trump’s Department of Education sustained the Islamophobic project of 9/11 by demanding that the Duke-University of North Carolina Consortium for Middle East Studies (CMES) revise its curriculum or risk losing federal funding. A letter sent from the Education Department read, “It seems clear foreign language instruction and area studies advancing the security and economic stability of the United States have taken ‘a back seat’ to other priorities at the Duke-UNC CMES.” The letter also said that the CMES was inappropriately promoting the “positive aspects of Islam.”

    Organizers at Purdue are using this poster (and its QR code) to spread awareness of the protest planned for December 6.
    Organizers at Purdue are using this poster (and its QR code) to spread awareness of the protest planned for December 6.

    Episodes like these are reminders that the MIAC is both a structural and lived experience, especially for non-white and non-Christian denizens of U.S. universities, and that a true legacy of the war on terror within the United States has been an increasing atmosphere of racial policing, surveillance and academic militarization. Indeed, rhetoric of academic diversity and liberal multiculturalism on university campuses now easily coexists with rising militarism. When Purdue and Saab announced their partnership to build fighter planes, both highlighted that the “Red Tail” design on the aircraft was an ode to the Tuskegee Airmen, the first Black aviators in the U.S. Air Force Army Corps in World War II. The use of racial diversity to promote U.S. warfare is a mask for the human costs of war — for both its victims and those who fight it.

    More senior students on campus worry too that Bush’s role in the war on terror and the war on Iraq itself have been erased from historical memory for the current generation. Paige Frazier, a Ph.D. student in Purdue’s American Studies Program who plans to protest, said:

    Many in Purdue’s undergraduate class are too young to remember Bush as a war criminal. George Bush lied to the American people, spent trillions of tax dollars on an unjust war, and caused immeasurable pain and suffering in Iraq and here at home. It is appalling that Mitch Daniels and other Purdue leaders believe that George W. Bush’s presence on campus will be somehow beneficial for our student body.

    In the meantime, the MIAC has become big business. U.S. News and World Report now lists and ranks “Homeland Security Programs” across U.S. universities while the Office of Homeland Security boasts an Office of University Programs which “harnesses the intellectual power of America’s universities to provide innovative research, development, and education to the Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE).College Factual meanwhile estimates that at least 7,000 degrees in Homeland Security were granted in the academic year 2021-2022, with an average starting salary of $52,000. Purdue Global University meanwhile offers an “Online Master’s Degree in Homeland Security and Emergency Management.” Purdue Global is itself a new Frankensteinian entry into the MIAC, a public online university built from Purdue’s 2018 purchase — for one dollar — of the for-profit online Kaplan University. Purdue Global is operated by the Purdue Board of Trustees and described as a “public benefit corporation.” It expands the MIAC footprint into a global market of thousands of virtual degree consumers both inside and outside of the U.S.

    It is these sprawling conditions spawned by and through the war on terror — and its bedfellow Military-Industrial-Academic Complex — that activists, organizers and people of conscience will be protesting as George W. Bush and Mitch Daniels take the stage at Purdue. One faculty member joining the protest who requested anonymity for fear of retribution said of the event:

    It is inappropriate for a man who deceived the American public to launch an illegal invasion, ignored the mass protests of his own citizens and sent thousands of Iraqis and Americans to their deaths, to be speaking at a public university that prides itself on integrity. We take this as an opportunity to do a teach-in to educate ourselves about the history and costs of militarism in our lives.

    And said one local Democratic Socialists of America organizer who plans to protest:

    George W. Bush and his administration represent corruption, lawlessness and militarism. This legacy is the complete opposite of the things a university should dedicate itself to. We hope that all members of the community will turn out to demonstrate their opposition to this ill-conceived invitation.

    The organizers and activists will hold a teach-in and speak-out on December 6 as part of their protest. Their organizing efforts include this petition to protest Bush’s appearance and circulating the scannable QR code on the poster accompanying this story. The protesters’ rally will be in solidarity with other national movements to demilitarize university campuses, like the national Cops Off Campus Coalition and Dissenters, a group committed to reclaiming resources from the war industry. These movements align with ongoing battles to demilitarize K-12 education as documented in Scott Harding and Seth Kershner’s 2015 book, Counter-Recruitment and the Campaign to Demilitarize Public Schools. The protest efforts also fall under the broad banner of the contemporary abolitionist movement, which seeks restorative justice and a redistribution of public goods from death-making institutions like war and prisons to life-making activities like schools. Those protesting the Bush-Daniels summit will thus be fighting both in memory of those martyred by the U.S. war against Iraq and for a world that includes the right to live and build alternatives to state violence, racism and empire.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Most of the results are in from the 2022 midterm election, and the much-hyped “red wave” and the potential for Republican domination in Congress never materialized. But one Republican outperformed most of his party this cycle, winning reelection in a landslide: Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.

    Now, as arguably the only big Republican winner of the 2022 midterms, DeSantis has been floated as the Republican star, the 2024 presidential candidate that can save the party from Donald Trump’s unpopularity. His candidacy has been deemed “inevitable” by The Washington Post, and “the hottest thing going in the Republican Party,” according to CNN. The prevailing theme seems to be, finally, a “normal” Republican frontrunner again!

    There’s just one problem: DeSantis is no “moderate.” He is brash, bigoted, and wields the rhetoric of populism as a cudgel to reify white, patriarchal, heteronormative power. He may be an alternative to Trump for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, but he is alternative in name only.

    Take abortion, for instance. While DeSantis didn’t totally ban abortion, he just signed a 15-week ban into law — a draconian, extremist position that endangers the health and lives of the most marginalized. Florida doesn’t allow Medicaid funding for abortion care. It remains one of the few states left in the Southeast where abortion is legal at all; neighboring states like Alabama and Georgia have abortion bans on the books (though Georgia’s was recently blocked by a federal judge). This puts inordinate pressure on the capacity of Florida abortion clinics, which means booked-up schedules and fewer available appointments for abortion seekers. A 15-week abortion ban imposes a strict time limit on an already time-sensitive procedure.

    Florida has other restrictions on abortion –– it bans state Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage of abortion care, and has a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, which forces patients to come to the clinic twice before an abortion can be performed. Coupled with the onslaught of patients coming from states where abortion is already banned, it could push some patients, especially low-income folks who need to raise the funds to pay for an abortion, past the 15-week cut-off.

    DeSantis’s abortion policy isn’t “moderate,” and neither is his approach to much else. After all, this is the man who rammed through the “Don’t Say Gay” bill that, just months ago, was decried as “dangerous” and “wrong” across outlets like Healthline and NBC News. He directed the state medical board to ban gender-affirming health care for trans youth, banned trans girls from participating on sex-segregated sports teams, and has engaged in egregious voter suppression efforts, arresting 20 formerly incarcerated people in one day who were granted the right to vote in a 2018 state referendum. Moreover, he signed a law that banned state university professors from talking about racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression and discrimination, a law so horrific that the U.S. district judge who blocked it called it “positively dystopian.” Now, because he won big in a state racked with gerrymandering while the rest of his party seemed to flounder at the polls elsewhere, he gets to be the torchbearer for a more “moderate” Republican party.

    We’ve heard this tune before. In 2000, George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative,” framing himself as an outsider with a different approach to conservatism. Instead, he led the country into two major tragic wars that would long outlast his administration, tried (unsuccessfully) to gut Social Security, and in 2004, ran on banning same-sex marriage.

    There is nothing moderate about arresting marginalized people for voting, or endangering the lives of pregnant people, trans youth, Black and Brown people. If DeSantis is what passes for moderate today in the U.S., then moderate is just another word for oppression, masking itself as reasonable political discourse. But for a party that has staked its legacy on a twice-impeached con man and his army of election-deniers and conspiracy theorists, openly harming anyone who isn’t a white, straight, cisgender man, it’s par for the course.

    Gov. Ron DeSantis may very well win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. And if he does, the legitimacy granted to him by pundits and the media alike, framing his as a more reasonable option to Donald Trump, could help him win election. And the suffering of the marginalized will be a feature, not a bug.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The anti-monopoly movement is having a moment. Gone are the days of associating evil market dominance with Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel, Bill Gates’ petulance during deposition, or how it feels to desperately mortgage Marvin Gardens because you landed at the hotel on Park Place.

    As now-Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan asserted five years ago in her seminal work, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” our government’s outdated enforcement standards “fail[ed] to register” monopolistic harm. Since then, millions more Americans have been awakened to the sinister power of monopolies in our economy – and the exciting political opportunities to rein them in.

    Last week, legions of new anti-monopolists were born. They have enormous potential to change the game: shrewd social media skills, undying loyalty, and encyclopedic knowledge. They’re Taylor Swift’s superfans – and they just might be the reason that the government breaks up Ticketmaster.

    The Swifties – as Swift’s stans are affectionately nicknamed – experienced the destructive power of the live event and ticketing monopoly firsthand. Hoping to procure pre-sale tickets to their favorite pop star’s upcoming tour, millions of fans waited in endless e-queues, only to be hit with sky-high ticket prices and exorbitant fees – if they were able to snag a ticket at all.

    “Ticket prices may fluctuate, upon demand, at any time,” read an ominous warning on the Ticketmaster website. And they did: Due to their “dynamic pricing” system, which vaults ticket costs to a maximum market rate, fans reported buying tickets for thousands upon thousands of dollars, not including hefty fees, and prices spiked even higher on the secondary resale market. On StubHub, for example, ticket listings reached upwards of $95,000.

    Finally, Ticketmaster threw in the towel and canceled subsequent presale windows. Their site crashed thousands of times. It was absolute mayhem – and fans had no other option but to endure it, the kind of undignified customer experience caused only by an unchecked monopoly.

    Ultimately, the Swifties got results.

    Hours after Taylor Swift released a statement, apologizing to the fans for the bungled presale and chastising Ticketmaster for incapably handling demand, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it has launched an investigation of Live Nation Entertainment’s abuse of market power. While their work wasn’t prompted by Swift, reported David McCabe and Ben Sisario in the New York Times, Swifties’ wave of discontent was overwhelming enough to warrant the Department’s public disclosure. Immediately, the company bragging about a record-smashing 2022 (“benefitting” from “fee bearing tickets”) saw its stock plummet.

    @yuriroho on TikTok
    @yuriroho on TikTok

    How did we get here? When it comes to antitrust issues, the American government has essentially been asleep at the wheel, allowing Ticketmaster’s monopoly to crush its competition for over a decade.

    As Chokepoint Capitalism author Cory Doctorow explained to More Perfect Union, Ticketmaster’s dominant control of the live show ticketing market had a natural customer in Live Nation’s concert promoting business, which managed an impressive portfolio of major artists and live music venues.

    In 2010, the two entities merged into Live Nation Entertainment to suppress their rivalry – a process waved through by the Obama administration’s consolidation-friendly Department of Justice. The company was subject to a relatively weak consent decree, which asked the merged companies to not use their live venue dominance to expand their ticketing capacity. But it’s been easy to intimidate their naysayers and flout guidelines ever since.

    Put simply, the merger created a monster, subordinating all parties in the live event life cycle from ticket acquisition to performance.

    “Ticketmaster bullies venues into not working with their competitors,” concluded Doctorow. “They bully smaller artists by denying them management. They bully big artists by controlling their ticket prices and letting their fans down. And they bully their customers into paying exorbitant prices for tickets, not only by enabling resellers but by collecting massive fees on every ticket those resellers sell.”

    Even Swift, an aspiring billionaire and private jet power-user, has no choice but to bend the knee to the ticketing monopoly, often an exclusive partner at her massive preferred venues.

    Greg Maffei, chairman of the monopoly’s parent group – and head of Liberty Media, a media conglomerate with Republican ties – blamed the service’s lag time on Taylor’s popularity. “Ticketmaster will twist any situation to protect its market power over live events,” noted the American Economic Liberties Project. (It’s time to mention that Maffei took home $47 million from Liberty Media in 2021, and is personally worth hundreds of millions like Swift herself.)

    Soaring ticket prices are not entirely the artist’s fault for their popularity. Even as Taylor Swift’s music is of the money-printing, monocultural variety – incentivizing “dynamic pricing” to the highest degree – she’s still a worker, exploited by and beholden to an overarching system. As Live Nation and Ticketmaster can force artists to work with them and make a killing on their sale and resale fees, less popular or well resourced artists are uniquely harmed by the business model without other streams of income.

    “Corporations are extracting the maximum capital from artists’ labor, and they’re not sharing it anymore,” said Doctorow.

    Ticketmaster’s unsustainable market dominance has long been understood. Well before the Taylor Swift fiasco, a coalition of research organizations and artists collectives launched the Break Up Ticketmaster campaign – asking the DOJ to “investigate and unwind” the live events monopoly. The campaign quickly gained ground, generating tens of thousands of signatures on an advocacy letter.

    Pro-breakup legislators also harnessed the news cycle, calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the abusive ticketing monopoly.

    “Consumers deserve better than this anti-hero behavior,” tweeted Senator Richard Blumenthal, punning off a song from Swift’s latest album, Midnights.

    And on MSNBC, Senate Antitrust Committee chair Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) promised a Senate hearing on Ticketmaster’s market power and insufficient consent decree in the coming year. She expressed political interest in “put[ting] the Taylor Swift fans right on antitrust,” as their ticketing experience was “a story of a monopoly gone wild.” Her bills with Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Mike Lee (R-UT) aim to facilitate antitrust enforcement with new filing, funding, and state empowerment rules.

    State lawmakers, too, seized the opportunity to criticize consolidation. After all, Swifties are spread across the country and party lines. The Attorney General of Tennessee – home to the “angriest Swifties” – opened an investigation into Ticketmaster’s misconduct. And in New York, state Senator Mike Gianaris called attention to his 21st Century Anti-Trust Act, which would “hold [Ticketmaster] accountable for manipulating the ticket market to bleed concert-goers.”

    For his part, President Biden recently directed his administration to “reduce or eliminate” junk fees like Ticketmasters’ infamous extra charges, which sometimes total up to 78 percent of the cost of a ticket. And he’s appointed a passel of pioneering antitrust enforcers – like New Brandeisian icon and FTC chair Lina Khan, DOJ Antitrust lead Jonathan Kanter, and former economic advisor Tim Wu – who are dedicated to bucking Robert Bork’s inert “consumer welfare standard,” overhauling the state’s merger guidelines, and appropriately disciplining monopolistic harm in the contemporary economy. Biden also signed a robust competition-oriented executive order in his first months in the Oval Office.

    The President’s paradigm shift comes not a moment too soon. Monopolies aren’t just disfiguring our economy or our political processes. They are capable of stripping everything for parts – even our arts and culture, cornerstones of democratic society that should be unequivocally protected from the incursions of greedy corporations.

    Swifties understand this. And they experience the villainy of monopolies across the board – through the high price of a tight seat on a plane home from college, in the improbability of a solid career in journalism, in their skyrocketing monthly rent, or in the marginalization of their small e-commerce business.

    So, present day monopolists, steel yourselves and remember: When you provoke a superfan, they’ll come for you.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.