Category: Op-Ed

  • The congressional midterm elections are upon us again, with major primary votes taking place today in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky, Idaho and Oregon. Lovers of shame and schadenfreude will be tuned in to North Carolina, where scandal-factory Madison Cawthorn will find out just how fed up his fellow Republicans are with his act. Cawthorn’s defeat tonight would mean one less incoherent fascist in the House, another fine haircut down in the ditch of history.

    For our purposes, however, we will stick to the Keystone state of Pennsylvania, where a wild, Trump-lathered primary season is finally concluding. Of all the states up for grabs tonight, Pennsylvania serves as the best bowl of national tea leaves. “The results will help clarify the mood of the country,” opines The New York Times. “Pennsylvania, a longtime swing state, has often signaled what American voters are thinking.”

    The outcome in Pennsylvania tonight will reveal a lot about the current disposition of the Republican Party, and by proxy Donald Trump. Given the outsized influence Trump has over the GOP, what happens in Pennsylvania won’t stay in Pennsylvania. The Senate race in particular is a perfection of Trump-riddled Republican politics.

    Three candidates face off tonight — celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, businessman David McCormick, and late-surging Kathy Barnette, a far-right commentator who has espoused anti-Muslim and anti-LGBTQ sentiments. Oz holds a slim lead in the latest polls, but Barnette has pulled off the electoral version of a ten-run rally in the ninth inning and is nipping at Oz’s heels. McCormick is slightly behind in third, and with 15 percent of voters still undecided, anything can happen.

    Due in no small part to all things celebrity, Trump chose to endorse Oz to the dismay of most election-savvy traditional Republicans. Oz was basically a Democrat about 45 seconds ago, and is on the record espousing certain views that make your average GOP primary voter want to climb a tree. McCormick the CEO seemed the obvious choice for Trump’s endorsement, but Trump went with the TV guy instead, and there you have it.

    The race was already wild before Barnette came roaring to the fore in recent weeks. One moment galvanized her campaign and set the stage for her current surge: Barnette recently announced that her mother survived rape at age 11 and gave birth to her at age 12 as a result, a revelation that resonated deeply with a Republican base that is growing increasingly opposed to permitting exceptions for rape and incest within their draconian abortion bans.

    The drama surrounding Barnette’s campaign only deepens when you see who’s in her corner: The extreme right Club for Growth, an organization Trump has had favorable dealings with in the past. Two weeks ago, the Club backed the non-Trump candidate in Ohio, and it has done so again with Barnette in Pennsylvania. They are gambling that Trump’s influence in the party is on the wane, and are jockeying for the catbird seat in a post-Trump political landscape. Trump, for his part, is reportedly raging about the Club being “disloyal.”

    The Club is not backing down. “We’d love to partner with [Trump],” Club board member Frayda Levin told The Washington Post, “but sometimes we disagree; it’s that simple. No one can explain Trump’s relationships, nor can his five ex-wives or whatever. You can quote me on that.”

    Barnette is no shrinking violet in this clash, either. Responding to critics who say she cannot win in November, Barnette declared, “I lost by 19 points [in her 2020 congressional race], Donald Trump lost by more than 26 points [in Pennsylvania’s last presidential vote]. Who’s less electable with those numbers?” Yeah, that’ll leave a mark.

    Trump friends and foes alike are staring hard at this race tonight, as the outcome — and Trump’s perceived clout — will resonate in virtually every other state’s primary to come. Worse for the GOP if Trump’s picks lose will be if some of his goofier picks actually pull off a victory; seats the GOP could have for the asking would suddenly be a towering challenge to win.

    Look no further than Pennsylvania itself for this phenomenon: Whoever emerges from the GOP primary will likely face Democratic Lt. Governor John Fetterman in the general election, and Fetterman is currently hospitalized after suffering a stroke. He is expected to recover, but the health question would seem to make this seat an easier GOP pick-up than most unless they nominate someone like Oz, who was booed by the audience at a recent Trump rally. This does not bode well for general election GOP turnout in that state.

    I have always carried a low dread for midterm congressional elections. Chalk it up to 1994, when the GOP — led by Newt Gingrich and his balderdashian “Contract for America” — picked up a whopping 54 House seats, taking majority control of that chamber for the first time in 40 years. The GOP also took over the Senate in that election, giving the party total control of Congress.

    A day after the election, on my damn birthday in fact, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby abandoned the Democrats for the Republicans, increasing the GOP’s majority control in the Senate. Gingrich became House Speaker, and our long national descent into the current crisis began in earnest.

    It was a bad day.

    I want to like the midterms, I really do, because they are fascinating. Every House seat goes up for election every two years, and every Senate seat goes up in cycles every six years, but the electoral dynamic during presidential years profoundly inflates turnout, which has a way of making the results more predictable. Not so with the midterms; historically low turnout for these votes means just about anything can and does happen, depending on which base is more motivated.

    Some true right-wingers have made their way into Congress during these elections, but then again, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a slew of the Squad likewise came in thanks to a midterm. In any event, the fact that midterms tend to be low-turnout and highly base-driven means they have a way of altering the dynamic of the legislative branch in ways no other elections can.

    Regardless of my feelings about midterms, I am an all-day sucker for primaries, and this here before us could be called “Midterm Super Tuesday.” Thanks to the shabby, money-flooded way we do elections in this country, primary elections are the last, best place a voter can really throw weight and have their decision matter. It’s all a big TV show once the general elections start, but primaries are where you can really shake the tree.

    Case in point: Bernie Sanders failed to win the Democratic nomination for president two elections in a row but won enough primaries during his campaigns that the party was altered forever, and for the better. Those who vote in primaries can change the course of this wacky world in surprising ways.

    Let’s see what happens next.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Every detail of Payton Gendron’s white supremacist attack in Buffalo reeks of the murderer’s clear aim of terrorizing not only the Black shoppers he killed on Saturday but also the rest of us, who are left in fear of the copycat attacks that he explicitly sought to inspire.

    The murderer shot Black people with a rifle with the n-word scrawled on it. His decision to livestream his racist attack added to the attack’s dehumanizing and dystopian nature by displaying the deaths of his victims as if the massacre were a video game. And the 180-page manifesto that he left behind — part meme farm and part manual — contains pages of racist and antisemitic memes and clearly seeks to inspire copycat attacks by outlining weaponry and providing tips for carrying out more attacks.

    Gendron, the 18-year-old white man who shot 13 people, murdering 11 of them, mostly Black, in a white supremacist attack at Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo, had planned to attack Black shoppers at the grocery store because it was located in a predominately Black neighborhood. He is best understood as an accelerationist who hopes his instance of “direct action” will hasten a racial crisis, enabling reactionary forces to create a societal disruption and orchestrate a takeover of the U.S.

    In attacking Black residents at the grocery store, Gendron explicitly sought to terrorize all Black folks with the hopes of rallying other likeminded white Americans to the cause.

    While law enforcement often kills Black people suspected for minor infractions, if any at all, the white murderer survived his encounter with responding police officers. While I do not condone police violence, law enforcement’s ability to apprehend mass murderers like Dylann Roof rubbed salt into a collective emotional and psychic wound inflicted by Gendron. Gendron’s release of his 180-page racist manifesto explaining his motivation for his racist attack added to the burn.

    The murderer’s actions at the Tops Friendly Market were a disturbing echo of the white supremacists’ chants of “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville in 2017. In his manifesto, the killer proclaimed himself a white supremacist, Nazi, separatist, and nationalist who subscribes to the racist and conspiratorial “Great Replacement Theory,” which suggests that immigration, decline in white births, and efforts such as diversity, equity, inclusion programs in schools and the private sectors, and critical race theory are erasing white Americans. In an example of the symbiotic relationship between white nationalists on the ground and far right media, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has amplified the white nationalist “great replacement theory” to millions of viewers in numerous segments.

    As I learned more about the details of the racist attacks in Buffalo and read the murderer’s manifesto, I recalled a rather lengthy twitter debate I had with a self-proclaimed white nationalist that took place over the course of a few exchanges over the course of 2016 and 2017. In fall 2016, white nationalists began hanging racist, misogynist, homophobic and Islamophobic posters on the University of Michigan’s campus, where I worked. Those responsible for the offensive posters sought to build support for white nationalism expressed affinity for Donald Trump and they saw his campaign as part of their organizing efforts. We responded by encouraging white students and community members to organize the group, Collective Against White Supremacy (CAWS), to combat white nationalist messaging by taking down the posters and replacing them with anti-racist ones. The organization also offered support to predominantly Black and POC student groups as well. But, we never had to respond to any acts of physical violence.

    Yet, several of us confronted trolling and received death threats online. Amid the trolling, one of the white nationalists sought to debate me on Twitter about the merits of nationalism. The white nationalist naively asserted multiple times, including in a letter delivered to my home in the summer of 2018, that a white ethno-state could be achieved nonviolently, especially if I and other Black folks resolved to be nationalists and separatists. Somehow, according to this white nationalist, white and Black people could agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

    I vehemently disagreed. Black nationalism and white nationalism in the U.S. are neither morally nor politically equivalent, historically or in our contemporary moment. Proponents of the former have never possessed the full arsenal of state power — policing, political institutions and a military. Many Black people have pondered the possibilities of building a rather contained “nation-within-a-nation.” However, these visions historically have mostly been that — visions — because U.S. settler colonialism, exceptionalism and capitalism would not allow for the construction of a separate state in North American territory, let alone one built and controlled by Black people.

    Additionally, I argued that such a proposition was frankly ridiculous because white nationalism and nation-building, generally, are inherently violent processes. As activists and historians have illustrated, displacing Indigenous peoples, and setting up and policing borders violently is inherent to nation-building. Ultimately, settlers seek to construct a state and society on territory, turning it into an evolving graveyard for Indigenous and marginalized people and cultures. Also, I recall stating that if white nationalists get what they want—a white settler ethno-state—the nation-building process would not stop at capturing, killing and expelling Black people, Indigenous people and other people of color. Border wars would continue with “new” race-based nations. But, importantly for them, the white-led nation-building process would probably turn inward and begin targeting white folks deemed less racially “pure,” “deviant,” “criminal,” and “unworthy” of citizenship and life. There would not be any refuge for poor and other marginalized “white” folks in this nation-state. The Buffalo massacre highlights the inherent violence of white nationalism, as its primary goal is to eliminate non-white and “undesirable” groups. There is no such thing as a nonviolent genocidal ideology.

    Yesterday’s racist attack in Buffalo underscores the need for a multiracial socialist movement based in the working class. While the murderer and other white nationalists contend that white power and dominance is the answer to economic inequality, political powerlessness, and even a changing climate, we know how deadly wrong that is. Only bringing various groups of peoples into a grounded in gender, racial, environmental, sexual, and reproductive justice can address fundamental problems and even provide the more enriching community that disaffected workers from all backgrounds might crave. A willingness to disrupt white radicalization and build solidarity can lay the foundation for defending against racist attacks.

    Liberals’ calls to designate these attacks as “domestic terrorism” and charge racist murderers accordingly will not deter a group of people who are committed to murdering Black people, people of color more broadly, Jewish people, and trans folks in the name of preventing “white genocide.”

    It is also quite possible that reactionaries will turn these “domestic terrorism” laws against leftists, especially if another Trump-like figure is elected president. We also cannot rely on the U.S. state to totally wipe out this movement, as it has a history of surveilling, disrupting and wiping out Black-led political organizations. We cannot forget about the history and contemporary reports about the overlap between white nationalists, the military and police forces.

    We must develop grassroots strategies to disrupt the growing white supremacist movement. How does one proceed to confront an organized reactionary movement that believes it is fighting a war? As historian Kathleen Belew contends, these killers are not “lone wolves.” They are constructing their own strategies and drawing from intellectual and political traditions of prior generations of white power organizing. White nationalist theories of the “great replacement” and older discredited notions of race science have gone mainstream and/or made a comeback. Ultimately, the network of ideas, political and cultural institutions, and people willing to murder racial and ethnic minorities encourages perpetrators of these murders to claim allegiance to an organized movement.

    We must counter racist attacks with a diversity of tactics, ranging from community protection and self-defense to mutual aid and deprogramming and deradicalizing white Americans. We must counter racist white solidarity with a solidarity grounded in economic, racial, gender, environmental, and reparative justice. It is important that we join with the organizers and groups that continue to demonstrate that living in a world organized around these principles will be better for all of us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • I got my second COVID booster shot this morning, so if I do catch this damned thing, it won’t be for lack of ducking. The CVS worker who dosed me seemed an affable sort and the coffee had just kicked in, so I decided to have a bit of sport at the expense of the medical industry. When he brought the tray with the syringe over, I asked if it was the one with the Bill Gates microchip or the one that glows to let Satan know where I am. He stared at me a long moment, looked left and right, then leaned close and said, “5G, man. 5G.”

    It’s laughing or screaming at this point, when the mention of one conspiracy theory is parried with yet another (in this case, the outrageous idea that 5G cellphone towers are to blame for COVID-19), and that is the ignoble truth.

    With solemn tone and a truly daunting dot-matrix map of the lost, The New York Times put forth the question that nobody seems prepared to deal with at this juncture: How did this country suffer one million COVID deaths, easily the most of any country in the world, in less than three years?

    The answers are spread across a broad palette of shame and disgrace that, brushstroke by disgraceful brushstroke, combined to paint a mural of a nation in pinwheeling decline. COVID did not do this to us. Like water, it made for the lowest places and flooded the gaps until the walls crumbled, the floors cracked, and the “exceptional” country was forced to confront just how drab and subpar it really is… which may serve to explain the silence enveloping this grim and monstrous milestone.

    This is how it happens,” writes Indrajit Samarajiva, who watched as his home country of Sri Lanka collapsed after years of civil war. “Precisely what you’re feeling now. The numbing litany of bad news. The ever rising outrages. People suffering, dying, and protesting all around you, while you think about dinner. If you’re trying to carry on while people around you die, your society is not collapsing. It’s already fallen down.”

    It was capitalism, of course, that made sure this thing would rule the day. The idea of obeying science to the point that multi-billion dollar corporations might lose custom and market share for a time was more than intolerable; it was heresy spoken against the faith of the free-marketeers and their trickle-down pabulum. Minimum-wage workers behind plexiglass at the Piggly Wiggly were hailed as heroes in the media, but they weren’t heroes… or at least they didn’t want to be. They needed the money and the insurance (if any was actually available), and so they worked. Thousands were infected, and hundreds died.

    The gruesome details of COVID and the meat-packing industry are a perfect metaphor for the collision between greed and disease. According to a report by ProPublica, a cohort of meat-packing concerns combined their efforts and lobbied the Trump administration for exemptions that would allow their plants to remain open while shielding them from legal liability. Soon enough, Trump complied.

    “The effect that the meatpacking plant outbreaks had on the early spread of COVID-19 is staggering,” reads the report. “ProPublica and other news outlets tracked cases and deaths involving meatpacking workers. But academic researchers have found that by July 2020, about 6 percent to 8 percent of all coronavirus cases in the U.S. were tied to packing plant outbreaks, and that by October 2020, community spread from the plants had generated 334,000 illnesses and 18,000 COVID-19-related deaths.”

    Notwithstanding the towering courage and perseverance of the doctors and nurses who fought COVID on the front lines — wearing garbage bags and masks hosed down with Lysol in the early days because of supply snafus — the bleak truth of this country’s garbled medical industry has been exposed. This reaches beyond the overworked hospitals all the way down to the manner in which we as a nation care for our elders. COVID is exceptionally dangerous for older people, to be sure, but hundreds of thousands of elders died warehoused in “homes” staffed by brutally undertrained workers.

    This, again, was capitalism at work, the “for-profit” medical industry championed by capitalists as the best in the world. The dead know better.

    Speaking of sham capitalism, no critique of the last three years would be complete without a long look at Donald Trump himself, whose performance as president during the crisis will go down in history as one of the more spectacular failures since Icarus told his dad, “Just a little higher.”

    Everything you need to know about Trump’s long bungle of COVID can be found in the first public statement he made on the pandemic, on the last day of February 2020:

    At this moment, we have 22 patients in the United States currently that have coronavirus. Unfortunately, one person passed away overnight. She was a wonderful woman, a medically high-risk patient in her late 50s. Four others are very ill. Thankfully, 15 are either recovered fully or they’re well on their way to recovery, and in all cases they’ve been let go, and they’re home.

    Additional cases in the United States are likely, but healthy individuals should be able to fully recover, and I think that will be a statement that we can make with great surety now that we’ve gotten familiar with this problem. They should be able to recover should they contract the virus. So healthy people, if you’re healthy, you will probably go through a process and you’ll be fine.

    First of all, the deceased person he referred to was a man, not a woman, setting the tone for the fact-free avalanche of calamity his administration became in the ensuing months. The happy talk, though, is the tell: he made this statement weeks after telling journalist Bob Woodward, “You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus. This is deadly stuff.”

    Hundreds of thousands of deaths, along with millions of infections, lay at Trump’s spray-tanned feet, but the dying has continued through the entirety of the Biden administration. In this, we have the perfect storm: A president weighed down by the failures of his predecessor and beset by a Republican opposition that has been more than happy to use a lethal pandemic for political purposes. It also has not helped that Biden and his fellow Democrats have raised snatching defeat from the jaws of victory into a form of performance art.

    In the face of all this, frustrated silence reigns. There’s no mystery to it; a great many myths about greatness have been shredded and burned in the passage of COVID, and here we are once again confronted with a new wave of infections. New cases are exploding across the country, especially in areas where the GOP convinced people that vaccinations and masks are some sort of liberal Trojan Horse. There were more than 90,000 new infections yesterday alone, a two-week increase of 60 percent.

    Biden ordered flags to be flown at half-mast to honor the million we have lost. It is as bland a recognition as any other we have seen. The longer we refuse to face what this really is — a pandemic that has attacked us at our weakest places that were supposed to be our strongest places — the longer this will continue. It is a reckoning that must be both national and personal, or there will be no recovery at all.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Resident physicians are unionizing around the country. Most recently, residents at University of Vermont Medical Center (UVM), Stanford Medical Center, and Keck School of Medicine of USC all voted to join the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), which is part of the larger Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These wins come despite ongoing pushback from the hospital bosses. This resistance is coming because hospitals know unionized resident physicians will be harder to exploit. More residents should fight to unionize to protect themselves and the care of patients, and in the process of winning unions, they should extend their fight and demands to challenge the dynamics of the healthcare system itself.

    The growth in resident physician unions is occurring in the context of a growing pro-union sentiment around the country. Approval for unions in the United States is at its highest point in over 60 years, according to a recent Gallup poll. As part of this pattern of growing support, workers in Amazon recently voted to establish the company’s first union in Staten Island, and Starbucks Workers around the country continue to win union votes, even with ongoing pushback and union-busting tactics from the company. As interim ALU President Chris Smalls has noted, workers are unionizing as a way to fight back against their poor working conditions instead of quitting their jobs. Workers are seeing unions as ways to fight back collectively against the boss and more resident physicians are seeing joining a union as a way to do the same thing.

    Still, though, only about one seventh of the over 145,000 resident physicians in the United States today are unionized. But 100 percent of residents should have a union. As we have written about previously, residents are cheap labor in an exploitative, for-profit healthcare system. In many ways, residency training itself serves to condition physicians to act as tools for a capitalist healthcare system constantly looking to cut staff and cut costs to increase profits. Much of the fight for resident unions goes against this dynamic. Residents at hospitals fight through their unions for more demands such as raises, housing stipends, and a better parental leave policy, etc.

    And resident organizing for and through unions only increased during the height of the Black Lives Matter Movement and then again throughout varying waves of the pandemic as resident physicians were at the frontlines caring for patients and witnessing the outcomes of intersections of race and class under capitalism have on people’s bodies. These experiences highlighted very clearly how institutions that claim to care about health and well being ultimately put their bottom line above the well being of patients and frontline healthcare workers.

    We undoubtedly need more resident unions, and as the number of resident unions grows, the most combative sectors of resident physicians need to explore how to push further beyond demands of workplace improvements and towards questioning the exploitative dynamic of residency itself and more largely the dynamics of the for profit healthcare system. For example, as we have written about in the past, residents often work 80-100 hours per week during their training. They serve as cheap labor for hospital systems and that labor helps uphold the factory-like dynamic of many of these healthcare settings. Resident programs claim to care about addressing these long hours, but argue their hands are tied. One potential avenue of resistance is for resident unions to begin to challenge the 80 hour workweek by forcing their hospitals or clinics to unilaterally cut work hours in contracts (for reference, our CIR union local did exactly this when I was a resident in NYC, winning the first reduced hour contract in CIR history).

    Struggles should not stop around hours, however. Residents should also begin to think about challenging their own union leadership. As noted above, most residents unionize under the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR). The union often attempts to “play nice” or be cordial with hospital leaderships, even signing “no-strike” clauses with the hospitals or clinics at which they are based. But hospital executives are enemies of healthcare workers and patients, and there should be nothing cordial about relationships with them. The strike is one of the most powerful tools any worker has, and the potential for its use should never be signed away in a contract.

    Resident mobilizations should go beyond the limits of medical residency. Resident physicians should fight together in their workplaces to challenge the exploitative healthcare system as a whole and push their unions to actually be fighting organs to fight for a better healthcare system. We see some glimmers of this in some of the current resident unionizing efforts where workers want to push for broader improvements at the workplace. At UVM, for example, they “want to tackle broader working conditions at the hospital, including an ongoing staffing shortage and a lack of adequate work spaces.”

    In general, physicians today, whether still in residency training or outside residency training, must begin to see themselves as part of the working class, fighting with other workers for better conditions and against conditions that threaten the well being of the general public. For example, resident physicians could also mobilize their unions and fight with other unions to push back against recent threats to the right to abortion in the United States. Rank and file committees could be made to mobilize healthcare workers against the ongoing war in Ukraine. Unionized healthcare workers should be mobilized to confront these fights in their workplaces and in the streets.

    As the pandemic showed us, the maintenance of individual and community health extends beyond the walls of any hospital or clinic. When the right to abortion is threatened, this threatens health and well being. When an Amazon worker is exploited by Jeff Bezos and forced to work in unsafe conditions, it does the same. As residents continue to unionize, their fight needs to become more dynamic and combative and spread across sectors to other healthcare workers and other workers more generally.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jamea Shalout’s home in Rafah, Gaza, consists of two rooms built of cinder blocks and cement. In the room where I met her in late 2019, the only personal belongings visible were the sleeping mats that the family lays out at night and a pile of blankets. Across a dirt courtyard, there is a small kitchen and bathroom — with cinderblock walls, dirt floors and a partial roof made from corrugated tin. Water for the family is delivered into the holding tanks on the family’s property. One room in the house receives electricity from a small solar panel, but the rest of the house does not have power. At night, Jamea shares her room with six family members.

    Everyone deserves to live in safety and peace and have their rights respected; this includes both Palestinians and Israelis. Unfortunately, Palestinians in Gaza have lived for 15 years under an Israeli imposed blockade that has stripped them of their rights and dignity. The blockade was first imposed on Gaza in 2006 and further tightened since 2007. It effectively limits most exports and imports to and from Gaza, restricts the movement of Palestinians from Gaza, and bans access to Gaza by nearly all nonresidents.

    Congress could take action to bring change by demanding that Israel end the blockade, and while 31 House members signed on to a February 2020 letter authored by Representatives Mark Pocan and Debbie Dingell calling to restore all U.S. funding for humanitarian aid in Gaza and urging an end to the blockade, most members of Congress instead support the continuation of the blockade regardless of its human costs. They remain willfully oblivious to those costs borne by people like Jamea.

    Jamea is one of many paying the cost of both the economic and employment crisis in Gaza. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2021, the unemployment rate in Gaza was over 26 percent. Among women, the unemployment level increases to over 43 percent. But unemployment is only one part of the humanitarian catastrophe created by the blockade. In the private sector, 29 percent of workers earned less than the minimum wage (about $420 per month) in 2021, with monthly earnings for those employed in the Gaza Strip averaging approximately $190 per month. This is not enough to provide for basic needs and helps explain why over 80 percent of the population rely on outside assistance to survive.

    Nobody in Jamea’s family has a steady job, though some family members find seasonal employment picking dates. They also have a horse and cart that they use to gather plastic for recycling, but this brings in no more than one or two dollars per day as income — not enough to meet the needs of all family members.

    The crises in Gaza link directly to the blockade, which, among other things, limits imports and exports and restricts Palestinian movement. Repeated Israeli attacks on Gaza — which have destroyed electrical, water and sanitation, and other basic infrastructure — have furthered economic decline, while the blockade also stops rebuilding and recovery. This reality is neither ethical nor sustainable.

    While members of Congress may turn their gaze away from Jamea and others, many of their constituents want the blockade to end. A recent survey initiated by my organization, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and conducted by YouGov demonstrates that when presented with basic information about the blockade, a plurality of respondents supported ending the blockade. The poll — conducted with 1,000 people in November 2021 — indicated that, after receiving this basic information, over 48 percent of respondents thought that the blockade should end while only 31 percent of respondents supported its continuation. When these same respondents were provided with additional information about the blockade and its impacts, opposition increased to 52 percent.

    The poll found majority opposition among women, people ages 18-45, and people over 65 and indicated that a plurality of voters across demographics and age groups opposed the continuation of the blockade. Respondents were a representative sample of U.S. adults across the political spectrum.

    These numbers are important because they demonstrate the disconnect that exists between political positions and public opinion. The public cares about what happens to Jamea and thousands of others in her position. Those of us calling for change in U.S. policy related to Gaza often hear from members of Congress and the Biden administration that our positions are marginal and not supported by the broader public. These results contradict conventional wisdom and instead show that, if provided basic information, most people support ending the Gaza blockade.

    The results of the AFSC survey point to a broader change in narrative that is occurring as criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians gains mainstream acceptance. But this is not yet reflected at a political level. This shift is reflected in the recently issued Amnesty International report which details how Israel’s treatment of Palestinians constitutes apartheid. The report notes that “…Israel has imposed a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians wherever it exercises control over the enjoyment of their rights — across Israel and the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] and with regard to Palestinian refugees.”

    The blockade of Gaza and resulting violations of Palestinians rights is not separate from that apartheid reality. The blockade is a key system of control that facilitates apartheid’s continuation, and it is time for the blockade to end. Public opinion supports a change in policy. Politicians need to catch up. We cannot continue to deny the rights of Jamea, her family, and others living under blockade in Gaza.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When I ran for mayor of Buffalo, New York, last year, my past-due parking tickets became a major reason for reduced favorability among voters. When Stacy Abrams ran for governor of Georgia in 2018, there was a lot of talk in the mainstream media about how much debt she was in. I share these examples because in general, the working poor do not willfully withhold payment for debts. We are faced with the very real decision between paying often illegitimate debts (like parking tickets and student loans) and feeding our children or paying for life-saving medical treatment for our loved ones.

    New York State’s recently passed $220 billion budget has me thinking about the broad acceptance of the idea that the wealthy are best equipped to make the decisions that are supposed to benefit the public at large. The state decided that it was a wise decision to give $650 million to the billionaire owners of the Buffalo Bills while turning a blind eye to the crumbling infrastructure, lack of decent housing, and struggling education system in cities like Buffalo. We have now reached the stage of capitalism where corporate-dominated governments are more willing to invest public dollars into entertainment than in the public good.

    Last month, I attended a “debtors assembly” in Washington, D.C., hosted by The Debt Collective. It was the first time I publicly acknowledged how much student debt I carry — along with millions of other people. I am not alone and I have no reason to be ashamed. Not only was it liberating, but it got me thinking: what would municipal, state, and even federal budgets look like if we elect people who have had to decide between medication and student loan payments? Furthermore, what kind of talented and compassionate people would run for office if not forced into the shadows under the stigma and shame of medical, consumer or student debt?

    As we look to 2022 midterm elections, voters are questioning the failure of a Democratic majority in Congress to deliver voting rights, the Build Back Better bill, and cancelation of student debt. The single and most simple thing President Biden can do to help save the Democratic majority this midterm, while stimulating the economy, is cancel student debt; and he should do it without delay. In sharp contrast to other highly industrialized countries where higher education is inexpensive or free, approximately 45 million people in our country owe a total of $1.7 trillion in student debt.

    We now have the crucial challenge of changing the narrative about who carries the burden of debt, who deserves personal agency, and who deserves decision-making capacity. That is why I am excited to continue to participate in vital coalition work as a member of the RootsAction team. (For more information on our #withoutstudentdebt campaign, visit withoutstudentdebt.us.)

    The hardships imposed on working people have become even more harsh and inhumane in recent years, while vast wealth has been funneled into the pockets of a very few. As crucial steps to reduce income inequality, we need to reject “debt shaming” and insist on cancelation of student debt.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The potential overturn of Roe v. Wade is an attack on bodily autonomy, and opposing it is entirely necessary, especially given most Americans want to keep Roe intact. The public in the United States has less than two months to rally against the Supreme Court’s final decision, and protesting, striking and otherwise opposing a majority right-wing decision to overturn Roe remains dire at this time.

    With that being said, we can very effectively show our public disdain for this potential court ruling without comparing the U.S. to Afghanistan’s Taliban government or to Islamic Sharia law, which has been a comparison made to show anger toward this likely judicial outcome. Protesting and showing our support for women and marginalized people’s rights should occur — but not at the cost of stigmatizing Middle Eastern or Muslim people.

    Unfortunately, the comparison of losing essential abortion rights in the states to Islamic extremism is not uncommon. After Texas passed its six-week abortion ban in the form of Senate Bill 8 in September 2021, different hashtags like #ShariaLawInTexas and #TexasTaliban went viral on Twitter, gaining thousands of tweets and engagements. Today, the hashtag #AmericanTaliban is also making the rounds, which is another way to associate Islam and the Middle East with a judicial decision made by a minority group of Americans and U.S. voters.

    This action is so normalized that Democratic political candidates and verified Twitter users with blue checks and massive followings express these harmful comparisons. Headlines that read “Texas goes Taliban on Abortion Rights” or “The Texas Taliban wing of the Republican Party” are also published across various mainstream news websites, directing the onus to the Taliban and away from the actual source — U.S. politicians.

    The comparison of Roe’s potential overturn to Taliban rule is exceptionally ironic, given that the Taliban is now in control of Afghanistan due to the U.S.’s 20-year, manufactured war. The Bush administration consistently expressed the idea of Middle Eastern governments suppressing the rights of women as a justification for the U.S. invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. As sociologist Kim Berry points out, the Bush administration used “Afghan women as symbols and pawns in a geopolitical conflict, thereby muting their diverse needs and interests and foreclosing the possibility of contributing to the realization of their self-defined priorities and aspirations.”

    First Lady Laura Bush went so far as to make the liberation of Afghan women her purpose during Bush’s presidency, stating that, “Civilized people throughout the world are speaking out in horror — not only because our hearts break for the women and children in Afghanistan, but also because in Afghanistan, we see the world the terrorists would like to impose on the rest of us.”

    She implied two ideas: that the Afghan people are uncivilized, and the Taliban would eventually take over the U.S. government and impose their laws on our sovereignty. The propaganda linked to the origin of this false comparison came from the Bush administration, and First Lady Bush further promoted this to legitimize the invasion of Afghanistan. The U.S. Department of State even released the multipage report titled “Taliban’s War Against Women,” which dives deeper into using the Taliban’s extremist subjugation of women’s rights to justify the Afghanistan invasion.

    Furthermore, comparisons to an “American Taliban” remain harmful toward Middle East and North African (MENA) populations, both at home and abroad, and lifts the blame from evangelical, white nationalists who are the ones making these decisions in our own country, not the Taliban or other foreign entities.

    Conservative and evangelical-leaning groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation alone advised the Trump administration with a list of 11 potential Supreme Court nominee suggestions. Elected conservative politicians in this country are to blame for this impending reversal of Roe. These are the groups toward which we must direct our criticism.

    Comparing the likely reversal of Roe to Muslim extremism is a cop-out for white Christian nationalism, which is historically embedded in U.S. history. From the earliest days of the Puritans, to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, the regression of women’s rights in the U.S. is no one’s fault but domestic religious extremists and the U.S. politicians they elect to office.

    Before the early 19th century, receiving an abortion was common and accepted throughout North America. But the arrival of immigrants after the Civil War (many of which Catholic) soon threatened the majority white male professional class, and white, Anglo-Saxon protestants launched a campaign against abortion to ensure they remained the majority with power and financial advantage. As women continued to fight for their bodily autonomy, male doctors and politicians attacked abortion as “immoral, unwomanly, and unpatriotic,” writes Leslie J. Reagan in her 1996 book, When Abortion Was a Crime.

    Comparing foreign governments in the Middle East not only removes any onus of blame on Christian nationalists and those advocating for this reversal; it elevates stereotypes against people from the MENA region that have historically perpetuated hate crimes and xenophobia.

    We must redirect our attention to those actually responsible for this outcome. The U.S. public needs to hold organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society responsible for their ongoing real-life influence in national conservative political pushes. In addition, we must apply that standard to administrations like former President Donald Trump’s, which appointed more conservative judges to federal courts in his first term than in either Barack Obama or Bush’s first presidential terms.

    Although it goes without saying that the Taliban is an extremist Muslim group; they aren’t the cause of Roe’s overturn. We need to hold our own elected officials accountable, not an extremist group across the world that has virtually no impact on these political decisions.

    We have less than two months to strike, organize, donate and rally before the overturn of Roe could become official. The least we can do is hold the people responsible for the current state we’re in accountable, instead of redirecting blame on the Taliban or Sharia law.

    Call it what it is: a minority group of evangelical, conservative, male-dominated, politically appointed people driving policy. Do the necessary work to speak out against their political choices instead of using Bush-era rhetoric to push a narrative rooted in Islamophobia and xenophobia.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The world has entered an epoch of escalating class struggle and mass popular protest as the global economy teeters on the verge of recession and international tensions reach the boiling point in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Revolt took off around the globe in the aftermath of the 2008 world financial collapse that put an end to two decades of the “globalization boom.” Popular insurgencies have since escalated on the heels of the pandemic and, although particular movements may rise and fall, there is no letup in sight. The first four months of 2022 saw mass labor strikes and unionization drives breaking out in industries and countries around the world.

    Meanwhile, civil strife and political conflict are spreading. As inequality increases exponentially and mass hardship and deprivation spread, global capitalism appears to be emerging from the contagion in a dangerous new phase, placing the world in a perilous situation that borders on global civil war.

    In the two years leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak, more than 100 major anti-government protests swept the world, in rich and poor countries alike, toppling some 30 governments or leaders and sparking an escalation of state violence against protesters. From Chile to Lebanon, Iraq to India, France to the United States, Haiti to Nigeria, and South Africa to Colombia, mass popular struggles appeared in some instances to be acquiring an anti-capitalist character (although others were driven by right-wing sentiments). Anti-capitalist struggles brought together students, workers and often migrant workers, farmers, Indigenous communities, anti-racists, prisoners and activists against mass incarceration, democracy and anti-corruption activists, those struggling for autonomy or independence, anti-austerity campaigners, environmental advocates, and so on.

    However, the “global spring” of 2017-2019 was but a peak moment in the popular insurgencies that spread in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse — a veritable tsunami of proletarian rebellion not seen in decades. The mass uprisings that followed the Great Recession, among them Occupy Wall Street (which started in the U.S. and sparked similar movements in dozens of countries), the Arab Spring, and the Greek workers movement, captured the worldwide popular imagination. Some of these struggles suffered setbacks and defeat. Still, the global revolt ebbed and flowed throughout the 2010s but did not die down, and a fresh wave broke out in 2017.

    The pandemic lockdown pushed protesters off the streets in early 2020. But the lull was momentary: Within weeks of the lockdown, protesters were out in force again despite the quarantine and the dangers of public congregation. Alongside these mobilizations, protests against the police murder of George Floyd in May 2020 sparked an anti-racist uprising that brought upwards to 25 million mostly young people into the streets of hundreds of cities across the country, the single largest mass protest in U.S. history. Many Black Lives Matter protesters called for the defunding of police departments — and for investment in a broad range of social services and supports. This call for expanding a social safety net posed a direct challenge to neoliberal capitalism, which funnels state dollars out of working class communities and social welfare programs and into policing, “defense,” and corporate welfare. Moreover, the BLM protests spurred solidarity actions throughout the world as 2020 wore on.

    The Pew Research Center has been conducting ongoing polls in the U.S. on views toward capitalism and socialism (although, of course, what people understand to be capitalism and socialism is not clear). According to its 2019 poll, a full 42 percent of U.S. respondents had a favorable view of socialism, although the Pew poll did not break down responses by age groups. But a 2018 Gallup poll found that 51 percent of those aged 18-29 had a favorable view of socialism. Seen in historical context, another Gallup poll found that support for socialism stood at 25 percent in 1942 among the U.S. population overall whereas this increased to 43 percent in 2019.

    Revealingly, yet another poll found that support for socialism in the U.S. jumped by nearly 10 percent among young people in 2020, in the midst of the pandemic. This poll found that a full 60 percent of millennials and 57 percent of Generation Z supported a “complete change of our economic system away from capitalism.” Worldwide, a 2020 poll found that a majority of people around the world (56 percent) believe capitalism is doing more harm than good. On a national level, according to the poll, lack of trust in capitalism was highest in Thailand and India (75 percent and 74 percent, respectively), with France close behind (69 percent). Majorities rejected capitalism in many Asian, European, Gulf, African, and Latin American countries. In fact, only in Australia, Canada, the U.S., South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan did majorities disagree with the assertion that capitalism currently did more harm than good.

    Masses expressed this anti-capitalist sentiment in an escalation of protest during the pandemic itself. A palpable radicalization appeared to take place among workers and the poor, a heightened sense of solidarity within and across borders that intensified during the pandemic. In the U.S., for instance, no less than 1,000 strikes ripped across the country in the first six months of the contagion. Workers mounted protests to demand their safety. Meanwhile tenants called for rent strikes; immigrant justice activists surrounded detention centers; anti-incarceration organizers demanded the release of prisoners; auto, fast-food and meat processing workers went out on wildcat stoppages to force factories to shut down; homeless people occupied empty houses; and health care workers on the front lines demanded the personal protective equipment they needed to do their jobs and stay safe. For the most part wildcat strikes were organized not by union leadership but from the rank and file.

    COVID-19 was thus the lightning bolt before the thunder. “Just a few weeks after lockdowns were widely imposed, protests began to reemerge,” noted the Carnegie Endowment. “Already in April [2020], the number of new protests rose to a high level; approximately one new significant anti-government protest every four days.” And there was no letup to mass protest in 2021, fueled, in the words of the Endowment, by an increasingly authoritarian political landscape and “rising economic insecurity” that “brought public frustration of the boiling point.” It added that many countries that did not previously appear in the tracker registered protests that year. Then, as the global class struggle heated up, the first four months of 2022 saw mass labor strikes breaking out in industries and countries around the world.

    Devastating Effects of Capitalist Globalization

    In all of their diversity, many of these fights had — and have — a common underlying denominator: an aggressive global capitalism in crisis that is pushing to expand on the backs of working masses who can tolerate no more hardship and deprivation. Capitalist states face spiraling crises of legitimacy after decades of hardship and social decay wrought by neoliberalism, aggravated by these states’ inability to manage the COVID contagion and the economic free-fall it triggered. The extent of polarization of wealth and power, of deprivation and misery among the world’s poor majority, already defied belief prior to the outbreak. In 2018, just 17 global financial conglomerates collectively managed $41.1 trillion dollars, more than half the gross domestic product of the entire planet. That same year, the richest 1 percent of humanity led by 36 million millionaires and 2,400 billionaires controlled more than half of the world’s wealth while the bottom 80 percent — nearly 6 billion people — had to make do with just 5 percent of this wealth.

    Worldwide, 50 percent of all people live on less than $2.50 a day and a full 80 percent live on less than $10 per day. One in three people on the planet suffer from some form of malnutrition, nearly a billion go to bed hungry each night and another 2 billion suffer from food insecurity. Refugees from war, the climate crisis, political repression and economic collapse already number in the hundreds of millions as the social fabric is torn apart and whole communities collapse in peripheral areas. The pandemic followed by the repercussions from the Russian invasion of Ukraine have heightened these conditions even further.

    The international development agency Oxfam reported this past January that during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic the 10 richest men in the world more than doubled their fortunes, from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion, while 99 percent of humanity saw a fall in their income and 160 million more people fell into poverty. The World Food Program (WFP) reported in May that “the outlook for global acute food insecurity in 2022 is expected to deteriorate further relative to 2021,” a year which, according to the WFP, “surpassed all previous records.” The war in Ukraine “is likely to exacerbate the already severe 2022 acute food insecurity forecasts, given the repercussions of the war on global food, energy and fertilizer prices and supplies.”

    Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people, have been displaced from countrysides in the Global South in recent decades by neoliberal policies, social cleansing and organized violence such the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror,” both of which have served as instruments of mass displacement and for the violent restructuring and integration of countries and regions into the new global economy. Those displaced stream into the megacities of the world that have become ground zero for mass protests.

    The International Labour Office reported that 1.53 billion workers around the world were in “vulnerable” employment arrangements in 2009, representing more than 50 percent of the global workforce, and that in 2018 a majority of the 3.5 billion workers in the world “experienced a lack of material well-being, economic security, equality opportunities or scope for human development.”

    As digitalization now drives a new round of worldwide restructuring it promises to extend the precariatization of workers who have employment and also to expand the ranks of humanity excluded from the labor market, while the climate crisis will generate water and food shortages, displace hundreds of millions more, and increase exposure to natural disasters.

    This social crisis is explosive. It fuels mass protest by the oppressed and leads the ruling groups to deploy an ever more omnipresent global police state to contain the rebellion of the global working and popular classes. As the global civil war heats up in the post-pandemic world, the social fabric is coming undone. The crisis generates enormous political tensions that must be managed by the ruling groups in the face of societal disintegration and political collapse in many countries. It animates geopolitical conflict as states seek to externalize social and political tensions and accelerates the breakdown of the post-World War II international order, increasing the danger of international military conflagration (witness the Ukraine conflict).

    Pandemic Repression and Global Police State

    COVID-19 was in certain respects a blessing in disguise for the ruling class. The contagion forced protesters off the streets momentarily and gave capitalist states a respite with which to gather their repressive forces and deploy them against restive populations. The wave of repression and brutality unleashed by these states against their own citizens simply cannot be explained by the need for these states to keep them safe. To the contrary, the pandemic provided an expedient smokescreen with which to push back against the global revolt.

    The case of India is revealing. Up to 150 million workers went on strike in January 2019. This was followed later that year by months of protest against proposed changes to a citizenship law that would discriminate against Muslims and by a second general strike in 2020 that brought out 250 million workers and farmers — the single largest labor mobilization in world history. The pandemic curfew imposed by the government conveniently undercut the civic uprising. When the government began to impose strict local lockdowns as the virus spread, it singled out neighborhoods identified with the protests. In these areas, heavy police barricades locked in residents for weeks. The government also forced tens of millions of striking migrant workers to march to their home villages for lockdown there, enduring on the way pitiless state repression, involving extreme dehumanization, deaths in custody, and mass arrests (all this while Mukesh Ambani, the richest man in India, increased his wealth by $12 million per hour during the pandemic).

    In the United States, a wave of worker mobilizations that spread even before the COVID-19 contagion, led by a number of mass teachers strikes in 2018 and 2019, exploded during the pandemic, thanks to dismal working and unsafe working conditions in schools amid the pandemic.

    The monumental 2020 Black Lives Matter uprisings were met with particularly brutal state repression. Fearful of losing control, the ruling groups left no holds barred in unleashing the state’s repressive apparatus against the largely peaceful protesters, leaving at least 14 dead, hundreds of wounded and some 10,000 arrested. (I myself participated in the protests in my city of residence, Los Angeles, where I witnessed the use by militarized police and national guard units of tear gas, stun grenades, taser guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and batons against protesters.)

    Governments around the world centralized the response to the pandemic and many declared states of emergencies, in effect, imposing what some called “medical martial law.” Such centralized coordination may have been necessary to confront the health crisis. But centralization of emergency powers in authoritarian capitalist states was used to deploy police and military forces, to censure any criticism of governments, to contain discontent, heighten surveillance and impose repressive social control — that is, to push forward the global police state. In country after country, emergency powers were used to selectively ban protests on the grounds that they spread COVID-19, harass dissidents, censor journalists and scapegoat minority groups. At least 158 governments imposed restrictions on demonstrations.

    In many countries, governments required citizens to carry documents verifying their “right” to be out of their homes during the lockdown. The idea seems to have been merely to get populations accustomed to producing papers on demand, to ask permission to exist in public space. In the Philippines, strongman President Rodrigo Duterte issued shoot-to-kill orders for anyone defying the stay-at-home lockdown, while his government stepped up its campaign of extra-judicial killing of thousands of supposed criminals. In Latin America, charged Amnesty International, governments turned to arbitrary, punitive and repressive tactics to enforce compliance with quarantine measures and clamp down on popular protest. “Added to the structural challenges and massive social and economic divides present prior to the pandemic, these measures only combine to perpetuate inequality and discrimination across the continent.” Such repression was widespread around the world. As I detail in my new book, Global Civil War: Capitalism-Post Pandemic, in country after country the pandemic provided capitalist states with a convenient pretext to crack down on the global revolt, tighten systems of mass surveillance and social control, and pass emergency legislation that gave them sweeping powers to repress the protest movements that had reached a crescendo on the eve of the outbreak.

    While a major government response may have been necessary from a public health point of view, it became clear that the “new normal” as the world emerged from the pandemic would involve a more extensive global police state, including permanent mass surveillance and a new biopolitical regime in which states could use “public health” as a new pretext for keeping a lid on the global revolt. States used what international relations scholar Kees van der Pijl referred to as a “bio-political emergency” to further normalize and institutionalize state surveillance and repressive control in a way reminiscent of the aftermath of the 2001 attacks. In the wake of those attacks, 140 countries passed draconian “anti-terrorist” security legislation that often made legal the repression of social movements and political dissent. The laws remained in place long after the 2001 events.

    Political Violence Pandemics

    A recent report by Lloyd’s of London, a global insurance and financial conglomerate, warned that “instances of political violence contagion are becoming more frequent” and headed towards what it terms “PV [political violence] pandemics.” It identified so-called “super-strains” of political violence. Among what Lloyd’s deems as these super-strains are “anti-imperialist” “independence movements,” social movements calling for the removal of an “occupying force,” “mass pro-reform protests against national government[s],” and “armed insurrection” inspired by “Marxism” and “Islamism.”

    State responses to this “political violence” are big business. According to a 2016 report, Global Riot Control System Market, 2016–2020, which was prepared by a global business intelligence firm whose clients include Fortune 500 companies, in the next few years there will be a multi-billion-dollar boom in the worldwide market for “riot control systems.” The report forecast “a dramatic rise in civil unrest around the world.”

    Historically, labor militancy and mass protest unfold in waves, calibrated to capitalist expansion and crises, wars and major political changes. The ruling groups managed to beat back the last major cycle of worldwide mobilization from below, in the 1960s and early 1970s, through capitalist globalization and the neoliberal counterrevolution. But this time circumstances are different. Global capitalism is reaching limits to its expansion, given the ecological meltdown and the escalating threat of nuclear confrontation. The crisis is unprecedented and also existential. In addition, the global economy and society are more integrated and interdependent than ever, and global communications connect communities in resistance with one another across borders and on a planetary scale.

    Short of overthrowing the system, the only way out of the social crisis for the mass of humanity is a reversal of escalating inequalities through a radical redistribution of wealth and power downward and through drastic environmental measures. The challenge for emancipatory struggles is how to translate mass revolt into a project that can challenge the power of global capital and bring about such a radical redistribution. To date, the global revolt has spread unevenly and faces many challenges, including fragmentation, absorption by capitalist culture, and for the most part the lack of coherent left ideology and a vision of a transformative project beyond immediate demands. To effectively fight back, disjointed movements must find ways to come together into a larger emancipatory project, and develop creative strategies to push such a project forward.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sometimes, all you can do is stand back and breathe.

    “I never expected the ultra-MAGA Republicans who seemed to control the Republican Party now,” the president of the United States said on Monday. “I never anticipated that happening.”

    To all of us who have now been shouting for decades about the inexorable march toward this precise state of affairs, the willful obliviousness of this statement from Biden is truly stunning.

    Imagine if Bill Gates announced that he only recently realized the electron is a thing, or if Luciano Pavarotti just thought he was yelling the whole time, or if they started using Diet Coke and Mentos in the fountains at the Bellagio. People would flip out, right? This is not reality. I’m not sure what sort of perspective the president is leaning on when he makes the kind of proclamation he coughed up on Monday, but it has little to do with the goings-on down here on this ball of dirt we call Earth.

    Almost completely without fail, President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer and every other member of the ossified Democratic Party “leadership” somehow fail time and again to see what has been staring them in the face since Ronald Reagan rewired the country. Even this article isn’t new; I’ve written a version of it annually for more than 20 years now, and not even the damn names change.

    The big abortion vote in the Senate yesterday? This was supposed to be Schumer’s big strategic move, or something. The point? To get Republicans on the record as opposing abortion. WELL STONE THE CROWS, nobody thought it would turn out like it did, right?

    Nearly all the Republicans in Congress live to vocalize their disdain for Roe, and if I make my bet, each of those votes promptly went into a direct fundraising mailer to the GOP base. Ol’ Chuck made some money for his pals across the aisle, and gave Joe Manchin another chance to stick his thumb in Schumer’s eye. May as well have had them vote on whether or not they are actually mammals.

    Help me out here, because maybe it’s me… but how many clues do you need before you come to conclude that the GOP is no longer a political party, but a well-funded far-right insurrection club packed to bursting with a rancid concoction of woman-haters, gay-bashers, flagrant racists, gun fetishists, Christian dominionists and warmongers with dreams of empire oozing from their eyes?

    Trump didn’t do this; politically and historically speaking, he came down with the last drop of rain. All he did was flip the switch, applying the proper lack of shame to every petulant grievance these people have been rubbing together for 40 years. They haven’t been quiet about it, either. Where’s the damn mystery here?

    It was maybe a clue when Newt Gingrich turned the House of Representatives into a single-minded engine of destruction arrayed against the Clinton White House.

    It was not hidden when Republican activists like Roger Stone violently attacked the vote count in Florida and delivered the 2000 election to another right-bent Supreme Court.

    It was right there when George W. Bush and a bunch of Reagan cast-offs lied us into a pair of two-decade wars.

    It wasn’t magic when Bush supporters became Tea Partiers and then MAGA fanatics. It’s all the same GOP base, the grandchildren of Barry Goldwater. All they did was change t-shirts and bollix the spelling on a whole new set of protest signs. They are the same people with the same goals, and they have been with us since before Bobby got shot. Would flash cards be helpful?

    President Biden shouldn’t need to be reminded of this one, because he was right there in the front row when it happened: GOP governors from a pile of red states refused to take free money to start their ACA exchanges, because doing so would badly damage the program’s rollout and deny Barack Obama a clean win. These guys screwed their states and millions of their constituents just to brick the nation’s first Black president. I can draw you a map.

    More recently? Hm… how about four long years of Donald Trump frothing hate and madness into every available camera? How about his supporters backing him no matter what career-killing blunder he committed? How about the violence of his rallies and the swelling ranks of the “patriot” militias? How about the Gohmerts and the Greenes and the Gosars and the Jordans not-so-quietly becoming the voice and face of the party, even as they labor to defenestrate the very government they work for? Back in Lincoln’s day, people like that were called “Copperheads” and cast as poisonous snakes wielding venom to support the Confederacy. Now, they’re called “Republicans,” and the Democratic leadership barely bats an eye.

    How about the attack on the Capitol? The world saw the Confederate battle flag being carried down those august marble halls as rabid Trump fans feverishly threatened to hang Democrats from a gibbet that was waiting out on the lawn. Trump offered his own vice president as a blood sacrifice to the mob, a turn of events that was only narrowly avoided because Pence can run faster than his ambitions when the chips are down.

    How about Trump leading the 2024 presidential election pack by galactic margins, even in the face of all that has transpired? That isn’t enough to inform Biden that his old pals in the Republican Party are literally or figuratively dead and buried, and bourbons with secessionists is no longer on the menu because they’d just as soon throw him down the stairs as pass a word with him?

    Here’s what I’d like, and it should not be hard to pull off. Get Biden, Pelosi and Schumer in a locked room with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. Have Cheney and Kinzinger explain in excruciating detail why they just subpoenaed five Republican House members over the 1/6 insurrection. Further, have them explain how Trump and his people are laboring mightily to steal the next presidential election in broad daylight.

    Cheney and Kinzinger are perfect for this role, because absent a few extra genes, they come from the same family tree as the bedlamists currently running their party. How long has it been like this? They know. What can be done to thwart it? They probably have some ideas.

    At a bare-bones minimum, such a meeting might serve to drill some much-needed reality into the skulls of these Democrats, who seem constitutionally incapable of properly judging the caliber and intentions of their opponents. The republic is sliding down the edge of a keen knife right now, and doe-eyed surprise that there are mean people in the building is precisely not what is required in the moment.

    It won’t actually solve anything, of course, but God help us, it’s a start. Maybe I can finally stop writing this article every year.

  • New COVID-19 infections are once again on the rise across the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). COVID deaths in the U.S. have now reached the 1 million mark, a figure widely regarded as an undercount.

    The steady increase in COVID cases underscores the perilous wrongheadedness of the recent decision by Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, the federal district court judge in Florida who struck down the national transportation mask mandate on April 18.

    “The majority opinion is a result searching in vain for a plausible reason,” California Supreme Court Justice Allen Broussard wrote in 1988, dissenting from a poorly reasoned majority decision in People v. Guerrero, that broadened the factors a judge could consider when imposing a sentencing enhancement. Broussard’s statement also aptly describes the recent decision by Mizelle, who likewise reasoned backward by amassing reasons for her pre-ordained result.

    Shortly after taking office, Joe Biden asked the CDC to impose a travel mask mandate to check the spread of the COVID virus. The CDC complied and imposed a mandate on February 3, 2021. For 14 months, people traveling by aircraft, train, road vehicles, and other forms of transportation and through transport hubs were required to wear masks. The CDC extended the mandate several times to give public health experts time to determine whether it should be continued.

    As of April 17, the day before Mizelle’s decision, new COVID infections were averaging over 37,000 cases daily, up 39 percent from two weeks prior, according to a New York Times database.

    Nevertheless, Mizelle’s ruling allows individual airlines and transit agencies to decide for themselves whether to require masks. By the end of the day on April 18, the country’s largest airlines and the Amtrak rail system had shelved their mask mandates. Some pilots announced midflight that people could remove their masks, much to the shock of many immunocompromised people and those traveling with unvaccinated young children.

    The lawsuit in which Mizelle ruled was filed in July 2021 against the Biden administration by two individuals and the anti-COVID regulation organization Health Freedom Defense Fund. The two individuals claimed they suffered from anxiety and panic attacks caused by wearing masks.

    In voiding the mandate, Mizelle set forth a bizarre interpretation of the authority Congress granted the CDC to promulgate rules to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, writing that “the Mask Mandate exceeds the CDC’s statutory authority.” In her 59-page ruling, Mizelle held that the CDC overreached the bounds of its authority under the Public Health Services Act of 1944 when it imposed the transportation mask mandate.

    A Trump appointee and former clerk to Clarence Thomas (whom she called “the greatest living American”), Mizelle was rated not qualified by the American Bar Association before she was confirmed by Republican senators in a November 2020 party-line vote.

    Her lack of qualification is clear, judging by her misinterpretation of the Public Health Services Act. The act empowers the CDC “to make and enforce such regulations as in [its] judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States . . . or from one State . . . into any other . . . State.” The statute lists examples of this authority, stating that the CDC “may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected . . . and other measures, as in [its] judgment may be necessary.”

    Requiring masks is a “sanitation” measure, the Biden administration argued, because it keeps the air cleaner. But Mizelle consulted dictionaries and word usage in the 1940s to conclude that sanitation requires active cleaning and masks “clean nothing.”

    Although Mizelle quoted the CDC’s finding that masks are “one of the most effective strategies available for reducing COVID-19 transmission,” she substituted her own construction of the act for the CDC’s. Mizelle refused to defer to the CDC as required by the Chevron deference doctrine, which requires a court to accept an agency’s interpretation of a statute when the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

    Instead, Mizelle relied on the “major questions” doctrine, which holds that agencies such as the CDC cannot decide questions of “vast economic or political significance” unless Congress specifically authorizes it. Right-wing judges often use this flawed doctrine to limit the power of the government to protect peoples’ rights.

    Mizelle concluded that the mask mandate violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which requires granting the public advance notice and the opportunity to comment before an agency promulgates a rule. She rejected the “good cause” exception to the notice and comment requirement in spite of the COVID emergency. Mizelle dismissed as insufficient the CDC’s claim that the mask mandate is in “the public interest,” which is one of the factors included in the APA’s definition of “good cause.” She wrote that “[t]he only reason” cited by the CDC for the mask mandate is “the public health emergency caused by COVID-19.”

    Astoundingly, Mizelle noted, “The Court accepts the CDC’s policy determination that requiring masks will limit COVID-19 transmission and will thus decrease the serious illnesses and death that COVID-19 occasions,” but she then concluded that this doesn’t amount to “good cause.”

    Stressing that the mandate “would constrain [the public’s] choices and actions,” Mizelle chose the freedom of travelers like plaintiff Ana Daza who have “anxiety aggravated by wearing a mask” over the COVID public health emergency.

    On April 20, the CDC issued a statement asking the DOJ to appeal Mizelle’s ruling. “It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health,” the agency wrote. “CDC continues to recommend that people wear masks in all indoor public transportation settings…. When people wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over their nose and mouth in indoor travel or public transportation settings, they protect themselves, and those around them, including those who are immunocompromised or not yet vaccine-eligible, and help keep travel and public transportation safer for everyone.”

    Accordingly, on April 20, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal of Mizelle’s ruling. Inexplicably, the DOJ did not request a temporary pause on Mizelle’s sweeping decision pending appeal.

    The conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will hear the appeal, which could take several months. Ultimately, the case could end up at the Supreme Court. The outcome could have long-lasting significance: A federal district court ruling does not constitute binding precedent, but a court of appeals ruling and, of course, a Supreme Court ruling would.

    “This sets up a clash between public health and a conservative judiciary, and what’s riding on it is the future ability of our nation’s public health agencies to protect the American public,” Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University, told the New York Times. “The risk is that you will get a conservative 11th Circuit ruling that will so curtail C.D.C.’s powers to fight Covid and future pandemics that it will make all Americans less safe and secure.”

    Gostin also said, “If CDC can’t impose an unintrusive requirement to wear a mask to prevent a virus from going state to state, then it literally has no power to do anything.”

    On May 3, the day the most recent extension of the mask mandate expired, the CDC issued a new recommendation that all individuals 2 years and older wear masks “in indoor areas of public transportation (such as airplanes, trains, etc.) and transportation hubs (such as airports, stations, etc.).” The CDC recommended that people wear masks “in crowded or poorly ventilated locations, such as airport jetways.”

    But because one right-wing federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the transportation mask mandate, the CDC could only recommend wearing masks to protect the American people against COVID, as opposed to requiring it.

    Hopefully the 11th Circuit will reverse Mizelle’s decision. But if the appellate court affirms her ruling and the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the right-wing majority may well uphold Mizelle’s decision and dangerously constrain the power of the CDC to safeguard our health. Meanwhile, we travel at our own risk.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Recently, a group of national security and environmental experts, including former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, former Occupational Safety and Health Administration head David Michaels, and retired United States Army Generals Russel Honoré and Randy Manner, wrote to EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

    They urged the agency to issue stronger and stricter regulations to protect Americans from chemical accidents that may be caused by natural disasters, among other factors. These natural disasters are more and more frequently the result of climate change, which is escalating decade by decade. As a global phenomenon with frightening environmental implications happening right before our very eyes, climate change is primarily the consequence of destructive, reckless human activity such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

    On February 2, Kathleen Salyer, director of EPA’s Office of Emergency Management, responded to the experts’ letter, saying the “EPA will consider the points made” and that “the EPA is considering improvements to the rule to better address the impacts of climate change on facility safety and protect communities from chemical accidents, especially vulnerable and overburdened communities living near [risk management plan (RMP)] facilities.”

    The RMP rule requires facilities that store hazardous substances to have emergency responses in place in the event of a chemical accident. On May 26, the EPA announced that two virtual public listening sessions will be held on the agency’s RMP rule. These sessions will offer interested people the opportunity to present information and provide comments with regard to the revisions made to the RMP rule since 2017.

    “These listening sessions are a first step in considering improvements to the RMP rule, so EPA can better address the impacts of climate change on facility safety and protect communities from chemical accidents, especially vulnerable and overburdened communities living near RMP facilities,” said Carlton Waterhouse, who is the EPA deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management. Preventing natural disasters from striking chemical facilities should be a priority for the EPA, as oftentimes, these incidents lead to hazardous substance leaks that reach the vulnerable nearby communities. As a consequence of climate change, carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last ice age. Furthermore, the most catastrophic hurricanes are three times more frequent than 100 years ago, and the proportion of major hurricanes has doubled since 1980.

    How Many Chemical Facilities Are at Risk of Being Struck by a Natural Disaster?

    Right now, there are 872 chemical facilities storing highly hazardous substances within 50 miles of the U.S. Gulf Coast, where hurricanes occur quite frequently. Over 4.3 million people, as well as 1,717 schools and 98 medical facilities, are located within 1.5 miles of these chemical facilities. However, across the country, there are 10,420 RMP facilities, from which more than 3,200 are at risk of releasing hazardous substances into the environment in the event of a chemical accident triggered by extreme weather phenomena. These climate change-fueled events pose a tremendous danger to these facilities, as hurricanes and flooding can easily lead to the release of toxic substances among communities living nearby.

    While this should be seen as a very serious, acute issue, policy makers remain passive and have failed to take action to strengthen the lax rules that currently govern these facilities. What is perhaps the saddest thing is that they have failed to learn from past tragedies, such as Hurricane Harvey, which struck Galveston and Houston, two cities in Texas, in 2017.

    The aftermath of the toxic flooding was heart-wrenching — 88 victims and thousands of families were left without a home. More than 650 chemical facilities in Texas were at risk of releasing hazardous substances due to the flooding, and approximately 100 chemical and oil leaks were reported following the hurricane. Some of the most dangerous chemicals facilities can accidentally release, either from aboveground or underground tanks, during a natural disaster include poisons, flammable liquids, dioxins, corrosives, heavy metals and oxidizers. More specific examples include benzene, cadmium oxide, chloroform, ethylene oxide, lewisite, mercuric acetate, nitric acid, paraquat and tabun.

    At the moment, private law governs chemical facilities across the U.S. Private law concerns a particular individual or small group, including certain industries, whereas public law refers to rules for general application, such as those enforced for the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, existing private law mechanisms such as tort liability do nothing to prevent catastrophes such as Hurricane Harvey.

    A viable alternative to private law is public law, which would enforce regulations and performance standards for chemical storage and additional reforms to close the gaps in the management of facilities that store hazardous chemicals nationwide.

    Private Law Fails to Protect Vulnerable Communities

    Insurance, tort law and contractual arrangements cannot properly address the sinister threat of hazardous substance leaks because it is very difficult to identify the firms that are the sources of these spills and hold the companies accountable for negligence. Moreover, the existing regime dates back to the 1970s. It was developed for a different time, and it reflects different priorities, which is why it is no longer effective.

    Policy makers should not assume that present weather conditions or the physical infrastructure of chemical facilities will remain the same, so they must build adaptability and resilience into emergency planning scenarios. Similarly, they should not assume that chemical facilities that have not experienced a hazardous substance leak in the past will not have to deal with one in the future. Because chemical facilities may not face liability for the harm they cause, private law is very unlikely to effectively manage the problem of toxic exposure stemming from extreme weather events caused by climate change.

    For many decades, the U.S. has relied on private law governing industrial chemical storage. Still, there are no mandatory standards for storage tank performance, inspections, record-keeping or setback requirements. There are no Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations governing chemical storage either. This lack of regulations causes private firms to store millions of gallons of hazardous substances in areas prone to natural disasters without regulatory oversight of their storage practices or extreme weather preparedness.

    Public Law Would Help Solve the Issue of Chemical Disasters

    The government and private sector are neglecting the danger of natural disasters caused by climate-fueled extreme weather events striking chemical facilities. The Trump administration prevented the Chemical Safety Board from taking measures and weakened the few federal regulations concerning chemical disaster prevention. As a result, the chemical industry is failing to secure hazardous materials against superfloods, which will occur more and more often as the planet warms.

    Policy makers should cease seeing natural disasters as unrelated events and learn valuable lessons from extreme weather phenomena management to respond better to such crises in the future. Since private law failed, the U.S. needs public law efforts to prevent disasters, such as regulations and performance standards for chemical storage and other reforms to close the gaps in outdated toxic-chemical management statutes. Authorities should reduce the vulnerability of communities living near chemical plants, and the federal government should strengthen the existing chemical regulatory regime to become more responsive to climate change events.

    Congress and the EPA should close these gaps by requiring improved standards for chemical storage, restrictions on siting, inspections of vulnerable facilities, and reforms to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. As a first step, policy makers and emergency managers should make a comprehensive inventory of vulnerable chemical plants. They should also have a full understanding of the hazardous substances stored in each and the facility’s degree of exposure to natural disasters.

    To have a foolproof tool for natural disaster prevention, Congress should take two steps. First, it should increase federal funding for local emergency planning committees so that these committees can fulfill their emergency planning tasks. These committees bring together elected officials, police and fire departments to prepare and implement emergency response plans. Secondly, Congress should amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act to impose construction, siting and performance standards for the storage of hazardous chemicals above a certain volume threshold.

    Although climate change is inevitable and worsening with each passing decade, there are numerous feasible and effective measures policy makers can enforce to prevent exposing residents living near chemical facilities to toxic substances that could escape these plants. By collaborating with experts and various authorities, they can develop strong emergency responses that would keep these vulnerable communities safe at all times.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • There was a moment back at the beginning of the Ukraine war when I transformed into a werewolf of war, all claws and fangs and bloodlust. Most humans share this detestable gene to one degree or another, and on this day, it was shouting out of my eyes.

    That long armored column, remember? The miles-long column of soldiers, materiel and artillery slogging its way toward Kyiv to perform slaughter and destruction. We watched it day after day as it creeped closer and closer to the city… until it just stopped.

    Nobody could quite figure out why, and as Ukraine’s forces began picking it apart, it dawned on those observing that maybe the vaunted Russian military wasn’t quite up to the drill. Hitler and Napoleon were thwarted by Russian snow; in this, Russia was thwarted by Ukrainian road mud and the misplaced optimism of the top command. Meanwhile, many lives were lost brutally every day, on both sides.

    There the long column sat, and I could not help but think of the so-called “Highway of Death” in Iraq, when U.S. air power massacred Iraqi forces that were retreating from Kuwait down Highway 80. This was arguably a war crime, as those Iraqi forces were running away, and was a gruesome slaughter by any measure… but there, outside Kyiv, was an attacking army bent on destruction that was stuck in place. If they got unstuck, they’d likely rain hell down on a massive city.

    One wing of A-10 Warthogs, I whispered to myself around a mouthful of newly sharp teeth… I am no combat pilot by any stretch of the imagination, but I am certain every fighter jock who saw that column was thinking precisely the same thing. Warthogs were made to eat armor, and a Google search for “A10 Warthog Russian Column” proved I wasn’t the only one with the same idea (though it’s apparently not as easy as my lurid imagination would have it).

    In the end, nothing came of that traffic jam. The column melted into the larger maw of the war, and I was left to contend with the chilly fact that the caveman with the rock axe lurks behind my eyes, too.

    It can be argued that the failure to confront and damage that convoy represented an immediate tactical failure, but for one thing: The only entity in the theater capable of such an attack is NATO, and had NATO done so, we would all be up to our eyelashes in a full-fledged war with a nuclear-armed nation under the sway of an unbalanced autocrat.

    The term is “escalation,” also known as “mission creep,” and in the present circumstances, both are to be avoided to the greatest possible degree. Vladimir Putin enjoys personal control over a nuclear arsenal that can destroy a city block or an entire city, depending on his mood. He has rattled the launch keys at the West more than once since his invasion of Ukraine, and these weapons have been deployed around the Baltic Sea since before the invasion.

    Disturbingly, a different sort of escalation has been taking place over the last few weeks. Official U.S. voices have been increasingly gleeful in their public bragging about how our direct assistance to Ukraine has led to the deaths of a slew of Russian generals and the sinking of the Russian Naval flagship, the Moskva.

    “After reports in The New York Times and NBC News about the intelligence, Mr. Biden called Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III; Avril D. Haines, the director of national intelligence; and William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, to chastise them, according to a senior administration official,” reports The New York Times. “That seemed to be where Mr. Biden was drawing a line — providing Ukraine with guns to shoot Russian soldiers was OK, providing Ukraine with specific information to help them shoot Russians was best left secret and undisclosed to the public.”

    On Monday, President Biden signed into law an updated version of the Lend-Lease Act, which allowed the U.S. to more easily provide support for beleaguered Europe in the days before our involvement in World War II. He has also demanded that Congress pass $33 billion in further military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, “a package that congressional Democrats plan to increase by another $7 billion,” according to the Times.

    A sign of how important this aid is to the Biden administration came when the president separated the Ukraine funds from COVID aid funds. Initially, the two were to be combined in a single package for easier passage, but Republicans chose once again to be Republicans and tossed up roadblocks over the COVID money. Rather than endure another protracted mud fight along these lines, Biden has put up the Ukraine funding on its own.

    For some in our government, this slow bleed toward open war is exacerbated by the best of intentions; only a heart of stone can witness the horrors in Ukraine and not long to do something to stop it (even though, for many, that urge is being erroneously directed toward military escalation).

    For others, however, mission creep is the way to increased profits for the war-making sector of the economy, and that beast is always hungry.

    We are perilously close to a conflict that could spiral out of control and into nuclear confrontation. While Ukraine cannot be abandoned, maybe it’s time for those who should know better to stop bragging to the public prints. Remember: The Lend-Lease Act was the last step before we entered WWII. That was a different time, and now is not the time to repeat that history.

    The werewolf is in all of us. That does not mean we have to let it out.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As far as medical publications go, it doesn’t get much better than The Lancet. Founded in 1823, the journal has published many of the most important peer-reviewed studies, articles and case reviews in the field.

    Over the weekend, The Lancet dropped an editorial titled “COVID-19: the next phase and beyond.” It read:

    After living for more than 2 years with COVID-19—with over 6·2 million confirmed deaths (but probably many more, with an estimated 20 million excess deaths) and over 510 million confirmed cases—the world is at a critical point. The omicron wave, with its high transmissibility and milder course than previous variants, especially for people who are fully vaccinated and without comorbidities, is abating in many countries.

    Restrictions are being relaxed, and people are slowly returning to pre-pandemic activities, including gatherings, office-based working, and cultural events. Mask mandates are being lifted in many countries. Testing and surveillance have decreased and travelling is recommencing widely. People are understandably exhausted and want to forget about the pandemic. This would be a grave mistake.

    Now is not the time to turn away from COVID-19 or rewrite history. It is time to vigorously engage, redouble efforts to end the acute phase of the pandemic in 2022 for all, and lay strong sustainable foundations for a better future with clear accountabilities and honest acceptance of uncomfortable truths.

    The key phrase in this passage — “It is time to vigorously engage, redouble efforts to end the acute phase of the pandemic in 2022 for all” — cannot be overstated. A sort of passive haze has fallen across our collective approach to this ongoing — yes, ongoing — medical calamity. Brutal war in Ukraine dominates the headlines, but even the price of ground beef has managed to push aside the fact that more than 70,000 people were infected with COVID-19 yesterday in this country alone.

    That represents a full 50 percent increase in infections from two weeks ago. Although deaths and hospitalizations remain down, thankfully, the acute phase of infection has not ended. Yet our incredible short-sightedness has hamstrung our testing to the point that we could very well be in the midst of a full-blown surge and not have any idea how bad it is, or how bad it could get. That 70,000 number, thanks to our collapsed testing regime, is almost certainly a low estimate.

    U.S. Attorney General Antony Blinken, along with a slew of notables from various networks and publications, came down with COVID in the aftermath of the Correspondents’ Dinner, an apt metaphor for the age. “Jada Yuan, a reporter at The Washington Post who tested positive Wednesday after attending the dinner, had said at the time that the ballroom was ‘like a horror film,’” reported The New York Times. “’No exits. Literally getting trapped between tables,’ Yuan wrote on Twitter. ‘Fear of breathing near people but people are everywhere. Creeping sense that you’re the only one who know this is insane.’”

    Delta, then Omicron, then BA.1, then BA.2, then BA.2.12.1, and now BA.4 and BA.5 … all variants and subvariants from the original form, each inching closer to eviscerating the rapidly diminishing protections offered by multiple rounds of vaccine shots. “The virus that brought us COVID-19 is now going through accelerated evolution,” warns Eric J. Topol, professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research. “Our vaccines must do the same.”

    To that end, and to multiple other vital ends, the Biden administration is seeking $22.5 billion in emergency aid for continued pandemic response. These pleas, of course, are running straight into the teeth of congressional Republicans who want to slash that amount while tying it to the Title 42 brawl at the border. Short version: This vital funding appears prepared to go exactly as nowhere as the last White House request for COVID help.

    “The Biden administration is preparing for the possibility that 100 million Americans — roughly 30 percent of the population — will get infected with the coronavirus this fall and winter,” reports The New York Times. “The 100 million figure, which the official described as a median of what could be expected, also assumes a lack of federal resources if Congress does not approve any more money for tests, therapeutics and vaccines, and that many vaccinated and previously infected people would become infected again.”

    In November of 2020, Uri Friedman wrote for The Atlantic, “The United States — with its diversified economy, cutting-edge scientific innovation, and numerous other resilience-oriented attributes — might have been expected to cope particularly well with a pandemic. But COVID-19 has exposed the country’s vulnerabilities: all-encompassing political polarization; debilitating economic and health-care inequality; a president who has downplayed the threat of the virus and rejected scientific guidance; a decades-long drive to optimize the economy and society for efficiency, not resilience; and a national creed of individualism, optimism, and exceptionalism that has rendered the U.S. resistant to learning from other countries.”

    Seventeen months later, The Lancet along with vaccine experts and the Biden White House are warning at top voice that we have, to date, failed to adequately cope with the challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The virus is changing every day, yet we continue to react to it with half-measures and foggy assumptions that “the worst is behind us.” We are one cruel variant away from falling back into a terrifying surge of hospitalizations. That’s not just here in the U.S. That’s everywhere; COVID does love to travel, and the first thing we seem to do when we catch a whiff of progress is to tear off our masks and blow open the borders. “Learning the hard way” already has a million-person body count. How many more will we tolerate before getting this right?

    Let’s get ready for real this time.

  • When Emily Drabinski was elected president of the American Library Association (ALA) in mid-April, she tweeted her excitement that someone like her, a self-proclaimed Marxist lesbian, could garner enough votes to head the oldest and largest association of library workers in the United States. The ALA was founded in 1876 “to enable librarians to do their present work more easily and at less expense,” thereby incorporating the Gilded Age’s capitalist efficiency into libraries from its very beginning. Given the now near-total dominance of neoliberalism in the field — from ever-escalating austerity budgets to constant calls to manage libraries as if they were businesses — Drabinski’s election was anything but a given. It’s exciting, because only a densely organized library workforce can have the power to push back against political entities that would strip libraries, alongside other public institutions, of what remaining power we have to make our communities better places to live for everyone. Strong libraries are what most people want. According to the Pew Research Center, almost 80 percent of American adults, across the political spectrum, believe libraries help people find trustworthy and reliable information. This comes as little surprise. After all, who could be against a library?

    Well, it turns out that enough people could be. Drabinski’s election was immediately picked up by right-wing trolls who cast her as yet another “groomer” pushing gay books on young children. These attacks mirror the attacks on library workers — particularly at school and public libraries — who have been battling challenges to books about racial inequality and gender and sexual identity at rates not seen since the McCarthy era.

    We can understand these challenges as part of a white supremacist and patriarchal backlash against social movements that have produced waves of protest against police violence, a mainstreaming of prison abolition as a political possibility, the normalization of queer life in media, and a union movement seeing wins once thought impossible against corporations, such as Starbucks and Amazon. These are also attacks against labor. Librarians are trained to select books and other resources to be shared in common by groups of readers. This is the job we are paid to do. The books that are making it to target lists, such as Angie Thomas’s The Hate U Give, Kyle Lukoff’s Call Me Max and Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, don’t find their way to library shelves as part of the gay or Black “agenda.” They are selected and acquired by librarians who use funds to purchase books that meet the reading needs and interests of our communities. Of course, those decisions are often made collaboratively with those communities — faculty and students make book requests, parents express concerns that are then managed through existing policy and protocols. But this current spate of highly politicized and well-organized challenges is meant to circumvent all of these ordinary library processes. What we see now are concerted attacks not just on books and authors, but on the expertise of library workers.

    Nobody knows this better than rank-and-file library workers. As many of us work a second shift pushing back against these incursions, we need the support of our institutions and the public to do our work effectively. If libraries are the terrain of struggle, we are the people most directly involved in the fight. Our efforts are made all the more difficult when our institutions actively work against us. Alongside the very public efforts to ban books from library shelves, library workers face a host of other challenges that directly impact our capacity to do the work necessary to preserve these institutions. Management rolls out absurdly strict attendance policies in the wake of a union campaign in Baltimore County, Maryland. Library boards are taken over by people who then vote to slash funding and hours in Flathead County, Montana, and Niles, Illinois. Full-time librarians flee to other employment sectors or to retirement, and are replaced by part-time positions. Core library functions, including collection development and resource description, are contracted out to for-profit private companies that lock us into expensive systems we don’t control. School librarian ranks are thinned as only wealthy ZIP codes choose to afford that staff. These issues may not be as well-discussed as Breitbart calling us all “groomers,” but they are every bit as insidious, stripping our institutions of the very people best positioned to save them.

    Libraries are crucial social infrastructure. Like the post office, they are a site for the circulation of public goods such as books and films, but also tax forms, overdose-prevention medications such as Narcan, and COVID tests. Like parks, library buildings produce space for the public where anyone can use the bathroom, grab some computer time, sit down, stay warm in the cold and cool in the heat. And like all social infrastructure, libraries are under attack from an organized right that knows well that the best way to crater public institutions is to relentlessly attack them until they become unusable, leading to their abandonment by everyone except those who have no other choice. We need a strong library workforce equipped to resist the dismantling of our public institutions. Rightfully, there has been ample public outcry in response to right-wing attacks on our libraries, the books and other materials they contain, and the people who read those books. However, what worries me is that in our focus on book burnings we’ll forget to build the power of our most potent weapon: the people who work in the library.

    Drabinski’s election to the presidency of ALA — in a year that saw more votes cast than any in the past decade — represents a vote for labor organizing as a mode of both vocational and political change. Her campaign put labor front and center, making a very public argument that organizing collectively on the behalf of the public good is the most important thing library workers can be doing right now. Whether she’ll make good on this Marxist lesbian promise remains to be seen, and will require all of us who work in and use libraries to join the fight.

  • Kathy Boudin is gone.

    She died on May Day in Manhattan, with her son, Chesa Boudin (now San Francisco’s district attorney), and her partner, David Gilbert, at her side. She was 78 years old, and she’d lived a large and remarkable life. Friends and family gathered to grieve, to witness, to celebrate. And she did not leave lightly — like a big ship brought down in a violent storm, there was struggle till the end.

    The headline in The New York Times obituary about Kathy is worth noting in this context: “Kathy Boudin, Radical Imprisoned in a Fatal Robbery, Dies at 78.” The story enumerates a few of her dazzling accomplishments — founding the Center for Justice at Columbia University, for example — but those things are rendered practically illegible by the insistent and totalizing framing. That would not be her headline; that would not be her story. And it’s universally true: follow any human being into their lived lives and every stereotype crumbles.

    I’m thinking now of the thousands of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people whose lives Kathy touched, the organizations and projects and campaigns she built in over a half century of organizing, the communities she sparked and served year after year. In the days since her passing, we’ve received heart-felt personal messages from all over the country — and the world.

    Chesa and his partner Valerie had their first child on September 3, 2021; David was released from a New York State prison two months later, on November 3, 2021, after 40 years and 10 days in prison. Kathy was able to greet and know her grandson, and to see David on the free side. That itself is a wonder worth celebrating.

    We had a blended family with Kathy, and so survivors include Chesa’s brothers, Zayd Dohrn and Malik Dohrn, and their families — and all the grandkids who Kathy cared for and loved.

    Speaking of survivors — I attended an event in Chicago on May 4 where Mama Dorothy Burge, a longtime activist in the Jon Burge police torture cases, and Michelle Daniel Jones, whose work engages mass incarceration and the impacts of the carceral state, kicked off their year-long residencies as Artists for the People. When Michelle spoke, she lifted up Kathy as someone whose presence in her life was tremendous and precious. Michelle shared how Kathy refused to be defined through the eyes of the powerful and the privileged, or bound by the most difficult and painful events in her life. I realized then that this kind of testament was likely being offered everywhere — from London to Los Angeles, from New York to Nairobi, from Hanoi to Havana to East Jerusalem.

    Kathy and I met in 1966 when we both became community organizers with the Community Union in Cleveland — a loosely linked national network of grassroots groups determined to transform disenfranchised and marginalized citizens and residents of the ghettos into a powerful force capable of effectively fighting for their own needs and aspirations. The Community Union was inspired by and an extension of the Southern civil rights movement, and this was defining for us — she was a comrade to the Black freedom movement then and ever after, and the fight against white supremacy was the core of her politics and her practical work. Our political and educational work was also our ethical work — organizing as righteousness. I was 20 years old. Kathy was 21.

    Our mantra was, “The people with the problems are the people with the solutions,” and our buttons read, “Let the People Decide,” and, “Build an Interracial Movement of the Poor.” We believed then — and we held to it evermore — that legitimate and just social change must be led by those directly impacted, the people who’d been dehumanized or marginalized, pushed down and locked out. In fact, we believed that struggling in the interest of the most oppressed held the key to fundamental transformations — internal and personal as well as social and collective — that would ultimately benefit everyone: we’re all better off when we’re all better off. That was our theory of change.

    Kathy was our most effective organizer. She brought enormous energy and her mighty spirit of hopefulness into the most difficult and sorrowful situations — she had the capacity to illuminate even the darkest places. She also brought authentic concern for other people’s lives and a natural ability to build authentic relationships rooted in solidarity, not “service”: it was about respect and mutuality, not ostentatious acts of “charity.” Her comfort zone was the grassy grassroots — when we organized a 10-day march from Cleveland to Columbus to demand rights for mothers on welfare, for example, Kathy was always on the clean-up crew, always on food preparation, always volunteering for the unglamorous and invisible work that kept the movement moving.

    A lot of water under the bridge since then — a lot of triumph and a lot of tragedy. We were fighting for participatory democracy, for a world in balance, for joy and justice, for love and life and peace — fighting hard and at the same time trying to live lives that would not make a mockery of our values. We made terrible mistakes and swam in deep rivers of regret, mainly for errors of self-righteousness and arrogance, but not for hurling ourselves with all our might at the structures of imperial war and white supremacy.

    Kathy survived the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion that took the lives of three of our dear comrades on March 6, 1970, and we were — all of us — on the run in a flash. In the wake of that catastrophe, we worked to build an organization and a network that would take the war to the war-makers, act in solidarity with the Black freedom movement, and survive what we saw as an impending American fascism. That’s a long and winding story in itself.

    Eleven years later, Kathy was arrested in Nyack, New York, for the attempted armed robbery of an armored car in which a guard and two police officers were killed. She would go on to spend 22 years in a New York State prison.

    Bernardine Dohrn and I had two kids by then, and we were living above ground in Manhattan. Kathy and David had 14-month-old Chesa, living with her parents since the calamity at Nyack. We’d known and loved Kathy and David forever and they were family, and family takes care of its own, especially in times of crisis. The pulse and measure of our lives was fully tuned to the complex rhythms of raising young kids, and here we were now, happily child-centered, fully immersed in the joyful cacophony of a toddler orchestra. Yes, there was room for one more. And if, God forbid, anything catastrophic ever overwhelmed us, who, of all the people in the world, would we want to step up for them? We would want us, of course.

    The culture of our family was saturated with politics and activism from the start: our kids were born onto picket lines and into demonstrations, our lively little apartment abuzz with friends and comrades, meetings and political discussions, organizing projects and action plans, along with the ordinary dialogue of everyday life (play-dates, laundry, groceries and paying the damn rent). Because we never had a TV, conversation was the charge and current in the room — our kids’ earliest words and phrases included “mama” and “dog” and “ball,” of course, but also “Peace Now” and “No Racism.” Even without a literal understanding of every detail or every cause, we built a kind of child-friendly and joyful resistance into our daily lives, a sense that we always stood up somehow for peace and justice — “against racism,” and for “fairness.” “That’s not fair,” had the same indignant tone whether referring to the smallest injustice on the playground or to some monstrous outrage like a police murder on the streets of Brooklyn.

    Malcolm X had famously noted that Black people seemed forever to have an abundance of Washingtons and Jeffersons and Lincolns in their family trees, but white people didn’t even have a twig or a leaf for Nat Turner or Cinqué or Frederick Douglass or Harriett Tubman. Why, he asked rhetorically and pointedly, why the color line — even when it comes to naming the babies? We chose to take Malcolm’s observation as a practical matter, and so we named our first-born Zayd Osceola, to remember a Black Panther brother killed by the police, and at the same time to raise up a Seminole leader who never surrendered to the U.S. policy of relocation and extermination, and our second Malik Cochise, this time in honor of Malcolm himself as well as a renowned First Nations legend, the great Apache guerrilla fighter.

    Chesa — formally Chesa Jackson Gilbert Boudin — bounded into our family and crash-landed in our lives with his name already attached, and it fit right in: Chesa, a Swahili word for dancing feet, and Jackson, taken from Soledad Brother George Jackson, murdered by prison guards at San Quentin. His prized T-shirt was a silk-screen portrait of Rosa Parks in dignified refusal.

    When we first visited David and Kathy in jail in Rockland County, they were fearful for Chesa, hungry for news, and worried about next steps. When we broached the idea of taking him into our family, they leapt as if at the last lifeboat pulling swiftly away from a sinking ship. “Yes, yes, we will co-parent for a time, and when we get out…” Well, reality was still a way off, but first steps were agreed on all around.

    Soon Bernardine was locked up in federal prison for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the robbery — civil contempt. I was suddenly single-parenting (with a lot of help from my friends), and visiting prisons became part of the routine.

    Kathy and David and Bernardine were all learning together how to be with their kids in these terrible circumstances, and in time, Kathy became the most creative and wisest person I’d ever known around practical ways to parent from a distance — applicable to hospitalization or divorce, forced migration and military deployment, but in our cases, applied to the separation of prison. She was honest with Chesa about what had happened and her own responsibility, but always following his lead on how far to go and what territory to enter; she was unstinting and un-ambivalent in communicating to him her support for us as his “other parents;” she took a lot of time and spent enormous energy working on art and story projects that would last over time and could be done by phone or mail as well as up close and personal. She was a mentor to us all.

    They each wrote long, intricate chapter books for the kids, and solicited advice and counsel from them on the phone about the direction of the next week’s installment. Bernardine created a growing catalogue of riddles and jokes for every visit, and she made a crossword puzzle every week for Zayd based on themes of his choice: favorite foods or best fruit, Central Park and dogs, baseball and mommies coming home.

    Eventually they did come home: Bernardine after close to a year in lock-up and never testifying; Kathy after 22 years.

    Kathy chose the mighty life she lived, found joy and purpose in the struggle, and lived out a precious dialectic: loving her own life enough to appreciate the sunset and the sunrise, to enjoy dinner with friends, or a walk by a lake; loving the world enough to put her shoulder on history’s great wheel when history demanded it.

    Kathy died just as she had lived: fighting for life, surrounded by love, intrepidly building community and casting those invisible but sturdy threads in every direction, connecting family and friends, colleagues and comrades, neighbors and strangers.

    To be loved by Kathy — to love her — lit up the whole sky.

    Tireless fighter, passionate friend, Kathy is dead.

    But fire doesn’t die. Light and heat and love and desire go on and on.

    And so does she.

    Rest in Power, Sister/Comrade.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • One million deaths. An unthinkable milestone when this pandemic started — and even this gruesome number doesn’t capture who and what we have lost. One million lives lost, dreams unfulfilled, families heartbroken and futures cut short. This loss is unimaginable, and we have only just begun to scratch the surface of how our communities will continue to grapple with this mass death and violence, surely for generations to come. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 has become the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.

    As a working Latina mother of two, I feel the ongoing pain and frustration of the pandemic in so many ways. I have lost family members and neighbors to COVID — both old and young. My children, isolated and separated from their best friends during a time in their lives that should be filled with joy and connection, struggled with their mental health and lost critical in-person education. My elderly father had a crushing fall, and his physical therapy, and path to wellness, was greatly delayed. My aunt, Lilia, who suffered from Lupus, died alone because none of us could be with her.

    Amid all of this pain, President Joe Biden has dropped most pandemic restrictions, stopped most national tracking, and failed to act on even the most basic federal actions to reign this pandemic in. Disabled and chronically ill Americans have been left adrift — in a maskless world many of my colleagues and friends are unable to safely leave their homes.

    We need swift, immediate action at a global level. Fighting this pandemic as if we can defeat it alone has failed. It’s time: President Biden must work with Congress immediately to ensure that supplemental COVID funding includes significant global investments to end the pandemic. Our lives are at stake — and we cannot wait another moment.

    Heading into our third year of the pandemic, billions worldwide still don’t have access to COVID vaccines and treatments, continuing to suffer even as pharmaceutical companies reach record profits. Globally, less-wealthy nations have been abandoned to vaccine apartheid, as pharmaceutical companies are selling and distributing vaccines, tests and treatments almost exclusively to wealthy nations. Here in the U.S., it’s communities of color, low-income people and the disabled who face the greatest burden of COVID-19, in terms of death rates but also economically and socially. Those working in lower-wage fields like food and agriculture, warehouse operations, transportation and construction saw higher rates of death than in most other occupations. Working in a nursing home has become one of the deadliest jobs in the country.

    The consequences of this pandemic are far reaching and devastating, not just for those we have lost but for the ones they’ve left behind. We have the tools and resources necessary to support our communities and fight health inequity right now — but it’s clear that what is missing is the political will to do so.

    Our nation hasn’t seen mass death on a scale like this since World War II, when about 418,000 Americans died. The Atlantic’s Ed Yong puts it into perspective: “The U.S. reported more deaths from Covid-19 last Friday [March 4] than deaths from Hurricane Katrina, more on any two recent weekdays than deaths during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, more last month than deaths from flu in a bad season, and more in two years than deaths from HIV during the four decades of the AIDS epidemic.”

    Where is our great reckoning of this mass violence and pain? And more importantly, where is the political will to fight for our futures, for our families, for a road ahead away from this destruction and toward justice, equality, health and resources for all those still suffering and at risk of death?

    Since it rejected a $15 billion supplemental for pandemic preparedness that included global vaccine outreach and funding for free vaccines and testing here in the U.S., Congress has not provided us with the funding we need to continue a robust COVID response, even amid new variants and continued pandemic-related economic stress. With cases rising abroad, experts are sounding the alarm that we should expect a rise in cases here in the U.S. as well. Failure to adequately fund these efforts now will have severe and far-reaching consequences, impacting our ability to deal with a future surge.

    Moreover, despite widespread messaging that COVID testing is free, many patients have found themselves facing bills for testing — some for over $1,000. According to The New York Times, about 2.4 percent of coronavirus tests billed to insurers in 2020 left the patient responsible for some portion of payment, adding up to hundreds of thousands of Americans who received unexpected bills. Patients were left with these high bills due to gaps in protections that Congress and the Trump administration put in place early in the pandemic — and our communities are still suffering. While ensuring that people trust the vaccine is a high priority, it is also critical that unexpected costs for testing and treatment don’t deter individuals from getting vaccinated.

    As we work to ensure the safety of the global community, Democrats must pass supplemental funding without giving in to Republican demands to tie COVID funds to oppressive immigration policies. We cannot allow partisan distractions and anti-immigrant cruelty to distract from this urgent need. The time to act is now, and we cannot leave anyone behind.

    A new way of life is here — seemingly forever. But adjusting to the “new normal” is hardly enough, not when an average of 26,000 new cases are recorded every single day, bringing with them the threat of more death, more loss, more futures taken too soon. Mask mandates are being lifted across the country. We have no national funding to support those infected. Uninsured Americans have little to no support.

    The time to act has long gone by — our communities, our children and our families deserve better.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • I had written a completely different article for Mother’s Day, but when — between May Day and Mother’s Day — someone leaked a draft of the Supreme Court’s plan to overturn Roe v. Wade, I decided to turn back to the text of the Roe decision. The decision affirms that access to safe abortions is a constitutional right protected by the federal government. Early in the Roe majority opinion by Supreme Court Justice Blackmun, a line appears that is surprisingly poetic for a legal argument:

    We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion.

    What might “exposure to the raw edges of human existence” look and feel like for the people most impacted by the threat against federal protection of safe abortions — oppressed and marginalized people, survivors of the prevalent sexual violence culture in the United States, and poor women, girls and queer people without access to autonomous medical care?

    What would we do if those of us who believe in safety, embodied self-determination and care for all people collectively acknowledged what it means to be on the edge?

    I hope that when future generations tell the story of what happened between May Day and Mother’s Day in 2022, they remember that a large coalition of people, emboldened by love, came together to protect each other beyond fear and without shame. In that sense, this is a love poem and prayer.

    edges

    the black becoming blue of morning after

    the toilet stall of white becoming pink

    the still raised red the heat of fresh slapped face

    the metal slot of a just-locked drugstore door

    the papercut of peace denied

    the growl the car makes right before it dies

    the grazing gown on grateful thighs

    the salted corner of your day-stretched eye

    the fast-eroding sand becoming sea

    the fraying hairs closest to your temple

    the names of god you call when no one listens

    the tether on your ankle while you drown

    the punch of breaching whale in cannon breath

    the carbon glut that means the ocean’s death

    the surest way to keep you out of school

    the line between the joker and the fool

    the bleaching coral white before it browns

    the bleeding reputation of your town

    the worn-out names for more falling out teeth

    the flammable dryness of your Christmas wreath

    the hourly room, the itching bed

    the hand-torn crust communion bread

    the telling and the untelling and keep

    the landfill smell the grassy heap

    the hand to hold, the fist to fear

    the hardest three-fourths of a year

    the thickest part of blood

    the meaning of the county line

    the place where plants learn to grow sideways

    the place where the murderous coyote tries to corner the roadrunner

    the moment when he learns the grounded bird has gone

    the way ACME keeps itself in weapons

    the rash from the bracelet before it turns green

    the gasp of the species before it melts itself

    the last day of the unpaid month

    the rented dawn

    the secret spawn of senators shuttled away to quiet

    the diet of stamps

    the leaking street lamps promising to walk you home

    the blameworthy sportswear

    the child-locked car we’re already inside

    the shotgun tasting

    the pharmacy cake

    the voice at the bottom of the well

    the impossible wellness

    the sticky-hand permission slips

    the hole where the twist-lock doorknob used to be

    the twitch of the mouth you learn

    the moment monsters dress themselves in family skin

    the wet of preacher’s mouth when his subject turns to sin

    the third baptism

    the last confession

    the grout between the tile on the floor

    the only store open

    the standby flight

    the stranger couch

    the sleepless night before

    the insulting audacity of every dream

    the unaffordable more

    the polluted shore

    the forgotten birthday

    the face behind your blink

    the stubble-clogged sink

    the choking garden

    the white-collar pardon

    the hole in holy war

    the finished before

    the bolt-cut locker

    the untreated sore

    the time he took the hinges off the door

    the repacked bag

    the dragging heels

    the scraped-out soles

    the yard-sale stroller

    the parking lot dandelion

    the dry-clean only stains

    the sharpened pencil teacher you told

    the red pen of the one who already knew

    the spring they cancelled the daddy-daughter church lock-in

    the can’t remember days before graduation

    the can’t forgets

    the please not yets

    the night the moon disappears

    the terrifying fertile years

    the pinstriped wink through the window

    the soft places to land on Mars

    the quiet electric backseat getaway cars

    the afterschool sound barrier

    the expired bus transfer

    the rising costs of over-the-counter concealer

    the florist tab

    the stab you in the back make-up date

    the not yet noticeable weight

    the purple eye

    the painted lip

    the trashed receipts from weekend trips

    the hotel lotion

    the bitter tear-steeped tea of prayer

    the addendum to the non-disclosure agreement

    the unsaved password for the burner account for the money transfer

    the billboard exit on the highway where god starts to need advertising

    the gillnet slicing the throat of the last vaquita

    the day you know no amount of french fries will fill this hunger

    the last breath of the speech thanking our veterans for being so willing to kill

    the final note of any song about your freedom

    the hour they start to play the “Cosby” reruns

    the dotted lines on coupons in your grocery app

    the feathery feel before the soft of T-shirt becomes hole

    the phlegm of the lurking troll saying ‘you shall not pass’

    the sell-by date of penicillin

    the inches oceans have to rise

    the degrees of heat before the sky becomes convection

    the quick affection of despair

    the tuck of hair behind your ear

    the ridge where the side of your shoe cuts your swell

    the spell with the missing word

    the shoal with the broken bottles

    the walls and stairs that hold your secrets

    the places skin loses its hue

    the exact amount of blood you can lose and still breathe

    the precise proportion of blunt to sharp words when you leave

    the heartbeats between May Day and Mother’s

    the pronunciation of justice

    the number of i’s in opinion

    the repetition of s in dissent

    the name kept out of your mouth

    the part of the key that can cut

    the overlap of dream and memory

    the gut elbow rhythm of again

    the shelf where dystopia sells as nonfiction

    the need

    the light

    the right

    the day

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Across the United States this Mother’s Day, the right to have control over one’s body is under attack. More than 530 abortion restrictions have been introduced in 42 states. The Supreme Court is on the precipice of delivering a lethal blow to Roe v. Wade. Conservative forces are denying people access to reproductive health care through birth control, safe abortion, infertility care, and prenatal and obstetric care while compounding psychological harm.

    While the U.S. grapples with the breach of confidentiality revealing the looming reversal of Roe, the struggle for abortion access feels more urgent than ever before. Yet, our society tends to frame this struggle in white, middle-class terms, as if the theoretical right to choose abortion under the law translates into all people having the ability to make choices and control their bodies.

    Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) feminist movements remind us that the “right” to abortion does not guarantee the resources to access it, and that if we truly care about reproductive justice for all, then we need to dismantle the institutionalized race and class oppression that obstructs many from accessing this “right.” Author Elena Guiterrez affirms that reproductive justice also necessitates environmental justice, especially since the colonization of Indigenous lands and threats from environmental toxins undermine fertility for many women of color. Overall, BIPOC feminists define reproductive justice as the human right to maintain bodily autonomy, have or not have children safely, and parent children in safe and sustainable communities.

    Monica Simpson, executive director of the reproductive justice organization SisterSong, writes:

    Roe never fully protected Black women — or poor women or so many others in this country. That’s because Roe ensured the right to abortion without ensuring that people could actually get an abortion. People seeking abortions in America must consider: Do I have the money? How far is the nearest clinic, and can I get there? Can I take off work? Will I be safe walking into the clinic? For more privileged people, these questions are rarely a deterrent. But for many women of color and poor people, they are major obstacles. That’s how white supremacy works.

    U.S. authors and activists like Gutiérrez, Marlene Gerber Fried, Loretta Ross and Jael Silliman, and Palestinian feminists like Nadera Shalhoub Kevorkian and Rhoda Kanaaneh have been expanding the definition of what counts as reproductive injustice to account for the many conditions that deny people of color and colonized folks the capacity to control their own bodies. Indeed, BIPOC and decolonial feminists have insisted upon the right to abortion and the resources to access that right (i.e., economic resources and health care, access to language/translation in health care centers, adequate sex education in all schools), especially since BIPOC women and gender-expansive people face specific struggles around health disparities and rape and sexual assault, including a legal system that systematically fails (and was never meant to protect) BIPOC communities.

    But they have also insisted that a host of other issues should be considered reproductive injustices, such as race/class/gender-based disparities that impact birthing experiences for people of color. Racist and colonialist practices of forced sterilization, “population control,” mass incarceration, and rape and sexual assault all impact BIPOC women, trans and nonbinary people’s control over their bodies.

    We affirm what activists like Monica Cosby and organizations like Survived and Punished, Love and Protect, and Mothers United Against Violence teach us about the especially racist, heteropatriarchal, and patriarchal violence policing and prisons inflict on women, queer, and trans people of color and the many BIPOC mothers and caregivers of color who are themselves incarcerated and forced into isolation from their children and loved ones. This is why, as Black feminist abolitionists have long been saying, an expansive reproductive justice movement must take seriously that the violence of policing and prisons trickles down far beyond prison walls.

    As Black feminists like Dorothy Roberts, Andrea J. Ritchie, Mariame Kaba and Charity Tolliver teach us, reproductive injustice is inherent to the prison-industrial complex — including the foster care-to-prison pipeline. Through policing and incarceration, the state disproportionately denies BIPOC women and gender-expansive people the opportunity to birth and/or care for children during and after their imprisonment and takes away the opportunity for incarcerated individuals to decide if and when to have children. Medical violence and dangerous prenatal care rampant within the prison-industrial complex can also deny those imprisoned the right to have children (or not). Moreover, as organizations like Love and Protect point out, the U.S. routinely incarcerates women and gender-expansive people of color like Bresha Meadows and Marissa Alexander for defending themselves against gender-based violence.

    What MAMAS Teaches Us

    Mothers and caregivers who have worked with the collective we co-founded with Johnaé Strong, Mamas Activating Movements for Abolition and Solidarity (MAMAS), teach us that the state’s removal of a child from a mother or caregiver is also a feminist reproductive justice issue. Yet this is scarcely acknowledged across our society.

    Lakota member Cindy Soto is the daughter of a mother-survivor of Indigenous boarding schools. Soto teaches us the U.S.’s legacy of separating Indigenous children from their families continues to traumatize mothers and caregivers and takes away their capacity to pass on traditions and languages to their children.

    Like the forced removal of Indigenous children in the U.S., family separations resulting from police-perpetrated violence, the incarceration of migrants, and the U.S.-backed Israeli colonization of Palestine deny mothers and caregivers the capacity to parent, nurture, and protect their children with dignity and in safety.

    One group of activists working with MAMAS calls themselves Mothers of the Kidnapped (MOK), and includes people like Bertha Escamilla, April Ward, Esther Hernández, Armanda Shackelford, Regina Russell, Denice Bronis, Christina Borizov, Rosemary Cade, and papa and caregiver Frank Ornelas. They parent individuals who were incarcerated through police-perpetrated torture and frame-ups: Nick Escamilla, Mickiael Ward, Juan and Rosendo Hernández, Gerald Reed, Tamon Russell, Matthew Echevarria, Johnny Borizov, Antonio Porter and Robert Ornelas.

    These families are not alone. Chicago is known as the U.S.’s torture capital. Despite a formal apology issued by the city in 2015 for the heinous crimes committed by police officers and a historic reparations package resulting from the tireless labor of social movements, hundreds of torture survivors remain incarcerated or stuck in a criminal legal system that was never meant to work for people of color.

    Our reproductive justice vision insists that the state’s kidnapping of these individuals has wreaked psychological, physical, and financial havoc on the lives of their mothers and caregivers. This is why we also insist that mothers of individuals targeted by police-perpetrated violence are survivors of the violent policing and prison systems in their own right, and that the labor of caring for police violence survivors is indeed a feminist freedom struggle.

    Incarcerating migrants is also a feminist reproductive justice issue. Fernanda Castellanos, a comrade of MAMAS and organizer with Organized Communities Against Deportations, teaches us about the profound impact of family separations on a mother or caregiver’s ability to nurture loved ones. “Most mothers are terrified of what will happen to their children if they get deported. They don’t always want their children back in their country because it’s not so safe. Mothers are trying to protect their children while worrying about their asylum case or whether they will be deported,” she says.

    The carceral system also uses the tools of criminalization against migrant mothers and caregivers, according to Castellanos, from electronic monitoring (also known as e-carceration) to racist state and media rhetoric.

    These compounded reproductive injustices contribute to the case for prison abolition.

    U.S.-Backed Israeli Settler-Colonialism Is Also a Feminist Reproductive Justice Issue

    Our comrades in Palestine responsible for the labor of mothering also remind us to examine the global reach of the U.S. prison-industrial complex and its targeting of people who mother. The U.S. exports settler-colonialism and carceral systems, including state and non-state actors like the Anti-Defamation League sending police to train in Israel; the U.S. and Israel sharing information about Palestinian activists; and the U.S. failing to hold Israel accountable for its denial of U.S. citizens, especially Palestinian Americans, from entering Israel.

    Given the entrenched U.S.-Israeli alliance, it is no surprise that Israeli occupation forces engage in similar forms of reproductive injustice as found in U.S. prisons and policing practices. The U.S. system separates BIPOC mothers from their children in disproportionate numbers within a system that contains people of color for the purpose of protecting capitalism, white supremacy and heteropatriarchal gender violence. Similarly, Israel separates Palestinian mothers from their children through violent systems of policing and imprisonment for the racist, colonialist purpose of containing and repressing an occupied people.

    The arrest and torture of children like Ahmad Manasra is now the focus of the US Palestinian Community Network’s campaign to free Ahmad Manasra. Manasra was arrested several years ago at the tender age of 13 and continues to languish in Israeli prison despite his deteriorating mental health condition. A video of his trial shows his mother shouting in the background, “Hey, hey, I want to hug him. We are here, Ahmad, we love you.”

    To maintain these reproductive injustices, the U.S. and Israel scapegoat and dehumanize BIPOC mothers and caregivers as if they are to blame for social problems like gun violence and war. Every MOK member has been treated with racist-sexist dehumanization in court, during prison visits, on the phone and in the courtroom.

    Elected officials and corporate media also blame mothers of individuals violated or killed by the police for their children’s death. The conservative media blamed Elizabeth Toledo for her son Adam’s killing at the hands of Chicago police. Palestinian mothers face similar political rhetoric as a way to punish Palestinian resistance. Palestinian feminist Nada Elia notes that Israeli Member of Knesset Ayelet Shaked referenced Palestinian children as “little snakes,” attacking their mothers for raising “terrorists.” Casting Palestinian resistance as the root of the problem is one means Israel has used to move attention away from occupation and apartheid — frequently with support from U.S. politicians.

    BIPOC Caregivers Lead the Way Toward an Anti-Imperialist, Abolitionist Reproductive Justice Movement

    The interconnected systems of policing and prisons, settler-colonialism, and migrant detentions and deportations undermine the capacity to control one’s body and to parent, nurture and protect loved ones, communities and lands. This is why we need an anti-imperialist, abolitionist reproductive justice movement led by the fierce power and wisdom of BIPOC individuals who have been responsible for the labor of mothering and caretaking of their communities in the face of state violence.

    MOK members, along with the Campaign to Free Incarcerated Survivors of Police Torture, are demanding the office of the state’s attorney in Chicago vacate convictions for all those framed, tortured, and wrongfully convicted, particularly cases involving detectives where an established pattern of torture, forced confession and wrongful convictions exists.

    Castellanos and Organized Communities Against Deportations helped abuelita Genoveva Ramirez win her legal case after refusing to accept her detention and potential deportation. The Chicago community strongly supported her and her grandson in their effort, in part because local activists have been organizing for years against misconduct by “law enforcement” officials.

    Palestinian mothers are fighting for justice in Israeli prisons — from demanding access to phone calls to access to women doctors, to meeting and hugging their children, and to freedom from incarceration and colonization.

    While the state may separate BIPOC mothers and caregivers from their loved ones in different ways and to different degrees, shared reproductive justice struggles persist and connect us — from the U.S. to Palestine — through the determination to live, love, mother and caretake in contexts free from all forms of violence.

    Where the state steals one’s capacity to mother, an expansive reproductive justice movement committed to abolishing borders, prisons, and policing and to a free Palestine envisions self-determination, healing, strength and hope.

    Some dominant strands of our society are slow to recognize the fundamental reality that state violence, including separating mothers and caregivers from children, is a feminist reproductive justice issue. But BIPOC mothers, organizers, and community caretakers will continue the struggle to demand every person has the right to have or not have a child, and to have the resources to care for that child.

    We all deserve comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, and we must demand self-determination over our bodies and lives. Let’s free the loved ones tortured and caged by agents of the state, nurture and protect each other, rebuild our communities, and live in freedom even after all the news headlines have faded, when the camera lights have dimmed, when hashtags no longer serve their purpose, and when the streets that were once lined with protesters have emptied out.

    This Mother’s Day, a more expansive understanding of feminist reproductive justice is needed — one that is broader and more courageous than the limited agenda long set by white, middle-class movements that prioritize rights under the law, failing to adequately wrestle with the fact that institutionalized racism, classism, heterosexism, imperialism and settler-colonialism are baked into the law itself.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Keen observers have long noted that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is essentially a xenophobic Israel-advocacy organization masquerading as a Jewish civil rights organization. If there was ever any doubt, this became abundantly clear at the ADL’s National Leadership Summit on May 1, when CEO Jonathan Greenblatt delivered a prerecorded speech, ostensibly to discuss the mission of the organization in light of its just-released 2021 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents. Instead, Greenblatt spent the majority of his time denouncing anti-Zionism (i.e., legitimate opposition to an ideology that promotes an exclusively Jewish state in historic Palestine) as antisemitism. In his speech, he specifically vilified three Palestine solidarity groups — Students for Justice in Palestine, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Jewish Voice for Peace — terming them “hateful” and “extremist.”

    Greenblatt’s doubling down was particularly notable because his message represented a change from the ADL’s official statement that “anti-Zionism isn’t always antisemitic.” Indeed, it was difficult to not be struck by the sheer amount of time he spent on the subject — and the vehemence with which he pressed his talking points:

    To those who still cling to the idea that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism — let me clarify this for you as clearly as I can — anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

    Anti-Zionism as an ideology is rooted in rage. It is predicated on one concept: the negation of another people, a concept as alien to the modern discourse as white supremacy. It requires a willful denial of even a superficial history of Judaism and the vast history of the Jewish people. And, when an idea is born out of such shocking intolerance, it leads to, well, shocking acts.

    Greenblatt’s claims were particularly cynical because they actually flew directly in the face of the ADL’s own 2021 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, which found that of the 2,717 incidents it recorded last year, 345 (just over 12 percent) involved “references to Israel or Zionism” (and of these, “68 took the form of propaganda efforts by white supremacist groups.”) Though he actually opened his speech by invoking his report, Greenblatt actively misrepresented its findings, choosing instead to vilify three organizations that actively protest against Israel’s human rights abuse of Palestinians. Most outrageously, he actually equated anti-Zionists with “white supremacists and alt-right ilk who murder Jews,” as if the rhetoric of Palestine solidarity activists could in any way be comparable to the mass murder of Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue.

    By singling out these Palestine solidarity groups, Greenblatt was clearly employing a familiar strategy utilized by the Israeli government and its supporters: blaming the current rise in antisemitism on Muslims, Palestinians, and those who dare to stand in solidarity with them. The “anti-Zionism is antisemitism trope” has also been the favored political tactic of liberal and conservative politicians alike. It is most typically invoked to attack supporters of the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Pro-Palestinian activists well know there is no better way to silence and vilify their activism than to raise the specter of antisemitism.

    As journalist Peter Beinart has put it, “It is a bewildering and alarming time to be a Jew, both because antisemitism is rising and because so many politicians are responding to it not by protecting Jews but by victimizing Palestinians.” Of course, the rise in antisemitism is alarming, but as ever, the greatest threat to Jews comes from far-right nationalists and white supremacists — not Palestinians and those who stand with them. It is particularly sobering to contemplate that this definition essentially defines all Palestinians as antisemitic if they dare to oppose Zionism. But what else can Palestinians be expected to do, given that Zionism resulted in their collective dispossession, forcing them from their homes and lands and subjecting them to a crushing military occupation?

    The growing crackdown on anti-Zionism can also be understood as a conscious effort to stem the growing number of Jews in the U.S. — particularly young Jews — who do not identify with the state of Israel and openly identify as anti-Zionist. The backlash against this phenomenon has been fierce — at times perversely so. In a widely discussed 2021 essay, Natan Sharansky and Gil Troy lamented the growth of anti-Zionist Jews, by labeling them as “un-Jews.” Last May, immediately following Israel’s military onslaught on Gaza, a Chicago-area Reform rabbi gave a sermon in which she called anti-Zionist Jews “Jews in name only” who must be “kept out of the Jewish tent.”

    Beyond these extreme protestations, it bears noting that there has always been principled Jewish opposition to Zionism. While there are certainly individual anti-Zionists who are anti-Semites, it is disingenuous to claim that opposition to Zionism is fundamentally antisemitic. Judaism (a centuries-old religious peoplehood) is not synonymous with Zionism (a modern nationalist ideology that is not exclusively Jewish).

    My congregation, Tzedek Chicago, recently amended our core values statement to say that we are “anti-Zionist, openly acknowledging that the creation of an ethnic Jewish nation state in historic Palestine resulted in an injustice against the Palestinian people — an injustice that continues to this day.” Our decision to articulate anti-Zionism as a value came after months of congregational deliberation, followed by a membership vote. As the Tzedek Chicago board explained our decision:

    Zionism, the movement to establish a sovereign Jewish nation state in historic Palestine, is dependent upon the maintenance of a demographic Jewish majority in the land. Since its establishment, Israel has sought to maintain this majority by systematically dispossessing Palestinians from their homes through a variety of means, including military expulsion, home demolition, land expropriation and revocation of residency rights, among others.

    It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny the fundamental injustice at the core of Zionism. In a 2021 report, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem concluded that Israel is an “apartheid state,” describing it as “a regime of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea.” In the same year, Human Rights Watch released a similar report, stating Israel’s “deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”

    Given the reality of this historic and ongoing injustice, we have concluded that it is not enough to describe ourselves as “non-Zionist.” We believe this neutral term fails to honor the central anti-racist premise that structures of oppression cannot be simply ignored — on the contrary, they must be transformed. As political activist Angela Davis has famously written, “In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.”

    While we are the first progressive synagogue to openly embrace anti-Zionism, there is every reason to believe we will not be the only one. At the very least, we hope our decision will widen the boundaries of what is considered acceptable discourse on the subject in the Jewish community. As Shaul Magid recently — and astutely — wrote:

    [Israel is] a country stuck with an ideology that impedes equality, justice, and fairness. Maybe the true messianic move is not to defend Zionism, but to let it go. Maybe the anti-Zionists are on to something, if we only allow ourselves to listen.

    Whether or not organizations such as the ADL succeed in their efforts to falsely conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism depends largely on the response of the liberal and centrist quarters of the Jewish community. Indeed, Greenblatt’s doubling down on anti-Zionism may well reflect a political strategy seeking to drive a wedge in the Jewish community between liberal Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews. Jewish establishment organizations, such as the ADL and American Jewish Committee view this moment as an opportunity to broaden their political influence, with the support of right-wing Democrats and Christian Zionists. The end game of this growing political coalition: an impenetrable firewall of unceasing political/financial/diplomatic support for Israel in Washington, D.C.

    In the end, of course, the success or failure of this destructive tactic will ultimately depend on the readiness of Jews and non-Jews alike to publicly stand down Israeli apartheid and ethnonationalism — and to advocate a vision of justice for all who live between the river and the sea.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Fueling widespread anguish over this week’s revelation that Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned in the coming weeks is the reality that the end of Roe would immediately activate civil and criminal penalties for those who obtain abortions or assist people to obtain abortions in 13 states.

    Roe v. Wade is the 1971 landmark case that provides persons with the capacity to become pregnant with a fundamental right to abortion access. Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization holds that because abortion is not a right “deeply rooted in history,” it is not an unenumerated right that warrants constitutional protection. If Roe is overturned, each state would determine its own rules regarding the legality of abortion. In this situation, states would be permitted to pass laws that ban abortions altogether, including outlawing exceptions for rape or incest. If the final opinion in Dobbs reflects Alito’s draft, it would be the first time in history that the Supreme Court takes away a fundamental right.

    Quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a 1992 case that affirmed the fundamental right to abortion access in Roe, Alito writes, “The permissibility of abortion” is to be resolved “by citizens trying to persuade one another.” This glib reference to democratic deliberation grossly neglects the aftermath that awaits a post-Dobbs U.S. and how it would deprive persons with uteruses of a liberty protected by the Constitution. In reality, a resolution on abortion will not be worked out by citizens in the public domain or contested in the marketplace of ideas. Overruling Roe would immediately restrict abortion access in some states due to trigger legislation.

    Trigger legislation is a law that contains both a substantive provision and a trigger provision. The substantive provision of the law outlines what the law would be if the court were to change any given precedent. In most states with anti-abortion legislation, the trigger provisions plainly state that abortion restrictions would take effect as soon as Roe is overruled. For example, Louisiana’s RS 40:1061, trigger legislation passed in 2006, bans all abortions without exception and reads, “… this Act shall become effective immediately upon, and to the extent permitted, by the occurrence of … any decision of the United States which reverses in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade … thereby restoring to the state of Louisiana the authority to prohibit abortion.” At present, many other states — Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, Missouri, South Dakota and Utah — have passed anti-abortion trigger legislation that awaits and anticipates the U.S. Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade. To be sure, trigger legislation does not have to be as explicit as the 2006 Louisiana law. For example, in 2019 Georgia passed HB 481, which bans all abortions after six weeks; it also criminalizes all attempts to obtain an abortion after the six-week cutoff. These criminal statutes are currently unenforceable under Casey, but Alito’s draft makes clear that the court would be overruling both Roe and Casey. This means that, after a person endures a six-week pregnancy in the state of Georgia, self-termination of that pregnancy would be murder, traveling to a different state to obtain an abortion would be conspiracy to commit murder, and assisting someone with obtaining an abortion would be conspiracy to commit murder in a post-Dobbs world. This is because under Georgia law, a fetus is a legal human, or a resident of the state. If it is not yet clear that trigger legislation eschews the rule of law, it is worth noting that it poses a substantial threat to the legitimacy of our representative democracy.

    Article III of the Constitution places trigger legislation beyond the reach of judicial authority. The article only permits the court to review cases or controversies that arise from enforceable law. Because trigger legislation lacks enforcement power until it is triggered, a plaintiff lacks standing to challenge its constitutionality. Texas’s SB8, which was passed in 2021, is “test case” legislation — a law that opposes case precedent and subjects its constitutionality to judicial review. Unlike trigger legislation, test cases provide the court with an opportunity to either affirm or overrule a previous opinion. Test cases often arise when private actors predict that they will have enough justices who will rule in favor of the legislation. While test cases and trigger legislation both challenge judicial supremacy, trigger legislation goes further by avoiding the rule of law because it cannot be struck down as unconstitutional. In effect, trigger legislation can never be unconstitutional because it only becomes law when the court agrees that the precedent it seeks to overturn should be overruled.

    Trigger legislation poses a direct threat to democratic legitimacy. In a representative democracy, elected officials should represent the interests and preferences of their constituencies. While the legislative process varies across states, it is usually transparent and open to public engagement. Typically, a state senator or state representative drafts a bill, introduces the bill, sends it to committee for study, and places it on the calendar to be debated and voted on. If voters are dissatisfied with their representatives, elections serve as an accountability mechanism (i.e., officials can be voted out of office in the subsequent election cycle). But trigger legislation upends this norm.

    Unlike enforceable law, trigger legislation operates provisionally, anticipating the court overturning undesirable precedents. This means that in extreme scenarios such as the 2006 Louisiana anti-abortion trigger legislation, a law which has been unenforceable for 16 years can become immediately binding on the current voters of Louisiana. This also presents a notice issue for the public and could cause temporary legal instability. One of the court tenets of our democracy is a fair notice dictate that requires the government to adequately inform its citizens of conduct that constitutes illegal activity. Trigger legislation does not afford the government this opportunity. For example, North Dakota, Arkansas and Idaho have no timeline for the enforcement of their abortion bans. In effect, once Roe is overruled, abortion activities in these states are immediately criminalized and carry punishable offenses. In these states, post-Dobbs life is bleak: the pregnant person self-terminating at home, the physician performing an abortion at the clinic, or the individual assisting the pregnant person obtain an abortion would have effectively committed a felony if their actions occur seconds after the Dobbs decision comes down from the court.

    Additionally, trigger laws have the potential to become law without contemporary majority support. Citizens and interest groups have less of an incentive to put resources into repealing legislation that could possibly take effect, when there are other urgent political issues that are under active threat (i.e., voting rights in Georgia). Effectively steering clear of mass dissent until the next election, the state legislatures can be inattentive to the needs of present constituents and hopeful of a bench that overrules precedent and triggers inactive law.

    A post-Dobbs U.S. opens the door for other controversial trigger legislation that can bait the majority-conservative Supreme Court. If the court overturns Roe without condemning the trigger legislation, this could become the go-to strategy for conservatives who aim to overrule settled law. To be clear, by Alito’s rationale, there are other unenumerated rights that the majority-conservative court would likely hold are not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history” and thus do not warrant constitutional protection. These fundamental rights were created in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (a 1954 case outlawing segregated public schools), Gideon v. Wainwright (a 1963 case guaranteeing legal counsel to anyone accused of a crime), Loving v. Virginia (a 1967 case outlawing state legislation that banned interracial marriage), Lawrence v. Texas (a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws that effectively criminalized same-sex intercourse), and Obergefell v. Hodges (a 2015 case guaranteeing the right to marry an individual of the same sex), among others. To offer an illustration of this strategy in effect, the Arkansas legislature can pass anti-interracial trigger legislation in its next legislative session that states: “Interracial marriage is prohibited in the state of Arkansas. This will take effect if and when the Supreme Court overrules Loving v. Virginia.” If the court subsequently finds that interracial marriage is not a fundamental right, then the substantive provision would become enforceable law in Arkansas.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has been a venue where debates about civil liberties have ultimately resulted in expansion of democratic freedom. Landmark cases have been heralded as protecting the constitutional rights of all, but especially poor people, queer people, people of color and people with the capacity to become pregnant. If Alito’s leaked draft is indicative of how the court will rule in Dobbs, it should be clear to us all that the conservative majority of the court is not concerned with constitutional precedent or the legitimacy of the law. It is not concerned with democratic deliberation and whether state legislatures represent majority will. It is, quite plainly, a coalition of jurists who are members of an aggrieved political bloc. They seek to do nothing more than throw the U.S. democratic republic into further disarray, and trigger legislation only makes that process more expedient.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Early in the first year of Donald Trump’s bedlam tour of Washington D.C., the Democratic Party spent a good deal of time yelling at itself. How in the name of tub-thumping Christ did we lose to this clown? Recriminations flew, but by springtime, blame for the defeat had lighted upon a truly strange perch.

    “Nancy Pelosi Says Democrats’ Focus on Abortion Access Is Hurting the Party,” declared the New York Magazine headline on May 3, 2017. “Earlier this month,” read the article, “Senator Bernie Sanders and DNC head Tom Perez gave a ‘unity tour, during which they suggested abortion rights were a disposable part of Democratic ideology — later, Sanders added that stumping for anti-choice candidates is the kind of thing Democrats need to do ‘if we’re going to become a 50-state party.’ And on Tuesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi added to that, telling the Washington Post that the party should be open to anti-choice candidates.”

    Speaker Pelosi went further, arguing that Clinton lost because of the Democrats’ focus on “social issues” like abortion and marriage rights. “You know what?” she said. “That’s why Donald Trump is president of the United States — the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice. That’s how he got to be president. Everything was trumped, literally and figuratively by that.”

    Hillary lost because of abortion? That’s the best explanation Nancy Pelosi could offer?

    Five years later almost to the day, and the nation is still encompassing the looming demise of Roe v. Wade, the right to choose an abortion that has been on the books for 50 years. The leak of Justice Alito’s harrowing draft decision in Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the political version of a thermonuclear explosion, and Democratic officeholders today are blinking at the mushroom cloud as it screams into the sky, wondering how such a thing could have come to pass.

    Not all Democrats, of course. A moment to take advantage of disaster is at hand, it seems. “But in what otherwise looks to be a difficult year for Democrats,” reports The New York Times, “party strategists see the looming rollback of reproductive rights as an opportunity to galvanize key voting blocs, limit Republican gains and perhaps even pick up seats in certain states. ‘We don’t know exactly what the political environment will be,’ said Jessica Post, the president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which helps Democratic candidates for state legislature. ‘But abortion has the potential to be a game-changing issue.’”

    Nice to see some excitement in a party that has been down in the doldrums since electing a center-right vanilla wafer whose version of soaring, motivational rhetoric involves multiple usages of “C’mon, man!” in his speeches. President Biden’s own track record on abortion rights is sketchy at best; until very recently, Biden stridently supported the Hyde Amendment’s ban on using federal funds for abortions. That ban, in place since 1980, was only recently lifted in Biden’s latest budget proposal, but it had his active support over all the years he served in the Senate.

    Those years, and particularly the decade of the 1980s, was the span when opposition to abortion became part of the lifeblood of the GOP base. Once Ronald Reagan embraced Jerry Falwell and the evangelical Moral Majority’s “holy” quest to obliterate Roe, there was no mistaking their intent. And all of a sudden the argument was everywhere. I vividly recall hearing fellow students argue over abortion in the halls of my high school during Reagan’s second term.

    The media — TV, newspapers and radio — was the main battlefield where this war was fought, but it was not the only battlefield. Out where the activists live, a new kind of campaign began to reveal itself in the very shadow of the facilities abortion-seekers visited to avail themselves of their rights.

    ***

    The Planned Parenthood on Commonwealth Avenue in Brookline, Massachusetts looks like something Frank Lloyd Wright might have constructed had he ever gotten into building fortresses. Large, windowless, with decorative touches swirling over the front façade, the dominant feature is the main door.

    The door is all business, steel reinforced and opened remotely from within by an armed security guard, and leads to a small box and another door, also opened from within. The door is there, and is how it is because a man named John Salvi passed through a lesser version of that door with a rifle in 1994 and murdered receptionist Shannon Lowney. After fleeing the scene, Salvi murdered receptionist Lee Ann Nichols at the offices of Preterm Health Services on Beacon Street. They put the door in afterward, and now, you’re not getting in unless the guard clears you.

    A dozen years after Salvi’s rampage, I found myself at that Planned Parenthood (PP) as escort for a friend. My friend was not there for an abortion; like millions of low-income women lacking health insurance, she depended on PP for basic gynecological care. PP always came through, charging for services on a sliding scale to remain affordable. Despite what the shouters have to say, this is the core of the medical practice at PP, the majority of what they do.

    Had my friend been going to an appointment at Massachusetts General Hospital or Brigham & Women’s, no escort would have been necessary. To enter the Planned Parenthood in Brookline, however, required one to run one of the more disturbing gauntlets in modern American society.

    There at the big steel door, every day, rain hail or shine, like Salvi’s own ghost, would be two or three people holding anti-choice signs and chanting, “Praise God … praise God … praise God …” While legally prohibited from barring entrance to the facility, these protesters nonetheless managed to make themselves menacing enough to drive some care-seekers away.

    When my friend got out of the car, the two protesters shuffled toward her, eyes like fish stuck in a bucket, and they were on her by the time I got around to her side of the car. Hands with spindled pamphlets reached out as the one on the left droned, “Praise God,” while the one on the right launched into a spittle-flecked diatribe — “It’s your baby don’t you want to save your baby don’t kill your baby it’s a baby don’t you want to save your baby” — until I got between them and made for the door.

    I actually tried to reason with the second one, if you can believe it. “She’s here for a pelvic exam,” I said, as if she needed an excuse to be there at all. Of course, if she’d been there for an abortion, she would have had just as much of a right to access care unfettered. It was a fumbled moment on my part, and made no dent whatsoever in the rant, which only cut off with the KA-CHUNK of the metal door slamming closed between us. We composed ourselves in the box as the guard looked us over, and when the second door opened, we joined a room filled with people who had endured the same bullshit to get inside. Very little eye contact was made; it was a facility under siege, and the tension fairly hummed.

    All across the country, every single day, protesters of this ilk arrayed themselves at the entrances of reproductive care clinics. My friend got her exam that day, and when we left, the pair of protesters were still there, yelling, “Praise God.”

    Not long after, PP called my friend. They had found, and removed, cancer cells from her cervix. This was something she would have to be on the watch for from now on because the cells could easily grow back, but for the time being, she was safe. That visit to the clinic saved her life.

    ***

    If you had asked me about the standing of Roe v. Wade 30 years ago, you’d have gotten a smug answer that tastes like ashes in my mouth today. Back then, the anti-Clinton mania had not overtaken the Republican Party, and Newt Gingrich was still two years away from pouring a barrel of poison into the well of public politics. The Religious Right was a force, but only in certain sectors of the country, and the GOP had not devolved into an unruly mob that believes “pedophile” Democrats and “Hollywood elites” are running the country.

    Indeed, it was a simpler time, and my answer on the safety of Roe was simplicity itself. Would the GOP ever actually allow that right to be overturned? Never in hell. Opposition to abortion had become the most important platform for the Republican base, and in particular the highly energized evangelical Christian wing of that base. Lose that, and the whole thing would unspool.

    Abortion made them the most reliable voting bloc in the country; I used to say that if it were raining live jaguars on Election Day, the anti-choicers would head to the polls with cement umbrellas. A direct-mail flyer to the base with a picture of Hillary Clinton next to a fetus was good for $2 million in donations within 48 hours. They were the Energizer Bunny of constituencies and the Establishment GOP knew it all too well. If the dog ever did manage to catch the car, what would become of the Republican Party? If that portion of the base declared victory and went home, the GOP wouldn’t win another national election in 100 years. I could not envision them risking that, and for a while, I was right.

    That, as they say, was then. A different sort of writing has been encroaching on the walls over the last two decades, and it appears the Democrats were the last ones to see it. My belief is that a sea change overtook the GOP base after eight years of George W. Bush failed to result in any meaningful damage done to Roe. I strongly suspect that base came to realize how they were being used, and that Roe wasn’t going anywhere unless they took a more active hand in politics. They began taking over local Republican organizations and ran their own people.

    It was Donald Trump who gave them control of the party by taking it over and then letting them off the leash. This, in combination with the laser-like focus on the judiciary by elements of the anti-choice brigades and senators like Mitch McConnell, has brought us to this fraught crossroads.

    None of the present crisis would be possible, however, without the intentional neglect exerted by the Democratic Party and its eternal blame game. Even today, you can hear Hillary people blaming Bernie Sanders for Alito’s draft, and Sanders people blaming Hillary because the Democratic base expects more from a candidate than Republican Lite.

    It didn’t take a weatherman to know Roe was in trouble, and yet the Democrats spent all these years staring at it like a deer pinned by oncoming headlights, relentlessly confident that five far-right political hack Supreme Court justices wouldn’t finally do what the Republican Party has been vowing to do since the year after I was born.

    They thought Roe was another third rail. Now that the GOP has grabbed it and lived to tell the tale, how many other third rails will that newly emboldened court reach for? Marriage? Contraception? The very notion of privacy?

    But hey, at least the Democrats have something to run on for November, right?

    That would be true if voters trust them to fight for a right their elected officials have taken for granted and now pissed away.

    Praise God…

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In his explosive draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which was leaked to Politico, Justice Samuel Alito overrules Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. His draft holds that abortion is no longer a constitutional right and leaves the fate of those who seek abortions to the vagaries of state laws.

    “We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Alito writes. “Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

    If four other members of the Supreme Court adopt Alito’s draft, many other privacy rights we hold dear will be in jeopardy. They include the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage, among others.

    In December, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with Alito after oral argument and they continue to hold that position, according to Politico. That’s a five-member majority if they sign on to Alito’s draft opinion by the end of June.

    Nearly a half century ago, the Supreme Court held in Roe that the Constitution protects “a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The court relied on longstanding precedents holding that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty” prohibits governmental interference with personal decisions about marriage, contraception, procreation, family relationships, child-rearing and education.

    Twenty years later, in Casey, the court reaffirmed the central holding of Roe — that a pregnant person has the right to an abortion before the fetus becomes viable (at about 23 weeks of pregnancy). Casey highlighted the “settled” principle that “the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood … as well as bodily integrity.”

    The court cited Casey with approval in Washington v. Glucksberg, in which it listed the right to “abortion” with the rights “to marry,” “to use contraception,” “to have children,” and “to bodily integrity,” which are recognized in a “long line of cases” that interpret the Due Process Clause. It requires due process before the government can deprive someone of life, liberty or property.

    In Lawrence v. Texas, the court relied on Casey to hold that states cannot criminalize “homosexual conduct.” The Lawrence court said that the “right to liberty under the Due Process Clause” guarantees “a realm of personal liberty that the government may not enter.”

    The court used those same precedents to hold in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage: “Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make,” and are therefore “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy” protected by the Due Process Clause.

    In his draft opinion in Dobbs, Alito writes, “We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

    Nevertheless, Alito eviscerates the fundamental underpinnings of the rights to contraception, sexual freedom and same-sex marriage. He holds that abortion, which is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is not “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and is not “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

    “On the contrary,” Alito writes, “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973 [when Roe was decided].”

    Alito specifically criticizes Lawrence and Obergefell, writing that they are not “deeply rooted in history.” But as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School, noted in the Los Angeles Times, “Unless the court is going to repudiate all of the other privacy rights, it is impossible to deny that laws prohibiting abortion also intrude on a woman’s liberty.”

    In his draft opinion, Alito “disavows the entire line of jurisprudence upon which Roe rests: the existence of ‘unenumerated rights’ that safeguard individual autonomy from state invasion,” Mark Joseph Stern wrote at Slate. “Alito asserts that any such right must be ‘deeply rooted’ in the nation’s history and tradition, and access to abortion has no such roots.”

    If the court overrules Roe, around half the states will outlaw or severely limit abortion. Thirteen states with “trigger laws” would immediately ban abortion. Five states that have pre-Roe abortion bans could once again enforce them. And 14 states would ban abortions before fetal viability. Prohibition of and restrictions on abortion would disproportionately affect poor women and people of color.

    People suffering early miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies could be adversely affected if Roe is overturned. Fertility procedures such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF), egg extractions and stem cell procedures could be outlawed.

    Other “unenumerated” rights not specifically listed in the Constitution would be jeopardized, including the right to travel, the right to vote and the right to interracial marriage.

    The ramifications of a Supreme Court decision overruling Roe are unfathomable. Not only will people be denied the right to have an abortion, those who need other medical procedures would be at risk. And privacy rights we now take for granted could evaporate.

    As the United States moves, terrifyingly, toward an evangelical theocracy that has methodically and finally seized control of the Supreme Court, we must remain vigilant and take action. That includes speaking out, contacting Congress members and the White House, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, and demonstrating like thousands of people are doing across the country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • First, it was the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicles speeding along on the road in front of our campsite. Then it was the Border Patrol’s all-terrain vehicles moving swiftly on a ridge above us. I was about 10 miles north of the border with Mexico, near Peña Blanca Lake in southern Arizona, camping with my six-year-old son and some other families. Like fire trucks racing to a blaze, the Border Patrol mobilization around me was growing so large I could only imagine an emergency situation developing.

    I started climbing to get a better look and soon found myself alone on a golden hill dotted with alligator junipers and mesquite. Brilliant vermilion flycatchers fluttered between the branches. The road, though, was Border Patrol all the way. Atop the hill opposite mine stood a surveillance tower. Since it loomed over our campsite, I’d been looking at it all weekend. It felt strangely like part of French philosopher Michel Foucault’s panopticon — in other words, I wasn’t sure whether I was being watched or not. But I suspected I was.

    After all, that tower’s cameras could see for seven miles at night and its ground-sweeping radar operated in a 13-mile radius, a capability, one Border Patrol officer told me in 2019, worth “100 agents.” In the term of the trade, the technology was a “force multiplier.” I had first seen that tower freshly built in 2015 after CBP awarded a hefty contract to the Israeli company Elbit Systems. In other words, on top of that hill, I wasn’t just watching some unknown event developing; I was also in the middle of the border-industrial complex.

    During Donald Trump’s years in office, the media focused largely on the former president’s fixation with the giant border wall he was trying to have built, a xenophobic symbol so filled with racism that it was far easier to find people offended by it than towers like this one. From where I stood, the closest stretch of border wall was 10 miles to the south in Nogales, a structure made of 20-foot-high steel bollards and covered with coiled razor wire. (That stretch of wall, in fact, had been built long before Trump took office.)

    What I was now witnessing, however, could be called Biden’s wall. I’m speaking about a modern, high-tech border barrier of a different sort, an increasingly autonomous surveillance apparatus fueled by “public-private partnerships.” The technology for this “virtual wall” had been in the works for years, but the Biden administration has focused on it as if it were a humane alternative to Trump’s project.

    In reality, for the Border Patrol, the “border-wall system,” as it’s called, is equal parts barrier, technology, and personnel. While the Biden administration has ditched the racist justifications that went with it, its officials continue to zealously promote the building of a border-wall system that’s increasingly profitable and ever more like something out of a science-fiction movie.

    As March ended, one week before my camping trip, I saw it up close and personal at the annual Border Security Expo in San Antonio, Texas.

    “Robots That Feel the World”

    The golden chrome robotic dog trotted right up to me on the blue carpet at the convention center hall. At my feet, it looked up as if it were a real dog expecting me to lean over and pet it. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate, this “dog” will someday patrol our southern border. Its vendor was undoubtedly trying to be cute when he made the dog move its butt back and forth as if wagging its tail (in reality, two thin, black antennae). Behind the vendor was a large sign with the company’s name in giant letters: Ghost Robotics. Below that was “Robots That Feel the World,” a company slogan right out of the dystopian imagination.

    According to its organizers, this was the most well-attended Border Security Expo in its 15-year history. About 200 companies crowded the hall, trying to lure officials from CBP, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, border sheriffs’ departments, and international border forces into buying their technologies, sensors, robots, detectors, and guns. As I stood staring at that surreal dog, behind me the company Teledyne Flir was showing off its video surveillance system: a giant retractable mast sitting in the bed of a black pickup truck. On the side of the truck were the words “Any Threat. Anywhere.”

    Another company, Saxon Aerospace (its slogan: “Actionable Intelligence, Anytime, Anywhere”), had a slick, white, medium-sized drone on display. One vendor assured me that the drone market had simply exploded in recent years. “Do you know why?” I asked. His reply: “It’s like when a dog eats blood and gets carnivorous.”

    Elsewhere, the red Verizon Frontline mobile command-and-control truck looked like it could keep perfect company with any Border Patrol all-terrain vehicle unit; while Dell, the Texas-based computer firm, displayed its own frontline mobile vehicle, promising that “whether you’re providing critical citizen services, innovating for the next generation, or securing the nation, we bring the right technology… and far-reaching vision to help guide your journey.”

    And don’t forget 3M, which has moved well beyond its most famous product, Scotch tape, to provide “rugged and reliable equipment across DoD [Department of Defense], DoJ [Department of Justice], DHS [Department of Homeland Security], and U.S. state and local agencies.” Top defense contractors like Airbus (with a shiny black helicopter on display in the center of the expo hall) were also present, along with top border contractors like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Elbit Systems.

    Just the day before the expo opened, the Biden administration put out its fiscal year 2023 budget, which proposed $97.3 billion for the DHS, that agency’s largest in its two-decade history. The Customs and Border Protection part of that, $17.5 billion, would similarly be the most money that agency has ever received, nearly $1.5 billion more than last year. Although Immigration and Customs Enforcement received just a marginal increase, it will still get $8.5 billion. Combine just those two and that $26 billion would be the highest sum ever dedicated to border and immigration enforcement, significantly more than the $20 billion that the Trump administration started out with in 2017. As DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas put it, such a budget will help secure our “values.” (And in an ironic sense, at least, how true that is!)

    “Notably,” Mayorkas added, “the budget makes smart investments in technology to keep our borders secure and includes funding that will allow us to process asylum claims more efficiently as we build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system.”

    What Mayorkas didn’t mention was that his border plans involve ever more contracts doled out to private industry. That’s been the case since 9/11 when money began to pour into border and immigration enforcement, especially after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. With ever-growing budgets, the process of privatizing the oversight of our southern border increased significantly during the administration of President George W. Bush. (The first Border Security Expo was, tellingly enough, in 2005.) The process, however, soared in the Obama era. During the first four years of his presidency, 60,405 contracts (including a massive $766 million to weapons-maker Lockheed Martin) were issued to the tune of $15 billion. From 2013 to 2016, another 81,500 contracts were issued for a total of $13.2 billion.

    In other words, despite his wall, it’s a misconception to think that Donald Trump stood alone in his urge to crack down on migration at the border. It’s true, however, that his administration did up the ante by issuing 87,293 border-protection contracts totaling $20.9 billion. For Biden, the tally so far is 10,612 contracts for $8 billion. If he keeps up that pace, he could rack up nearly $24 billion in contracts by the end of his first term, which would leave Trump’s numbers and those of every other recent president in the dust.

    If so, the contracts of the Trump and Biden administrations would total nearly $45 billion, slightly surpassing the $44.3 billion spent on border and immigration enforcement from 1980 to 2002. In the media, border and immigration issues are normally framed in terms of a partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans. While there is certainly some truth to that, there are a surprising number of ways in which both parties have reached a kind of grim border consensus.

    As Maryland Democratic Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, a member of the House appropriations committee, said ever so beamingly on a screen at that Expo conference, “I have literally put my money where my mouth is, championing funding for fencing, additional Border Patrol agents, and state-of-the-art surveillance equipment.” And as Clint McDonald, a member of the Border Sheriff’s Association, said at its opening panel, the border is “not a red issue, it’s not a blue issue. It’s a red, white, and blue issue.”

    When I asked the Ghost Robotics vendor if his robo-dog had a name, he replied that his daughter “likes to call it Tank.” He then added, “We let our customers name them as they get them.” While we were chatting, a prospective customer asked, “What about weapons mountable?” (That is, could buyers weaponize that dog?) The vendor immediately assured him that they were already working with other companies to make that happen.

    Later, when I asked Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz about the surveillance dogs, he downplayed their significance, stressing the media hype around them, and saying that no robo-dogs were yet deployed anywhere on the border. Nonetheless, it was hard not to wander that hall and think, This, much more than a wall, could be our border future. In fact, if the “big, beautiful” wall was the emblem of Donald Trump’s border policy, then for the Biden moment, think robo-dogs.

    Border Security Is Not a “Pipe Dream”

    The night before I stood on that hill in Arizona, I had heard people passing through the campsite where my son and I were sleeping in a tent. Their footsteps were soft and I felt no fear, no danger. That people were coming through should hardly have been a surprise. Enforcement at our southern border has been designed to push such border-crossing migrants into just the sort of desert lands we were camping in, often under the cover of night.

    The remains of at least 8,000 people have been found in those landscapes since the mid-1990s and many more undoubtedly died since thousands of families continue to search for lost loved ones who disappeared in the borderlands. Those soft footsteps I heard could have been from asylum seekers fleeing violence in their lands or facing the disaster of accelerating climate change — wilted crops and flooded fields — or economic dispossession in countries where foreign corporations and local oligarchies rule the day. Or all of that combined.

    For years, I’ve been talking to migrants who crossed isolated and hazardous parts of the Arizona desert to bypass the walls and guns of the Border Patrol.

    I thought of them when, on the last day of that Border Security Expo, I watched Palmer Luckey, the CEO of Anduril, a new border surveillance company, step up to the podium to introduce a panel on “The Digital Transformation of the Border.” The 20-something Luckey, already worth $700 million, had floppy brown hair and wore a Hawaiian shirt, cargo shorts, and flip-flops. He told the audience of border industry and Homeland Security officials that he was wearing shades because of recent laser surgery, not an urge to look cool.

    He did look cool, though, as if he were at the beach. And he does represent the next generation of border tech. Since 2020, his company has received nearly $100 million in contracts from Customs and Border Protection.

    His introduction to the panel, which sounded to me more like a pitch for financing, offered a glimpse of how the border-industrial complex now works. It was like listening to a rehearsal for the lobbying appearances he and his company would undoubtedly make in Congress for the 2023 budget. In 2021, Anduril spent $930,000 lobbying on issues that mattered to its executives. It also gifted political candidates with nearly $2 million in campaign contributions.

    Luckey’s message was: fund me and you’ll create a “durable industrial base,” while ensuring that border security will not be a “pipe dream.” Indeed, in his vision, the new border-surveillance infrastructure he represents will instead be an autonomous “pipeline,” delivering endlessly actionable information and intelligence directly to the cell phones of Border Patrol agents.

    I was thinking about his pitch again as I stood atop that hill watching the border apparatus quickly mobilize. I was, in fact, looking at yet another Border Patrol vehicle driving by when I suddenly heard a mechanical buzzing overhead that made me think a drone might be nearby. At our southern border, the CBP not only operates the sizeable Predator Bs (once used in U.S. military and CIA operations abroad), but small and medium-sized drones.

    I could see nothing in the sky, but something was certainly happening. It was as if I were at the Expo again, but now it was real life. I was, in fact, in the middle of the very surveillance-infrastructure pipeline Luckey had described, where towers talk to each other, signal to drones, to the all-terrain vehicle unit, and to roving Border Patrol cars.

    Then the buzzing sound abruptly stopped as a CBP helicopter lifted into the air, its loud propellers roaring.

    The Real Crisis

    After that dramatic helicopter exit, I wondered if there was indeed a border emergency and finally decided to get in my car and see what I could find out, leaving my son with our friends. As I rounded a corner, I came across Border Patrol agents and vehicles at the side of the road with a large group of people who, I assumed, were migrants. About four individuals had already been put in the back of a green-striped Border Patrol pickup truck, handcuffed and arrested. They had the tired look I knew so well of people who had walked an entire night in an unknown, hazardous landscape, had failed, and were now about to be deported. The agents of the ATV detail were lounging around in their green jumpsuits as their quads idled, as if this were all in a day’s (or night’s) work, which indeed it was.

    I remembered then hearing those footsteps as my son slept soundly and thought: The border is not in crisis. That’s impossible. The border’s inanimate. It’s the people walking through the desert — the ones who crept past us and those in the back of that truck or soon to be put in other trucks like it, arrested so far from home — who are actually in crisis. And it’s a crisis almost beyond the ability of anyone who hasn’t been displaced to imagine. Otherwise, why would they be here in the first place?

    The ongoing border-crisis story is another example of what Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano once would have called an “upside down” world, so twisted in its telling that the victim becomes the victimizer and the oppressor, the oppressed. If only there were a way we could turn that story — and how so many in this country think about it — right-side up.

    As I was mulling all of that over, I suddenly noticed the omnipresent “eye” of the Elbit Systems tower “staring” at me again. Its superpower cameras were catching the whole scene. Perhaps its radar had detected this group to begin with. After all, the company’s website says, “From the darkest of nights to the thickest of brush, our border solutions help predict, detect, identify, and classify items of interest.” Not people, mind you, but the handcuffed “items of interest” in the back of that truck.

    As I watched the scene unfold, I remembered a moment at that Expo when a man from the Rio Grande Valley asked a panel of Department of Homeland Security officials a rare and pointed question. Gesturing toward the hall where all the companies were hawking their wares, he wondered why, if there was so much money to be made in border security, “would you even want a solution?”

    The long uncomfortable silence that followed told me all I needed to know about the real border crisis in this country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Tuesday’s primary elections in Ohio resulted in Trump-backed candidate J.D. Vance securing the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat left open by Sen. Rob Portman’s decision to retire.

    In a race with four candidates polling in double digits and several minor candidates between them splitting the remaining vote, Vance pulled ahead in the final days. At the end of the day, he ended up with slightly over 340,000 votes, representing 32.2 percent of the total number of GOP primary votes in the state.

    Vance’s emergence as a Trump-world star was a long time coming. In 2016, Vance — the author of Hillbilly Elegy, a best-selling memoir about growing up poor in Kentucky that, among other motifs, trafficked in right-wing themes about “welfare queens” — was widely quoted as lambasting Donald Trump. At that time Vance called Trump “noxious” and “reprehensible,” and cast himself firmly as a “Never Trumper.”

    Four years later, in 2020, Vance had undergone a metamorphosis. He now supported Trump’s reelection efforts, and in a series of groveling U-turns, averred that the MAGA leader was the best president in his lifetime.

    By the time Vance got to running in the Republican primary to become the party’s nominee for the open U.S. Senate seat in Ohio this year, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpite — a believer in every wacky conspiracy theory that Trump pushed about stolen elections, “invasions” of the country by “illegal” immigrants, Chinese plots to take over the world, and so on.

    Trump took note, and in a crowded primary field, he went out on a limb and endorsed Vance, his one-time antagonist — though at a rally shortly before primary day, he mangled Vance’s name, conflating it with that of his protégé’s leading rival. In throwing his considerable political weight behind Vance, the former president, who has spent the past 16 months cultivating a shadow-GOP structure out of his Mar-a-Lago refuge, quite deliberately snubbed candidates like Josh Mandel, who were endorsed by eminently old-school Republican institutions such as the Club for Growth, and who, if their track record counted for anything, had at least as much right to expect Trump’s nod as did the political neophyte Vance.

    Mandel, who has run for the Senate three times now and lost each time, desperately sought to cast himself as more in line with Trumpite values than Vance is, and enlisted the uber-conservative Ted Cruz to campaign with him. Yet it was Vance who received a modest bump in the polls in the days leading up to the election, as a result of receiving Trump’s blessing. And, in a crowded field, that bump was enough to do the trick.

    Over the past week, much ink has been spilled parsing the differences between the many GOP candidates. Are they isolationist or do they believe in international engagement? Are they pro-big business, or are they at least rhetorically in a more populist camp? Are they entirely anti-Chinese, or are they willing to consider engagement and dialogue with Xi’s China?

    It’s true, there are some subtle differences. But the similarities of most of the primary candidates far outweigh these differences. In the Trump era, primary elections are basically now an homage to the personality cult of Trump. Mike Gibbons, who finished fourth in the Senate primary, spent $11 million of his own money trying to channel his inner Trump in a series of TV commercials. Mandel, who finished second, went from being a moderate Ohio state treasurer to being ferociously hard-right and pro-Trump as he wooed his party’s base.

    When candidates do distance themselves from Trump and his foul rhetoric, they tend to fare poorly. In Ohio, the candidate who came in a close third was State Sen. Matt Dolan; as the one high-profile anti-Trumper in the Republican field, who has critiqued Trump’s role in inciting the January 6 insurrection, he managed to consolidate the more moderate GOP vote — and even saw a bump in his support after Trump endorsed Vance. Yet, despite all of that, he came in with well under one quarter of the ballots cast.

    What is more interesting in Ohio is not the various shades of Trump that so many candidates now radiate, but the limits to Trump’s power as a maker-and-breaker of political fortunes. Trumpism as a creed may be dominant in the Republican party, but Trump the individual could well be past the peak of his powers to dictate who that party nominates to be its candidates in marquee political races.

    Yes, J.D. Vance won; but he did so in a field lacking heavyweight contenders, with his leading rival, Josh Mandel, a repeat loser in Senate races. And he did so with less than a third of the vote, meaning that most GOP primary voters weren’t swayed by Trump’s endorsement of Vance. At the end of the day, the number of Ohioans who voted for Vance was 340,000, barely one-eighth the 2.68 million who voted for Trump in 2020. And, while it’s true that far fewer people vote in primaries than in general elections, Vance’s modest numbers are hardly indicative of an unstoppable tidal wave of support.

    The more significant result, in the long run, from Tuesday’s Ohio primary may well be not the Senate race, but the primary for the Republican gubernatorial candidate. And in that race Trump fell flat. Sitting Gov. Mike DeWine, who has consistently refused to go along with Trump’s argument that the 2020 election was somehow stolen from him, and who has, as a result, roused the twice-impeached former president’s ire, ran away with his primary. DeWine won by a whopping 19 percent over a rival who, while not explicitly endorsed by Trump, made clear on the campaign trail that he marched in lockstep with the MAGA movement.

    Trump has demanded that candidates running in primary races throughout the country, in races from local to state to federal, kiss the ring. In J.D. Vance’s case, that humiliating ritual paid off. With DeWine, however, Trump couldn’t find a candidate strong enough to take down the incumbent, and he was forced to sit on the sidelines while a political figure he loathes coasted to an easy victory. Over the coming weeks, there are a number of other high-profile races — not least in Georgia — in which Trump is seeking to use his personal endorsements to hand-pick a slew of political figures, from Senate candidates to governors of swing states. In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp, who has been a particular bogeyman for Trump since the November 2020 election, is far out ahead of the Trump-favored candidate David Perdue. Trumpism as an ideology seems, at least in the short term, to be secure as the lode-star of the modern GOP; it’s far less clear, however, that as the primary season unfolds, Trump-the-individual is as dominant.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • We are living through a moment of great decline in the United States. The U.S.’s turn toward authoritarianism is evidenced by actions of the Trump administration and the GOP; the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol fomented by the big lie that former president Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election; and anti-Black right-wing attacks against voting rights, among many other right-wing machinations. Meanwhile, there is a growing gap between the wealthy and the poor. We are living in an age where the world’s 10 richest men (8 out of 10 of whom are American) have doubled their wealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed the lives of nearly 1 million people in the U.S. alone; increased child poverty, hunger and food insecurity; and driven the highest rate of inflation in 40 years. In the meantime, Elon Musk, who refers to himself as a “free speech absolutist,” has bought Twitter for $44 billion to promote unfettered free speech rights for all. Anthropologist and journalist Sarah Kendzior has framed the moment we are enduring as the “erosion of America.” This erosion, characterized by a restructuring of how industries operate, attacks on democratic institutions, and a widening gap between the wealthy and the destitute also extends to higher education, a sector of society which is a key pillar of democracy.

    The Emergence of the Corporate University

    Bill Readings, a late Université de Montréal professor noted the move towards corporatization of universities in his 1997 study, The University in Ruins. While the 1990s were certainly not the golden age of higher education, there were aspects of them that were palatable compared to the current moment. At that time, tuition was lower and more affordable. Technological incorporation in teaching and internet accessibility had just begun. Google and Wikipedia were nonexistent, and living accommodations for students on college and university campuses were modest. Universities relied on shared governance (faculty participation in the governance of an institution) for decision-making. The rhetoric of excellence, innovation and efficiency in managing universities was beginning to gain traction, but it was not the driving force in decision-making in the neoliberal marketplace of ideas.

    Yet, what has happened in recent years is a shift into what some have called the gilded age, where “the rich schools are getting richer, while the poorer ones are struggling to survive, with increasing numbers of fairly well known schools announcing they are closing or severely retrenching their operations.” In particular, since 2020 (the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic), this gilded age is far more alarming than the situation described by Readings in the 1990s. From unsafe working conditions, to 700,000 (just over 50 percent) of faculty in the U.S. classified as “adjuncts,” to corporate-controlled donors, attacks on tenure, monetization of diversity initiatives, and strategies of restructuring to eliminate low revenue generating programs, corporatization of universities is no longer a theory but a reality.

    Universities, both public and private, have been gradually moving away from their mission-driven models to market-driven models, where profits, branding and revenue-generating streams and programs are prioritized. With skyrocketing costs of education and tuition, fancy dorms, cafeterias, gyms and even a water-themed campus park, university campuses have been investing in fancy infrastructures — increasing their operational costs and pouring money into athletic programs, particularly football and men’s basketball, while lowering their instructional costs.

    Joshua Hunt’s eye-opening book, University of Nike: How Corporate Cash Bought American Higher Education, narrates the relationship that the University of Oregon cultivated with Nike’s founder Phil Knight to transform “a once cash-strapped liberal arts college” into a “college football powerhouse with an increasingly competitive basketball program.” Hunt goes on to say how other universities have followed in the footsteps of the University of Oregon. “In 2016 the University of Michigan announced a $169 million contract with Nike” followed by a month later when “University of Texas at Austin inked a $250 million Nike deal.”

    While corporations like Nike have been actively funding programs that university boards and presidents are welcoming, students are viewed as “tuition dollars” and as consumers. Many faculty and support staff have entered the exploited class who are disposable and easily replaceable. Despite receiving millions in pandemic-related federal relief funds, universities are slashing faculty and staff and blaming the cuts on COVID. Arvind Dilawar in The Nation reported, “In May of 2020, the University of Vermont’s president, Suresh Garimella, issued an update on the school’s finances. Citing the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, Garimella put forth a bleak prognosis of lower enrollment, higher costs, and stagnant tuition rates necessitating reductions in salaries, benefits, and staff.” Unfortunately, what has happened at University of Vermont is a national story, as universities are using the false justification of COVID to push through long-sought budget cuts like cutting retirement benefits, freezing salaries, and cutting support staff and programs.

    Barbara Madeloni, a facilitator with Public Higher Education Workers, a network that supports organizing among university workers, attributes the persistence of cuts to a much longer-term project of transforming higher education into an industry run on contingent faculty (insecure faculty positions like postdocs, teaching assistants, adjuncts and lecturers with little job security) and student debt, rather than a public good funded by taxes. Terminologies of right-sizing, student-centered, restructuring and reimagining are being used to create committees that recommend the elimination of disciplines, programs and majors that no longer serve the market-driven corporate universities that are built on revenue-generating enterprises. Portland State University most recently announced their own “Reimagine PSU” initiative “to provide spaces to create transformational possibilities at a larger scale.” One of the transformational possibilities will require “program reviews and reduction” and multiple programs are slated to be reviewed and possibly reduced or eliminated.

    In the meantime, “administrative bloat” and administrative costs, as witnessed by large salaries paid to university presidents, numerous provosts, deans and coaches, have disproportionately increased. Even when university presidents are found to be most unsuitable due to various malpractices and wrongdoings (and where sacking them would be the most appropriate action), they are given golden parachutes by highly corporatized boards of trustees. Such expensive severance packages are often categorized under “mutual agreements” between the boards and the presidents asked to resign.

    For instance, in 2017, Northern Illinois University (NIU) declared a $35 million funding shortfall. At the same time, former NIU President Douglas Baker was declared by state investigators to have mismanaged the public institution by sidestepping competitive bidding rules to hire consultants who were paid more than $1 million. The Hechinger Reporter noted, “Within two weeks of that report’s release, Baker resigned — and, in a closed-door meeting of the university’s board of trustees, was given $587,500 in severance pay, plus up to $30,000 to cover his legal fees. He’s also due a previously unreported $83,287 for unused vacation time, the university acknowledged. That’s a total of $700,787.”

    Rahmat Shoureshi served as the president of Portland State University for only 21 months after he came under fire for “his treatment of employees and several ethically dubious deals following a 2019 investigation by The Oregonian/OregonLive.” In 2019, The Oregonian’s headline read, “Shoureshi exits Portland State with $855,985 golden parachute; two years of health insurance, even his legal fees.” And then there is Jerry Falwell Jr. who left Liberty University with a $10.5 million dollar golden parachute after years of scandal.

    Of course, the term “golden parachute” did not originate in the higher education sector but in corporations, as a response to hostile takeovers, mergers and acquisitions in the late 1970s. As higher ed has become increasingly corporatized, the concept of the golden parachute has been coopted by university boards that are comprised of wealthy donors, CEO’s and transplants from corporations. These board members have little to no knowledge either about shared governance or the internal workings of the university. These days, and particularly in the era of the #MeToo movement, such golden parachutes are not given due to any hostile takeovers, but to cover up scandals and other financial wrongdoings by university presidents. On February 17, 2022, Chancellor Joseph I. Castro notified the board of trustees of the California State University of his resignation as chancellor over his mishandling of sexual harassment complaints. He too will receive a $401,364 salary for one year and then return to teaching, according to the settlement agreement.

    Under the corporate university the wage gap between those that belong to the top 1 percent and their compensation packages (even after they are no longer affiliated with a university) and those who are seen as “the employees” have grown wider and wider. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) reported the rapid erosion of tenure and shared governance for university professors, and the number of adjunct instructors living below the national line of poverty is at an all-time high.

    Adding to the day-to-day realities of the corporate university is the ongoing attack on labor in higher education. Academic tenure, according to the AAUP, is an indefinite appointment which safeguards academic freedom for scholars in higher education and “allows faculty to pursue research and innovation and draw evidence-based conclusions free from corporate or political pressure.” This feature of academia is one of the targets of the U.S.’s right wing and is consequently being eroded. For the corporate university, tenure is an expensive system. And with right-wing forces declaring that “professors are the enemy,” as J.D. Vance, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio, put it, tenure is under serious threat. According to the AAUP, a recent attack on tenure in South Carolina via the introduction of the South Carolina’s House Bill 4522, the “Canceling Professor Tenure Act,” seeks to “end tenure in the state’s public colleges and universities by prohibiting the awarding of tenure to employees hired in 2023 or later. If passed, this would be the first law of its kind in the nation.”

    Of course, such attacks on tenure are part of a broader pattern of actions in states with Republican-led legislatures. For example, the University of Florida is trying to forbid its faculty from testifying in court cases against the state government. It is also blocking faculty attempts to include racial equity content in curricula under the guise of combating “critical race theory,” the latest bogeyman concocted by the right to chip away at academic freedom and push a conservative agenda in K-12 educational systems nationwide.

    Dangers of the Corporate University

    What are the negative effects of the restructuring of colleges and universities into corporate entities with top-down management models? One downside is the increasing adjunctification (defined as temporary and part-time workers with low pay, little to no benefits and any job security) of academia. In “There Is No Excuse for How Universities Treat Adjuncts,” Caroline Fredrickson noted, “thirty-one percent of part-time faculty are living near or below the federal poverty line.” Increased adjunctification, coupled with attacks on tenure and academic freedom, have only one major goal — accumulating more power and financial capital for the 1 percent of administrators, while depleting the resources, working conditions (as poor working conditions during the pandemic have highlighted) and livelihood of the 99 percent.

    Another downside of the proliferation of corporate university models in higher education is an emphasis on producing STEM majors and less of an emphasis on encouraging majors in the humanities and social sciences. While more scientists, technological advancements, engineers, and mathematicians are certainly needed, what the humanities (fields such as art history, Africana studies, English, foreign languages, religious studies and history) and social sciences (anthropology, sociology and political science) bring to the table are deemphasized in a corporate-influenced educational setting as reflected in cost-cutting measures which tend to sacrifice humanities-related majors. The humanities and social sciences teach students empathy, humility, analytical techniques and critical thinking skills: humanistic qualities that are lacking in current public discourse and in various sectors within American society. Once they graduate, some college students will become leaders at local, state, national and international levels, and while the skills associated with the STEM fields are vitally needed, so are the qualities from the humanities which help people become better citizens and can promote human flourishing.

    Other problematic features of corporate universities include increasing managerial costs and outsourcing as a model of governance, from deploying hiring firms used to hire presidents who are disconnected from faculty to the use of strategic plans created by outside organizations instead of created and driven by faculty, to the use of outside firms to manage enrollments instead of employing institutional staff.

    Challenging the Corporate University

    Challenging the corporate university will require a number of actions: Tenured and tenure-track faculty must join in solidarity with the exploited workers at these institutions (adjuncts, administrative and custodial staff, undergraduate and graduate workers). Solidarity includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    • Participation in one’s union,
    • Encouraging university workers to join organizations like United Campus Workers which organizes faculty, staff and student workers all across the South,
    • Resist some of these changes through a withdrawal of one’s labor. Case in point: Faculty at the University of Chicago were able to create a department of Race, Diaspora and Indigeneity partly through the threat to participate in committee work.

    People inside and outside of academia must raise awareness about the ongoing changes in higher education and continue to pose questions that can lead us to viable solutions to the restructured corporate university. These questions include: What are the challenges, realities, symptoms and failures of corporatized colleges and universities? Who is impacted and how? What should the role of higher education be in forging a democratic society? And how can we move forward toward a more equitable and liberatory era in higher education?

    These and other related ideas will be discussed more in the new Truthout series “Challenging the Corporate University.” We seek timely and well-written essays, op-eds, articles and interviews to expose and explore the various precarious labor and working conditions that the corporate university has produced. We are also interested in pieces which discuss creative ways to challenge corporatized higher education. The essays should be written for a broad audience and minimize the use of jargonized language, and the length of the essays should not be longer than 2,000 words. Please embed hyperlinks to sources seamlessly into the article text instead of including a works cited page. To submit a piece, please send an email with the subject line “Re: The Corporate University” simultaneously to bertinmlouisjr@gmail.com and DuttBallerstadt@gmail.com.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • American indebtedness has never been higher than it is today — and now functioning as the nation’s largest consumer bank, the Department of Education is the clearest culprit of the creditors. Uniquely situated as the lender, regulator and debt collector, the federal government has a $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio. Needlessly extracting wealth from 47 million people, this cloud of debt is systemically preventing communities from the opportunity to buy a home, start a family or save for retirement. But with a simple executive order, Biden can switch the reality of predatory loans that burden families into liberating financial grants that aid them.

    The racial, economic, moral and pedagogical arguments for canceling student debt are clear, convincing and well-researched. Doing so could create millions of jobs, boost average GDP by as much as $108 billion per year for the next 10 years and narrow the racial wealth gap by 40 percent. Full student debt cancellation would be the largest bottom-up economic stimulant in recent U.S. history. Eliminating the country’s largest household debt type (outside of mortgages) will begin to make real the promise of education as a right, not a privilege. But perhaps President Biden should administer full student debt cancellation for a reason even more obvious and straightforward: politics.

    A recent Morning Consult poll found Biden’s extended pause on federal student loan interest and payments is popular, but that the president could “reap rewards” by going even further. According to another poll, nearly half of voters in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would be either “somewhat more likely” or “much more likely” to vote in November if President Biden canceled $10,000 in student loan debt. That likelihood of voting increases by 11 points when asked if all student loan debt should be canceled.

    With Biden’s Build Back Better agenda thwarted by obstructionists and recurring difficulty upholding the key pillars of our democracy, canceling student debt may be one of the few political wins Biden can score heading into a historically tough midterm election.

    If well-executed, canceling all federal student debt would dramatically expand the democratic electorate and deliver Biden one of the greatest political rewards in electoral history. The grim alternative was said plainly by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts): “If we fail to use the months remaining before the elections to deliver on more of our agenda, Democrats are headed toward big losses in the midterms.”

    After a herculean effort won two Senate seats in Georgia and essentially saved Biden’s presidency, the White House would be wise to heed the political advice of organizations like New Georgia Project, which, in a joint letter with my organization, the Debt Collective, declared student debt relief paramount to an electoral strategy in November. They wrote, “broad-based student debt cancellation would provide [Georgia’s] community leaders with the ammunition to confidently engage and grow the electorate in this crucial midterm election year.”

    In a welcome rhetorical shift in his approach to student debt cancellation, Biden says he’s now considering canceling a “substantial” amount of student debt. But Democrats risk snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory by picking and choosing which debtors are worth or unworthy of relief — basing cancellation on income, level of educational attainment or otherwise. For starters, “focusing on household income,” says the Roosevelt Institute, “significantly underestimates the socioeconomic impact on low-wealth borrowers, especially those who are Black and Latinx.” Worse, income cutoffs would simply create additional administrative burdens for the exact borrowers whom a more regressive form of cancellation aims to benefit.

    But along with being administratively impossible to execute, income cutoffs, or a less-than-full amount of cancellation, would be a fundamental political mistake. The success of programs like Social Security and Medicare are precisely because they are universal. As Jubilee Legal attorney Sparky Abraham put it, “If student debt is a good policy, why cancel any? If it’s a bad policy, why leave any?” Abraham is right — Biden should erase all federal student debt for everyone on the grounds that this debt is illegitimate and an unjust poverty tax on disproportionately Black and Brown families.

    Some naysayers have attempted to throw cold water on this issue by chalking up student debt cancellation as a policy that could “alienate” those without student debt. Data and polling say otherwise. Canceling student debt is broadly popular with the majority of voters without a college degree. And 58 percent of voters who do not owe student debt support eliminating some or all student debt as well.

    Ironically, it’s the means-testing approach — not full cancellation — that could possibly alienate people. The White House is considering capping cancellation at the undergraduate level — a presumed attempt not to be seen as bailing out “elites.” But a quick glance at essentially any data set available would reveal this targeted proposal leaves out to dry a group of people who desperately need cancellation: borrowers with high debt-to-income ratios like our nation’s public defenders, social workers, teachers, librarians, nurses and other health care workers.

    It’s not just that any amount of cancellation less than full cancellation is unnecessarily regressive, it’s also just not in line with what voters say they want, and certainly not the voters Biden needs to vote for Democrats in November.

    Biden’s approval among young people recently hit “depths no Democratic president had plumbed in decades,” dipping into the mid-to low-30s. In a new Harvard poll, nearly 9 in 10 young people say they favor government action on student debt, with a plurality favoring full cancellation. And for years now, Black voters of all ages have overwhelmingly supported full student debt cancellation — so much so that 40 percent of Black voters would “consider staying home for the next election” if Biden refuses to take action.

    Will a handful of Republican demagogues be angry that working-class families are finally getting their turn at debt relief? Likely so. But that’s not who Biden needs to mobilize to go to the ballot box this Fall in another attempt to save our democracy from a fascist coup.

    The recent extension of the payment pause — which wouldn’t have happened without pressure from organizations like the Debt Collective — ensures 45 million Americans can keep cash in their pocket rather than handing it over to a predatory debt collector with the title U.S. Department of Education on its door. But it’s not enough to pause a crisis — or solve half of it. If Biden wants to prevent extremists from taking control of the House or the Senate, he has to inspire people — and a wide-scale student debt jubilee might just be his best bet with which to get started.

    The student debt cancellation winds are at Biden’s back. For once, Biden should treat student debtors like the too-big-to-fail bank that we truly are. Cancel all student debt and ease the economic burden for millions. And maybe even brag about it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The current crisis in higher education leadership is on full display at California State University (CSU) — the nation’s largest four-year public university system. Take the case of former CSU Chancellor Joseph Castro.

    Castro’s problems began with an underling — Fresno State’s Vice President of Student Affairs Frank Lamas — who was the subject of ongoing sexual harassment complaints and investigations. In 2018, Castro “enthusiastically” nominated his colleague to become the next president of CSU San Marcos. But later, as complaints about his VP’s behavior avalanched, Castro authorized a $260,000 payout and retirement package for the troubled subordinate. The sweetheart deal included a glowing recommendation letter. That’s golden parachute number one.

    When these actions came to light last winter, Castro was forced to end his brief reign as chief administrative officer at CSU. Despite a rather ignominious departure, Castro received more than $400,000 “to advise” the CSU board of trustees for a year and, even without a glowing letter of recommendation, he retains the right to a high-salaried, tenured faculty position at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Say “hello” to golden parachute number two.

    In what sounds like an episode of “The Real Presidents of Cal State” or a “Game of Thrones” spinoff, within the past month, CSU signed a check for $600,000 to a former provost to quietly settle retaliation and sexual harassment allegations made against the husband of Sonoma State’s president, Judy Sakaki. The claim was settled just weeks before Sakaki and other CSU presidents met with a key state legislator to express their qualms over Castro’s leadership of the system.

    These cases are not exceptions. For top CSU administrators, golden parachutes and insider dealing are the rule. As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, more than $4 million in salary and benefits has been paid out in recent years to former high-level administrators. CSU started its “executive transition” program in 1981; it has since been expanded three times. Castro’s predecessor as CSU chancellor, Tim White, receives $327,000 a year for two years plus a $24,000 car allowance. Executives in the program are typically “transitioned” into well-paying tenure-track faculty jobs. California’s state auditor has noted that these arrangements lack transparency and recommended that CSU do a better job of oversight. One beneficiary of the program recently informed a Los Angeles Times reporter that “she was not required to document her work performed under the program.” As students and faculty at the nation’s largest public university system struggle with a pandemic, skyrocketing costs of living, and major disruptions to teaching and learning, CSU continues to subsidize no-show jobs and secret deals for its managerial elite.

    In its first public meeting since the revelations about the ex-chancellor, the Board of Trustees faced vocal criticism from CSU students, faculty and staff. Proclaiming that they “were kept in the dark” about Castro’s problems, the board announced that the executive transition program will be put on hold until an internal task force reviews the program and issues its recommendations.

    We wish this scandal was just about some bad actors. Instead, it’s time to recognize that the whole mess — self-dealing, secrecy, mismanagement — reflects a systemic failure in higher education.

    For over three decades, the academic job market has boomed only for those at the very top of the pay scale — university and college administrators. In 1993, the CSU system employed a little over 2,000 administrators; by 2018, that number had grown to 4,281. In the short span between 2007 and 2015, the numbers of CSU managers grew by 15 percent while the number of faculty grew by 7 percent. Over a five-year period (2011-2016), the budget for the CSU Chancellor’s Office rose by $10 million. From 2005 to 2018, the average CSU president’s salary — exclusive of housing and car allowances — rose by 38 percent. Meanwhile, the number of tenure and tenure-track faculty has stagnated at around 10,500 professors. The number of underpaid, temporary faculty has exploded to almost 17,000, just about two-thirds of CSU faculty.

    This lopsided growth reflects a tectonic shift in California (and the U.S. more generally) — the ongoing privatization of public higher education as the cost of a bachelor’s degree is shifted from the state to students. In California, the story begins with Ronald Reagan, who spent most of his two terms (1967 to 1975) as governor trying to punish student and faculty activists by imposing tuition at California’s largely free public colleges and universities. By the late ‘70s, these efforts had borne fruit. In 1980, the State of California spent about $11,240 per CSU student; by 2013, that number had dropped to $6,147. (Over just five years — 2007 and 2012 — CSU and University of California lost a combined $2 billion in state aid.) To make ends meet, CSU’s largely working-class students picked up the tab. CSU annual tuition and fees skyrocketed from about $500 in 1979 to $7,300 in 2022. Over just two decades, 1994 to 2014, in-state tuition at CSU tripled even though institutional expenditures barely grew. By one estimate, students paid 1,360 percent more in inflation-adjusted dollars to attend CSU in 2022 than they did in 1972. Today’s student debt crisis is a direct consequence of this history.

    Banks and other lenders reaped the profits from this shift, while public college and university administration responded by mimicking the private sector. Presidents added “CEO” to their titles, while provosts became “chief operating officers” and budget offices were headed by CFOs. More importantly, administrators began to take control of public higher education from faculty and students. Student enrollment in U.S. higher education grew by 78 percent from 1976 to 2018 and full-time faculty kept pace by growing 92 percent, but the number of administrators and executives grew by 164 percent over the same period. Within the CSU system, the number of full-time faculty grew by a measly 3 percent from 1975 to 2008; over the same period, the number of administrators grew by a whopping 221 percent. Over a critical 10-year period (2004-2014) that witnessed catastrophic state budget cuts, California offloaded the costs of higher education onto students and faculty salaries trailed behind inflation, even as management salaries rose 24 percent and CSU president salaries swelled by 36 percent (excluding perks like housing and car allowances). The moral of the story echoes one of neoliberalism’s basic principles: austerity for most, prosperity for a few.

    While some describe this management boom as “administrative bloat,” we believe it points to a more profound problem: the creation and growth of an administrative class within higher education, a special interest group that is profoundly disconnected from the vital heart of the university — teaching and learning, faculty and students. Members of this administrative class move from one position and one campus to another — often quite frequently. Many have brief or limited experience of the classroom. They usually have exclusive control of an institution’s purse strings. They also typically view the university in terms of organizational charts and “chains of command.” And, because they are only accountable to each other, they survive and prosper through patronage and clientelism.

    When a subordinate reported being bullied and harassed by Fresno State’s vice president of student affairs, ex-Chancellor Castro reportedly responded: “Well, I’m in a really tough spot because Frank [the vice president] is babysitting my son this weekend.” It’s difficult to find a statement that better or more richly sums up the dynamics and dysfunction of the administrative class.

    Like any large organization, universities require administration. That’s not the same as saying that universities need an administrative class. To avoid crony managerialism and create more effective administration, universities should instead practice a more democratic and participatory model of leadership. British, German, Japanese, and many other university systems offer one alternative. In these systems, students and faculty (and sometimes staff) play a more central role in decision-making because they elect academic officers — including chancellors, presidents and deans. The university rector is not a professional administrator but instead a member of the faculty who knows the institution well through their career as a teacher and scholar. In many of these systems, the rector enjoys a specific term of office before they return to the faculty. While rectors may appoint managers, their decisions are ultimately subject to the academic community they represent — not to a coterie of like-minded bureaucrats.

    As recent events at CSU demonstrate, higher education leadership is in crisis. The current system — with its sweetheart deals and cronyism — benefits a few at the expense of the many, including students, faculty and the public. Hiring consultants and assembling task forces won’t resolve this crisis. More democracy is the only path to more accountability at California’s public universities and colleges.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Fierro family of Yuma, Arizona, had a string of bad medical luck that started in December 2020.

    That’s when Jesús Fierro Sr. was admitted to the hospital with a serious covid-19 infection. He spent 18 days at Yuma Regional Medical Center, where he lost 60 pounds. He came home weak and dependent on an oxygen tank.

    Then, in June 2021, his wife, Claudia, fainted while waiting for a table at the local Olive Garden. She felt dizzy one minute and was in an ambulance on her way to the same medical center the next. She was told her magnesium levels were low and was sent home within 24 hours.

    The family has health insurance through Jesús Sr.’s job. But it didn’t protect the Fierros from owing thousands of dollars. So, when their son Jesús Fierro Jr. dislocated his shoulder, the Fierros — who hadn’t yet paid the bills for their own care — opted out of U.S. health care and headed south to the U.S.-Mexico border.

    And no other bills came for at least one member of the family.

    The Patients: Jesús Fierro Sr., 48; Claudia Fierro, 51; and Jesús Fierro Jr., 17. The family has Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas health insurance through Jesús Sr.’s employment with NOV Inc., formerly National Oilwell Varco, a multinational oil company.

    Medical Services: For Jesús Sr., 18 days of inpatient care for a severe covid infection. For Claudia, less than 24 hours of emergency care after fainting. For Jesús Jr., a walk-in appointment for a dislocated shoulder.

    Total Bills: Jesús Sr. was charged $3,894.86. The total bill was $107,905.80 for covid treatment. Claudia was charged $3,252.74, including $202.36 for treatment from an out-of-network physician. The total bill was $13,429.50 for less than a day of treatment. Jesús Jr. was charged about $5 (70 pesos) for an outpatient visit that the family paid in cash.

    Service Providers: Yuma Regional Medical Center, a 406-bed, nonprofit hospital in Yuma, Arizona. It’s in the Fierros’ insurance network. And a private doctor’s office in Mexicali, Mexico, which is not.

    What Gives: The Fierros were trapped in a situation that more and more Americans find themselves in: They are what some experts term “functionally uninsured.” They have insurance — in this case, through Jesús Sr.’s job, which pays $72,000 a year. But their health plan is expensive, and they don’t have the liquid savings to pay their “share” of the bill. The Fierros’ plan says their out-of-pocket maximum is $8,500 a year for the family. And in a country where even a short stay in an emergency room is billed at a staggering sum, that means minor encounters with the medical system can take virtually all of the family’s disposable savings, year after year. And that’s why the Fierros opted out.

    According to the terms of the insurance plan, which has a $2,000 family deductible and 20% coinsurance, Jesús Sr. owed $3,894.86 of a total bill of nearly $110,000 for his covid care in late 2020.

    The Fierros are paying off that bill — $140 a month — and still owe more than $2,500. In 2020, most insurers agreed to waive cost-sharing payments for covid-19 treatment after the passage of federal covid relief packages that provided emergency funding to hospitals. But waiving treatment costs was optional under the law. And although Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas has a posted policy saying it would waive cost sharing through the end of 2020, the insurer didn’t do that for Jesús Sr.’s bill. Carrie Kraft, a spokesperson for the insurer, wouldn’t discuss why his covid bill was not waived.

    (More than two years into the pandemic and with vaccines now widely available to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death, most insurers again charge patients their cost sharing.)

    On Jan. 1, 2021, the Fierros’ deductible and out-of-pocket maximum reset. So when Claudia fainted — a fairly common occurrence and rarely indicative of a serious problem — she was sent by ambulance to the emergency room, leaving the Fierros with another bill of more than $3,000. That kind of bill is a huge stress on the average American family; fewer than half of U.S. adults have enough savings to cover a surprise $1,000 expense. In recent polling by KFF, “unexpected medical bills” ranked second among family budget worries, behind gas prices and other transportation costs.

    The new bill for a fainting spell destabilized the Fierros’ household budget. “We thought about taking a second loan on our house,” said Jesús Sr., a Los Angeles native. When he called the hospital to ask for financial assistance, he said, people he spoke with strongly discouraged him from applying. “They told me that I could apply but that it would only lower Claudia’s bill by $100,” he said.

    So when Jesús Jr. dislocated his shoulder boxing with his brother, the family headed south.

    Jesús Sr. asked his son, “Can you bear the pain for an hour?” The teen replied, “Yes.”

    Father and son took the hourlong trip to Mexicali, Mexico, to Dr. Alfredo Acosta’s office.

    The Fierros don’t consider themselves “health tourists.” Jesús Sr. crosses the border into Mexicali every day for his work, and Mexicali is Claudia’s hometown. They’ve been traveling to the neighborhood known as La Chinesca (“Chinatown”) for years to see Acosta, a general practitioner, who treats the asthma of their youngest son, Fernando, 15. Treatment for Jesús Jr.’s dislocated shoulder was the first time they had sought emergency care from the physician. The price was right, and the treatment effective.

    A visit to a U.S. emergency room likely would have involved a facility fee, expensive X-rays, and perhaps an orthopedic specialist’s evaluation — which would have generated thousands of dollars in bills. Acosta adjusted Jesús Jr.’s shoulder so that the bones aligned in the socket and prescribed him ibuprofen for soreness. The family paid cash on the spot.

    Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t endorse traveling to another country for medical care, the Fierros are among millions of Americans each year who do so. Many of them are fleeing expensive care in the U.S., even with health insurance.

    Acosta, who is from the Mexican state of Sinaloa and is a graduate of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa, moved to Mexicali 20 years ago. He witnessed firsthand the growth of the medical tourism industry.

    He sees about 14 patients a day (no appointment necessary), and 30% to 40% of those are from the U.S. He charges $8 for typical visits.

    In Mexicali, a mile from La Chinesca, where the family doctors have their modest offices, are medical facilities that rival those in the United States. The facilities have international certification and are considered expensive, but they are still cheaper than hospitals in the U.S.

    Resolution: Both Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas and Yuma Regional Medical Center declined to discuss the Fierros’ bills with KHN, even though Jesús Sr. and Claudia gave written permission for them to do so.

    In a statement, Yuma Regional Medical Center spokesperson Machele Headington said, “Applying for financial support starts with an application — a service we extended, and still extend, to these patients.”

    In an email, Kraft, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas spokesperson, said: “We understand the frustration our members experience when they receive a bill containing COVID-19 charges that they do not understand, or feel may be inappropriate.”

    The Fierros are planning to apply to the hospital for financial support for their outstanding debts. But Claudia said never again. “I told Jesús, ‘If I faint again, please drive me home,’” rather than calling an ambulance, she said.

    “We pay $1,000 premium monthly for our employment-based insurance,” added Jesús. “We should not have to live with this stress.”

    The Takeaway: Be aware that your deductible “meter” starts over every year and that virtually any emergency care can generate a bill in the thousands of dollars and may leave you owing most of your deductible and out-of-pocket maximum.

    Also be aware that even if you seem not to qualify for financial assistance based on a hospital’s policy, you can apply and explain your circumstances. Because of the high cost of care in the U.S., even many middle-income people qualify. And many hospitals give their finance departments leeway to adjust bills. Some patients discover that if they offer to pay cash on the spot, the bill can be reduced dramatically.

    All nonprofit hospitals have a legal obligation to help patients: They pay no tax in exchange for providing “community benefit.” Make a case for yourself, and ask for a supervisor if you get an initial “no.”

    For elective procedures, patients can follow the Fierros’ example, becoming savvy health care shoppers. Recently, Claudia needed an endoscopy to evaluate an ulcer. The family has been calling different facilities and discovered a $500 difference in the cost of an endoscopy. They will soon drive to a medical center in Central Valley, California, two hours from home, for the procedure.

    The Fierros didn’t even consider going back to their local hospital. “I don’t want to say ‘hello’ and receive a $3,000 bill,” joked Jesús Sr.

    Stephanie O’Neill contributed the audio portrait with this story.

    Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KHN and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!

    KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

    Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Shortly after taking office, Joe Biden sought to cancel the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy (formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP). Under the policy, asylum seekers who leave a third country and travel through Mexico to the U.S. border are forced to stay in Mexico while awaiting a court hearing on their asylum petitions. Many of the tens of thousands who have been compelled to wait in Mexico have become victims of kidnapping, sexual assault and torture as they wait in crude encampments.

    On April 27, Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Homeland Security Committee that under Trump’s Remain in Mexico program, 1,500 people were murdered, tortured, raped or were victims of other serious crimes.

    The Remain in Mexico program is basically a “sham,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!. “Less than 1% of people put into the program who were forced to have their cases heard at the border ever won, ever won their case, compared to 15 to 20% of people inside the United States.”

    But in response to a lawsuit filed by the states of Texas and Missouri, a Trump-appointed federal district court judge issued a nationwide injunction forbidding Biden from ending the Remain in Mexico program. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district judge’s ruling, saying the Biden administration’s initial rationale for ending the program was inadequate. In August, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court refused to suspend the injunction while it reviewed the case.

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Biden v. Texas on April 26. Several members of the court seemed torn about whether the Biden administration could end the program. Some said they doubted that Congress meant to permit the release of large numbers of asylum seekers into the United States. Others expressed skepticism that a federal judge could require the Biden administration to continue the program since it requires the agreement of Mexico and the Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the executive branch.

    U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court that Mayorkas had decided to end the Remain in Mexico program after concluding that its benefits “were outweighed by its domestic, humanitarian, and foreign policy costs.” Prelogar said Mayorkas exercised “his statutory discretion to make a policy judgment.”

    The members of the court tried to reconcile language in three different sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that were enacted at different times. One section says the Department of Homeland Security “shall detain” undocumented people (with some narrow exemptions). Another section states that the Department of Homeland Security “may” return asylum seekers to Mexico or Canada (if they arrived by land) while they wait for the processing of their asylum claim. And a third section provides for parole and bond for asylum seekers on a case-by-case basis who would be temporarily released into the United States for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or if there is a “significant public benefit.”

    Neither Texas nor the Biden administration disputed the fact that no administration has ever complied with the congressional mandate to detain all undocumented immigrants — due to a shortage of beds in detention facilities. As Prelogar told the court, 220,000 migrants were apprehended near the U.S. border in March but there were only 32,000 beds in the detention facilities. “No one disputes that the [Department of Homeland Security] does not have sufficient detention capacity” for all the migrants, she said.

    Some right-wing members of the court appeared to lean against allowing the administration to end the Remain in Mexico program. Clarence Thomas said the “shall detain” provision creates a presumption in favor of detention, meaning that the administration should detain asylum seekers rather than release them on parole or send them to Mexico. Samuel Alito pointed out that the government had argued in another case that “shall be detained” created a mandate for detention. Brett Kavanaugh was skeptical that Congress anticipated that hundreds of thousands of undocumented people would be released into the United States.

    But Kavanaugh asserted that the Department of Homeland Security has determined that permitting noncitizens who are “not too dangerous” into the U.S. to free up detention space for those with criminal records constitutes a significant public benefit. Amy Coney Barrett appeared to echo Kavanaugh’s sentiments. She told Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone that if the administration is correct in saying that the need to prioritize bed spaces in detention centers constitutes a significant public benefit, “you lose, right?”

    Sonia Sotomayor observed that the “shall detain” language had been in effect for more than a century and that no administration had ever “attempted to detain every single illegal immigrant.” She suggested that “we should accept what the practices have been through generations of presidents.”

    Elena Kagan also appeared to favor allowing the administration to end the Remain in Mexico program. She said that requiring the continuation of the program would be “to basically tell the executive how to implement its foreign and immigration policy.” Kagan told Stone, “You’re putting the secretary’s immigration decisions in the hands of Mexico” because the U.S. can only return asylum seekers to Mexico with the cooperation of the Mexican government. “What do you mean it doesn’t require negotiation with the foreign power?” Kagan asked Stone. “What are we supposed to do? Just drive truckloads of people into Mexico and leave them without negotiating with Mexico?”

    Chief Justice John Roberts did not signal how he might vote in this case. But when Stone said that requiring the continuation of the Remain in Mexico program would mean there would be fewer violations of federal immigration law, Roberts retorted, “I think it’s a bit much for Texas to substitute itself for the secretary and say that you may want to terminate this, but you have to keep it because it will reduce to a slight extent your violations of the law.”

    In her rebuttal, Prelogar commented on the “extraordinary nature of the district court’s injunction in this case and particularly with respect to its effects on foreign relations.” To return asylum seekers to Mexico pursuant to the Remain in Mexico program necessitates a “massive cross-border program,” requiring housing, work authorization, protection against predatory gang and cartel violence, and access to lawyers, she noted. “The idea that there is a single district court in Texas that is mandating those results … shows that something has powerfully gone awry here. This is not how our constitutional structure is supposed to operate and this is not the statute that Congress drafted.”

    We will know the court’s decision by the end of June.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.