Category: Op-Ed

  • This May Day 2022, despite the violent backlash against progressives across the U.S., and the war raging in Ukraine, I am choosing to be optimistic. We have much to celebrate this year, including the recent organizing victory of the Amazon workers in New York and the union drives of Starbucks’ workers around the country that succeeded in the face of massive union-busting.

    Class consciousness and heightened struggle is fueled these days in part by the highly publicized and increasingly grotesque concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer greedy hands. Elon Musk, who recently purchased Twitter for $44 billion, has a jaw-dropping net worth of over $264 billion. He makes 40,000 times the income of the average U.S. worker. And his fellow billionaires are not far behind. In the shadows of Musk’s fortune, millions of Americans are hustling to survive. Unemployment is down but underemployment (that is, people making less than they need to live decently) is up.

    May Day is an international working-class holiday celebrated all over the world to commemorate the fight for the 40-hour workweek; but with rising price of food, deepening debt, and the spiraling cost of housing and health care, and other basics, the option to work only 40 hours a week seems like a luxury for many, even as others walk away from suffocating low-paying jobs, choosing to hustle or live on the edge of the economy instead.

    In the current moment, 136 years after Chicago anarchist organizers led the fight for the eight-hour workday, and 82 years after the 40-hour week was implemented, many low-wage workers are in a precarious state, working more than 40 hours at multiple jobs just to make ends meet. At the height of the COVID pandemic, tens of thousands of low-wage workers put their lives on the line providing essential services and conveniences for those who could afford it. They delivered groceries and packages in record volume. They cleaned and sanitized public facilities. They were caregivers, bus drivers and farmworkers. A few got nominal hazard pay, others died because their duties put them in vulnerable situations.

    When the Occupy Wall Street movement was launched in 2011 to protest corporate greed of the richest 1 percent of the population, noted scholar and activist Noam Chomsky, declared it a “response to 30 years of class war,” meaning the neoliberal war on poor and working people.

    Since then, we’ve seen a wave of teachers’ strikes and threats to strike in 2018-2019 and again this year. In 2018 there were prison labor strikes in 17 states, which were organized under the most repressive and difficult circumstances imaginable. Incarcerated workers were paid $2 a day and $1 an hour to risk their lives battling forest fires in California and doing other jobs for below minimum wage. The strikes were a pushback against super-exploitation and prison conditions in general.

    In 2021 we also cheered on fast food workers as they staged walkouts, and were wowed by the savvy courage of young graduate students at public and private universities who refused to teach for poverty wages. Many of these workers are women and people of color.

    Class struggle is back, with an uptick in work actions and refusals to work under sorely adverse conditions for less than a living wage. Class struggle and class consciousness are palpably on the rise.

    This May Day, as we reflect on the past and organize for the future, our vision of organizing has to be connected to our community struggles that transcend the workplace. Working-class uprisings against police violence are a part of the class struggle, because it is Black and Brown working-class and poor people who are the most profoundly impacted. Immigration is a class issue too.

    It is not surprising that May Day for many years was the day the immigrant rights movement in Chicago turned out thousands in an annual march from Union Park to downtown. Fluctuating labor demands of U.S. capitalists has fueled immigration policies and practices since the 19th century.

    And feminist issues are labor issues too. Sexual harassment on the job, gender pay inequities and the double burden of unpaid reproductive labor make May Day a holiday where heteropatriarchy and sexism have to be on the agenda as well.

    And then there is race. Some unfairly juxtapose race versus class as competing focuses for organizing. The bottom line is we have to build anti-racist feminist labor struggles that center around a principled unity on all the issues that impinge upon workers lives, and those don’t stop at the work site. We need an anti-racist feminist labor movement that focuses not just on a single industry or job site but on working-class people overall and the capitalist system that keeps them down.

    In the last decade-plus, we have seen workers take to the streets around a range of issues with an economic nexus, but not strictly tied to the workplace. Millions protested racist police violence. Hundreds of thousands rallied against sexual harassment and abuse. Tens of thousands demanded immigrant justice. Workers’ struggles include labor struggles, but they include other issues too.

    As Audre Lorde once famously said: “We cannot build single issue movements because we do not live single issue lives.” So, just as United Auto Workers supported the civil rights movement, the Longshoremen’s union opposed South African Apartheid. National Nurses United and the Communication Workers of America supported Occupy Wall Street, and many unions, including SEIU, supported Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black Lives. The progressive labor movement looking forward must continue to champion a broad, radically inclusive platform of issues that impact working people’s lives.

    In the U.S., the fight for a 40-hour workweek was launched by workers and organizers in the late 1800s, many of them immigrants, with expansive views of freedom and liberation: anarchists, socialists, pre-Bolshevik communists and nascent feminists.

    Now we are living in difficult times with white nationalism vying for the hearts and minds of white workers, urging them to blame non-white workers, immigrants, feminists and leftists for their woes. A multiracial, anti-racist mass movement that links labor to a larger platform of progressive demands — including but not limited to an electoral strategy — is our best hope for building on the fighting spirit that won a shorter workweek, and at its very best, also envisioned and fought for much more.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Less than 24 hours after news broke that President Biden is seriously considering canceling tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, organizers mobilized.

    Students from the Washington, D.C. area joined advocates from Move On, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and other groups in chants of “cancel student debt” at a rally in front of the White House on April 27.

    An all-star cast of Democratic members of Congress also attended the rally to pressure the Biden administration to take action on student loan debt, which now totals over $1.7 trillion.

    “The U.S. Department of Education currently holds so much student loan debt that it’s now the nation’s largest consumer bank,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). “That’s ridiculous.”

    “At this point you’re not even paying off your loan, you are paying off the interest on that loan,” Tlaib added. “The system is broken.”

    At the start of the pandemic in spring 2020, the Trump administration paused student loan payments. Since then, the pause has been extended six times, allowing debtors to use scarce funds to meet basic needs rather than paying down their debts. Before the pause, monthly student loan payments averaged $460.

    But simply delaying these payments is not enough to address the crisis.

    “We have 45 million people in this country who are shackled with student debt,” said. Rep. Ihan Omar (D-MN). “You have to realize, that’s 45 million people who are putting off the opportunity to start that business they want to start. That is 45 million people who are putting off the family they want to start. That is 45 million people who go to sleep every night, wake up every morning, stressed with the anxiety of having that massive student debt holding them back.”

    “We have sold the idea that education is the great equalizer and in order for them to get ahead, that requires higher education,” Omar added. “But we have not created the opportunity and resources for them to do that.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • I am a worker at the Department of Mental Health in Los Angeles County, and I’m a member of SEIU Local 721. The Los Angeles Department of Mental Health is the largest mental health service in the U.S. Its annual budget is $3 billion. As one of the workers deployed by the county during the pandemic to work with people with severe disabilities at pop-up shelters in recreation centers, I am voting to strike, and it’s important for all other members of my union local to do the same.

    A majority vote of yes for the strike would mean that our union’s bargaining committee can call a strike if the LA County Board of Supervisors refuses to meet union demands in the continuing negotiations. The strike is our most powerful weapon. It’s a refusal to work until our demands are met, insisting that we have the right to protect ourselves, feed our families, be respected, and improve our working conditions to provide a better service to the community. It’s absurd that many of us are working for low-income homeless folks, and we qualify for those same services because our pay is so low.

    During the surge in Covid cases, our working conditions worsened extremely. During homeless outreach meetings, my coworkers weekly described finding dead bodies in tents during their visits to homeless encampments. Because of stress, burnout, and other issues, including intimidation by managers, my coworkers have joined the Great Resignation, leaving in droves. For example, I had 11 other coworkers, and now I am the only person in Service Area 4, which includes Hollywood, Mid City, Koreatown, and Skid Row, an area that has some of the most pervasive poverty in all of Los Angeles. Skid Row alone has one of the largest communities of unhoused people in the country. And I am currently the only one serving this area.

    So many workers have been pushed to our limits. Many of my fellow workers erected a billboard of photos, obituaries, and mementos of those who passed away at LA County USC Hospital. There were at least 40 people on the wall, most of them Black and Brown. Outside our union hall itself is a “Forever Essential Wall of Remembrance.” But the mayor’s idea of honoring our work consists of clapping, lighting candles, and waving our phones and flashlights. But if Black lives “matter” to them, why are they undermining our ability to survive? They are offering a 3.5 percent wage increase while inflation is 8.5 percent! It’s a pay cut. If they respect us as they claim, then why are we workers expected to do the same work with fewer workers? If they respect our union, then why are they trying to hire subcontracted nonunion workers? It’s disrespect! As we workers call for every workplace to be unionized, SEIU should play a leading role in unionizing the unorganized. We will fight this attempt to privatize union jobs.

    Los Angeles is known for its extreme inequality. Luxury buildings and wealthy neighborhoods stand next to massive unhoused encampments. Meanwhile, California as a whole has more billionaires than any other state in the U.S. Politicians from both parties have claimed to support the workers during the pandemic. But their actions show otherwise.

    We, the 55,000 LA County employees, are preparing to strike because our bills are rising astronomically but our wages are stagnant. SEIU 721 members, vote yes!

    We are preparing to strike to fight for union jobs and against the attempts to subcontract public sector jobs with nonunion companies.

    We are preparing to strike to protect our lives in a pandemic that is not over and to protect our own mental health. Skyrocketing workloads put stress on our jobs and lives.

    We are the workers who support folks who are homeless, people with severe mental illness, and those who struggle with substance misuse. We are nurses and social workers. We are on the Frontline. We will continue to work for the folks we assist. We care about our work and clients. But we won’t be martyrs running ourselves into the ground from exhaustion. We won’t allow more people to die because of the exhausting and unsafe working conditions. We won’t allow the LA County Board of Supervisors to use the loss of county workers as a way to undermine our union. Workers and communities need to take charge

    We are voting YES to Strike to stop the intimidation tactics used by management to intimidate workers from exercising their rights. In the first week of the strike vote workers with union shirts were told they could not enter the building they work in. Union representatives, also workers checked them and they went to work. With a YES vote we are building a stronger union to take on any harassment on the job.

    Voting YES will be the first step. With that powerful weapon on our backs we also will discuss as an entire membership the possible tentative agreement. With enough time to ensure freely open debate. When we negotiate and win it will be on the terms of the rank and file. All of us together.

    We are not alone. Workers around the country are stepping up for their rights, striking for the contracts heroically fighting to get unionized, as we have seen with the historic examples of Amazon in Staten Island and Starbucks across the country.

    My fellow SEIU 721 members, it’s time for us to defend ourselves and our communities by voting yes to a strike! This is our moment.

    Reasons to Vote Yes for a Strike

    1. Meager pay raises in the face of inflation.

    The union slogan is “Protect Us, Respect Us, Pay Us,” and the main demand is a pay increase. For all the city’s description of us as “heroes” and talk about the city’s “appreciation” of our work, what is happening at the bargaining table is the complete opposite. The LA County Board of Supervisors initially suggested a 2 percent pay increase, but after our protest, they raised the offer to 3 percent. Meanwhile, national inflation has gone up 8.5 percent, so these offers amount to a pay decrease. The county’s proposal amounts to a heavy pay decrease and is a slap in the face to those who risk our lives every day. We need to fight for raises that not only keep pace with inflation, but raise our salaries beyond that.

    Many of us are frontline workers. We are nurses, social workers, counselors, and homeless-outreach workers. We walk into dangerous and unpredictable situations every day, unarmed and posing no threat to those we serve, unlike the violent and higher-paid LA County sheriffs, who are under federal investigation for their homicidal behavior and “deputy gangs” that kill with impunity, The sheriffs terrorize the very people we try to protect, making our work that much harder. These are the people who murdered Andres Guardardo, but despite the fact that the LA County Sheriff’s Department closed 2021 with a $22.2 million surplus, their budget remains the same. The typical Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Sheriff yearly salary is $92,624, far higher than those of unionized healthcare workers, and salaries for nonunionized workers in our field are even lower.

    We have served the most impoverished communities during the worst pandemic in U.S. history. The bosses are full of thank-yous, but not much else. Our coworkers have died, our clients have died, and we continued to work. Yet they refuse to pay us a living wage.

    2. Dramatic understaffing and continual burnout.

    Many of the people who died during the pandemic were nurses and social workers facing a disaster that disproportionately hurt people of color. Because of that and the overwork, we are understaffed. That means we are doing the work of our coworkers for less money. They need to hire more people, train them, and bring those workers under union contract so all workers can organize for better living conditions and better serve our clients.

    In the 2022–23 budget proposal, LA County is restoring only 500 of the positions that it eliminated in 2020–21. The Los Angeles Times reported that “the plan for 2022–23 … calls for 500 new positions. The county, with a total proposed workforce of 111,551, has 1,500 fewer jobs than in the 2019–20 fiscal year, the last budget adopted before the pandemic. The 2020–21 budget eliminated more than 2,580 positions.”

    3. An end to attempts to privatize.

    Local 721 organized the LA LGBT Center, which became one of the only nonprofits organized in a union. I was active in that strike vote back in the day.

    We must continue in this spirit by organizing the workers in these “independent agencies” and bring them into our own union by bringing these jobs under public oversight, which will also facilitate the unionization of the workers. Our own union knows how important this is. Our union website explains that “on top of sky-high prices for everyday necessities, we’re also facing serious threats from LA County management to privatize our good union jobs.”

    4. Solidarity with the wave of unionization sweeping the U.S.

    When we go on strike, it will be part of a larger struggle being waged by Generation U, which includes the inspiring young people who are fighting for better wages and the right to organize across the country. These workplace struggles are heating up as workers at Amazon, Starbucks, and so many other companies realize that unionizing leads to worker protection and higher wages.

    Those of us in existing unions need to contribute to this struggle by echoing it in our own, and we need to expand our membership to reach the nonunionized. At the same time, we must march with these workers and grow solidarity.

    Now is the time for union workers to take the lead and fight for our rights. When we win our demands it will be a win for all workers. The first step is VOTING YES!

    We Ready! Ready to Fight! Ready to Strike! Ready to Win! See you on the picket line!

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As usual, Pennsylvania in 2022 finds itself playing the role of fulcrum in American politics. A perfectly divided Senate means every national Senate race that is actually in play will get worked over like a speedbag in a Philly boxing gym, and after the retirement announcement of two-term Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania this year make the list.

    The primary for both parties will be held on May 17, and in both parties, there is the sense that this vote will be a place of definitions. For the Democrats, the race is coming down to ideological differences the House majority has come to know all too well.

    Conor Lamb, as a conservative House Democrat, joined with fellow conservative Democrats like his staunch ally, Sen. Joe Manchin, to pull President Biden’s domestic legislative agenda apart. Now a candidate for Toomey’s seat, Lamb is trying to pass himself off as some sort of “moderate progressive” amalgam, going so far as to distance himself from Manchin on the trail. Few are fooled. He is head-and-shoulders the establishment Democrat in the race, whether he likes it or not.

    Meanwhile, actual progressive Lt. Gov. John Fetterman leads Lamb, according to the most recent survey, by a galloping 44 to 23 percent. “It’s a huge Senate race,” Pennsylvania Democratic Party senior advisor Jack Doyle told NBC 10 Philadelphia. “Depending on what happens, it could dictate who controls the Senate. It’s probably the best chance of a pickup for the Democrats.”

    Old salts like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are becoming increasingly noisy about the real possibility that the GOP could blow a huge opportunity here by nominating easily-beaten mayhem candidates like TV medical celebrity Mehmet Oz just because they excel at pumping Trump’s tires. “McConnell is well aware of the GOP’s good fortunes this year,” reports The Atlantic, “and how easily the party could blow it. ‘How could you screw this up?’ the once and perhaps future majority leader mused recently in Kentucky. ‘It’s actually possible. And we’ve had some experience with that in the past.’”

    The Republican side in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of the state of the national GOP. The primaries, as well as the general election in November, are being cast as a bellwether on Trump’s hold over the party. Trump has endorsed Mehmet Oz over a tight field of mostly Trump devotees. It is decisions like this that keep McConnell and the old guard up at night.

    The governor’s office is also up for grabs, and the fight for that nomination has further illuminated the odd place the GOP finds itself. “No matter who wins Pennsylvania’s Republican gubernatorial primary, the candidate will probably be someone who supports essentially outlawing abortion, getting rid of mail voting, dramatically expanding fracking, and slashing regulations on drillers and other industries,” reports PBS. “Former Congressman Lou Barletta, state Sen. Doug Mastriano, former U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain, and businessman Dave White are all essentially battling to prove who can be most conservative and, perhaps more importantly, most like former President Donald Trump.”

    Where, oh where is all this pressure to “be like Trump” coming from?

    * * *

    Roger Stone, the unreconstructed Trump loyalist whose fashion sense could be marketed under “Guilty as Hell,” is seeing some weird shit in the skies above the Biden White House.

    “Stone asserted that a friend had sent him photos showing a ‘satanic portal’ appearing over the White House after President Joe Biden took office,” reports Kyle Mantyla for Right Wing Watch, “and so he reached out to conspiracy theorist and ‘prophet’ Robin Bullock to arrange an appearance on [far-right pro-Trump podcast] ‘Elijah Streams’ so he could share the startling news and photos.”

    “It’s very, very clear,” Stone said of the pumpkin-colored image of nothing (coincidence?). “It doesn’t move, day or night. It’s harder to see during the day, but you see it at night. And I’m absolutely convinced about the inherent evil of what’s going on in the White House, what’s going on in the country.… This is not some practical joke. This isn’t some conspiracy theory. I’m absolutely convinced that this is demonic. It is a satanic portal. It is access to this Earth by those who are evil, and only by closing it will we be successful in saving this nation under God.”

    Most people don’t know it, but they’ve been dealing with Roger Stone in one form or another for the last fifty years. A self-described “dirty trickster,” this latter-day Batman villain has poured his poison into the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump. A long-time Trump ally, Stone was convicted on seven felony counts stemming from the Mueller investigation, but Trump commuted the sentence before incarceration began, ultimately pardoning Stone entirely five months later.

    Now there’s this sudden veer into the realm of Armageddon, and it makes perfect sense.

    Two things to know about Roger Stone: 1. He is abnormally ruthless and knows no bottom to shame; 2. He is a creature of the real Republican Party … not the stodgy suits in the Senate or the Fox News TV stars they cater to, but the black bag in the back of the trunk filled with “tools.” Men like Roger Stone are prima facie evidence that the bare-knuckle tactics of the John Birch Society are alive and well in the actual mainstream of Republican ideology.

    Generally speaking, when you know their names, it means they’re doing it wrong. They’re like the weird fish who swim the deep and only see the light of day when dragged to the surface by an anchor. Stone is the exception that proves the rule; he did run, and was the face of, one of the most muscular lobbying firms in Washington D.C. He has “panache,” God help us, and loves the camera … yet he is a blooded member of the GOP “Deep State,” right alongside people like Matt Schlapp.

    Who? Exactly. Question: Do you believe the 2000 election had a direct impact on your life? If so, tip your cap to Mr. Schlapp, who broke into big-time GOP politics by organizing and acting as the on-site leader of the so-called “Brooks Brothers Riot” in Miami. That brazen act of election disruption brought the Florida recount to a halt, ultimately resulting in the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision, which I’d say, yeah, has had an impact over the last 22 years on virtually every living thing on the planet. Dig it, Matt: At this moment, I’m writing about you because of you. Beat that with a stick.

    Schlapp got anchored up into the light of the news last week when his name came up in a giant CNN document dump regarding the January 6, 2001 insurrection at the Capitol. The network got hold of and then published more than 2,000 text messages to and from former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, spanning from the weeks before the assault to the attack itself, and for days afterward.

    A text from Schlapp to Meadows on Election Day 2021 jumped out of the tranche: “Pls get 4 or 5 killers in remaining counts. Need outsiders who will torch the place.” The language is the kind of hypermasculine tough-guy posturing Roger Stone revels in, and why not? Stone takes personal credit for and towering pride in also authoring the Brooks Brothers Riot, which changed the world forever.

    Stone was also eyebrows-deep in the doings before and on 1/6, which changed the world forever, and here is his old Miami pal Schlapp calling the chief of staff on Election Day with instant reaction instructions. Calls like that are like mice: if you see one, be sure there are more. Did I mention Schlapp is also a high-powered lobbyist, just like Stone? I sense a pattern, and a hell of a long association in the shadows of their shared midnight sea.

    * * *

    State Sen. Doug Mastriano is currently the frontrunner for the Pennsylvania GOP’s gubernatorial nomination, and he is playing with fire. “When candidates for public office indulge in conspiracy theories like QAnon, it’s often with a wink and a nod,” reports The Philadelphia Inquirer. “But just weeks before Pennsylvania’s May 17 primary election, such ideas are being promoted in plain sight. And high-profile Republican candidates for statewide office are treating talk of a global satanic blood cult’ like regular campaigning.”

    Mastriano, for his part, looked over the lay of the political landscape and jumped right in. Last week, he attended a far-right Christian conference called “Patriots Arise for God and Country” in Gettysburg. Not long into the program, and as if to define its purpose for all assembled, this happened:

    About 25 minutes into the two-day conference, organizers played a video claiming the world is experiencing a “great awakening” that will expose “ritual child sacrifice” and a “global satanic blood cult.”

    Followers of QAnon believe a global cabal of Democrats and elites are trafficking children for sex and engaged in other demonic activity — but that all of this will soon be exposed. Images associated with the conspiracy theory were on display during the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack.

    The video showed Friday featured a kind of greatest hits of conspiracy theories that have circulated for decades. It showed images of the Twin Towers collapsing on 9/11 — with the label “false flags.” It claimed John F. Kennedy was assassinated because he “knew too much” and posed a “high risk of cabal exposure,” that vaccines amount to “genocide therapy,” and that Hitler faked his death. It offered other conspiracy theories about the atomic bomb, the Spanish flu, 5G, the 2008 financial crisis — and, of course, the 2020 election.

    But, the video said, it is “game over” for the darkness, and thousands will be jailed and executed. It showed images of a guillotine.

    That sounds familiar. You don’t have to believe, but when you hear it, you know you’re listening to an ally. Major GOP candidates like Doug Mastriano are listening, and showing up to join the show. Other high-profile Pennsylvania candidates who made the scene at the “Patriots Arise for God and Country” hootenanny included lieutenant governor candidate Teddy Daniels; Maryland gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox; Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington; and former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis.

    * * *

    A year after the 1/6 insurrection, and what? “I’m absolutely convinced that this is demonic,” Stone railed on the ‘Elijah Streams’ broadcast. “It is a satanic portal. It is access to this Earth by those who are evil, and only by closing it will we be successful in saving this nation under God.”

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Mr. Stone does not believe one word of that. Doug Mastriano might, but Stone? Never.

    Remember: He is bereft of shame, and a creature of the real GOP… and nowadays, thanks to Trump’s ongoing revolution, strange noises like the ones he’s making have basically occupied the party’s rhetorical driver’s seat. In most Republican regions of this country, in core fortresses like central Pennsylvania and Ohio, such talk is the coin of the realm — again, you may not believe it, but when you hear it, you know you’re listening to an ally. These are the people Mitch McConnell and the old-line Republicans fear most, and for good reason.

    Stone thinks this is how it’s going to be for the party from now on and is getting in on the ground floor, as he did in 1972 by seeding the campaigns of various Democratic presidential candidates with Nixon spies.

    Stone is possessed of the kind of cunning that has kept him from turning up in the trunk of a car with a dozen bullets in his head; his instincts, though venomous, have served him well … and now this Bible-blaring pivot. It sounds absurd until you stop and take a good look around at places like Pennsylvania, and the races being run there.

    It’s getting really weird out there, and the races in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have been sucked into this bizarre wake. While Democrats argue over whether they want to nominate another Manchin clone, Republicans wonder which candidate will bring Hillary Clinton to justice for peddling children out the back of pizza places in Benghazi and Hollywood.

    Roger Stone may be ahead of the curve on the party he has served for the term of his life, but he’s right where the action is. As the primaries approach, that action promises to get even wilder. Playing the God Card hard is the next “logical” step, and Stone is no fool. For him and his allies, it’s time to pluck another pigeon.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As the investigations into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol ramp up, it’s becoming increasingly clear that right-wing QAnon adherent Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was a leading advocate of declaring martial law after Donald Trump’s election defeat. Earlier this week, Judge Charles Beaudrot pondered whether to recommend to the Georgia secretary of state that she be prevented from running for her seat again, under a post-Civil War law designed to stop insurrectionists from holding public office. Meanwhile, the House investigative committee revealed that Greene had texted Trump’s then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows inquiring about martial law.

    Whether that technically meets the definition of “insurrection,” I’ll leave to the lawyers and constitutional scholars. And whether Greene’s preposterous statement that she couldn’t remember whether she asked about martial law stands up in court, as well as all the other instances of memory failure that she claims to have relating to that day of infamy, I’ll also leave to the experts. What is evident, however, is that Greene now has a long and incriminating paper trail for putting herself on the morally wrong side of a host of issues and sinking deep into a morass of outrageous conspiracy theories. And not just when it comes to siding with a would-be dictator unwilling to concede electoral defeat and his mob willing to shed blood to keep their man in power.

    She is, after all, the person who suggested space lasers were responsible for California’s spate of devastating wildfires and who all but accused Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of assassinating their political enemies, including, in Clinton’s case, John Kennedy Jr.

    But, as with Trump, the message that Greene puts out is at least as dangerous as it is absurd. In her willingness to embrace any and every conspiracy theory so long as it jazzes up her base, she’s fine-tuning the craft of demagoguery, launching a freewheeling assault on the concept of truth. And in her endless entanglement with political violence, she’s throwing cans of gasoline on an already raging political fire.
    Earlier this year, Greene, her colleague Rep. Paul Gosar, and a number of prominent state politicians, spoke at an avowedly white nationalist event hosted by the America First Political Action Committee.

    Greene is also alleged to have used her Facebook page in 2018 and 2019 to advocate killing senior Democrats.

    The list of Congresswoman Greene’s absurdities and obscenities is a long one, and the case that she ought not to be anywhere near the halls of power is, in my mind, pretty watertight.

    But the question is, should the courts make that decision, or should the people who sent her to Congress in the first place?

    I fear a trap is being set here. Because Greene has pushed violence against the very political institution that she is a part of, it’s at least possible that Judge Beaudrot will end up deciding she isn’t fit to be in Congress. But, if he makes such a recommendation, then what?

    The voters in rural northwest Georgia who sent Greene to Washington, D.C. in 2020 aren’t going to be any less prone to support her if a judge seeks to banish her from Congress. Instead, they’re likely to view it as yet more evidence that the fix is in, that the supposedly all-powerful “Deep State” has tentacles capable of plucking from power anyone who steps outside the closely monitored boundaries of acceptable political discourse. After all, in 2020, as an unapologetic QAnoner, she won her race by more than 225,000 votes — despite, or maybe because of, the vast national attention generated around her toxic presence on the campaign trail.

    Trump has been using the Greene case to rally his supporters. So, too, gubernatorial hopeful David Perdue has been tweeting out his support for the congresswoman. There is a real risk here that Greene, one of the weirdest and most demagogic of the U.S.’s copious crop of demagogic 21st-century personalities, will be made an icon of the right through this case.

    Earlier this year, the boundaries of Greene’s district were redrawn to include historically Black parts of Cobb County that are more politically liberal than the rest of the district. That doesn’t mean the district is about to flip anytime soon. It was, and remains, an overwhelmingly Republican district — one that voted for Trump by a margin of over 50 points in 2020. But it does provide a window into how a long-term strategy against figures such as Greene might work: her opponents may be able to gradually chip away at her support base among conservatives, and, at the same time, start to build as broad and as big a reform coalition as possible in the parts of the districts where progressive change might take root.

    That’s hardly a satisfying short-term solution to the dangers posed by political figures such as Greene. But it might, paradoxically, yield a better result for progressives than the alternative of barring her from seeking reelection. For if Judge Beaudrot prevents Greene from running in 2022, it’s entirely possible that a majority of voters in her district, which is one of the most radical-right-leaning in the country, could turn around and either write her in as a candidate, or elect someone else cut out of the same cloth.

    That hundreds of thousands of Georgians supported Greene in 2020 is truly terrifying. That they still support her today, and will continue to support her no matter what the court decides, is also terrifying. That tens of millions support Trump and his vicious attacks on the democracy’s infrastructure is a nightmare. This nihilistic, irrational and violent movement truly must be deconstructed — but to really carry water, that takedown must come from a populace that is empowered and educated on the dangers of demagoguery, rather than from the courts. That’s a vastly difficult undertaking — and time is not on the side of the anti-demagogues these days — but it’s an essential one if the U.S. system of democracy is to survive the forces that have pushed to the fore, and continue to elevate, political figures such as Greene.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • I always believed that when it ended, or came as close to “ending” as science and petulant politics could manage, there would be a shared moment of great rejoicing joined in somber reflection of all that had been lost.

    There would have to be one, yeah? After almost a thousand days of COVID, a thousand days of choking death and stifled fear, of refrigerator trucks stuffed with bodies and nurses wearing garbage bags to save their own lives, even the folly of “leaders” and the vandalism of followers has not smothered our need to embrace an ending to this thing, a place where we who are still here can say, “Here we are.”

    Instead, wedged between Russia cutting off Poland and Bulgaria’s gas supply and Elon Musk’s new toy, was the announcement: The United States is finally “out of the full-blown explosive pandemic phase” that has led to nearly 1 million deaths from COVID-19 over more than two grinding years. So spoke Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, on Wednesday. “We’re really in a transitional phase, from a deceleration of the numbers into hopefully a more controlled phase and endemicity.’”

    Not long after, CNN carried President Biden’s eulogy for Secretary of State Madeline Albright. His tone was somber, the assembled dressed in black. Each wore a matching black face mask because the vice president, Kamala Harris, along with a slew of other administration officials, contracted COVID after the Gridiron Dinner.

    There is talk the president will miss the White House Correspondents’ Dinner because of this. The last president to skip the Correspondents’ Dinner was Donald Trump, who dodged the night because he hates being made fun of. Funny, that: Had Trump skipped the Dinner in 2011, when President Obama turned him inside out like a Rottweiler with a rag doll over Trump’s “birther” obsession, we might not even be here.

    One more quick bit of` trivia: Who was the last White House chief medical adviser to back out of the Correspondents’ Dinner? Answer: Anthony Fauci, who bailed out of the event on Tuesday night before telling everyone we’re entering a “controlled phase” the following morning.

    During that Wednesday morning interview, Fauci was at pains to clarify his assessment. “The world is still in a pandemic,” he said. “There’s no doubt about that. Don’t anybody get any misinterpretation of that. We are still experiencing a pandemic.”

    A few minutes later, Fauci said, “Right now we’re at a low enough level that I believe that we’re transitioning into endemicity.… We’re not in the full-blown explosive pandemic phase. That does not mean that the pandemic is over. A pandemic means widespread infection throughout the world.… In our country we’re transitioning into more of a controlled endemicity.”

    Anthony Fauci has been a target of a vicious right-wing hate campaign ever since Trump made the plague a political thing and then murderously botched the task of addressing it. Fauci’s rare missteps have been magnified and often distorted, and there’s even an outlandishly, dangerously bizarre theory out there arguing Fauci himself caused the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. Some guy in a basement come up with that? Actually, Tucker Carlson, prime time Fox News host, came up with one version last summer. There are others.

    I have always been in the Fauci corner, in science’s corner, vaxxed and boosted as soon as I became eligible. From the day this began, I put my faith in science to find a way through this, as science has done so many times before, and that faith has thus far been rewarded. Science has done the best it can, which is pretty damned good, under almost incomprehensible conditions.

    There is, to me, an air of Archibald Cox around Mr. Fauci. Both were exactly what was needed in the moment, they served with honor, and with the exception of the furious few, they were trusted by millions.

    I still trust Anthony Fauci, but I’ll never listen to him the same way again after today. I can’t abide what he said, and I remain astonished he said it. We are no longer in a full-blown pandemic, though it is still a pandemic around the world? His last two lines — “A pandemic means widespread infection throughout the world.… In our country we’re transitioning into more of a controlled endemicity” — leave me in despair.

    If anyone should ask exactly why this country flew apart at the seams when the first round of COVID came snarling through, you can chalk it up, at least in part, to the grumpy, grabby, sullen, surly sort of “exceptional” American individualism much of the nation and a fair portion of its politics appear to have embraced. For every region or city where safety and community held tight, there were three where even wearing Band-Aid-level technology like a mask was hedging heresy.

    Fauci, in his remarks, held the United States separate from the rest of the world. For a man of science who has seen all of this through, such fragmenting is both perilous and appalling. What makes COVID so dangerous now are the variants and subvariants. All of them have come from somewhere else, on the far side of those fictions we call borders.

    The longer we fail to grasp this elemental fact, the longer this pandemic will drag out, happy pronouncements to the contrary.

    If there is a hint of COVID remaining on the last outcropping of Tierra del Fuego, that is our problem, too. It will try to get here, it is very good at that, because that is its nature. It hasn’t changed once since this all began. It got meaner by degrees, but the mission statement didn’t so much as twitch. We, on the other hand, did everything we could to welcome it, short of basting ourselves in the oven like a Thanksgiving turkey.

    “A dramatic drop in testing for Covid-19,” reports the Guardian, “has left the world blind to the virus’s continuing rampage and its potentially dangerous mutations, the head of the World Health Organization has warned. ‘As many countries reduce testing, WHO is receiving less and less information about transmission and sequencing,’ he said. ‘This makes us increasingly blind to patterns of transmission and evolution. When it comes to a deadly virus, ignorance is not bliss.’”

    This isn’t over, because this is about the world and our place in it. There is still a pandemic raging in that world. Anthony Fauci told me so.

    When the river hits flood level and it’s all hands to the banks, there is no declaration of victory if the waters slightly recede. You take a breather, get some rest, and then get back to packing the sandbags. Why? The last rise came, and the next one will come, because the rain has not stopped.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In 1986, moms on welfare in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, joined together and named themselves Welfare Warriors. Their goal was to fight for respect and improved benefits for families on welfare. The group planned to win changes in welfare to make it similar to the only U.S. guaranteed income for single mothers, Social Security Survivor’s Benefits. And they planned to educate the U.S. to understand that welfare is simply a form of child support to which all children are legally entitled — including children of single parents, children whose caregivers are unemployed, and more.

    To win respect and pay for caregivers, Welfare Warriors worked with groups in the U.S. and London to promote recognition for the unpaid work of all mothers, especially single moms. They invented the word “motherwork” to remind everyone, including mothers themselves, that caring for a family is work. Allies in Canada, Ireland and Northern Ireland adopted the word.

    As Milwaukee moms organized with activists in Europe, they were astonished to learn that children in every European Union country receive an allowance from birth until they are adults. Then they heard from Canadian allies that the U.S.’s northern neighbor also provides a check from birth to adulthood for every child.

    These child allowances have no strings attached, and no work or income requirements. They are not poverty programs. There is no prejudice associated with them. Nor are politicians tempted to eliminate them during times of austerity because every family, rich and poor, receives them.

    After learning about child allowances, the moms designed a mural for their Mothers Organizing Center. Facing a main street in Milwaukee, the mural says, “Motherwork IS Work” and “Fight for Guaranteed Income for all Children.” Both pedestrians and bus riders have stopped to ask about the message and steps for getting involved.

    Welfare Mothers Under Attack

    Despite Welfare Warriors’ committed struggle, they were unable to win welfare pay similar to widow’s pensions. By 1990, moms on welfare faced escalating attacks from politicians and media. Then the Clinton administration, along with bipartisan support from Congress, swooped down on victims of poverty in 1996, requiring moms on welfare to work yet one more unpaid job — this time unpaid work out of the home.

    Clinton’s Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children welfare program with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This program denies moms the right to go to a two- or four-year college and the right to stay home with babies. It imposes a lifetime time limit of two to five years, depending on the state. All states may pay any amount for their welfare grant, with only five states paying at 40 to 60 percent of the poverty line. All other states pay between 11 to 39 percent of the poverty line. But worst of all, PRWORA requires mothers to work off their tiny welfare check (an average of $390 a month) at 30 hours unpaid work each week — or 20 hours unpaid work and 10 hours of job searching.

    Within TANF’s first year, Welfare Warriors protested at 26 Milwaukee companies that had become unpaid welfare work sites. For example, the group visited the CEO of Milwaukee’s Head Start program, Deborah Blanks. She explained that her agency had 94 moms working in Head Start offices for no pay (and no Social Security credits) 20 hours a week for as long as they receive a welfare check. She told us she did not make the law. She suggested that the moms should contact the federal government if they objected to, what the moms call, “the New Millennium Slavery.”

    Imagine the destructive impact on the U.S. workforce with millions of unpaid motherworkers forced to work for free since 1997. The 13th Amendment forbids “slavery [or] involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.” But Congress makes an exception for parents on welfare.

    New Millennium Becomes the Age for Unwaged Caregivers

    In 1999, Welfare Warriors organized the 2000 International Women’s Day event with moms in Ireland, London, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Margaretta D’Arcy, an activist, writer and filmmaker in Galway, Ireland, proposed that the action announce the new millennium as the age for unwaged caregivers. She said feminists fight for equal pay for women, and socialists fight for living wages. But not since Selma James’s International Wages for Housework campaign in 1972 has any movement addressed the unwaged workers.

    Welfare Warriors Mothers Organizing Center unveils mural in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on August 24, 2007, to promote pay for motherwork.

    Philly’s Global Women’s Strike proposed a great slogan for the campaign: “Invest in Caring, Not Killing,” since most U.S. funds are spent on warfare. Welfare Warriors added some lyrics to a song written by the Raging Grannies in Canada, called, “Women of the World Let Us Throw Off Our Chains,” (to the tune of “Put Your Arms Around Me Baby, Hold Me Tight.”):

    Women of the world let us throw off our chains
    Let us have a taste of economic gains
    OH, OH, March 8 we will strike
    With all women we’ll unite

    We want motherwork made a priority
    Funds for caring, not for killing globally
    OH, OH, motherwork for pay
    Invest in caring everyday

    Celebrate the mothers who are in your life
    Momma, sister, granny, auntie, daughter, wife
    OH, OH, join with the moms — strike for peace and pay today

    That 2000 International Women’s Day event was a powerful launching of the worldwide fight for pay for caregivers.

    Meanwhile, an Arab group, Sawt el-Amel: Laborers Voice, in Nazareth, Israel, began to organize in 1999 to stop the 30-hour unpaid welfare program, which had spread from the U.S. to Israel. Arab families were the targets in this plan, which was modeled after the U.S. TANF disaster. This program became known as the Wisconsin Plan.

    Welfare Warriors and Nazareth activists organized joint protests in both Nazareth and Milwaukee against this scandalous unpaid work program.

    A black and white portrait of a smiling woman
    Flora, a member of Global Women’s Strike in London, participates in the International Women’s Conference on Caring, Survival, and Justice vs. the Tyranny of the Market.

    In 2005, after six years of protests, lobbying and lawsuits, Sawt el-Amel succeeded in closing down Israel’s version of the cruel Wisconsin Plan.

    But, in the U.S., moms must still work off a tiny welfare check doing 20 to 30 hours of unpaid work in this unconstitutional attack on poor families.

    In 2007, activist caregivers celebrated another victory. Venezuela was the first country to pay homemakers. Under Hugo Chávez’s “missions,” about 20 million poor people — from elders to mothers to students to babies — benefited from assistance. The government recognized women’s work in the home as a valuable economic activity. Under Article 88 of the Venezuelan constitution, the government paid 200,000 women 80 percent of the minimum wage, with plans to reach half a million homemakers. The pay for each caregiver is $180 a month.Then, in 2015, the Global Women’s Strike in London, with Selma James, organized an International Women’s Conference on Caring, Survival, and Justice vs. the Tyranny of the Market.

    Portrait of a bespectacled woman with braids in her hair.
    Galway Activist Margaretta D’Arcy proposes that the new millennium become the age for unwaged caregivers.

    Mothers from around the world spoke of their inspiring actions to win pay for caregivers. India was the most successful.

    In 2021, every candidate for Kerala’s state parliament promised all homemakers in Kerala a monthly salary. And the Indian Supreme Court joined in the battle for wages for caregivers. The court stated:

    The sheer amount of time and effort dedicated to household work by women is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities they undertake. They cook for the entire family, shop, clean, care for children and the elderly. They fetch water and firewood. In rural homes, women often do sowing, harvesting, planting, and tending cattle. The idea that homemakers do not “work” and do not add economic value to the household must be overcome…. Fixing a national income for homemakers … is a step towards the constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity of life to all individuals.

    After the election in Kerala, the victorious party followed through on their promise to provide motherworkers salaries. Unfortunately, members of parliament are currently trying to turn the homemakers’ salary into a poverty program for poor caregivers only.

    The U.S. capitalist economic system remains far behind so many other countries. But we can celebrate the victories of other caregivers and use them as examples of the real possibility of winning pay for unwaged motherworkers.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Once the smoke had cleared from the January 6 Trump-inspired insurrection at the Capitol Building, the question of the hour became, “Who was in on it?” A review of more than 2,300 text messages obtained by CNN from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows leaves one asking, “Who wasn’t?”

    As the mayhem unfolded on 1/6, the texts to and from these Trump loyalists begin to sound like they were all pretending to watch an adult film for the first time: “Golly, I didn’t think it would end like that!” Ersatz innocence in the digital age. It is altogether laughable and terrifying in equal measure.

    The list of text correspondents who contacted or were contacted by Meadows in the days before, during and after the attack includes Donald Trump Jr., Mick Mulvaney, Sean Hannity, Reince Priebus, Hope Hicks, Ivanka Trump, Mark Schlapp, Jason Miller, Jared Kushner, Bill Stepien, Dan Scavino, Rick Perry, Brad Raffensperger, Ginni Thomas, Bernie Kerik, Katrina Pierson, Mike Lindell, Kelli Ward, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Mo Brooks, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Scott Perry, Rep. Brian Babin, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, Rep. William Timmons, Rep. Andrew Clyde and Sen. Ted Cruz.

    The tone of looming menace in many of the pre-riot messages is hard to miss. One text sent on 11/4 by Mark Schlapp, who made his bones by organizing the “Brooks Brother’s Riot” in Florida during the 2000 recount, sounds as if he was all ready to leap back into that role: “Pls get 4 or 5 killers in remaining counts. Need outsiders who will torch the place.”

    Trump senior adviser Jason Miller on 11/13: “Emailed you Dominion backgrounder. Lots there re: functionality problems, not much there on Dem/Soros conspiracy connections.”

    Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, on 11/22: “Trying to understand the Sidney Powell distancing….”

    Mike “Pillow Guy” Lindell on 12/20: “Everything Sidney has said is true! We have to get the machines and everything we already have proves the President won by millions of votes! I have read and not validated yet that you and others talked him out of seizing them…. If true … I pray it is part of a bigger plan…”

    Rep. Scott Perry on 12/26: “Mark, you should call Jeff [Clark]. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won’t work especially with the FBI. They will view it as as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done.”

    Trump campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson on 1/2/2021: “Good afternoon, would you mind giving me a call re: this Jan 6th event. Things have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction. Please”

    Rep. Jim Jordan on 1/5/2021, the day before the riot: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.

    And then the shit hit the fan.

    Mick Mulvaney, 1/6: “Mark: he needs to stop this, now. Can I do anything to help?”

    Rep. Barry Loudermilk, 1/6: “It’s really bad up here on the hill.”

    Rep. William Timmons, 1/6: “The president needs to stop this ASAP”

    Donald Trump Jr., 1/6: “He’s got to condem this shit. Asap. The captiol police tweet is not enough. This his one you go to the mattresses on. They will try to fuck his entire legacy on this if it gets worse.”

    Reince Priebus, 1/6: “TELL THEM TO GO HOME !!!”

    Because these people are what they are, the instinct to fight back even if their only weapon is a rubber wrench is a defining attribute. Beginning with Jason Miller and then followed up by Greene and Gohmert, the closing hours of 1/6 saw the formulation of the laughable “It was Antifa!” pushback plan right there in Meadows’s text feed:

    Miller: “Call me crazy, but ideas for two tweets from POTUS: 1) Bad apples, likely ANTIFA or other crazed leftists, infiltrated today’s peaceful protest over the fraudulent vote count. Violence is never acceptable! MAGA supporters embrace our police and the rule of law and should leave the Capitol now! 2) The fake news media who encouraged this summer’s violent and radical riots are now trying to blame peaceful and innocent MAGA supporters for violent actions.”

    Greene: “Mark we don’t think these attackers are our people. We think they are Antifa. Dressed like Trump supporters.”

    Gohmert: “Cap Police told me last night they’d been warned that today there’d be a lot of Antifa dressed in red Trump shirts & hats & would likely get violent. Good that Trump denounces violence but could add & well demand justice for those who became violent & well get to the bottom of what group they’re with.”

    Few messages within the Meadows tranche are more disturbing than one from Greene, dated 1/17/21: “In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law. I don’t know on those things. I just wanted you to tell him. They stole this election. We all know. They will destroy our country next. Please tell him to declassify as much as possible so we can go after Biden and anyone else!”

    The term, for the record, is “martial law.” It means the military takes over the country under the command of the president, who would be Trump for the next three days.

    Of course, you cannot have such grim darkness without a tiny dollop of humor. On 1/19, Sean Hannity texted Meadows a Twitter video link of Mitch McConnell denouncing the 1/6 attack: “The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.”

    Hannity’s one-line commentary: “Well this is as bad as this can get.”

    No, Sean, “as bad as this can get” will arrive when this calamity graduates to public hearings in Congress, hopefully over a long hot summer.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Madogaz Musa Abdullah still remembers the phone call. But what came next was a blur. He drove for hours, deep into the Libyan desert, speeding toward the border with Algeria. His mind buckled, his thoughts reeled, and more than three years later, he’s still not certain how he made that six-hour journey.

    The call was about his younger brother, Nasser, who, as he told me, was more than a sibling to him. He was also a close friend. Nasser was polite and caring. He loved music, sang, and played the guitar. Jimi Hendrix, Carlos Santana, and Bob Marley were his favorites.

    Abdullah finally found Nasser near the village of Al Awaynat. Or, rather, he found all that remained of him. Nasser and 10 others from their village of Ubari had been riding in three SUVs that were now burnt-out hunks of metal. The 11 men had been incinerated. Abdullah knew one of those charred corpses was his brother, but he was at a loss to identify which one.

    If these bodies had recently been found strewn about in the village of Staryi Bykiv, in the streets of Bucha, outside a train station in Kramatorsk, or elsewhere in Ukraine where Russian forces have regularly killed civilians, the images would have been splashed across the Internet, earning worldwide attention and prompting fierce — and justified — outrage. Instead, the day after the attack, November 29, 2018, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) issued a press release that was met with almost universal silence.

    “In coordination with the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), U.S. Africa Command conducted a precision airstrike near Al Awaynat, Libya, November 29, 2018, killing eleven (11) al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) terrorists and destroying three (3) vehicles,” it read. “At this time, we assess no civilians were injured or killed in this strike.” Photos of the aftermath of the attack, posted on Twitter that same day, have been retweeted less than 30 times in the last three and a half years.

    Ever since then, Abdullah and his Tuareg community in Ubari have been insisting to anyone who would listen that Nasser and the others riding in those vehicles were civilians. And not just civilians, but GNA veterans who had fought terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and even, alongside the United States two years earlier, the Islamic State in the city of Sirte. For more than three years now, despite public protests and pleas to the Libyan government for an impartial investigation, the inhabitants of Ubari have been ignored. “Before the strike, we trusted AFRICOM. We believed that they worked for the Libyan people,” Abdullah told me. “Now, they have no credibility. Now, we know that they kill innocent people.”

    Hellfire in Libya

    Earlier this month, Abdullah, along with a spokesperson for his ethnic Tuareg community and representatives of three nongovernmental organizations — the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Italy’s Rete Italiana Pace e Disarmo, and Reprieve, a human rights advocacy group — filed a criminal complaint against Colonel Gianluca Chiriatti, the former Italian commander at the U.S. air base in Sigonella, Italy, from which that American drone took off. They were seeking accountability for his role in the killing of Nasser and those other 10 men. The complainants requested that the public prosecutor’s office in Siracusa, where the base is located, prosecute Colonel Chiriatti and other Italian officials involved in that air strike for the crime of murder.

    “The drone attack of 29 November 2018 where 11 innocent people lost their lives in Libya is part of the broader U.S. program of extrajudicial killings. This program is based on a notion of pre-emptive self-defense that does not meet the canons of international law, as the use of lethal attacks of this nature is only legitimate where the state is acting to defend itself against an imminent threat to life. In this circumstance, the victims posed no threat,” reads the criminal complaint. “In light of this premise, the drone attack on Al Awaynat on 29 November 2018 stands in frontal contrast to the discipline, Italian and international, regarding the use of lethal force in the context of law enforcement operations.”

    For the last two decades, the United States has been conducting an undeclared war across much of the globe, employing proxy forces from Africa to Asia, deploying commandos from the Philippines to the West African nation of Burkina Faso, and conducting air strikes not only in Libya, but in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. Over those years, the U.S. military has taken pains to normalize the use of drone warfare outside established war zones while relying on allies around the world (as at that Italian base in Siracusa) to help conduct its global war.

    “Clearly, a drone operation employing lethal force is not routine,” said Chantal Meloni, legal advisor at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. “While AFRICOM is directly responsible, the Italian commander must have known about and approved the operation and can therefore be criminally responsible as an accomplice for having allowed the unlawful lethal attack.”

    That November 2018 drone attack in Libya was anything but a one-off strike. During just six months in 2011, alone, U.S. MQ-1 Predator drones flying from Sigonella conducted 241 air strikes in Libya during Operation Unified Protector — the NATO air campaign against then-Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi — according to retired Lt. Col. Gary Peppers, the former commander of the 324th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron. The unit was responsible, he told The Intercept in 2018, for “over 20 percent of the total of all Hellfire [missiles] expended in the 14 years of the system’s deployment.”

    The U.S. air war in Libya accelerated in 2016 with Operation Odyssey Lightning. That summer, the Libyan Government of National Accord requested American help in dislodging Islamic State fighters from Sirte. The Obama administration designated the city an “area of active hostilities,” loosening guidelines designed to prevent civilian casualties. Between August and December of that year, according to an AFRICOM press release, the U.S. carried out in Sirte alone “495 precision airstrikes against Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices, heavy guns, tanks, command and control centers, and fighting positions.”

    The Shores of Tripoli

    Those military strikes were nothing new. The United States has been conducting attacks in Libya since before there even was a Libya — and almost a United States. In his first address to Congress in 1801, President Thomas Jefferson spoke of coastal kingdoms in North Africa, including the “least considerable of the Barbary States,” Tripoli (now, the capital of modern Libya). His refusal to pay additional tribute to the rulers of those kingdoms in order to stop their state-sponsored privateers from seizing American sailors and cargo kicked off the Barbary Wars. In 1804, Lieutenant Stephen Decatur led a daring nighttime mission, boarding a captured U.S. ship, killing its Tripolitan defenders, and destroying it. And an attack the next year by nine Marines and a host of allied mercenaries on the North African city of Derna ensured that “the shores of Tripoli” would have prime placement in the Marine Corps hymn.

    Libya has also been a long-time proving ground for new forms of air war. In November 1911 — 107 years to the month before that drone attack killed Nasser Musa Abdullah — Italian Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti conducted the world’s first modern airstrike. “Today I have decided to try to throw bombs from the aeroplane,” he wrote in a letter to his father, while deployed in Libya to fight forces loyal to the Ottoman Empire. “I take the bomb with my right hand, pull off the security tag and throw the bomb out, avoiding the wing.”

    Gavotti not only pioneered the idea of launching air raids on troops far from the traditional front lines of a war, but also the targeting of civilian infrastructure when he bombed an oasis that served as a social and economic center. As Thomas Hippler put it in his book Governing from the Skies, Gavotti introduced aerial attacks on “hybrid target[s]” that “indifferently mingled civilian and military objectives.”

    More than a century later, in 2016, Operation Odyssey Lightning again made Libya ground zero for the testing of new air-war concepts — in this case, urban combat involving multiple drones working in combination with local troops and U.S. Special Operations forces. As one of the drone pilots involved was quoted as saying in an Air Force news release: “Some of the tactics were created and some of the persistent attack capabilities that hadn’t been used widely before were developed because of this operation.”

    According to Colonel Case Cunningham, commander of the 432nd Expeditionary Wing at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada — the headquarters of the Air Force’s drone operations — about 70% of the MQ-9 Reaper drone strikes conducted during Odyssey Lightning were close-air-support missions backing up local Libyan forces engaged in street-to-street combat. The drones, he reported, often worked in tandem with one another, as well as with Marine Corps attack helicopters and jets, helping guide the airstrikes of those conventional aircraft.

    “The Deaths of Thousands of Civilians”

    Despite hundreds of attacks in support of the Libyan Government of National Accord, the employment of U.S. proxies in counterterrorism missions, combat by American commandos, and more than $850 million in U.S. assistance since 2011, Libya remains one of the most fragile states on earth. Earlier this year, President Biden renewed its “national emergency” status (first invoked by President Barack Obama in 2011). “Civil conflict in Libya will continue until Libyans resolve their political divisions and foreign military intervention ends,” wrote Biden, failing to mention the U.S. “foreign military intervention” there, including that November 2018 airstrike. “The situation in Libya continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

    In early 2021, the Biden administration imposed limits on drone strikes and commando raids outside of conventional war zones, while launching a review of all such missions, and began writing a new “playbook” to govern counterterrorism operations. More than a year later, the results, or lack thereof, have yet to be made public. In January, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin directed subordinates to draw up a “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Plan” within 90 days. That, too, has yet to be released.

    Until the Defense Department overhauls its airstrike policies, civilians will continue to die in attacks. “The U.S. military has a systemic targeting problem that will continue to cost civilians their lives,” said Marc Garlasco, formerly the Pentagon’s chief of high-value targeting — in charge, that is, of the effort to kill Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in 2003 — and now, the military adviser for PAX, a Dutch civilian protection organization. “Civilian deaths are not discrete events; they are symptoms of larger problems such as a lack of proper investigations, a faulty collateral-damage estimation methodology, overreliance on intelligence without considering open-source data, and a policy that does not recognize the presumption of civilian status.”

    Such “larger problems” have been revealed again and again. Last March, for example, the Yemen-based group Mwatana for Human Rights released a report examining 12 U.S. attacks in Yemen, 10 of them airstrikes, between January 2017 and January 2019. Its researchers found that at least 38 Yemeni noncombatants had been killed and seven others injured in those attacks.

    A June 2021 Pentagon report on civilian casualties did acknowledge one of those incidents, the death of a civilian in al-Bayda, Yemen, on January 22, 2019. Mwatana’s investigation determined that the attack killed Saleh Ahmed Mohamed al Qaisi, a 67-year-old farmer who locals said had no terrorist affiliations. The U.S. had previously acknowledged four to 12 civilian deaths in a raid by Navy SEALs on January 29, 2017, also chronicled by Mwatana (though it reported a higher death toll). As for the remaining allegations, Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told Mwatana in an April 2021 letter that it was “confident that each airstrike hit its intended Al Qaeda targets and nothing else.”

    Rigorous investigative reporting by the New York Times on the last U.S. drone strike of the Afghan War in August 2021 forced an admission from the Pentagon. What General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had originally deemed a “righteous strike” had actually killed 10 civilians, seven of them children. A subsequent Times investigation revealed that a 2019 U.S. airstrike in Baghuz, Syria, had killed up to 64 noncombatants, a toll previously obscured through a multilayered cover-up. The Times followed that up with an investigation of 1,300 reports of civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, demonstrating, wrote reporter Azmat Khan, that the American air war in those countries was “marked by deeply flawed intelligence, rushed and often imprecise targeting, and the deaths of thousands of civilians, many of them children, a sharp contrast to the American government’s image of war waged by all-seeing drones and precision bombs.”

    Since the Sirte campaign ended in late 2016, U.S. attacks in Libya have slowed considerably. AFRICOM conducted seven declared airstrikes there in 2017, six in 2018, four in 2019, and none since. But the U.S. military has made little effort to reevaluate past strikes and the civilian casualties they caused, including the November 2018 attack that killed Nasser Musa Abdullah. “U.S. Africa Command followed the civilian casualty assessment process in place at the time and determined that the reports were unsubstantiated,” said AFRICOM spokesperson Kelly Cahalan. Despite the criminal complaint filed on April 1st, the command is not reexamining the case. “There is nothing new or different regarding the Nov 30, 2018 airstrike,” Cahalan told me by email.

    Africa Command has clearly moved on, but Abdullah can’t. Memories of his brother and those charred bodies are irrevocably lodged in his mind but get caught in his throat. “I was in shock,” he told me when discussing the phone call that preceeded his dash across the desert. “I’m so sorry, but I can’t explain in words what I felt.”

    Abdullah was similarly stuck when he attempted to describe the grisly scene that greeted him hours later. He was eloquent in speaking about the justice he seeks and how being branded a “terrorist” robbed his brother and their community of dignity. But of his final memory of Nasser, there is simply nothing that can be said, not by him anyway. “What I saw was so terrible,” he told me, his voice rising, ragged and loaded with pain. “I can’t even describe it.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Even as the far right has consolidated its power, rallying sizable numbers to attack fundamental civil and human rights, it’s nevertheless noticeable how, in mainstream popular culture, certain norms of representation have shifted dramatically over the last four decades. It’s striking that when scanning the commercials on an average TV network in 2022, no matter what is being sold — cars, jeans, breakfast cereals, vacations, those ready-made dinner boxes, booze, pet food — the actors in the ads of late are often people of color, and sometimes include queer couples. It isn’t every ad, but it’s a hell of a lot of them, and it speaks to some larger shifts in mainstream culture.

    The fact that mixed race and LGBTQ couples and families are highly represented in TV ads does not mean that some sort of righteous plateau has been reached by American culture. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and every other person of color murdered by the police remain dead. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia and ableism remain deeply ingrained within large swaths of the populace, as American as apple pie and the Ford Motor Company. A multiracial family peddling Cheerios has barely made a dent in the underlying systemic crisis.

    Yet the fact that some capitalist enterprises have had to make a show of being multiracial and LGBTQ-inclusive represents a long-term nightmare for right-wing culture warriors. See, the companies running these ads are not boldly forging ahead into a just and progressive future with such endeavors. They are chasing the money, and likely spent eleventy zillion dollars on experts and panel tests to determine one simple thing: Do we make more than we lose by running with these images? The prevalence of BIPOC and/or LGBTQ actors in these ads makes it clear that it is safe and lucrative in the U.S. to do just that.

    There’s nothing heroic about it. Advertisers generally follow the same morally bleak formula car companies do when deciding to issue a recall: Are lawsuits over crashes caused by this faulty part more expensive than the recall? If the recall is more expensive, they don’t do it, because they actually save money getting sued. This kind of thinking is how the word “business” became a slur in the mouths of millions: First, it’s all about the money. After that, it’s all about the money. In the end, yep, the money.

    Yet even this cynical view is cold comfort to the right-wing culture warriors, for they correctly see that trends become fixed in cement over a long enough span. Their long-smoldering racist nightmare of being “replaced” crashes headlong into their deep-seated confirmation bias every time one of these ads appears on their screen.

    This is why these people have taken to attacking large multinational corporations who have dared to hint that Black lives matter (generally, to turn a buck).

    I’m so old, I remember when conservatives were the defenders of big business. Now? Some of these same corporations have to pass some right-bent purity test, lest the dogs start barking in the yard.

    Enter Florida, where nothing strange ever happens. Chris Walker of Truthout explained the ground upon which the latest culture clash has erupted back in March:

    The Parental Rights in Education bill, which LGBTQ activists and allies have dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, passed in the Florida Senate by a vote of 22 to 17. Two Republican senators crossed the aisle to join all Democratic lawmakers in the chamber in voting against the legislation.

    If the bill is signed into law, it would ban discussion on LGBTQ topics in primary school classrooms, and place strict limits on what can be taught or discussed in high schools. It would also allow parents to sue school districts if information about their children is withheld, or if instruction on LGBTQ topics is not “age-appropriate.”

    Disney Corporation, after some hemming and hawing, came out loudly against the bill when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law, pledging among other things to cease donations to Republicans who support it. Florida’s congressional Republicans rose in high dudgeon, flashed a whole new bill meant to punish Disney through the legislative process, and slapped it on Gov. Ron DeSantis’s desk for final signature. Among other things, the anti-Disney bill ends that corporation’s decades-old virtual autonomy in Florida, and puts local residents on the hook for billions in taxes that would otherwise have been covered by the company.

    The culture warriors are not pulling their punches, either. The most bizarre and dangerous line of anti-Disney rhetoric casts the company as a giant corporate pedophile ring seeking to “groom” children for their inevitable sexual exploitation. It is no coincidence that this rhetoric matches the equally bombastic nonsense peddled by adherents of QAnon, the online conspiracy cohort that accuses pedophiles of running both the Democratic Party and Hollywood. This is not a bug; it’s a feature — the platform the GOP intends to run on in 2022.

    The complications surrounding this strange squabble are legion. Has DeSantis violated Disney’s First Amendment rights with this punitive attack? Does a First Amendment defense further buttress the legal fiction of corporate personhood? Will the courts uphold this legislation? Did DeSantis and the Florida GOP pass this bill from the grandstands, full in the knowledge that it will not survive legal challenge, and thus sparing DeSantis from having to explain why he just dropped more than a billion dollars in new taxes on a couple of his counties? Is there any concern about levying vicious attacks against a giant institution beloved by millions, with its own megaphone that is approximately the size of Jupiter?

    More ominously, is this now the new normal for the GOP? “Other members of that New Right movement recently told me they envision a ramped-up use of the state to impose a post-liberal moral order, justified by hyperbolic visions of the supposedly hegemonic power of the left over our institutions,” writes Greg Sargent for The Washington Post. “Meanwhile, GOP elected officials seem to be moving this way. Congressional Republicans have vowed retaliation against companies for opposing Georgia’s voter suppression bill and for cooperating with the congressional investigation into Trump’s coup attempt. And DeSantis is a front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.”

    The possibility of blowback against DeSantis and his crew is also very real. There’s a South Park episode DeSantis should have watched before putting ink to the anti-Disney bill, which he did on Saturday afternoon. In the episode, beloved cartoon character Mickey Mouse is revealed as a ruthless and violent tyrant who beats the boy-band Jonas Brothers bloody for refusing to wear “purity rings” onstage. When his will is ultimately thwarted in the end, Mickey swells to the size of a blimp and takes flight, raining fire and destruction down on people fleeing for their lives below.

    After DeSantis signed the bill, I wondered if he would meet the same version of Mickey Mouse that ran over the Jonas Brothers on South Park. Disney Corporation is no small wheel in Florida, the largest single-place employer in the U.S. at 80,000 workers, and the crown jewel of Florida’s vital multi-billion-dollar tourist industry. Companies like that don’t need to leave the building to destroy a governor who gets out of line, much less transform into a Cthulhu-like engine of destruction. A few phone calls usually do the trick.

    However, the right wing is its own giant institution in this country. And as the last several years have told us, ruthless and violent tyrants aren’t always thwarted in the end.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • If someone doesn’t know what questions to ask, they’ll never get answer. If they don’t know whom to ask, the challenge is even greater. But an even worse error is to decide on an answer before even asking the question — and then refusing to hear any answers that don’t confirm what they’ve already decided.

    America’s political class, especially the pundits and commentators, are guilty of all of these errors (and many more) as they continue to willfully not understand the Age of Trump and how America arrived at this democracy crisis. The Republican-fascist movement is winning because so many people who are supposed to know better continue to view simple questions as puzzling and mysterious, and continue to ignore the obvious answers.

    Many such voices among the high priesthood of the church of the savvy and the other professional smart people have concluded that the Republican Party is in the midst of a “civil war” or is in “disarray” in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s presidency. That’s not true: The Republican Party is “evolving” just as other fascist and authoritarian movements have historically done, largely by purging those who disagree with the Great Leader and his vision.

    Many of the same voices also announce that Trump’s hold on the Republican-fascist Party and movement is weakening because of diminished attendance at his rallies, or because of rumors and “revelations” about internal resistance surrounding Trump’s coup plot of Jan. 6, 2021. Those are significant details and facts, but they do not override the basic reality that Trump continues to be the leader of the Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement. He received millions more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016, and until he decides otherwise he is the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee.

    Republican voters and right-leaning independents continue to view Trump and what he represents as the identity and brand name of today’s Republican Party and “conservative” movement. Moreover, the 2024 election is more than two years away and traditional barometers of Trump’s popularity cannot be seen as reliably predictive.

    But those questions pale compared to the grandest misreading of all: the claim that Trump and Trumpism led the Republican Party astray from its core values, and by doing so “sabotaged” it. Reality is quite different: Trump and his neofascist right-wing populist movement set modern-day Republican leaders and voters free to embrace their antisocial, anti-human, anti-democratic, reactionary, racist, sexist, plutocratic, theocratic, conspiracist, anti-intellectual and anti-rational values and beliefs. Trumpism was not suddenly born ex nihilo in 2015; it has been at least 30 years in the making.

    Ultimately, what America’s political class, the punditry and most of the mainstream news media refuse to understand is that Donald Trump is simultaneously a man, a symbol, and a cult-leader who embodies a form of freedom — specifically, the freedom to indulge in the worst aspects of human behavior and then to wallow in the chaos and pain and suffering that result. Like other forms of fascism, Trumpism is exhilarating for followers and believers; it gives their lives purpose, meaning and a sense of community, largely by inflicting pain for those designated as its enemies.

    In a recent column at Salon, longtime White House reporter Brian Karem summarizes Trump’s hold over his followers and their devotion to him:

    Trump has played it close to the vest as he has traveled across the country to a variety of rallies, pitching baubles and trinkets to dazzle and amaze those of simple minds and limited funds. Buy a hat. Buy a shirt. Buy an ornament. Buy an autographed picture. Buy anything Trump is selling — probably up to and including autographed underwear.

    Millions continue to support him by buying his cheap and tawdry knickknacks. It makes me wonder what these homes look like. “Come in. clean your feet on the Trump doormat, hang up your coat on the Trump coat rack. Have a seat and a complimentary beverage out of our Trump lemonade pitcher, poured lovingly into a Trump autographed mug.”

    Meanwhile, you can take a look at a phone video shot by Donald Trump Jr. inviting you to visit a “top secret” rally with his father — and, gosh, even get a chance to meet Dad! What the hell is a top secret rally? Isn’t that what the KKK used to do?

    The following observation is no doubt a challenging concept for those still wedded to “normal politics” and other obsolescent ways of thinking: “Donald Trump” is of immense symbolic importance, but Donald Trump the human being barely even matters. As I detailed in an earlier essay for Salon, “Donald Trump is no longer a mere person. Indeed, to some extent the human being behind the Trump persona has become irrelevant.” In other words, Trump is integral to the American neofascist project — but he is also disposable and can be replaced as the situation demands.

    If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For too many people in America’s political class and the news media, especially, the only lens available to interpret politics is through horserace-style coverage, centrism bias, outmoded notions of balance and fairness, questions about who has “coattails” and is piling up “endorsements,” and of course the results of public opinion polls and focus groups. To acknowledge that these habits and tools no longer have the explanatory power they once did (not very long ago) would be an enormous psychological leap, approaching epistemic collapse.

    Here are three examples of how strongly Donald Trump’s power endures, whatever the hope-peddlers, professional centrists and others among the commentariat would like us to believe:

    1. The Republican Party announced last week that it will no longer participate in the 2024 presidential debates hosted by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

    Debates serve an important function in a democracy and as such have played a key role in many elections. They are especially important for helping low information, independent and relatively apolitical voters decide whom to support. Beyond that, participation in a debate signals a commitment to democratic norms and institutions. Debates also reaffirm a shared belief in the principle that truth exists outside of partisanship and ideology.

    Fascists and other authoritarians reject such consensus values. By rejecting the presidential debates, and replacing them with some type of right-wing propaganda theater, the Republican Party is choosing to protect Donald Trump (or his successors) from public scrutiny. Paul Waldman of the Washington Post offered this context:

    The Republican Party has just offered us a glimpse of the hell they’re going to put us all through in 2024. What might appear to be a petty argument about the conditions under which general election debates will or won’t be held is actually much more…. But it’s also a sign that the Republican strategy will again feature chaotic, Trumpian whining that is meant to delegitimize the entire presidential campaign process from start to finish, culminating in an attempt to take back the White House by theft if the voters don’t vote the “right” way.

    Let’s remember that while Trump performed well in the 2016 primary debates when he was on stage with a collection of empty suits, he did poorly in every one of his debates with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. By the fall of 2024, he’ll be 78 years old; the idea that he’ll be more disciplined and focused than he was in the past is far-fetched. Everything Americans dislike about him would be on vivid display in a debate, before the largest audience the candidates will have.

    If Republicans announce now, two-and-a-half years in advance, that they’re refusing to participate in the debates, it could save them a last-minute act of cowardice. But the more important reason they’re doing this is to reinforce the idea that every institution and practice associated with the presidential campaign must be considered corrupt and biased against Trump and therefore illegitimate, whether it’s the news media, the debates, maybe even the weather — and especially the vote counting.

    2. Republicans are enthusiastically doing the bidding of Donald Trump and his fascist project.

    We see this through growing support for the Jan. 6 coup attempt and the Capitol attack, the escalating assault on democracy and voting rights, the moral panic around “critical race theory”; anti-LGBTQ bigotry and related conspiracy theories, the campaign to roll back reproductive rights and freedoms, the assault on free speech and other fundamental civil and human rights, the war on reason and critical thinking, the Big Lie, and the support (covert or otherwise) for right-wing authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán.

    This is not a story of “top-down” politics, or elites otherwise imposing their values on a public. Republican voters overwhelmingly support these policies and the values they embody. Donald Trump is a gifted political entrepreneur; he understood that many tens of millions of Americans yearn for fascism or some other form of authoritarian rule.

    3. To this point, Republican leaders and candidates are still in thrall to Trump. They must prostrate themselves before him and seek his blessing as a pathway to power.

    In a recent article for the New York Times, Shane Goldmacher details how Trump continues to rule the Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement from his Mar-a-Lago retreat:

    For 15 months, a parade of supplicants — senators, governors, congressional leaders and Republican strivers of all stripes — have made the trek to pledge their loyalty and pitch their candidacies. Some have hired Mr. Trump’s advisers, hoping to gain an edge in seeking his endorsement. Some have bought ads that ran only on Fox News in South Florida. Some bear gifts; others dish dirt. Almost everyone parrots his lie that the 2020 election was stolen.

    Working from a large wooden desk reminiscent of the one he used in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump has transformed Mar-a-Lago’s old bridal suite into a shadow G.O.P. headquarters, amassing more than $120 million — a war chest more than double that of the Republican National Committee itself. …

    And while other past presidents have ceded the political stage, Mr. Trump has done the opposite, aggressively pursuing an agenda of vengeance against Republicans who have wronged him, endorsing more than 140 candidates nationwide and turning the 2022 primaries into a stress test of his continued sway. …

    “Party leaders have never played the role that Trump is playing,” said Roger Stone, an on-and-off adviser to Mr. Trump since the 1980s who has been spotted at Mar-a-Lago of late. “Because he can — and he’s not bound by the conventional rules of politics.”

    Goldmacher raises the question of whether Trump’s “big public profile” will be “a potent turnoff for swing voters” in the fall election, which remains to be seen. But in Republican primaries, “few serious candidates are openly breaking” with him. Former Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn says Trump’s conquest of the party “has been so complete … that even the RINOs are attempting to talk MAGA.”

    “Few see an expiration date” on Trump’s dominance of the Republican Party, Goldmacher concludes, “until and unless he declines to run again in 2024 or is defeated.” GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has reportedly told Trump, “We need you.”

    Is that a portrait of a fascist leader whose power is in decline? With a war chest estimated at $120 million and a right-wing disinformation media machine largely at his command, at this moment Donald Trump is the Republican Party. The fact that some members of the political and media classes read Goldmacher’s story as announcing the end of the Trump era only reflects the biased and distorted view of reality that led America to this ugly situation in the first place.

    According to traditional Christian theology, the devil’s greatest trick was to convince the people of the world that he does not exist. Trump is perhaps only a lesser demon. But do not be fooled by the claim that he is no longer a threat. If America’s political elites fall for that trick, it will likely mean the end of the country’s democracy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Amazon Labor Union (ALU) victory on Staten Island has transformed the terrain of the U.S. labor movement and has inspired millions of workers. On Monday, a second unionization vote will begin at another Amazon warehouse of 1,500 workers just across the street, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. If successful, this second victory at warehouse LDJ5 would further consolidate the power of the ALU and prove that their first win was not a fluke. A second successful unionization vote would also confirm the importance of the ALU’s grassroots organizing model and hasten what seems like an already inevitable wave of organizing efforts at other Amazon warehouses across the country. In response, Amazon is taking every opportunity it can to lie, cheat, and intimidate workers in order to undermine the unionization effort and to overturn the first vote. Working people and unions everywhere must come out in full support of the ALU’s ongoing unionization efforts on Staten Island and beyond.

    Like Cogs in a Machine

    Amazon, which raked in record profits last year, has built its entire business model on the exploitation of an underpaid, overworked, and highly precarious workforce. The starting pay for most full-time warehouse workers is less than $30,000 a year and the turnover rate, as The New York Times reported in June, is 150 percent, meaning that the vast majority of workers never make it past the first year of employment. This is because the company treats its workers like cogs in a machine, monitoring and measuring their every move in order to provide cheap and fast delivery of its products around the world. And it is this exploitative business model that makes Amazon so incredibly hostile to any organizing efforts that might threaten its profits, or its ability to totally control every minute of their employees’ work life. The company has spent millions of dollars to defeat unionization efforts in its warehouses, including filing more than 25 objections to the original vote at the JFK8 warehouse.

    As Labor Notes reported earlier this month, Amazon is using a host of dirty and illegal tactics to convince the employees at the LDJ5 warehouse to reject the union. Managers and company representatives have pitted workers against one another by using racist and sexist language to defame union organizers. They have repeatedly torn down union banners and illegally destroyed union literature in the warehouse break areas. And they have continued to force employees to attend mandatory anti-union meetings where they have smeared the ALU, questioned the union’s ability to manage a budget or negotiate a contract, and lied to workers, claiming that a union could actually lead to lower wages and fewer benefits. While these meetings are, for now, still technically legal, it is illegal to threaten workers with lower wages if they vote for a union.

    The company has also brought in high-cost undercover consultants to pose as workers in order to convince employees to vote no on the union. These independent contractors are reportedly being paid in excess of $3,000 a day to dissuade workers from voting yes, even as the company continues to pay its frontline warehouse workers less than a living wage. Indeed, just one of these consultants could cover the wages of more than 25 workers at LDJ5. And perhaps worst of all, the company is harassing and attempting to intimidate workers who support the union efforts. At least one employee, a member of the ALU, was reprimanded and written up for “soliciting” her fellow employees about the union while on the clock. This kind of harassment and intimidation is clearly illegal. As the NLRB explains: “your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about the union during working time if it permits you to talk about other non-work-related matters.”

    While Amazon and other corporations like it have largely been successful in staving off such organizing efforts in the past — the defeat of the RWDSU’s attempts to organize the Bessemer warehouse is perhaps the most salient recent example — the ALU managed to break that pattern. This is in large part because of the ALU’s bottom-up organizing model. For example, at the JFK8 warehouse, workers did not sit idly by while management told them they should vote no. Instead, they used those mandatory captive audience meetings to speak up and organize other workers to vote yes, because they knew their fellow workers had their backs. But ultimately the success of these tactics, which are hardly new or original, is about much more than strategy — it’s about politics.

    “Generation U”

    While it’s tempting for labor activists to focus exclusively on the strategy behind the ALU’s victory, that’s only a part of the story. This struggle is taking place within the broader context of the ongoing political, economic, and social crises of capitalism that have galvanized the working class since the great recession. Many of the workers at Amazon are part of what is now being called “Generation U,” for “Union.” They have spent their entire adult lives living and working under a political and economic regime of austerity and economic precarity that has radicalized them and increased their willingness to organize. Likewise, the rank-and-file activists among the more than 9,500 mostly Black, Brown, and immigrant workers at the two warehouses on Staten Island represent a new generation of worker-organizers. Forged in the crucible of the pandemic and the Black Lives Matter uprisings of 2020, these workers have taken that spirit of rebellion into their workplaces, making connections between the exploitation they experience on the job and the oppression they face in the streets. As Chris Smalls told Jacobin in July:

    We already knew that there was racism in the company. Just look at the smear campaign that they wanted to wage against me last year, calling me “not smart or articulate.” This is why I have to continue to fight. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, they’re not going to do it for us. They’re not going to stand in solidarity with the black community. We’re going to have to expose all of these things and hold them accountable. That’s what we’re trying to do as well as unionizing these facilities.

    Thanks in part to the multitude of crises set off by the pandemic, these workers also know more than ever exactly how essential their labor is, and understand the power they hold as employees of one of the biggest and most profitable corporations in the United States. The success of the ALU campaign, where the big unions have failed, also shows the power of grassroots unionism and that there is no substitute for the collective self-organization for the working class.

    And that success has been met with wide support across the country. A recent poll conducted by More Perfect Union found that more than 75 percent of Americans support the Amazon Labor Union and agree that unionization is essential in order to win better pay and safer working conditions for employees. That figure rose to 84 percent among those aged 18 to 34. The overall approval rating for unions, according to Gallup, is the highest it’s been in almost sixty years. A full 68 percent of Americans surveyed said they approve of labor unions, compared to just 28 percent who disapproved. These approval numbers went up even more (77 percent) for 18- to 34-year-olds. Meanwhile, petitions filed with the NLRB for new union elections have increased by 57 percent since January, and the ALU has been contacted by hundreds of Amazon workers at warehouses across the country asking how they, too, can organize a union in their facilities.

    Organize and Strike Everywhere

    The victory on Staten Island, as encouraging as it is, comes after decades of declining unionization levels and strike activity. Despite the many recent examples of high profile labor actions in the United States, including the wave of strikes last October and the massive teachers strikes that swept many red states in 2018 and 2019, the labor movement has struggled to find its groove amid the myriad crises of the last decade.

    But that trend seems to be changing, and the ALU is just one part of a new labor movement that seems poised to overturn those decades of decline. While the workers at JFK8 were still organizing for a vote, Starbucks workers in Buffalo formed the first ever Starbucks union in December. In the less than five months since then, 24 Starbucks locations have held union votes, of which only two voted against forming a union. And, despite a shock and awe anti-union campaign by the company, new stores are holding successful union votes almost every day. While the numbers of workers in these branches is certainly small — sometimes just one or two dozen workers — these victories have shown that workers everywhere can and must organize for the interests of the entire class.

    The ALU and Starbucks Workers United have now put out a call for mass rallies on May 1 to defend the right to organize. They are asking “the whole working class” to “join together in solidarity this May Day 2022 and mobilize against the union busting of Starbucks, Amazon, and every other company engaged in repressing its workers.” This collective action across unions is an extremely positive sign and an important step in building a renewed and fighting labor movement. Left Voice stands in full solidarity with the workers at LDJ5 and the ALU in their struggle to organize themselves and in their fight against union busting. The workers at Amazon and Starbucks are leading the way and we must join them by making 2022 the year that labor strikes back.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On March 28th, the Biden administration released its budget proposal for 2023: a $5.7 trillion dollar proposal including surprising elements, such as a proposal for a new tax on billionaires and funds for a 4.6% pay increase for federal employees. Buried within the massive proposal was a key item for labor advocates: a significant increase in funding for the National Labor Relations Board, from $274 million to $319.4 million.

    The NLRB has been one of the few bright spots of the floundering Biden administration. General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a former attorney for the Communications Workers of America, has moved aggressively to reshape American labor law and redefine the role of the NLRB from an ostensibly neutral agency to a protector of the right to organize. Her most recent initiatives — moving toward a ban “captive audience” meetings and a return to the Joy Silk standard — would dramatically curb the ability of employers to intimidate workers during organizing drives.

    That the NLRB has proven so effective is all the more shocking given its lack of resources. Over the past decade, the NLRB has suffered through repeated rounds of flat funding frozen at approximately $274 million. Between inflation and increased benefits costs, the net impact is a significant decrease in actual funding and capacity. According to the union representing NLRB employees, the agency has lost over 30% of its staff since 2010, and last had a budget increase in 2014.

    Given this, the White House proposal for $319.4 million dollars — which betters the House proposal from the 2022 budget — is positive. It’s higher than the White House’s 2022 budget proposal of $301.17 million, and would provide significant resources for a crucial, effective, but underfunded and understaffed agency. Based on the NLRB 2022 budget request, even a more modest increase to $301.17 million would add nearly 150 staff, dramatically expanding the Board’s capacity.

    NLRB funding has a crucial impact on the rights of workers and directly impacts whether the law is enforced or not. Underfunding and understaffing results in delays in case handling — which, in the case of elections, gives employers additional time to campaign against the union. According to the NLRB Union, lack of funding and increased organizing activity is already stretching their capacity, raising the question of whether a dramatic surge in workplace organizing is partially constrained by Board resources. Delays have stark consequences, clearly demonstrated by the current Starbucks firing spree aimed at containing Starbucks Workers United and the slow processing of requested injunction: a subject of recent complaint by Workers United leaders.

    More funding — not just in fiscal year 2023, but right now — is necessary to defend the right to organize and enforce labor law against increasingly hostile employers. But despite the White House’s proposal, there’s no reason to believe that it’s anything but posturing for one simple reason: Democrats made promises and failed to deliver in the 2022 budget.

    Both the White House and Congress proposed increases for 2022, but they disappeared in the final omnibus spending bill. Although the House passed an aggressive proposal for $317 million dollars, the Senate version passed by the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions committee pared it down to $301 million, matching the White House request for a more modest increase. Proposed increases survived committee markup and seemed on track for final inclusion in the omnibus spending bill until they were removed through a massive amendment introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee. In her floor remarks, DeLauro cited Frances Perkins and said that Americans “deserve a government that, instead of catering to the wealthy and big corporations, bends over backwards to support them” — a laudable sentiment that rings hollow alongside abandoned funding increases for key agencies like the NLRB and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

    In the deal-making to reach an omnibus spending bill that could secure Republican votes, Democratic leadership made their priorities clear: and they didn’t include defending the right to organize. Congressional leadership and the White House have both demonstrated a willingness to take a victory lap for proposing increased funding while quietly continuing austerity for the sole federal agency tasked with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. With a critical midterm election approaching, they’ll no doubt line up to ask for union support, with little, save confirming Abruzzo, to show.

    Congressional leaders need to be held accountable to increasing NLRB funding by Congressional progressives and organized labor. With a surge in organizing activity and worker interest in organizing, ensuring the right to organize requires providing adequate resources for the NLRB: additional staff to support outreach and education initiatives, and additional field staff to support the agency’s casework. Added funding will ensure employers are held in check and that the right to organize is aggressively protected, and where necessary, expanded.

    Securing shorter term increases and ensuring that the 2023 spending bill includes added NLRB funding means making an issue of the agency’s funding: one that Democratic leaders can’t ignore in backroom horsetrading. Absent that, it’s entirely likely that the NLRB will once again suffer a round of flat funding. If Republicans secure a majority in November, the agency will likely reach a full ten years without a budget increase, with dramatic consequences for workers’ rights.

    Starbucks workers and the stunning Amazon victory in Staten Island are demonstrating that more is possible, and that through worker-led organizing, unions can reverse decades of decline. We need to meet the call to action issued by Starbucks and Amazon workers: and that means fighting on every front to defend and expand the right and ability of workers to organize. Workers want unions. They deserve an NLRB that can defend the right to form them.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Across the U.S., there has been a wave of policies restricting what teachers can and cannot teach in the classroom. These policies emerged following moments of racial awakening, and are aimed at consolidating political power in the hands of a few, thereby limiting multiracial progress. These educational restrictions were created and exist to curtail movement towards an inclusive and equitable society where everyone is valued and has the opportunity to prosper.

    Regardless of whether you have children in school, the debate around the accurate teaching of U.S. history and contemporary issues of gender, race and sex is one that impacts us all. No one can afford to ignore these issues and still expect to live in a free society. We will rise together or fail together.

    That is why our organization, Race Forward, and a host of partners recently launched H.E.A.L. (Honest Education Action and Leadership) Together. The initiative is working to ensure strong schools and a multiracial democracy. It is meant to aid local and national organizers, parents and partners in the fight to create inclusive communities. With its partners at the New York University Metro Center, H.E.A.L. Together has recently released a school district organizing toolkit and is offering a free public training series for Strong Schools and a Multiracial Democracy. The program has begun working with local organizing groups to build statewide campaigns in a growing number of states including New Hampshire, North Carolina and Georgia.

    We know that our work is vast, but so is our drive. We also know the people who oppose progress are cunning and relentless.

    Rather than saying, “We oppose teaching children the good and bad parts of American history,” many conservatives have latched onto a college-level abstraction called critical race theory (CRT). They have disingenuously persuaded parents that CRT is being taught with abandon and that it inherently harms white children. The reality is CRT is an academic theory that explores U.S. history, society, government and legal systems through a race-based perspective. Moreover, it is not taught in K-12 schools. In fact, a December 2021 poll by Northeastern University found that 7 in 10 people cannot define CRT. That begs the question: How can people be so adamant about something they can’t even define?

    This moment is bigger than “CRT.” Individuals raising alarm about it are also likely to be engaging in other suppression tactics such as banning books, bullying young people into silence around their gender or identity, and targeting and placing new restrictions on LGBTQ communities. Even workshops aimed at creating more inclusive workplace cultures are under attack, with states like Florida and California considering bans on diversity training.

    What we’re currently seeing is a backlash to progress. It is a last-ditch effort to maintain power. What better way to get white conservatives and swing voters to turn out and vote for them than by telling them that teachers will make their children feel bad about themselves?

    It is clear that some people benefit from making CRT the boogeyman. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia campaigned in 2021 on an anti-CRT platform. In less than two weeks of being sworn in, Youngkin banned CRT in Virginia schools, even though CRT isn’t taught in Virginia schools. He also launched an email tip line for parents to report “divisive” teaching. That sort of behavior is reminiscent of authoritarian regimes of the past in which citizens benefit from turning on one another.

    In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has introduced several anti-CRT bills, including the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (W.O.K.E) Act, which already passed the Florida House and then the Senate; and the Individual Freedom Act, which, if passed, would prohibit Florida’s public schools and private businesses from making people feel “discomfort” or “guilt” based on their race, sex or national origin, bringing the notion of fragility to a new level. While on first glance that might sound like it is protecting marginalized folks, what they are trying to do is make it illegal for students to be taught the legacy of slavery and the mass genocide committed against Native Americans, for example.

    What we must remember is that this sort of thing never ends. First conservatives bemoaned invitations to learn and grow, saying they were being attacked by “woke mobs.” Now lawmakers are banning not only honest conversations about race but also books about U.S. and world history.

    These actions are a direct outgrowth of the Trump administration’s inflamed attacks on the ability to speak honestly about the country’s history. Donald Trump’s executive order, which President Joe Biden rescinded on his first day in office, banned racial equity work and training in any federal agency and for any federal contractors or recipients of federal funds. The order followed protests across the country in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death as more people than ever engaged in powerful conversations about race. According to data that Race Forward collected, mainstream media mentioned the term “systemic racism” more times in 2020 than it had in the last three decades.

    It did not take long for conservative think tanks and politicians to realize those conversations had the potential and the power to unite people. These campaigns are a principal strategy for the extreme right to attempt to win back power in the 2022 elections. But nothing should interrupt the strides we have made to dismantle racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and sexism.

    Those committed to building a more inclusive nation cannot be silent about attacks on education nor can they ignore efforts to rewrite U.S. history or target teachers and kids. We must not only resist these movements, but must also take action: run for school boards and other offices, attend local school board meetings, and advocate for and insist on honest education for children and fully funded public schools.

    If we understand that public education is the foundation of our democracy, then we must organize to protect it against the attacks on teachers with these culture wars and privatization efforts. Just because they start these culture wars, doesn’t mean they have to win them. H.E.A.L. Together is committed to supporting students, parents, families and educators in building durable education justice coalitions our communities can stay actively engaged in and help people understand the importance of our public education system. We have an opportunity to not only educate our children but support them in understanding and accepting who they are, who they can be, and each other. Despite our differences, our fates are interconnected. If we work collaboratively, we all benefit.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • “They’ll just end up arresting me.”

    “I’m just scared they’ll ask for my papers.”

    “What if they think my boy is an adult and rough him up?”

    We’ve heard various versions of these fears many times in our personal lives, as a Latino man and Black woman, and in our professional roles as professors who teach about race and racism in society. While the fear that causes someone to avoid the police — whether a fear of racism, deportation, homophobia, sexual violence or some combination thereof — may vary between our communities, the underlying question is always the same: If I call the police, will the outcome be worse than the problem I am trying to address?

    Many people fear calling the police for legitimate reasons. In immigrant communities, many worry that a call to the police is a quick way for them or someone in their home to wind up deported. Others, often in African American communities, fear that calling the police could result in their own victimization by police. Survivors of domestic violence may fear that police could escalate an already violent situation, if their story is even believed in the first place. Amid national discussions of racism and police-perpetrated violence, many bystanders worry that calling the police could make them an accomplice to race-based law enforcement violence. And sometimes, folks are so worried about the police showing up first to an emergency that they won’t even call 911 when other services — like EMT services after a vehicle accident — are needed.

    Research has continued to provide evidence of what communities have been saying for decades, and health organizations have continued to speak out. The American Public Health Association, the largest organization of public health professionals in the United States, released a statement in November 2018 citing law enforcement violence as a critical public health issue that results in more than a thousand deaths a year, with disproportionate losses among people of color.

    But fearing the police should not mean that you have no one to call in an emergency.

    In response to the growing awareness of the biases in the policing system, non-police response programs have emerged, with examples in Austin, Texas; Eugene, Oregon; San Francisco, California and Edmonton, Canada. While these programs differ in some ways, they all work to divert individuals away from law enforcement, reduce emergency department admission and provide services such as conflict mediation, welfare checks, and non-emergency care and referrals.

    Ann Arbor, Michigan, hopes to develop its own program to be added to the list. On April 4, Ann Arbor City Council approved $3.5 million in funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to develop an unarmed, non-police response to emergencies. The city council’s decision was inspiring — a testimony to the desire of our community to have a care-based response at the core of our city services. Among those who presented public comment in support of unarmed response was Kaveh Ashtari, a public health student and medical assistant, who told councilors:

    One of the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic is this challenge of trust. I’ve worked with individuals who don’t feel comfortable accessing emergency services during critical times due to fear of escalation, due to fear of violence, due to fear of their own safety. This fear is real. It is for this reason an alternative is needed that can ensure that an individual is able to feel safe, one that is unarmed, one that the community can trust.

    Much of the effort for unarmed response in Ann Arbor has been led by the Coalition for Re-envisioning Our Safety (CROS), with whom we organize. CROS is a multiracial group of community members including social workers, public health experts, faith leaders, community builders, and others who have drawn on research, advocacy and community organizing to develop a plan for an unarmed, non-police response.

    Among the key components of the plan are that the unarmed response program be supported politically and funded by city government, be separate from law enforcement and the criminal legal system, expand beyond a sole focus on providing mental health care in times of crisis, and include a public phone number separate from 911. Notably, this is not a plan that replaces 911 (or policing) but is instead additive, offering another option for those who fear that a 911 call may result in unnecessary police presence. The CROS plan, like other successful plans, draws on empirical research and prioritizes community-driven leadership.

    President Joe Biden’s 2023 budget allocates an additional $30 billion to new police spending, and reports show an increasing number of cities using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to increase their police forces. These are dollars that could have been spent supporting child care, reducing student loan debt or even providing additional COVID-19 tests to those without insurance. Instead, these funds will support further surveillance, bias trainings or community policing — all practices that have already proven to be unsuccessful at addressing racial inequities in policing. What’s needed is not more funding for policing but more funding for alternatives to police responses. For example, instead of using ARPA funds to expand a city’s police department, cities could opt to use ARPA funds for planning grants to apply for mobile crisis intervention services, mental health support in place of campus police for students, affordable housing to reduce recidivism, or other community-based services.

    The data are convincing: Care-based safety programs aren’t just more humane, they create significant cost savings in health care, policing and legal fees, and reduce ambulance and emergency room services — costs that often otherwise fall on taxpayers. But moreover, non-police alternatives could prevent violence, deportation or ensnarement in the legal system. Everyone, no matter their relationship to the police, should have someone available to call in times of crisis.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • April 15, 2022, marked the 75th anniversary of the desegregation of Major League Baseball through the entrance of Jackie Robinson, wearing the uniform of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Since that April of 1947, Robinson achieved legendary status for his courage, discipline and on-field performance, not to mention his efforts after the end of his career to promote civil rights in baseball and U.S. society as a whole.

    The problem is that, as frequently occurs in U.S. society, turning a person into a legend often obscures the larger story. This happens so consistently that one must conclude that this is intentional. Because the aim, in turning an individual into a legend, is to divorce their experience and work from the notion of social movements and collective action. It can also be a means to obscure the institutional obstacles to justice that such great people challenged. In the case of Jackie Robinson, the story became all about two people, and sometimes three: Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey (founder of the Minor League system and an owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers), and sometimes an acknowledgement of the role of Jackie’s wife, Rachel Robinson. The story becomes all about the brilliance of Rickey making the decision to break the color line.

    What is missed is the lengthy struggle for justice that took place in Major League Baseball. There was both a struggle for workers’ rights and there was a struggle for racial justice. These struggles became focused on the person named Jackie Robinson, but they were much larger in scope and scale.

    Major League Baseball chose to racially segregate in the late 19th century. This was in the context of the growth of Jim Crow segregation. At various moments when there was a possibility of desegregation, such efforts were shut down at the top. Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis was one of the major proponents of racial segregation of baseball and did everything that he could to frustrate efforts at justice during his tenure as baseball commissioner, from 1921 until his death in 1944. He and the owners were also adamant opponents of workers’ rights for players.

    The creation of the Negro National League in 1920 in response to racial segregation almost immediately raised the question of the relationship between white Major League Baseball and the Negro Leagues. During off-season, players from both sets of leagues would play against one another in “unofficial” games. The Negro Leagues continued to demonstrate their excellence in every encounter with the white Major Leagues. Yet Major League Baseball remained segregated.

    Within the Negro Leagues, discussions unfolded, aimed at developing a strategy for the ultimate merger of the Negro Leagues and the white Major Leagues. There were various proposals considered, including the Negro Leagues becoming part of the Minor League operation of baseball. But the thinking was along the lines of a merger, a point that has great significance in what actually unfolded in 1947 and thereafter.

    Pressure for desegregation of Major League Baseball also took form as part of the growing anti-racist element of the movements of the 1930s and early 1940s. The Communist Party, for instance, as part of its larger campaigns against racism and discrimination, highlighted the unacceptable reality of Jim Crow in Major League Baseball and joined a broad front demanding change. The pressure was on, and with the death of Commissioner Landis, there were myriad possibilities as to how events could unfold.

    As it turned out, Branch Rickey had his own ideas regarding the future of race and Major League Baseball. Rather than entertain the possibility of a merger of the Negro Leagues and the Major Leagues, he instead decided to identify an outstanding player from the Negro Leagues and make a “go” of it. To be clear, this takes nothing away from Jackie Robinson. But what was put in place was the slow but steady draining of the Negro Leagues of their best players until the Negro Leagues were unsustainable as a business operation.

    Desegregation was accomplished, but in a form that ignored the institutional reality of the Negro Leagues. As a result, the power dynamic remained entirely in the hands of the rich, white owners, while the former Negro League players demonstrated, for all to see, their exceptional capabilities and performances.

    Thus, when we have celebrated April 15, we have been celebrating not just the victory of one great player. We are acknowledging April 15, 1947, as one important day in a larger and ongoing struggle for justice in baseball.

    This celebration is of more than symbolic importance. Not only has racial justice not reigned supreme in Major League Baseball, but we have seen racial injustice mutate over time. The struggle for justice within Major League Baseball has been a multi-decade effort that broke the Jim Crow wall in 1947. African American and Latino players began the process of the transformation of the baseball industry. Over time, the “barons” of Major League Baseball, having drained the Negro Leagues of their best players and having secured post-Negro League African American players, lost interest in African Americans (as well as Chicano and Puerto Rican players), refocusing on the goal of acquiring a cheaper and more vulnerable player pool.

    Searching globally, Major League Baseball has developed a particular interest in Latin American players — many of whom are of African descent — as the workforce to cultivate. Thus, while Major League Baseball has desegregated, it is far from inclusive. The problem is not just what Jackie Robinson insisted upon at the end of his life — the lack of Black managers — but it is that entire demographic groups are being written off, as both players and fans.

    A couple of points here: African American interest and involvement in Major League Baseball declined slowly in the post-desegregation period and seems to have been driven by several factors, including the elimination of open land in cities for baseball (linked to gentrification) and the rising cost of entering baseball in pre-professional leagues. Added to this has been increased interest in and opportunity to advance in basketball and football.

    But it is the lack of interest that Major League Baseball has shown in Black America that strikes one in entering nearly any baseball stadium around the U.S. Rather than any sense that African Americans were central to the growth of baseball, what comes across more strongly is that they are treated as irrelevant.

    The response to this will not be found in the actions and display of one or two exceptional players of color. Even though Major League Baseball has since canonized some Negro League players, it does not erase their historical treatment. But it also does not erase consideration of today, i.e., can Major League Baseball, as an institution and sport become relevant to Black America once more? Indeed, can it become “America’s Pastime” in the real sense of being relevant and inclusive to communities of color, such as African Americans, Puerto Ricans and Chicanos, in whose cultures baseball flourished?

    Instead, the time has come to undertake a transformation of Major League Baseball, a transformation that must build upon various efforts, such as agreements with the Players Alliance (an organization of Black baseball players) to commit to expanding baseball in Black communities, but it also must go much further. This includes rethinking team ownership structures; a deep and sincere commitment to the re-cultivation of African American, Chicano and Puerto Rican players and fans; and the elevation of the conditions and living standards of Minor League players, particularly immigrant Minor Leaguers who are especially vulnerable. None of this will happen because of the good graces of the barons of baseball, but will be the result of struggle — a struggle that must be undertaken by both the players and fans.

    This is the way to celebrate the life and legacy of Jackie Robinson.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This may be the most frustrating Earth Day in the 50-year history of the celebration. At no other time have we been faced with such acute peril from anthropogenic climate disruption. At no other time have more people been personally invested in making the changes necessary to create a sustainable world. At no other time has actually making those changes in the halls of power seemed more challenging.

    This is the agony of the paradigm shift, of the great change that must happen even in the implacable face of vast, entrenched wealth. Those who believed Big Oil, Big War, and all the other pillars of this presently collapsing pillage-and-plunder system were going to see all the fires, floods and storms, and say, “Wow, this sucks and might make it harder for us to make money in 20 years, something must be done!” were badly fooling themselves. Today’s system is about MONEY NOW, about wringing the last few coppers from the bones of the laboring class while there is still time on the clock.

    The recent summer-to-spring legislative fiasco over President Biden’s signature policy initiatives is instructive. Biden’s bills — the large Build Back Better Act and a smaller infrastructure bill — were the result of a progressive eruption within the ranks of the Democratic Caucus. Progressive legislators, led by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, filled the bill with vital climate action policies that would be paid for by taxing wealthy people and corporations their fair share. Right there, you can see how the effort was all but doomed from the start.

    A one-vote majority in the Senate elevated Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of Arizona (who received 270,510 votes when reelected in 2018, compared to Biden’s 81,000,000 vote haul in 2020) to the status of kingmaker… or planet-breaker, depending upon where you stand. Like a vampire stooped over pliable prey, Manchin supped on the blood of these bills for months, until one was passed in skeletal form. The other remains in rewrite limbo. He did this for coal and campaign contributions from coal interests, and no other reasons besides.

    Manchin’s partner in this effort, Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (665,000 votes collected in her own 2018 race), likewise poured sand and ground glass into the gears of both pieces of legislation. She didn’t want rich people and huge pharmaceutical companies to pay for it by way of equitable taxation and drug price stabilization, and refused to budge despite multiple good-faith efforts to gain her support. In the end, the Democratic Caucus was left fighting amongst itself, Mitch McConnell and the GOP hardly had to break a sweat, and measures to save the planet from our destruction and extraction once again fell to dust.

    The recent war in Ukraine also underscores the long slog between necessity and accomplishment. When Russia, one of the world’s top producers of fossil fuels, charged toward Kyiv behind a wall of tanks, Russian President Vladimir Putin was suddenly confronted with a raft of sanctions levied by an appalled world.

    These sanctions have had only a dubious effect on that nation’s war-makers, and have inflicted further devastation on Russian civilians. Another impact: They have forced NATO nations and others to go looking for their fossil fuels elsewhere. Biden, in defiance of a campaign pledge to ban new drilling on public lands, is now undertaking a massive, wildly pollutive campaign of oil and gas production in order to make up for the coming shortfall.

    “The department’s plans are the latest example of the political tightrope the president is trying to walk,” reports The Washington Post. “Ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent oil prices soaring, Biden has faced pressure to alleviate the pain Americans feel at the pump. He has urged U.S. oil companies to boost production and has released millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to compensate for the loss of Russian oil from global markets.”

    Thus does war hurl back even mediocre progress on attacking the environmental crisis that hedges closer to us by the day. Thus does greed and lust for power eviscerate all but the slimmest chance for meaningful climate repair, precisely in this tipping-point moment historians will revel in, if there are any left with the patience to pile through the paperwork.

    The mood this Earth Day is one of deep frustration and fear. If there can be said to be a bright spot, it is this: We know what we have to do, and now we know who stands against us. All pretense is cast aside. What to do with this information is entirely up to you.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On April 4, the Senate agreed to a $10 billion package to fund the Biden administration’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The negotiators heralded it as a major success, and the administration announced that it would allow vital COVID services to continue.

    Yet, as with so much else that passes for “success” in this fractured and fractious political environment, the bill was in fact a stunning failure — in this case, representing a disaster for the basic principles of global pandemic response.

    President Biden had initially requested over $22 billion in funding — for ongoing testing and vaccines, for medical research, and, crucially, for overseas aid, to help poorer countries ramp up their testing and vaccine regimens. In the original proposal, $5 billion was dedicated to the international response.

    Since 2020, the pandemic has raged in poorer countries such as India, but the exact scale of its carnage has often been underplayed by those countries’ governments. India, for example, claims that it has lost about 500,000 citizens to the disease. This week, however, the World Health Organization estimated that the true number was closer to 4 million. Without accurate public health data, it becomes ever harder to tailor appropriate responses to the pandemic in those countries; and without effective interventions, the risk of new, potentially more lethal variants emerging, grows by the day.

    Most Americans, and the vast majority of elderly Americans, have had at least two shots against COVID, with many having also received their boosters (and many of those who aren’t vaccinated have made a conscious choice not to be, despite the widespread availability of free vaccines). By contrast, in poorer nations, vaccination rates remain perilously low, often not by choice. By the start of 2022, only about 10 percent of Africans had both the original course of vaccines and the booster shots. In many countries, such as Mali and South Sudan, Tanzania and Cameroon, only about 1 in 20 had received even their first vaccine dose. According to The New York Times global tracker, in Uganda, only 1 in 1,000 individuals have received boosters. Only 3 percent of Pakistanis have received their boosters. Only 2.2 percent of Georgians have been boosted. And the list goes on.

    These are abysmal numbers, and they point to the ongoing need for massive international investments and assistance in providing vaccines to poor countries, and then in helping those countries actually get shots into arms.

    Wealthy countries, which invested huge sums in mRNA vaccines, have managed to largely kick-start their economies again, and return life to relative normalcy for residents after months of lockdowns, and keep their health systems afloat even during recent surges. However, poorer countries risk ongoing health system inundation with each new surge. The U.S., U.K., and other affluent, powerful nations are now acting as if the pandemic is largely over; yet for poorer nations, largely unvaccinated nearly 30 months into the public health crisis, it is possible that the worst days of the outbreak are still to come.

    At the end of the Senate negotiations, in which Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) served as the GOP negotiator, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer trumpeted a deal that made available far less than half the amount initially requested and contained exactly zero dollars earmarked for international COVID responses. If that’s a “success,” God only knows what a Schumer failure would look like.

    For the past 15 months, the GOP, along with a handful of more conservative Democratic senators, have stymied almost every major spending initiative and policy priority of the Biden administration. And time and again, the White House and its Senate allies have caved, arguing that a little bit is better than nothing. It’s been a losing strategy politically: Witness the continual compromising around the Build Back Better Act, and the ultimate failure to secure any legislation on that front; witness the cascading series of failures to implement meaningful climate change policies. It has also been a losing strategy in terms of public opinion: Witness Biden’s collapsing poll ratings, especially among younger, more idealistic voters, and the broad sense among the voting public that the administration waffles away its political capital rather than truly doubling down and fighting for what it believes in.

    What happened on April 4 is yet another example of the escalating ineffectiveness of an administration that has lost all ability to make the Senate tack its way on even the most common-sense of issues. It’s not as if $5 billion in international COVID assistance would break the U.S. economy: that’s about what the country spends on the military in two days. It’s about $268 billion less than what Elon Musk, the U.S.’s richest individual, is worth. That $5 billion could be funded by a miniscule tax increase on Musk and other super-rich Americans. It’s about 1/20 the average amount Americans spend on their pets annually. It’s less than a third of what Medicare spends on insulin each year.

    If the political will were there, it’s inconceivable that funds wouldn’t have been easily found to cover international vaccine efforts. Yet political goodwill is in perilously short supply in Washington these days.

    As if to prove the point that this was less to do with fiscal responsibility and more to do with political gamesmanship, a day after the much-heralded “bipartisan” agreement was reached, the GOP began pushing to tack on even more cost-cutting and anti-asylum seeker amendments, and the Senate moved further away from actually passing the deal that its own negotiators had reached only the previous day. By April 8, Schumer had accepted that the legislation wouldn’t be passed before the Senate recessed for Easter and announced that no vote would be held until at least April 25.

    So much for Biden and Schumer’s vaunted negotiating skills. The story of the U.S.’s disengagement with the international COVID response efforts is a saga of failure and abandonment, pure and simple.

    Every time Schumer trumpets a “bipartisan” agreement, the result is something that progressive Democrats hate and that the GOP views as simply a launch pad to further extremes. It’s past time for Schumer to actually fight for important political values and vital societal investments. If he can’t, or won’t, then he is simply whistling in the wind.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When it comes to electoral predictions, there is no there there, in this wild moment. Once-reliable polling outfits are looking at their suddenly inaccurate data the way NASA scientists watched Atlas rockets go corkscrewing off the launch pad in the early days of the Mercury program.

    All I know for certain is this: Any time period that can produce an accurate news sentence like this — “Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who pressured former President Donald Trump to pay a settlement to a stripper, was sentenced to 30 months in prison yesterday for trying to extort millions of dollars from sportswear company Nike Inc.” — is not a time frame I’m comfortable guessing about. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something — probably a subscription to a polling page. For the present, my election-year yard sign reads, “Meteor 2024: Because That Rhymes.”

    Yet there is a cold sense of dread blowing softly through the chambers of my soul, and the chill is something that cannot be safely ignored. I am hard-pressed to recall a time when so many divergent yet implacably dangerous forces have coalesced in such menacing fashion, and it seems that few are prepared to acknowledge it, much less move to thwart it. Some of the perils we face are open-ended, with no clear demarcation between “Hurry up!” and “Too late.” This is not one of those: I can tell you the exact day the deal I fear will go down, if it does go down at all.

    So, for emphasis: This is not what I think will happen. This is what I’m terrified could happen, one possibility in an infinite universe. To no small degree, it is already happening.

    A political snapshot of the present moment shows a president with approval ratings lower than snake snot. A grumpy, unsettled electorate looking to lay blame for their lost two years has in Joe Biden a convenient target. Inflation, gas prices, supply shortages and the still-muddied economic waters of the COVID era have constantly disrupted the administration’s best legislative efforts, with the help of a coal baron senator whose party designation is as meaningful as a diamond made of glue. Thanks in no small part to this White House’s bizarre disinterest in promoting its positive and popular policy achievements, it is entirely probable these conditions will continue to linger until November.

    Meanwhile, war crimes committed in Ukraine by Vladimir Putin’s Russian military forces are the daily fare of the news networks. While most agree that the U.S. cannot directly challenge another nuclear power on the battlefield, the anguish unfolding before us has left many urging more “action,” whatever that means in this devastating context.

    As with the Afghanistan withdrawal, Biden’s stance is one of grim necessity that has no satisfying answer; there will be suffering no matter what, and that suffering will wear on voters the longer the war drags on. Like as not, Ukraine will be a major issue come November.

    The Democratic House and Senate majorities dangle by a thread. Senators Jon Tester in Montana, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan and Jackie Rosen in Nevada among others face razor-close races.

    In the House, prospects for the Democrats to salvage their own majority are equally grim. Republicans in both chambers, meanwhile, have all but abandoned the idea of an agenda, and instead are “flooding the zone” with incendiary and harmful nonsense about pedophiles, immigration, “CRT,” the “rigged” 2020 election and whatever else they can fling in order to “win” the news day.

    Example: Instead of debating the reinstatement of the enormously helpful child tax credit, which lapsed recently because of Republicans, the most pointed current discussions center on whether godless socialist teachers are instructing students to use litter boxes in the restroom in the event they identify as cats. How did that patently false rumor get going? Republicans. Once again, they are massaging bizarre conspiracy fears to motivate an already-motivated voter base, and to roil the discussion for everyone else. This train is never late.

    All of the above, at present, is fact, and it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Circumstances could change overnight, of course, but it is also those very intangibles I fear most.

    A Florida judge just blew up the mask mandate for airlines and most public transportation, just as the COVID subvariant of omicron, the “stealth variant” BA.2, becomes the dominant strain in the U.S. Almost 42,000 people were newly infected yesterday, a two-week uptick of 42 percent. That upward trend has been on the move for weeks now, and is growing. While there is no certainty that BA.2 could cause another sharp infection spike, we have seen this particular moment a couple of times already, and furthermore seen the horrors that came after.

    If BA.2 decides to spread its wings like its cousins have before, the outbreak could last for months — and who knows what the COVID outlook will be on Election Day. A population once again asked to wear masks and avoid public gatherings after more than two years of pain and sacrifice, a population forced to endure skyrocketing prices and the shame of a war they can’t stop, might be a loose cannon at the polls. While there will be no predicting that outcome, Democrats could stand to lose both chambers if such challenging circumstances prevail.

    At which point, we enter a realm of question marks. Will Biden, stymied for two years after losing the House and Senate, actually run again in 2024? If he does, can he win? If he doesn’t, can the Democrats make a switch-horses-in-midstream argument the electorate can accept? Will the economy or COVID be any better, or will our current elongated crises have taken on the stink of the inevitable and the eternal?

    Final question: Will Donald Trump run again in 2024? He has not yet come straight out and said so, but all available signs point to “yes.” If he does announce his candidacy, his still-towering popularity with the GOP base could clear the field of contenders. He received more than 74 million votes in 2020, an astonishing haul for the guy who lost, and he sits today upon a campaign war chest of astonishing size.

    The possibility of Trump not running doesn’t mean we can breathe easy, either. Whoever takes the Republican nomination in 2024 is likely to be a creature of Trumpist fascism, perhaps without all the hideous personal flaws of Trump himself. If you thought nobody could be more dangerous than Trump, think again.

    None of this is certain by any stretch, but all of it is why I don’t sleep much anymore. If you have some ideas on how to head this potential cataclysm off its path, I invite you to get started immediately. It’s never too late, until it is.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On April 13, President Joe Biden said Russia’s war in Ukraine amounts to genocide, accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of trying to “wipe out the idea of even being a Ukrainian.” Biden previously called Putin a “war criminal” and called for the creation of a war crimes tribunal, following images showing Ukrainian apartment complexes, schools and hospitals bombed out and destroyed.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said the reports of people being tortured, executed and put in mass graves in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha likewise constitute genocide. Still, Biden said it would be up to lawyers to decide if Russia’s conduct met the international standard for genocide, but that “it sure seems that way to me.” When asked about Biden’s use of the term genocide and whether it was a shift in U.S. policy, both press secretary Jen Psaki and State Department spokesperson Ned Price attempted to separate official policy from what Biden believes is occurring in Ukraine based on what he’s seen. However, it is worth noting that as president, Biden sets U.S. foreign policy. It may not be long before an official statement follows what may have initially been an off the cuff remark.

    Since the start of the war, these different terms — “crimes against humanity,” “war crimes,” “genocide” and “atrocities” — have all been used, but few really know what they mean. Some of these terms have precise legal definitions in international law. Others have widely understood definitions but are not yet codified into law.

    Defining Atrocity Crimes

    The term “atrocities” can mean many things; however, the terms “mass atrocities” and “atrocity crimes” have a more specific meaning. The term mass atrocities is a catchall phrase that refers to the atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. It is a term of art that has no legal definition but is often used to describe a situation in which civilians are being systematically targeted with violence, either during peace or war.

    Crimes against humanity, meanwhile, are widespread and systematic attacks against civilian populations in which the civilians are the target of the violence. While there is no international convention that defines what crimes against humanity are, the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), outlines the specific acts that constitute crimes against humanity. The United States has still not joined the ICC, and at times has worked to undermine the court. But now would be as good a time as any to join the ICC and provide the court with additional credibility.

    War crimes, on the other hand, are often thought of as the laws of war or international humanitarian law, and can be committed against both civilians and combatants during wartime. The most widely accepted definition of war crimes is found in the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols. The Geneva Conventions include the prohibition of violence against civilians and outlines protections for wounded combatants and prisoners of war, among other things.

    Genocide, however, has the narrowest definition of all atrocity crimes. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as, “the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” The definition of genocide does not specify the number of people that need to be killed to constitute genocide. In fact, individuals do not need to kill anyone to be found guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement of genocide and attempt to commit genocide, which are all punishable crimes under the United Nations convention.

    Is Genocide Happening in Ukraine?

    The key factor in determining genocide is the intent. It is difficult to determine exactly what Putin and the Russian government’s intent is. However, one could make the argument that if Russia’s goal is to subsume Ukraine into Russia, thereby destroying the Ukrainian identity, in whole or in part, Russia’s actions in Ukraine could very well constitute genocide.

    Some believe that saying genocide is occurring in Ukraine will lead to stronger action by the international community. However, there’s little evidence to suggest this is true. The U.S. government has determined that genocide is currently taking place in Xinjiang, China, against Uyghurs and in Myanmar (also known as Burma) against Rohingya. Despite those determinations, the U.S. has dedicated far more resources to the crisis in Ukraine, where no genocide determination has been made.

    When discussing these different crimes, we often consciously or unconsciously tend to view genocide as worse than other atrocity crimes. While definitions are important, the truth of the matter is when civilians are being systematically killed, it shouldn’t matter whether the targeted violence meets the narrow definition of genocide. The priority should be the protection of civilians and the prevention of mass atrocities.

    There should be renewed diplomatic efforts to bring this crisis to an end and ongoing investigations to compile evidence against Russian leaders to hold perpetrators accountable. We will have to wait to see if an international tribunal is able to hold individuals accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity or even genocide, but for accountability to be possible, there must be evidence to show at a trial.

    President Biden’s proposed 2023 budget includes a huge increase in military spending, on top of previous years’ increases to the defense budget. It’s clear this is not the correct response to the Ukraine crisis. We must make more investments in prevention.

    In the future, the U.S. government must dedicate more funding and resources to prevent mass atrocities around the world. This includes focusing on long term, upstream prevention efforts that seek to address the root causes and drivers of violent conflict. U.S. foreign policy tends to be very reactionary, ignoring warning signs until a crisis emerges and then the only thing left to do is provide humanitarian assistance to survivors of mass atrocities. Instead, more investments need to be made in programs that support civil society, combat corruption, and help build just and equitable countries. That also means ending support for dictators that masquerade as democratic leaders.

    The U.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability is a welcome step in the right direction toward building a prevention-focused foreign policy, as it creates a whole-of-government strategy specifically focused on long-term prevention efforts instead of the more traditional ad hoc reactionary approach. The strategy, mandated by the bipartisan Global Fragility Act, will focus on building resilience and preventing violence in nine countries over a 10-year period. The larger goal, however, is to reform U.S. foreign policy to prioritize prevention. However, in order to be successful, Congress must appropriate more funding. Currently, Congress only provides $5 million for the Atrocities Prevention Fund. We cannot expect the U.S. government to be very successful at preventing mass atrocities with such little funding.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trying to quantify what Donald Trump actually succeeded at during the blight of his presidential tenure is sadly instructive at this juncture. Let’s see: ability to hire fascists, racists and other unpolished authoritarian doorknobs to positions of extreme power? The resumes of the damned found new life in his hands. Lie with no shame? Peerless. Grift? To be determined by various courts. Be orange for no coherent reason? Aced it.

    All this being rightly said, Trump excelled at nothing better than the lethal task of disdaining the simple wearing of masks in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Way back in 2020, when ubiquitous mask-wearing could have made a game-changing difference in thwarting the spread of COVID-19, Trump went above and beyond to diminish their effectiveness during his broader campaign to downplay the entire crisis for the sake of his reelection hopes.

    Nothing too over-the-top, mind you; just a drop of poison into every mention of masks. “Maybe they’re great, and maybe they’re just good,” he said on August 13, 2020. “Maybe they’re not so good.” On May 21, 2020, it was, “I wore one in the back area, I didn’t want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it,” as if the mask was a symbol of shameful weakness. “They suggested for a period of time, but this is voluntary,” he said of wearing masks on April 3, 2020. “I don’t think I’m going to be doing it.”

    The most galling element of Trump’s constant anti-mask rhetoric walked hand in hand with the generalized nature of his brazen hypocrisy. Masks are not meant to protect you, they are meant to protect others from you if you are infected and don’t know it. Wearing a mask, therefore, is by definition a selfless act … and Trump doesn’t do selfless. He does not even understand it.

    The hypocrisy? Maskless asymptomatic people wandering the crowded places of the country are a prime reason why COVID spread so quickly and efficiently. Trump considers himself the champion of the country’s evangelical Christians — and they certainly agree — yet compelling people to do something in service to their neighbor — “Do unto others etc.” — was beyond his ken. His is the gospel of mask-shaming, and his preaching to this effect likely put hundreds of thousands of people into early graves. As has been said time and again, it did not have to be this way.

    Another area of shabby excellence for Trump was loading the courts with wildly unqualified far-right ideologues who will occupy the bench for the next four decades. Mitch McConnell was instrumental in ramming hundreds of these people onto various federal courts, including three (!!!) Supreme Court appointees, but Trump gets the credit because it happened on his watch.

    This fact dovetailed seamlessly with Trump’s manufactured mask fiasco on Monday, when U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the Middle District of Florida struck down federal mask mandates in the area of travel, and specifically on airlines and public transit. “The ruling gives airports, mass transit systems, airlines and ride-hailing services the option to keep mask rules or ditch them entirely,” reports the Associated Press, “resulting in rules that vary by city and mode of transportation. Passengers on an United Airlines flight from Houston to Kennedy Airport, for instance, could ditch their masks at their departing airport and on the plane, but have to put them back on once they land in New York or take a subway.”

    And how can this be, even as another COVID variant spreads across the land? Who is Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle? Above all else, she is one of the judges Trump rammed into the court system. Esquire blogger Charles P. Pierce explains succinctly:

    You see, Judge Mizelle is one of those folks that the Federalist Society sent up the pneumatic tube that led from its labs to the White House. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and was rated as “not qualified” by the American Bar Association.

    She was 33 when she was nominated and confirmed as the 2020 lame-duck session was winding down. She was eight years out of law school and had never tried a case of any kind. Her husband was chosen to be acting general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security through his connection to that noted devotee of the Constitution, Stephen Miller. She had no experience, but she had the golden resume.

    Reaction to Mizelle’s mandate ruling was swift. “Americans greeted the lifting of mask mandates on planes, trains, buses, and public transit with a mixture of joy, relief and alarm on Tuesday, marking an abrupt end to a directive that had been widely in place in various forms for nearly two years,” reports The New York Times. “Some airline passengers received the news in airports or in flight, sharing celebratory photos and videos on social media. That elation was accompanied by nervousness and dread from other people who are fearful that the end of the mandate would increasingly expose them and their loved ones to the coronavirus as a new variant is driving up case counts around the United States.”

    Trump’s vast garden of hand-selected far-right activist judges may not have helped him claw his way back into office after the election (yet), but they are paying bully dividends in the day-by-day push to reorder the laws of the nation in service to some dystopian far-right un-future. Today, it’s the mangling of the mask mandate, leaving millions once again confused as to how to properly protect themselves. It hands the Republicans another incendiary “culture war” weapon to wield in an election year.

    What Texas is doing with Roe v. Wade — tailoring lawsuits against choice laws to please the conservative majority on the high court — other right-wing activists have done with masks. This case, according to the Guardian, “was filed in July 2021 by two plaintiffs and the Health Freedom Defense Fund, a group that has initiated lawsuits against vaccine and mask mandates in several school districts and municipalities. The group’s leader, Leslie Manookian, has appeared at anti-vaccine and anti-mask protests and produced a film that purported to examine the link between vaccines and autism.”

    That autism link, and everyone involved with it including the author, have been comprehensibly debunked and dismissed, yet here we are.

    The B.A.2 subvariant is rising, Congress is still wrestling over much-needed funding for vaccines and treatment, and here comes a Trump judge to blow up one of the most basic protections people have against the spread of the virus, especially areas where they tend to be more vulnerable. The plan is coming together nicely, isn’t it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Saturday, members of the Virginia Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators (VCORE) voted to unionize schools in Richmond, the state’s capital. The vote took place over two days, with 99 percent of educators in favor. The Richmond Educators Association (REA), of which VCORE is a part, will serve as official bargaining representative. This is a major victory for public-sector unions in the South, and it comes amid a wave of unionization across the United States and labor militancy among educators.

    A December vote to grant Richmond public school employees collective-bargaining rights paved the way for yesterday’s victory. That month, the city’s school board voted 8-1 in favor, making it Virginia’s first school district to reinstate collective-bargaining rights. For 43 years, the state had prohibited local government workers from collective bargaining, but in 2020, the state legislature lifted the ban. Teachers are still prevented from exercising this right in several southern states, including Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

    VCORE’s victory was the result of powerful rank-and-file organizing from below. The caucus was formed after the teachers’ strike wave in 2018 and 2019 during which, in one year alone, nearly 400,000 educators were involved in work stoppages across the country.

    The Richmond teachers’ vote is the latest in the current grassroots unionization trend in the United States which also includes Amazon and Starbucks. These unions eschew lobbying and top-down organizing, and repudiate the labor bureaucracy’s failed strategies.

    As VCORE describes its strategy, “We are committed to rebuilding our union from the bottom-up, creating a space to train a network of education workers who are leaders in their unions, schools, and communities. … A labor union should be run directly and democratically by its membership, and act independently of politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations.”

    As we have written before, there is no substitute for the power of a combative rank-and-file movement.

    Indeed, VCORE is reaching out beyond its union to engage workers across school districts. It has advocated for district-wide assemblies where workers can discuss issues facing the district and democratically decide which course of action to take.

    Virginia educators have their work cut out for them, given that the forces aligned against public education are enormous. Their pay ranks 50th in the country, and teachers earn over 10 percent less than workers in similar professions in the state. As highlighted in the recent teachers’ strike in Minneapolis, instructional support staff — which often comprises people of color — generally earn far less.

    Virginia is also one of 28 right-to-work states where workers can get union representation without paying dues. This makes it easier for employers to divide workers and pit them against each other.

    For this reason, the fight for Virginia educators cannot be left up to just one union. National unions and unions from other industries need to throw their support behind VCORE and REA. These unions must be fighting tools for teachers and workers across the country, and they must be based in democratically self-organized bodies.

    Likewise, these emerging teachers’ unions in Virginia should continue to connect their struggles to other unions to win power for workers everywhere. VCORE’s achievement, as part of a nationwide grassroots movement, could pave the way for even more teacher militancy across the South and the United States as a whole, inspiring workers in other sectors. It deserves our fullest support.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In 1994, 17-year-old Cedric X. Cal was incarcerated in Illinois with a natural life sentence for murder. He had no chance for parole hearings, no possibility of release. Maintaining his innocence, he knew he’d fight the conviction, and he applied to a prison-based college program. He wanted to learn as much as possible to help his case and prepare to eventually be freed.

    But his hopes for continuing his education were dashed that September when the Clinton crime bill eliminated Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated people, halting nearly all funding for college in prison programs.

    In the early 2000s, DePaul University and other schools started offering classes at Stateville Correctional Center, the maximum-security prison where Cal was housed. The offering was rare, but with Stateville located less than 40 miles from Chicago, it’s relatively easy for instructors to reach compared to Illinois’s other 27 prisons. However, given his natural life sentence, Cal was ineligible for these classes.

    Undeterred, he taught himself, becoming a student of history, especially Black history, by reading books from Stateville prison’s small library. Then in 2011, the Chicago-based Prison + Neighborhood Arts Project (PNAP), a prison-based arts and education organization, began offering classes to those incarcerated at Stateville, regardless of their sentence length. These classes, combined with his own readings, gave Cal a deep sense of dignity. “I can go into any room and present myself with pride and joy,” he explained in an Illinois Coalition for Higher Ed in Prison panel discussion. This pride sustained him for more than two decades as he fought to overturn his conviction.

    It feels absurd to call Cal, a man imprisoned at 17 with no chance of parole, “lucky.” But compared to most incarcerated people, he’s been very fortunate to access any form of education. Of the nearly 28,000 people incarcerated in Illinois, only a small fraction has access to higher education courses. According to the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison, only five of the state’s 28 prisons offer higher education programming. Moreover, when the pandemic forced lockdowns in early 2020, education programs in prisons abruptly halted. Some programs resumed in limited forms in the fall of 2020, mostly through paper-based correspondence. With technology extremely restricted in prisons, only a few programs were able to conduct classes via video conferencing.

    Now, like many aspects of American life, prison education has rebounded — but in modified ways. The distance-learning options necessitated by the pandemic are being explored as innovations to reach incarcerated people in remote facilities far from urban centers and universities. And for the first time in almost 30 years, funding will soon be widely available for prison-based college classes. When Congress passed the omnibus COVID relief bill in December 2020, it included a reinstatement of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals. What this means for colleges and prisons is currently being shaped through the U.S. Department of Education. With funding expected to begin in 2023, many colleges are looking to expand into prison settings.

    While advocates of prison education welcome expanding opportunities through the Pell Grant, many veteran prison educators are worried about how this moment will define the future of prison education.

    Will the Quality of Prison Education Decline?

    Rebecca Ginsberg at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s Education Justice Project (EJP), which offers college programming at Danville prison, describes a sense of “foreboding about what the next chapter is going to look like.”

    Back when her project and PNAP began offering programs at Danville and Stateville Correctional Centers respectively, there were very few educational groups going into prisons. Having to fund the programs through grants, donations and many unpaid hours meant that only programs with an impassioned dedication to the work were doing it. These groups are hopeful about expanded opportunities, but concerned that new programs might be more motivated by profit than by what they refer to as “liberatory education.”

    “I’ve noticed new actors coming to the field with varying levels of experience and sophistication around the work,” Ginsberg told Truthout. She’s worried that programs unprepared to deal with carceral settings could reinforce the dehumanizing aspects of prison.

    For example, a harmful pattern that sometimes makes its way into educational settings is “de-individualizing individuals and sending constant messages that they don’t matter, that they aren’t worth anything, that they don’t deserve high quality. That they’re rejects from society, that they have no place,” Ginsberg says. “And I think it’s very clear … that an educator can send that message. And an educational program can convey that message as well.”

    Several formerly incarcerated individuals Truthout spoke to mentioned low-quality classes in prison programs. Pablo Mendoza, who was released in October 2020 after serving 22 years, described a reentry program at Graham Correctional facility in Hillsboro, Illinois, that the warden hired his daughter to run. While Mendoza didn’t participate in the program, he said the guys who did called it “a joke.” It’s a description that he uses for most of his prison education programs, except for EJP’s. Most of them, he says, didn’t require him to apply himself and gave passing grades easily.

    Adding to the concern are the expanding technological options of remote teaching, which were necessary during COVID lockdowns, but now threaten to displace in-person teaching. “Before the pandemic,” says Sarah Ross, cofounder of PNAP, “there had been conversation about doing online learning, and we had insisted … that’s not a great method.” Teaching in prisons, she explains, is about much more than delivering content; it’s about showing up in solidarity with individuals who live in violent conditions.

    Ginsburg echoes that sentiment, saying of the Pell Grant change, “if this had happened 10 years ago, it would be a different climate, but that’s happening right on the cusp of [prisons] having observed that it’s possible to offer programming via video….” She anticipates that many new programs will use technologies in place of in-person learning. “I think it’s unfortunate,” she says. “You owe it to yourself and to the students to get to the prison” if it is physically possible.

    Recently, one of the largest providers of prison-based education under the Pell Grant pilot program has drawn criticism for its tablet-based program. Critics claim that Ashland University, a small Christian college that received over $30 million in Pell Grant funding between 2017 and 2021, provides little support for students and delivers poor educational outcomes. In an investigation of the school, The Marshall Project cites advocates who say that quality prison-based education is “grounded in debate, dialogue, critical thinking and the arts — rather than digital educational ‘content’ produced in partnership with private corrections companies, like Ashland’s.”

    How Prison Education Lost Favor Among Liberals and Conservatives

    Prison education has had an inconsistent trajectory, with rapid starts and stops, often driven by political trends. The most significant development in post-secondary prison education came with the Higher Education Act of 1965. Among other sweeping changes, the act provided Pell Grants for low-income students. Incarcerated individuals were nearly all eligible — not due to their incarceration status, but due to being poor. Programs expanded quickly. As Cathryn A. Chappell writes in the Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Foundations of Education, post-secondary correctional education expanded from 182 programs in 1973 to 350 programs in 1982.

    As colleges moved into prison education, they were not always as committed or prepared as they could be. In a 1997 retrospective on prison education, prison educator and researcher Thom Gehring writes, “Many colleges and universities earned reputations for taking Pell Grants and other funding without improving their program. This author worked at a community college that viewed its Prison Education Program as a ‘cash cow.’”

    During the ‘70s and ‘80s, researchers began questioning the value of programs for incarcerated people. The 1974 publication “What works? — questions and answers about prison reform,” an in-depth investigation by anthropologist Robert Martinson, came up with a simple answer: Nothing works to rehabilitate incarcerated people. The fact that this research was conducted and published by a UC Berkeley-educated leftist and socialist made the findings particularly noteworthy. Martinson became a bit of a celebrity, with an interview in People magazine and a segment on “60 Minutes” in which he reiterated his bizarre conclusion.

    Martinson’s work was criticized by researchers, and he himself later retracted his findings. However, the doctrine of “nothing works” caught on with lawmakers. This outlook fueled a push against prison programming, especially Pell Grants for incarcerated people though the ‘80s and ‘90s until they were shut down by the 1994 crime bill.

    “Prison should not be a pleasant place,” Illinois Republican State Rep. Al Salvi was quoted as saying in the Chicago Tribune in 1995, echoing the sentiment of many Republicans as well as Democrats at the time. “Giving them a college education and law libraries that lawyers would envy, that’s not the way to punish them…. There are people living honest lives who don’t get that.”

    Following the elimination of Pell Grants, college programs in prisons dropped from 350 in 1990 to only eight in 1997. Advocates have been working for decades to restore Pell Grants for incarcerated people. Under the Obama administration, a pilot program began in 2015. With findings from a series of RAND Corporation studies now showing that prison education is cost-effective for taxpayers by reducing recidivism, the topic is having a rare moment of bipartisan support.

    An Uncertain Future

    Last fall, negotiations were conducted at the U.S. Department of Education to define exactly what the Pell Grant changes mean by creating guidelines that institutions must follow in order to run a prison education program.

    A coalition of long-running Illinois programs has formed the Illinois Coalition for Higher Education in Prison (ILCHEP). With the upcoming changes, members are focused on providing best practices for new programs. They hope to serve as a model for other states and are working with similar groups in Missouri and Pennsylvania. However, the coalition is still not being included in Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) planning talks.

    “Maybe some educators are at the table, but certainly not the coalition,” Sarah Ross of PNAP says. “We represent several programs that are successful and working against the odds. The department doesn’t open the door easily for us.” She says it feels like “doublespeak” from IDOC: The department wants the education programs, but at the same time makes it hard for coalition members to operate and provide input.

    One main concern for educators teaching in prisons is how the U.S. Department of Education is assessing programs — measuring success based on recidivism rates and employment after release. These sorts of assessments could determine which programs can continue to access Pell Grant funding. That emphasis on recidivism and employment might incentivize programs to serve only students with shorter sentences, and could continue to ignore students like Cedric X. Cal with life sentences.

    In 2009, 15 years after Cal began serving his sentence, the only witness to the fatal shooting that he was charged with recanted his testimony. Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions took up his case and filed an appeal in 2011. All his teachers, he said, signed affidavits on his behalf, even at the risk of losing their jobs. They could have been banned from the prison for showing that sort of support to an incarcerated person. Despite their efforts, the court denied Cal’s appeal.

    Then in 2018, Cal was resentenced following a Supreme Court decision that ruled natural life sentences for juveniles to be unconstitutional. His sentence was reduced to 60 years, with 30 required to be served. And in July 2020, after spending 28 years inside, 45-year-old Cal was granted clemency by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker right as COVID hit Jacksonville Correctional Center, where he was incarcerated.

    Reentry hasn’t been easy. While Cal’s PNAP education has helped him continue fighting to clear his name, convictions are rarely overturned. Another appeal was denied in March 2021, and he’s now hoping his case will be heard by the Supreme Court. Finding work has been nearly impossible. “For the first six months, I was hired and fired [from multiple jobs] because of background checks,” he says. He got by delivering food through DoorDash under an alias and eventually secured a job unloading trucks at a warehouse.

    In addition to his job at the warehouse, he’s studying advanced manufacturing at Chicago’s Daley College and volunteering with the Nation of Islam’s prison reform ministry.

    Cal hopes that the coming changes to prison education funding could mean that one day there will be college programs in every prison in the state. But he’s still worried that other individuals with long or life sentences still could be left behind.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Most of us want our tax dollars to be wisely used — especially around tax time.

    You’ve probably heard a lot about corporations not paying taxes. Last year, individuals like you contributed six times more in income tax than corporations did.

    But have you heard about how many of your tax dollars then end up in corporate pockets? It’s a lot — especially for corporations that contract with the Pentagon. They collect nearly half of all military spending.

    The average taxpayer contributed about $2,000 to the military last year, according to a breakdown my colleagues and I prepared for the Institute for Policy Studies. More than $900 of that went to corporate military contractors.

    In 2020, the largest Pentagon contractor, Lockheed Martin, took in $75 billion from taxpayers — and paid its CEO more than $23 million.

    Unfortunately, this spending isn’t buying us a more secure world.

    Last year, Congress added $25 billion the Pentagon didn’t ask for to its already gargantuan budget. Lawmakers even refused to let military leaders retire weapons systems they couldn’t use anymore. The extra money favored top military contractors that gave campaign money to a group of lawmakers, who refused to comment on it.

    Then there’s simple price-gouging.

    There’s the infamous case of TransDigm, a Pentagon contractor that charged the government $4,361 for a metal pin that should’ve cost $46 — and then refused to share cost data. Congress recently asked TransDigm to repay some of its misbegotten profits, but the Pentagon hasn’t cut off its business.

    Somewhere between price-gouging and incompetence lies the F-35 jet fighter, an embarrassment the late Senator John McCain, a Pentagon booster, called “a scandal and a tragedy.”

    Among the most expensive weapons systems ever, the F-35 has numerous failings. It’s spontaneously caught fire at least three times — hardly the outcome you’d expect for the top Pentagon contractor’s flagship program. The Pentagon has reduced its request for new F-35s this year by about a third, but Congress may reject that too.

    Most serious of all, there’s the problem of U.S. weapons feeding conflicts in ways the Pentagon didn’t foresee, but probably should have.

    When U.S. ground troops left Afghanistan, they left behind a huge array of military equipment, from armored vehicles to aircraft, that could now be in Taliban hands. The U.S. also left weapons in Iraq that fell into the hands of ISIS, including guns and an anti-tank missile.

    Even weapons we sold to so-called allies like Saudi Arabia have ended up going to people affiliated with groups like al Qaeda.

    Military weapons also end up on city streets at home. Over the years, civilian law agencies have received guns, armored vehicles, and even grenade launchers from the military, turning local police into near-military organizations.

    Records also show that the Pentagon has lost hundreds of weapons which may have been stolen, including grenade launchers and rocket launchers. Some of these weapons have been used in crimes.

    Taxpayers shouldn’t be spending $900 apiece for these outcomes. My team at the Institute for Policy Studies and others have demonstrated ways to cut up to $350 billion per year from the Pentagon budget, including what we spend on weapons contractors, without compromising our safety.

    Even better, we could then put some of that money elsewhere.

    Compared to the $900 for Pentagon contractors, the average taxpayer contributed only about $27 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $171 to K-12 education, and barely $5 to renewable energy.

    How much more could we get if we invested even a fraction of what we spend on military contractors for these dire needs?

    Most Americans support shifting Pentagon funds to pay for domestic needs. Instead of making Americans fork over another $900 to corporate military contractors this year, Congress should put our dollars to better use.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Although the United States has tried mightily to undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC) since it became operational in 2002, the U.S. government is now pushing for the ICC to prosecute Russian leaders for war crimes in Ukraine. Apparently, Washington thinks the ICC is reliable enough to try Russians but not to bring U.S. or Israeli officials to justice.

    On March 15, the Senate unanimously passed S. Res 546, which “encourages member states to petition the ICC or other appropriate international tribunal to take any appropriate steps to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Russian Armed Forces.”

    When he introduced the resolution, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said, “This is a proper exercise of jurisdiction. This is what the court was created for.” The United States has refused to join the ICC and consistently tries to undercut the court. Yet a unanimous U.S. Senate voted to utilize the ICC in the Ukraine conflict.

    Since February 24, when the Russian Federation launched an armed attack against Ukraine, horrific images of destruction have been ubiquitous. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented 3,455 civilian casualties, including 1,417 killed and 2,038 injured as of April 3. Most of those casualties have been caused by explosive weapons with a wide impact area, which includes heavy artillery and multiple launch systems as well as air and missile strikes.

    On February 28, Karim Khan, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, opened an investigation into the situation in Ukraine. He said that his preliminary examination found a reasonable basis to believe that alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed in Ukraine. Khan’s formal investigation will “also encompass any new alleged crimes . . . that are committed by any party to the conflict on any part of the territory of Ukraine.”

    As I explained in prior Truthout columns, in spite of U.S.-led NATO’s provocation of Russia over the past several years, the Russian invasion of Ukraine constitutes illegal aggression.

    Nevertheless, the ICC does not have jurisdiction to prosecute Russian leaders for the crime of aggression.

    The ICC’s Rome Statute Prohibits Aggression

    In 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing,” adding that, “to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, called aggressive war “the greatest menace of our times.” Jackson said, “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

    Aggression is prohibited by the ICC’s Rome Statute. Article 8bis defines the crime of aggression as “the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”

    Adopting the central prohibition of the UN Charter against the use of aggressive force, Article 8bis defines an act of aggression asthe use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.” The charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense or with the consent of the Security Council, neither of which happened before Russia invaded Ukraine.

    In order to secure a conviction for aggression, the prosecutor of the ICC must prove that a leader who exercised control over the military or political apparatus of a country ordered an armed attack against another country. An armed attack can include bombing or attacking the armed forces of other country. The attack must be a “manifest” violation of the UN Charter in its character, scale and gravity, which includes only the most serious forms of the illegal use of force. For example, a single gunshot would not qualify but George W. Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq would.

    But the ICC’s jurisdictional scheme for the crime of aggression is much more restrictive than its regime for punishing the other crimes under the Rome Statute — genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    The original Rome Statute said that those three crimes could be prosecuted in the ICC if: (1) the defendant’s country was a party to the statute; (2) one or more elements of the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party; (3) the defendant’s country accepted ICC jurisdiction for the matter; or (4) upon referral by the UN Security Council. But the statute left the definition and jurisdictional scheme for prosecuting the crime of aggression to future negotiation.

    In 2010, the final negotiations in Kampala, Uganda, added an amendment which is now Article 15bis(5) of the Rome Statute. It is this article that prevents the ICC from taking jurisdiction over Russian leaders for the crime of aggression.

    Most countries at the Kampala Review Conference thought they had agreed that States Parties were covered by the jurisdictional scheme unless they “opted out” under Article 15bis(4). But in 2017, France, the U.K., and several other States reversed the presumption of Article 15bis(4). Under their new interpretation, States Parties were presumed to be “out” of the jurisdictional scheme unless they “opted in” by ratifying the amendment. In other words, the ICC would not have jurisdiction to prosecute nationals of States Parties that had not ratified the amendment.

    If the crime of aggression was covered by the same jurisdictional regime as war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, the ICC could prosecute Russian officials for aggression. Although neither Russia nor Ukraine has ratified the Rome Statute, Ukraine accepted ICC jurisdiction under Article 12(3) of the statute. Russia would veto any Security Council referral of the matter to the ICC.

    The prohibition on aggression is so basic that it is considered to be jus cogens, a preemptory norm of international law which can never be committed under any circumstances. There is no immunity defense or statute of limitations for a jus cogens norm.

    The Security Council could convene a special tribunal to try the crime of aggression committed in Ukraine, but again, Russia would veto such a resolution.

    Another option is for countries to prosecute Russian leaders for aggression in their domestic courts under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. Some crimes are so heinous, they are considered to be crimes against the entire world.

    U.S. Calls for ICC Prosecution of Russians But Shuns Jurisdiction for U.S. and Israeli Leaders

    “Americans are rightfully horrified when they see civilians killed by Russian bombardment in Ukraine,” Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies wrote in the LA Progressive, “but they are generally not quite so horrified, and more likely to accept official justifications, when they hear that civilians are killed by U.S. forces or American weapons in Iraq, Syria, Yemen or Gaza.” Benjamin and Davies attribute this to the complicity of the corporate media “by showing us corpses in Ukraine and the wails of their loved ones, but shielding us from equally disturbing images of people killed by U.S. or allied forces.”

    The United States maintains a double standard when it comes to the ICC. The U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute. Although former President Bill Clinton signed the statute as he left office, he urged incoming President George W. Bush to refrain from sending it to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. Whereas signing indicates an intent to ratify, a country becomes a State Party once it ratifies the treaty.

    Bush went one step further and in an unprecedented move, his administration unsigned the Rome Statute. Congress then passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), which contains a clause called the “Hague Invasion Act.” It says that if a U.S. or allied national is detained by the ICC, the U.S. military can use armed force to extricate them.

    But the Dodd Amendment, which is one provision of the ASPA, “specifically permits the United States to assist international efforts to bring to justice ‘foreign nationals’ who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity,” former Sen. Christopher Dodd and John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the National Security Council and State Department, wrote in The Washington Post.

    Another provision says that the ASPA “would clearly allow the United States to share intelligence information about Russian offenses, to allow expert investigators and prosecutors to assist, and to provide law enforcement and diplomatic support to the Court,” Dodd and Bellinger added.

    Although the U.S. is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, it participated in the negotiations on the crime of aggression. The United States has consistently tried to undermine the ICC. The Bush administration effectively blackmailed 100 countries that were States Parties by forcing them to sign bilateral immunity agreements in which they promised not to turn over U.S. persons to the ICC or the United States would withhold foreign aid from them.

    In 2020, after the ICC launched an investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity by U.S. as well as Taliban leaders in Afghanistan, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials but Joe Biden reversed them.

    When Khan became chief prosecutor of the ICC, he narrowed the scope of the investigation in Afghanistan by limiting suspects to Taliban and ISIS leaders. He cited “the limited resources available to my Office relative to the scale and nature of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are being or have been committed in various parts of the world.”

    Khan stated, “I have therefore decided to focus my Office’s investigations in Afghanistan on crimes allegedly committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State — Khorasan Province (“IS-K”) and to deprioritise other aspects of this investigation.”

    “This was clearly a political decision — there’s really no other way it can be interpreted,” human rights lawyer Jennifer Gibson told Al Jazeera. Gibson’s human rights group Reprieve submitted representations for clients who alleged torture by the CIA in the brutal Bagram prison, as well as relatives of civilians allegedly killed in U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan. “It gave the US and their allies a get out of jail free card,” Gibson said.

    The Biden administration continues to oppose the pending ICC investigation into Israeli war crimes in Gaza. It has expressed “serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.”

    Following a five-year preliminary examination, former ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda found a reasonable basis to mount an investigation of “the situation in Palestine.” She was “satisfied that (i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip . . . (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

    Bensouda initiated the preliminary examination six months after Israel’s 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” when Israeli military forces killed 2,200 Palestinians, nearly one-quarter of them children and more than 80 percent civilians.

    “So, the U.S. wants to help the International Criminal Court prosecute Russian war crimes while barring any possibility the ICC could probe U.S. (or Israeli) war crimes,” observed Reed Brody, a commissioner for the International Commission of Jurists, an international human rights nongovernmental organization.

    U.S. hypocrisy is no more apparent than in the first “Whereas” clause of the Senate’s unanimous resolution condemning Russia. It says, “Whereas the United States of America is a beacon for the values of freedom, democracy, and human rights across the globe . . .”

    One hundred members of the U.S. Senate affirmed that sentiment in spite of the U.S. wars of aggression in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the commission of U.S war crimes. If the senators truly believe that the ICC is dependable enough to prosecute Russian leaders, they should push Biden to send the Rome Statute to them for advice and consent to ratification. What’s good for the Russian goose should also be good for the U.S. gander.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden recently delivered a speech promising to address “ghost guns,” untraceable, self-assembled firearms. They are often put together with parts purchased online and could include material from different models. Certainly, there are too many ghost guns in Black and Brown communities due to reckless profiteering of gun manufacturers and corporations.

    Let’s be clear, the administration is right to address ghost guns. Our organization, LIVE FREE commends President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco for their work to ban companies from selling do-it-yourself kits for assembling a gun without a serial number. While action to address ghost guns is long overdue, elected officials must not “ghost” Black and Brown communities ahead of the summer by failing to use American Rescue Plan dollars to scale community violence intervention strategies.

    In too many cities across the country, the conversation around safety is taking on an increasingly “tough-on-crime” narrative. We do not have to make the uneven and costly exchange of justice for safety, or healing for security. Thanks to the advocacy of Fund Peace, American Rescue Plan dollars are eligible to be used for scaling up community-based violence interventions.

    However, mayors and police chiefs are instead using the lion’s share of these resources to grow already bloated law enforcement departments, even though a more effective and less harmful approach is easily within reach. If elected leaders fail to invest evenly in community-based violence intervention strategies, we will see further spikes in violence, mass incarceration, separated families and hurting communities.

    And let’s be clear, the Biden administration has signaled to state and local elected officials that Rescue Plan funds can be used to expand the tool belt of public safety in cities across the country. This United States Treasury Department guidance clearly lays out expansive uses of the American Rescue Plan to include things like summer jobs, housing and community violence interventions. Local and state lawmakers’ lack of imagination — and muscle memory of criminalization — are impediments to ensuring public safety in 2022.

    Yes, many of our communities are afraid. All are asking for more safe and secure communities. But we need visionary leadership in this time of crisis, not reactionary solutions from a 25-year-old failed playbook of tough on crime and criminalization.

    Across the country, there has been widespread coverage on the “rise in crime,” which doesn’t take into account the impacts of a devastating pandemic or persistent joblessness. The narrative about crime creates a convenient pretext allowing local and state policy makers to turn their backs on much-needed reforms. Still, the safety of our loved ones is of utmost importance. Everyone wants to live in communities where they are safe from harm. And that is why government intervention must be targeted, and it must be precise. Policy makers cannot pursue short-term solutions to long-term problems. Nor can they return to approaches that barely solve one issue while creating a slew of others.

    Focusing on “rising crime” will lead policy makers to abandon criminal legal reforms and throw out the baby with the bath water. We know that returning to a tough-on-crime approach will not keep communities safe. Building safety means investing in the people and groups closest to the pain. We cannot expect that, on the heels of a bruising and traumatic global pandemic, communities do not need deeper support. The federal government knew states and local jurisdictions were suffering. They passed a COVID-19 relief bill for this very reason.

    Unfortunately, too many state and local governments are using COVID-19 relief funds to invest solely in police. For instance, The Guardian reported that several large cities in California spent a significant portion of federal American Rescue Plan Act funds on police, even though the bill was passed to address job loss, housing loss and food insecurity brought on by COVID-19. Police cannot feed hungry children; nor can they address homelessness. Law enforcement reacts to crime. Their expanded coffers aren’t leading to a reduction in crime.

    It is imperative that local and state governments direct funding to proven gun violence reduction and prevention strategies. If gun violence prevention programs do not fund credible messengers, clergy outreach, bedside intervention, stipends for persons seeking to leave the gang lifestyle, restorative justice and non-police-affiliated violence intervention programs, they are short-sighted. If policy makers aren’t working to address the issues that cause people to turn to violence in the first place, they aren’t doing the type of work that would lead to short- or long-term reductions in crime.

    Moreover, if the approach is to embrace the victims of violence without also seeking to understand and connect with the perpetrators, we are missing the mark. We must also recognize that these groups — victims and perpetrators — often overlap. We cannot have elected officials obstructing progress by refusing to engage or tepidly engaging with community-based gun violence reduction strategies.

    Right now, many municipalities are directing federal funding to everything but the strategies that have been proven to reduce gun violence and mass incarceration. As the Biden administration works with community-based groups, we hope it will shift course away from encouraging further funding for police departments. Instead, both federal and local lawmakers should act in the best interest of Black and Brown communities and fund peace.

    It is time for our communities to come together and create an ecosystem where people can live free of gun violence and mass incarceration. Police were never designed to meet the systemic issues of hurting people. Responding to pain by enforcing a criminal code, as police are trained to do, is ineffective.

    We cannot continue to allow policy makers to ghost Black and Brown people.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An anti-abortion group that masquerades as progressive in an attempt to gain a following in liberal cities suddenly surged into mainstream news headlines this spring after the Washington Metro Police Department recovered five fetuses from the apartment of anti-abortion activist Lauren Handy.

    Handy is a member of the group “Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising” (PAAU), which announced its formation in September 2021. The group claims to be “pro-BIPOC” and “pro-LGBTQ,” but in practice, the group’s actions align with a violent, right-wing anti-abortion tradition.

    After a few months of invading clinics and harassing patients at clinic entrances on the East Coast and West Coast with little press coverage, PAAU received national attention in late March after the fetuses were found at Handy’s apartment. Handy was one of nine anti-abortion activists who were charged on March 30 with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, for an incident in October 2020 wherein the activists chained themselves to the entrance of a D.C. abortion clinic. The police investigated Handy’s apartment after receiving a tip about potential biohazard materials being stored there, according to their statement.

    At a press conference to address the findings, PAAU appeared alongside Randall Terry, the founder of the notorious anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue has been linked to the murder of abortion providers such as George Tiller. Terry called on “cowardly Christians” to act against what he described as the “violence” of abortion. Terry is one of many non-progressive allies that PAAU has aligned with in its short existence.

    Before this gruesome and shocking story made headlines, we were well-aware of Lauren Handy and PAAU. We’re members of NYC for Abortion Rights, a group of socialist feminist organizers who are building a grassroots movement for free abortion on demand. As a part of that work, we regularly defend clinics in our area from a range of anti-abortion groups, most recently PAAU. PAAU’s leadership reflexively claims to be “atheist” and liberal,” and they employ terminology like “Abortion Industrial Complex” and “Big Abortion.” They use the language of abolition and social justice to talk about abortion, casting fetuses as “the unborn,” which they frame as a marginalized group. Unlike many other anti-abortion organizations, PAAU is only active in liberal cities and states, where counterprotests against abortion are more likely to take place. These are also the cities and states that might be safe havens for abortion access if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    Shortly before news broke of Handy’s arrest, we encountered PAAU outside Manhattan’s Planned Parenthood on Bleecker Street. Members were beating on bucket drums and chanting, “We are clinic invaders and yours is next!”

    Terrisa Bukovinac (left), is the founder and executive director of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. The group claims to be “pro-BIPOC” and “pro-LGBTQ,” but in practice, the group’s actions align with a violent, right-wing, anti-abortion tradition.
    Terrisa Bukovinac (left), is the founder and executive director of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. The group claims to be “pro-BIPOC” and “pro-LGBTQ,” but in practice, the group’s actions align with a violent, right-wing, anti-abortion tradition.

    When we talk about PAAU and similar threats with other New Yorkers, we hear the same refrain: “Wow, I didn’t know this happened in New York.” There’s a great deal of complacency — an assumption that abortion rights in liberal cities like New York City will forever be enshrined in law, and that the threat to reproductive justice and autonomy only exists in red states. What this complacency fails to take into account is that the “pro-life” movement is extensive and well-funded. Many of its activists are perfectly fine with breaking the law and risking arrest in order to prevent pregnant people from accessing safe abortions; they have the infrastructure, funding and organization to take those risks, and face little consequences from law enforcement.

    Those who are somewhat acquainted with the history of abortion in the U.S. will recall the bad old days of the 1980s and ‘90s, when opponents of abortion access would attempt to physically storm clinics to prevent patients from entering — and clinic defenders would link arms to stop them (not to mention the murder and stalking of abortion doctors and the bombing of clinics). The passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) act in 1994, which made it a felony to obstruct the entrance of a medical clinic or impede its operations, put a temporary damper on this type of aggression. But it’s coming back.

    Some might imagine the police will protect abortion seekers. However, trusting in the New York City Police Department to enforce abortion rights is a losing strategy. We have never once seen cops help patients enter the clinic safely or even enforce the FACE Act as anti-abortion activists congregate right in front of the clinic doors. In fact, when asked why they aren’t enforcing the FACE Act, police often say they don’t know what it is. We have often witnessed police simply escorting the anti-abortion activists as they lead their march to harass patients.

    PAAU isn’t the only anti-abortion organization active in major cities. Love Life is a far right evangelical organization dedicated primarily to overthrowing reproductive rights. Founded in North Carolina by the sons of Flip Benham — a notorious anti-abortion figure with a record of stalking abortion doctors — the well-funded nonprofit has opened offices in New York City, specifically with the view of combating what it describes as “the abortion capital of the world.”

    Here’s what members of Love Life said to their viewers on a livestream from outside Manhattan’s Bleecker Street Planned Parenthood: “People ask us, ‘why don’t you stay in church and pray?’ Because we are called as Christians to go to where the heart of the evil is — where abortion takes place.”

    Love Life has repeatedly conducted “sidewalk counseling,” or harassment of abortion patients, outside the Bleecker Street Planned Parenthood.

    These types of actions are not simply led by a marginal fringe. The Archdiocese of New York has organized “prayer walks” to abortion clinics and sidewalk counseling for the past several years. These are often led by Father Fidelis Moscinski. Moscinski is a leading figure in a national network of “Red Rose Rescuers” — a campaign of clinic invasion where participants trespass into abortion clinics, harass abortion patients, and refuse to leave.

    Moscinski has been arrested in several cities doing this — though not in New York, yet. In a recent video, Moscinski and a fellow anti-abortion activist reminisced fondly about the days when activists would chain themselves to clinic entrances — and urged viewers to consider risking arrest to participate in Red Rose Rescues. They call this “civil disobedience.”

    Two summers ago, NYC for Abortion Rights members literally linked arms with Planned Parenthood volunteers outside the Bleecker Street clinic as members of an anti-abortion group attempted to storm the doors. “I’ve been doing this for thirty years,” one of the volunteers said. “This hasn’t happened since the ‘90s.” PAAU has been replicating these tactics, engaging in “Pink Rose Rescues” in many cities.

    If Roe falls — which seems increasingly likely — we can’t just blithely assume that reproductive rights will be unassailable in cities like New York City. The anti-abortion movement has established a presence here too. We need to be prepared for the anti-abortion movement to escalate the tactics it is engaging in already — bussing and flying demonstrators here to harass patients and blockade clinic entrances. Instead of 50 anti-abortion activists outside the clinic, we need to be prepared for there to be hundreds of them.

    Though there is limited research on the topic, evidence suggests that clinic harassment is harmful for patients and providers alike. A 2013 study published in the journal Contraception found that for patients who had a more difficult time deciding to get an abortion, encountering protesters was especially upsetting. As clinic harassment has ramped up post-Trump, a more recent study conducted with Louisiana abortion patients found that anti-abortion protesters often physically block clinic access and cause anxiety, though they have a minimal effect on the decision to get an abortion by patients who’ve decided to undergo the procedure.

    For providers, clinic harassment taxes already limited resources to protect patients and employees from aggressive anti-abortion protesters. Clinics often need to hire security and engage with local police departments, which can stress both patients and providers. In the same 2013 study, researchers surveyed a sample of clinics across the U.S. and found that 83 percent of clinics that reported the presence of protesters reported that their staff have to regularly comfort patients who encounter protesters, and the remaining 17 percent occasionally provide comfort to patients who’ve encountered protesters. This emotional labor from clinic staff puts further strain on already taxed clinic resources. According to a 2020 report by Abortion Care Network, the number of independent abortion clinics in the U.S. has decreased by 34 percent since 2012. Nikki Madsen, the executive director of Abortion Care Network, partially attributed clinic closures to the increasing cost of maintaining security to protect the clinic from protesters and the difficulty in hiring clinic staff due to safety concerns.

    As the fight against abortion access has gained strength in the courts and state legislatures, it has intensified on the ground. According to the National Abortion Federation’s Violence and Disruption Statistics for 2020, abortion providers reported an escalation of aggressive behavior from protesters. In 2020, providers reported 115,517 picketing incidents, which was down from 2019’s record 123,228 reported incidents. As anti-abortion extremists succeed in banning abortion in conservative states, we are concerned they will take their fight to abortion safe havens on the coasts. Those of us working to protect abortion access in our liberal states must be prepared to counter these extremists effectively.

    There is certainly debate about to what extent street-based clinic defense is useful, even among supporters of abortion rights. However, in our work, these tactics have proven to be essential. We impede the anti-abortion demonstrators as they march, delaying them from reaching the clinic; we disrupt the livestreaming in front of the clinic that many organizations depend on to build their base. But most importantly, we resist anti-abortion activists’ attempts to shame and intimidate abortion patients through symbolically claiming the streets as well as the bodies of pregnant people. Directly resisting them shows that we will not surrender our bodily autonomy so easily.

    Insisting that abortion is a solely medical issue with no political valence, insisting that it can be solely defended by the courts and upheld by law enforcement, and insisting that the anti-abortion movement will be content with overturning Roe and leaving abortion up to the states are all losing tactics. People in blue states who are interested in preserving reproductive rights must build a grassroots movement to defend them. The anti-abortion movement already knows that ground-level action works; it’s time we learned it too.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • I approach the upcoming 2022 midterm election burdened by an almost cosmic sense of dread. The stakes involved this time around are altogether daunting: The manner in which we as a nation deal with a hot war and its global impact, a global pandemic that is not finished with us yet, the global climate crisis and so much else, will be determined to no insignificant degree by who emerges victorious from these upcoming contests. It ain’t about getting the potholes filled this time.

    Riding sidecar with dread is my usual kid-at-Christmas anticipation for what lies immediately ahead. I am of the opinion that primary elections, and midterm elections in general, are the last places where the people can have a significant say on the kind of federal government we will have. Presidential elections get all the ink, but as we have seen over this last year with Sen. Joe Manchin, it is the nature of Congress that tends to ultimately determine the course this country will follow, or if it will follow any course at all.

    Once the voting process reaches the general election/GOP vs. Democratic nominee stage, the whole thing is little more than a giant damn television show. The Big Money will have taken its place at the head of the table, and the whole thing will begin its inexorable tack to the right, no matter how far right it began as in the first place. The plunderers and liars who fancy themselves “The Adults” in U.S. politics will be in charge again, and another bi-annual opportunity for actual change will have been pissed away.

    The primaries, and especially the midterm primaries, though … man, it’s just wide open, isn’t it? An open House seat in Florida will draw contestants ranging from the staid, solid political veteran to a guy with live ocelots on his head who happens to have some pretty incredible ideas about rent control and water usage, and you’re free as a bird to support whichever one you like. You will never have more impactful choice in your political experience than you will in the voting booth for a midterm primary election.

    Unfortunately, few people today seem ready to grasp this opportunity. Turnout for midterm primaries, as well as midterm elections, tends to be gruesomely low when they don’t take place during a presidential election year. The bases of the parties are the people who can be most counted on to show up, and the Republican base in the main is made of far more reliable every-time voters than Democrats. Welcome to why things are they way they are.

    My dread this year is rooted in far more than the consequences. There has never been an election year like this, ever, and people are freaking out like horses caught in a thunderstorm. One example of gravity suddenly failing to work was encapsulated by a Politico/Morning Consult poll from last week. It reports that 46 percent of voters plan on voting for a Republican House candidate because the wildly popular child tax credit was killed off, even though it was the Republicans who did the killing.

    “So if this poll is right, the same voters who benefited from this popular program are apparently rewarding the party that killed it with their votes,” writes political analyst Taegan Goddard. “Perhaps this is just another major messaging fail by Democrats. But with Republicans around the country pursuing a far-right agenda — including outlawing abortion, restricting gay rights and making voting harder — there seems to be little connection between what voters want and what Republicans do. And they’re not being punished for it — at least not yet.”

    COVID 19, the insurrection, tub-thumping racism on display in Congress, and an entire political party in thrall to a defeated former president who fancies himself an electoral kingmaker… these are the ingredients for the kind of stew that would make a herd of billy goats vomit into their beards, yet here we sit waiting for daylight. With voting still many weeks away, this confluence of the bizarre and the deeply dangerous has already produced races better suited to the Saturday morning cartoons than to the establishing of functional government.

    In Georgia, former NFL player Herschel Walker is seeking to take back the seat Raphael Warnock secured in that miraculous two-race victory in 2020. Walker is avoiding audiences whenever he can, and is running on his record as a successful businessman.

    A fine tactic to be sure, if such a record actually existed. “Those claims include running the largest minority-owned food company in the United States,” reports The Daily Beast, “owning multiple chicken plants in another state; and starting and owning an upholstery business which was also, apparently, at one point in his telling, the country’s largest minority-owned apparel company.”

    Also in Georgia, David Perdue has fashioned himself the avatar of Trump’s election justice by trying to knock off Republican Governor Brian Kemp because Kemp would not help Trump steal the election. Kemp currently leads Purdue by double-digits, but all Perdue has to do to cause real trouble is to come home with enough votes to force a runoff vote, at which point anything could happen. Purdue is also one of the big tests of Trump’s endorsement; to date, that precious endorsement hasn’t been worth all that much for him.

    And then there is Alaska, home of the recently departed GOP Rep. Don Young. Among the 48 candidates (!!!) for the seat is none other than Sarah Palin, who shares a lead in the race with Al Gross. There really isn’t much to say here that hasn’t been said repeatedly since Palin was plucked from Wasilla in 2008 by John McCain and became another of our long national nightmares. These far right times we are in seem a perfect fit for Palin, and she damn well might win.

    The list of other fascinatingly bent primaries to come is long, and we will get to them all in due time. In the meantime, get some rest and eat healthy food. I have a feeling this election season is going to beat the stuffing out of us but good.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As the global news media continue to document the Russian military’s indiscriminate shelling of civilians in Ukraine, many in the U.S. have been voicing support for action. Even those with the best of intentions want to “do something” and do it immediately.

    But we want to suggest that this can lead to a disastrous and self-defeating strategy. “Doing something” has tended to mean demanding increased action from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to protect Ukraine, which, we insist, will only reproduce the conditions that helped produce the current conflict in the first place.

    To be clear, this is no defense of Russia, and the primary responsibility for this war lies with that country. But just as we don’t side with Russia because we’re critical of NATO’s imperialist motives in the region, we also don’t align ourselves with NATO just because we condemn Russian aggression.

    This may seem obvious, but unfortunately it isn’t the standard position in the U.S. Rather, Russia and NATO tend to be pitted against each other as if they were antitheses forcing a choice. Even though neither shines with the moral force of transparent perfection, the argument often goes, their mutual opposition forces us to side with a lesser evil.

    But we want to be clear: This reductive calculus is a dangerous way of thinking.

    Both NATO and Russian President Vladimir Putin are primarily motivated by a desire to extend their geopolitical sphere of influence, which is just a fancy way of saying that in addition to strategic outposts and security guarantees, both want privileged access to Ukrainian resources. NATO moved further eastward after the dissolution of the Soviet Union despite assurances to Mikhail Gorbachev to the contrary. To be clear, this was not out of any Western benevolence, but because doing so extended U.S. and European economic access. For states that had been under Soviet sway, becoming a part of NATO meant increasing integration into the dominant European economies.

    NATO is a crucial part of the U.S. strategy of economic domination — a domination that we on the left must oppose on principle. As anti-capitalists, we mustn’t accept the enrichment of a handful of oligarchs via the increasing immiseration of the majority. This principled anti-capitalism should likewise inform our rejection of Putin. His invasion of Ukraine is far from motivated by humanitarian concerns. Like U.S. and Western European capital, Russian capital is also driven by access to Ukraine’s minerals, rich earth, pipeline infrastructure, waterways and strategic ports. This economic interest is, of course, covered with a thin veneer of justification — from a chauvinist restoration of Russian imperial culture to Putin’s hollow claim to be leading a campaign of denazification — but here too we find that the two have quite a bit in common.

    We must reject the idea that NATO represents a morally superior way of life and condemn the burgeoning Russophobia that blames all Russians for a war that so many of them oppose. Yet we must equally condemn Putin’s dangerous Russian chauvinism, as it denies Ukraine’s independence and the right of an oppressed people to self-determination.

    While Russian capital is obviously comparatively weaker than its larger NATO counterparts, Putin’s hot war was neither necessary nor liberatory, and the refugee crisis, loss of life, and mass trauma it has caused are abominable. Meanwhile, NATO’s “colder” violence of economic compulsion stems from the bloc’s economic superiority, which it uses to force the sacrifice of Eastern European social services on the altar of capital in ways that destabilize, dehumanize and atomize. Unfortunately, NATO’s neoliberal onslaught has been invoked by some on the left, tragically, as grounds for declaring Putin a “lesser evil.”

    Putin and the Growth of the Far Right

    Many of those on the U.S. left who present Putin as a “lesser evil” have been quick to accept his attempts to justify the war through narratives about a need to “de-nazify” the country. But Putin’s rhetoric is cynical and misleading. He has himself continued to work with far right actors, both in Russia and abroad, many of them sympathetic to the so-called “alt-right” in the U.S.

    And the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine was largely a response to the Russian seizure of Crimea. The notion that extending force in ways that already fanned the fascist flames would now somehow extinguish them is illogical, to put it mildly.

    On the other side, in responding to this messaging from Putin and his supporters, U.S. and European corporate media have also misled readers by dramatically downplaying the existence of the far right and its power in Ukraine. For example, they have obscured the role of far right, openly neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine such as the Azov Battalion. It is true that the far right did not meet the necessary electoral threshold to win any parliamentary seats. However, the Azov Battalion has been absorbed into Ukraine’s regular military forces since the 2014 Maidan upheaval. Stepan Bandera, a noted antisemite, fascist and Hitler collaborator, is openly represented as a hero of Ukrainian nationalism. He was later imprisoned by the Nazi regime because the interests of far right Ukrainian nationalism came into conflict with those of German nationalism at the time.

    A more accurate view of the situation of the far right in Ukraine would acknowledge that the Ukrainian resistance does indeed contain reprehensible elements, and that it shouldn’t be uncritically celebrated or reduced to a monolith. But the bulk of the resistance is worth valorizing, and it is equally misguided to reduce the entire thing to its neo-Nazi fringe elements. And this is to say nothing of these far right elements among Russian separatists.

    A more accurate view would also acknowledge how, even as Putin claims “denazification” as his goal, the Russian invasion has the effect of emboldening and legitimizing the far right in both Ukraine and Russia. Antiwar protesters in Russia are being silenced and persecuted. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the ban of 11 left and left-liberal political parties. This is in addition to the ban on far left parties after Maidan. One of these parties, the Opposition Platform for Life, has 44 democratically elected seats in Ukraine’s 450-seat parliament. Further, the Ukrainian film director Sergei Loznitsa was recently expelled from the Ukrainian Film Academy for being an unpatriotic “cosmopolite” who spoke out in solidarity with antiwar protesters in Russia.

    Internationally, far right extremists flock to Ukraine in order to gain training opportunities and bragging rights. The war has become a breeding ground for international fascism.

    This means that international observers should be skeptical of the popular representation of the war as a simple case of good versus evil. Yes, we unconditionally condemn the Russian invasion and wish a speedy victory to Ukrainian struggles for self-determination. But this shouldn’t lead us to celebrate Zelenskyy as a friend of this cause, let alone side with NATO’s imperialist motives.

    Back in the U.S. and Europe, instead of examining the historical and political roots of the conflict, facile Russophobia has become the order of the day. An Italian university banned Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky, only backtracking under pressure. In the U.S., the University of Florida removed Karl Marx’s name from a campus study room, “given current events in Ukraine.” And the Boston Marathon banned all Russian and Belarusian runners from participating this year, conflating private citizens with the actions of their respective governments.

    Amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we see a far right emboldened internationally — including in Russia, where a chauvinistic attitude is enforced through the near ubiquity of state media and propaganda. Left-wing peace activists are being marginalized internationally, including in Russia and Ukraine. Abroad, the corporate media are engaged in mass denial and obfuscation on the reality of fascist and far right tendencies. Instead, calls for a no-fly zone, a move that would draw more of the world’s most powerful nations into open conflict and thereby bring us uncomfortably closer to World War III, grow louder and louder. It is potentially suicidal.

    Meanwhile, the international left is weak and disoriented. Lacking its own momentum and capacity for political leadership, many are reduced to simply picking a side among capitalist governments and institutions hell-bent on war or whose demands increase its likelihood, whether that is Russia, the U.S./NATO, or Ukraine.

    These are conditions that the far right — not just in Ukraine and Russia, but globally — is well-positioned to exploit.

    What Then Is to Be Done?

    The antiwar movement in the U.S. scarcely exists, and the organized left is focused excessively on domestic politics. In moments like these, without any collective vehicle to articulate dissent, let alone solidarity, two tendencies arise. On the one hand, solidarity becomes a markedly individualized affair, reduced to nothing more than displaying the colors of the Ukrainian flag or making individual contributions to charity drives.

    On the other hand, feeling themselves to be toothless, those engaged in individualized politics often seek out institutional actors. Unfortunately, in this case, doing so takes the form of supporting state action, with avowed progressives such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez calling for sanctions and giving tacit support to U.S. military intervention in Ukraine, under certain circumstances. Instead of looking to left-wing Ukrainian militants and Russian antiwar protesters, or developing meaningful channels of solidarity, the focus is on addressing one’s own government, which typically takes the form of tried-and-true liberal demands.

    Once proposed, sanctions seem legitimate enough: Who could possibly be against sanctions targeting Kremlin officials or Putin-aligned oligarchs? We could. The “surgical” imagery tied to these sanctions is largely propaganda, cover for much broader, indiscriminate sanctions. In practice, these sanctions have the effect of tanking the ruble, which adversely affects working-class Russians rather than some imagined Russian oligarchs close to turning on Putin.

    Second, countless members of the American commentariat, from members of Congress to self-proclaimed Ukraine experts, are following Zelenskyy in calling for a no-fly zone. In this formulation, a no-fly zone is imagined to be a gigantic physical barrier that keeps Russian planes from entering Ukrainian air space. A no-fly zone is a physical barrier — one comprised entirely of gunfire. Enforcing a no-fly zone would entail NATO forces shooting down Russian planes in Ukrainian air space. It would be a declaration of war.

    And finally, the Biden administration in the U.S. (with significant support from its base), along with other NATO countries, has moved to get weapons into the hands of Ukrainian forces. While the targeted distribution of weapons to resistance fighters might seem like a good idea in theory, in practice it amounts to the hasty dumping of weapons caches into a country marked not just by political fracture, but with a well-organized and freshly emboldened far right movement complete with openly fascist elements. This isn’t to say we don’t want to see the resistance armed. But simply unloading weapons and fleeing the scene is a recipe for disaster. We’ve been here before: in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in Kosovo in the 1990s, in Iraq in the 2000s. We know how those scenarios played out.

    In the absence of any viable alternatives, and hardly any decent media coverage, an entirely justified and deeply human sense of moral catastrophe is being funneled into unreasonable actionism — an “act first, ask questions later” approach to foreign policy.

    Yet an honest appraisal reveals that the left is not sufficiently empowered to impose its political will. We should side with the brave journalists reporting the complexity and nuance that is required to understand the situation — or those who resign when doing so is impossible. It is also why we should support the peace protesters, the army deserters and the anti-imperialists in every camp. In that vein, we support the recent development of a transnational coalition of groups in a Permanent Assembly Against the War.

    The notion that we need to support this or that capitalist bloc is but a symptom of the lack of an organized antiwar movement. Thus, the task of the left is not to choose sides amid inter-imperialist rivalry, but to raise mass consciousness regarding the history and present circumstances of international conflicts and to build a mass internationalist, anti-imperialist, antiwar movement capable of intervening on the side of peace, even when the ambitions of the world’s ruling classes demand bloodshed and war.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.