Category: Op-Ed

  • A medical worker stares blankly into the middle distance

    “Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time,” wrote Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five. I know what that means.

    Just yesterday, not quite dawn yet as usual, I was trying to settle on some music for the morning. I’d been awake for almost two hours, again, though I didn’t fall asleep until after midnight, again, and the point was pressing in the lamplit gloom. Would it be the indefatigable motor of McCoy Tyner’s left hand? Or perhaps the tiny ageless perfections of Murray Perahia’s take on J.S. Bach’s Goldberg Variations? It was going to be piano, no matter what. Let’s go with Tyner, Bach is too fussy this morning, and don’t let me forget to remind my daughter to do her piano practice, she has her lesson tomorrow, it’s amazing how she has improved, I sure hope she likes it…

    …and with a start, I awoke, chin in hand, small reservoir of drool accumulated on palm, almost two hours gone on the clock. I was right where I’d left myself: At my desk, hovering over my keyboard like a praying mantis, head turned toward the window facing the sunrise over the rolling hill that looked like some pine green breaker about to crash down onto a shoreline. It was light out, and a crust of ice on the road glittered in menace. No music; I hadn’t made it that far without becoming unstuck, again. Two hours this time. Add them to the pile.

    Two hours, two years, it’s starting to get a little flaky around here. Way back at the beginning, when they tried to tell us this thing was going to last for years, I did my best to take it to heart. I steeled myself. I followed every stricture and guideline, because vaccines were a fantasy at that point and my garbage pneumonia-damaged lungs made me a tasty COVID morsel.

    I was not going to get sick. My family was not going to get sick. I homeschooled my little girl until the classrooms opened again, and then sent her back with my heart in my throat when the doors opened. A few kids got infected here and there, none of them lethally and none of them her. I would have lost a bet on that one, truth be told. When she comes home from school now, a little voice in my head whispers, Hello, beloved, did you bring death back with you today? Did you pick it up from one of your little friends?

    My reserve is beginning to slip. I walk the evening streets of my little town, passing empty taverns with “Open” signs feebly lit beside the door, and recall a thousand nights inside such places, the air so warm and moist my glasses would fog as I shouldered my way to the bar. The urge to find that scene again is almost overwhelming, but I leave it be, because I wish to be, and specifically to be the difference between “is” and “was.”

    I look like a fat old rumpled cat, too long asleep in the laundry. My memories of the last two years are sparse; there is nothing for the mind to drag anchor on, it’s all a sort of drifting haze, unstuck in time. What is this place? Is it forever? Dr. Seuss is instructive:

    Waiting for a train to go or a bus to come, or a plane to go or the mail to come, or the rain to go or the phone to ring, or the snow to snow or waiting around for a Yes or No, or waiting for their hair to grow.

    Everyone is just waiting.

    Waiting for the fish to bite, or waiting for wind to fly a kite, or waiting around for Friday night, or waiting, perhaps, for their Uncle Jake, or a pot to boil or a Better Break, or a string of pearls or a pair of pants, or a wig with curls or Another Chance.

    Everyone is just waiting.

    Epidemiologists are cautiously pleased about the Omicron variant’s seemingly small claws, but they also warn that the next variant may well learn from the last ones, and potentially turn into something hyper-dangerous beyond our current experience. “Imagine a lineage that’s as transmissible as Omicron but also attacks the lungs like Delta tends to do,” writes David Axe for The Daily Beast. “Now imagine that this hypothetical lineage is even more adept than Omicron at evading the vaccines. That would be the nightmare lineage. And it’s entirely conceivable it’s in our future.”

    Our future. What is that? Although there are certainly reasons for hope, this fog of fear and uncertainty is the everlasting present, with the window facing east and another two hours gone in the Waiting Place. If you expect nothing else, you won’t be disappointed.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A masked worker sweeps up confetti from a new year celebration

    As I get older, holidays, especially the emergence of a new year, become both a time of remembrance and joy. They offer memories steeped in both new beginnings and loss; the value of loved ones and close friends; the beauty of solidarity forged in giving and sharing; and a hope that merges struggle, passion and justice.

    The dawn of the new year rests not merely on long-cherished narratives but also offers a time for renewed visions. It is also about birth, the emergence of new possibilities, the weighing of mistakes, a renewed sense of struggle against the haters, liars, and the dreadful conditions that produce and support them. It is about a gentle kiss and touch that comes early in the morning with the ones you love. Such moments speak to falling into the comforting abyss of desire, becoming more conscious of what it means to make yourself vulnerable so you can step outside of the privatized prisons that a brutal economic system puts us in.

    In a time of apocalyptic cynicism, the normalization of violence and deepening collective despair, thinking about the new year is more than a discourse of traditional aspirations. On the contrary, it is an interruptive and critical moment crucial to examining the horrors of a present descending all too quickly into fascism and what it might mean to create a new language, vision and motivations to embrace a future that imagines the fullness of justice, compassion, equality and democracy.

    Thinking about the new year is and should be an act of resistance.

    The new year offers a space to ponder what it means to reclaim history as a site of struggle, resistance and civic courage. This suggests reclaiming historical memory as a site of learning and resistance; it means making education central to politics; it means utilizing both a language of critique and a discourse of hope; it means building a mass movement with international ties in the struggle for social and economic justice. Under such circumstances, the cry for justice, equality, and freedom takes on a new urgency and offers up new possibilities. It infuses the present with the fire of wakefulness, longing for and hopefully producing a new language for reclaiming our sense of agency, consciousness, and the courage to never look away. Hope expands the space of the possible and becomes a way of recognizing and naming the incomplete nature of the present. The new year suggests giving new meaning to the promise of a world without suffering, inequality and the anti-democratic forces sprouting up like dangerous weeds. The new year should offer the opportunity to rethink life, dignity, and a humane equality as they unfold in their fullest and always with others. The new year should be rooted in dreams that reject a vision of the future as simply a continuation of the present.

    Let’s make 2022 a year to talk back, beat down the fascist currents sweeping across the United States and elsewhere. Let’s make it a time that brings together the fractured movements on the left in order to build a mass movement and political party that speaks with the people rather than against them.

    I realize that these words of hope come at a difficult time in the United States, Canada and across the globe. Civic courage and the social contract are under siege. Educators, artists and public intellectuals underplay the connection between fascism and capitalism. The government has failed miserably to deal with the COVID crisis. And we face a cultural landscape dominated by the empty ballast of the mainstream media that lacks the courage to both deal with the growing threat of authoritarianism and to name neoliberal capitalism and white supremacy as organizing principles of American politics. We live at a time in which disorder and manufactured ignorance have become normalized. Too many Americans view freedom as simply an individual right and ignore the fact that it is also a matter of social responsibility. Civic illiteracy is now wrapped in a false appeal to freedom. Civic courage loses its ethical moorings when it fails to relate the collapse of conscience to the collapse of the welfare state. Struggling for a better world seems almost incomprehensible in a society where the pathology of power, privatization and greed have turned the self-inward to the point where any notion of social commitment and struggle for social justice appears either as a weakness or is treated with disdain. Freedom has partially collapsed into a moral nihilism that creates a straight line from politics to catastrophe to apocalypse. Chaos, uncertainty, loneliness and fear define the current historical moment. In too many cases, learned helplessness leads to learned hopelessness. A culture of consumerism, sensationalism, immediacy, and manufactured ignorance obscures how political and moral passions substitute sheer rage, anger and emotion for a thoughtful defense of truth, the social contract, civic culture, a culture of questioning and democracy itself.

    Of course, there are clear and powerful examples of civic courage among young people, the Black Lives Matter Movement, educators, health care workers, union organizers, and others fighting social injustices and systemic racism while caring for the sick, dispossessed, and those bearing the weight of poverty, bigotry and hatred. These inspiring and brave agents of democracy offer a history and sense of the present that allow us to greet the new year with a vision of what a different future would look like, one born out of moral witnessing, the social imagination, civic courage and care for others.

    While it is true that we face the new year at a time when social fractures and economic divides fuel a tsunami of fear, anger, falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and in some cases, a politics wedded to violence, we need to summon the courage to reject normalizing such events. As such, we can never let hope turn into the pathology of cynicism, or worse.

    In the midst of a surging authoritarianism, we do not have a language that fully comprehends the crisis Americans face politically, economically and socially. We need a language that views politics more comprehensively, connects the dots among diverse issues, and offers empowering strategies for creating mass movements. Hopefully, the new year will offer us the time to construct a visionary language as a condition for rethinking the possibilities that might come in the future, one that offers the promise of a sustainable democracy. Values such as freedom, solidarity and equality need to “breathe” again, develop deeper roots, and renew an individual and collective sense of social responsibility and joint action. We need to throw out the harmful assumptions that turn freedom into a toxic notion of selfishness, hope into a crushing cynicism, and politics into a site of indifference, cruelty and corruption. The new year should push us to reclaim the virtues of dignity, compassion and justice. It should remind us of the necessity to dream again, imagine the unimaginable, and think otherwise in order to act otherwise.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden, with Vice President Kamala Harris, arrives to meet with members of the White House COVID-19 Response Team on January 4, 2022, in the South Court Auditorium of the White House in Washington, D.C.

    The conversation on shutting down massive swaths of the economy and daily life, in order to corral the dual COVID-19 variant explosions of Delta and Omicron, has become brittle. President Biden has stated repeatedly that the U.S. is not “in the shutdown business,” a sentiment echoed by many of his political allies as well as members of the business community.

    Their hesitancy, while not as scientifically responsible as it should be, definitely has its reasons. Along with causing significant financial losses, the upheaval among the parents of young children was extremely punishing when schools closed and a haphazard form of in-home learning was instituted. Moreover, amid the earlier shutdowns, an ongoing right-wing political movement united with anti-vaccine conspiracists and allies of former President Donald Trump, and now threatens the very fabric of democracy in this country. If Biden chooses to lock down parts of the country, those collective pressures could collide and erupt again in ways difficult to predict.

    Yet to no small degree, the shutdown decisions are already making themselves, thanks to vast numbers of workers testing positive and needing to stay home, rendering many workplaces incapable of full operation. “The question for Mr. Biden and his team,” reports The New York Times, “is whether anything they are doing can help soothe the psyches of Americans as they brace for potentially more months of Zoom meetings, canceled sports games and masks.”

    The average number of new COVID infections stood at 486,658 today, a seven-day increase of 239 percent. All this on the heels of the holiday season’s inevitable spike in infections, and with millions of children returning to school after winter break. It is a cocktail for calamity.

    Hospitals across the country are being hit with a flood tide of new infections among the unvaccinated, as well as by breakthrough cases among those who have their shots. So far, it does seem as if Omicron packs less of a punch among those who become infected despite vaccination. For those who have refused vaccines in deference to a right-wing political rallying cry, the outlook is far more grim, and has led the national health care infrastructure to the brink of implosion. Nearly half the nation still hasn’t gotten the recommended three doses.

    “US hospitals have been dealing with their own staffing setbacks as they faced a recent surge driven by the Delta variant,” reports CNN. “Now, with Omicron spreading rapidly, hospitals are further strained. ‘The hospital is full, the ICU is full, and of course at the same time we’ve lost 20, 25 percent of the overall staff in the hospital due to them getting sick and having to stay home and isolate,’ Dr. Anand Swaminathan, an emergency physician in New Jersey, said Sunday. Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency room physician and associate dean at the Brown School of Public Health, said it was difficult to describe the situation in her hospital’s emergency department, with doctors and nurses ‘at the end of their rope.’”

    Indeed, we are all at the end of our rope, and it is vital to recognize that, along with the peril it represents. We’ve allowed capitalism to be in the driver’s seat of our response since this began, and all that has gotten us is a steady diet of one step forward, three steps back.

    While we do not yet require a total lockdown of everything thanks to the vaccines and other improved treatments, this tentative approach to containment has failed and must be abandoned. Instead, we need bold and immediate action. This would include universally available free testing, including both rapid at-home tests and PCRs. It would include widely available and free gold-standard masks, mandated in indoor public places. It would involve remote work and closures where appropriate, according to scientific recommendations, and subsidizing pay for people who can’t go to work. Such action would also include shifting events, school and work outdoors in climates where that makes sense. Sensibly applied vaccine and testing mandates, particularly in relation to travel, could go a long way. And the latest and best available COVID treatments should be accessible at all hospitals. Moreover, steps must be taken to end vaccine apartheid and ensure global access to vaccination.

    “From the beginning, there have been a number of scientifically sound tactics to thwart this damnable thing,” I wrote back in November. “They were ignored during the last year of Trump’s tenure, and remain well behind where they should be under Biden. Those tactics are right in front of us, here and now…. These measures must be accompanied by restrictions and/or lockdowns when they are needed, not when they are financially convenient for the powerful. Science needs to drive the bus this time — science, and a genuinely effective push to vaccinate the entire world, cost be damned — and let the engine of greed idle for a while.”

    The president needs to get a handle on this at long last, and stop mollifying the capitalists with half-a-loaf exercises in futility. We are almost out of time. One more winter, I fear, and then the abyss.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden walks out of the podium after speaking during International Women's Day in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 8, 2021. Behind Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Air Force General Jacqueline Van Ovost greet each other with an elbow-bump.

    It began more than two decades ago. On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush declared a “war on terror” and told a joint session of Congress (and the American people) that “the course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain.” If he meant a 20-year slide to defeat in Afghanistan, a proliferation of militant groups across the Greater Middle East and Africa, and a never-ending, world-spanning war that, at a minimum, has killed about 300 times the number of people murdered in America on 9/11, then give him credit. He was absolutely right.

    Days earlier, Congress had authorized Bush “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determine[d] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons.” By then, it was already evident, as Bush said in his address, that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. But it was equally clear that he had no intention of conducting a limited campaign. “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there,” he announced. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”

    Congress had already assented to whatever the president saw fit to do. It had voted 420 to 1 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate to grant an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that would give him (and presidents to come) essentially a free hand to make war around the world.

    “I believe that it’s broad enough for the president to have the authority to do all that he needs to do to deal with this terrorist attack and threat,” Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) said at the time. “I also think that it is tight enough that the constitutional requirements and limitations are protected.” That AUMF would, however, quickly become a blank check for boundless war.

    In the two decades since, that 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force has been formally invoked to justify counterterrorism (CT) operations — including ground combat, airstrikes, detention, and the support of partner militaries — in 22 countries, according to a new report by Stephanie Savell of Brown University’s Costs of War Project. During that same time, the number of terrorist groups threatening Americans and American interests has, according to the U.S. State Department, more than doubled.

    Under that AUMF, U.S. troops have conducted missions across four continents. The countries in question include some of little surprise like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and a few unexpected nations like Georgia and Kosovo. “In many cases the executive branch inadequately described the full scope of U.S. actions,” writes Savell, noting the regular invocation of vague language, pretzeled logic, and weak explanations. “In other cases, the executive branch reported on ‘support for CT operations,’ but did not acknowledge that troops were or could be involved in hostilities with militants.”

    For nearly a year, the Biden administration has conducted a comprehensive evaluation of this country’s counterterrorism policies, while continuing to carry out airstrikes in at least four countries. The 2001 AUMF has, however, already been invoked by Biden to cover an unknown number of military missions in 12 countries: Afghanistan, Cuba, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Niger, the Philippines, Somalia, and Yemen.

    “A lot is being said about the Biden administration’s rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy, and while it’s true that Biden has conducted substantially less drone strikes so far than his predecessors, which is a positive step,” Savell told TomDispatch, “his invocation of the 2001 AUMF in at least 12 countries indicates that the U.S. will continue its counterterrorism activities in many places. Basically, the U.S. post-9/11 wars continue, even though U.S. troops have formally left Afghanistan.”

    AUMFing in Africa

    “[W]e are entering into a long twilight struggle against terrorism,” said Representative David Obey (WI), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, on the day that the 2001 AUMF’s fraternal twin, a $40 billion emergency spending bill, was passed. “This bill is a down payment on the efforts of this country to undertake to find and punish those who committed this terrible act and those who supported them.”

    If you want to buy a house, a 20% down payment has been the traditional ideal. To buy an endless war on terror in 2001, however, less than 1% was all you needed. Since that initial installment, war costs have increased to about $5.8 trillion.

    “This is going to be a very nasty enterprise,” Obey continued. “This is going to be a long fight.” On both counts he was dead on. Twenty-plus years later, according to the Costs of War Project, close to one million people have been killed in direct violence during this country’s ongoing war on terror.

    Over those two decades, that AUMF has also been invoked to justify detention operations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; efforts at a counterterrorism hub in the African nation of Djibouti to support attacks in Somalia and Yemen; and ground missions or air strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. The authorization has also been called on to justify “support” for partner armed forces in 13 countries. The line between “support” and combat can, however, be so thin as to be functionally nonexistent.

    In October 2017, after the Islamic State ambushed U.S. troops in Niger — one of the 13 AUMF “support” nations — killing four American soldiers and wounding two others, U.S. Africa Command claimed that those troops were merely providing “advice and assistance” to local counterparts. Later, it was revealed that they had been working with a Nigerien force under the umbrella of Operation Juniper Shield, a wide-ranging counterterrorism effort in northwest Africa. Until bad weather prevented it, in fact, they were slated to support another group of American commandos trying to kill or capture Islamic State leader Doundoun Cheffou as part of an effort known as Obsidian Nomad II.

    Obsidian Nomad is, in fact, a 127e program — named for the budgetary authority (section 127e of title 10 of the U.S. Code) that allows Special Operations forces to use select local troops as surrogates in counterterrorism missions. Run either by Joint Special Operations Command, the secretive organization that controls the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, the Army’s Delta Force, and other elite special mission units, or by more generic “theater special operations forces,” its special operators have accompanied local commandos into the field across the African continent in operations indistinguishable from combat.

    The U.S. military, for instance, ran a similar 127e counterterrorism effort, codenamed Obsidian Mosaic, in neighboring Mali. As Savell notes, no administration has ever actually cited the 2001 AUMF when it comes to Mali, but both Trump and Biden referred to providing “CT support to African and European partners” in that region. Meanwhile, Savell also notes, investigative journalists “revealed incidents in which U.S. forces engaged not just in support activities in Mali, but in active hostilities in 2015, 2017, and 2018, as well as imminent hostilities via the 127e program in 2019.” And Mali was only one of 13 African nations where U.S. troops saw combat between 2013 and 2017, according to retired Army Brigadier General Don Bolduc, who served at Africa Command and then headed Special Operations Command Africa during those years.

    In 2017, the Intercept exposed the torture of prisoners at a Cameroonian military base that was used by U.S. personnel and private contractors for training missions and drone surveillance. That same year, Cameroon was cited for the first time under the 2001 AUMF as part of an effort to “support CT operations.” It was, according to Bolduc, yet another nation where U.S. troops saw combat.

    American forces also fought in Kenya at around the same time, said Bolduc, even taking casualties. That country has, in fact, been cited under the AUMF during the Bush, Trump, and Biden administrations. While Biden and Trump acknowledged U.S. troop “deployments” in Kenya in the years from 2017 to 2021 to “support CT operations,” Savell notes that neither made “reference to imminent hostilities through an active 127e program beginning at least in 2017, nor to a combat incident in January 2020, when al Shabaab militants attacked a U.S. military base in Manda Bay, Kenya, and killed three Americans, one Army soldier and two Pentagon contractors.”

    In addition to cataloging the ways in which that 2001 AUMF has been used, Savell’s report sheds light on glaring inconsistencies in the justifications for doing so, as well as in which nations the AUMF has been invoked and why. Few war-on-terror watchers would, for example, be shocked to see Libya on the list of countries where the authorization was used to justify air strikes or ground operations. They might, however, be surprised by the dates cited, as it was only invoked to cover military operations in 2013, and then from 2015 to 2019.

    In 2011, however, during Operation Odyssey Dawn and the NATO mission that succeeded it, Operation Unified Protector (OUP), the U.S. military and eight other air forces flew sorties against the military of then-Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi, leading to his death and the end of his regime. Altogether, NATO reportedly conducted around 9,700 strike sorties and dropped more than 7,700 precision-guided munitions.

    Between March and October of 2011, in fact, U.S. drones flying from Italy regularly stalked the skies above Libya. “Our Predators shot 243 Hellfire missiles in the six months of OUP, over 20 percent of the total of all Hellfires expended in the 14 years of the system’s deployment,” retired Lieutenant Colonel Gary Peppers, the commander of the 324th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron during Operation Unified Protector, told the Intercept in 2018. Despite those hundreds of drone strikes, not to mention attacks by manned aircraft, the Obama administration argued, as Savell notes, that the attacks did not constitute “hostilities” and so did not require AUMF citation.

    The War for Terror?

    In the wake of 9/11, 90% of Americans were braying for war. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was one of them. “[W]e must prosecute the war that has been thrust upon us with resolve, with fortitude, with unity, until the evil terrorist groups that are waging war against our country are eradicated from the face of the Earth,” he said. More than 20 years later, al-Qaeda still exists, its affiliates have multiplied, and harsher and deadlier ideological successors have emerged on multiple continents.

    As both political parties rushed the United States into a “forever war” that globalized the death and suffering al-Qaeda meted out on 9/11, only Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) stood up to urge restraint. “Our country is in a state of mourning,” she explained. “Some of us must say, ‘Let’s step back for a moment, let’s just pause, just for a minute, and think through the implications of our actions today, so that this does not spiral out of control.’”

    While the United States was defeated in Afghanistan last year, the war on terror continues to spiral elsewhere around world. Last month, in fact, President Biden informed Congress that the U.S. military “continues to work with partners around the globe, with a particular focus” on Africa and the Middle East, and “has deployed forces to conduct counterterrorism operations and to advise, assist, and accompany security forces of select foreign partners on counterterrorism operations.”

    In his letter, Biden acknowledged that troops continue detention operations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and support counterterrorism operations by the armed forces of the Philippines. He also assured Congress and the American people that the United States “remains postured to address threats” in Afghanistan; continues its ground missions and air strikes in Iraq and Syria; has forces “deployed to Yemen to conduct operations against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS”; others in Turkey “to support Counter-ISIS operations”; around 90 troops deployed to Lebanon “to enhance the government’s counterterrorism capabilities”; and has sent more than 2,100 troops to “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to protect United States forces and interests in the region against hostile action by Iran and Iran-backed groups,” as well as approximately 3,150 personnel to Jordan “to support Counter-ISIS operations, to enhance Jordan’s security, and to promote regional stability.”

    In Africa, Biden noted, U.S. forces “based outside Somalia continue to counter the terrorist threat posed by ISIS and al-Shabaab, an associated force of al Qaeda” through air strikes and assistance to Somali partners and are deployed to Kenya to support counterterrorism operations. They also remain deployed in Djibouti “for purposes of staging for counterterrorism and counter-piracy operations,” while in the Lake Chad Basin and the Sahel, U.S. troops “conduct airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations” and advise, assist, and accompany local forces on counterterrorism missions.

    Just days after Biden sent that letter to Congress, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the release of an annual counterterrorism report that also served as a useful assessment of more than 20 years of AUMF-fueled counterterror operations. Blinken pointed to the “spread of ISIS branches and networks and al-Qaeda affiliates, particularly in Africa,” while noting that “the number of terrorist attacks and the overall number of fatalities resulting from those attacks increased by more than 10 percent in 2020 compared with 2019.” The report, itself, was even bleaker. It noted that “ISIS-affiliated groups increased the volume and lethality of their attacks across West Africa, the Sahel, the Lake Chad Basin, and northern Mozambique,” while al-Qaeda “further bolstered its presence” in the Middle East and Africa. The “terrorism threat,” it added, “has become more geographically dispersed in regions around the world” while “terrorist groups remained a persistent and pervasive threat worldwide.” Worse than any qualitative assessment, however, was the quantitative report card that it offered.

    The State Department had counted 32 foreign terrorist organizations scattered around the world when the 2001 AUMF was passed.. Twenty years of war, around six trillion dollars, and nearly one million corpses later, the number of terrorist groups, according to that congressionally mandated report, stands at 69.

    With the passage of that AUMF, George W. Bush declared that America’s war would “not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Yet after 20 years, four presidents, and invocations of the AUMF in 22 countries, the number of terrorist groups that “threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security” has more than doubled.

    “The 2001 AUMF is like a blank check that U.S. presidents have used to conduct military violence in an ever-expanding number of operations in any number of places, without adequate oversight from Congress. But it’s also just the tip of the iceberg,” Savell told TomDispatch. “To truly end U.S. war violence in the name of counterterrorism, repealing the 2001 AUMF is the first step, but much more needs to be done to push for government accountability on more secretive authorities and military programs.”

    When Congress gave Bush that blank check — now worth $5.8 trillion and counting — he said that the outcome of the war on terror was already “certain.” Twenty years later, it’s a certainty that the president and Congress, Representative Barbara Lee aside, had it all wrong.

    As 2022 begins, the Biden administration has an opportunity to end a decades-long mistake by backing efforts to replace, sunset, or repeal that 2001 AUMF — or Congress could step up and do so on its own. Until then, however, that same blank check remains in effect, while the tab for the war on terror, as well as its AUMF-fueled toll in human lives, continues to rise.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A person holds a sign reading "THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS HERE" during an outdoor protest

    Amid rising public outcry over government inaction toward the climate crisis, the nuclear power industry has attempted to advertise itself as “zero emissions,” “carbon-free” and even “renewable” in order to convince politicians and the public that it is essential to solving this world-historical disaster.

    However, nuclear power is none of these things, and it in fact stands in the way of achieving an ecologically just society.

    Unfortunately, a persistent and widespread public relations campaign by the nuclear power industry is endeavoring to convince some in the climate movement, as well as prominent Democrats in Congress, that nuclear energy has a role to play.

    For example, after we checked in recently with the Sunrise Movement, the leading youth climate lobbying group on Capitol Hill, to see where the group stands on nuclear power, a volunteer signing his name “Josh” wrote to my organization, Beyond Nuclear, in an email that, “We don’t think shutting down existing [nuclear] plants makes much sense.” It’s not clear if this is a shift in Sunrise’s official position, since it contradicts the views on nuclear power in a position paper targeted at U.S. representatives that it signed onto in 2019, but, if so, we’ll be working to shift it.

    This mythmaking had apparently infiltrated those backing the Green New Deal (GND) in 2019, when Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) said she was happy to leave “the door open on nuclear.”

    What AOC, Sunrise, and others may have overlooked is that nuclear power violates the very cornerstone of the GND: a “Just Transition.” Supporting existing nuclear power operation ignores the fact that currently operating U.S. reactors still have to run on fuel manufactured almost entirely from imported uranium — predominantly from Canada and Kazakhstan — often mined by Indigenous peoples. The radioactive detritus left behind by uranium mining and milling has decimated these and other Indigenous communities around the world. These operations, often conducted by foreign corporations, perpetuate racist colonialism.

    Choosing to keep nuclear plants running means continued generation of lethal high-level radioactive waste, which is invariably targeted at frontline communities. For example, the proposed but now-canceled deep geological repository site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is on Western Shoshone land. Two U.S. sites currently identified for “temporary” dumps in Texas and New Mexico have significant low-income and Latinx populations. The Goshute’s Skull Valley Indian Reservation in Utah was chosen but also defeated. (All of these sites were, or are, opposed not only by residents but by their political leadership.)

    Numerous studies have shown that nuclear power plant operation causes increased rates of leukemia in children living nearby. Keeping nuclear plants operating also runs the incalculable risk of accident or sabotage with consequences that will last for decades or millennia and which violate human rights.

    Accepting nuclear power as part of a GND would sabotage success on climate and undermine its first pillar: to adhere to the fundamental tenets of environmental justice.

    Nuking the Transition to Renewables

    Embracing or remaining agnostic on nuclear power may also delay the transition to renewables, as running these power plants requires subsidies, starving renewables of funding. There are now even efforts to include nuclear power in state Renewable Energy Portfolios — designed to increase a state’s percentage of electricity generation from renewable energy sources — which will divert available funds away from renewables and to a financially failing industry that is far from “renewable.” Renewables will reduce more carbon emissions faster and for less cost than other energy choices, especially nuclear. Propping up unreliable, financially failing nuclear power plants impedes progress on climate change and is counter-productive to the goals of the GND.

    According to the International Energy Agency, “By 2026, global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise more than 60% from 2020 levels to over 4 800 GW — equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined.” It makes no sense to cut this industry off at the knees in favor of nuclear energy.

    Sound energy policy does not mean an “all-of-the-above” option. Choosing to continue with nuclear “cancels out” renewables (and vice versa). After examining datasets for 123 countries over 25 years, researchers found that countries choosing to keep nuclear power going are slower and less effective at meeting carbon reduction goals than those that choose renewables.

    The configuration of electricity transmission and distribution systems that optimizes a grid structure for larger-scale centralized power production, such as conventional nuclear, will also make it more challenging, time-consuming and costly to introduce small-scale distributed renewable power.

    We should also push back against the argument that closing nuclear power plants would necessarily mean bringing on more fossil fuels. For example, New York State is on target to meet its 100 percent zero carbon by 2040 climate goals, despite closing its Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors in 2020 and 2021. This is due to political foresight and planning which saw New York enact “ambitious climate and clean energy legislation” in 2019, which will achieve these goals regardless of a nuclear shutdown, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    Any decision to replace closed nuclear power plants with fracked gas is “not fate but choice,” writes Amory Lovins, now adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. That choice is political, not technological, often a “tactic to extort subsidies by making closure more disruptive,” allowing fracked gas to fill a short-term need. As the prices of renewable energy continue to fall, it will take an ever-greater share of the electricity market. But it is also up to political leaders to make the choice to switch to renewable energy rather than persist with fossil fuels.

    Those in positions of power with a chance to get carbon reductions right before it’s too late should not continue to fall prey to the politically motivated and corporate profit-driven delusion that closing nuclear power plants is bad for climate mitigation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A French farmer sprays glyphosate herbicide "Roundup 720" made by agrochemical giant Monsanto in Piacé in northwestern France, on April 23, 2021.

    Most of us are familiar with the story of the passenger pigeon, so numerous in the late 1700s that flocks of billions of birds darkened the sky for hours as they passed. Humans exterminated them in a little over 100 years, the last wild passenger pigeon being shot in 1901. In contrast, few have ever heard of the Rocky Mountain locust, but its story is similar. Once very common, swarms would occasionally erupt from their core range in the eastern Rocky Mountains, spreading eastward across the Great Plains. In 1875, a particularly large swarm of this grasshopper was estimated to contain perhaps 12.5 trillion individuals, possibly the most common organism ever witnessed by man. Within just 28 years it was extinct, the last one being recorded in 1902. The cause of this most dramatic of extinctions is unclear, but it seems that the core breeding ground of this species was river valleys in Montana and Wyoming, where the locust laid its eggs in sandy soils. These areas were fertile and easily cultivated, so were among the first settled and ploughed by farmers, destroying the eggs of the insect.

    The contrast between public awareness of the fate of the passenger pigeon and that of the Rocky Mountain locust reflects a more general bias. We tend to identify with and care about large creatures (mammals and birds in particular), while paying little or no attention to the much smaller creatures, the insects and their kin. Children are often fascinated by insects, but sadly they usually grow out of this, and the first reaction of many teenagers or adults to anything that buzzes or scuttles near them is likely to be an attempt to swat it or stamp on it. Even the common names we give insects, such as “bugs” and “creepy-crawlies,” reflect this negative attitude.

    I fell in love with insects when I was just 5 or 6 years old. I never grew out of my childhood obsession, and I have been lucky enough to make a career out of studying their often weird and wonderful lives. My mission is to persuade others to care for and respect them, for we all need insects, whether we know it or not. The 1.1 million known species of insect comprise more than two-thirds of all known species on our planet. Insects pollinate roughly three-quarters of the crops we grow, including most of our fruit and vegetables, such that many of us would starve without them. They also pollinate the large majority of wildflowers; recycle dung, leaves and corpses; help to keep the soil healthy; control pests; and much more. They are food for numerous larger animals such as most birds, freshwater fish, frogs and lizards. Ecosystems would grind to a halt without insects.

    It should thus be of concern to all of us that insects are in decline. Every year there are slightly fewer butterflies, fewer bumblebees — fewer of almost all the myriad little beasts that make the world go round. Estimates vary and are imprecise, and many insects, particularly those in the tropics, are simply not being systematically counted by anyone, but the data we do have overwhelmingly suggest a pattern of decline. For example, in Germany, the biomass of flying insects fell by 76 percent in the 27 years to 2016. In the U.S., monarch butterfly numbers have fallen by 80 percent in 25 years. In the U.K., butterflies have halved in abundance since 1976, when I was 11 years old. These changes have happened in our lifetimes, on our watch, and they continue to accelerate.

    My youngest son is now 11; he is growing up in a world where butterflies are half as common as they were when I was his age. How many butterflies will his children ever see?

    The famous American biologist Paul Ehrlich likened loss of species from an ecological community to randomly popping out rivets from the wing of a plane. Remove one or two and the plane will probably be fine. Remove 10, or 20 or 50, and at some point, that we are entirely unable to predict, there will be a catastrophic failure, and the plane will fall from the sky. In his analogy, insects are the rivets that hold ecosystems together.

    What is driving the decline of insects? There are many factors, but clearly the industrialization of farming, particularly the move toward large-scale monoculture cropping dependent on a blizzard of pesticides is playing a major role. In 1962, three years before I was born, Rachel Carson warned us in her book Silent Spring that we were doing terrible damage to our planet. She would weep to see how much worse it has become. The problems with pesticides and fertilizers Carson highlighted have become far more acute. Some of these new pesticides, such as neonicotinoids, are thousands of times more toxic to insects than any that existed in Carson’s day. The U.S. in particular has an especially gung-ho attitude to pesticides, with U.S. farmers accounting for nearly 20 percent of all global use. About one-quarter of the pesticides used in the U.S. are now banned in the European Union due to concerns over risks to human or environmental health. The U.S. allows several pesticides now banned in China and Brazil, neither of which is famed for its sensitive approach to environmental protection.

    The Rocky Mountain locust may be extinct, but other grasshoppers are still common in the same area, and occasionally there are outbreaks that spill out into surrounding states. The grasshoppers eat grass, competing with livestock and hence impacting ranchers. One such outbreak occurred in the summer of 2021, prompting the federal government to fund aerial spraying of about 1 million acres of rangeland in Montana and neighboring states with an insecticide, diflubenzuron. Those responsible for this decision argue that the chemical does little harm to other insects, but this is clearly nonsense, since elsewhere the same chemical is applied commercially to kill various butterflies, moths, beetles, flies and termites, and it is highly toxic to bumblebees. The chemical is even toxic to many plants. So what is the collateral damage from this carpet-bombing of the landscape? There are tens of thousands of native insect species in Montana; this spraying will kill untold trillions of individual insects (including monarch butterfly caterpillars). This in turn will impact the functions that these insects perform; fewer pollinators for crops and wildflowers, fewer insects for birds to eat. Grasshoppers and other insects are an essential protein source for chicks of many birds such as the endangered greater sage grouse. In turn, the birds help to keep the grasshoppers in check. If the birds decline further, along with other natural enemies of the grasshoppers, future outbreaks will be worse, and more insecticide will be sprayed. It is a self-defeating war on nature that can never be won. I find myself wondering if the crop duster pilots play “Ride of the Valkyries” on their cockpit radio, while muttering “I love the smell of insecticide in the morning.”

    Pesticides are not the only problem insects face in the modern world. Ongoing habitat loss — particularly of tropical forests — and the spread of invasive species and non-native insect diseases are all taking their toll. Light pollution attracts countless night-flying insects to bash themselves to death on artificial lights, and disrupts the ability of insects to judge day length and emerge from hibernation at the correct time of year. Many soils have been degraded, rivers choked with silt and polluted with chemicals or simply so much water extracted that they run dry. Climate change, a phenomenon unrecognized in Rachel Carson’s time, is now threatening to further ravage our planet. The recent failure of COP26 to achieve any meaningful international progress on tackling climate change means that in the future, insects will have to cope with more frequent droughts, wildfires, floods and storms. It is death by a thousand cuts.

    Our planet has coped remarkably well so far with the blizzard of changes we have wrought, but we would be foolish to assume that it will continue to do so. A relatively small proportion of species have actually gone extinct so far, but almost all wild species now exist in numbers that are a fraction of their former abundance, subsisting in degraded and fragmented habitats and subjected to a multitude of ever-changing man-made problems. We do not understand anywhere near enough to be able to predict how much resilience is left in our depleted ecosystems, or how close we are to tipping points beyond which collapse becomes inevitable. In Paul Ehrlich’s “rivets on a plane” analogy, we may be close to the point where the wing falls off.

    To learn more about insect declines and what you can do to help reverse them, read Silent Earth by Dave Goulson, published by HarperCollins in 2021.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Los Angeles International Airport food workers demonstrate as they strike against airport concessions company HMSHost in Los Angeles, California, on December 22, 2021.

    In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. published Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, in which he assessed the state of the civil rights movement after the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In it, he argued that the movement had reached a crossroads. After winning civil rights legislation, Dr. King argued, “The paths of Negro-white unity that had been converging crossed at Selma, and like a giant X began to diverge.”

    Where did Dr. King go amid this impasse? He went to Memphis to support sanitation workers. He also followed welfare mothers as he sought to build a coalition — the Poor People’s Campaign — of poor folks. He continued articulating a politics synthesizing anti-imperialism as well as labor and civil rights.

    We could be heading toward a similar synthesis. While 2020 was a resurgent year for the movement for Black lives — as hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest state violence, advance abolitionist demands to defund the police, and to confront structural and symbolic vestiges of racism and colonialism at the center of our modern world — 2021 was a resurgent year for organized labor and workers.

    As labor intellectual Kim Moody reports: “There were 124 strikes by these [private-sector] workers across industries in 2021.” Despite its defeat, the “BAmazonUnion” drive in Bessemer, Alabama, captured the nation’s attention earlier this year. Workers at John Deere, represented by the United Auto Workers, struck for the first time in three decades. Graduate students at Columbia went on strike for a second time this year last month and are seeking improvements in pay and working conditions. Even Starbucks workers at a Buffalo café successfully won recognition as the company’s first union in the U.S. Organizers there built on a two-year effort to recruit employees to Starbucks Workers United (SWU) by building support and encouraging them to join their organizing committee before announcing its unionization drive in August.

    Like the 2020 uprisings for Black liberation, the context of the COVID-19 pandemic makes this strike activity remarkable. Workers and unions are taking action as the labor market tightens due to increased hiring and what has been deemed “The Great Resignation.” As more workers have recognized that their jobs do not love them back, as labor journalist Sarah Jaffe puts it, more are recognizing their individual power to quit, stay out of the job market or switch careers. According to Moody, 73,320 workers have participated in labor strikes in 2021, which for instance, does not even approach the 4.4 million Americans who quit their jobs this past September. This moment is clearly an opportunity to build more solidarity through labor organizing, education and militancy.

    The 2021 labor actions, as well as the 2020 anti-racist and anti-colonial uprisings, have also taken place in the context of a growing right-wing authoritarian counterrevolution. The 2020 uprisings seemed to knock the reactionary right on its heels, but then it regained its footing when then-president Donald Trump deployed federal law enforcement to cities where anti-racist protests were taking place, and members of his administration targeted anarchists and anti-fascists in cities like Portland, Oregon, while denying the existence of structural racism.

    Counterrevolutions, as Herbert Marcuse argued in Counterrevolution and Revolt, are “altogether preventative.” This seems to be the case in 2021 as reactionaries have launched a broad attack against racial justice by rallying support for law enforcement institutions and individuals like right-wing teenager Kyle Rittenhouse, who are willing to kill in the name of protecting private property. State legislators across the country are also passing what historian Timothy Snyder has called “memory laws” restricting the teaching of anti-racism, not limited to critical race theory and The 1619 Project. White power groups also continue to organize openly. Meanwhile, pro-police Democrats remain instrumental in this counterrevolution as New York City Mayor-Elect Eric Adams ran on attacking demands to defund the police and promising to strengthen the city’s police forces. Democrats in “blue cities,” such as Austin, Texas; Washington, D.C.; and Oakland, California, have increased police budgets since the 2020 uprising.

    Recently, mainstream media outlets buttressed support for law enforcement with sensationalist coverage of organized robberies at a time when property crimes remain at historic lows. This coverage helps strengthen calls for “law and order,” which threaten to reverse momentum gained by the movement for Black lives in the wake of the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd.

    While capitalists continue to resort to tried-and-true tactics to thwart labor organizing outside of public view, the counterrevolution has not launched such a broadside against labor yet. However, congressional Republicans continue to block paths toward labor action and unionization with their opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act), which would invalidate right-to-work laws, shield workers from employer interference in unionization efforts, and institute “card check,” which allows for union certification after a simple majority signs union cards.

    While the movements for racial justice and workers’ rights often heavily overlap — most Black and Brown people tend to both express an anti-racist politics and support unionization — there is an opportunity for more coalition building between anti-racist activists and this burgeoning labor movement in 2022.

    We saw creative instances of this solidarity in 2020. In June, workers from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) shut down 29 ports along the West Coast in solidarity with those protesting the police-perpetrated murders of Black people and in commemoration of Juneteenth. Then, later that summer, workers from the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) Local 3550 of the American Federation of Teachers engaged in an “abolitionist” strike in response to the University of Michigan administration’s attempts to reopen campus amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Like the ILWU, GEO sought to mobilize in solidarity with the movement for Black lives, for Black students and students of color on campus. According to graduate student unionists Alejo Stark, Jasmine Ehrhardt and Amir Fleischmann, GEO issued a series of demands for a “safe and just” campus that included “disarming, demilitarizing, and defunding campus police as well as severing ties from both Ann Arbor police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” The ILWU and GEO joined other unions, such as the Chicago Teachers Union and the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America who also expressed the view that confronting structural racism and state violence is key to their organizing.

    It is possible that this coalition could grow beyond the labor movement in 2022. It might build upon the work of organizations devoted to abolishing debt, such as the Debt Collective, and the myriad of reproductive justice organizations that center racial justice in their analysis and organizing. Joining these coalitions in 2022 seems especially imperative as the Biden administration seems hell bent on restarting loan payments instead of fulfilling its campaign promise to cancel additional debt for all borrowers and the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, putting women and any person who might need abortion services at physical risk.

    This forging of coalitions between movements in the new year must be grounded in a robust analysis of the material conditions that have given rise to these forces. For example, the policing of workplaces and spaces with concentrated poverty — as well as the steady decline of workers’ power — is connected to massive layoffs and the emergence of more precarious work in the wake of transformations of mass production. The transformation of production and work, working parents’ inability to save for their children’s higher education due to wage stagnation and rising education costs, and the federal government’s de-emphasizing of Pell Grants in favor of extending loans, have created more incentive for prospective students to borrow. Moreover, as many reproductive justice activists and organizations have contended, abortion bans will hurt those most economically vulnerable, especially Black and Brown people, as many will not have the money, nor resources, such as time away from work and reliable transportation, to seek abortion services.

    The climate is ripe for building coalitions based on these intersecting issues, as we might be in the middle of a massive social transition. As sociologist Paolo Gerbaudo claims, the pandemic may be hastening the fall of the neoliberal order. We seem to be at a three-way intersection: Many of those in the center are trying to halt any reform efforts that could help most Americans in the name of fighting inflation; right-wing authoritarians are seeking to restore a racial and class dictatorship; and those on the left are growing more urgent in calls for a progressive — even radical — vision of democracy. We also remain at the intersection of various emergencies.

    The U.S. has surpassed 800,000 deaths in the pandemic. The capitalism-driven climate crisis killed workers in an Edwardsville, Illinois, Amazon warehouse and a candle factory in Mayfield, Kentucky, in what is probably the worst series of tornadoes in this country’s history.

    Just as Dr. King and others refused to allow a political impasse to obstruct efforts to build solidarity and power, we must continue developing grassroots power to address the violence of the capitalist state and to supplant a murderous political and economic system. We must also respond to the growing counterrevolutionary threat on the right and the moderating impulses in the center by building solidarity and coalitions among nascent progressive movements and upsurges. Not only do threats of state violence — which include capitalist divestment, debt, the protection of capitalists’ private property rights, infringements on reproductive rights, and the climate crisis — bind us together, so do our desires to overturn these forces.

    We can join together to establish more radical forms of democracy, restore the commons, and develop more humane ways to protect each other and build a more just, equitable, flourishing world.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A boy with a face mask looks the Christmas lights during the winter in Granada, Spain, amid the coronavirus pandemic on December 20, 2021.

    This certainly wasn’t the 2021 I imagined, long ago, when I thought the whole future would be in effect by 2020 — I grew up expecting flying cars and space travel any minute now. But instead of negotiating black hole etiquette with aliens, I spent the year in often overwhelming grief cycles. I cried so much more than I thought was possible in one year. Part of me wants to write you a column that is just a list of the people who we lost this year, lost to COVID-19, lost to cancer, or other fatal illnesses, or police-perpetrated killing, or overdose, or suicide, or mysterious circumstances. Some even made it to a death from old age, can you imagine?

    And when we weren’t dying, we were going through the tumult of trying to decide if it is safe to go outside of our homes. Many of us were tired of practicing collective safety practices in defense of those who won’t or can’t. We were moving cities, or to the country, tired of the same walls and landscapes. We were breaking up, tired of the same arguments. We were learning how differently we all define “safety,” and what some of us are willing to risk our lives for. We were learning the depths to which paranoia and mistrust are rooted into our collective psyche. We lost friendships; not everyone could handle the distance or the differences in our survival strategies. We lost organizations; not everyone could pivot their existence into something relevant and accessible for Zoom; not every group could weather the emotional storm of so much loss.

    And, quietly, with no shortage of survivor’s guilt, some of us were devastated by the loss of what we had planned for these years. The journeys we were going to take, the love we were going to discover, the school we planned to attend in person, the friends we were going to go on girls/boys/theys’ trips with, the freedom from our parents or kids we were going to celebrate, the kid we were going to have, how lost we were going to get in new cities, the sabbatical we were crawling toward.

    There is grief on grief, on top of grief, filled with grief, shaped by grief, held by grieving people.

    But I have some good news… I think.

    I lost my certainty somewhere in this journey and I am flying by the seat of my feelings and experiences. But that is the good news — we are more clear about how little we know, and how uncertain everything is, and how constant change is, than we have ever collectively been before.

    And we are learning so much about how grief moves in us individually and collectively. We know we must get good at grief, because change — both the kind we want and the kind we dread — requires a letting go.

    When we really sit with the truth of change, and how much of it is beyond our control, and how much we try to control, we can begin to let go of the misguided idea that we are in control, or that control should even be our goal.

    When we sit with the work of grief — the nonlinear emotional journey of facing undeniable loss, a journey which is somehow recognizable even though it looks different in every iteration, in every face — we have to recognize that one day we will be the one who is grieved. And in every one of our current and future relationships, for everyone we love, know, or ever will know, an element of grief will someday enter — one of us will die before the other, leaving the other to grieve.

    For me, this all culminates into an overwhelming sense of how precious life is, how precious this life, on this planet, at this moment, is. And how, in order to be in a relationship with life, I, we, have to be willing to let go of the practices and beliefs aligned with premature death.

    We have to let go of capitalism, and the accumulation drive and supremacy posturing that it produces in us.

    We have to let go of our destructive tendencies toward each other and the planet. We extract from each other, destroy each other — we do the same to this precious and only Earth we know.

    We have to let go of thinking there is one way to do everything. I was recently given the gift of these words from Ojibwe ancestor Walter Bresette: “Thinking there is one way to do everything is the most European way to approach life.” We have to let go of that colonizer-thinking, which is at odds with the complex biodiversity of all life. We have to let go of trying to make everyone think the same way and act the same way, and begin learning real strategies for sharing a planet where we will never be fully aligned.

    And along the way, we have to learn, with grace, to let go of the parts of ourselves that were socialized by capitalism and oppressive systems of unjust power. As those harmful patterns and behaviors become markers of our past selves, we become more curious, more complex and more compatible with the future. Ultimately, I believe we have to let go of anything that isn’t love.

    I wrote a little spell for this particular release, inspired by my late grandfather. I share it here with you for your use, or to inspire your own spells and articulations of letting go:

    papa’s prayer

    let it go
    you will not be here forever
    let it go
    let it be dust blown from your palm
    let it go
    the mistake was made
    let it go
    don’t build that wall of disappointment
    let it go
    that was your best, this is theirs
    let it go
    you cannot force anything real
    let it go
    keep only the lessons
    let it go
    your hands are smaller than godhands
    let it go
    you cannot even fully comprehend it – what a gift
    let it go
    be generous, you have enough
    let it go
    keep moving towards your joy
    let it go
    you can still be happy
    let it go
    live like a river, a long spill home
    let it go
    this is the only moment, the dream
    let it go
    with your next exhale
    let it go

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • COVID-19 at-home rapid test kits are given away during a drive-thru event at the Hollywood Library on December 30, 2021, in Hollywood, Florida.

    After a year and a half, the ravages of the pandemic show no signs of slowing down. The Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the globe and is now the dominant version of Covid in the U.S., accounting for an estimated 73 percent of new cases. The U.S. is now averaging over 213,751 new Covid cases per day, which is equal to 85 percent of the number of cases during the peak when the highest daily average was reported on January 7, 2021.

    While it is still unclear if Omicron causes more severe symptoms than other strains of Covid, it’s clear based on the variant’s high transmissibility1 that the sheer number of infections puts the most vulnerable members of the population at serious risk of illness. In just six weeks there has been a 39 percent increase in Covid-related hospitalizations all over the country, likely from the spreading of both the Delta and Omicron variants.

    After all this time, the complete lack of a public health-based approach to this pandemic is criminal. The Biden administration has instead chosen to lay all responsibility on the individual decision to vaccinate or not, implicitly blaming the unvaccinated for the ongoing ills resulting from the pandemic. After facing heavy criticism for his administration’s incompetent management of the Omicron surge, Biden recently addressed the status of the pandemic, doubling down hard on this narrative. He said, “If you’re vaccinated, you’ve done the right thing, celebrate holidays as you’ve planned them.”

    In the same address, Biden pledged to distribute 500 million free Covid rapid tests. While this may seem like a huge number, 500 million tests will only last about a month, and such a limited supply of rapid tests will also miss many positive cases, which often require more than one test per individual to detect. Following exposure to Covid, a person may initially test negative but then test positive after the virus has had time to replicate and achieve a detectable viral load. Biden’s pledge, with no promise of an ongoing supply of tests, is laughably and criminally inadequate. The tests will not be available for at least a few weeks, far too late to deal with the Omicron surge. When they do become available, it will not be all at once but in batches, leaving the vast majority of people needing a rapid Covid test without one.

    During his candidacy, Biden was relentlessly critical of Trump for the lack of available testing, but since taking office, he has focused almost exclusively on a “vaccination only” strategy. Abbott, a Covid test manufacturer, even destroyed millions of tests due to decreased demand in August 2021, when the administration could have been preparing for the entirely predictable holiday surge and the increase in testing demands. This reveals how the incentives of a capitalist health system are fundamentally at odds with the goals of public health and the production of lifesaving technologies. What is” rational” from the standpoint of capital is a stupid and deadly mistake for public health.

    Biden promised to open federal testing sites across the country, but provided no provisions for people to get paid time off, leaving workers to “figure it out” at the mercy of their employers. As Bree Newsome Bass pointed out, taking time off from work to wait in long lines for testing is often not an option for the poor and working class. Even when people can obtain tests, the delay in the delivery of PCR results, partially a result of a dearth in lab facilities, makes interpreting and acting on test results more difficult.

    Despite all of Biden’s talk about “plans” to fight the pandemic, the United States has yet to establish a coordinated system for tracing cases and isolating those who test positive. Again, this leaves it up to individuals to inform close contacts of positive test results and to isolate themselves to the best of their ability. Unsurprisingly, after years of gutting public health systems in an endless effort to “cut costs,” the CDC does not even have the epidemiological infrastructure to track outbreaks accurately. As a result, the American government is relying on data from other countries to do this.

    With its vaccine hoarding and exploitative “back to work” attitude, the United States government is only interested in ending the pandemic as long as it can also profit from it. The current administration has disingenuously placed the entire blame for the current state of the pandemic squarely on the unvaccinated. This narrative was crystalized in the recent callous statement from the White House Covid Response Team, which preemptively blamed the unvaccinated for “a winter of severe illness and death,” and for overcrowding and overwhelming hospitals.

    But in the absence of other public health measures, “vaccination only” has proven not to be the magic cure that the Biden administration insists it is.

    In New York City, for example, higher vaccination rates relative to the rest of the country have not stopped Omicron from spreading like wildfire among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccines represent just one piece of a Swiss-cheese model of prevention during the pandemic; focusing exclusively on vaccines without mass expansion in measures such as testing, tracing, and isolation (TETRIS measures), and without making workplaces, schools, and other public spaces safer, will not help bring an end to the pandemic. Relying on vaccines alone was always a poor strategy, and in the face of Omicron, it stands no chance at all.

    Joe Biden and Kamala Harris claimed that no one could have predicted the spread of the Omicron variant. An interesting claim, given that just a few months ago, experts presented the Biden administration with a plan to deal with this very situation. In October, Covid testing experts met with the Biden administration to recommend ramping up production of rapid Covid tests and making them readily available to the public, to prevent a surge during the holidays. The ill-fated proposal, “Testing Surge to Prevent Holiday COVID Surge”, was promptly rejected by the Biden administration, which said they did not have the capacity to produce tests at that scale. The administration decided instead to focus only on vaccination. They later announced a ridiculous plan in which insurance companies would reimburse privately insured patients who would buy a two-pack of rapid tests for up to $35, once again leaving people on their own to squabble with insurance companies known to do everything in their power to reject claims and not pay for healthcare.

    The “individual responsibility” narrative of vax, mask, shut up, and work is beneficial for the ruling class as it exploits our labor and our deaths for profit. In addition to vaccination, there are other safety measures that could reduce risk of infection in a pandemic, such as providing people with housing, workers’ democratic organization of their own schedules and working conditions, and paying workers to stay home if exposed. The ruling class, however, would never allow any of these options because they would cut into their profit margin.

    As people have died during the pandemic, BioNtech and Moderna shares have increased to the tune of billions of dollars. CEOs continue to make million dollar salaries while workers are underpaid and left working in precarious situations. These exploitative conditions have forced many workers (including those in health care, retail, and hospitality) to leave their jobs or quit their fields altogether.

    Earlier in the pandemic, many health insurance companies had waived Covid-19 treatment-related costs for patients, but with the vaccine rollouts, the companies have ended the practice. The waivers should never have been eliminated, and the federal government should cover all costs of Covid-related hospitalizations indefinitely. These changes could leave patients — not only those who are unvaccinated, but those hospitalized with breakthrough infections, as well as children who are not yet eligible for the vaccine — with hospital bills totalling thousands of dollars. Bending to supply and demand, the CDC just shortened the recommended Covid isolation period from 10 days to five days in order to get people back to work faster. The function of the CDC is to analyze risk to determine public health recommendations. In doing so, however, it balances what costs are acceptable — both human and economic — and for what gains. As such CDC has historically been malleable to the demands of capitalism.

    In a system that truly prioritized preventing people from getting sick and treating illness, all workers would be adequately paid, given access to safe working conditions, and have ample time to rest and recuperate. In such a system, people would have free healthcare instead of avoiding care or having to file for bankruptcy when they get sick. The ruling class is clearly more interested in keeping the wheels of the capitalist system turning — at the expense of the health of the workers and patients — rather than ending the pandemic. To the ruling class, the pandemic is a commodity to be monetized, just like everything else.

    Discussions around the nature of the fragmented, profit-driven medical-industrial complex in the U.S. have largely been silenced in the halls of power. One would think that maybe, just maybe, the destabilization caused by a global pandemic might prompt a discussion of the way a healthcare infrastructure that was built to prioritize monetary value over human lives at every level helped to create and exacerbate this pandemic, and continues to fail to address its results. But from street uprisings around the killing of Black people by police to conversations around health care system changes, the Biden administration has been able to take enormous political energy and funnel it into centrist electoral demands under the guise of being more “pragmatic.”

    And should this be a surprise? Of course not; the Democratic Party has always served as the graveyard of social movements, defusing progressive popular mobilizations whenever possible. On the healthcare front, Biden rejected calls to bring the U.S. in line with other nations and move toward a single payer healthcare system. Today, if Biden wanted to, he could take unilateral steps towards releasing Moderna’s vaccine formulation to the WHO, but Biden’s appeal has always come from his representation as a pole of stability and safety for a vaguely defined “everybody,” when in fact, he governs in the interests of the ruling class just as reliably as Trump did.

    The narrative of individual responsibility takes pressure off of the government to organize necessary collective action, and therefore leaves people isolated, often at the whims of their employers. A byproduct of constantly hammering “individual responsibility” into our heads is that people learn that they cannot rely on government institutions and health systems to look out for them. Disappointed and alienated by the for-profit healthcare system, some people find comfort in conspiracy theories and flock into the arms of charlatans selling snake oil.

    The anti-vaccination crowd is indeed an easy target for both parties of capital. The Republicans have convinced them that they are more “free” by resisting vaccinations. Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to scapegoat and blame them for the current state of the pandemic. Rather than trying to convince those workers who are anti-vaccine while allowing them to work in a way that does not put others at risk, the ruling class strategy has been to use vaccine mandates instead of, rather than in addition to, these other methods of controlling the virus and increasing vaccination rates.

    The ruling class wants to direct public rage away from their exploitation and convince the working class and oppressed people to blame each other, creating a “war” of the vaccinated against the unvaccinated. They need to do this to avoid exposing how the ruling class has kept the machinery of extraction and accumulation going during the pandemic at the cost of public health. They are trying to hide a healthcare system whose primary objective is to serve as a means of capital accumulation, extracting profit from people’s bodies as they become damaged by the capitalist system, not to maintain individual or public wellbeing. It would be extremely dangerous to the ruling class if the workers realized that these systems are responsible for creating and exacerbating the pandemic.

    Ending a global pandemic is not an “individual issue.” Yes, people should get vaccinated. Yes, they should wear masks. And yes, Covid-19 vaccines should be available to everyone in the world who can be safely vaccinated, but vaccines alone are nowhere near enough. People should take all possible individual measures, but the ability to do so must also be readily available to them. If we want people to trust vaccinations, we need a free healthcare system that clearly prioritizes people’s health. It’s fantastically dissonant to so vehemently tell people to take personal actions to protect themselves when it is clear that societal structures do not prioritize their health. Becoming sick from Covid just adds to the many other threats to one’s existence such as lack of housing, lack of food, and bankruptcy. So it’s no surprise that shaming people for not “doing their part” under these circumstances engenders resentment and tends to backfire.

    We need basic public health measures such as housing, food, debt cancellation, paid medical leave, and free medical masks, testing, and treatment. We need a society that values public wellbeing over private profit. We need to destroy the economic system that must continually find areas of capital expansion, destroying the planet we live on and putting us at risk for future pandemics. Bourgeois politicians and governments beholden to capital will deliver none of these needs.

  • William Rivers Pitt now and 20 years ago

    The New Year’s holiday is a time for memories, for an accounting of the span you’ve just passed, for an assessment of where you are now, and for looking down the road and making wild-ass guesses about where you’ll be a year from now.

    This New Year’s Eve is particularly poignant for me, as January 2022 marks 20 years I’ve been writing and working for Truthout. Trying to wrap my mind around it is a challenge, to say the least… 20 years! When I started this, I was a 30-year-old writer and teacher with almost no gray hair, a manageable waistline and a strangely sunny disposition given the circumstances. September 11 had just happened, the Afghanistan War was barely underway, and the serial horrors of the Iraq War were yet to come.

    Now? Let’s just say that sunny disposition has a few dings and scuffs in it. I’ve been riffling through memories as this anniversary has approached, and each has left me more gobsmacked than the last.

    There was the upstate New York hotel I overnighted in to give a book lecture at some college up there in late spring of 2003, after the Iraq invasion was well underway. Donald Rumsfeld and his pack of wreckers had been working overtime to convince the American people that Iraq was bristling with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and that an attack was imminent. I happened past the hotel manager’s office, and what do you know? A whole pile of plastic sheeting and duct tape was piled up on the floor awaiting installation, in case Saddam Hussein decided to gas New Paltz.

    There were all the times George W. Bush lied and got away with it, thanks in no small part to a co-opted, timid, post-9/11 “news” media. There was the time Dick Cheney refused to give his official papers to the National Archives because, he argued, the vice president’s office was not part of the executive branch. There was also the time he shot a guy in the face, and the guy wound up apologizing to him. The time when Barack Obama blew off Abu Ghraib and the horror of CIA black sites with a blithe, “We tortured some folks.” The time when Donald Trump was actually president for four years. The time when President Biden (!) had his domestic agenda sabotaged by fellow Democrats.

    The time… God save us all, the time…

    In the very first article I wrote for Truthout 20 years ago, I concluded with the following paragraph: “It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political and financial gain. It is quite another to coddle and court a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources. The former cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter has cost thousands of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is abominable. George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both. There will be hell to pay.”

    That’s the thing, though: There wasn’t, hasn’t been, and probably never will be any hell paid whatsoever. If you told me 20 years ago that things would be worse today, I’d have found it hard to believe. Yet here we stand, mired in a lethal global pandemic with no end in sight. Mothership capitalism, always bad, is worse. Because of this, the climate is demonstrably worse and now poses an existential threat. The practice of politics is also worse, and the money in politics is worse by an order of magnitude. Gun violence is worse. The Republican Party’s hard right turn toward overt fascism is worse. The Democrats’ ossified leadership and its talent for dropping bombs on its own boats is worse, though the newly muscular Congressional Progressive Caucus may have words about that ere long.

    I got into this to try and make things better. I stuck with Truthout because we are a union shop devoted to that same cause, and because we are beholden to none but our reader-donors and to ourselves. No hedge fund scumbag is going to wake up tomorrow and decide to sell Truthout for parts.

    You cannot imagine what that means for a writer of politics in such an untethered time: I am able, because of the freedom provided by our generous readership, to be entirely myself in every word. After 20 years, I can say with joy in my heart that I never, not once, sold out my principles or beliefs in print to mollify a pissy stockholder or a nervous advertiser. None of us here have. Not once, not ever.

    Enough for now. If I could make any wish, it would be to get another 20 years to do this, if only for the chance to sit here two decades hence and talk about all the good shit that went down after we cured COVID, kept Trump out of office, vanquished fascism, found a way to turn CO2 and methane into marijuana fertilizer, and shot all that sea-bound plastic into space.

    Likely as not, though, I’ll be back here in 20 years talking about the day we lost Boston and New York to the Atlantic Ocean. Or maybe not. That’s the thing about tomorrow: It’s only a rumor. The rest is up to us.

    Happy New Year, all. Thanks from my heart for the 20, and God help us, here’s to 20 more. Stout hearts.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Donald Trump leaves after speaking during a Make America Great Again rally at Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport in Opa Locka, Florida, on November 2, 2020.

    In June 2007, former Vice President Dick Cheney — already no stranger to wantonly abusing his power — became the undisputed World Heavyweight Champion of Chutzpah when he informed the National Archives they had no rights to his office’s paperwork because the vice president was not part of the executive branch. Because he had that side gig as Senate president, he claimed he was therefore part of the legislative branch, and not subject to the executive-specific laws the Archives was trying to fulfill.

    Take a second with that; it’s a bit to encompass. Constitutional scholars of every stripe blanched at the very notion… and it gets better. Rather than comply when pressed, Cheney’s staffers over in the Old Executive Office Building tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office, the National Archives division tasked with running Cheney’s papers to ground. When informed of Cheney’s highly unusual clash, the recently deceased Sen. Harry Reid was heard to quip, “I always thought that he was president of this administration.”

    Cheney enjoyed a commendable 14-year run with the title, but has officially been toppled by the only man in America shameless enough to pull it off: former President Donald Trump. Yesterday, Trump’s crackerjack-box legal team asked the Supreme Court to block the release of documents for the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack. The reason? The committee might actually discover Trump and his people did something wrong. Right? Beat that with a stick.

    Specific to Trump’s awe-inspiring legal complaint is an interview given to The Washington Post by committee chairman Bennie Thompson. During the interview, Thompson made the following remarks which were subsequently red-flagged by Trump’s lawyers and sent to the Supreme Court: “That dereliction of duty causes us real concern. And one of those concerns is that whether or not it was intentional, and whether or not that lack of attention for that longer period of time, would warrant a referral.”

    The Washington Post has confirmed what was already apparent — the Committee is indeed seeking any excuse to refer a political rival for criminal ­charges,” wrote Trump attorney Jesse Binnall, “and they are using this investigation to do so.” According to the Post, “Binnall said the committee is acting as ‘an inquisitorial tribunal seeking evidence of criminal activity,’ which he said is ‘outside of any of Congress’s legislative powers.’”

    At the core of Trump’s argument is the claim that the committee is not vested with the power to prosecute crimes, and that the actions of the committee serve “no legitimate legislative purpose.” Absent that purpose, the committee has no standing to operate, and cannot prosecute crimes in any event.

    Trump’s lawyers put this argument before the D.C. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently, only to have that court serve it back to them like a Venus Williams backhand. “The mere prospect that misconduct might be exposed does not make the Committee’s request prosecutorial,” the court opined a month ago. “Missteps and misbehavior are common fodder for legislation.”

    Furthermore, it is entirely within the purview of the committee to recommend proper legal steps be taken in the event they discover criminal misconduct. Everything else they do is investigatory, for informational purposes only. A criminal conduct referral is the only club they have in the bag, and if they do use it, duty to follow through will fall upon Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice.

    This is the sort of Legal Beagle-ing the Republican Party has agreed to pay for, to the tune of $1.6 million and counting. Of course it’s a delaying tactic on the part of Trump’s lawyers; they are hoping to run out the clock and see this committee’s work get flushed if and when the GOP re-takes the House in November, so every second spent in court on frivolous nonsense actually serves a real, if genuinely shabby purpose.

    In any event, I’m sure Mr. Cheney is pleased. The title he held for so long is being well-represented.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Members of the Proud Boys march in Manhattan against vaccine mandates on November 20, 2021, in New York City.

    Although Donald Trump has been out of power for nearly a year, the far right in the United States is still going strong. The January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol was easily the year’s most important event, and its fallout has, in many ways, defined 2021. Arrests, lawsuits and congressional hearings are still ongoing.

    Even without Trump’s tweets to guide them, the far right failed to collapse, as many had hoped. Excepting a gruesome mass murder in Denver, Colorado, at the year’s end, the bulk of right-wing violence has been committed by the politically moderate Trumpists, as opposed to open white supremacists — its traditional perpetrators. The Proud Boys have continued their campaign of violence. A split in the Republican Party between the moderates and the Trumpists has likewise failed to emerge. In fact, the latter have arguably only increased their grip on the party. Right-wing conspiracy theories also continue to mutate and gain popularity, especially those about COVID-19.

    January 6 Capitol Assault

    Republicans have been fired up by Trump’s incessant but completely fabricated claim that the election was stolen. On January 6, after Trump’s speech, his supporters marched to the Capitol building and broke in, hoping to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory. Congress was forced to flee, and five people died as a result of the melee. It later emerged that rally organizers were in direct contact with White House officials.

    Two-thousand people participated in the event, and more than 700 have been arrested. The crowd itself was a mixture of far right factions. Dozens of Proud Boys were among the most visible — and aggressive. While there were some open white supremacists involved, the most worrisome aspect was that such a violent action was undertaken by more ideologically moderate political elements. Some have claimed the crowd were disenfranchised whites. But in fact, those arrested included elected officials; police; members of the militia milieu, including Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and Sovereign Citizens; business owners and CEOs; the guitarist of a heavy metal band; a federal agent; and a Trump appointee. Ten percent were current or former military.

    The attack’s political fallout included social media platforms booting Trump — including Twitter, which had been his presidential bullhorn. Parler, a social media platform favored by Trumpists, was taken offline. Trump was impeached a second time, and Congress later established a commission to investigate the events.

    Trump and his cronies have done all they can to stymie the investigation. He has unsuccessfully attempted to withhold some presidential records and has continued to attempt to suppress others by asserting “executive privilege.” Those who have refused to testify include Steve Bannon, Trump’s one-time adviser. Pardoned by Trump in January, Bannon was arrested in November for criminal contempt.

    The right-wing media machine also jumped into high gear to defend January 6 arrestees. Some claimed those arrested were “patriots” protesting a “stolen election,” while others blamed the violence on “antifa” disguised as Trumpists. (Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz promoted this conspiracy theory on the night of the Capitol assault.) Fox’s Tucker Carlson even created a three-part series to argue the attack was a “false flag” which was a prelude to a new “war on terror” against Trump supporters.

    Trumpists Without Trump

    The Trumpist hold on the GOP is perhaps best illustrated by the expulsion of Rep. Liz Cheney, the de facto leader of the anti-Trumpists, from the Wyoming state party’s leadership. But their hold goes much deeper.
    Although he had been in office beforehand, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) came to prominence under Trump as the farthest right U.S. congressmember, openly using white supremacist rhetoric. While, like Trump, King lost reelection, a group of Republican representatives have since replaced him, including Florida’s Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Lauren Boebert of Colorado. In April, several of them were involved in a brief attempt to form the “America First Caucus,” which was to champion “Anglo-Saxon political traditions.”

    Greene became known for claiming that a Jewish space laser was responsible for California’s wild fires. Boebert made speeches implying that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), a Muslim, was a terrorist. Gosar’s social media featured an anime video of him killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), for which he was censured. Gohmert asked the Forest Service if it could change the orbit of the Earth or moon. Finally, Gaetz, who has been investigated for having sex with a 17-year-old, said that if Republicans swept the mid-terms, he wanted to install Trump as House speaker. (Technically one can hold the position without being a House member.)

    Far Right Conspiracies Spread

    Just as the Capitol attack was fueled by conspiracy theories, in particular QAnon, they continue to bubble up and occupy conservatives’ minds. While “Q” has been silent since December 2020 after his predictions failed, followers are still coming to events, and some QAnon promoters have moved on to boldly promote antisemitism.

    Others have moved to attack the movement for Black lives with a new conspiracy panic around critical race theory. Their racist narrative — which claims that teaching students about systemic racism and U.S. history is “anti-white” — has become a popular talking point for Republicans. It has led to the banning of books and anti-racist curriculum in schools.

    Anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories remain extremely popular. Some claim Bill Gates created the vaccines to implant microchips in people, while others say COVID is a plot by Big Pharma. Some continue to deny that COVID exists entirely. Others claim the disease is real but can be cured by drugs like Ivermectin. Meanwhile anti-maskers — which include both those who believe COVID is real and those who don’t — oppose mask mandates. For some, this is a slippery slope to a communist or Nazi dictatorship, while others object on grounds of personal freedom — other people be damned.

    Protests by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers have been violent at times. Local government meetings, especially school boards, have been disrupted, and there has been a concerted attempt to elect anti-maskers to the latter. (The harassment was so intense that in October, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the FBI would investigate threats against school officials.) Transit workers, flight attendants and restaurant servers have been attacked for enforcing mask requirements. After a librarian in Omak, Washington, was spit on, the library said it might close to protect its employees.

    Trials, Lawsuits and Sentences

    This year also saw a number of high-profile court trials. The most infamous was that of Kyle Rittenhouse, a right-wing teenager who took a rifle to a movement for Black lives protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, at which he murdered two people. Rittenhouse, who has become a poster boy for the far right, was acquitted in November during a trial which many regarded as overseen by an exceptionally biased judge.

    But other trials went differently. Derek Chauvin — whose 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis reignited the movement for Black lives — was convicted of murder in April. Further, three white vigilantes in Georgia who murdered Black jogger Ahmaud Arbery were convicted in November.

    Several civil lawsuits have also been successful against the far right. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who claimed that the Sandy Hook school shootings didn’t happen, lost a defamation suit by victims’ family members, who had been mercilessly harassed. But the most important case, Sines v. Kessler, was against the organizers of the fascist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, which ended with the murder of anti-fascist protester Heather Heyer. The suit, which had hampered various prominent fascists for years, will undoubtedly bankrupt those individuals and groups who were found liable for a total of $25 million.

    Sentences were also handed down against high-profile white nationalists. The death sentence was upheld for Dylann Roof, who murdered nine at a historically Black church in 2015. The perpetrator of the 2019 Poway, California, synagogue attack received a sentence of life in prison. Lastly, Proud Boy Allen Swinney, whose violent actions include pulling a gun at a demonstration, received a prison sentence of 10 years.

    Proud Boys Endure

    Of all the groups which originated in the far right ferment of 2015-2017, the Proud Boys have come out as the largest and most active. Neither arrests, scandals, leadership shakeups, nor lawsuits have deterred this violent street gang whose raison d’être is to brawl with their political enemies, especially antifa.

    Violent actions by the Proud Boys were an important run-up to the Capitol attack. In December 2020, they took part in invading the Oregon state capitol building in Salem during a legislative meeting. That month their violent demonstrations in D.C. included vandalizing Black churches, plus four stabbings and a shooting. Two days before the Capitol attack, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was arrested for vandalism and weapons offenses (he eventually received a five-month sentence). The group was the largest, most organized and most militant one during the Capitol assault. There are charges against dozens tied to the group, and three lawsuits have been also filed against them for their role. In February, Canada banned the group. Proud Boys have also joined the anti-vaxxer movement; made threats against school boards; appeared at rallies in Los Angeles and New York City; and took part in the largest violent rally of the year in August in Portland, Oregon.

    Good Night to (Most of) the “Alt-Right”

    While as a whole the alt-right is yesterday’s fad, there are other active remnants besides the Proud Boys. For example, the “incel” (“involuntary celibate”) movement is one of the movement’s living branches. For the first time in recent memory in the United States, an entire year had almost passed without a far right mass murder. But an alleged white supremacist who also espoused virulent misogynist views is the main suspect for the December 27 killing of five people in Denver. (In August, a man active in incel circles had also murdered five in Britain.)

    Most — but certainly not all — of those who attended the Charlottesville rally have taken major blows. Richard Spencer has been quiet since 2018 in no small part because he was awaiting the outcome of Sines v. Kessler. Found liable at the trial and heavily fined, his future now looks dim. Livestreamer “Baked Alaska” was arrested for his role in the Capitol attack, while in February, Christopher Cantwell (known more widely as the “Crying Nazi”), was sentenced to 41 months for harassment.

    But two other Charlottesville participants, Nick Fuentes and Thomas Rousseau, are going strong. Rousseau leads the Patriot Front, the most vibrant of the openly white supremacist groups which came out of the alt-right. Although mostly concentrating on propaganda and vandalism, they have held three marches in 2021, including one in December that drew more than 100 participants.

    While Rousseau’s Patriot Front turned their back on Trump as too moderate, Fuentes did the opposite. His “Groyper” movement has become part of the Trump movement in a bid to gain mainstream support. So far, they have not been unsuccessful, with Representative Gosar keynoting the group’s February conference. Unsurprisingly, Fuentes and his group also took part in the Capitol attack.

    But the alt-right had another wing that was so radical they passed going to Charlottesville because it was too mainstream, instead promoting neo-Nazi terrorism. This faction, the most prominent of which was the Atomwaffen Division, was decimated by legal action this year. Although in 2020 the Atomwaffen Division announced it was disbanding, numerous members were sentenced in 2021, including three years for former leader John Cameron Denton. Another important member was outed as an FBI informant. (However, Atomwaffen’s first leader, Brandon Russell, was released in August after completing his sentence.) Members of a similar group, The Base, were also sentenced to prison; two military veterans received nine years each. But despite these setbacks, these groups that promote terrorism keep their propaganda at a simmering boil on Telegram.

    Lastly, important information from a number of digital companies has been made public. Two of the biggest far right social media platforms, Parler and Gab, were both hacked. Epik, the main host for far right websites, was also compromised. Additionally, whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal Facebook documents showing how the company knowingly declined to take action against violent far right groups and lied about what they did do.

    Still, despite anti-fascists’ best hopes, far right street forces have remained active, and the Trumpists ensconced, if not more powerful, within the GOP. With President Biden’s ratings dipping and no end in sight for COVID, prospects look pretty good for Trump and Trumpism, but the coming midterms will be a major temperature check for 2024.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A hand pulls a book out from a library shelf

    The country by now is well acquainted with S.B. 8, the draconian new Texas anti-choice law that could massively undo abortion rights upon the ultimate whim of the Supreme Court. Beyond severely limiting the window of time available to have an abortion, S.B. 8 essentially deputizes average citizens to play the role of spy against their neighbors.

    “The new law in Texas effectively banning most abortions has ignited widespread controversy and debate,” reports The New York Times, “in part because of the mechanism it uses to enforce the restrictions: deputizing ordinary people to sue those involved in performing abortions and giving them a financial incentive to do so. The law establishes a kind of bounty system. If these vigilante plaintiffs are successful, the law allows them to collect cash judgments of $10,000 — and their legal fees — from those they sue.” (Emphasis added.)

    That $10,000 prize jumped up and poked me in the eye again recently, when I came across a report out of Oklahoma regarding the widespread, ongoing effort to ban or stifle certain books deemed “offensive” or “dangerous” to students. In Oklahoma, this effort has been aimed specifically at books that offer support or give advice to LGBTQ+ students.

    State Senate Bill 1142, authored by Republican State Sen. Rob Standridge, would place the power to ban books into the hands of parents in a profoundly unprecedented manner. “Under Senate Bill 1142, if just one parent objects to a book it must be removed within 30 days,” reports the McAlester News-Capital. “If it is not, the librarian must be fired and cannot work for any public school for two years.”

    There was also this tidbit buried in the same report: “Parents can also collect at least $10,000 per day from school districts if the book is not removed as requested.” (Emphasis added.)

    Call me paranoid, but some things are just too cute to be coincidence.

    It is no secret that conservative think tanks across the country have become highly adept at turning out drafts of right-wing legislation covering a variety of issues. Conservative legislators at both the state and federal levels use these drafts to craft heavy-handed legislation exactly like S.B. 8 in Texas and Senate Bill 1142 in Oklahoma. The Center for Public Integrity explains:

    A two-year investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity reveals for the first time the extent to which special interests have infiltrated state legislatures using model legislation. USA TODAY and the Republic found at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.

    The investigation examined nearly 1 million bills in all 50 states and Congress using a computer algorithm developed to detect similarities in language. That search — powered by the equivalent of 150 computers that ran nonstop for months — compared known model legislation with bills introduced by lawmakers. The phenomenon of copycat legislation is far larger. In a separate analysis, the Center for Public Integrity identified tens of thousands of bills with identical phrases, then traced the origins of that language in dozens of those bills across the country.

    Model bills passed into law have made it harder for injured consumers to sue corporations. They’ve called for taxes on sugar-laden drinks. They’ve limited access to abortion and restricted the rights of protesters. In all, these copycat bills amount to the nation’s largest, unreported special-interest campaign, driving agendas in every statehouse and touching nearly every area of public policy.

    It is likewise no secret that the Republican Party has undergone a fundamental change in strategy and tactics because of, and in the aftermath of Donald Trump. Gone are the days when they believed they could win elections on policy arguments. Many of the battlefields of the “culture wars” are lost to them as the country grows younger, and as generations devoted to equal rights and climate action move into positions of greater and greater influence.

    The new tactics, therefore, rely solely on muscle and money. Jam the legislatures with far right bills while packing the courts with far right judges and justices, gerrymander the voting districts and restrict voting rights wherever possible. When all else fails, swarm the Capitol building in a spasm of violence and try to overthrow fair and legal elections.

    “Conservatives see no reason to back off of this plan, no matter how much generational replacement occurs,” writes David Atkins for Washington Monthly. “They have no intention of moderating themselves or their ideas to meet new challenges — in part because it’s impossible to imagine a ‘conservative’ response to the climate crisis, housing costs, or radical inequality that does not decenter conservative white evangelicals who have no intention of giving up ill-gotten power. They only intend to rule — no matter what it takes, and no matter how many lines they cross.”

    Now, though, come these $10,000 prize payments meant to inspire citizens to put real muscle behind these terrible pieces of legislation. I’ve never seen it before, much less in two separate states on two separate issues; one could almost make a living off that kind of money if you went pro and did it full time. Abortion bounty hunters and school library plunderers making bank, because in Republican World, there is nothing that cannot be monetized.

    The fact that this money award idea has appeared simultaneously in two different states makes me believe there is a guiding think tank hand behind it. The bills themselves are silent on the subject, no press reports indicate outside help, and calls to the sponsors of S.B. 8 and Senate Bill 1142 were not returned. Unless the Supreme Court specifically chops the practice down, I believe we will be seeing more and more of this particular trick in legislation to come. There is always a new lane on the low road.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A gas flare is seen at an oil well site on July 26, 2013, outside Williston, North Dakota.

    Despite countless investigations, lawsuits, social shaming, and regulations dating back decades, the oil and gas industry remains formidable. After all, it has made consuming its products seem like a human necessity. It has confused the public about climate science, bought the eternal gratitude of one of America’s two main political parties, and repeatedly out-maneuvered regulatory efforts. And it has done all this, in part, by thinking ahead and then acting ruthlessly. While the rest of us were playing checkers, its executives were playing three-dimensional chess.

    Take this brief tour of the industry’s history, and then ask yourself: Is there any doubt that these companies are now plotting to keep the profits rolling in, even as mega-hurricanes and roaring wildfires scream the dangers of the climate emergency?

    The John D. Rockefeller Myth

    Ida Tarbell is one of the most celebrated investigative journalists in American history. Long before Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein exposed the Watergate scandal, Tarbell’s reporting broke up the Standard Oil monopoly. In 19 articles that became a widely read book, History of the Standard Oil Company, published in 1904, she exposed its unsavory practices. In 1911, federal regulators used Tarbell’s findings to break Standard Oil into 33 much smaller companies.

    David had slain Goliath. The U.S. government had set a monopoly-busting standard for future generations. John D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil’s owner, lost. The good guys won — or so it seemed.

    In fact Rockefeller saw what was coming and ended up profiting — massively — from the breakup of his company. Rockefeller made sure to retain significant stock holdings in each of Standard Oil’s 33 offspring and position them in different parts of the U.S. where they wouldn’t compete against one another. Collectively, the 33 offspring went on to make Rockefeller very, very rich. Indeed, it was the breakup of Standard Oil that tripled his wealth and made him the wealthiest man in the world. In 1916, five years after Standard Oil was broken up, Rockefeller became the world’s first billionaire.

    Say It Ain’t So, Dr. Seuss!

    One of the offspring of Standard Oil was Esso (S-O, spelled out), which later launched one of the most successful advertising campaigns in history. It did so by relying on the talents of a young cartoonist who millions would later adore under his pen name, Dr. Seuss. Decades before authoring the pro-environment parable The Lorax, Theodore Geisel helped Esso market “Flit,” a household spray gun that killed mosquitoes. What Americans weren’t told was that the pesticide DDT made up 5% of each blast of Flit.

    When Esso put considerable creative resources behind the Flit campaign, they were looking years ahead to a time when they would also successfully market oil-based products. The campaign ran for 17 years in the 1940s and 1950s, at the time an unheard length of time for an ad campaign. It taught Esso and other Standard Oil companies how to sell derivative products (like plastic and pesticides) that made the company and the brand a household name in the minds of the public. In its day, “Quick, Henry, the Flit!” was as ubiquitous as “Got Milk?” is today.

    At the time, the public (and even many scientists) didn’t appreciate the deadly nature of DDT. That didn’t come until the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. But accepting that DDT was deadly was hard, in part because of the genius of Geisel, whose wacky characters — strikingly similar to the figures who would later populate Dr. Seuss books — energetically extolled Flit’s alleged benefits.

    Geisel later said the experience “taught me conciseness and how to marry pictures with words.” The Flit ad campaign was incredibly smart and clever marketing. It taught the industry how to sell a dangerous and unnecessary product as if it were something useful and even fun.

    Years later, ExxonMobil would take that cleverness to new heights in its advertorials. They weren’t about clever characters. But they were awfully clever, containing few, if any, outright lies, but a whole lot of half-truths and misrepresentations. It was clever enough to convince the New York Times to run them without labeling them as the advertisements that they, in fact, were. Their climate “advertorials” appeared in the op-ed page of the New York Times and were part of what scholars have called “the longest, regular (weekly) use of media to influence public and elite opinion in contemporary America.”

    Controlling Climate Science

    Big Oil also saw climate change coming. As abundant investigative reporting and academic studies have documented, the companies’ own scientists were telling their executives in the 1970s that burning more oil and other fossil fuels would overheat the planet. (Other scientists had been saying so since the 1960s.) The companies responded by lying about the danger of their products, blunting public awareness, and lobbying against government action. The result is today’s climate emergency.

    Less well known is how oil and gas companies didn’t just lie about their own research. They also mounted a stealth campaign to monitor and influence what the rest of the scientific community learned and said about climate change.

    The companies embedded scientists in universities and made sure they were present at important conferences. They nominated them to be contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body whose assessments from 1990 onward defined what the press, public and policymakers thought was true about climate science. While the IPCC reports, which rely on consensus science, were sound, Big Oil’s scientific participation gave them an insider’s view of the road ahead. More ominously, they introduced the art of questioning the consensus science in forums where every word is parsed.

    The industry was employing a strategy pioneered by tobacco companies, but with a twist. Beginning in the 1950s, the tobacco industry cultivated a sotto voce network of scientists at scores of American universities and medical schools, whose work it funded. Some of these scientists were actively engaged in research to discredit the idea that cigarette smoking was a health risk, but most of it was more subtle; the industry supported research on causes of cancer and heart disease other than tobacco, such as radon, asbestos and diet. It was a form of misdirection, designed to deflect our attention away from the harms of tobacco and onto other things. The scheme worked for a while, but when it was exposed in the 1990s, in part through lawsuits, the bad publicity largely killed it. What self-respecting scientist would take tobacco industry money after that?

    The oil and gas industry learned from that mistake and decided that, instead of working surreptitiously, it would work in the open. And rather than work primarily with individual scientists whose work might be of use, it would seek to influence the direction of the scientific community as a whole. The industry’s internal scientists continued to do research and publish peer-reviewed articles, but the industry also openly funded university collaborations and other researchers. From the late 1970s through the 1980s, Exxon was known both as a climate research pioneer, and as a generous patron of university science, supporting student research and fellowships at many major universities. Its scientists also worked alongside senior colleagues at NASA, the Department of Energy and other key institutions, and funded breakfasts, luncheons and other activities at scientific meetings. Those efforts had the net effect of creating goodwill and bonds of loyalty. It’s been effective.

    The industry’s scientists may have been operating in good faith, but their work helped delay public recognition of the scientific consensus that climate change was unequivocally man-made, happening now, and very dangerous. The industry’s extensive presence in the field also gave it early access to cutting edge research it used to its advantage. Exxon, for example, designed oil platforms to accommodate more rapid sea-level rise, even as the company publicly denied that climate change was occurring.

    Don’t Call It Methane, It’s “Natural Gas”

    Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, yet it has received far less attention. One reason is that the oil and gas industry has positioned methane — which marketing experts cleverly labeled “natural gas” — as the future of the energy economy. The industry promotes methane gas as a “clean” fuel that’s needed to bridge the transition from today’s carbon economy to tomorrow’s renewable energy era. Some go further and see gas as a permanent part of the energy landscape: BP’s plan is renewables plus gas for the foreseeable future, and the company and other oil majors frequently invoke “low carbon” instead of “no carbon.”

    Except that methane gas isn’t clean. It’s about 80 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide is.

    As recently as a decade ago, many scientists and environmentalists viewed “natural gas” as a climate hero. The oil and gas industry’s ad guys encouraged this view by portraying gas as a coal killer. The American Petroleum Institute paid millions to run its first-ever Super Bowl ad in 2017, portraying gas as an engine of innovation that powers the American way of life. Between 2008 and 2019, API spent more than $750 million on public relations, advertising, and communications (for both oil and gas interests), an analysis by the Climate Investigations Center found. Today, most Americans view gas as clean, even though science shows that we can’t meet our climate goals without quickly transitioning away from it. The bottom line is that we can’t solve a problem caused by fossil fuels with more fossil fuels. But the industry has made a lot of us think otherwise.

    There’s little chance the oil and gas industry can defeat renewable energy in the long term. Wind, solar and geothermal, which are clean and cost-competitive, will eventually dominate energy markets. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, GridLab and Energy Innovation have found that the U.S. can achieve 90% clean electricity by the year 2035 with no new gas and at no additional cost to consumers.

    But the oil and gas industry doesn’t need to win the fight in the long term. It just needs to win right now so it can keep developing oil and gas fields that will be in use for decades to come. To do that, it just has to keep doing what it has done for the past 25 years: Win today, fight again tomorrow.

    A Spider’s Web of Pipelines

    Here’s a final example of how the oil and gas industry plans for the next war even as its adversaries are still fighting the last one. Almost no one outside of a few law firms, trade groups, and congressional staff in Washington, DC, knows what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is or does. But the oil and gas industry knows and it moved quickly after Donald Trump became president to lay the groundwork for decades of future fossil fuel dependency.

    FERC has long been a rubber stamp for the oil and gas industry. The industry proposes gas pipelines, and FERC approves them. When FERC approves a pipeline, that approval grants the pipeline eminent domain, which in effect makes the pipeline all but impossible to stop.

    Eminent domain gives a company the legal right to build a pipeline through landowners’ properties, and there is nothing they or state or county officials can do about it. A couple of states have successfully, though temporarily, blocked pipelines by invoking federal statutes such as the Clean Water Act. But if those state cases reach the current Supreme Court, the three justices Trump appointed — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barrett — are almost certain to rule in the industry’s favor.

    Oil and gas industry executives seized upon Trump’s arrival in the White House. In the opening days of his administration, independent researchers listened in on public trade gatherings of the executives, who talked about “flooding the zone” at FERC. The industry planned to submit not just one or two but nearly a dozen interstate gas pipeline requests. Plotted on a map, the projected pipelines covered so much of the U.S. that they resembled a spider’s web.

    Once pipelines are in the system, companies can start to build them, and utility commissioners in every corner of America see this gas “infrastructure” as a fait accompli. And pipelines are built to last decades. In fact, if properly maintained, a pipeline can last forever in principle. This strategy could allow the oil and gas industry to lock in fossil fuel dependency for the rest of the century.

    In hindsight, it’s clear that oil and gas industry leaders used outright climate denial when it suited their corporate and political interests throughout the 1990s. But now that outright denial is no longer credible, they’ve pivoted from denial to delay. Industry PR and marketing efforts have shifted massive resources to a central message that, yes, climate change is real, but that the necessary changes will require more research and decades to implement, and above all, more fossil fuels. Climate delay is the new climate denial.

    Nearly every major oil and gas company now claims that they accept the science and that they support sensible climate policies. But their actions speak louder than words. It’s clear that the future they want is one that still uses fossil fuels abundantly — regardless of what the science says. Whether it is selling deadly pesticides or deadly fossil fuels, they will do what it takes to keep their products on the market. Now that we’re in a race to a clean energy future, it’s time to recognize that they simply can’t be trusted as partners in that race. We’ve been fooled too many times.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Donald Trump speaks at the 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 23, 2018.

    There is a scene in the latest remake of Godzilla where Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, played by Ken Watanabe, is standing on a shoreline staring out at the sea. He is surrounded by bustling soldiers. Behind him, two giant “MUTO” creatures are beating the living hell out of San Francisco. Somewhere in the distance, a huge bulge of ocean approaches at dizzying speed: The King of the Monsters is coming. The commanding general asks if there is any hope that Godzilla can defeat the menace shredding the city. “The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in our control and not the other way around,” replies Serizawa. “Let them fight.”

    This is how I’m feeling about Donald Trump and his buddies within the Proud Boys these days.

    The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol building is not Trump’s only problem on that particular front; six Capitol police officers are suing him for sparking the Capitol riot, during which they were viciously assaulted, and recent court papers filed by Trump’s defense team indicate they plan to lay responsibility for the whole thing at the feet of the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups.

    “Former President Donald Trump is seeking dismissal of a suit accusing him of sparking the Jan. 6 Capitol riot,” reports Bloomberg News, “arguing that speakers at political rallies don’t have a ‘legally enforceable duty of care’ to adversaries or others ‘who might find themselves in the path of impassioned supporters.’ Trump, sued in August by eight Capitol Police officers who claim they were assaulted that day, argued in a court filing that the lawsuit should be tossed out because Trump isn’t ‘vicariously liable’ for the actions of people who heard him speak at a ‘Stop the Steal’ rally before the siege.”

    It ain’t “Stand back and stand by,” that’s for sure. Trump and his newest band of legal superchamps seem to be arguing that he can, in fact, yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and if you get your face stepped on by someone fleeing the room, well, that’s your problem. This is far less theoretical than that old legal saw. With these filings, Trump is handing the bag directly over to groups, including the Proud Boys, which have been his staunchest and most menacing allies.

    This appears to be yet another crossroads moment featuring Trump trying to put some wind between himself and the hardest of his hardcore allies. This split with the Proud Boys is nothing less than cold-blooded political calculus seen in hundreds of courtrooms a day: It was them, Your Honor, not me, and under the bus they go (the standard-issue fate of nearly everyone foolish enough to hitch their wagon to his star).

    Last week, it was Trump parting ways with the anti-vax brigades, a move that went over with them about as well as a bag of cement at a track meet. Sitting for an interview with right-wing commentator Candace Owens, Trump pushed back hard on her suggestion that the vaccines were somehow flawed or dangerous. “Oh no, the vaccines work,” he replied, “but some people aren’t the ones. The ones who get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don’t take the vaccine. But it’s still their choice. And if you take the vaccine, you’re protected. Look, the results of the vaccine are very good, and if you do get it, it’s a very minor form. People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.”

    Vile conspiracy monger Alex Jones immediately spoke for many within the anti-vax brigades in a Christmas Day message to the former president. “But now that you know that [Anthony] Fauci signed you onto a fraud, you must extricate yourself from this lie, or you will be forever known as the M.V.V.P., the Most Valuable Vaccine Pusher, and the name Trump will be associated with pure evil,” ranted Jones. “Do not go down history as Josef Mengele 2.0. Your legacy will be that of a monster. Your legacy will be that of a eugenicist. Your legacy will be that of a child killer, using medical tyranny.”

    Meanwhile, the House 1/6 committee prepares to move into a more public phase of operation, sweeping in new testimony and evidence left and right, while Trump’s efforts to stop them have finally reached the Supreme Court. This is a perilous moment fraught with uncertainty: Yes, the 6-3 conservative bent of the court, including three Justices he personally nominated, would seem to be a safe harbor for the embattled former president. Yet that same court had a number of opportunities to involve themselves in Trump’s favor during the post-election chaos, and they very deliberately wanted no part of it. There is no way to tell where they will come down on this.

    Donald Trump seems to be running out of friends at an accelerating rate, and it is his own behavior that is creating the distance. It’s a strange decision tree he’s climbing, and puts one in mind of the old saying: What do you call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People line up to check out at a grocery store in New York City, on November 14, 2021.

    For weeks, a high-pitched panic about inflation has infused the mainstream media, most absurdly in CNN’s clip of a family struggling to keep up with the price of buying 12 gallons of milk per week (yes, 12).

    Up until recently, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pushed back against this kind of narrative, arguing that rising prices were a short-term and transitory problem due to supply chain shocks from the pandemic that will eventually return to normal. But now the Fed has shifted course and is preparing to institute policies to “cool off the economy” — a euphemism for shrinking the money supply in order to drive down business investment and thus scale back job growth.

    The definition of inflation is simple enough: an increase in the prices of goods and services. If prices rise quickly, and outpace wage growth, this can cause problems for working families — even those who don’t drink 12 gallons of milk per week. But the media narrative about rising inflation has conveniently left out several important points.

    First, the prices of some of our biggest expenses — health care, housing, higher education to name a few — have been rising (often explosively so) for decades with little discussion or concern from the punditry. Health care costs are in fact the leading cause of bankruptcy in the country. Global food prices, too, have been rising because of the impact of climate change on crop yields. Easing these kinds of costs — through a nationalized health care system, investment in affordable housing, student debt relief and decarbonization — would go a much longer way toward improving working people’s finances than monetary policies to tighten economic growth.

    Second, although it’s true that there has been a noticeable uptick in prices (measured by the annual change on the consumer price index) by 6.8 percent over the last year, this is still not very high by historical standards. The last time the United States experienced a serious inflationary crisis in the 1970s, the rate of inflation regularly hit between 11-13 percent. It’s also the case that measures of current price increases are skewed by a few sectors of the economy, most notably the energy sector.

    A more useful measure to look at is a comparison of the rise of prices to the state of wages. If prices are going up faster than wages, then our relative purchasing power declines. But if wages keep pace with inflation, or even outpace inflation, then our purchasing power stays the same, or is strengthened. The reverse is also true. Thus, even though inflation rates have remained relatively low for much of the last few decades, wages have grown even less, meaning that purchasing power for working people declined despite low inflation rates.

    Today, wages are finally rising. The New York Times recently reported that about 13 percent of workers have not seen pay increases this year and many retirees receive pensions that are constant. But it has been “middle- and high-income earners whose pay gains were least likely to have kept up with inflation. Over the 12 months that ended in September, those in the top quarter of earners experienced 2.7 percent gains in hourly earnings, compared with 4.8 percent for the lowest quarter of earners.” The combination of wage increases and COVID-19 relief checks have put more money in the pockets of the bottom half of earners than they had at the start of the pandemic.

    Most importantly, the media spin has left out the elephant in the room. It is business owners who are the ones raising prices. They are currently setting record profits, so do they have to raise prices? The answer to this question ultimately reveals that inflation is a question of class politics — which class gains at whose expense — rather than technical monetary policies.

    What Exactly Is Inflation, and Where Does It Come From?

    Inflation is an increase in prices, generalized across the economy, i.e., not just the rise of one particular good but goods across wide swaths of the economy.

    How does this happen? The classic explanation is that inflation occurs when too many dollars chase too few goods. That is, if demand for goods and services exceeds the world’s capacity to supply those goods and services, this creates an upward pressure on prices. Business owners can get away with charging more from consumers, who essentially bid against each other for limited supply.

    Today, the rapid reopening of economies following lockdowns has created heightened demand for goods and services, far outpacing the rate at which supply chains have come online. The free market allows producers of items in short supply to “pick their price,” as anyone looking to buy a used car right now knows.

    This can also lead to good old-fashioned price gouging. The oil industry, for instance, curtailed production at the height of the pandemic due to cratering demand for fuel. Now that demand is back up, Bloomberg News reports, “oil companies are keeping production flat while using profits to reward shareholders.” And although wholesale prices of oil have fallen somewhat, retail gas stations are still selling gas at high prices. “When wholesale prices decline rapidly, it provides a window for retail operators to sell at high prices for a few weeks before lowering prices,” oil storage broker Tank Tiger CEO Ernie Barsamian told Bloomberg. He noted that eventually gas prices will come down, but for now, many refiners and gas stations are enjoying the higher profits.

    The other half of the inflationary equation is the role of increased workers’ wages. In a situation like today, where wages have begun to rise, this will feed an increased demand for goods, as working people have more money to spend. At the same time, higher wages also raise the cost of production for employers. If businesses pay higher wages to workers, the argument goes, this cuts into profit margins, leading capitalists to pass on their added costs to consumers.

    Most mainstream economists assume that even if an external factor (a spike in oil prices due to geopolitical shifts, or supply chain chokeholds due to pandemic lockdowns) triggers the rise in prices, ultimately higher wages are the primary culprit of any sustained inflationary trends. Finally, mainstream economics draws a line between higher wages and low unemployment rates. A tight labor market, where workers are not easily replaced, gives workers more bargaining power to demand higher wages.

    This line of argument was first championed by economist Milton Friedman, who stated that a ”natural rate of unemployment” exists below which inflation begins to take off. Friedman’s “monetarist” ideas took hold after the inflationary crisis of the 1970s, and ever since have been used as a battering ram against policies in which governments actively promote full employment or better jobs for workers.

    In one sense, conservatives have a point. Karl Marx himself similarly argued that capitalism depends on unemployment — a “reserve army of labor” — to keep workers desperate enough to agree to whatever terms of work they can get. Unemployment, in other words, is a means to prevent wages from growing so far that they threaten profitability.

    Class Conflict

    The question that economic pundits conspicuously avoid is: What if instead of raising prices, businesses just made do with smaller profit margins? After all, U.S. corporations are currently making record profits, posting their fattest margins since 1950. Even at John Deere, the site of the highest-profile strike this year, Bloomberg News reports, “workers held out to get a 10% raise, yet the company is still expected to earn even more next year than the record profit it posted [in November].”

    Workers don’t set prices, the bosses do. And they do so on the basis of maintaining the greatest possible profit margins. If workers’ wages go up but prices stay the same, this would simply mean that a greater share of profits went to workers rather than capitalists. System-wide, workers’ share of the economic pie (i.e., the “national income”) would increase. Falling unemployment, rising wages and increased social spending does not have to automatically translate into inflation of prices if we allow bosses’ profit margins and their share of the national income to decrease.

    Even the dire rates of inflation in the 1970s, in the context of a strong labor movement “hurt capital more than it did workers, while neoliberal repression of workers’ power has kept inflation low from the 1980s onward,” sociologists Ho-fung Hung and Daniel Thompson have argued. The question of inflation is therefore a matter of class conflict over who gains at whose expense.

    This is not to say that inflationary pulls aren’t a problem; if prices of common goods rise much faster than wages, or if the spikes in inflation are so high that businesses aren’t able to operate smoothly and fall into bankruptcy, laying off workers, this could have dire consequences. But the cures that are typically on hand are worse than the disease. Thus, in response to the crisis in the 1970s, the U.S. ruling class, led by President Ronald Reagan and Fed Chair Paul Volcker (though begun by President Jimmy Carter), was willing to induce a severe recession in order to stop inflation. The ensuing decades of neoliberalism created astronomical levels of class inequality.

    But there are other tools to stop inflation, which do so in favor of workers. Price controls have been used in wartime throughout U.S. history, most significantly by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration. As political scientist Todd Tucker recently pointed out, FDR employed 160,000 federal employees in the Office of Price Administration to control prices “on goods from scrap steel to shoes to milk.” Even President Richard Nixon briefly implemented price controls.

    Immediate reforms in the form of rent control, expanding Medicare, and allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices are a good start to such policies, along with capping CEO pay and taxing the rich. Other reforms like investment into public housing and public education also indirectly cap prices.

    Ultimately, a left economic agenda must push back against the inflation panic to maintain demands for higher wages and increased social spending, while guarding against real inflation through price controls and policies that protect working people’s pockets.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Dozens of packages are lined up along a Manhattan street as a FedEx truck makes deliveries on December 6, 2021, in New York City.

    Confession time: this year, I don’t want to buy my kids anything for Christmas. Big one, right? Okay, let me soften that just a bit. I have bought a few modest, useful things. But that’s it! No new games, no new toys, no new clothes (other than socks)… nothing. They already have too much. We have too much. Our nation is drowning in stuff and, in reality, need almost none of it.

    There, I’ve said it! It feels good to get that off my chest, even if it makes me sound like a cold-hearted Grinch of a mother. But maybe that’s what it truly takes to be a good environmentalist these days.

    On the radio recently, I heard this stumper: the U.S. economy depends on consumers consuming and the earth depends on us not consuming. Which are we going to choose? Once the conundrum of this moment was posed that way, I knew instantly where I stood. With the earth and against consumption! I raised my fist in support, even as I maneuvered my empty seven-person, gas-fed minivan down the highway. I mention that lest you jump to the conclusion that I’m a 100% eco-soul, which, of course, none of us can be in this strange world of ours. (On that, more to come.)

    And therein lies the rub! We can always be doing better. I compost and recycle and don’t shower every day. Our thermostat is set at 63 and most of the winter I wear a hat and scarf inside. All this feels conscientious and hardscrabble, but does it change anything? Does what I do matter at all?

    To put myself in context, I keep thinking of a 2019 report that found the U.S. military to be “one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e [carbon-dioxide equivalent] than most countries.” In fact, the British researchers who did that study discovered that if the United States military were a nation-state it would be the “47th largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world (just taking into account fuel usage emissions).”

    If our military machine is such a major polluter (and TomDispatch readers would have known that back in 2007, thanks to Michael Klare’s reporting), my contributions to a greener tomorrow through low-key body odor might not make the slightest difference. In short, I’m not showering as much and I’m giving myself a hard time for driving my old minivan around, while Brown University’s Cost of Wars Project finds that the U.S. military has been giving the planet a truly hard time. In its Global War on Terror alone, it released 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions between 2001 and 2017, effectively pumping more than twice as many planet-destroying dirty gases into the atmosphere as all the cars in the United States in the same period.

    Target Mania

    You might reasonably ask: What does this have to do with Christmas, or rather the annual holidays celebrated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others who mark the darkest period of the year with festivals of lights, feasts, and gift-giving? I guess this time of year makes me, at least, want to interrogate my inner Grinch. If the military is such a staggering polluter, bigger even than Black Friday deal-hunters and Cyber Monday bargain-shoppers, why am I so worried about overdoing it this holiday season?

    Okay, here’s how my thinking goes, more or less: just because damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead buying as if there were no tomorrow starts at the top with the Pentagon’s way of making war on this planet, doesn’t mean it has to go all the way down to me. I mean, I want there to be a tomorrow and a next day and a day after that. I don’t want my children to be driven from their future homes thanks to climate-change-induced rising waters, already cluttered with micro-plastic, single-use coffee cups and lost flip flops.

    American consumption is a problem. The carbon footprint of, and the garbage from, every purchase can be calculated and increasingly will be labeled. As Annaliese Griffin noted recently in a New York Times op-ed:

    “Every new purchase puts into motion a global chain of events, usually beginning with extracting oil to make the plastic that is in everything from stretchy jeans to the packaging they come in. Those materials travel from processing plant to factory to container ship, to eventually land on my front porch, and then become mine for a time. Sooner or later, they will most likely end up in a landfill.”

    We have to be more than consumers. We are potentially part of the path out of the morass, out of being a nation that says, “I buy, therefore I am,” instead of “I think, therefore I am.” Collectively, we already have so much stuff that decluttering is a multi-million-dollar industry and self-storage a multi-billion-dollar one.

    We have eight years to halve carbon emissions before our species irrevocably alters the planet’s climate, according to the latest report from the U.N. Environment Programme. Getting there is going to involve beginning to dismantle the military-industrial complex, banishing more fossil-fuel-driven cars from the roads and planes from the air, and reining in consumerism in a major way. In short, it will take a reordering of how we — and that includes me — do everything.

    And yet, even knowing all this, even having sworn all this, I find myself at Target on a Monday three weeks before Christmas. I’m there with a strange shopping list that ping-pongs from bras to celery and milk to kids’ toothpaste to a screwdriver set small enough to open our thermostat. And I have just one hour. “Target will have it all,” I tell myself. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? They have everything on my shopping list, as well as holiday garlands and sugar cookies and swimsuits and cute toilet brushes. (Why do toilet brushes need to be cute?)

    It all demands my attention. I grip my shopping list, grit my teeth, and try to stay the course. And then I remember the birthday party the kids are invited to this weekend at a bowling alley. I usually have them make cards and give books as gifts, but I’m not going to be there with them to navigate the gift-giving portion of the afternoon, so I feel compelled to buy a “real” present.

    That’s how I end up in the Lego aisle where the shelves are almost empty. I stand there for 20 minutes talking myself in and out of buying one of three choices. Finally, I get all three, telling myself that they’re on sale and we can give the other two away as gifts. And so it goes in this country’s version of consumer heaven (or hell).

    In the parking lot afterwards, I feel awful, thinking about the carbon footprint of those Lego sets and their long journeys from factories in Brazil and China. I try to perk myself up by remembering how that Danish company is trying to get rid of its plastic packaging and investing in recyclable materials.

    At home, I tuck the Lego sets away and wonder: What will my kids be missing out on if I’m truly able to keep this Christmas low key and experience-focused? I go online to find out and my idle research turns up an astounding array of loud, robotic, expensive plastic objects with strange names. The Purrble is a stuffed animal with an electronic heartbeat that, when you pet it, purrs and “calms down.” It sells for $50 and if that isn’t expensive enough for you, there’s always Moji. For $100, that interactive Labradoodle toy does tricks on command and responds when you pet it like a real dog but won’t chew up your shoes or have an accident on the carpet.

    Moji and Purrble are likely to be top sellers in this holiday season, but it looks like most people who want them under the tree have already got them because they’re now scarce indeed. Still, I kept clicking away. The last toy I see in the “hot toys for 2021 list,” however, doesn’t make me purr or do tricks. Instead, it summons up all my bad feelings about people who make and market toys — and gives me a sense of validation for my simple Christmas plans.

    It’s the “5 Surprise Mini Brands Mystery Capsule Real Miniature Brands Collectible Toy.” Say that three times fast. On second thought, don’t. The plastic capsules are wrapped in plastic and contain small plastic objects, each behind its own plastic window. It’s plastic, plastic, plastic all the way to the end of the line. When your children unwrap them on Christmas morning, they’ll find five tiny replicas of brand-name supermarket items like ketchup bottles or peanut-butter jars in each of them. As the ad copy explains about these ads you’ve given your kid: “Create your mini shopping world: Collect them all and tick off your collector’s guide shopping list as you go!”

    Oh, for the love of mistletoe, really? Yes! The Toy Guy, Chris Byrne, claims that it’s a popular toy because “kids love miniature things and they love shopping.” For the privilege of entrenching brand loyalty in your small children and making grocery shopping with your offspring even harder than it already is, you pay $15.00 plus shipping for two of them and the 10 tiny objects they contain.

    Sadly enough, I know that my kids would love them. Considering their carbon footprints and the psychology and marketing behind them, I despair.

    How to Fly Through the Air on the Highest Trapeze (All on Your Own)

    It isn’t all doom and gloom, though. It can’t be. My daughter recently reminded me that kids can play with anything — even garbage — for hours on end if you let them. Madeline, who is seven, was sent home from school for 10 days after close contact with a kid who was Covid positive. I decided to skip the assignments her well-meaning teacher emailed me and hid the tablet she sent home in Madeline’s backpack. I was not going to survive those days if I had to sit next to her, monitor progress on worksheets, and make sure she wasn’t toggling over to YouTube to watch doll-transformation videos.

    Without the school schedule and the attendant fights over screens, time passed quickly; we went to Covid-test appointments, took long walks, spent time with my mom working on puzzles and doing watercolors, and engaged in house-cleaning projects room by room. In between all of that, I left her to her own devices: unplugged, unscripted, and unsupervised.

    One day, while I was typing at the dining-room table, she found some old foam dolls she had made at a craft fair. I had pulled them out from under the couch with all the dust bunnies and put them in a box to take to the trash.

    “No, no, mom!” she exclaimed. “These girls are my favorites. I made them. They’re not trash. I’m playing with them right now.”

    “Alright,” I replied. “Let’s see you do so.”

    She spent the next three and a half hours in an elaborate circus landscape of her own creation. She tied strings between lamps and bookshelves, moved chairs around, magic-markered faces and costumes onto the dolls, and then put them through trapeze routines on those strings. As I emailed, while checking off items on my to-do list and adding new ones, she chirped away, putting dialogue, feeling, and action in the mouths of these small pieces of airy plastic. Every once in a while, she’d march through the dining room heading for the kitchen art shelf to get more markers, wire, or paper.

    Finally, she invited me into the living room, asked me to find circus music on my phone, and presented me with the show. I stood marveling at the extraordinary mess she’d made and calculating how long it would take to clean up as she flipped, swung, and danced her characters through the air with the greatest of ease on their flying trapeze(s). I clapped, smiled, and went back to my to-do list, suggesting that it might be time to clean up.

    “I’m not done, mom!” she insisted. “I have another hour or so of work to do with them.” And as it turned out, she did. I put my own mess away, started dinner, and then helped her sweep up the last of the project just as everyone else was getting home from work and school.

    What struck me, of course, was that it cost nothing. Her play was engrossing, dynamic, self-directed, and creative and it didn’t come from across the sea in a shipping container, but from inside her.

    Mind you, I’m neither a monster nor a Grinch. There will be presents. The kids will be getting umbrellas for Christmas, as well as new socks and used books from those series that they so adore. They’ll get diaries that lock with tiny keys and new pens in their stockings. They’ll help us make cookies and candies to box up for friends and families as gifts.

    We’ll celebrate and connect and share, but it won’t be a branded frenzy of consumption at our house. We don’t need it, not in a world that’s threatening to come down around our ears.

    We have eight years to crawl back from the brink of total climate disaster. And we’ll do what we can and try to enjoy every minute of it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A little boy in a mask looks at a light display

    “I wish it was over for good or ill,” laments J.R.R. Tolkien’s over-curious hobbit, Pippin, on the eve of Sauron’s siege at Minas Tirith. “I am no warrior at all and dislike any thought of battle; but waiting on the edge of one that I can’t escape is worst of all. What a long day it seems already!”

    A long day indeed. Waiting on the edge is what many of us have been doing for nearly two years now, and not only is there no end in sight, there is yet another unavoidable battle waiting for us out there beyond the torchlight. Omicron is rising, even in my tiny little corner of New England. If it isn’t everywhere already — how can we know, given the shabby testing infrastructure we’re still saddled with? — it will be soon.

    My mother canceled the annual Christmas gathering at her house this year for fear of this thing. She was very matter-of-fact about it — and altogether certain it was the responsible thing to do (I agree, for the record) — but I could hear the sadness in her voice nonetheless. Our family has never been Currier and Ives when it comes to this season, but it remains a beloved touchstone, especially now that she is the grandmother of a genuinely astonishing 8-year-old. Another book of memories stolen before they could be made.

    My family remains among the fortunate in this slow-grinding ordeal. According to a mid-December New York Times report, COVID-19 has killed one out of every 100 people over the age of 65 in the U.S. That age group makes up a staggering 75 percent majority of the more than 800,000 who have died since all this began. That amounts to some 600,000 families who have lost an elder, leaving an empty seat at the Christmas dinner table.

    Gloomy times all around. A small part of me envies those who have convinced themselves this is all a big nothing noise, or have just decided they are so over it, you guys. A fair portion of them might be sick or dead by springtime, especially those who remain willfully unvaccinated, but in this moment such flat denialism must be invigorating.

    To not feel like this anymore is deeply tempting, a harlequin abandonment of worries and doubts, until I realize I would rather be lonely and alive than an iconoclastic dying person in an overcrowded ICU, tube down my windpipe in service to lungs now made of ash, begging for the vaccine that can’t help me anymore. A double-vaxxed friend who caught the Delta variant said it felt like her bones were on fire. Yeah, no, in the immortal words of Simple Minds, “I’ll be alone, dancin’, you know it baby…”

    The hardest part is the change in perspective I need to make, if I want to keep my head on straight. That change? I have to stop believing this is all going to end someday soon, because it isn’t. A huge swath of the world remains unvaccinated, a dilemma that most Global North leaders don’t seem to be in any rush to address, and every one of those people is a potential petri dish for the next variant, and the next, and the next. Now comes Omicron, still a mystery but a confirmed fast-mover. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest Omicron’s symptoms are “mild,” but compared to what? A bear mauling? “Mild” still sounds pretty damn bad, and worse if you are older and/or unvaccinated.

    How does it end, then? I have no idea. Maybe it really doesn’t. All I do know is that these last two years, and the years I suspect are coming, have once again forced me to recalibrate my concept of hope. Hope for me used to be results-based: I hope for something, and it happens or it doesn’t. COVID, the climate collapse and the generalized awful that is modern American politics, broke that mold.

    Hope, now, is for me an exercise to see if I still have it in me to hope, despite all the reasons not to that are staring me in the face. The effort of hoping yields its own rewards, no matter the outcome and as intangible as they may sometimes seem. I sound like the last line from Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption (“I hope.”), but it’s the truth. Right now, it’s all we’ve got as we stand like Pippin waiting for the next battle, hoping to have hope.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as he addresses a rally in Topeka, Kansas, on October 6, 2018.

    The key to understanding the core belief system of Donald Trump is found in the proper placement of three letters: i, m, and a; two vowels and a consonant. A person is said to be immoral if they share a value set with a community but fail to follow those values. A person is said to be amoral if they have no personal value set whatsoever, and give not a single fig for what society has to say about right and wrong.

    Trump is amoral to a nearly pitch-perfect degree. His existence is entirely transactional: no good, no bad, only what’s in it for Trump. The fact that what’s in it for Trump tends to be bad for almost everyone else makes him appear immoral, but the base nature of existence dwells in a deeper and danker cellar of the soul. The devoted lickspittles in his orbit are mostly immoral, as many of them know what they’re doing is wrong but stay in it because fleecing the rubes makes for good money. Trump’s amorality makes no such distinctions; if it’s good for him, then it’s good, end of file and gimme.

    It can be startling, then, when he actually does the right thing as he bumbles along through his bleak, grasping, monochromic existence. There’s no context for it. It’s like watching Neo take off and fly at the end of The Matrix. He can do that? Who knew? Speaking personally, I can count on two fingers the number of moral actions then-President Trump presided over: He got a lot fewer soldiers and civilians killed than his Republican predecessor, and he made the rapid development of a COVID-19 vaccine his administration’s highest priority.

    Of course, any morality found within Trump’s quest for a rapid vaccine is stripped to the bone by his ultimate motivation for obtaining the thing. It was not to save lives and curtail the pandemic, but to save his own ass in an increasingly fraught election year. He was perfectly happy to mock the effectiveness of masks (the result of which almost certainly got people sick and dead), and threw science itself under the bus more times than can be accurately counted. In October 2020, he lied about his own COVID status on the eve of the first debate and put God knows how many people, including his opponent Joe Biden, in peril.

    Trump’s deliberate creation (and continued fealty to) the polar “us v. them” theme that continues to scramble our approach to the pandemic was the defining element of his final year in office, and of the election that ultimately showed him the door… but even then, throughout it all, he pounded the vaccine drum with all his might. To his thinking, vaccines were the magic elixir that would rescue him from defeat. To Trump, it’s OK that he dumped on masks, science, doctors, safe practices and everything else the pandemic required; the vax was his silver bullet, and would take care of everything, especially him.

    Flash forward a year, and Trump’s polemics against masks and science have resulted in a nation about to endure two variant waves simultaneously with some 40 percent of the population still unvaccinated. The vaccines he championed are medical miracles, but his advocacy for them never translated into acceptance within his base of support because of his generalized anti-science rhetoric, leaving the country vulnerable to the complete collapse of the health care system if the unvaccinated among us are overwhelmed. In many places, this is already happening.

    So it was quite the moment last Sunday when Trump, in Dallas doing a road show with disgraced former Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly, was booed by the usually-adoring crowd after admitting he had received the vaccine booster shot. “Don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t, no, no,” he barked back at the booers. “That’s — there’s a very tiny group over there.” Trump was so distraught over the crowd reaction that he reportedly had to be consoled by O’Reilly afterward.

    Flash forward to Tuesday, when Trump had a sit with notorious right-wing hack Candace Owens and the topic of vaccines came up. Trump was quick to take total credit for them — of course — as he lauded their effectiveness. Owens attempted to spin the discussion into a conspiracy-fueled attack on the medicines, but Trump would have none of it.

    “Oh no, the vaccines work,” Trump quickly retorted, “but some people aren’t the ones. The ones who get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don’t take the vaccine. But it’s still their choice. And if you take the vaccine, you’re protected. Look, the results of the vaccine are very good, and if you do get it, it’s a very minor form. People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.”

    That’s twice in a week Trump has bared his throat to his own horde, and the current president took notice by praising Trump for it in a speech. Trump reacted to that praise in a way I’d never seen before: He was kind, gregarious even. “I’m very appreciative of that,” Trump said to Fox News. “I was surprised to hear it. I think it was a terrific thing, and I think it makes a lot of people happy…. I think [Biden] did something very good. You know, it has to be a process of healing in this country, and that will help a lot.”

    The head spins, the mind reels, and you can expect more of the same. Trump has not suddenly found religion here: He wants a piece of the action. He wants his face up there on Vaccine Mt. Rushmore when the day finally comes that we have this thing under some semblance of control. For sure the cry of “I did the vaccines all by myself!” will be the centerpiece to his campaign should he run for president again. This lays the groundwork for that, and there is certainly more to come. Trump is the world heavyweight champion of consistent messaging, and this is his new message.

    … and you know what? Fine. Let him try. We need all the help we can get. At present, those who are dug in against the vaccines refuse to listen to anyone in science or government advocating for the shots. They are not to be trusted, as Trump gamely taught them for years. He is greatly responsible for this, and if his own blistering self-interest causes him to act in the self-interest of his countrymen for a refreshing change of pace, I see no sense in trying to thwart him because of his original culpability. If Donald Trump praising the vaccines (and himself) serves to get a few more needles into a few more arms, he will have performed the best act of his life since entering politics.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Donald Trump

    One of the most notorious moments of the presidency of Donald J. Trump has to be that visit he made to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on March 6th of 2020. COVID-19 hadn’t even been named yet and the World Health Organization (WHO) hadn’t yet designated it a pandemic but we all knew that something very bad was happening. Cases had shown up in Washington state and California. The whole country was riveted by the plight of a cruise ship sailing off the West Coast with sick people aboard and nowhere to moor. The president was reportedly angry about the whole thing and was resisting dealing with it but finally agreed to travel to the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters for a photo-op to show his concern. It was one of the most astonishing presidential performances of all time:

    But perhaps the most memorable of all was this:

    You know, my uncle was a great person. He was at MIT. He taught at MIT for, I think, like a record number of years. He was a great super genius. Dr. John Trump. I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, “How do you know so much about this?” Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for President.

    Those exchanges illustrated the fundamental bind Trump was in from the beginning of the crisis. He wanted to “downplay” the virus, as he admitted to Bob Woodward around that time, but he also wanted to be the very stable genius who personally solved it. So he wavered back and forth throughout, some days saying the whole thing was just going away by itself and that his political enemies were talking it up to hurt his re-election chances. On other days he promoted snake oil cures, even offering advice to scientists on what they should be researching to treat the virus, apparently convinced that he had brilliant ideas that hadn’t been explored:

    He grew impatient with the medical professionals who kept telling him bad news and instead turned to the quack remedies like Hydroxychloroquine which people like Fox News personality Laura Ingraham were promoting. He listened to quack doctors like Fox News radiologist Dr. Scott Atlas, who would tell him what he wanted to hear. As his COVID task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx has testified before Congress, during the final months of his term, Trump completely lost interest in COVID altogether — at least until he came down with it himself.

    However, towards the end, the vaccines were coming on line and Trump very much wanted to be given credit for them. He claimed over and over again that everyone said it would take five years but he made sure they were done in record time and nobody could have achieved that but him. In his first press conference after the election he said this:

    The vaccines, and by the way, don’t let Joe Biden take credit for the vaccines. If Joe Biden… Joe Biden failed with the swine flu, H1N1. Totally failed with the swine flu. Don’t let him take credit for the vaccines because the vaccines were me and I pushed people harder than they’ve ever been pushed before. But the vaccines, there are those that says one of the greatest things. It’s a medical miracle. Don’t let anyone try and take credit for it.

    As you can see, he was desperate to be given credit, as if he had personally spent that previous few months cooking up the vaccines in the White House kitchen. After all, he had a genius uncle who taught at MIT and all the doctors were astounded by his “natural ability.” As he put it, “the vaccines were me.”

    We found out later that he and Melania Trump were among the first to be vaccinated while they were still in the White House, although they didn’t announce it or do what all the other politicians were doing by having cameras present to record the moment as a way to reassure the public that they were safe. Nonetheless, over the following months, Trump would from time to time talk up the vaccines, mostly as a way to talk up his part in it, and while always emphasizing that people “have their freedoms.” Last September, he even joined the freedom from sanity club himself saying that he probably wouldn’t get the booster when they became available.

    His followers were not convinced.

    After all those months of Trump downplaying the virus, refusing to wear a mask and otherwise encouraging his voters to see the mitigation strategies as a Democratic plot to bring him down, they have continued to chase snake oil cures and refused to get vaccinated. They don’t see the “medical miracle” of vaccines as a Trump triumph. They see it as a threat.

    This week, Trump told another audience that he had received the booster after all — and he got booed. He took the opportunity to once again try to make the case that he should get credit and that his supporters are “playing into [the Democrats’] hands” by booing him.

    “Take credit for it. What we’ve done is historic,” Trump told an audience over the weekend. “If you don’t want to take it you don’t have to, you shouldn’t be forced to take it, no mandates. But take credit because we saved tens of millions of lives, take credit, don’t let them take that away from you.”

    He meant, “don’t let them take that away from me.

    Many people have seen those comments as Trump encouraging people to get vaccinated, but it really wasn’t and I doubt any of his followers saw it that way. In fact, he made it clear that he doesn’t care if they do it or not and that all that matters is that he is acknowledged as a big hero. In other words, his comment was really just more of his partisan politicization of the pandemic that’s gotten us into this mess in the first place.

    And even if he did make an explicit pitch for people to get vaccinated, it’s unlikely that it would make a difference. Polls show that the resistance to vaccines is now baked into the MAGA psyche, with him or without him. He may have created this problem but he has no power to fix it and I imagine that’s intensely frustrating for him.

    Trump yearns to be worshiped as the great leader who single-handedly saved the world but his followers are all inexplicably offering themselves up as human sacrifices instead.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Joe Manchin walks out of a meeting with fellow Democratic senators for a break in the basement of the U.S. Capitol Building on December 15, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    I’ve spent the last several months trying to settle on a straightforward explanation for why Joe Manchin decided to attack, denude and ultimately destroy the centerpiece of President Biden’s domestic agenda on the cusp of what already looks to be a brutal midterm season for the Democrats.

    Manchin loves his coal, sure, so the clean energy provisions at the core of the Build Back Better Act (BBB) were poison to his own personal fortune. He’s a Democrat from a bright red state, and so must cleave at least somewhat to the economic fictions that sustain the right. Given the large chunk of hell he’s carved out for himself, however, these hardly seem like enough to justify the mayhem he has unleashed within his own party.

    … and then it hit me in the middle of the night like an arcing splash of ice water dropped on my bed. I sat bolt upright in the gibbering dark and announced to the startled cat coiled at my feet: “My God! He’s running for president!”

    Bollocks, you say? Stuff and nonsense? I thought so, too, at first, like I’d had a dream about being attacked by a bear that had hatched from an owl’s egg in the pinwheeling core of a laundry dryer set on high, claws and fangs and socks, o my! Once the thought had settled down for a spell, though, it seemed at least as good an explanation as any.

    Put yourself in Manchin’s shoes. Your own seat is secure until 2024, so there is no need to run for anything next year. Over the long process of murdering the BBB Act, you raked in millions in campaign “donations” from the energy lobby and other right-leaning interests, which means you’re flush enough to fund a national campaign.

    The immediate concern is party affiliation. You’ve just Superman-punched a Democratic president’s great big liberal bill, making you the darling Democrat of the right, but you won’t win a Democratic primary running as the most hated man in the party. The solution: Switch party affiliation to Independent, but continue to caucus with the Democrats. This will keep the Senate under Democratic majority control until at least 2022, and opens up your potential field of voters to a broad swath of the populace.

    As for your immediate competition? If your deeply unpopular presidential rival, Biden, chooses not to run, everyone else will, and that field will destroy itself as you stand back and watch. If by some miracle Trump decides not to run, he will still be directing traffic like a smashy child who likes to dent his Matchbox cars. Meanwhile, you waft above it all on your Independent cloud and appear for all the world to be the only adult in the room.

    As for street cred? You’re a former Democratic governor and present Democratic senator of a seething red state, which means you can “reach across the aisle” to “get things done.” The word “bipartisan” still retains magical qualities for that segment of the population who pays scant attention to the actual doings of politics, so that will be your watchword. You talk like Joe Everyman, despite your obscene coal wealth, and the fact that you killed the BBB Act means you know how to “make the tough decisions” for the betterment of the country.

    As for that BBB Act? That’s your closing argument, if you’re him. Sometime in early January 2022, after the present bruises have eased, you will propose a new version of the Act, priced under $2 trillion and featuring a number of the original bill’s most popular policy items — universal pre-K, an Obamacare expansion, billions to address climate change. Desperate to pass something, the Democrats will leap at the chance, and after Biden has signed it, you and you alone will be given credit for achieving a legislative impossibility.

    The mainstream media will love you all day long for no better reason than your novelty: Here is an Independent with an actual chance of winning. With a few primary victories under your belt, you will be gifted by that same media the air of inevitability. If you lose, the worst that will happen is that you’ll split the vote on the right and all but guarantee Biden’s re-election. If you win, it’s hats over the windmill, the successful culmination of a very long game.

    Bollocks, you say? Stuff and nonsense? I thought so, too, at first…

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Author and cultural critic bell hooks poses for a portrait on December 16, 1996, in New York City.

    When I received the news of the passing of bell hooks, I was stopped in my tracks. Yet, there was a sense of closure, an answer to a question that had weighed heavily upon me in the last few months. You see, bell, who left us on December 15, 2021, wasn’t just a public intellectual to me, a prominent writer; she was a friend. I was fortunate enough to have been one of the people she entrusted with her personal phone number. The last time that we spoke she said that she had not been feeling well. She mentioned that she had pain in her hands and that this prevented her from writing. Hearing this from someone so prolific, from someone who takes deep pleasure in writing as a mode of heartfelt communication and radical resistance, there was a sense that the body attacks in ways that incapacitate us from engaging in our most treasured and edifying activities.

    As we conversed, bell was still upbeat and spoke with the same beautiful soft voice. Though bell mentioned the pain in her hands, this did not apparently impact her capacity to devour books. When I would call on various occasions, she was always reading something. “I’m reading trash literature,” she would say. “Send me some books. I need more books to read!” By “trash literature,” bell didn’t mean this in some elitist fashion. Unlike many scholars, bell seems to have had an unquenchable appetite for reading everything. I think this partly speaks to her breadth of knowledge, being able to critically engage deep philosophical issues as well as issues that were pregnant with rich cultural titillation and quotidian impact. I enjoyed and admired this about bell.

    Perhaps others may have had different experiences, but, for me, bell was so incredibly down-to-earth. I didn’t just read bell hooks; I got to spend time with her, to get a glimpse of someone who was gentle, funny and familial. She was not just approachable, but there was also a sense of deep respect that I received. For example, bell invited me to give a talk entitled “A Conversation with bell hooks” at the bell hooks Institute at Berea College, in Berea, Kentucky in 2016. I thought that I would ask most of the questions and bell would talk. Instead, I was treated as the guest of honor. So, there I was, the room packed, addressing all these complex questions from bell. I was thrilled. She would later publicly describe my visit there as having “rocked the house!” I was humbled.

    There is something about bell’s down-to-earth quality that has deep importance for me. I have had the rare privilege of speaking with lots of well-known intellectuals, scholars and academics. For many scholars, once they have “achieved some status,” they become seduced by a poisonous neoliberal sense of “success.” They tend to have such an inflated sense of themselves, ruthless in their attempt to protect the little that they’ve acquired — money, endowed chairs, endowed professorships, media connections, insider cronyism and all the goodies of their academic institutions. I know this from personal experience. I’m sure that I have had a few occasions where my own “success” as a scholar was perceived as a territorial threat to others. And by “others,” I mean scholars across gender and racial divides. Bear in mind that I am not unaware of just how powerful the temptation is to give in to these notions of “success.” I am not immune, but I am acutely aware of the power of neoliberalism and its impact on scholars who fail to understand their arrogant pettiness, and how they are still linked into capitalist structural power. Should we, as scholars, not be ashamed?

    You see, I wasn’t a threat to bell and she wasn’t a threat to me. Indeed, she was also aware of how neoliberal ideas of success can poison an intellectual. She writes, “Within a capitalist consumer society, the cult of personality has the power to subsume ideas, to make the person, the personality into the product and not the work itself.” She sees this as “a narcissistic focus on self” that can “lead to soul loss.” My experience with bell was filled within that lived space of sociality, a space where the gloated ego doesn’t deny otherness. While in Berea, bell took me to places where she shopped. We walked together and spoke as old friends. She took me to a beautiful thrift store, which she spoke of highly. As we walked around, the locals didn’t idolize bell as the prolific, nationally and internationally known scholar and writer. She was a neighbor, a friend. I was moved. During our walk together, bell shared stories with me that I would never dare to disclose. We spoke of our families, scholars, and she shared some of her most intimate experiences. This wasn’t scuttlebutt. Each story was instructive and laced with wit and deep Black humor. That was trust. I must say that her honesty often left me blushing. There were no long moments of silence as bell spoke so lovingly about the spaces that she considered home. I am honored to have walked with her through those streets in Berea. There was no pretense; just this sense of being-togetherness. I recall on another occasion sitting with bell eating popcorn. Talk about a surreal moment. Of course, I am not by any means the only one who bell allowed into certain private aspects of her life. I’m just honored that I was accorded this privilege.

    I imagine that she probably critiqued me in her witty way as I would, on occasion, call her to get her to say hello to a friend or a colleague of mine. I recall visiting Queen Mary University of London where I gave a keynote address. While attending a session on Black feminism, the lead presenters had mentioned bell. After their presentation, I told them that bell would be so excited by their work. Minutes later, bell said, “Hello.” I had called her from the U.K. The two presenters were stunned, open-mouthed and trying to comprehend what had just taken place. Speaking of ego, I am so delighted that bell didn’t tell me off. That is the person who I know as bell hooks.

    So, calling bell was a routine. Having her answer was such a delight. She would often end with, “Love you, George.” Even if she didn’t answer the phone, it was great to leave a message as you got to hear bell’s recorded message: “All awakening to love is spiritual awakening.” It was this message that I listened to for the last few months. Given that she had shared with me news about not feeling well, I suspected that this was tied to her not answering her phone. Moments after I found out that she had passed, I immediately called her number. Sadly, there was no recorded message. I wanted to hear bell’s voice again communicating her wisdom in that powerful connection that she made between the process of awakening to love and the process of spiritual awakening.

    I have learned so much from bell. My appreciation of her critical corpus led me, along with a colleague of mine, Maria del Guadalupe Davidson, to edit a book on her work: Critical Perspectives on bell hooks (2009). I recall sharing with bell the news about this edited book on her work and feeling a sense that she didn’t appreciate what we had done. I was wrong. This was, I now believe, bell’s sense of herself — her sense of humility. When I told bell about the book, there was an awkward expression on her face. And then she mentioned how she doesn’t think about such accolades. I initially mistook her facial expression as a lack of appreciation, when in fact it was one of humility. My view is that bell possessed a healthy capacity for loving self-critique, that sense of rich vulnerability that leads to hesitation, that forgoes hubristic self-certainty, which is often infused with the trappings of a superiority complex. Given her understanding of the deep connections between pedagogy, spirituality and love, I’m not surprised.

    Many are perhaps unaware of bell’s emphasis on spirituality. In my conversation with her that I conducted for The New York Times (“The Stone”), she locates the importance of spirituality in her life. She said, “Feminism does not ground me. It is the discipline that comes from spiritual practice that is the foundation of my life. If we talk about what a disciplined writer I have been and hope to continue to be, that discipline starts with a spiritual practice. It’s just every day, every day, every day.” It is important that we emphasize bell’s spiritual praxis as a Buddhist Christian and how it informs and is inextricably tied to her other identities.

    As I reflect on bell, I was not only touched by how I came to know her personally, but her work has also had a profound influence on my pedagogy. In Teaching to Transgress, bell writes, “The classroom, with all its limitations, remains a location of possibility. In that field of possibility we have the opportunity to labor for freedom, to demand of ourselves and our comrades, an openness of mind and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively imagine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress. This is education as the practice of freedom.”

    “Education as a practice of freedom” is how I think about my own work within the classroom. Of course, like bell, I am also influenced by the work of Paulo Freire, especially his emphasis placed upon critical dialogue, a love for those who have been marginalized, colonized, oppressed, and how praxis is indispensable to liberation. Like bell, for me, theory is linked with pain and suffering. We are required to do something with theory. We must, as she says, “direct our theorizing towards” a liberatory or revolutionary end. In this way, theory is not simply something that we do in the abstract; it is fundamentally linked to our suffering. Therefore, in my own work, I have come to think of philosophy as a form of suffering. It was because of that suffering that I found philosophy, or it found me. I needed, and continue to need, to know why we are here in this universe, whether God exists or not, why there is something rather than nothing, and to know the deeper meaning of death. These are not simply abstract issues for me, but deep personal and existential conundrums that have led to tears. As bell writes, “I came to theory because I was hurting — the pain within me was so intense that I could not go on living. I came to theory desperate, wanting to comprehend — to grasp what was happening around and within me.”

    In my own teaching practice, I have tried to communicate to my students that education is a site of radicality; it ought to speak to their souls. It ought to leave them vulnerable and aware of the weight of human suffering, and the desire to do something about it. How else will they learn how to transgress, to disrupt problematic boundaries and hegemonic orders that sustain what bell famously terms, “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy”? This is another way of saying that students must learn to love, and how to love. Many students fail to make the connection between love and education, especially as they are held prisoner by the forces of marketization, commodification and a callous form of entrepreneurship. Facing one’s soul, one’s vulnerability, is the last thing that they desire to do. Removing the masks of deception, after all, might reveal the rotting smell of mendacity. As hooks notes, “Consumer culture in particular encourages lies. Advertising is one of the cultural mediums that has most sanctioned lying. Keeping people in a constant state of lack, in perpetual desire, strengthens the marketplace economy. Lovelessness is a boon to consumerism.” Indeed, the idea that our raison d’être is to achieve more and more material success, accolades and distinctions, breeds backstabbing, smugness, self-aggrandizement and one-upmanship.

    Some of my best classroom experiences are when students sit in silence because of the gravity of a problem or a question, especially one that implicates them. Within the context of my classroom spaces, the shedding of tears is not atypical. It is a sign that some boundary has been crossed, that there has been some edifying transgression or painful realization. I would like to think that I am able to generate within the classroom space, through my own modeling, what vulnerability looks like, what being on the verge of tears looks like in the face of honesty and self-critique. I would argue that creating such a space demonstrates a form of love. As bell writes, “To know love we have to tell the truth to ourselves and to others.”

    Through courageous speech, my objective is to get my students to see behind the façade that fuels their pretentiousness. It is to call into question what my “function” is within the classroom. So, we transgress against those hierarchies that place me in the position of the “all-knowing professor,” the disembodied abstract mind. We uncover the fact that for so many in power, education is designed to contain, to create those who follow, to maintain safety that takes the form of conformity. I encourage my students to see themselves (as best they can) with honesty, to look at the lies, the ugliness, the deceptions and the posturing.

    As bell writes, “Creating a false self to mask fears and insecurities has become so common that many of us forget who we are and what we feel underneath the pretense.” In my classroom spaces where un-suturing, which is a form of laying bare the self, is a premium, I would like to think that I contribute, to some degree, to a process of unburdening of my students. She also writes, “When an individual has always lied, [they have] no awareness that truth telling can take away this heavy burden. To know this [they] must let the lies go.” In Wounds of Passion, bell writes, “I wanted to care for the soul and to let my heart speak.” That very process, that care and honesty, are dangerous in a world predicated upon distortion, deception and neofascism, which are precisely the dynamics playing themselves out in the U.S. As bell clearly states, “When this collective cultural consumption of and attachment to misinformation is coupled with the layers of lying individuals do in their personal lives, our capacity to face reality is severely diminished as is our will to intervene and change unjust circumstances.”

    The passing of bell hooks — the Black feminist, the cultural critic, the philosopher, the gadfly, the storyteller, the love warrior — has, unfortunately, removed some of the righteous and necessary rage from of our world. When we stand in silence (without that necessary rage) in the face of various forms of assault, violence and injustice against other human beings, we are, for bell, complicit. Rage, though counterintuitive, can function as a site of healing, responsibility, growth and love. Another profound insight that bell shared with me during my interview with her at The New York Times (“The Stone”) involves Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh. When bell complained of being filled with anger, Hanh suggested that she take her anger, her rage, and use it generatively. He said to bell, “Well, you know, hold on to your anger, and use it as compost for your garden.” This is a powerful process of recycling anger and rage, of deploying it for the purpose of personal and collective evolution.

    I want my students to experience rage against injustice and all forms of deception and inhumanity. Within this context, rage is a beautiful thing, a desideratum. It is necessary because so much hatred exists. In Killing Rage, bell writes about how Black rage is seen “as always and only pathological rather than as a just response to an unjust situation.” As bell would say, the real and present danger is violence against humanity. If we are to talk about ending rage, then we must talk about ending violence against humanity and the earth. For bell, we must take control of “rage and move it beyond fruitless scapegoating of any group, linking it instead to a passion for freedom and justice that illuminates, heals, and makes redemptive struggle possible.”

    I will miss my phone calls with bell. The world will miss the gift of her existential presence, her uncompromised voice. Yet, her work will live on, and we will be sure to engage what she calls “working with the work.” She explains, “So if somebody comes up to me, and they have one of those bell hooks books that’s abused and battered, and every page is underlined, I know they’ve been working with the work. And that’s where it is for me.”

    We rage on with you, bell, working with the work, and teaching to transgress for liberation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People gather for a protest demanding Pfizer and wealthy nations make the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments more accessible at One Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza on July 14, 2021, in New York City.

    As we head into the winter holidays nervously checking news about the Omicron variant and rising COVID-19 case numbers, let’s take a moment to think of how a more just society might handle the coming weeks.

    Schools and many workplaces would offer remote options for the final week before Christmas to slow the spread just before people gather with older relatives and immunocompromised loved ones. Airports and bus stations would have free rapid tests for all passengers traveling for the holidays. Finally, of course, pharmaceutical companies and wealthy nations would have been forced to share vaccine supplies and formulas with the rest of the world, which probably would have prevented Omicron in the first place.

    Unfortunately, we don’t live in that society, but rather in one that hoards vaccine supplies, and in which leaders like New York Gov. Kathy Hochul urge workers to be forced back into offices even as they anticipate that hospitals will be pushed to the breaking point by the coming COVID spike. It is because of this greed and short-term thinking that the U.S. is now entering a fifth wave, and the dream of eradicating COVID is dead — despite the astonishing success of scientists in quickly developing effective vaccines.

    The personal depression many of us are feeling about another holiday season being ruined is matched by the political gloom that comes after a year of our expectations being steadily lowered. As frightening as the first year of COVID was, it was also a time of hope and new possibilities — fueled first by Sen. Bernie Sanders’s insurgent presidential campaign, and then by the summer’s historic movement for Black lives uprisings. It was common to hear talk in the mainstream press of how the pandemic revealed the need for deep structural changes, and President Joe Biden’s first stimulus bill — the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan — offered hope that the country’s political leaders might actually do something for once.

    Since then, however, Biden has reverted to the inadequate centrism that has marked his entire career. While the new administration has thankfully not continued its predecessor’s daily stream of misinformation about masks and fake cures, it left in place many of former President Donald Trump’s most disastrous COVID policies, including:

    Finally, there have been Biden’s proclamations that the pandemic is over and his gaslighting about how well his administration has handled the pandemic, even as the death rate under Biden’s watch has been as bad as it was under Trump. Mass death has become so normalized among the political class that the Biden team seems genuinely confused that in the midst of a historic plague, more Americans aren’t happier about some positive economic statistics.

    The ruling class may be impatient for us to get over it already, but for many Americans, the profound questioning of priorities that started in 2020 didn’t stop in 2021. Instead, it has shifted from collective political movements to individual life choices. Record numbers of people have quit their jobs in 2021 for many different reasons, from seeking higher pay elsewhere, to taking an early retirement, to deciding that contagion risks have made already lousy jobs unbearable, to programs like the American Rescue Plan and eviction moratoriums allowing some to save money on child care and transportation by staying home. The so-called “Great Resignation” is the culmination of five decades of declining working-class conditions on and off the job, and it offers a glimpse of the societal upheaval waiting to be unleashed when just the slightest hint of an actual social welfare state removes the immediate threat of hunger and homelessness.

    The resulting labor shortage has had numerous effects: from massive supply chain backlogs caused by unfilled truck driving and warehouse positions; to higher wage growth as employers are forced to offer raises to fill positions; to worrying impacts on hospitals and schools where already overstretched workers are leaving in droves. It’s a period of sustained chaos, but also the first moment in generations when the power of workers is making itself really felt, and when workers aren’t silently bearing the crisis but shoving it back in the bosses’ faces.

    The left has an important role to play in giving voice to this moment when U.S. workers for the first time in generations are asserting that life is more important than a miserable job. We can help organize some of these individual actions and tie them to a set of policy demands that strike a blow against right-wing nationalism while putting Democrats on notice that we are not as willing as they are to accept a million deaths.

    But to do that, we have to regain our bearings. The left has struggled to respond to COVID since those initial months in 2020. Hard questions like vaccine mandates and school closures have divided us, while more unifying and crucial demands such as ending Big Pharma’s vaccine monopoly haven’t garnered enough organizing. Most of us were demobilized over the last year as we watched the agonizing process of the Democrats’ once-promising Build Back Better bill undergo death by a thousand Joe Manchin shrugs. Of course, like everyone else, we’ve also been ground down by two years of grief, anxiety and depression — and hoped that the vaccines would end the pandemic and allow us to return to previous organizing work.

    Now that we know that’s not happening, it’s time for a reset. In that spirit, I offer these resolutions for the new year.

    1. We will accept that COVID is here to stay. We will do our best to stop being disoriented by each new variant and spike, and adjust our movement demands and organizing strategies to address this permanently changed world.
    2. We will not give in to fatalism and stop fighting to reduce the virus’s spread. We will never accept the normalization of mass death. The fact that we will not eradicate COVID doesn’t mean we stop striving to protect the immunocompromised and elderly, and those of us who feel more protected by the vaccines should be wary of how little we know about the effects of long COVID and the possibilities of future vaccine-resistant strains.
    3. We will put the spotlight back on the massive concentrations of wealth that should be deployed both to protect us from COVID and to increase the minimal pay and staffing levels that are driving workers to quit. There was much media coverage when billionaires increased their wealth by almost $4 billion during the first nine months of the pandemic, but that attention has faded even as billionaire wealth grew even faster in 2021. Then there’s the three quarters of a trillion dollars going to military spending every year, none of which will protect us from a disease that has killed more Americans than every single war of the 20th and 21st centuries combined. Everyone should know that the entire world could be vaccinated for the extra $25 billion that Congress just tossed to the Pentagon for no apparent reason.
    4. We will put our heads together and come up with an easily understandable Green New Deal-style framework for COVID justice that shows that public health can’t be separated from economic, racial and global equality. Taxing the rich; sharing vaccines with the world; free and abundant rapid tests; disability coverage for those with long COVID; freeing the incarcerated; universal paid sick leave… The list could go on forever but we cannot make lists forever, so we will need public debate and strategic thinking.
    5. We won’t be spectators. There were many great proposals in the Democrats’ original budget reconciliation bill crafted by Senator Sanders, but few grassroots attempts to try to mobilize protest as those proposals were ruthlessly plucked out one by one by centrist Democrats. Next year may be a major election year, but we can’t afford to let the Democratic Party shape our COVID agenda. In 2022, we have to reorient and give voice to all those straining to resist the push in both parties to make previously unthinkable levels of death become the new “business as usual.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    It seems like almost forever since Cassandra of Troy — blessed with the power to predict the future, cursed by the fact that no one would believe her — has been in the news, but she’s back this week with a thunderclap and yet another, “I told you so.”

    Her name this time is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — and Representatives Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley, and everyone else who knew and foretold that Sen. Joe Manchin would ultimately stab President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, his own state and the world in the back to keep his precious coal safe from the environmental protections contained within the Build Back Better (BBB) Act.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Biden assured the Congressional Progressive Caucus that they could bring Senator Manchin along on the BBB Act if the caucus relented and allowed a separate vote on the infrastructure bill. The caucus refused, correctly believing that splitting the two would doom the BBB, and the stalemate stood until Manchin started making noises about bolting from the party. After that, it became about “acting responsibly,” and the Progressive Caucus took party leadership at their word. On Sunday, both the leadership and the caucus were betrayed by Manchin in a move the latest reincarnation of Cassandra saw from way up high on the walls of Troy.

    When a handful of us in the House warned this would happen if Dem leaders gave Manchin everything he wanted 1st by moving [the infrastructure bill] before BBB instead of passing together, many ridiculed our position,” Representative Ocasio-Cortez gritted on Twitter. “Maybe they’ll believe us next time. Or maybe people will just keep calling us naïve.”

    Representative Pressley also chimed in. “He has continued to move the goal post,” she told CNN. “He has never negotiated in good faith and he is obstructing the president’s agenda.”

    Bush, too, foresaw what was coming. “We have been saying this, for weeks, that this would happen,” she told MSNBC, “having [BBB and infrastructure bills] coupled together was the only leverage we had. And what did the caucus do? We tossed it.”

    To hear Manchin tell it, he came to his decision because the BBB Act was an actual threat to the country, instead of a small dose of the medicine it desperately needs. He pointed to COVID-19 and inflation as reasons for his decision, but Representative Omar was having none of it.

    “We all knew that Senator Manchin couldn’t be trusted,” Omar told MSNBC. “The excuses that he just made, I think, are complete bullshit. It is really disheartening to hear him say that he has been trying to get there for the people of West Virginia because that’s a complete lie. The people of West Virginia would greatly benefit from their families having access to long-term elderly care and care for folks with disabilities. They would benefit from the expansion of the child tax credits.”

    Pause a moment with that. “West Virginia is the second-poorest U.S. state, with a $48,850 median household income and a poverty rate of 17.54 percent,” according to World Population Review.

    Contained within the BBB Act was an expansion of the child tax credit that has, over the last year, lifted millions of children out of poverty all across the country. In West Virginia, the lapse of the credit — a foregone conclusion with Manchin’s decision — could plunge 50,000 children back into poverty. “One in five West Virginia children is estimated to live in poverty,” reports the Associated Press, “and 93 percent of children in the state are eligible for the [tax credit] payments, tied for the highest rates in the country.”

    “So that’s where the United States of America is now,” reports The New Republic, “behind Mongolia and all those other countries, all because of one man — and the power that is given to him by the structure of our national legislature. West Virginia will keep falling behind. And Joe Manchin can watch it all unfold through the windows of his Maserati.”

    There is apparently direct evidence to the effect of Representative Omar’s conclusion that the excuses Manchin made “are complete bullshit.” According to several Senate colleagues, Manchin “essentially doesn’t trust low-income people to spend government money wisely,” reports HuffPost. “In recent months, Manchin has told several of his fellow Democrats that he thought parents would waste monthly child tax credit payments on drugs instead of providing for their children, according to two sources familiar with the senator’s comments. Manchin’s private comments shocked several senators, who saw it as an unfair assault on his own constituents and those struggling to raise children in poverty.”

    And the penny drops. The great inflation fighter, the cost cutter, the responsible one in a sea of leftist binge-spending, is revealed to be just another 1 percenter who hates the people who elected him but loves the power they give him. Maybe this dramatic break with his party means he’ll bail on the Democrats, become an Independent, and run for president, right? There’s chatter about it.

    At the bottom of it all, however, is the same old hatred of poor and working-class people, the same utter indifference to the stones they carry on their backs every bleeding day of the year. That, and the coal, of course. Always the coal.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    It seems like almost forever since Cassandra of Troy — blessed with the power to predict the future, cursed by the fact that no one would believe her — has been in the news, but she’s back this week with a thunderclap and yet another, “I told you so.”

    Her name this time is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — and Representatives Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley, and everyone else who knew and foretold that Sen. Joe Manchin would ultimately stab President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, his own state and the world in the back to keep his precious coal safe from the environmental protections contained within the Build Back Better (BBB) Act.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Biden assured the Congressional Progressive Caucus that they could bring Senator Manchin along on the BBB Act if the caucus relented and allowed a separate vote on the infrastructure bill. The caucus refused, correctly believing that splitting the two would doom the BBB, and the stalemate stood until Manchin started making noises about bolting from the party. After that, it became about “acting responsibly,” and the Progressive Caucus took party leadership at their word. On Sunday, both the leadership and the caucus were betrayed by Manchin in a move the latest reincarnation of Cassandra saw from way up high on the walls of Troy.

    When a handful of us in the House warned this would happen if Dem leaders gave Manchin everything he wanted 1st by moving [the infrastructure bill] before BBB instead of passing together, many ridiculed our position,” Representative Ocasio-Cortez gritted on Twitter. “Maybe they’ll believe us next time. Or maybe people will just keep calling us naïve.”

    Representative Pressley also chimed in. “He has continued to move the goal post,” she told CNN. “He has never negotiated in good faith and he is obstructing the president’s agenda.”

    Bush, too, foresaw what was coming. “We have been saying this, for weeks, that this would happen,” she told MSNBC, “having [BBB and infrastructure bills] coupled together was the only leverage we had. And what did the caucus do? We tossed it.”

    To hear Manchin tell it, he came to his decision because the BBB Act was an actual threat to the country, instead of a small dose of the medicine it desperately needs. He pointed to COVID-19 and inflation as reasons for his decision, but Representative Omar was having none of it.

    “We all knew that Senator Manchin couldn’t be trusted,” Omar told MSNBC. “The excuses that he just made, I think, are complete bullshit. It is really disheartening to hear him say that he has been trying to get there for the people of West Virginia because that’s a complete lie. The people of West Virginia would greatly benefit from their families having access to long-term elderly care and care for folks with disabilities. They would benefit from the expansion of the child tax credits.”

    Pause a moment with that. “West Virginia is the second-poorest U.S. state, with a $48,850 median household income and a poverty rate of 17.54 percent,” according to World Population Review.

    Contained within the BBB Act was an expansion of the child tax credit that has, over the last year, lifted millions of children out of poverty all across the country. In West Virginia, the lapse of the credit — a foregone conclusion with Manchin’s decision — could plunge 50,000 children back into poverty. “One in five West Virginia children is estimated to live in poverty,” reports the Associated Press, “and 93 percent of children in the state are eligible for the [tax credit] payments, tied for the highest rates in the country.”

    “So that’s where the United States of America is now,” reports The New Republic, “behind Mongolia and all those other countries, all because of one man — and the power that is given to him by the structure of our national legislature. West Virginia will keep falling behind. And Joe Manchin can watch it all unfold through the windows of his Maserati.”

    There is apparently direct evidence to the effect of Representative Omar’s conclusion that the excuses Manchin made “are complete bullshit.” According to several Senate colleagues, Manchin “essentially doesn’t trust low-income people to spend government money wisely,” reports HuffPost. “In recent months, Manchin has told several of his fellow Democrats that he thought parents would waste monthly child tax credit payments on drugs instead of providing for their children, according to two sources familiar with the senator’s comments. Manchin’s private comments shocked several senators, who saw it as an unfair assault on his own constituents and those struggling to raise children in poverty.”

    And the penny drops. The great inflation fighter, the cost cutter, the responsible one in a sea of leftist binge-spending, is revealed to be just another 1 percenter who hates the people who elected him but loves the power they give him. Maybe this dramatic break with his party means he’ll bail on the Democrats, become an Independent, and run for president, right? There’s chatter about it.

    At the bottom of it all, however, is the same old hatred of poor and working-class people, the same utter indifference to the stones they carry on their backs every bleeding day of the year. That, and the coal, of course. Always the coal.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Women sew masks in prison

    When Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, they included a crucial exception clause that allows for slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. This clause has resulted in the forced labor of millions of people in our prisons and jails since, and the first beneficiaries of this labor were private corporations.

    The exception clause allowed states, often in the South, to pass Black Codes, laws that specifically criminalized Black life and filled jails with Black people. States then used “convict leasing” to rent incarcerated people to private individuals and corporations looking for cheap labor, often plantations. By the late 1800s, states like Alabama were deriving more than half of their revenue from “convict leasing.”

    The practice would soon fall out of favor with the public, but the depression era of the 1920s created a new demand for prison labor. With businesses struggling, few jobs available, and manufacturing lagging, governments began using prison labor for everything from infrastructure construction to consumer goods production to agricultural farming. But the private sector quickly complained that prison labor gave governments an unfair advantage, and by the mid 1930s, Congress passed legislation that regulated prison-made products and prohibited their sale into interstate commerce – with a key exclusion for agriculture.

    That is until 1979, when Congress introduced the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) to allow corporations to once again use prison labor and the practice resurfaced broadly. Today, prison slavery produces billions of dollars for the economy with many corporations taking advantage directly or participating in the supply chain of products manufactured in prisons. And though it is the smallest group in the prison labor empire, there are still thousands of incarcerated people working for the benefit of private corporations.

    PIECP and Its Corporate Partners

    While PIECP is a federal program, it is overseen by the National Correctional Industries Association (NCIA), a member-based private association of prison administrators and corporations. In other words, those benefiting from PIECP worksites are also responsible for monitoring their own compliance with the program’s legal guidelines.

    NCIA lists 74 corporate members, starting with mega-conglomerate 3M (NYSE: MMM), which is a corporate plus member, the highest level membership available at the association. Other recognizable brands include packaging and adhesives manufacturer Avery Dennison (NYSE: AVY), office furniture manufacturer Dauphin, and Burlington Industries, owner of the iconic Burlington Coat Factory.

    NCIA provides a quarterly list of the corporations running certified PIECP worksites and the products each manufactures using prison labor. Some corporations active in the first quarter 2021 include:

    A quarterly list of the corporations running certified PIECP worksites and the products each manufactures using prison labor.
    Source: NCIA, PIECP Statistical Reports, Q1 2021 Certification Listing Report

    While we might only recognize a few of these corporations, many are unknown suppliers to top-tier brands that are not named PIECP participants. Dickinson Frozen Foods, for example, uses prison labor to package potatoes that are later distributed to household food brands like Pillsbury and Campbell Soup. Seat King is a supplier to industrial lawn mower manufacturer Husqvarna. SemahTronix sells its wire harnesses to GE and Philips.

    Still, many corporations manage to keep their names out of these quarterly reports entirely by operating in states where correctional administrators will not reveal their corporate partners when reporting PIECP data to the NCIA. That’s how prison labor champion 3M has evaded scrutiny for years in Minnesota, which in most cases only lists the name of the facility and a general product description in its reports.

    Wages Are Only Part of the Story

    Corporations that use prison labor through PIECP are required to pay prevailing wages, which cannot be lower than minimum wage, but also are rarely higher. And yet, low wages are just part of the equation, participating corporations do not have to pay for benefits or workers compensation, concern themselves with employee absences, or worry about employee grievances as they would in broader society.

    When describing the benefits of prison labor, the owner of Lockhart Technologies, a corporation that partnered with private prison operator GEO Group in the mid-90s to use prison labor to manufacture electronic and computer parts, put it bluntly: “Normally when you work in the free world, you have people call in sick, they have car problems, they have family problems. We don’t have that [in prison.]” Indeed, Lockhart saw such immense savings in personnel costs with prison labor that it shut down an outside plant.

    And it’s not just participating corporations that cash out. PIECP wages can be garnished by the government for a variety of purposes. According to NCIA’s data, since the program’s inception, incarcerated workers in PIECP jobs have earned $990 million in gross wages and had $582 million, or 59%, garnished. The largest garnishments by far – $315 million, or 54% of all garnishments – are for “room and board.” These are funds retained by participating correctional agencies, which drives their interest in the program.

    PIECP wages for incarcerated workers garnished by the government
    Source: NCIA, PIECP Statistical Reports, Q4 2020 Cumulative Data

    While corporations and correctional administrators rake in millions through PIECP, incarcerated workers are left with less than half of their earned income, their basic needs in prison unmet, and their families struggling to support them and themselves. So, while PIECP jobs are still generally considered to be among the highest paying for incarcerated workers – and thus highly sought after by incarcerated people forced to work with limited choices – as the Bureau of Justice Assistance itself admits, all the “parties other than the inmates themselves are the first beneficiaries of PIECP inmate income.”

    Unregulated Corporate Gain

    The failures of PIECP extend not just to the corporations directly using prison labor and those that benefit down the supply chain but also to the corporations that are upstream suppliers. These benefactors of prison labor supply equipment and raw materials to government-run prison businesses that produce everything from license plates to university furniture. For instance, since 2018, 3M has sold $3.3 million in “materials used in the production of goods for sale or use by the State” to just CorCraft, New York’s correctional business. With PIECP exclusively regulating the private sector’s direct use of prison labor, this type of profit falls off the radar.

    Finally, there are those corporations outside PIECP’s scope entirely. PIECP regulations do not apply to service or agriculture jobs. In 2020, then-presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was exposed for using prison labor to make campaign calls. His campaign had contracted ProCom to provide call center services. The corporation used incarcerated women in Oklahoma to make the calls. ProCom’s use of prison labor is not covered in NCIA reports or regulated by any federal or state law. As such, there is no data about the number of corporate service and agriculture jobs in prisons and jails across the country.

    The bottom line is that it is impossible to have a firm grasp on every corporation that exploits and benefits from prison labor. For every one that is exposed, it’s likely that hundreds or even thousands remain unknown. That’s why we must call for an end to the corporate abuse of forced prison labor and end the exception in the Thirteenth Amendment that got us here.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A usps truck drives through the snow

    Last year’s holiday season was not exactly a merry one for the U.S. Postal Service. In the lead-up to Christmas, overwhelmed postal workers had to leave gifts sitting in sorting facilities for weeks. They delivered just 38 percent of greeting cards and other nonlocal first-class mail on time.

    What should we expect this year?

    USPS leaders claim they are ready for the rush. But customers have reason to worry about slower — and more expensive — service.

    The service is aiming to hire 40,000 seasonal workers for the holidays. But that’s 10,000 less than last year — and given broader pandemic staffing shortages, recruitment and retention for these demanding jobs will not be easy. While the e-commerce surge that strained the system last year has declined somewhat, postal workers are still delivering many more packages than before the crisis.

    And COVID-19 is not the only reason for concern. In fact, the root causes of our country’s postal problems are inaction by Congress and misguided action by USPS leadership.

    For more than a decade, Congress has failed to fix a policy mistake that requires the Postal Service to set aside money to prefund retiree health care more than 50 years in advance. This burden, which applies to no other federal agency or private corporation, accounts for 84 percent of USPS reported losses from 2007 to 2020. If Congress had made the same demand of America’s strongest businesses, many would be bankrupt.

    A bill to repeal this pre-funding mandate and put USPS on a stronger financial footing enjoys strong bipartisan support. But House and Senate leaders have not brought this bill, the Postal Reform Act, up for a vote.

    In the meantime, U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy is using the agency’s artificially large losses to justify jacking up prices and slowing deliveries.

    If you’re planning to send holiday cards a significant distance this season, say from Pittsburgh to Boise, the USPS delivery window is now five days instead of three. These reduced service standards affect about 40 percent of First Class mail.

    As part of a 10-year plan, DeJoy is also slowing delivery by 1 to 2 days for about a third of First Class packages. These are small parcels often used to ship highly time-sensitive medications, as well as other lightweight e-commerce purchases.

    A big cause of the slowdown: DeJoy’s plan to cut costs by shifting long-distance deliveries from planes to trucks. This is a rollback of the introduction of airmail more than 100 years ago — one of many postal innovations that strengthened the broader U.S. economy.

    For worse service, we’ll have to pay more.

    In August, USPS raised rates for First Class mail by 6.8 percent and for package services by 8.8 percent. A holiday surcharge will raise delivery costs by as much as $5 per package through December 26. In January, rates for popular flat-rate boxes and envelopes will increase by as much as $1.10.

    Next up on DeJoy’s plan: reduced hours at some post offices and the closure of others.

    USPS officials argue these draconian moves will boost profits. But even the regulator that oversees the agency has criticized the underlying financial analysis.

    Instead, DeJoy’s 10-year plan will more likely drive customers away. That, in turn, will lead to fewer of the good postal jobs that have been a critical path to the middle class, particularly for Black families.

    Unless Washington lawmakers lift the financial burden they imposed on USPS, DeJoy will be empowered to keep up his self-defeating cost-cutting spree.

    Postal workers and their customers have struggled to overcome the extreme challenges of the pandemic. Now it’s time for Congress to deliver by passing the Postal Reform Act and urging USPS leaders to focus on innovations to better serve all Americans for generations to come.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A woman lights candles beside a wall as a police officer stands in the foreground

    At least 56 migrants — mostly from Guatemala, many of them families with minor children — being transported from Mexico’s southern border region to the country’s heartland in Puebla by smugglers, were recently killed in an apparent road accident, with dozens more seriously injured.

    This unspeakably tragic event is being widely reported as “accidental” in a more fundamental sense — as an exceptional event that was beyond anyone’s control, at the margins of human will or the stratagems of political power. But for many who have dedicated their lives to defending the rights of migrants throughout the world, mourning these devastated lives is pervaded by recognition of all the ways that migrant death and suffering have been utterly normalized as the result of prevailing immigration policies.

    From this perspective, the recent migrant deaths in Chiapas — and those of 651 more at the United States-Mexico border in 2021, a new record, as well as more than 7,000 there since 1998, plus tens of thousands globally — are the largely unaccounted human cost of the policies of containment and repression of “irregular” migrant flows that have been imposed on a planetary scale. This incident’s toll marks the highest number of migrant deaths in a single instance since the massacre of 72 migrants in San Fernando, Tamaulipas, just 90 minutes from the U.S. border, in August 2010, and the discovery of mass graves with hundreds more victims in the same region in March 2011.

    This kind of targeting of migrants for persecution, terror and death because of their status and identity as migrants gives these incidents a genocidal dimension and triggers their recognition, at minimum, as “crimes against humanity,” pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and its relevant case law and interpretations. This includes “killing” members of an identifiable social group, and “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

    All of these deaths are the proximate results of the paradigm of prevention through deterrence that U.S. and Mexican authorities are jointly, vigorously enforcing on both sides of the border. This is what is at the core of the two principal mechanisms of exclusion: Title 42 and the “Remain in Mexico” (or Migrant Protection Protocols) policies that the Biden administration inherited from the worst days of the Trump era, and that it continues to implement and expand, with Mexican complicity. Together, in practice, these two policies have come to negate the right to seek asylum both at the U.S. border and in Mexico, and have exiled asylum seekers to precarious, life-threatening conditions of violence and persecution on Mexican soil, in improvised camps without access to adequate humanitarian assistance.

    Both U.S. and Mexican authorities clothe these abuses in the rhetoric of “safe, orderly, and regular” migration promoted by the Global Compact on Migration. Similar policies have been regularly pursued by the European Union at its peripheries, and by Australia in its environs, with convergent human costs and results. It is striking, meanwhile, how spokespersons for the United Nations secretary-general and others have seized upon the news from Chiapas — and similarly, how others have responded to mass migrant deaths in the Mediterranean or the English Channel — as occasions to call for even more stringent measures of “controlled” migration.

    Measures of this kind have been implemented at the U.S.-Mexico border at the same time as Mexico has been plunged into the worst human rights crisis in its recent history, with hundreds of thousands dead and tens of thousands of victims of forced disappearances, including at least 70,000 migrants kidnapped and trafficked since 2011, with migrant women and girls subjected to recurrent sexual violence within this overall landscape. The migrant deaths in Chiapas came at the close of the same week that began with the Biden administration’s joint announcement with Mexican authorities that Remain in Mexico was being reactivated and extended to asylum seekers from throughout the Western Hemisphere.

    Most of the victims of the migrant tragedy in Chiapas were of Guatemalan Indigenous origin, in addition to others from Ecuador, Honduras and the Dominican Republic. Migration from Guatemala’s poorest and most marginalized Indigenous communities has soared since 2014, amid increasing hunger and the devastations of climate change induced by neoliberal mega-development projects, in many of the same regions where the country’s genocidal violence was concentrated in the 1980s, with U.S. backing. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to embrace the country’s current corrupt and illegitimate leadership, and to train, arm and finance the Guatemalan security forces that beat and gas migrant caravans full of women and children as part of the same containment policies that the U.S. and Mexico impose at their borders.

    News of the migrant deaths in Chiapas came amid widespread Mexican and global observances of December 10 as International Human Rights Day, marking the 73rd anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly in 1948. It also came shortly before International Migrants Day, on December 18, observed globally as well, commemorating the date of the adoption in 1990 of the UN’s core treaty focused on migrant rights. But Mexico’s tragedy reminds us how distant migrants are from the protections supposedly accorded by such instruments, at the hands of states such as the U.S. and Mexico, or those of the EU.

    Migrants continue to be at the margins of the “rules-based international order” that was celebrated at the Biden administration’s “Summit for Democracy” and will remain so until the right to freedom of movement for all those who have been denied dignified conditions of life in their home countries and communities, and until the right to refuge, asylum, sanctuary, solidarity and hospitality is fully recognized throughout the world.

    Meanwhile, news will continue to come of more tragedies such as those in Chiapas, and migrants globally will continue to seek the dignity and freedom, which the neoliberal world order and the complicity of countries of origin, transit and destination has denied them.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A collage shows California Gov. Gavin Newsom and protesters against the Texas SB 8 abortion law

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom is going to war against gun manufacturers. Three months out from the recall campaign that he handily defeated, an emboldened Newsom is looking for creative ways to rein in an industry that dumps tens of millions of high-powered weapons onto the civilian population each year and then walks away from the body count left in its wake. Specifically, last week the governor asked state politicians to present him with legislation that he could sign deputizing private citizens to sue gun and ghost gun manufacturers (producers of untraceable guns that are built from kits rather than purchased fully assembled with serial numbers), as well as gun distributors, in the event their weapons are used in the commission of a crime.

    California already has some of the country’s toughest laws limiting the sale and ownership of war-grade weapons such as the AR-15 rifle, as well as recent legislation limiting the number of rounds of ammunition that a magazine can hold to 10 or below; but that legislation is extremely vulnerable to judicial opposition, especially given the conservative tilt of courts impacted by Trump appointees. This year, a lower court found that the state’s ban on assault weapons was unconstitutional, although the ruling was put on hold and was then subsequently blocked by Ninth Circuit judges. It is almost certainly a case that will wend its way up to the pro-Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court, with its three Trump-nominated justices. The state also has tough background check laws for the purchase of weapons, although courts have ruled aspects of those laws, in particular background checks before people can purchase ammunition, to be unconstitutional as well.

    Now, in an explicit nod to the opportunities opened up by the Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8) — encouraging private citizens from around the country to sue anyone who aids or abets a person more than six weeks into their pregnancy seeking an abortion — Governor Newsom is taking a similar provocative tack to confront weapons manufacturers. He has urged the Democratic supermajority in California’s legislature to pass legislation empowering private citizens to sue for at least $10,000 anyone “who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”

    S.B. 8, which Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law more than three months ago, is unprecedented. It seeks to do an end run around constitutional protections guaranteeing a pregnant person the right to an abortion until such time as the fetus becomes viable outside the womb — currently set by court decision at 23 weeks — and replacing that cutoff with a six-week time limit instead. So extreme is Texas’s legislation that it doesn’t even contain carve-outs to allow abortion in the case of rape or incest.

    The spine of this act is in clear contravention of judicial rulings over the past 50 years, at both the lower and higher court levels, and thus it ought to have been a no-brainer that the Supreme Court would strike it down. Yet, as a testament to just how far right and how overtly political that court has become, its justices have refused to do so. In delegating the enforcement strategy to private individuals rather than state officials, the legislators who drafted and passed the bill hoped to neutralize the judicial response. Their rationale was that if state officials aren’t involved in illegally policing abortion — even if their allowing bounty hunters to sue those who aid and abet people securing abortions to all intents and purposes makes them complicit in an unconstitutional action — they couldn’t be sued to stop implementation of the measure. Shockingly, a majority of justices seem to have bought into that nebulous line of reasoning.

    Over the coming months, even before the justices potentially use the Mississippi abortion case to gut Roe v. Wade, one GOP-controlled state after another is likely to model anti-abortion legislation after S.B. 8. We may, as a result, rapidly become a nation of legislatively approved bounty hunters — or, I should say, “become again” such a nation, since paid slave-catchers once roamed this land with similar financial incentives codified by state laws.

    But, of course, the buck won’t stop with abortion. It’s becoming stunningly clear that the court, in tying itself into legal pretzels in order to find any and every way to slash abortion rights, has actually greenlit a potentially limitless array of bad legal practices, and given a broad incentive to state legislators to pass bounty hunter-type legislation, modeled on S.B. 8, on any pet issue of the day. Gun rights advocates in Texas have seen the writing on the wall on this, joining with pro-choice advocates in opposing S.B. 8, not out of a love of abortion but out of a fear of spin-off legislation in blue states that will target the gun industry.

    Such legislation — intended to poke the bear, to be legislative attacks rather than scrupulously worded, constitutionally sound policy — will rapidly corrode the role of the courts and undermine whatever capacity they have left to mediate complex societal problems. Privatized enforcement of the law, with financial incentives for the enforcers will, like the privatized tax collection systems of pre-revolutionary France, ultimately corrode the legitimacy of the state itself. This path risks empowering vigilantes and infringing upon basic human rights.

    Governors and legislators know that, at the very least, deputizing private citizens to enforce laws on everything from gun control to pollution emissions will raise constitutional law scholars’ eyebrows. Yet, since Texas seems to have gotten away with it when it comes to abortion, why not push the envelope as far as possible on other issues, too? That’s certainly what a number of constitutional law scholars have been arguing in recent weeks, calling on progressive governors to model gun control and climate change policy on the Texas legislation. And that’s exactly what California Gov. Gavin Newsom is now urging legislators to do.

    There is a risk here of endless tit-for-tat legislation between blue and red states, with each go-around broadening the area of law open to bounty-hunter enforcement. That risk, identified by Chief Justice John Roberts in his opposition to the majority rulings on S.B. 8, serves the interests of no one concerned with constitutional integrity.

    In Texas, abortion remains theoretically legal; it’s just that the consequences for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers (not to mention medics, social service workers, taxi drivers who drive people to abortion clinics, and anyone else involved in the process) are so potentially ruinous that they have chosen to stop providing abortions. So, too, in California if the law passes and if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in, in theory these weapons will still be legal, but anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells guns could face potentially devastating lawsuits.

    Of course, it’s entirely possible, even likely, that the Supreme Court’s super-conservative majority will do yet another pretzel twist and decide that while it can’t stop bounty hunters in the abortion arena, it can and will stop them if their interpretation of the Second Amendment comes under threat. And, as Roberts seems to realize, that would be the worst of all possible judicial worlds. For it would peel back the court’s veneer of legitimacy – its always laughable claim to impartiality — to show that at the end of the day, the conservative Supreme Court justices are far less concerned with consistency than with propping up, at all costs, political projects such as banning abortion and neutralizing any and every effort at gun control.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Joe Manchin walks the grounds of the White House on November 18, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    With President Joe Biden’s signature Build Back Better (BBB) Act once again teetering before the legislative abyss, I need to make one thing brilliantly clear: I am so sick of writing about Sen. Joe Manchin, I want to bite myself until I implode.

    It is a pointless endeavor from top to bottom, a snipe hunt ad infinitum. I’m not a goddamn theater critic, though maybe I should have been, because it seems like all I’ve done since August is cover the operatic intransigence of a West Virginia coal baron who made up his mind months ago but continues to play out the line because he’s raking in gobs of campaign cash from the energy lobby.

    This is Broadway now, jazz hands jazz hands, “What’ll he do? What’ll he say? What’s gonna happen next?” tappa-tappa-tappity-tappa, and exit stage right … until the next show, and the next, and the next. Manchin does not want the BBB Act to pass in any meaningful form, and not just because that is the outcome his paymasters’ desire. He himself has financial skin in the game of delaying clean energy alternatives for as long as possible, and that is exactly what he is doing.

    Recall how we got here.

    When the infrastructure bill was being considered in the Senate, Manchin led the charge to have virtually every effective bit of climate policy stripped out. Those policies were life-boated over to the BBB Act on the promise they would be passed within that bill. Manchin immediately laid siege to the bill’s $3.5 trillion price tag. When progressives devised an elegant solution to his concerns, and after hundreds of billions worth of good and noble policy was removed, he decided to spend a few long, hot weeks absolutely refusing to state publicly what he considered an acceptable price for the bill. This completely froze the process.

    After that, Manchin moved the goal posts again by decrying how the infrastructure bill was being “held hostage” by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which insisted that bill and the BBB Act be passed simultaneously. After that, it was the national debt he was worried about. And then it was the clean energy proposals which drew his ire.

    Note well: Manchin threw all this weight from the other side of the building, while the House was still debating its contents. After each demand, House Democrats and the Progressive Caucus scrambled to appease him, only to be greeted with yet another complaint. Had that debate gone on much longer, Manchin would have demanded the bill be printed in blue ink, no, red ink, no, wait, black is better, no, blue.

    The BBB Act is in the Senate for consideration, so Manchin no longer has to yell down the corridor to pour sand in the gears. His latest beef, apparently, is with the child tax credit, a crown jewel of the bill whose temporary version has served some 35 million families during a catastrophic pandemic. Lacking a resolution to the BBB Act, those families probably got their last credit payment yesterday.

    The credit has worked as well as any government program has, and is a uniting feature within the broader Democratic caucus. Everyone loves it, so of course it has to go, because Manchin thinks it is too expensive and fears the creation of an “entitlement nation.”

    Aside from New Mexico, Manchin’s West Virginia is provided with more federal aid like the credit than any other state. This will hurt Manchin’s constituents badly, but he apparently could not possibly care less. He has his orders, and is acting on them with the cold ruthlessness of a hungry shark. As in past “negotiations,” Manchin is refusing to state clearly what he wants. I can tell you: He wants to burn enough time so the BBB Act gets punted into next year, where it will almost certainly die without a whimper. Mission accomplished.

    “[T]he news left Democrats stunned and furious,” reports The Washington Post, “as they awaited further details to what Manchin actually seeks. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chairman of the tax-focused Senate Finance Committee, described the expanded child tax credit program as a ‘lifeline’ — and said lawmakers are looking at alternate means to adopt it potentially outside of the context of their now-stalled $2 trillion package.”

    Stunned and furious, gotcha, great. That and a dollar will get you exactly what President Biden has gotten after multiple face-to-face negotiations with the shadow president from coal country. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly expressed his confidence that the BBB Act can be passed before Christmas, but that milk has curdled. Manchin wants to wait until next year — a year when the whole building will be singularly focused on the upcoming midterm elections — to do anything with the bill, and his latest back-and-fill over the child tax credit make that an all but unavoidable conclusion to this fiasco.

    It wasn’t all Manchin, of course. He was aided and abetted by a general uprising of conservative Democrats, whose pharmaceutical paymasters had an agenda all their own. Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Jon Tester were on board with Manchin’s drag-the-anchor strategy, and did their parts when the moment called for it.

    Call it mostly Joe, then. The $550 billion in the BBB Act to address the growing climate calamity wasn’t nearly enough to properly address the crisis, but it was a start, and now it’s locked in Manchin’s steam trunk, right next to money to feed children and the very idea of hope.

    In the due course of time, when the ocean comes for West Virginia and the rest of the East coast, when the flood tide scoops up all that coal slurry percolating under the stars in Big Stone Gap and Black Lick and dumps it into every home and business and classroom in the state, we can all thank Joe Manchin for saving us from becoming an “entitlement nation.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.