Category: Op-Ed

  • Protesters denounce the expulsion of Haitian refugees from Del Rio, Texas, on September 22, 2021, in Miami, Florida.

    Notwithstanding President Joe Biden’s promise to pursue a more humane immigration policy than his predecessor, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been illegally expelling Haitian migrants, with the Border Patrol cracking whips and herding them like cattle. When U.S. authorities put them on a plane to Haiti, “they chained us like animals — our hands, feet and waist — and once we arrived, they unchained us so journalists wouldn’t see us,” one Haitian man told John Oliver on “Last Week Tonight.”

    When confronted about his administration’s use of horse reins as whips to menace Black migrants at the southern U.S. border, Biden said it was “horrible … to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It’s outrageous.”

    Biden declared, “I promise you, those people will pay,” and noted that a federal investigation is underway. “There will be consequences. It’s an embarrassment. But beyond an embarrassment, it’s dangerous; it’s wrong. It sends the wrong message around the world. It sends the wrong message at home. It’s simply not who we are.”

    Biden’s denial is reminiscent of that of Barack Obama, who reacted to the 6,700-page report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that documented a widespread program of U.S. torture by saying that torture “is contrary to who we are.”

    But like torture, vicious beatings of Black people have been sanctioned by the state throughout U.S. history. “The images of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents on horseback whipping and assaulting Haitian refugees blatantly display the clear historical relationship between slavery and modern immigration policy, policing, and the carceral state,” the National Lawyers Guild said in a statement.

    The Biden administration has expelled more than 4,600 Haitian migrants from the United States since September 19, conducting 43 flights from Del Rio, Texas, to Haiti, which is still reeling from its recent devastating earthquake, flooding from a tropical storm and a presidential assassination. Most of the people in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince have no access to drinking water, electricity or garbage collection.

    The U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) called on states to refrain from expelling Haitians without a proper assessment of their individual protection needs and urged them to uphold fundamental human rights. In their statement, they cited the escalation of violence and insecurity in Haiti, noting that at least 19,000 people were internally displaced in Port-au-Prince during the summer of 2021. In addition, more than 20 percent of girls and boys have been victims of sexual violence, and nearly 24 percent of the population (over half of them children) live below the extreme poverty level of $1.23 per day. Nearly 46 percent of the population (4.4 million people) face acute food insecurity, and 1.2 million are at emergency levels, with 3.2 million people at crisis levels. The four organizations estimated that 217,000 Haitian children suffer from moderate-to-severe acute malnutrition.

    Expelling Haitian migrants to face these horrific conditions is not only cruel; it is also racist and illegal.

    The Use of Title 42 to Expel Asylum Seekers Is Racist, Illegal and Damaging

    “The whipping of Haitians by mounted Border Patrol agents was spectacularly racist, but the use of Title 42 to expel asylum seekers is equally racist, and illegal, and much more damaging,” attorney Brian Concannon, a board member at the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, told Truthout.

    Indeed, on September 23, Daniel Foote, U.S. special envoy for Haiti, handed in his resignation to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, stating he will “not be associated with the United States inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees” from the U.S.-Mexico border. Foote called the U.S. policy toward Haiti “deeply flawed.”

    Biden is continuing former president Donald Trump’s policy of misusing Title 42 in violation of U.S. treaty obligations. The Title 42 program stems from a misapplication of an obscure public health law, the Public Health Service Act of 1944. The act was designed to grant quarantine authority to health officials to expel any persons, including U.S citizens, who arrive from a foreign country. Title 42 was never intended to distinguish between noncitizens who could or could not be removed or expelled from the United States, according to Human Rights Watch.

    Section 265 of U.S. Code Title 42 empowers the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “prohibit … the introduction” into the U.S. of individuals if the director believes “there is serious danger of the introduction of [a communicable] disease into the United States.”

    As Trump did, Biden is disingenuously citing the excuse of potential health hazards from COVID to justify continuing the use of Title 42 to expel migrants, in spite of the consensus by experts that there is no correlation between the entry of migrants and the danger of increased risk of COVID infection.

    “Title 42 was implemented by Trump immigration adviser Stephen Miller as part of his efforts to maintain a white majority in the United States,” Concannon said. “The Biden administration knows the policy is illegal, racist and unjustified on public health grounds, but it keeps invoking it to reduce criticism from white supremacist groups.”

    Federal Judge Grants Injunction Against U.S. Expulsion of Migrants, But Appellate Court Pauses Injunction

    On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan of the D.C. Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security’s use of Title 42 to expel migrants from the United States. Judge Sullivan’s 58-page ruling would require the Biden administration to process migrant families with children who want to apply for asylum. But the judge suspended the injunction for 14 days to allow the government time to appeal his ruling.

    The plaintiffs asserted that the Biden administration’s use of Title 42 to deport migrants violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Public Health Services Act.

    In granting the injunction, Judge Sullivan found that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that the administration’s use of Title 42, which has never been applied in the immigration context, is illegal. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs’ contention that “‘nothing in [Section] 265, or Title 42 more generally, purports to authorize any deportations, much less deportations in violation of’ statutory procedures and humanitarian protections, including the right to seek asylum.”

    Judge Sullivan also concluded that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted, because they would be sent to their home countries which “are among the most dangerous in the world due to gang, gender, family membership, and other identity-based violence.”

    Finally, Judge Sullivan determined that a preliminary injunction would not harm the government, and it would promote public health to quickly process, quarantine and regulate people who arrive at the border. He accepted the plaintiffs’ claim that the public interest requires the U.S. to refrain from wrongfully sending people to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.

    But on September 30, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals paused Judge Sullivan’s injunction while it reviews Biden’s appeal. As Lee Gelernt, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the ACLU, told CBS News, this is just the first step in the appellate litigation. “Nothing stops the Biden administration from immediately repealing this horrific Trump-era policy,” Gelernt said. “If the administration is making the political calculation that if it acts inhumanely now it can act more humanely later, that calculation is misguided and of little solace to the families that are being sent to Haiti or brutalized in Mexico right now.”

    Title 42 Policy Violates U.S. Treaty Obligations

    The Title 42 policy violates the Refugee Convention, which grants noncitizens the right to asylum if they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, if they are sent back to their home countries. The Refugee Convention (which the United States has ratified, making it part of U.S. law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause) forbids refoulement, that is, sending a person to a country where it is more likely than not that the individual would face persecution on one of the protected grounds.

    Furthermore, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (to which the U.S. is also a party) forbids the expulsion of asylum seekers to face threats to their lives or liberty without an opportunity to apply for asylum and have a full and fair examination of their claim.

    The Biden administration’s use of Title 42 also violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (which the U.S. has ratified). That treaty contains a non-refoulement provision. It forbids sending an individual to a country where there is a substantial likelihood he or she would be subject to torture.

    As UNHCR has noted, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which the U.S. has ratified) enshrines

    the obligation [of the U.S.] not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by Articles 6 [right to life] and 7 [right to be free from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed.

    UNHCR has confirmed repeatedly during the pandemic that expelling asylum seekers and migrants at the border without an individualized determination of the need to protect them violates the non-refoulement provisions of international law. The UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection Gillian Triggs stated, “The right to seek asylum is a fundamental right. The COVID-19 pandemic provides no exception.”

    Public Pressure on Biden to End Inhumane and Illegal Policy

    Congressmembers and civil and human rights organizations are demanding that Biden halt the expulsions of Haitian and other Black migrants.

    Four Black immigration organizations — the Haitian Bridge Alliance, UndocuBlack Network, African Communities Together and Black Alliance for Just Immigration — filed a complaint with the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, demanding that the Biden administration halt its deportations of Haitian migrants.

    Fifty-six members of Congress wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, urging the administration to indefinitely halt deportations to Haiti, release detained Haitians and support administrative closure of removal cases, grant humanitarian parole to Haitians arriving at the southern U.S. border, and end the barrier to Haitian vaccine distribution.

    Thirty-nine human and civil rights leaders called on the Biden administration to restore asylum access at ports of entry and rescind the CDC’s expulsion order, stop deportation flights to Haiti, and grant those seeking safety at U.S. borders their legal right to apply for asylum. The leaders further stated that the administration must end its reliance on incarceration for immigration processing and instead work with community-based legal and social service providers.

    Democratic congressmembers, including Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts), co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, held a press conference outside the Capitol and called for the suspension of deportation flights. They demanded accountability for what Pressley called “the cruel, the inhumane and the flat-out racist treatment of our Haitian brothers and sisters at the southern border.”

    Meanwhile, the Biden administration is seeking a private contractor to operate a migrant detention facility at Guantánamo Bay and is hiring guards who speak Spanish and Haitian Creole. But after a public outcry about sending Haitian migrants and asylum seekers to Guantánamo, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters, “There’s never been a plan to do that.” In the early 1990s, George H.W. Bush used the base as a refugee camp to detain 12,000 Haitians fleeing their country after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was deposed in a military coup.

    Since the horrific photos of mounted Border Patrol agents menacing Black migrants with whips became public, voices against the Biden administration’s cruel, racist and illegal policies have reached a crescendo. This pressure must continue until Biden makes good on his promise to implement a truly humane immigration policy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Destiny Lopez, co-president of All* Above All, speaks at rally for abortion access.

    On Thursday, something unprecedented happened in Congress. In a powerful House Oversight Committee hearing concerning growing state-level attacks on abortion care, Representatives Barbara Lee, Cori Bush and Pramila Jayapal, and Texan and community organizer for the Texas Equal Access Fund Maleeha Azizall told their personal abortion stories. They did so to help change the conversation around abortion in the U.S. and send a message that abortion restrictions aren’t about politics but about people.

    At the same time, the legal fight over Texas’s extreme abortion ban continues this week, as a federal judge considers whether to halt the enforcement of the law.

    Nearly 50 years of playing defense against extreme anti-abortion political forces have gotten us where we are today: in the midst of an all-out attack on abortion access, with the Supreme Court allowing Texas politicians to effectively ban abortion in the state, signaling a green light to eager politicians elsewhere that the road is cleared for similar bans across the country.

    If Texas is not the canary in the coal mine, I don’t know what is. It has been 31 days since the Supreme Court made roughly 7 million Texans of child-bearing age — and their families — subject to the political whims of anti-abortion extremists from the state house all the way to the highest ranks of the federal judiciary. And as the Supreme Court prepares to consider a case this December that threatens legal abortion like never before, we must act swiftly and boldly to protect abortion access and expand reproductive freedom in the U.S., or many more of us will see our rights, dignity and opportunities stripped away. And if our efforts center racial, economic and immigrant justice, we can seize a key opportunity to energize and mobilize a progressive base that is hungry for bold leadership — while preserving and expanding access to health care for decades to come.

    This isn’t the time to play more defense or be timid about our policy asks. We can and should think much bigger about what is necessary for an abortion landscape with true and equitable access for all. The time is now for a movement that recognizes the totality of our lives and loves, honors our families’ holistic needs and sees the urgency of correcting the deep economic injustices that anti-abortion lawmakers prey upon.

    The time for abortion justice — a framework that incorporates racial, economic and immigrant justice into solutions to the massive barriers to abortion — is now.

    For decades, policymakers have ignored the expertise of those who have been most harmed by abortion bans and coverage restrictions like the Hyde Amendment, which denies insurance coverage of abortion for people enrolled in Medicaid: people of color, who are inevitably promised that “our” issues will be addressed the next time around. As Representative Bush noted in her remarks during the hearing on Thursday, Black women “live in a society that has failed to legislate love and justice for us. But we deserve better. We demand better.”

    And yet, efforts focused exclusively on maintaining legal abortion haven’t even managed to preserve Roe v. Wade’s protections in the second-largest state in the union, where racist attacks on the right to vote and decades of right-wing gerrymandering have already disenfranchised so many.

    We have spent too much time negotiating limited rights — not just to abortion, but also to the ballot box and others — for the most privileged. That has to stop today. We urge Congress and the White House to think beyond the bare minimum of whether abortion is technically legal, and to instead ensure that abortion is accessible, no matter where we live or how much money we earn. We celebrate the U.S. House vote of the Women’s Health Protection Act to provide essential federal protections for expanding abortion access after decades of attacks on care at the state level. But we must go further, and there are clear steps we can take: We must pass the EACH Act to lift bans on insurance coverage of abortion, end unnecessary barriers to medication abortion care and ensure that whatever someone’s documentation status, they can get the care they need. More local policymakers must follow the lead of New York City, Austin and Portland, which in recent years have dedicated their own local funding to support people who need abortion care.

    Imagine if we affirmed, for those 7 million Texans and their families and for the millions more under threat in this country, that every one of us should be able to live, work and make decisions about our futures with dignity and respect. Imagine if our policymakers recognized that racism, economic insecurity and immigration status multiply the already massive barriers to abortion care, and took proactive steps to launch real policy solutions that address the deep roots of these inequities. Imagine if we stopped trying to preserve a broken status quo, and instead built a new path to reproductive and economic freedom for all of us.

    Imagine the people-power we could build if we stop saying, “Next time, next year, next session.” Imagine saying to millions of progressive voters: “The time to unapologetically live our values is now.” Imagine what we could do if we decide that abortion justice can’t wait.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Joe Manchin pauses during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office building on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    A little after 9:00 pm yesterday evening, CBS News dropped a headline announcing that a deal had been nailed down to avert a government shutdown. The opening sentence of the report read, “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Wednesday night that an agreement to keep the government funded and prevent a government shutdown has been reached.” Schumer is the Minority Leader, really? Did I oversleep through two Novembers?

    The error was still in place at 7:10 am this morning but had finally been fixed by 8:30 am. Call it an honest mistake. With people like Joe Manchin in his caucus, Schumer may as well be the minority leader. Legend says you can thwart a vampire with holy water and a crucifix. No one knows what it will take Manchin to go away, because he won’t tell anyone. He’s having too much fun, he’s protecting his own polluting interests, and O my Lord, how the corporate lobbyist money is rolling in.

    A lot of corporate “news” media are having a good deal of sport with their favorite shortcut around actual reporting, “Dems in Disarray!” Beats working, I guess, but it is probably worthwhile to clarify why the progressive wing of the party is pissed off enough to try and blow up the president’s infrastructure bill, which may happen today if Speaker Pelosi brings the bill to the floor.

    When this whole thing first began, the infrastructure bill was priced at $2 trillion. The Senate started to chew on it, and industry lobbyists who call people like Joe Manchin a friend gutted the proposed legislation of virtually all its climate-related policies. The bill ultimately passed by the Senate cost $1 trillion, with only half of that coming from newly raised revenues, while billions in fossil fuel subsidies were allowed to remain.

    The first promise progressives got was that all the vitally needed climate elements that had been purged from the infrastructure bill would be packaged into the Build Back Better Act (BBB Act), a budget bill Schumer could get passed in the Senate with no Republican votes if every Democrat went along for the ride. That is what happened, and the addition of all those climate policies ballooned the BBB Act’s price tag to its current $3.5 trillion.

    The BBB Act, with those additions, stands today as the most important piece of climate-oriented legislation to make it this far into the process, and contains a raft of other dearly needed social reforms that would change the face of the country for the better after four decades of trickle-down plunder.

    The second promise, made several times by Speaker Pelosi, was that both bills would be “coupled,” so conservative Democrats wouldn’t pass the industry-favored infrastructure bill and then sink the industry-despised BBB Act. The infrastructure bill, in effect, was the hostage to fortune progressives intended to use to make sure the BBB Act at least made it to the Senate.

    These promises began to unravel because Joe Manchin and his cohort have exactly as much shame as your average Trump Republican. After demanding the removal of the climate policies in the infrastructure bill, these conservative Democrats abruptly turned on the now pricier BBB Act, calling it too expensive… but it only got more expensive because of the inclusion of policies they’d ripped out of the infrastructure bill.

    Over the next days and then weeks, Manchin and his crew steadfastly refused to say what price tag would satisfy them. They brought nothing to the table, and accepted nothing put before them. They pulled a bait and switch on the climate policies, and after infrastructure passed in the Senate, they refused to budge on the BBB Act. That broke promise #1. On Monday, Pelosi abandoned all pretense and announced the infrastructure bill would be brought up by itself for a vote today, thus breaking promise #2.

    “There was a deal,” writes Josh Marshall for Talking Points Memo, “an agreed upon framework. The Manchin-Sinema-Gottheimer troika got their [infrastructure] bill. And as soon as they did they backed out of the deal. That is how we got here. We knew it would be hard to come to an agreement, a lot of tense moments and standoffs. What we’ve actually seen is rather different. They’re not having a hard time coming to an agreement. The troika is refusing to negotiate.”

    In place of negotiation, Manchin released a statement on Wednesday — flush with words and phrases like, “fiscal insanity,” “dysfunction,” “vengefully tax,” “spend for the sake of spending,” “careless spending,” “these fatal mistakes” — that could have been produced by any one of the dime-a-dozen supply-side Republican think tanks that dot the Washington, D.C. landscape and produce facile gibberish meant only to derange the debate. The statement was, once again and entirely by design, not helpful at all.

    This is the juncture where the corporate “news” people start laying blame for this mess at the feet of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which appears entirely prepared to sink the infrastructure bill in order to save the BBB Act. Now is when progressives need to start cooperating, goes the refrain; don’t they see how important this is? The people! The midterms! My goodness, Franklin Roosevelt cut deals with the worst Southern segregationists in the land when crafting the New Deal. Why won’t the progressives compromise?

    That’s the thing, right there: FDR got something for the foul compromises he made. If the Congressional Progressive Caucus backs down now, a shabby pro-business half-measures infrastructure bill will pass, and the vital BBB Act will almost certainly be defeated.

    Simply put: The fear is that Democrats will get nothing if the Congressional Progressive Caucus doesn’t back down, but the reality is Democrats — and the people — will get next to nothing if they do surrender. A few of Pelosi’s precious “moderates” will get to campaign on the bipartisan bill they voted for, without caring much at all about what was actually in it. For people like that, the contents of a bill matter far less than the publicity generated by the bill’s passage.

    Listening to the “news,” you’d think a delayed infrastructure bill would disappear forever into the abyss. In fact, it could easily be re-offered once the BBB Act is ready for a vote, and this process could unfold the way it was promised. Congressional progressives have already compromised on the infrastructure bill and the BBB Act — both are now half of what they need to be because of those compromises — and now they are being pushed into yet another retreat. They are being promised many good things for that retreat, most of all that conservative Democrats won’t sink the BBB Act after the infrastructure bill passes alone, after seeing two promises already broken.

    Speaker Pelosi would be wise to shelf the infrastructure bill for a few days, allow temperatures to cool, and finish drafting the BBB Act. Pass them both out of the House. It comes down to Joe Manchin however this finally unfolds. Even if both bills clear the House, Manchin and his conservative pals are lying in wait.

    Every sinew of public muscle must be brought to bear on the senator from West Virginia to at least get him to negotiate. Make it simple — make it all about Manchin and his wretched motives — and call his bluff. It’s that, or fold and let this McConnell-esque power play get whatever it wants. If that happens, it won’t stop with this. If you give a mouse a cookie, it’s going to want a glass of milk.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A group of people are gathered at the Times Square of New York City on September 4, 2021, to protest that a Texas law banned abortion.

    Today the House Oversight Committee holds a hearing to examine states’ efforts to restrict abortion access, and how this has affected patients medically and economically. This hearing comes on the heels of the passage in Texas of S.B. 8 — but the Texas law is only the most recent development within a decades-long trend of states slowly dismantling abortion rights. As a result, the hearing is discussing federal legislation to “protect and expand abortion rights and access” more broadly.

    But the fight for abortion rights is not a top-down effort — it is and always has been staged on a grassroots level. Indeed, the right has made extensive use of these tactics. Far from the liberal call not to “politicize” abortion, the right sees the clinic space as a political territory to be conquered, and has continued to do so — not just in red states, as some might think, but all over New York City as well. It is not a fight to be legislated in the White House but won in the streets.

    The debate around the passage of Texas’s S.B. 8 (which bans all abortions after six weeks, and deputizes private citizens in its enforcement) and other similar bills has focused on its legal mechanisms — the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, its blatant unconstitutionality. The shadow docket, for example — when the Supreme Court makes a decision without the usual long process of receiving an application for a case to be heard, deciding to hear it, announcing it, poring over briefs filed months in advance, making a series of public oral arguments, engaging in an explicit deliberation and offering a thorough presentation of its findings and decisions — comes as a blatant example of the Supreme Court’s lack of democracy and transparency. In this particular case, the court took less than three days and released a single paragraph in the middle of the night, with the majority opinion unsigned.

    While the specificities have differed, this contention of abortion through the courts isn’t new. The question of abortion has for decades now been posed as an issue, first and foremost, of legality. The very premise of Roe, after all, was that abortion was a “decision between a woman and her doctor” and access to it an extension of our right to “privacy.” It was not about the right to health care, gender liberation or democratizing abortion (because there will always be a privileged few with access to safe abortion, even if it is illegal).

    This hyper-fixation on legality has obscured the way in which abortion rights, and reproductive rights more generally, have been chipped away for decades. Despite the technical legality of abortion in the United States, the lived experiences of many have shown that abortion is not in fact safe or accessible. In many cases, it is almost impossible to obtain an abortion, making its legality largely irrelevant. To take one example, as of 2019, six states were down to one abortion clinic: Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia. All anti-abortion laws exacerbate existing inequalities, as they disproportionally impact people of color (and Black people in particular), undocumented people (who often have to choose between the risk of getting deported or the risk of not getting an abortion), poor and working-class people, people without private health insurance, queer and trans people, and so on. Anti-abortion laws kill us.

    The mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” (cue Hillary Clinton doubling down: “and by rare, I mean rare) has actually contributed to the stigmatization of abortion. Tote bags and stickers defending the legitimacy of Planned Parenthood often read, “I went to Planned Parenthood and all I got was a mammogram and a pap smear and STD testing [and so on]” — but, despite its exclusion from official merch, abortions are also a service people receive there, and they should make no secret of it. The right doesn’t attack clinics because we get cancer screenings. We cannot expect to counter them, to fight the backlash against our reproductive health, by skirting the very issue at stake. We need an unapologetic, fighting movement for abortion as a basic right — not a shameful but necessary secret. We need to move away from litigating over when a cell becomes a fetus becomes a baby and what the definition of a heartbeat is. We are not incubators; we are entitled to make our own, sometimes complicated (and sometimes not), decisions free from coercion; and we exist more than just for you. It is really that simple.

    Attacks on abortion, ideological and material, don’t just happen in red states. They happen everywhere, even in what is often called, by anti-abortioners and pro-abortioners alike, the “abortion capital of the United States”: New York City. New York City for Abortion Rights, of which we are members, has been defending clinics against anti-abortion harassers in New York for over four years. The group was founded in 2017 by a group of people (including some of us writing this piece) who came together because we were sick of writing letters to our senators. And we were sick of being told that the best thing to do when anti-abortion harassers stalk clinics is to leave them alone, because “giving them attention is exactly what they want,” because “patients can’t tell the difference” between someone sending them to hell and someone trying to make sure they can access health services safely. (Uhm, yes, they can!) Even Planned Parenthood’s official approach to anti-abortion activity in front of their clinics is, well, to do nothing. We defend Planned Parenthood — every month for years, in fact —but we don’t let their board of directors dictate political strategy. We are patients and providers too.

    In our latest fight against the Archdiocese of New York’s anti-abortion Witness for Life program, we have seen both the religious right and the police work hand-in-hand to crack down on us. Witness for Life is led by the notorious clinic invader Fidelis Moscinski, who has easily been involved in over half of all clinic invasions in the country since 2017 in the tradition of Red Rose Rescues, an ultra-right, militant wing of the anti-abortion movement.

    Early in the morning on the second Saturday of every month, a group of us make our way to St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church in Brooklyn, one of the several churches that regularly hosts the Archdiocese of New York’s anti-abortion Witness for Life program. While the Witness for Life followers are in mass inside, we picket in front of the church, holding signs, chanting and raising awareness about how clinic harassment happens here too. Billed as “peaceful prayer,” the program’s weekly mass ends in a march to the nearby Planned Parenthood, where clergy and parishioners — frequently over a hundred of them, frequently bussed in from out of state — assemble to stigmatize abortion and pressure patients to give birth against their will, including through the heinous impersonation of Planned Parenthood escorts. As soon as the procession starts out the door, we assemble in front of them, on the sidewalk, and, essentially, walk very, very slowly backward. The point is to delay them long enough for abortion patients to get into their appointments (the majority of which happen in the morning) without facing them in front of the clinic. A few months ago, we held them off for several hours — we’re talking hours to move 10 blocks.

    On August 14 in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, the NYPD sent its militarized Strategic Response Group (a particularly violent and well-armed unit, infamous for systematically abusing protesters throughout the 2020 Black Lives Matter uprising) to repress one of our protests opposing harassment. They arrested two of our members and held them for hours before releasing them on several charges. There has been no “justification,” however feeble, from the police. The moment that this historically wealthy and powerful patriarchal organization, which is importantly also the city’s largest landowner, feels threatened by everyday people — who simply refuse to concede that it’s benign for the Catholic Church to stigmatize us in the streets for exercising bodily autonomy — they call in the most repressive arm of the state to beat us back, while continuing to claim religious persecution.

    It is clear that the fight for reproductive justice isn’t going anywhere any time soon; that the Supreme Court isn’t coming to save us; and that Roe will never be a guarantee, because it was never premised on abortion as a democratic right and an unapologetic good. Liberation won’t come from policy wonks or precise and conciliatory word choice; it’ll come from the streets, from showing those intent on stripping us of our agency that they are not welcome here. We need an unapologetic, fighting, explicitly pro-abortion movement that upholds SisterSong’s framework of reproductive justice — the human right to personal bodily autonomy, to have children, not to have children, and to parent the children we do have in safe and sustainable communities — rather than the glib slogan of “the right to choose,” which obscures that choices made out of financial or social coercion are not in fact choices.

    Join us, we need you now more than ever.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bernie Sanders

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, no stranger to making himself clear, has made himself abundantly clear about the $1 trillion infrastructure bill that is tentatively set for a House vote tomorrow.

    Let’s be crystal clear,” said Sanders via Twitter. “If the bipartisan infrastructure bill is passed on its own on Thursday, this will be in violation of an agreement that was reached within the Democratic Caucus in Congress. More importantly, it will end all leverage that we have to pass a major reconciliation bill. That means there will be no serious effort to address the long-neglected crises facing the working families of our country, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor.”

    “It also means,” continued Sanders, “that Congress will continue to ignore the existential threat to our country and planet with regard to climate change. I strongly urge my House colleagues to vote against the bipartisan infrastructure bill until Congress passes a strong reconciliation bill.”

    Sanders was joined by fellow progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who likewise minced no words. The agreement from the beginning was that all the pieces would move together, she told reporters on Tuesday, and that one piece wouldn’t be broken off and moved ahead of the others. Both Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in the House and the Senate all said that’s the deal. I want to make sure we hold to that deal. I don’t want to see that deal broken.

    Warren and Sanders’s pronouncements came at the end of two wild days in Washington, D.C.

    On Monday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke a promise she made to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and “decoupled” the pending infrastructure bill — which has already passed in the Senate — from the far larger budget reconciliation bill, called the Build Back Better Act.

    Breaking them up puts the budget bill in deep peril, as it has been under venomous attack from corporate lobbyists and their paymasters for weeks. Pelosi knows this, and did it anyway to appease the right flank of her caucus. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has vowed for months to vote down the infrastructure bill if the budget bill was not passed first, and when Pelosi pulled the trigger, the progressives had a decision to make. They have the votes to do it, but will they follow through on their threat?

    On Tuesday afternoon, after a meeting of the 96 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, that decision was relayed to the world in unambiguous terms. “We will not allow this process to be dictated by special interests and corporations at the expense of women, working families and our communities. We will not leave anyone behind…. We articulated this position three months ago, and today it is still unchanged: progressives will vote for both bills, but a majority of our members will only vote for the infrastructure bill after the President’s visionary Build Back Better Act passes.” (Emphasis added)

    That’s about as clear as clear gets, but there is still 40 miles of bad road between now and passing these bills. The speaker has said it many times: She will not send a bill to the floor for a vote if she knows the votes to pass it aren’t there. If the Congressional Progressive Caucus holds the line, and Republicans continue their pledge to vote “no” en masse as expected, the infrastructure bill will stand no chance.

    In such an instance, if history is any guide, we will probably see Pelosi pull back the bill, which would be the best of all current options. It would allow the budget reconciliation bill to be completed, at which point the speaker can hold to the arrangement she made with the Congressional Progressive Caucus months ago: Pass the Build Back Better Act first, then pass the infrastructure act with all progressives voting “Yes,” and everyone can go home and call it a great day’s work.

    If the Congressional Progressive Caucus backs down at the 11th hour, however, it is almost certain Pelosi will bring the infrastructure bill to a vote, which will likely pass. A few days from now, when the budget reconciliation bill is completed, it will also be called for a vote. Lacking any leverage, Pelosi and the Congressional Progressive Caucus will have no way to convince conservative House Democrats in the pocket of Big Pharma to vote for it, and with a three-vote margin in play, the budget bill will probably fail.

    The infrastructure bill has already passed in the Senate, but a whole different 40 miles of bad road awaits the Build Back Better Act if it survives the bat belfry of the House. Majority Leader Schumer intends to pass this budget bill by way of reconciliation, a process that shelves the filibuster and therefore requires no GOP votes. Every Republican is a hard “no” as the world knows, so the armada of lobbyists seeking to defeat the bill have trained their fire on conservative Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.

    Judd Legum for Popular Information explains:

    Many eyes are on Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), who has publicly said she believes the bill is too large and privately ‘told Senate Democratic colleagues that she is averse to the corporate and individual tax rate increases that both the House and Senate tax-writing committees had planned to use to help pay for the measure.’ On Tuesday, five corporate lobbying groups are hosting a fundraiser for Sinema in DC. For a ticket price of $1,000 to $5,800, the event provides an opportunity to schmooze with Sinema for 45 minutes.

    In August, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) received $5,000 each from the PACs of International Paper Co. and Marathon Petroleum. Manchin has been a key Democratic voice objecting to the size and scope of the reconciliation bill. The paper company’s chair and CEO, Mark Sutton, is a member of the Business Roundtable. Suzanne Gagle, Marathon’s general counsel and senior vice president for government affairs, is a board member of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Sludge reports. Both the Business Roundtable and NAM are lobbying against the legislation.

    The Build Back Better Act could very well emerge from the House, only to get shot down by “no” votes from Manchin, Sinema and possibly other conservative Democrats like Jon Tester. President Biden is leaning hard into his own lobbying effort with these two, canceling a vaccine-oriented trip to Chicago today in order to stay in town and work the phones.

    It will prove to be a hard sell: Manchin and Sinema are clearly enjoying their muscular position in the process, and have given no sign that they will knuckle under to presidential pressure. Neither have they made specifically clear what will satisfy their “concerns,” a fact that is increasingly annoying their Democratic colleagues in both chambers.

    We just need to get a number, right?” progressive Rep. Ro Khanna growled to CNN on Tuesday. “The House is going to be unified. We need to get one number from one senator, and I think we got to make it very clear that that’s holding everything back.” Meanwhile, business and corporate campaign donations to the two Democratic holdouts continue to roll in. Fancy that.

    Manchin and Sinema are next week’s big problem. The next 48 hours in the House will have quite a bit to say about the standing of the president, the speaker and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Pelosi gave a quick-hit presser to a gaggle of reporters on Wednesday morning, and was asked for updates on the infrastructure bill. “The president is negotiating,” she replied. “We’re not a lock-step rubber stamp party.”

    When asked if there will be an infrastructure vote tomorrow, Pelosi replied, “We take this one step at a time.”

    Are we clear?

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A father holds his baby

    As I watch footage videos of the countless Haitian immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, my heart is broken. I feel helpless. As a dear friend, who is a writer, reminded me recently, “It is exhausting work to confront tangled injustices/griefs of this magnitude.”

    Watching the images, what struck me the most was the simplistic misrepresentation and the lack of humanity. These are my people. Each one could have been my brother, sister, cousin, aunt, mother or father. I could have been among them. In search of a better life. In search of dignity. In search of community. In search of hospitality. In search of hope. In search of care. In search of love. In search of a future.

    It is ironic that many etranje (foreigners, generally white people), especially white folks who have lived in or traveled to Haiti, can describe how they have received unconditional hospitality from Haitians (especially those who reside outside of the capital city of Port-au-Prince), who have shared their food and their homes.

    I know that individual hospitality is simpler than seeking refugee status. It is not my goal here to analyze in detail the ways in which immigration laws and processes work. I know immigration policies are complex. However, as a humanist, feminist, parent, sister, cousin, aunt and Black woman, I also know that the treatment of the hundreds of Haitians at the border is cruel, inhuman, undignified and racist.

    In the last few days, I have been asked by several American and international journalists to help examine the current narratives at the border, to help think through more respectful ways to represent migrants.

    As a start, we must note that the narratives that arise when dark-skin bodies are at the border are very different from the narratives of other immigrants. What disturbs me is that there appears to be one single story of the Haitians at the border. One representation. One perspective: These are just poor immigrants who are coming to the U.S. to “take” something (whatever it may be) from U.S. citizens.

    I am conscious of and grateful for the proactive and responsible journalists who are trying to reach for larger, more nuanced narratives — for those who are trying to write in a humane way, but also with complexity.

    Here is what is still missing: I’m concerned that so many of the stories are still overly simplistic, focusing only on the present situation, when there is a larger historical context that needs to be addressed.

    One journalist asked me: “How did they get here?” Another journalist asked: “What happened? What are they looking for? What are they trying to find?”

    There are so many untold stories. What if we accept that we must view this crisis from various perspectives: historical, geopolitical, social and economic?

    We need to begin with the United States’ refusal to recognize Haiti after its independence in 1804. For over 60 years, while the U.S. was still a slave-owning nation, Haiti, as the world’s First Free Black Republic, was ignored and punished. That early refusal to recognize Haiti’s independence was a failure to acknowledge the humanity of Haitians — and a failure to acknowledge the humanity of enslaved people within the United States as well. Responsible reporting about Haiti needs to start here: with that lack of humanity.

    Most people do not know the story of the U.S. occupation of Haiti from 1915–1934 or that of the resistance movement led mainly by the peasant group known as Les Cacos, as well as by students and intellectuals, which forced the U.S. to end the occupation. But the damage to Haiti’s constitution was already done.

    Haiti has been referred to as the “Republic of NGOs” because of the large number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working in Haiti. The majority of these NGOs contribute directly and indirectly to weakening the Haitian state by focusing on the interests of the country and organizations that they represent and not working with grassroots organizations to have a real impact. Of course, it is too simplistic to just blame the U.S.

    The deep corruption of the Haitian government is connected with the 2 percent of Haitians with foreign passports who own Haiti and are constantly capitalizing on the ongoing disasters (both human-made and natural) so that they can maintain their privilege. These 2 percent who work behind the scenes in what we usually refer to as a “politique de doublure” are supported by the superpowers (U.S., Canada, France, United Nations, etc.). For instance, during elections the elite usually work with these superpowers to ensure that their chosen candidates become president so that they can better control Haiti.

    Let us not forget the neoliberal economic policies that contribute to food insecurity and prevent food sovereignty, forcing peasants to leave their lands and move to urban areas in search of a better life, but instead enter a cycle of worse poverty.

    There is the complicated story of the Creole pigs in Haiti that were slaughtered and destroyed in the 1980s by the U.S. to prevent the spread of African swine fever into the United States. The pigs represented a savings bank for the farmers, but the indigenous pigs were replaced with imported animals that were ill-adapted to the tropical climate. The wholesale death of rural livestock subsequently dismantled the livelihood of countless numbers of farmers. This impacted the Haitian economy so much that there was a direct impact on children’s education, since farmers were not able to send their kids to school because they couldn’t afford tuition and uniforms.

    In 2010, former President Bill Clinton apologized for the trade policies that destroyed the livelihood of rice farmers in Haiti while enriching Arkansas farmers. The apologies did not help. People continue to starve and have to look for other alternatives.

    Some Haitian migrants must take treacherous routes from Brazil and Chile to Mexico. While crossing borders, there are economic advantages for these countries because these migrants have to pay for food and accommodation, and the flights from Port-au-Prince to Chile and Brazil contribute to these countries’ economies.

    There is the old myth stemming from colonization that dictates that Black bodies are inferior. Let us be clear and honest: If the Haitians were lighter skinned, would they have been given the same treatment? Probably not.

    The current treatment of Haitians at the border, and the use of whips and horses, is inhumane. Do those who think it’s acceptable to treat Haitians this way see them differently because of their Black bodies?

    Many Haitians are hard workers. There is currently a labor shortage in the United States. What if we could get past the narratives and the images and think that perhaps, just perhaps, some of these Haitian migrants could possibly be able to contribute to the workforce? What if we could identify skill sets that they may have and provide language and acclimatization training so they can contribute these skills for the greater good?

    In 10, 20, 25 or 100 years, I wonder what story we will tell of Haiti. Will people remember that since the 1700s, enslaved people in Haiti — well before “Black Lives Matter” became a rallying cry — demonstrated to the entire world that our Black lives matter because we are ready to live free or die? What if we accept that neutrality is not an option and make a choice? What if for one moment we pause and think that perhaps we are all climate refugees on this planet called Earth? Haiti’s ongoing climate crisis started during the period of colonization with the French exploiting its natural resources. It continues today in the forms of deforestation, earthquakes and hurricanes (both man-made disasters and disasters resulting from capitalism, neoliberalism, inequity and greed). All these are contributing factors that push people to migrate. Perhaps then we could look at the women, men and children at the border with our hearts, minds and souls. Perhaps then we will be open to really seeing the Haitian migrants with dignity, compassion, care, empathy and humanity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People walk behind a banner with German text

    The stunning victory won by grassroots activists in Germany this week seizing 240,000 public housing apartments owned by corporate landlords in Berlin and putting them in the hands of renters themselves — has the potential to reverberate globally, inspiring ongoing and emerging struggles for more democratic and ecological approaches to housing.

    Having won the referendum, the army of grassroots activists that composed the expropriation campaign will now be pushing the government not only to respect the results, but also to install our vision of collective ownership.

    A Democratic and Ecological Vision of Housing

    The expropriation campaign that just won this victory in Berlin is known as Deutsche Wohnen und Co. Enteignen (“Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen und Co,” named after Deutsche Wohnen, one of the biggest corporate landlords in Berlin, DWE for short). I am one of the many activists who have worked together on this campaign.

    Instead of privatized housing, the activists involved in this campaign are proposing the establishment of an Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR), a public agency that is legally required to fulfill its constitution. What goes into the constitution is therefore critical.

    In contrast to private ownership models, AöRs are not forced to be profit-oriented, cannot go bankrupt, and must serve all their users. This means an AöR doesn’t have to worry about returns on investments (one of the mechanisms that has driven the exponential rent hikes), and unlike housing cooperatives that only serve their members, the AöR has to serve everyone.

    Currently, the political goals of the constitution of the AöR are to provide affordable housing, ensure democratic self-governance, enforce anti-discrimination policies and build new housing.

    Instead of private and classical “state” ownership, activists are proposing a distributed, nested decision-making structure divided between four levels: the city, the district, the neighborhood and the particular house. Tenants (regardless of residential status), representatives elected by tenants, workers of the AöR and delegates from the city government these will be the forces that define the direction of travel of Berlin’s public housing.

    Ecological goals are being discussed in the draft constitutional proposal. Currently, the AöR will prefer the use of renewable and climate-neutral raw materials instead of cement, steel or plastic. It also requires switching from fossil fuel sources to solar, thermal, geothermal or biomass fuels for heating or electricity. It proposes the greening of buildings through courtyards, facades and roofs, as well as establishing communal kitchens and dining halls within apartment buildings, and even downsizing residential large units. What’s more, it demands transforming parking space to favor bicycle boxes and ride-sharing means of transportation. Lastly, it will require that ecological costs cannot be passed onto tenants, meaning that rents cannot be raised in order to accomplish ecological goals; instead, funds for such projects will have to come from already existing funds within the AöR as well as from government coffers, thus avoiding ecological gentrification.

    Of course, none of this is set in stone, and these goals will be the subject of great debate within the campaign. Nonetheless, the establishment of a public agency of this sort marks a significant departure from private ownership, which has been the motor of displacement and has done nothing to mitigate or adapt to the problem of climate change, seeking instead only to raise rents as cheaply and securely as possible. Indeed, whatever renovation has been done under corporate ownership has been largely cosmetic, as it provides the legal basis to raise rents.

    The Organization of Victory and the Organization Still Needed

    While grassroots activists have smashed through this daunting hurdle, it was neither easily accomplished, nor will it be the last.

    The referendum is the outcome of a long organizational process that developed in response to the privatization of Berlin’s public housing in 2004. As DWE founders explain, capital investment firms saw housing in Berlin as a safe harbor of investment, particularly in the context of the subsequent financial crisis. Housing and other initiatives aimed at taking popular control over the city formed against rising rents and urban redevelopment projects focused on profit accumulation.

    Over the years, the amalgam of individual initiatives each met dead ends, as these initiatives came to realize the necessity of a broader, more systemic answer. It was in 2016 that the tenant initiative Kotti und Co. first put expropriation on the table as the systemic answer to the problem. What’s more, in 2015, a referendum to reform public housing was launched, but was ultimately struck down due to a paragraph being deemed illegal under EU law. It was after these experiences that tenant initiatives from across the city joined with activists from the 2015 referendum under the banner of DWE to expropriate housing from corporate landlords.

    This victory was made possible both by long-term organization and by organizers’ approach of reaching out to as many people as possible, regardless of their original political position. Prior to this year, the campaign focused on organizing demonstrations as well as seeding and supporting housing initiatives to fight back against corporate landlords. This seed-and-support process helped jump-start a number of initiatives that expanded the area of activation, functioning as a popular education campaign, that increasingly mobilized angry tenants into the expropriation campaign.

    Then, when DWE was allowed to legally begin the collection of signatures to put the measure on the ballot, the campaign developed a distributed network of collection teams across each and every borough of the city. An app was created so that people could spontaneously and easily plug into signature collection initiatives, significantly reducing the barrier of participation. It was in the build-up to this phase that the campaign developed a migrant initiative composed of Berliners who cannot legally vote due to residency status to further underscore the democratic deficit of the ballot, as 25 percent of Berlin’s tenants are barred from electoral participation due to residency status.

    The signature collection phase was a roaring political success, resulting in the accumulation of 343,000 legal signatures, in addition to 41,557 signatures that were thrown out due to nonresidency status. Organizationally, this phase further multiplied its forces as it involved thousands more people in the campaign.

    Lastly, the get-out-the-vote phase was composed of an equally broad door-knocking campaign that was particularly focused on reaching out to people beyond the inner city. This on-the-ground organizing was in combination with an incredible media campaign that developed stunning productions and adeptly maneuvered social media alongside a distinctive cheerleading campaign that captured the admiration of the Berlin press.

    In all, the campaign followed an almost ideal campaign arc, beginning with a soft tremor and climaxing in euphoria from a roaring, escalating crescendo.

    However, the battle is far from decided. Berlin’s likely incoming social-democratic mayor, Franziska Giffey, ran with the promise that she would stop the referendum in its tracks upon election. In the week prior to the election, the centrist social democrats announced they would be buying almost 15,000 houses back from corporate landlords, in a plain attempt to diminish the perceived need for expropriation.

    However, Giffey has been clearly shaken by the strong results. In interviews following the final tally of the referendum results, she remarked that while she still does not believe expropriation would help “a single household,” the results must be respected, so long as they are legal.

    Rest assured that tremendous scrutiny will be placed on the legality of the proposal. This follows not only the 2015 referendum defeat, but also last year’s defeat of a city-wide rent cap that German courts struck down this April.

    Regardless of the challenges to come, however, this week’s victory for housing activists is meaningful because it demonstrates the power everyday people can wield through collective organization and has the power to inject new energy into housing struggles globally by showing that even finance capital can be put on the menu.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi talks to reporters following the House Democratic caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on September 28, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has broken her word and reversed herself with the kind of rank shamelessness that Mitch McConnell would admire, and there will be hell to pay for it one way or another.

    On Monday night before a private gathering of the Democratic caucus, Speaker Pelosi announced that she will no longer support the policy she had promised to back since June — to bring the infrastructure bill and reconciliation bill to a simultaneous vote. At present, Pelosi intends to bring the infrastructure bill to the House floor on its own sometime this week, an act that will all but doom the larger and more substantive budget bill.

    “I told all of you that we wouldn’t go on to the BIF (Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework, i.e. the infrastructure bill) until we had the reconciliation bill passed by the Senate,” Pelosi reportedly told the assemblage. “We were right on schedule to do all of that, until 10 days ago, a week ago, when I heard the news that this number had to come down. It all changed, so our approach had to change. We had to accommodate the changes that were being necessitated. And we cannot be ready to say until the Senate passed the bill we can’t do BIF.”

    Pelosi’s remark about “the news that this number had to come down” refers to the $3.5 trillion price tag on the vital budget reconciliation bill, a number far lower that what Sen. Bernie Sanders initially sought but eventually agreed to accept out of a desire to get the deal done. Now, that concession is out the window, along with Pelosi’s promise not to decouple the two bills. The way this is trending, the Progressive Caucus will soon be expected to cast votes and hold meetings out in the rain. “Our approach had to change,” Pelosi will explain. Of course.

    What is the reason “this number had to come down”? Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, along with a small clutch of conservative House Democrats who are deep in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, are opposed to the budget bill’s reforms of Medicare and prescription drug pricing. Manchin, himself a polluter baron whose fortunes drizzle coal soot, cannot abide the climate-rescuing elements of the bill because they dent his own personal bottom line. None of them favor funding these priorities by taxing rich people and corporations fairly.

    “We obviously didn’t envision having Republicans as part of our party,” zinged Progressive Caucus Rep. Ilhan Omar after the meeting concluded. In this, she was referring to the huge national, bipartisan popularity the policies contained within these bills enjoy among the voters. Specifically, Omar was speaking to how Republicans have a habit of voting against policies their own constituents support. Manchin — a Democrat if you squint at the label — is swimming hard against the vast popular support these bills have in his own state.

    Omar was one of three Democratic House Reps — along with Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal and Katie Porter — who signed her name to a Monday editorial promising to vote down the infrastructure bill if it is decoupled from the budget bill. On Tuesday morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likewise announced her intention to vote against a decoupled infrastructure bill.

    This is not simple intransigence on the part of the Progressive Caucus. The so-called “moderate” conservative Democrats in Congress have already whittled away at the most important elements of the infrastructure bill, while leaving billions in fossil fuel subsidies intact, making it more palatable to the lobbyists and corporate paymasters they serve. They want to pass it so they can return to their districts and crow about bipartisanship. Those same lobbyists and paymasters despise the budget bill, however, and so those same “moderates” are almost certain to kill it if it does not come hand-in-hand with the infrastructure bill.

    “Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced her intention that the House vote this week on a transformative economic package and a major investment in infrastructure,” wrote Jayapal, Omar and Porter on Monday. “Congress now faces a choice: advance the entirety of an agenda that gets American families the help they need, or deliver only a fraction of it. That’s why we, as leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, remain committed to voting for the infrastructure bill only after the Build Back Better Act is passed.”

    As it stands, the lure Pelosi is using to bring the Progressive Caucus on board with the infrastructure vote amounts to, “Trust me and Joe Manchin.” Leave aside the glaring fact that Pelosi has nuked her own good word by reversing herself on these bills. Pelosi wants to make the progressives believe that if they support a stand-alone infrastructure bill, Manchin and his cohort won’t gut or entirely destroy the budget bill. This is a hollow promise Pelosi is in no position to make or keep — Manchin is enjoying his role as the power broker who won’t be pinned down, and won’t even provide a price tag he can accept — and the progressives know it.

    “It can’t be a pinkie promise,” Jayapal told MSNBC on Monday night. “It’s got to be be an actual bill that is written, the legislative text is written, the numbers are agreed to, everything is agreed to in order for us to be able to vote for the bipartisan bill.” Moments later, Omar backed her up with three tweeted words: “We aren’t bluffing.”

    It all gets very interesting from here.

    Pelosi has a three-vote margin of error on the infrastructure vote. Jayapal, Omar, Porter and Ocasio-Cortez are already four “no” votes. Jayapal suggested last week that as much as half of the 95-person Progressive Caucus was also prepared to vote the bill down. The Monday night meeting featured a welter of “moderate” Democrats bemoaning their fate as they attempted to shift blame for this debacle onto the progressives. Expect more of the same this week as Pelosi labors to bulldoze a path to victory.

    If the margin is close as the vote looms, it is entirely possible we could see Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House, going hat in hand to House Republicans asking them to support the infrastructure bill in numbers large enough to overwhelm the progressives’ objections. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has already advised his caucus to vote against it, and they will be in a position to squeeze Pelosi if it comes to that. Such a turn of events would be a cataclysmic humiliation for the Speaker.

    The September 27 “deadline” that Pelosi set was one of several glaring missteps made throughout this process, culminating with her surrender to the Manchin crew and her broken promise to keep these two bills together. Even if she somehow brings this mess to the other shore, there isn’t a Democrat — and especially a progressive — in the building who will be interested in taking her at her word ever again. That bridge burned down last night, and there’s nothing left but stumps and ashes.

    If the Progressive Caucus holds the line and votes down a stand-alone infrastructure bill — assuming they get the chance and Pelosi actually brings it for a vote — that bill can be recoupled with the budget bill once the latter emerges from the drafting process. Pelosi can keep her promise in this event and bring both up for a vote simultaneously, as she said she would three months ago.

    The alternative is a defeated infrastructure bill, an almost certainly doomed budget bill, and a Democratic Party done in more than a year before the midterm elections by its own flabbergasting incompetence… and the “moderate” conservative Democrats, along with the Speaker, will only have themselves to blame.

    Progressives have often wondered what it would be like if the politicians they agreed with most — like Jayapal, Omar, Porter and Ocasio-Cortez — were actually in the driver’s seat. At the moment, for the moment, that is exactly the case. Stay tuned.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A firefighter moves a hose while trying to save houses on Mountain Hawk Drive as the Shady Fire burns in the Skyhawk area of Santa Rosa, California, on September 28, 2020.

    Last week, California’s insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, announced that the state would stop insurance companies from dropping customers’ fire coverage in areas hit by 2021’s big wildfire infernos for one year. It builds on a regulatory change the commissioner pushed earlier this year to allow consumers to see their fire insurance “risk scores,” assigned them by insurers, and to force insurers to improve the scores of homeowners who undertake fire mitigation strategies on their properties.

    The moratorium will give roughly 325,000 homeowners, spread across fire-hit regions of 22 counties, a temporary reprieve from what has become an annual nightmare in much of California: finding insurers willing to cover property in parts of the state increasingly vulnerable to fires as the region becomes a global epicenter of climate change impacts.

    But the moratorium alone, and the risk score regulations, while providing breathing space, won’t fix a near-broken insurance system that is increasingly unable to financially navigate the climate change world of more frequent and more intense fires, floods, droughts and hurricanes. Throughout California — and indeed much of the American west — homeowners are struggling not only to find companies willing to insure them against fire, but to find companies who will do so at an affordable rate.

    In October 2020, the office of California’s insurance regulator estimated that in 2019, upwards of 235,000 homeowners lost their fire insurance coverage after their insurers refused to renew their policies. That was a more than 30 percent increase on nonrenewals for homeowners compared to the previous year, although in 2018, the combined number of homeowners and businesses in the state who lost their fire insurance totaled roughly 350,000.

    The numbers haven’t yet been released for 2020, but given that more than 4 million acres of Californian land burned during that year’s apocalyptic fires, and given that insurers have lost tens of billions of dollars as a result of California’s epic fires in recent years, it’s likely the pattern of nonrenewals has intensified. Up and down the Sierra Nevada and the range’s western foothills, entire communities either became involuntarily uninsured or faced staggering premium cost increases. And many businesses, especially in wine country, also found themselves shunned by insurance companies no longer willing to work in areas that are so at risk of destruction.

    Locked out of the private insurance market, a growing number of Californians are having to fall back on the state-run FAIR Plan insurance pool, a last-ditch fire insurance option that costs a lot and comes with high deductibles, but is at least a little bit better than nothing. The Sacramento Bee has reported that hundreds of thousands of Californians now use this plan, which can cost homeowners many thousands of dollars a year to participate in — and which doesn’t cover any non-fire-related issues, meaning customers then also have to purchase separate home insurance policies from individual companies. Seventy-five thousand homeowners were pushed onto the FAIR Plan in 2019 alone.

    Not everyone who loses private insurance qualifies, however: until Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill this past summer intended to address the problem, wineries, for example, were reclassified by FAIR as agricultural entities, a designation designed to exclude them from FAIR Plan eligibility. Many farmers are also excluded, as the plan wasn’t designed to cover the risk of a fire taking out large tracts of land. And even today, with the new legislation, crops and farm animal losses are still excluded from coverage. And many homeowners simply can’t afford the high premiums required to buy this last-ditch insurance. As a result, huge numbers of Californians have been left in limbo, living in areas at great risk of destruction from fire, yet unable to access coverage to protect their property and finances in the event of calamity.

    And for the “lucky” ones who do still have fire insurance — sometimes as a result of insurers using artificial intelligence systems to calculate which properties are “insurable” even in high-risk fire zones — bills have sky-rocketed in recent years, in some cases by upwards of 300 percent, meaning that many homeowners in California’s mountains and foothills are now paying more for fire insurance than they are in property taxes. Even the FAIR Plan, which is intended as something of a safety net, has seen enormous year-on-year premium increases.

    Last year, in the teeth of opposition from consumer advocates, legislators pushed to allow insurers to massively jack up their rates in fire-prone areas. It was presented by proponents as a better alternative than insurers simply pulling out of large swaths of the state completely, a risk that is, increasingly, a destabilizing element in the housing market. Opponents, however, argued that it would simply result in even higher insurance bills for consumers, without fundamentally altering the risks of bankruptcy by claims resulting from mega fires.

    In the end, the legislative clock wound down without the bill, AB 2167, being passed and signed into law.

    There is a better option. For two years now, progressive legislators have pushed bills in Sacramento that would require insurance companies to provide coverage, so long as homeowners make a good-faith effort to “harden” their properties against fire. For those same two years, however, the insurance industry has pushed back against the proposals.

    California’s legislators must get behind these and other efforts to mandate insurers keep their customers affordably insured. In an era of brutal climate change emergencies, if insurance companies genuinely can’t stay solvent while maintaining reasonably priced coverage in fire zones, then the state ought to set up a subsidy system to both protect homeowners and also keep insurers afloat. It is, after all, a social good to maintain insurance protections that serve as a buffer against destitution for millions of people, especially in an era where billion-dollar disasters, be they wildfires or hurricanes and floods, are becoming the norm rather than the exception.

    As with the federal bailout of the big car companies after the 2008 financial crisis, such climate change-era subsidies should come with nonnegotiable demands from the state: strict limits on profits; discounts for customers who put in the time and financial effort to “harden” their properties against fires; limits on the year-on-year premium increases that can be imposed, even in the most at-risk regions of the state; and insurance company investments in large-scale fire prevention strategies, as well as in climate change mitigation technologies. The consumer rights’ organization Consumer Watchdog has argued that insurers ought to be legally required to provide insurance services throughout the entire state, rather than cherry-picking which regions they insure, in order to be allowed to do business in California.

    The breakdown of California’s fire insurance system is a red-flag warning about the global vulnerability of insurance markets, and their customers, as climate change intensifies and as “extreme” weather events become the new norm. Dropping hundreds of thousands of homeowners’ fire insurance policies as a way to maintain short-term profits is, in the long-run, deeply counter-productive; it undermines the viability of communities and puts huge numbers of people at risk of homelessness and destitution in the event of fires spreading into their communities. That might protect insurers’ bottom lines, but it sure as hell doesn’t protect ordinary people as they try to survive in a world made inhospitable by global warming.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally on September 25, 2021, in Perry, Georgia.

    By far and away, the most common refrain I’ve heard from politically attuned friends since the 2020 election is, “Thank God Donald Trump is gone. Beaten. The loser lost. It is so nice to be able to watch the news without having to listen to him scream and rant.” Often, this sentiment is followed up with, “I hope nobody in the media covers him again. All it does is give him power.”

    For a little while, perhaps, that second bit may have been true. Trump’s defeat was resounding, and Republican election officials in state after state refused to aid in his attempts to overthrow the results. The conservative Supreme Court wanted no part of his nonsense, and his crack legal team — led by a befuddled Rudy Giuliani oozing black ochre from his head like Gary Oldman in The Fifth Element — went from pillar to post building a profoundly credible case for their own disbarment. QAnon adherents wobbled in uncertainty after their vast and sundry prophesies failed to follow through.

    There was no there, there… and after the nightmare of January 6, when maddened Trump supporters attacked the Capitol Building like murder hornets sacking a honeybee hive, there were a few days when virtually the entire Republican establishment rose up in revulsion against what they had seen, and only barely escaped. No lesser lights than Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham laid the whole fiasco at Trump’s feet. The Trump tide, it seemed, had washed up to its high point, and was now rolling back into the sea.

    That was then, as they say, and this is now. We have to start paying attention to Trump again.

    It gives me no joy to take this position. Covering Donald Trump — from his racist escalator ride in 2015 to a piece on his still-deadly COVID politics I wrote back in August — was like walking on hot shards of glass in bare feet every single day. It damaged my health and assassinated my sleep. Once the banshee scream of Trump’s front-burner position subsided, my body started to heal in tangible ways from the ceaseless Trump-instigated anxiety and stress.

    I was a whole new man, and altogether happy to never type the words “Donald Trump” again if it could possibly be avoided… but the last several weeks have given me deep pause.

    The January 6 insurrection never ended, you see, and has since made gains I would have thought impossible on January 7. The GOP’s feint toward liberation from Trump lasted about as long as it takes to boil an egg, and today, virtually the entire apparatus of the party — federal, state and local — is his unquestioned domain.

    Ask yourself: Aside from Reps. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, name for me one Republican you can absolutely count on to defy Trump and his legions when the chips are down? Please forward all answers to P.O. Box 0, There Ain’t None, NH, 00000. It’s not like those two are any kind of prize, either; both voted against the House bill to fund the government last Tuesday, because Republicans gonna Republican no matter how often they get invited onto MSNBC. Whatever else they are, they are not your friends, and that is the state of play within the Party of Trump.

    The poison runs far deeper than simply within a pack of rare-air, integrity-bereft federal Republicans. Robert Kagan of The Washington Post explains:

    The warning signs may be obscured by the distractions of politics, the pandemic, the economy and global crises, and by wishful thinking and denial. But about these things there should be no doubt:

    First, Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for president in 2024. The hope and expectation that he would fade in visibility and influence have been delusional. He enjoys mammoth leads in the polls; he is building a massive campaign war chest; and at this moment the Democratic ticket looks vulnerable. Barring health problems, he is running.

    Second, Trump and his Republican allies are actively preparing to ensure his victory by whatever means necessary. Trump’s charges of fraud in the 2020 election are now primarily aimed at establishing the predicate to challenge future election results that do not go his way. Some Republican candidates have already begun preparing to declare fraud in 2022, just as Larry Elder tried meekly to do in the California recall contest.

    (Emphasis added)

    If we take Kagan’s prediction that Trump will run again as sound — and there is no reason not to at least take it seriously — it is prima facie evidence for why ignoring Trump going forward is folly. The days of Rudy’s oozing head are over, and his current people are entirely serious this time around. Add to that the following data points:

    * 148 bills have been introduced in 36 states attempting to dislodge traditional election infrastructure and replace it with partisans — often GOP-controlled legislatures — whose loyalty to Trump is absolute;

    * Barriers are being erected in multiple states making it far harder to vote;

    * The Arizona “audit” may have ended in a blizzard of failure and disgrace, but the people who push it remain undaunted, and seek to duplicate it in multiple other states. Trump himself went to Georgia on Sunday and declared the audit proved he had won. This will be absorbed by every person within the Trump media bubble, it was Gospel by breakfast, and there is nothing the non-Trump media can do about it;

    * A University of Chicago survey finds that 47 million people believe Joe Biden’s presidency is illegitimate, and 21 million of those support returning Trump to office through “the use of force,” (i.e., violence);

    * These Trump-radicalized Americans are making no bones about their motives, and have been airing declarations of war all over social media. In Trump-heavy districts, some are hanging black flags outside their homes, a signal to fellow partisans that they support the violent overthrow of the government. Combine these people with the far-right organizations like the Proud Boys and One Percenters, who have already proven their taste for political street violence;

    * A pro-Trump lawyer named John Eastman drafted a memo before January 6 that was nothing more or less than a blueprint for coup d’état. According to Bob Woodward’s new book, Peril, Vice President Mike Pence very nearly followed through with that blueprint on January 6, and only refrained when fellow Indianan Dan Quayle convinced him he lacked the power to do so. No democracy is healthy if it hinges on someone like Quayle hauling someone like Pence back from the abyss.

    “It is ironic, given the prevalence of the word ‘dogwhistle’ in popular discourse to refer to things that everyone can actually hear, but there is something about the specific pitch of the threat that perhaps strains the capacity of some institutions to process,” The Nation’s Tim Murphy wrote upon contemplating the Eastman memo. “They’re not programmed to take on problems like this — it disturbs the comfortable equilibrium that defines a lot of political media…. But what happened at the close of Trump’s presidency, and seems likely to happen again if we continue mostly ignoring it, is an existential problem. There’s no equilibrium here.”

    Wishful thinking — the stubborn faith that someone will do something to put a stop to all this — is a comfort we can no longer afford. If the first 21 years of this doomed and damaged century have proven anything, it is that the institutions we expect will hold everything together are in fact made of cheap rubber, malleable to the point of splitting and undermined by the profit motive within electoral politics. For every Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, there are a hundred Joe Manchins who will vote against feeding starving babies in their own back yard if it keeps the coal stacks huffing smoke into a broken sky.

    Pretending the elections in 2022 and 2024 depend on what Biden can get done (while almost completely ignoring McConnell’s electoral terrorism) is a favorite game of the elite political pundit class. It is also a constitutional suicide pact amid the disinformation campaigns waged by Fox, Newsmax, Breitbart and OANN.

    That pro-Trump media is a fearsome engine in itself, and has accelerated its fascist dialog with gusto. Tucker Carlson of Fox News has repeatedly championed the conspiracy theory of “replacement,” the idea that Democrats want to “replace” white people with “foreigners.” The white power marchers in Charlottesville were heard chanting, “You (or “Jews”) will not replace us!” while carrying torches. It is an idea that has existed for a very long time.

    This “replacement” rhetoric earned Carlson the condemnation of the Anti-Defamation League, which he blew right past last week when he said, “In political terms, this policy is called ‘the great replacement,’ the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries. They brag about it all the time, but if you dare to say it’s happening, they will scream at you with maximum hysteria.”

    Those who think it is non-Trumpist journalists who empower Trump by covering him profoundly misunderstand the dynamic at play. First of all, neither Trump nor his people are reading Truthout or watching MSNBC. They flee the likes of us like thwarted vampires, and there’s no fixing that between now and ballot time. Like ants in angry amber, his base is buried in its own wholly contained atmosphere of fear, conspiracy theory and rage. If anything, our coverage has kept millions from falling over into his corner.

    It is profoundly ugly and uncomfortable to deal with on a daily basis, but coverage of Trump’s antics going forward will no longer feed the machine the way it did in the past. Perhaps if the major networks had not given his fascist rants all that free air time in 2016, this thing could have been contained, but that is blood under the bridge. How the wolf got in the house is far less important right now than knowing exactly what the wolf is up to. We can have a reckoning over causality once the menace is on the other side of the door.

    I dread it, more than I can adequately explain. The trick will be to approach this with critical consciousness. Don’t listen to what Trump bleats during his daily diatribes, and if you’re a media type, don’t spread it. No more “Can you believe he said this?!” stories, please. No more free wall-to-wall coverage of his “Yay fascism!” rallies, either. Instead, watch what he does, and more importantly, watch what his people do.

    This thing isn’t coming; it’s here. Waiting for an indictment from Georgia or New York State to take the role of the deus ex machina in this democratic passion play is not sufficient, because that very well may not happen, or could come too late. After a nice little break, it’s time to dive back into the dumpster fire. This is not a drill.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An aerial photo taken on September 11, 2021, shows large container ships loading and unloading cargo at Yangshan Deep-water Port in Shanghai, China.

    The debate over the reality of climate change is over. After years of oil-fueled denialism, the inescapable fact of the human-altered climate has finally hit home for many once-skeptical Americans. In some cases, it has literally hit home. In various parts of the country, homes are being threatened, torched and inundated by a barrage of climate-stoked catastrophes. Real-world experience has replaced easy-to-dismiss graphs and scientific models with failing crops, drowning livestock, escalating insurance costs, collapsing infrastructure, rising seas and waning biodiversity. The doomsday scenarios scientists have predicted for five decades are now all too real for 1 in 3 Americans.

    An Ipsos poll in June of this year found that, “Seven out of 10 Americans are aware of the scientific consensus that climate change is largely caused by people,” and a Morning Consult poll in April found that only 19 percent of voters said climate change is “not an important threat at all.” Additionally, a fulsome 60 percent of the voters surveyed by Morning Consult wanted the U.S. in the Paris climate accord, while just 22 percent wanted to keep the U.S. out. For all but a shrinking minority, fanciful claims that climate change is a hoax or a “globalist” plot have been largely foreclosed by realities on the ground. Even notable naysayer and snowball artist Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) now claims he never called climate change a “hoax,” despite authoring a book titled, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.”

    Sadly, it took successive years of deadly floods, grinding droughts and apocalyptic wildfires to convince so many people, but here we are. The popular question has moved on from “Is it settled science?” to “What can and should be done about it?” And while some might take solace in knowing that many of the oil industry’s congressional stalwarts have finally acquiesced, it is cold comfort to others who see valuable time ticking away while leaders who’ve long accepted the reality of climate change haggle with recent converts over the appropriate steps to avoid catastrophe.

    For members of the recently created Conservative Climate Caucus in the House of Representatives, it’s an existential struggle between elements of socialism and status-quo capitalism, between the Green New Deal and market-based strategies, between regulations and unchecked economic growth, between immediate reductions in hydrocarbon use and long-term hopes for scientific breakthroughs, and between government intervention and the laissez-faire logic of adaptation.

    It’s a debate echoed in the Senate by “former” climate skeptic Sen. John Barrasso, a Republican from the uranium-rich petrostate of Wyoming. He’s switched from outright denial to tactical retreat and obfuscation. While now admitting the climate crisis is a thing, he’s also said “reducing the use of fossil fuels will not solve climate change,” an idea that common sense and expert opinion resoundingly rejects. In a USA Today op-ed, Barrasso touted his role in a “historic, bipartisan environmental innovation law,” referring to an agreement tucked into an energy bill that reduced hydrofluorocarbons emissions. But he also claimed President Biden’s executive orders to rejoin the Paris accord, nix the Keystone XL pipeline and freeze new oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands took “a sledgehammer to the economies of Western states without putting a dent in climate change.”

    Then he revealed the core of the emerging “debate and delay” strategy with this key juxtaposition:

    Damaging America’s economy won’t stop climate change. Between 2015 and 2019, carbon dioxide emissions jumped in Russia, China and India.

    At the same time, U.S. emissions continued to drop, as they have since 2007.

    And there it is. For Republicans ranging from supposed converts like Barrasso to meme-wielding conspiracy peddlers like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), China is the excuse to do little or nothing.

    To wit, the mission statement for the aforementioned Conservative Climate Caucus bluntly asserts that “China is the greatest immediate obstacle to reducing world emissions.” And when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) dire “Sixth Assessment” hit the news cycle in August, Conservative Climate Caucus ranking member Garret Graves (R-Louisiana) admitted it “highlights the urgency of climate change,” but said, “we must ensure we approach this issue the right way.” The “right way” for Graves means “avoid[ing] policies that rely on higher taxes, increased regulations, and ensure us being under the thumb of China.”

    More specifically, conservatives often emphasize, the U.S. must avoid being “under the thumb” of “Communist” China. They stress the “Communist” part (a label still ironically pasted on the face of a country so steeped in neoliberal capitalism), perhaps because it’s only a short rhetorical leap from Beijing’s “Reds” to the “socialist” Green New Deal here at home? More directly, they deem it “unfair” to demand unilateral action by freedom-loving Americans while Communist China gets away with runaway carbon emissions.

    Of course, it’s true that China accounts for more than half the world’s coal power and is the world’s largest carbon-dioxide emitter. It’s also true that U.S. CO2 emissions have declined over the years, while China’s are now nearly twice the U.S.’s. And it’s also true that, as David Holt, president of the fossil-fueled Consumer Energy Alliance recently wrote, China is home to 23 of the “top 25” cities “responsible for 52 percent of the planet’s urban greenhouse gas emissions.” But that fact doesn’t magically vacate the U.S.’s responsibility for its own emissions.

    Nor does it obviate the fact that, as Mongabay pointed out, “historically, the U.S. is responsible for a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas output.” That’s despite being home to less than 5 percent of the world’s population. In fact, the study Holt cited on emissions in China also noted that China’s per capita output is still below “wealthier countries” like the U.S. and those in Europe. But for conservative climate converts looking for a way to block real regulatory efforts, the question of “Why should we ‘pay the price’ economically while China gets away scot-free?” is the ultimate Trump card (pun intended).

    The “Unfairness Doctrine”

    When former President Donald J. Trump announced his withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, he claimed it was “simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.” He complained that it “punishes the United States” while “China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us.”

    For Trump, who often wove a narrative of betrayal rooted in the relocation of the U.S.’s consumer-driven industrial base to China, the Paris accord was “less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.” He bemoaned that “the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.”

    In post-denialism U.S., this is the main political argument against unilateral climate action. It’s the “Unfairness Doctrine.” It’s the idea that it is patently “unfair” for the U.S. to absorb the economic harms that will come from unilateral disarmament on climate while environmentally lax “Communist China” hums along in a profitable, carbon-spewing victory. But this is based on a fundamental fallacy: that the U.S. bears no responsibility for the millions of tons of landfill fodder produced in Chinese factories and shipped to its seemingly insatiable consumer market.

    The stark truth is that China’s pollution is largely made in America.

    Simply put, corporate America has fueled much of China’s carbon-belching industrial behemoth. U.S. corporations and investors exploited China’s relatively few environmental regulations, along with its vast supply of cheap labor, in an effort to minimize the cost of doing their business. U.S. corporations were able to relocate their manufacturing to China thanks in no small part to All-American economic policies emphasizing maximum profit and avoidance of regulations. Those policies, in turn, globalized the supply chains that made those profitable regulatory dodges possible.

    A Decades-Long Process of “Offshoring”

    Six million dollars.

    According to U.S. Census data, that was the trade deficit with China in 1985. It’s also the launching pad for a meteoric rise. It started during the yearly renewals of its “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) trade status during the Clinton years. But it skyrocketed after President George W. Bush granted China “Permanent Normal Trading Relations” (PNTR) — meaning a “free-trade” designation that drops trade barriers and lowers tariffs to “most favored nation” status — in 2001. That, along with President Clinton ushering China into the World Trade Organization during the previous year, accelerated the now-infamous process of “outsourcing” or “offshoring” as U.S. businesses rode the wave of globalization in search of cheap labor in poorly regulated countries with lax or nonexistent environmental standards.

    Another term for this process is “externalization.” That’s when a business removes, or “externalizes,” a negative cost of doing business, taking it off the balance sheet and, therefore, increasing profitability. When it comes to externalizing the environmental costs of pumping out billions of dollars of consumer goods, it can also be thought of as “exporting” the ecological overhead to another market or country (in this case, China) where the price of polluting is pennies on the dollar. And that’s exactly what the U.S. business sector has done since that paltry $6 million deficit was logged in 1985.

    By the time Clinton was elected in 1992, the trade deficit with China was $18.3 billion. It hit $83 billion when he left office in 2001. It basically doubled during George W. Bush’s first term, reaching $162 billion in 2004. It nearly doubled again by 2013, hitting $318.8 billion, before hitting a high $419 billion in 2018. But those dollar amounts only tell half the story. To visualize the way the trade deficit has “externalized” billions of tons of carbon production over the years, compare the following two charts:

    A Long-Term View on U.S. Trade With China
    Credit: Statista
    Fossil CO2 Emissions of the Major Emitting Economies
    Credit: © European Union, 1995-2021

    As these charts illustrate, there’s a direct correlation between the rise of China as Corporate America’s offshore factory and China’s rise as the world’s leading fossil fuel-burning, carbon-emitting nation. You can see the “lift-off” point after it was granted PNTR in 2001.

    Currently, U.S. corporations and consumers directly drive at least one-fifth of China’s industrial carbon output. But that doesn’t fully account for the indirect, carbon-polluting oil-driven supply chain that takes oil and gas out of the ground in the Middle East and ships it to China, where it is burned for fuel and manufactured into hydrocarbon-based plastic products. Those products get shipped overseas to ports on the West and East Coasts of the United States before being trucked to retail outlets and home shoppers around the country, with CO2 produced every step of the way. Even worse, China’s mass production of hydrocarbon-based plastic for the U.S. market helps sustain the global oil industry’s heavily subsidized business model.

    China’s carbon production is also indirectly subsidized by the U.S. military, which is the de facto guarantor of the international oil economy and, specifically, of oil and gas shipments from U.S. partners in the Persian Gulf to China. The U.S. Navy’s Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet, among other military assets, ensures the free flow of hydrocarbons into China’s fossil-fueled factories. In 2020, according to World’s Top Exports, nearly “half (47.1 percent) of Chinese imported crude oil originated from nine Middle Eastern nations,” with U.S.-protected Saudi Arabia atop the list of China’s main oil providers. The U.S. is ninth on the list. In 2020, the U.S. and its staunch allies in the United Arab Emirates and oil-rich Norway were the only countries increasing oil exports to China’s carbon-generating industrial sector, while the rest saw declines.

    At $6.3 billion, the amount of oil the U.S. provides is overshadowed by the amount of hydrocarbon-fueled goods that flow back across the Pacific and into the U.S. economy. But that huge deficit is priceless when it comes to creating plausible deniability for U.S. politicians who can crow about the “unfairness” of regulating U.S. carbon emissions while China’s emissions grow unchecked. Frankly, it’s implausible to deny the role played by the U.S. economy’s appetite for a vast array of cheap products, plastic widgets, electronic components, tools, chemicals and other goods that externalize the production of carbon emissions and, in the process, give politicians and the oil companies they represent a bogus argument for doing little or nothing to address the climate crisis.

    They even want to have it both ways.

    So, conservatives say it’s unfair to expect the U.S. to reduce its carbon output without an enforcement mechanism punishing China for its pollution, and it’s unfair for the EU to use an enforcement mechanism to punish nations like the U.S. that refuse to meet its higher standards.

    What’s truly unfair is the cost being paid by low-emitting climate causalities like Madagascar and the Maldives and Honduras. Meanwhile, fairness-obsessed, but heavily oil-funded politicians of both parties haggle over incremental efforts versus market-based solutions while the manufacturing monster U.S. policy helped build takes steps aimed, as OilPrice.com reported, at “maintaining its domination” of the renewable sector “into the near future.”

    But China’s epic lead in manufacturing renewables is fraught for the same reason it was problematic to externalize manufacturing of consumer goods and industrial components. Solar panels are being built with forced labor and battery production tainted by child labor.

    That China’s model is imprinting the future with exploitatively produced solar panels and batteries is, in part, a function of the United States’s abdication of its outsized responsibility for the climate crisis. Ironically, the political debate about “fairness” mimics the process of externalization that offshored megatons of carbon pollution to China. In essence, U.S. political leaders and the corporate interests they serve seek to externalize their responsibility for creating China’s carbon-belching behemoth. As they do, they are merely replacing climate denial with costly climate delay by making China the boogeyman, which justifies doing nothing at all.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden speaks to reporters before walking to Marine One for a departure from the South Lawn of the White House on September 24, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    The New York Times had an interesting piece about the prospects for getting Moderna and Pfizer to share the technology for producing their mRNA Covid vaccines. At one point, the piece cites Biden administration officials warning that efforts to use the Defense Production Act to force sharing could end in long legal battles delaying any technology transfer.

    “Biden administration officials say that forcing the companies to act is not as simple as it sounds, and that an effort to compel them to share their technology would invariably lead to a drawn-out legal battle, which would be counterproductive.”

    Actually, it should be possible to reverse the legal burden. Biden could offer to cover the legal expenses, and any subsequent damages, resulting from lawsuits by Moderna and Pfizer against former engineers for sharing their expertise with companies in the developing world or in other wealthy countries.

    These engineers have all signed nondisclosure agreements, which they would likely be violating by sharing this information. However, if they shared the information first, knowing that they would be protected, Moderna and Pfizer could do nothing to prevent the technology transfer. (If they were sharing the technology with another manufacturer in the United States, these companies could probably get an injunction requiring that they stop, which would expose them to criminal sanctions if they continued. But, US courts would have difficulty imposing an injunction against actions taken in another country.)

    In short, the Biden administration could find ways around the legal weapons that Moderna and Pfizer might use to block the transfer of the technology they use to produce mRNA vaccines.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A drone flies over the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, on August 31, 2021.

    Three weeks after his administration launched a drone attack that killed 10 civilians in Kabul, Afghanistan, President Joe Biden addressed the United Nations General Assembly. He proudly declared, “I stand here today, for the first time in 20 years, with the United States not at war.” The day before, his administration had launched a drone strike in Syria, and three weeks earlier, the U.S. had conducted an air strike in Somalia. The commander-in-chief also apparently forgot that U.S. forces are still fighting in at least six different countries, including Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Niger. And he promised to continue bombing Afghanistan from afar.

    Unfortunately Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is substantially less meaningful when analyzed in light of his administration’s pledge to mount “over-the-horizon” attacks in that country from afar even though we won’t have troops on the ground.

    “Our troops are not coming home. We need to be honest about that,” Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-New Jersey) said during congressional testimony by Secretary of State Antony Blinken earlier this month. “They are merely moving to other bases in the same region to conduct the same counterterrorism missions, including in Afghanistan.”

    As Biden pulled U.S. forces out of Afghanistan, his administration launched a hellfire missile from a U.S. drone in Kabul that killed 10 civilians, including seven children, and then lied about it. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley immediately said it was a “righteous strike” to protect U.S. troops as they withdrew.

    Nearly three weeks later, however, an extensive investigation conducted by The New York Times revealed that Zemari Ahmadi was a U.S. aid worker, not an ISIS operative, and the “explosives” in the Toyota that the drone strike targeted were most likely water bottles. Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, then called the strike “a tragic mistake.”

    This senseless killing of civilians was not a one-off event, although it received more publicity than most past drone strikes. Biden is following in the footsteps of his four predecessors, all of whom also conducted illegal drone strikes that killed myriad civilians.

    The Kabul drone strike “calls into question the reliability of the intelligence that will be used to conduct the [over-the-horizon] operations,” the Times noted. Indeed, this is nothing new. The “intelligence” used to conduct drone strikes is notoriously unreliable.

    For example, the Drone Papers disclosed that nearly 90 percent of those killed by drone strikes during one five-month period during January 2012 to February 2013 were not the intended targets. Daniel Hale, who revealed the documents that comprise the Drone Papers, is serving 45 months in prison for exposing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

    Drone Strikes Conducted by Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden Killed Countless Civilians

    Drones do not result in fewer civilian casualties than piloted bombers. A study based on classified military data, conducted by Larry Lewis from the Center for Naval Analyses and Sarah Holewinski of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, found that the use of drones in Afghanistan caused 10 times more civilian deaths than piloted fighter aircraft.

    These numbers are probably low because the U.S. military considers all people killed in those operations presumptive “enemies killed in action.” George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Biden all presided over drone strikes that killed countless civilians.

    Bush authorized approximately 50 drone strikes that killed 296 people alleged to be “terrorists” and 195 civilians in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

    The Obama administration conducted 10 times more drone strikes than his predecessor. During Obama’s two terms in office, he authorized 563 strikes — largely with drones — in Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen, killing between 384 and 807 civilians, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

    Trump, who relaxed Obama’s targeting rules, bombed all the countries that Obama had, according to Micah Zenko, former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. During Trump’s first two years in office, he launched 2,243 drone strikes, compared to 1,878 in Obama’s two terms in office. Since the Trump administration was less than forthcoming with accurate civilian casualty figures, it is impossible to know how many civilians were killed on his watch.

    Drones hover above towns for hours, emitting a buzzing sound that terrorizes communities, especially children. They know a drone could drop a bomb on them at any moment. The CIA launches a “double tap,” deploying a drone to kill those trying to rescue the wounded. And in what should be called a “triple tap,” they often target people at funerals mourning their loved ones killed in drone attacks. Rather than making us less vulnerable to terrorism, these killings make people in other countries resent the United States even more.

    Drone Strikes During the “War on Terror” Are Illegal

    Drone attacks mounted during the “war on terror” are illegal. Although Biden pledged in his General Assembly speech to “apply and strengthen … the U.N. Charter” and promised “adherence to international laws and treaties,” his drone strikes, and those of his predecessors, violate both the Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

    The UN Charter forbids the use of military force against another country except when acting in self-defense under Article 51. On August 29, after the U.S. drone killed 10 civilians in Kabul, the U.S. Central Command called it “a self-defense unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike.” The Central Command claimed that the strike was necessary to prevent an imminent attack on the Kabul Airport by ISIS.

    But the International Court of Justice has held that countries cannot invoke Article 51 against armed attacks by non-state actors that are not attributable to another country. ISIS is at odds with the Taliban. Attacks by ISIS cannot therefore be imputed to the Taliban, which once again controls Afghanistan.

    Outside areas of active hostilities, “the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal,” Agnès Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, tweeted. She wrote that “intentionally lethal or potentially lethal force can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.”

    Civilians can never legally be the target of military strikes. Targeted or political assassinations, also called extrajudicial executions, violate international law. Willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions which is punishable as a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes Act. A targeted killing is only lawful if it is deemed necessary to protect life, and no other means — including capture or nonlethal incapacitation — is available to protect life.

    International humanitarian law requires that when military force is used, it must comply with both the conditions of distinction and proportionality. Distinction mandates that the attack must always distinguish between combatants and civilians. Proportionality means that the attack can’t be excessive in relation to the military advantage sought.

    Moreover, Philip Alston, former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, reported, “The precision, accuracy and legality of a drone strike depend on the human intelligence upon which the targeting decision is based.”

    The Drone Papers included leaked documents revealing the “kill chain” the Obama administration used to determine whom to target. Innumerable civilians were killed using “signals intelligence” — foreign communications, radar and other electronic systems — in undeclared war zones. Targeting decisions were made by tracking cell phones that might or might not be carried by suspected terrorists. Half of the intelligence used to identify potential targets in Yemen and Somalia was based on signals intelligence.

    Obama’s Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG), which contained targeting rules, outlined procedures for the use of lethal force outside “areas of active hostilities.” It required that a target pose a “continuing imminent threat.” But a secret Department of Justice white paper promulgated in 2011 and leaked in 2013 sanctioned the killing of U.S. citizens even without “clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” The bar was presumably lower for killing non-U.S. citizens.

    The PPG said there must be “near certainty that an identified HVT [high-value terrorist] or other lawful terror target” is present before lethal force could be directed against him. But the Obama administration launched “signature strikes” that didn’t target individuals, but rather men of military age present in areas of suspicious activity. The Obama administration defined combatants (non-civilians) as all men of military age present in a strike zone, “unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”

    “Intelligence” upon which U.S. drone strikes are based is extremely untrustworthy. The United States has engaged in repeated violations of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. And the unlawful U.S. killing with drones violates the right to life enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, another treaty the U.S. has ratified. It says, “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

    Kabul Drone Strike: “The First Act of the Next Stage of Our War”

    “That drone strike in Kabul was not the last act of our war,” Representative Malinowski said during Blinken’s congressional testimony. “It was unfortunately the first act of the next stage of our war.”

    “There must be accountability,” Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Connecticut), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a Twitter post. “If there are no consequences for a strike this disastrous, it signals to the entire drone program chain of command that killing kids and civilians will be tolerated.”

    In June, 113 organizations dedicated to human rights, civil rights and civil liberties, racial, social environmental justice and veterans rights wrote a letter to Biden “to demand an end to the unlawful program of lethal strikes outside any recognized battlefield, including through the use of drones.” Olivia Alperstein from the Institute for Policy Studies tweeted that the United States should “apologize for all the drone strikes, and put an end to drone warfare once and for all.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott is seen on field before Game 1 of the 2020 World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Tampa Bay Rays at Globe Life Field on October 20, 2020, in Arlington, Texas.

    Earlier in September, two significant events occurred that would shape women’s rights. First, the U.S. finally withdrew from Afghanistan, ending its 20-year war and occupation. Second, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 not to block a Texas law that prohibits most abortions in that state. The media were awash in stories of the Talibanization of Afghan society and the loss of women’s rights in that country. We also saw stories on the attack on women’s rights right here in the U.S.

    However, rather than see these incidents halfway around the world as a product of right-wing forces wanting to control women and their lives, some have revived an older narrative that tries to explain white supremacy, neo-Nazism and right-wing ascendancy as the product of the encounter with the colonized “other.”

    Thus, Thomas Friedman in a recent op-ed in The New York Times posed the question of whether U.S. intervention in the Middle East has achieved its publicly stated goal of getting the region to embrace “pluralism and the rule of law,” or instead has wound up “mimicking” its “tribalism.”

    Meanwhile, a photoshopped image of Supreme Court justices in which the three female judges are shown wearing burqas with their faces covered appeared on social media.

    The logic of the image, presumably posted by someone who supports the right to abortion, is that of a Talibanized Supreme Court, one that has “mimicked” the Middle East or Central Asia and brought “alien values” into the heart of the United States.

    This image was part of a media landscape in which the plight of Afghan women under the Taliban was once again dominant. Just like in 2001, the media suddenly discovered Afghan women. (My study with a colleague showed a dramatic increase in stories about Afghan women in the media in lead up to the U.S. invasion which served to justify it.) In a repeat of themes articulated in 2001, media pundits and political elites alike promoted the idea that decades of “progress” under U.S. occupation would be undone by the Taliban’s return to power. Once again, feminism and women’s rights were weaponized to serve imperial aims. This time, however, it was deployed to justify a 20-year occupation and to paper over the U.S.’s defeat at the hands of the Taliban.

    In reality, the situation for women in Afghanistan, by and large, did not improve under U.S. occupation. An April 2021 National Intelligence Council report states that while “some policies” that negatively impacted Afghan women may have ended after the fall of the Taliban in the early 2000s, “many continue[d] in practice even in government-controlled [i.e., U.S.-backed] areas, and years of war have left millions of women maimed, widowed, impoverished, and displaced.” The explanation for the ongoing plight of Afghan women, the report suggests, is Afghan “cultural norms.”

    The common logic underlying Friedman’s op-ed, the photoshopped Supreme Court image, as well as the National Intelligence Council report is that of a “clash of civilizations.” We have on the one hand an enlightened “West” that champions women’s rights, and on the other, a backward and misogynistic “Muslim world.” While the Taliban are indeed a retrograde force, it is important to look more deeply at the role the U.S. played in Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S.’s failure to “liberate” women is not so much the product of the backward “culture” of Afghan people, but rather its choice of allies: the very same misogynistic warlords who began the attacks on women’s rights in the early 1990s.

    Journalist Anand Gopal has documented the complex picture for Afghan women through his extensive interviews with women in the countryside where the vast majority of Afghans live. Far from the hapless victim, the picture that emerges from his account is not only one that shows how the U.S. threw these women from the frying pan into the fire through its support for the warlords, but also one that highlights the determination of women to survive and fight both U.S. occupation and Talibanization.

    Yet, such stories that grant agency to Afghan women are in a minority. The narrative of Muslim women as oppressed victims has animated U.S. culture to such an extent that portrayals of the rescue of Brown women from Brown men is ubiquitous. This narrative, which scholars have referred to as colonial or imperial feminism, has a long history that goes back to the height of European colonization of much of the world in the 19th century when women’s rights were weaponized in service to empire. But imperial feminism benefits neither women in colonized spaces nor the vast majority of women right here in the imperial center.

    At its core, imperial feminism erases not only the agency of women in the Global South but also that of women in the U.S. Indeed, the two are historically and inextricably connected.

    It took women suffragists no less than a century of struggle to secure the right to vote in the U.S. against a fierce and demeaning opposition, as seen in this anti-suffrage postcard from the early 20th century. However, racist gerrymandering practices have sought to undo the voting power of women of color.

    This was not a product of the Taliban or the colonial encounter with “backward people” but very much a product of deep-rooted sexism and racism indigenous to U.S. culture.

    Similarly, it took a women’s movement to win not only the right to terminate a pregnancy, but also, thanks largely to feminists of color, the right to carry a pregnancy to term and not be forced to undergo sterilization. The Christian right has since been trying to undo women’s reproductive rights, as evident in the recent Texas law, not because of some external factors but due to homegrown misogyny.

    To be sure, the colonizer and colonized, the imperial center and the periphery, have always been marked by a symbiotic relationship, as Edward Said argued in Culture and Imperialism. Ironically, the forces of the right in the U.S. have more in common with the Taliban than they do with women’s rights advocates in either context.

    Moreover, as noted above, imperial feminism also erases the agency of women in the Global South, and its own role in undermining the struggle for women’s rights globally. Thus, against the wishes of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), founded in 1977 and perhaps the country’s most significant women’s rights organization, the U.S. decided to invade the country.

    RAWA’s founder, Meena, was killed in 1987 by Afghan agents of the KGB in connivance with U.S. agents, particularly the misogynist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. As is now well documented, in order to defeat the Soviet Union, the U.S. supported groups with reactionary social goals with full knowledge of their violent and repressive tendencies. Hekmatyar of the Islamist group Hezb-e-Islami, for instance, received large sums of U.S. aid in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion in 1979, even though, as journalist Tim Wiener notes, Hekmatyar’s “followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.” Wiener’s CIA and State Department sources described Hekmatyar as “scary,” “vicious,” “a fascist” and “definite dictatorship material.” Yet, they supported him in order to advance U.S. geopolitical interests.

    RAWA opposed U.S. intervention right from the start and demanded that U.S./NATO forces withdraw. In a recent interview that the Afghan Women’s Mission conducted with RAWA, the organization states quite clearly that over the “past 20 years, one of our demands was an end to the US/NATO occupation.” They go on to add:

    [E]ven better if they take their Islamic fundamentalists and technocrats with them and let our people decide their own fate. This occupation only resulted in bloodshed, destruction and chaos. They turned our country into the most corrupt, insecure, drug-mafia and dangerous place especially for women.

    However, with the exception of a rare op-ed here and there, mainstream discourse in the U.S. has largely failed to give voice to RAWA. If anything, to the extent that we have seen images of Afghan women protesting Taliban rule in the mainstream media, it is framed in ways that suggest that it was the U.S. occupation that made that possible. Again, the agency of Afghan feminists and women’s rights organizations are erased and rendered invisible.

    What is relatively new is the repackaging of an older narrative that seeks to cast blame on the “other” for problems in the domestic context. This thread runs through the op-ed by Friedman and the doctored image of the Supreme Court.

    Today, you can buy a t-shirt of Joe Biden wearing a turban and scarf with the slogan “Make the Taliban Great Again.”

    The t-shirt, undoubtedly produced by Donald Trump’s supporters playing on Trump’s signature slogan, is designed to equate Biden with the Taliban. Recently, a series of billboards with the same image appeared in Pennsylvania, the work of a former senator from the state, Scott Wagner.

    By depicting Biden in this way, the image seeks to convey the message that the U.S. has been Talibanized by Biden. Even though it was Trump who promised to end the “forever wars” and withdraw from Afghanistan, the right has chosen to direct its ire at Biden. This anger is a product of various factors, including support for the U.S. war on Afghanistan. However, what is noteworthy here is that Biden is presented as part of the Taliban because he is dressed, in this photoshopped image, in a turban and scarf. Cultural racism works by depicting aspects of a religion or culture as backward as a means to create “others.” Thus, Muslim women who wear hijabs bear the brunt of xenophobic violence.

    This is not just a tactic of the right. The Clinton campaign in 2008 was criticized for circulating a picture of Barack Obama in a turban as a way to garner white support for Hillary Clinton by creating Obama as a racialized “other.”

    However, this has been taken to a whole new level with Biden being depicted as an agent of the Taliban. While there is a long history of the right claiming that Obama is a “secret Muslim” and an agent of Muslim-majority countries, to represent a white person, i.e. Biden, as a Taliban fighter, speaks to how “race” and the construction of enemies is an ever-shifting process. Significantly, the “America” of white supremacy, rather than be restored to its “greatness,” has been defiled by people like Biden per this billboard. Biden’s ejection from whiteness marks a new phase in the evolution of the rhetoric of anti-Muslim racism.

    Unfortunately, this form of Islamophobia is not just the province of the right. The doctored image of the Supreme Court accepts this logic, as does Friedman’s op-ed, albeit in different and more subtle ways.

    This sort of argument has a long lineage, harking back, for example, to analyses of Nazism. Even such an astute critic of Nazism as Hannah Arendt, in volume three of The Origins of Totalitarianism, wrote that the Nazi Holocaust was due not to factors internal to European history, but rather to Europeans’ encounter with those whom they colonized. According to Arun Kundnani, Arendt’s “model for this process of alien corruption was Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. European colonizers, confronted by the ‘savagery’ of the colonized population, degenerated into ‘savages’ themselves, setting the precedent for the would-be totalitarian rulers of the European ‘mob.’ Thus, the origin of ‘our’ savagery lies in ‘their’ culture; Western civilization can be corrupted by the barbarism of others but does not give rise to any distinctive barbarism of its own.”

    In fact, the causality has often proceeded in the opposite direction: the subjugation and dehumanization that imperial powers have inflicted on colonized peoples has been brought back home to reinforce dominant class interests in the metropole. As Aimé Césaire argued forcefully in his book, Discourse on Colonialism, the genocide of Jews in Europe was nothing but the application internally of what European colonial powers had been practicing externally. The two were intimately tied. European fascism, even beyond Germany, applied practices to white people that were “until then … reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the ‘coolies’ of India, and the ‘n….s’ of Africa.” In short, Césaire argued that fascism in its various manifestations was very much a product of factors internal to Europe.

    W. E. B. Du Bois, in The World and Africa, made a similar argument, asserting that: “There was no atrocity — concentration camps, wholesale maiming and murder, defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood — which Christian civilization or Europe had not long been practicing against colored folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defense of a Superior Race born to rule the world.”

    It therefore behooves progressives to eschew arguments that blame the Taliban or the Middle East for the attack on women’s rights in the U.S. Let us not displace the source of threat to women’s rights to external forces through a contorted racist logic. At the end of the day, women all over the world face oppression, even if their oppression looks different in parts of the world and is inflected by various factors, including their class position within a neoliberal order. Only an anti-imperialist politics can build the kind of internationalism needed to liberate women around the globe and dismantle neoliberal imperialism.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protestors Rally At EPA HQ After Rollback Of Strict Fuel Efficiency Standards

    The climate crisis affected our daily lives in a painful way this summer, exacerbating long-standing inequalities that harm our communities. Millions of Americans have had to swelter in heat waves, evacuate their homes in the face of onrushing wildfires or hurricanes, or bail out flooded homes. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sounds the climate alarm louder than ever: The damage done by burning fossil fuels will only worsen unless we rapidly slash climate-disrupting emissions. To make transformative change to the transportation sector, the largest contributor to emissions in the U.S., the federal government must issue strong and enforceable standards.

    The Biden administration is about to finalize new clean car standards, taking action to reverse Trump-era attacks which severely weakened the standards, and giving the U.S. back one of its strongest tools to combat the climate crisis and protect the health of Black, Latinx, low-income, and other marginalized people. The new standards could push manufacturers to produce fewer gas-guzzling vehicles as soon as next year.

    Finalized in 2012 by then-President Barack Obama, these climate and clean air protections were shredded by former President Donald Trump. Clean car standards not only reduce emissions from cars and light trucks; they also cut down on vehicle pollution, improving air quality, especially in Black and Brown communities torn up by highways in the name of “urban renewal.” Further — take note, Republicans who blame the high price of gas on climate action — clean car standards actually save us money at the pump by increasing fuel efficiency.

    But the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal falls short in meeting the urgency of the moment. It is far too weak to achieve the climate progress we need, and it contains loopholes that would allow auto manufacturers to continue to double down on gas-guzzling vehicles. In their current state, these standards would result in much less pollution reduction than the auto industry agreed to in 2012 — nearly a decade ago — and undermine President Joe Biden’s own commitments around climate, public health and racial justice.

    The health of our climate and communities depends on the administration making drastic improvements to the final rule and setting us on a path to 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2035. The EPA’s proposal is simply not in line with the scale and pace of climate action demanded by today’s realities. The Biden administration’s final clean car standards should reflect everything we’ve learned since President Obama’s proposal about how brutal the climate crisis can be, and how imperative it is that we do everything we can to stop it.

    On the flip side, the economic benefits of climate action were also less clear in 2012 than they are today. Most of us didn’t foresee how fast clean car technologies would evolve, making it easier for automakers to meet the standards we need. It was even harder to imagine a future where major automakers — which spent decades stymieing climate action — embraced electric vehicles. If the Biden administration puts out stronger clean car standards, automakers must respond by investing in cleaner vehicles. That would create millions of good unionized jobs — the kinds of jobs that offered generations of Americans more economic security.

    One thing that was abundantly clear in 2012 is the fact that car exhaust contained pollutants that harmed our health and increased rates of asthma and other respiratory diseases — particularly in communities of color. When it comes to the history of transportation in the U.S., racism has helped determine where highways are situated, and who has the financial resources to escape the pollution they bring with them.

    It has taken our leaders too many years to even acknowledge the disproportionate environmental harms faced by Black and Brown people. President Biden has pledged that addressing environmental racism is a central part of his presidency. It’s time for EPA to finalize clean car standards that slash vehicle pollution while charting a rapid transition to pollution-free electric vehicles that will save Black and Brown lives.

    President Biden says he understands that this is an extraordinary moment in human history that demands bold action, not incremental change. ​The EPA​ has an opportunity to make up for decades of inaction and predatory delay by offering the country an improved tool to combat the climate crisis and ensure that everyone breathes clean air. As people around the country mobilize for stronger clean car safeguards, we hope ​the EPA will keep in mind a question posed by activist Grace Lee Boggs: “What time is it on the clock of the world?”

    We’re not sure we know. But we’re pretty certain it’s not “2012.”

    The public comment deadline for the EPA rulemaking is September 27, and anyone can submit comments here and here.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Rankin is seen during a biennial maritime exercise between the Royal Australian Navy and the Indian Navy on September 5, 2021, in Darwin, Australia.

    “The United States will compete, and will compete vigorously, and lead with our values and our strength,” President Biden told the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. “We’ll stand up for our allies and our friends and oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether through changes to territory by force, economic coercion, technological exploitation or disinformation. But we’re not seeking — I’ll say it again — we are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.”

    This was the only part of Biden’s speech where he said the words “Cold War.” They stood out; last everyone had heard, the U.S. was engaged in a “war on terror” that, thanks to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), could conceivably run on until the stars burn out. The Cold War is black-and-white television, Ike, Nixon, Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis, duck-and-cover drills, Ronald Reagan scaring the hell out of everyone, and finally a wall falling on my 18th birthday, seemingly a thousand years ago.

    Biden did not say “China” in that particular passage either — though China was mentioned several times elsewhere in his remarks — but that country was most certainly the intended recipient of that specific message. Biden was speaking amid a diplomatic meltdown between the U.S. and long-time ally France over a new Australia/United Kingdom/United States (AUKUS) strategic alliance, and specifically over the sale of at least eight nuclear submarines to Australia by the U.S.

    France was perturbed because it only learned of the new AUKUS alliance after Australia publicly announced it. This was an open-handed slap from Australia’s conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a man any modern U.S. Republican would embrace on sight, to the more left-leaning French prime minister, Emmanuel Macron. France was legitimately outraged over having been excluded from such important, high-level discussions and the French ambassador to the U.S. was immediately called home.

    Why the sudden reversal? Nuclear subs are more expensive to maintain and operate, and New Zealand does not allow anything nuclear within its territorial waters, which from a strategic standpoint leaves a huge swath of Australia’s west coast exposed. The Pacific is a massive ocean, to be sure, but what set of circumstances exist that would lead Australia — and the U.S. — to believe that nation needs at least eight of the most fearsome weapons platforms ever devised?

    Answer: The “pivot to Asia,” an Obama-era recasting of global strategic imperatives which was exacerbated by Donald Trump’s blizzard of nonsense tariffs against China. “Until this week, the so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ by the United States had been more of a threat than a reality for Europe,” reports The New York Times. “But that changed when the Biden administration announced a new defense alliance against China that has left Europe facing an implicit question: Which side are you on?”

    “We are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs,” Biden said at the UN.

    But the sudden new AUKUS alliance (a rigid bloc?), and the placement of U.S.-made nuclear submarines into that portion of the Pacific, seems vividly at odds with the president’s placating words. Indeed, it is beginning to feel as if a new Cold War is off and running.

    Deploying U.S.-made subs in that part of the Pacific Ocean is a big, deliberate thumb in China’s eye, an act provocative enough to motivate UN Secretary-General António Guterres to speak words of warning a day before Biden’s speech. “We need to re-establish a functional relationship between the two powers,” Guterres told the Associated Press. “We need to avoid at all cost a Cold War that would be different from the past one, and probably more dangerous and more difficult to manage.”

    At bottom, however, the argument between France and the U.S. was as much over money as it was national pride. France had already inked a deal with Australia to sell a dozen diesel-powered submarines, and the AUKUS nuclear sub deal blew all that up. The collapse of the deal cost France tens of billions of euros — France is the United States of Europe when it comes to global arms sales, and France’s leaders take the arms trade as seriously as U.S. leaders do — which could translate into a whole slew of lost jobs if that money is not recouped. (French defense contractor Naval Group, which is partially owned by France and was already building the diesel subs, intends to bill Australia for the lost revenue.)

    It would surprise me not one single bit if the AUKUS agreement, and specifically the sub sale pivot from France to the U.S., first came into being after a few phone calls to some officers in “defense” procurement from lobbyists for General Dynamics and/or Huntington Ingalls, the only two shipbuilders in the U.S. with shipyards capable of building nuclear submarines. The cost to build one of these monstrously deadly machines runs, on average, around $3 billion per unit.

    “Why are you letting France get that money?” would have almost certainly been the crux of such a call. “Don’t you love America?” And away we go.

    Money. Cold Wars, you see, are notoriously expensive (read: wildly lucrative for the various war profiteers that circle the Pentagon like so many carrion birds).

    The average military spending during “peacetime” in the Cold War ran about $285.4 billion per year. The first hot Cold War conflict in Korea, according to Richard M. Miller Jr. of Praeger Security International, cost $678 billion. The cost of the Korean Conflict spanning from 1951 to 2000 is over $1 trillion. The Vietnam War cost another $1 trillion. Benefits to the veterans and veteran families of those wars runs into the tens of billions of dollars per year. The total cost of the Cold War from 1948 to 1991 is estimated to be $13.1 trillion, including $5.8 trillion for the development and maintenance of a vast nuclear arsenal.

    These eye-popping numbers, all pegged as closely as possible to current dollar values, scarcely tell the tale of the present moment. The “Black Budget” cost of the national security state, born during World War II and massively expanded during the Cold War, is unknown… well, someone knows, but they ain’t telling. The Pentagon, for its part, currently has a $35 trillion hole in its accounting. Nobody seems to know just where that money went… but somebody knows, and again, they ain’t telling. Meanwhile, despite our “withdrawal” from Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror grinds on relentlessly, and expensively.

    U.S. politicians and the corporate “news” media have a casually self-destructive way of discussing military spending: They don’t. If someone goes on TV and says we have to feed the poor, ten voices will be raised howling “How much will that cost?” and “We can’t afford it!” A president flips 20 missiles into a foreign country, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars from construction to deployment to launch, and “How much did that cost?” never seems to come up.

    It comes down to this: Every bullet, every bomb, every attack helicopter, every destroyer, every fighter jet, every field meal, every tent, every rifle, every pistol, every grenade, every land mine, every missile, every submarine (!), every uniform, every pair of boots, every body bag, every coffin, every everything that goes into the U.S. war-making machine is money flooding into some “defense” contractor’s bank account and stock portfolio.

    It has been 73 years since the onset of the first Cold War, and the “terror” war is not quite the money spigot it was for the last two decades. Still, 53 cents of every tax dollar goes to the fighting of and preparation for war already, and a new Cold War with China would dramatically increase that.

    It goes entirely without saying that a new Cold War with China is an astonishingly terrible idea, an undermining of nuclear nonproliferation efforts and a good reason for China to harm the U.S. by way of the massive share of our economy they already own and control. The potential cost in human life is nigh incalculable… but ask yourself this: When was the last time you can remember the warmakers actually thinking things through when massive profits were in play? I’m stumped.

    There is also this: Among the many things the Cold War is remembered for, inflicted popular fear and mass control stand out. Here in the “free” U.S., the groupthink inspired by enmity toward the Soviet Union destroyed lives and constrained liberty for decades. It inspired two lucrative shooting wars, one of which technically never ended and another that lasted 20 years, along with a dozen proxy skirmishes around the world. All of this invigorated the fury and paranoia of enforced patriotism, and did great and lasting damage to those who did not take up the standard of war.

    As we enter an era of unrest, amid racist police violence and state efforts to repress the popular uprising against it, a fascist authoritarian surge in the halls of government everywhere, and a climate preparing to show us all who is really in charge around here, a new Cold War with all attendant mechanisms of enforced control would be just the ticket for those looking to make a buck while avoiding actual solutions to these concerns.

    “If you want a picture of the future,” wrote George Orwell, “imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” I am forced to wonder if future years will have us looking back on this seemingly insignificant submarine deal between the U.S. and Australia the way historians today regard George Kennan’s “Long Telegram”: One diplomat’s long transatlantic missive that is now widely regarded as the seedcorn for U.S. Cold War policy toward the U.S.S.R. — along with all its consequences — for the next five decades. It had to start somewhere. It always does.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Host Usher speaks onstage at the 2021 iHeartRadio Music Awards at The Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, California, which was broadcast live on Fox on May 27, 2021.

    The shiver of revulsion that went through much of the nonprofit community recently had surprising and immediate impact. When CBS announced, on September 9, a new reality show pitting activists against one another in the Global Citizen series “The Activist,” they clearly did not expect overwhelmingly negative response. The original plan to have Usher, Priyanka Chopra Jones and Julianne Hough host a five-week competition between six activists working “to bring meaningful change to one of three vitally important world causes: health, education, and environment” was so antithetical to the concept of progressive change that public backlash forced a reassessment.

    But the underlying issues leading to such a wrongheaded approach are nothing new. It remains to be seen whether this wakeup call will resonate with others in the philanthropic community, who frequently make extraordinary requests of nonprofits without considering the impact upon understaffed, cash-strapped organizations that would much rather dedicate all resources toward mission-related activities, whether they are direct service, advocacy, or both.

    I recall one foundation that invited over 30 nonprofit leaders to spend a day in a hotel conference room, giving representatives of the funder a chance to “get to know us better.” They expected the organizations’ leadership to be available for a full day, with no certainty of application advancement. The intent was to select a smaller number from the group to apply for funds; even fewer would ultimately receive any support.

    At one point, they had us all on our hands and knees on the floor, with large sheets of paper and markers, charged with creating a visual representation of our core values. The day culminated with a demand for a spontaneous pitch summarizing our work in a “fresh, new way.” The most well-received were the most skilled at improvisation. They might have also been the most deserving. Hard to know, since nothing of substance was asked or communicated.

    Stop and think for a minute: Is there any reliable connection between improvisation and efficacy in the delivery of essential services? Any reason to believe that an activist who can impress us on a reality show will be someone who can affect meaningful change? Do we really want people who are effectively making the world a better place to divert their finite resources to dazzle us on television?

    Thanks in large part to the uptick in “popularity-based funding,” both the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors are increasingly conditioned to equate instant gratification with actual impact. Nonprofits — which offline are urged by funders to collaborate with each other whenever possible — are expected to compete to generate the most “likes” for the prize. The resulting short-term enthusiasm rarely translates into sustained support, mainly because these campaigns — much like the originally planned criteria to “win” the competition on “The Activist” — must rely on social media marketing techniques for success rather than content about actual needs and real solutions.

    Note that CBS offered “hope” for funding rather than a guarantee. The team that conceived this show found it perfectly reasonable to expect six activists, probably representing existing, hardworking nonprofits, to invest in this competition even if they came out with nothing, or very little. These are worthy causes deserving of an audience, but it is clear that the end game for CBS was never to facilitate targeted, well-funded campaigns for sustainable change.

    This lack of respect for the expertise of activists seems like an extension of an increasingly common practice in the corporate-giving sector, where nonprofits must attend “boot camp” to learn a new “pitch” as part of their application process. These corporations cheerfully believe that they are enhancing the expertise of nonprofit professionals, who wearily dedicate thousands of staff hours to create presentations, either live or online, each designed to meet a different set of performative criteria.

    Perhaps most infuriating — it’s hard to choose — is the idea that it’s reasonable to measure success of an initiative to improve health, education or the environment through online engagement, social metrics and input from celebrity hosts. It should not be surprising that measuring essential social change in social media metrics didn’t immediately strike everyone as a bad idea. For far too long, those with money, power and visibility have been encouraged to think they know as much or more about everything from education to social justice than those who dedicate their lives to this work.

    I am grateful that CBS will reimagine “The Activist.” It remains to be seen whether the newly announced approach — showcasing the work of six activists in a documentary format — will get the same level of promotion. An honest documentation of tireless efforts toward meaningful change might make a lot of people feel inspired and hopeful — but I also hope that CBS and Global Citizen will also consider directing some of the dollars they spend on publicity toward the work of the activists they plan to showcase.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Nancy Pelosi prepares to remove her mask while walking behind a sign reading "PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY"

    Question: When is a Democratic majority not a Democratic majority? Answer: When it’s a Democratic majority.

    The roof started to cave in visibly on Monday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned her caucus to expect “adjustmentsto the $3.5 trillion climate/social spending budget bill that lies at the center of President Biden’s policy agenda. This is Democrat for “Prepare for imminent retreat, again.”

    A day later, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that they would keep to a totally artificial and arbitrary September 27 deadline for voting on the $1 trillion infrastructure bill, a huge victory for the likes of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and the House Pharma Dems, who have been chopping away at the legislation like hyper-caffeinated woodpeckers (or like feckless politicians swimming in lobbyist cash).

    Members of the Progressive Caucus have made it clear that they plan to vote to kill the infrastructure bill if it is brought up separately from the budget bill, because they know conservative Democrats will vote for the former and against the latter if they don’t come on the same sled.

    It is clear at this juncture that the budget bill will not be ready for a vote by September 27. Hoyer’s announcement effectively decoupled the two bills, and if the Progressive Caucus is to maintain any credibility at all, they will have to vote down the infrastructure bill in order to rescue both it and the climate bill; if the infrastructure bill fails, it can be offered again coupled to the budget bill once the budget bill is ready for daylight.

    The plot thickened substantially late Tuesday after Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, emerged from a two-hour meeting with Speaker Pelosi. Upon its conclusion, Jayapal made it known that she had enough votes in hand — half the 95-person caucus, in her words — to kill the infrastructure bill. Deftly swatting the ball into the Speaker’s court, Jayapal said, “I don’t think that the Speaker is going to bring a bill up that is going to fail.”

    Note well, gentle reader, that there is almost no Republican involvement in this slow-rolling fiasco. Mitch McConnell has informed the world that there will be no Republican votes for anything — the budget bill, the government shutdown bill, or the debt ceiling bill — which effectively makes him and his caucus one of the lakes on the Stratego game board: It’s there, it ain’t moving, so you have to go around it.

    House Republicans are even more invisible, though there is mounting pressure on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to whip his caucus into voting “no” on the infrastructure bill. If 30+ Democrats also vote “no,” however, those GOP votes will be a sullen afterthought and nothing more.

    President Biden, whose entire domestic agenda is about to go up in a ball of flaming tatters, is planning to hold a Wednesday sit-down with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Pelosi in order to find a way forward. A number of Democrats have been pleading with Biden to get more involved in the process, but the guest list raises the question: Why just those two, and not Jayapal and a contingent from the Progressive Caucus? Why not Bernie Sanders, who has cultivated this process with care and patience from the beginning? Why not the real adults in the room who have the power to make or break this thing?

    It is past time to stop mollifying “moderate” (conservative!) Democrats, who have been the real wreckers over the course of this process. A full 80 percent of Sinema’s Arizona voters support the Medicare/drug pricing reforms she has pledged to vote against, and the only coherent reason she opposes those reforms is because a dark money group funded by the pharmaceutical industry launched a massive ad campaign praising her just before she announced her opposition.

    When you make concessions to that sort of brazen broad-daylight corruption, concessions that will cause real-world pain for millions of real-world people, you will come away with nothing and get everything you deserve. The progressives have been steadfast throughout this benighted process — they have stood for everything a “Democrat” is supposed to support, they have already made significant compromises with the “moderates” in the name of progress, and it looks an awful lot like they are about to get the back of Pelosi’s hand, again.

    If so, there’s a galling irony here. The Democrats were thrilled to recapture the House majority in 2018, having done so by riding anti-Trump sentiment to victory in a number of conservative districts. Those gains were rolled back in 2020 when Republicans took back a number of those seats. In the time between, Speaker Pelosi has gone above and beyond defending the safety of her “moderate” Reps, even when they voted with Republicans time and again.

    Those same “moderates” are now the ones trashing this entire process. When is a majority not a majority? When those people are allowed to drive the bus.

    The whole thing smells like smoke right now, like gears grinding, like a massive and tragic waste of everyone’s time.

    In a way, I suppose, it might come to be a fitting epitaph: To have all this sound and fury come to nothing because the people who round out the House majority are also doing the most damage to the priorities of that majority. These conservative Democrats don’t want to make prescription drugs more affordable, any more than they want to tax their wealthy benefactors. That fact has already been included as one of the concessions made in the way these bills will pay for themselves, and it stands as a glaring flaw at the heart of the whole process. For all the genuine good contained in the budget bill, it pays for itself while making sure the vast wealth of the wealthiest remains virtually untouched. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich explains:

    Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee released its proposed tax increases to fund President Biden’s $3.5 trillion social policy plan. Here’s the big thing that hit me: Democrats didn’t go after the huge accumulations of wealth at the top – representing the largest share of the economy in more than a century.

    You might have thought they’d be eager to tax America’s 660 billionaires whose fortunes have increased $1.8 trillion since the start of the pandemic — an amount that could fund half of Biden’s plan and still leave the billionaires as rich as they were before the pandemic began. But House Democrats on Ways and Means decided to raise revenue the traditional way, taxing annual income rather than immense wealth. They aim to raise the highest income tax rate and apply a 3 percent surtax to incomes over $5 million.

    Yet the dirty little secret — which House Democrats certainly know — is the ultra-rich don’t live off their paychecks. Jeff Bezos’s salary from Amazon was $81,840 last year, yet he rakes in some $149,353 every minute from the soaring value of his Amazon stocks – which is how he affords five mansions, including one in Washington D.C. with 25 bathrooms.

    In other words, a lot of things will improve if this bill somehow struggles safely to shore, but nothing significant will actually change. Capital must be protected, and wealth must be extracted: That should be carved into the sign on the Statue of Liberty, right below the word WARNING.

    I live in a country where the current president has his job because Mike Pence got desperate consultation from Dan Quayle on the limits of his constitutional powers regarding the certification of Electors while a furious mob was battering down the Capitol doors trying to stop the whole thing in its tracks, and now a pair of bills that almost everyone likes is probably doomed because capitalism doesn’t want them.

    It’s not over yet, and Democratic leadership could pull off the legislative version of a nine-run rally in the late innings… except these are the late innings, and there is a government shutdown/debt ceiling crisis to be dealt with almost simultaneously. “The worst are filled with passionate intensity,” said W.B. Yeats. Pretty much sums it up.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People are seen watching television footage of a missile launch

    While North Korea’s recent missile tests should not come as a surprise to anyone who follows the country’s ongoing conflict with the United States and South Korea, they show that North Korea is continuing to develop more powerful weapons.

    In fact, this latest development was entirely predictable because the Biden administration has taken at least two concrete actions that actively fuel tensions on the Korean Peninsula: continuing joint military exercises with South Korea and lifting the cap on South Koreas missile development.

    To recap the recent history that got us here, former U.S. President Donald Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018-2019. At the Singapore summit in 2018, they agreed to establish new relations, build a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and work toward the complete denuclearization of the peninsula, but the talks broke down the following year. Trump continued with a policy of maximum pressure on North Korea — layering on sanctions and conducting joint military exercises with South Korea.

    In this year’s annual New Year address, Kim Jong Un said his country will no longer engage in talks with the U.S. unless Washington drops its “hostile policy.” And he directed his country to develop more and better missiles.

    Thus far, the Biden administration has done nothing to change course from Trump’s policy of maximum pressure on North Korea. While Biden’s attention to other priorities, such as the pandemic and Afghanistan, is understandable, continuing to ignore North Korea is turning the Korean Peninsula into a powder keg.

    But it doesn’t have to be this way. Here’s what the Biden administration can do to end the dangerous arms race on the Korean Peninsula.

    Stop the Military Exercises

    The United States keeps around 28,500 soldiers in South Korea. This is a legacy of the Korean War, which was halted nearly 70 years ago with an armistice — not a peace treaty — leaving the peninsula in a perpetual state of war.

    South Korea and the United States stage joint military exercises several times per year. The U.S. and South Korea call the exercises “defensive and routine,” but history has shown that these exercises don’t actually deter North Korea. In fact, they do the opposite — they provoke North Korea to carry out its own military exercises or weapons tests.

    It’s also important to note that they are based on operation plans that include preemptive strikes, deposition of the North Korean leadership, precision strikes that take out their key installations and counterinsurgency operations — basically a plan for regime collapse and occupation.

    Due to their provocative nature, these exercises have been the main obstacle to efforts for peace-building and reconciliation between the two Koreas. For example, in July, North and South Korea re-established their inter-Korean hotline — a sign of hope amid stalemated talks among all sides. But that hope was quickly dashed as it was followed immediately by nine days of joint military exercises held by the U.S. and South Korea in August.

    Stop Fueling an Arms Race in Korea

    Since the end of the Korean War, the U.S. and South Korea have had an arrangement of extended nuclear deterrence. In other words, South Korea agreed to refrain from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for protection under the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella. Hence, South Korea has not developed its own nuclear capability — although there are reactionary voices in South Korea that have long advocated that the country do so.

    At their summit in May of this year, President Biden and South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed to terminate an agreement between their countries that had previously capped the range of South Korea’s ballistic missiles to 800 kilometers (roughly 500 miles). South Korea is now able to build ballistic missiles with larger payloads and longer ranges.

    Not surprisingly, North Korea reacted angrily to the removal of the missile restrictions and accused the U.S. of applying a double standard — because while the U.S. is trying to stop North Korea from developing ballistic missiles, it is encouraging South Korea to do so.

    Earlier this month, South Korea tested its first submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), a delivery system for nuclear weapons. South Korea is the only country without nuclear weapons that has developed an SLBM.

    Could this mean that South Korea is headed toward developing nuclear weapons? If so, both sides will be nuclear — an obviously dangerous situation for the peninsula, as well as for the entire region.

    Don’t Exacerbate the Situation

    Pyongyang has been consistent in its message to Washington. In all its past agreements with the U.S., in Kim Jong Un’s New Year addresses every year, and through its official public statements, Pyongyang has called for an end to the U.S.’s “hostile policy.” Yet Washington often shrugs and says, “We don’t understand.”

    Perhaps it’s time to review our actions toward North Korea to assess what might possibly be perceived as hostile. Perhaps it’s the Pentagon’s war plans that envision regime collapse and occupation. Or perhaps it’s the sanctions that have cut off the country’s ability to trade with the rest of the world.

    It is disingenuous for Washington to say it is willing to talk with the North Koreans but doesn’t understand what they want. It’s clear what they want. The question is: Does the U.S. have the political will to end this forever conflict? At 71 years, the Korean War is, in fact, the longest ongoing U.S. overseas conflict.

    Unfortunately, U.S. weapons contractors stand to gain much by keeping this conflict going. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, for example, are among the top 10 purchasers of arms from the U.S. But their profit is at the detriment of millions of people in the region and now our own national security in the U.S.

    Negotiate a Peace Agreement to End the Korean War

    As long as the Korean War remains unresolved, the Korean Peninsula will be mired in a perpetual arms race.

    According to North Korean state media, its latest cruise missile flew over 900 miles, changed trajectories along the way and made circles before hitting their targets. The test was not reported by the U.S. or South Korea before North Korea’s state media announcement — making one question whether they were able to detect the missile test when it occurred. If not, it shows increasing sophistication in North Korea’s missile technology.

    This tit-for-tat weapons buildup is costly for all parties — mainly the people of North Korea and the taxpayers of South Korea and the U.S. It is also dangerous. The Korean Peninsula is heavily armed on both sides and still in a temporary ceasefire. U.S. military generals have warned about the danger of miscalculations and accidental skirmishes leading to a catastrophic war there.

    This is why Korean Americans and peace groups across the U.S. have come together to press for a peace agreement to officially end the Korean War.

    The North and South Korean leaders agreed to pursue a peace agreement in their Panmunjom Declaration in 2018. They agreed to pursue talks with the U.S. and possibly China to end the Korean War. (The U.S. was a key party to the Korean War, as well as a signatory to the armistice, and still holds wartime operational control over the joint forces in South Korea, so it needs to be involved in any discussion about ending the war.) China has already expressed support for the idea of a peace agreement. The key missing party is the U.S.

    A bipartisan bill in Congress — the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act (H.R.3446) — calls on the Biden administration to “pursue serious, urgent diplomatic engagement with North Korea and South Korea in pursuit of a binding peace agreement constituting a formal and final end to the state of war between North Korea, South Korea, and the United States.”

    President Biden’s theme is to “Build back better.” The best thing he can do to reduce the threat of nuclear war with North Korea and build back better on the Korean Peninsula is to end the Korean War with a peace agreement.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A little girl cries while looking into the camera

    When President Biden first took office, the number of immigrants in federal custody was at a 20-year low. This was an opportunity to roll back the system, but Biden chose to maintain the status quo of previous administrations. Within a couple of months, jail beds started filling up again. In response, a coalition of groups is organizing a “Communities Not Cages” day of action on Thursday, September 23, in over 20 cities across the country to shut down all immigration jails, demand an end to deportations, and release all people currently in immigration custody.

    Twenty years ago, with almost no debate, the U.S. became a fortress state focused on limiting the rights of immigrants in the name of national security. In the wake of 9/11, every aspect of the existing immigration enforcement infrastructure expanded, from immigration agents to immigrant jails (euphemistically referred to as “detention centers”) and miles of border wall. Since then, over 5.8 million people have been imprisoned in U.S. immigration jails.

    For the past two decades, I’ve been part of campaigns that have exhausted every avenue we could think of to curb the expansion of immigration jails. But instead, policymakers have converted immigrants into numbers and have used quotas to set arbitrary detention and deportation targets, obliterating the value of human life.

    Congress and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have obsessively implemented quotas to incentivize immigration enforcement. In 2009, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia inserted a bed mandate into the federal appropriations bill stating that ICE is required to “maintain a level of not less than 33,400 detention beds.”

    In recent years ICE has become so fixated on quotas that it has embedded them into contracts even though the overall numbers of immigrants in detention plummeted during the pandemic, which means the federal government was paying for empty beds.

    With Joe Biden in office, there’s a growing perception that immigration enforcement is less lethal. But the numbers tell a different story. The number of immigrants jailed by ICE has increased 70 percent since the start of the Biden administration. And we continue to lock up children, nearly 15,000 daily, in large-scale facilities and military bases. These conditions have been exacerbated by the pandemic. ICE has done little to keep COVID-19 at bay, spreading infections not only inside immigration jails, but also in surrounding communities and to other countries through the deportations of thousands of immigrants. Although ICE was forced to release some people during the worst days of the pandemic, they are now beginning to fill immigration jails up again — just as COVID-19 variants continue to take lives.

    Now is the moment to intervene and reverse course, before Biden allows the immigration detention system to reach maximum capacity. People navigating their immigration cases should be able to do so with their families and in community — not behind bars in immigration jails. Now is the time to push Biden to turn things around and hold him to his word.

    The expansion of immigration detention and the targeting of immigrants reflects the priorities and decisions of both Republican and Democratic administrations, going back over more than 20 years.

    The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 9/11 consolidated power across multiple federal agencies and normalized the idea that immigrants are a security threat. The “war on terror” has not only wreaked havoc overseas, but also on immigrant communities across our country and all those seeking asylum at our borders.

    As a result, the U.S. has the world’s largest immigration detention system — and the federal government continues to throw billions of dollars at federal agencies and prison profiteers, imperiling hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year.

    While the legal groundwork for immigrant exclusion preceded the attacks, 9/11 created the political and institutional will to build up the massive border enforcement and deportation apparatus we have today.

    During the Bush administration, the immigration detention system operated much like so-called black sites, with over 350 detention facilities in use, mostly local jails, and little information about how to find immigrants disappeared into these facilities who were being transferred frequently. The Obama administration increased the use of programs like 287g, in which local police act as immigration enforcers, and Secure Communities, where immigration data is shared between law enforcement agencies. By doing so, the Obama administration made the machinery of detention and deportation more effective, helping to earn him the moniker “deporter-in-chief.” Obama also expanded the use of large-scale private prisons and built much of the system that Trump unleashed.

    On the campaign trail, President Biden lamented the separation of families by Trump, and committed to “stop corporations from profiteering off of incarceration.” Early on, the administration rolled out reforms to limit deportations and undo Trump’s worst policies. But as the border has become a top news story and an easy target for right-wing attacks, Biden has faltered. Meaningful progress toward dismantling immigration detention has effectively ground to a halt. The continued persistence of immigration detention, despite growing consensus that it’s unnecessary and wasteful, shows how much easier it is to build up and expand the system and infrastructure than to roll it back.

    Biden’s early moves on detention and private prisons should not be overlooked. DHS publicly ended contracts at two abysmal jails in Georgia and Massachusetts that had received considerable activist attention. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, in a congressional hearing earlier this year, stated there was an “overuse of detention.” And Biden issued an executive order to phase out the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of private prisons. But despite those moves, Biden has backtracked. Earlier this summer, the DOJ argued against a California law that would ban private prisons in the state, contradicting his own administration’s stated priorities. Subsequently it was also revealed that a shuttered DOJ private prison in Pennsylvania will be converted into a new ICE jail, raising questions about the administration’s commitment to downsizing ICE’s footprint.

    We know that the policy decisions made in the wake of 9/11 led to unimaginable suffering both in the U.S. and abroad. Swift and substantive reforms to end the immigration detention system in its entirety are necessary to begin to reverse the demonization of immigrants and ensure that another anti-immigrant administration won’t be able to undo the changes in the future.

    Now is the time for Congress to drastically reduce ICE’s budget and release people from detention. 9/11 provided cover for the expansion of the immigration enforcement apparatus. Biden has the opportunity to begin to dismantle it. To do so, he must end immigration detention.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A getty photo of a man wearing a shirt of a getty photo of the January 6th capitol riots

    Taken on its face, the September 18 “rally” to support members of the mob that sacked the Capitol Building in January was a flop. Reports indicated maybe 400 people were in attendance, most of those being members of the press who were on hand in case the event became unruly. There seemed little chance of that; law enforcement was there with enough manpower to storm Normandy Beach, and the Capitol Dome was again obscured behind hastily erected security fencing.

    It would be highest folly, however, to use the scant attendance at the “Justice for J6” rally as a metric for the present strength of the pro-Trump authoritarian white supremacist movement. The reason: Most of the serious players in that movement, and specifically the organizations known for violence, made a deliberate point to stay away from Washington, D.C., on Saturday.

    In the days leading up to the rally, rumors began to spread that members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, two authoritarian groups with long records of inciting street violence during demonstrations, would be present at the “Justice for J6” rally. Spokespeople for those groups batted down these rumors with alacrity.

    “If you rally in DC right now, you’re an idiot and you’re going to get people thrown in jail or worse,” read one Proud Boys tweet. “We will not be attending this guaranteed disaster,” read another. Kelly SoRelle, a legal representative for the Oath Keepers, said in a statement, “I do not know of any specific plan to attend, other than what we are watching the media fabricate.” Press images from the rally would seem to indicate they meant what they said.

    Far-right Republicans in Congress likewise made a point to stay away, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Cawthorn, who usually charge toward these events like moths to a 500-watt light bulb. Various luminaries at Fox News insulted and derided the event as not being legitimate, which was somewhat startling given that it was primarily organized by Matt Braynard, a former campaign worker for Donald Trump. As for Trump himself, the former president dismissed the event as a “setup,” saying, “If people don’t show up, they’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s a lack of spirit.’ And if people do show up, they’ll be harassed.”

    Trump was wrong about the threat of widespread “harassment”; there were only two arrests reported at the rally, and no violence to speak of from police or participants. But was that small crowd a sign of missing spirit and waning furor? Or was it a tactical retreat, a deliberate decision to lay low and not exacerbate an already tense situation?

    Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, has been sentenced to five months in jail for burning a Black Lives Matter flag that belonged to a Washington, D.C., church, and at least 650 people have been charged for their role in the Capitol insurrection. Discretion at this juncture may have seemed the wiser course.

    There is more to it, I fear, than the authoritarian brigades keeping their powder dry at a time when there is a lot of light on them. Jason Stanley, author of the 2018 book How Fascism Works, has a far more ominous theory about the small crowd on Saturday.

    “The entire Republican establishment was taken over by this,” Stanley told Slate. “It’s not the followers we should focus on, it’s the authoritarian movement growing inside the Republican Party that threatens not just the country, but with climate change, the world. The question is: Why is it not helpful to have mass violent rallies right now? It’s not helpful because the movement, the fascist social and politic movement, is winning. They’re changing the election laws in state after state.”

    Consider the confluence of events that began well before the January 6 riot at the Capitol. Trump and his minions have vigorously cast doubt not only on the results of the 2020 presidential election, but also on the recent California recall election. It seems clear that, going forward, Republicans will refuse to call an election legitimate unless the Republican wins the election. The effects of this nihilistic approach to the ballot is already proving caustic.

    Meanwhile, Trump-inspired state legislatures all across the country are erecting fearsome barriers to voting, and pushing candidates for key state offices that control elections. On the federal level, an attempt to check this anti-democracy movement has been thwarted in the Senate because conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin refuse to let the filibuster die, and Republicans like Mitch McConnell are all too happy to sit back and let the franchise burn on a pyre of racist Trump idolatry.

    And now that movement has shock troops with enough restraint and tactical savvy to avoid a public crunch with law enforcement if it does not suit their goals. The attack on the Capitol Building on January 6 has become a near-nationwide attack on democracy itself, and it has not paused for one single moment. September 18 was not a dud. It may well have been the calm before the storm.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Mitch Mcconnell

    Portrait of a fiend in the wild: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it abundantly clear that there will be no Republican votes to avert the looming debt ceiling crisis. McConnell’s feckless rationale? “Let me make it perfectly clear,” he declared last week. “The country must never default. The debt ceiling will need to be raised. But who does that depends on who the American people elect.”

    Translation: Because Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House, they alone are responsible for raising the debt ceiling. Simply put, no such rule exists, nor has it ever existed. It was certainly not in play back in 2019, when then-Majority Leader McConnell sought — and received — bipartisan support on the very same issue. “The people in Kentucky who know him,” notes long-time Democratic foe Rep. John Yarmuth, “understand that he can’t be shamed into changing.”

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen made the stakes clear in a Sunday Wall Street Journal editorial. “The U.S. has never defaulted. Not once,” she wrote. “Doing so would likely precipitate a historic financial crisis that would compound the damage of the continuing public health emergency.” In 2011, even the (McConnell-driven) threat of a default sent the economy reeling. Combine the impact of default with what looks to be another COVID winter gnawing into the economy, and a tidy little recipe for disaster awaits.

    McConnell seemingly could not care less. His interest appears entirely political and utterly without shame: He wants his people to go into the 2022 midterms with “tax-and-spend liberals” on every tongue. The same Republicans who aided the Trump administration’s wild financial giveaways to corporations and the wealthy now intend to use the economy itself against President Biden’s legislative attempt to address climate change and expand the social safety net, and all as a means of regaining the majority.

    McConnell has plenty of help in this particularly nefarious endeavor; shamelessness, like gold, seems to have its own gravitational pull. “The Democrats have added enormous amounts of debt,” echoed GOP Sen. Susan Collins, “including the $1.9 trillion package, now $3.5 trillion on top of that, so they bear the responsibility for increasing the debt limit.” Never mind the stimulus package probably saved the economy during the most dire portion of the pandemic, or that Collins herself voted to explode the debt multiple times during the Trump years.

    One disaster of this magnitude would usually suffice, but at present there are multiple meteors hurtling toward us. Congressional Democrats, seeking to use whatever leverage is available, are tying the debt vote to the also-looming vote to fund the federal government. If McConnell holds the line, there will be insufficient votes to pass either (assuming the inevitable GOP filibuster), and we could be looking at a double-barreled fiscal calamity at midnight on September 30.

    With less than 11 days to go before that whole fiasco hits the zero hour, Democrats are also facing the threat of collapse within their own caucus. Joe Manchin, the coal baron senator from West Virginia, has used his swing-vote muscle to position himself and the Energy Committee he chairs as the authors of the climate provisions in Biden’s massive budget bill. He is widely expected to throw a number of lifelines to the energy interests that pour campaign cash into his own pockets, and it is entirely possible the Progressive Caucus could bolt rather than vote for a polluted compromise.

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has joined a trio of pharmaceutical industry-bought House members in refusing to support the Medicare/prescription drug reforms that are crucial to funding the overall legislation. “The Arizona Democrat is opposed to the current prescription drug pricing proposals in both the House and Senate bills,” reports Politico. “They added that, at this point, she also doesn’t support a pared-back alternative being pitched by House Democratic centrists that would limit the drugs subject to Medicare negotiation.”

    In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is facing a perilous September 27 deadline that could potentially sink both the budget bill and the infrastructure bill. Conservative Democrats, at the frantic urging of an army of corporate and business lobbyists, want the two bills voted on separately. That way, they can pass the watered-down infrastructure bill and then kill the budget bill. The Progressive Caucus has vowed — if somewhat vaguely — to defeat the infrastructure bill if both are not combined into a single package for passage, and they have more than enough votes to do it. Whether they will follow through on the threat is the question of the hour, and that hour is up on the 27th unless they bump the deadline.

    Finally, the Senate parliamentarian has scotched the immigration provisions within the budget bill, ruling they do not fit the requirements for reconciliation — a tactic that allows a bill to pass by simple majority if it affects the budget. The parliamentarian last ruled “No” on the attempt to include a minimum wage hike in the $1.9 trillion stimulus package back in February.

    Progressive Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are among those demanding that Majority Leader Schumer ignore or replace the parliamentarian, as the GOP did the last time such a decision went against them. “An unelected person isn’t a real barrier to the much-needed investments we were elected to make,” Tlaib wrote on Twitter. “Ignore this ruling or get a new one. The GOP didn’t hesitate when they pushed their corporate agenda.”

    A number of prominent Democrats made the TV rounds on Sunday, trying to put a happy face on the roiled circumstances. “We’re going to have to work it out, as we did with the American Rescue Plan,” Sen. Bernie Sanders told CBS News. “Now is the time to stand up to powerful special interests. Now is the time to start representing working families.” Ultimately, he predicted that, “because of the pressure of the American people we’re going to come together again and do what has to be done.”

    Let’s hope he’s right. The axis of McConnell, Manchin, Sinema and the House Pharma Dems are hard at work even at this moment, and it is going to be a wild week in Washington. Halloween could be a genuinely terrifying holiday, when the people learn to their sorrow that vampires are not just real, but are pulling down government paychecks.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Counterprotestors demonstrate near the "Justice for J6" rally in Washington, D.C., on September 18, 2021. The "Justice for J6" rally was in support of those arrested during the January 6 coup attempt.

    On Nov. 3, 2020, the American people conclusively decided to make Donald Trump their first one-term president in more than a quarter-century. On every previous occasion when an incumbent president was defeated — it had happened 10 times before Trump, the loser president at least swallowed his pride and honored the democratic process. Trump tried his hardest to remain in power anyway, fulfilling George Washington’s prophecy that a demagogue would manipulate partisanship “to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

    Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election is being used to justify a wave of voter suppression laws throughout the nation, all of them intended to prevent the left-center majority coalition assembled by Barack Obama in 2008 from returning to power. If the voter restrictions passed in Georgia are especially odious, other states are also doing their utmost to make sure that local election officials are beholden to Trumpist Republicans (such as a secretary of state) rather than the voters.

    The larger trend here is to directly erode the democratic process by making sure that Republican elected officials can decide elections if they don’t like the voters’ choices. Trump’s oft-stated contention that the only way he could lose was through fraud is becoming, in essence, the law of the land in many states. It’s easy to see how this logic can be extended to any election that Republicans believe, or at least claim to believe, that they should have won but instead lost. This is how fascism grabs a foothold, as Federico Finchelstein, chair of the history department at the New School for Social Research and author of A Brief History of Fascist Lies, told me in a recent interview.

    In his book, Finchelstein told me, he explores connections between how fascists lied in the past and how contemporary fascist leaders like Trump or Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro lie in the present. “There are many connections because they lie in the same way.” Ordinary politicians sometimes (or frequently) lie to protect their own interests or advance a specific cause, but fascists make a point of fabricating issues out of thin air. They don’t merely exaggerate, dissemble or put a biased spin on things.

    “They want to change the world in order for the world to resemble those lies,” Finchelstein explained, describing how Spain’s fascist leader Francisco Franco was obsessed with “making people live those lies.” It is a universal and unmistakable characteristic of fascist politics, he said, but “not typical of other political traditions.”

    Overturning elections based on Big Lies is only one Republican method of suppressing votes. They are also using the same tactics perfected by Jim Crow politicians in the South. In the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 election Big Lie, more than two dozen laws that make it harder to vote have been passed in at least 18 states. The bulk of the legislation focuses on little details here and there that, on their face, seem innocuous, but far more likely to impact low-income Black and brown voters. These include measures that limit voting days, voting hours and drop boxes, restrict assistance to voters, bar sending out unsolicited absentee ballot applications and add new voter ID requirements.

    Jamelle Bouie of The New York Times recently explained how these policies are similar to those that smothered democracy for Black people during the Jim Crow era. To reject that similarity, he wrote, “mistakes both the nature and the operation of Jim Crow voting laws”:

    There was no statute that said, “Black people cannot vote.” Instead, Southern lawmakers spun a web of restrictions and regulations meant to catch most Blacks (as well as many whites) and keep them out of the electorate.

    One of the lessons of the South after Reconstruction is that democratic life can flourish and then erode, expand and then contract. Democracy is not a solid state, and we should be wary of politicians who would undermine any part of it for partisan advantage.

    Similar policies also inspired the most infamous fascist regime of all in Nazi Germany. As Yale law professor James Q. Whitman explains in Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, Nazi lawyers closely studied Jim Crow laws and used them as a model for their Nuremberg Laws, passed to legally degrade Jews both as citizens and as a race. The Nazis kept close tabs on American race policies and used them to come up with ways of disenfranchising groups they wished to keep marginalized, although even they sometimes found American methods to be too brutal.

    Like an ouroboros devouring its own tail, the American proto-fascism that inspired actualized German fascism is now returning in a mutated form to its birth soil.

    “Fascism always takes on the nationalist character of its own country,” said Yale philosopher Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, in an interview with Salon. “One would expect this particular version of fascism to be derived from our own American past.” In addition to drawing from Jim Crow methods, this revived American fascism uses gerrymandering, the filibuster and the vagaries of the Electoral College to make sure that Republicans hold a vastly disproportionate share of power. These methods existed long before Donald Trump, but his embrace of fascist political methods, has created the conditions for previously normal conservatives to become fascists.

    “Hitler won a minority, but was placed into power as a sort of compromise, with the thinking that he could be easily controlled,” Stanley said. Instead, Hitler’s movement wound up taking over the system itself, changing its character and altering what was perceived as normal.

    Could it happen here? Not long ago, Rep. Eric Swalwell, told me that he believed many of his Republican colleagues were effectively supporters of the Jan. 6 coup attempt. “I look at [Mo] Brooks and [Marjorie Taylor] Greene and [Lauren] Boebert and think that if they weren’t inside the chamber that day as members of Congress, they would have been outside the chamber that day as part of the mob,” Swalwell said.

    It is telling, and tragic, to juxtapose Swalwell’s observation with Thomas Jefferson’s observation about a different “revolution,” the 1800 election, the first in which a vanquished president peaceably gave up power. John Adams loathed losing that election to Jefferson, his former and future friend, but knew that he had to accept the result for the sake of democracy. It was a moment almost as important to the history of democracy as Washington relinquishing power at the end of his presidency.

    This was as important as the revolution of 1776, Jefferson later wrote, because it was “not effected indeed by the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people. The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle, and electing those of another in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election.”

    We are in grave danger of abandoning the ideals of Washington, Adams and Jefferson and veering into the darkest areas of the American id — those that inspired Hitler and the Nazis.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sandra Oh, who plays the lead role in Netflix's new show, "The Chair," attends a screening on August 26, 2021, in London, England.

    Amid the surge in anti-Asian violence over the past year and a half, more persistent scrutiny has emerged surrounding issues of whitewashing in Hollywood, and the lack of representation of Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) both in front of and behind the camera. For me, this scrutiny is something that has turned viewing TV shows and films into a constant cultural critique of the representations, stereotypes and discourses that center certain voices, diminish or exclude others, and affirm or deny a cultural sense of identity and belonging.

    As an incoming tenure-track assistant professor of English literature, I was pleasantly surprised when I heard news about the new Netflix show, “The Chair,” starring one of my favorite actors, Sandra Oh. Oh herself is Korean Canadian, and her career has been a marvel to behold as a Korean American woman myself. In the show, Oh plays Ji-Yoon Kim, the first woman to chair the English department at the fictitious Pembroke University. Ji-Yoon is a Korean American woman taking the helm at a failing department where there are few staff members of color. Like Ji-Yoon tells her college’s dean, the faculty at Pembroke is “87 percent white.”

    I started my first tenure-track position in an English department this fall, so the specificity with which the show is able to depict both Ji-Yoon’s personal and public lives in terms of ethnic Korean identity and the ins and outs of straddling multiple cultures at once made it easy at first to feel connected to Ji-Yoon. Watching Ji-Yoon’s father (played by Ji-Yong Lee) speak Korean and break through the “1-inch-tall barrier of subtitles” brought multiple moments of Korean and Korean American identity affirmation.

    Rather than reviewing the show’s plot points and divulging too many spoilers, however, I want to focus on the symbolism that the show conveys in terms of larger questions of the representational politics of academia and the role of professors in an increasingly corporatized higher-education world. I write from the honest perspective of a Korean American woman in the professoriate, and the situations that I have navigated on the way to this coveted and increasingly rare tenure-track position.

    There’s a moment in the show when Ji-Yoon notes, “When I started, it was like, ‘Why’s some Asian lady teaching Emily Dickinson?’” It reminded me of the student evaluations I have gotten over the years questioning my suitedness and ability to teach not only Dickinson, who I teach with enthusiasm, but my ability to teach literature at all.

    Like many women of color in academia and beyond, Ji-Yoon’s embodiment does not match the longstanding, persistent stereotypes of who gets to not only teach but lead departments. What Ji-Yoon experiences isn’t new to me or many women of color, because like many of us, she is working in a system that sets expectations for her that don’t match the reality of what it takes to get the job done.

    As the only other faculty of color in the department, Yasmin “Yaz” McKay (Nana Mensah), tells Ji-Yoon, “You act like you owe them something. Like you’re here because they let you be here, not because you deserve it. I mean, what are they without us at this point?” The department of English is in a moment of transition and luckily has a star tenure-track professor in Yaz who teaches classes like “Sex and the Novel” rather than other classes of outdated interests and struggling enrollment numbers. Ji-Yoon tells Yaz that she is “going to be the first tenured Black woman in this department,” but the chair of Yaz’s tenure committee, Elliot Rentz, becomes a roadblock to Yaz’s journey.

    Both the university and college which houses Ji-Yoon’s department are going through a budget crisis and need increased enrollment. Many of their students are frustrated with the lack of faculty diversity on campus and the dearth of critical race and ethnic studies approaches in their classes. These are questions that colleges and universities around the country are facing, and through the parodic lens of the show, they do become relevant to a broader audience.

    One of the show’s clearest shortcomings, however, is the absence of adjuncts — the actual professors keeping higher-education teaching afloat. Some 73 percent of all faculty positions are not tenure track, so their seeming absence at the fictional Pembroke reinforces a glaring lack of awareness about what keeps colleges and universities running. This lack of representation reifies the “ivory tower of academia” ideal and erases one of the most urgent problems higher education must tackle: how to turn the profession of teaching into a livable and fair wage job for everyone. The current status quo of grim adjunct life and its necessity for keeping, among other things, higher education budgets, course catalogs and enrollment numbers afloat, may not be camera-ready, but it is more relevant than ever to the world “The Chair” is trying to represent.

    In one key scene, Ji-Yoon tells Yaz, “I don’t feel like I inherited an English department; I feel like someone handed me a ticking time bomb because they wanted to make sure a woman was holding it when it exploded.” As Nancy Wang Yuen notes, “This is a documented phenomenon called ‘the glass cliff,’ in which institutions elevate women and BIPOC to positions of power during crises that puts them at risk of ‘falling off’ and failing.” As we see, Ji-Yoon is ultimately disempowered by this system, which is truthful of what happens to many of us. By the show’s end, the cyclical nature of the “model-minority” trope is clear: No matter how hard we work or how much we go “running around playing nice,” as Yaz reminds Ji-Yoon, the entrenched systems of white privilege which we enter continue to function and, in fact, function better with us “model minorities” firmly in place as proof that meritocracy works.

    Critiques and disappointments notwithstanding, watching Ji-Yoon walk into her brand-new office as the incoming chair of English at Pembroke in the first episode, I not only felt represented, but also a type of wonder. Art can do that, I guess. The next scene finds her sitting down in the chair at her desk and having it break beneath her. Was this a reality check for the truth of her situation and the long-established practices that she is soon forced to navigate? My English degree has made me turn everything into a symbol, but whatever it was, I laughed out loud and deeply understood the feeling.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Ljazz Brooks, a third-year international business student, walks with other students in protest at California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) on February 25, 2014. He is part of the CSULA Ethnic Studies Coalition, a collective of students, educators, workers and activists demanding that at least one of the two diversity courses required to graduate from CSULA come from ethnic studies.

    Last year, as a massive uprising against systemic racism swept across the world, activists fighting for Black liberation and racial justice put radical demands against institutional racism on the table, such as abolishing and defunding the police. Another key step toward challenging institutional racism is the push for ethnic studies and teaching about systemic racism in U.S. schools. I am part of that fight in California.

    Last year, Pittsburg, California’s school board passed an ethnic studies resolution and tasked an ethnic studies committee with implementing curricula for the school district. Pittsburg is a working-class, ethnically diverse city in the San Francisco Bay Area. Founded initially as a coal mining town, one of the main employers is the USS-POSCO steel mill. The majority of the population is non-white: white people (Latino and non-Latino) are 35 percent, Black people are 15 percent, Asians are 16 percent, Latinos (regardless of race) are 43 percent, while non-white Latinos are 21 percent. The city’s school district student population — a total of 11,015 students — is 95 percent non-white and 77 percent are low-income. As an African American community member who grew up here and has lived here most of my life, I sit on this committee.

    Racism has been in the United States for over 400 years, stemming from slavery and genocide. However, Trump’s emboldening of white nationalism and last year’s protests against police violence have raised the level of urgency to fight against systemic racism. In this crucial moment, the push for ethnic studies is an important fight because accurate, anti-racist, multicultural educational curricula are vital to creating a better, more just society.

    The Push for Ethnic Studies in California and Beyond

    Ethnic studies is the interdisciplinary study of the histories, experiences, cultures, and struggles of racial and ethnic groups within a society, particularly those that are marginalized in the United States. The discipline was born from a Black-led student strike at San Francisco State University in 1968 to demand a non-Eurocentric curriculum and equity in college admission. This fight was initiated by Black students, and other students of color joined as part of a larger anti-colonial coalition called the Third World Liberation Front.

    In the wake of last year’s uprisings, more school districts across the country are implementing ethnic studies and other forms of multicultural education. In December 2020, Connecticut became the first state to mandate high schools offer African American, Black, Puerto Rican and Latino studies beginning in fall 2022. Washington State is on the road to mandating ethnic studies; in March 2021, the state’s board of education passed a resolution supporting ethnic studies. In April, New Jersey passed a law requiring its public schools offer courses on diversity, inclusion and equality.

    The work of the ethnic studies committee in Pittsburg, California, comes amid the state’s growing efforts to institutionalize ethnic studies within the educational system. We emphasize that ethnic studies develops critical thinking skills; improves attendance, graduation rates and college enrollment (because marginalized students who are taught their own history have a greater sense of belonging, self-affirmation, confidence and agency); and teaches students the histories of non-European peoples and how they’re intertwined with ongoing racial inequalities in the United States. The majority of the over 6.1 million students enrolled in California’s K-12 public school system are non-white. White students are 22.4 percent, Latinos (regardless of race) are nearly 55 percent, Asians are 9.3 percent (Filipinos are 2.4 percent) and Black students are 5.3 percent.

    Last year, on August 17, 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that requires college freshmen, beginning in 2021-22, in the California State University system to take an ethnic studies class focusing on one of four ethnic groups — African American studies, Native American studies, Asian American studies or Latino/a (Latinx) studies. The California Faculty Association also sponsored the bill. While a college ethnic studies requirement has been discussed for years, last summer’s massive uprising against systemic racism arguably made the push more urgent.

    The state’s community college system (full disclosure: where I’m employed) followed suit. Last July, the board of governors for the California community college system unanimously voted to make ethnic studies a general education requirement. Therefore, students pursuing an associate degree in a California community college will be required to take an ethnic studies course in African American studies, Native American studies, Asian American studies or Latino/a (Latinx) studies. The requirement could take effect as soon as fall 2022 but will likely go into effect in fall 2023.

    Thanks to sustained activist pressure and added urgency from Black Lives Matter protests, California’s K-12 education system is also moving forward with ethnic studies. Last March, the California Board of Education unanimously (11-0) approved a model ethnic studies curriculum for the state’s high schools. It is the first statewide ethnic studies curriculum in the nation. The model curriculum, which went through different drafts, centers on the main four groups typically discussed in college ethnic studies classes — African Americans, Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. It also includes lesson plans on other groups like Jewish people, Arab Americans, Sikhs and Armenians. The curriculum, however, is optional — not a mandated curriculum. School districts can add or ignore the suggested curriculum.

    Other California school districts, like Pittsburg, have passed resolutions to include ethnic studies in their curriculum. In April 2019, the Salinas Union High School District Board of Trustees voted to approve a semester-long high school ethnic studies course requirement. Over 90 percent of the students in the district are non-white and 88 percent of the total student population are Latino. During last summer’s protest against police terrorism and systemic racism, the Salinas School Board passed a resolution supporting Black Lives Matter and pledging to challenge institutional racism.

    Also coming on the heels of last summer’s racial justice protests, Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education unanimously voted to create an ethnic studies high school requirement. Many parents, educators and alumni publicly supported the resolution, citing the necessity that students learn about other cultures and present-day racial oppression. Many school superintendents in Orange County, during a county education forum, argued that ethnic studies was necessary because students and the larger society benefit by examining U.S. history from a multicultural perspective.

    Backlash to Ethnic Studies

    As ethnic studies programs grow around the country, right-wing pushback is also mounting — overlapping with efforts to ban the teaching of critical race theory in U.S. schools. Critical race theory and ethnic studies are not the same: Critical race theory is a highly academic, and rather esoteric, legal theory that analyzes the manifestations of racism in U.S. law; it is mostly taught in law schools, not in K-12 public education. Meanwhile, ethnic studies focuses on the histories, cultures and struggles of marginalized racial/ethnic groups, especially as they relate to the overall history of the United States. However, right-wing opposition, driven by conservative think tanks and a network of activist groups funded by right-wing billionaire businessman Charles Koch, is targeting both ethnic studies and critical race theory in an attempt first to eliminate anti-racist trainings in corporations and schools and second to wage a larger culture war to undermine teachings that are critical of racism. Their goal is to maintain status quo educational curricula that are still grounded in white supremacy and American exceptionalism. At the helm is conservative activist, writer and filmmaker Christopher Rufo, who has become the pied piper of associating any study of the history of race in the United States with critical race theory.

    Opponents of critical race theory argue that it is a form of radical indoctrination and that it promotes racial division. They paint the theory’s critical analysis of systemic racism as an attack on white people and “American values.” Much of the pushback against ethnic studies comes from opponents who argue that ethnic studies is a way to shoehorn in critical race theory and, therefore, indoctrination into the school system.

    So far, over 20 states in the country have passed bills banning the teaching of what opponents deem as critical race theory and limiting the teaching of historical and institutional racism in schools. Recently, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill that bans the teaching of the New York Times’s 1619 Project (a journalistic project that focuses on slavery as a crucial foundation of U.S. history), and prescribes how Texas teachers can discuss current events, which educators argue limits honest discussions on race and racism. Idaho, Tennessee, Arizona and Florida passed similar bills banning the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 public school classrooms, while more than a dozen are considering similar legislation.

    A Black teacher of social studies in Red Oak Middle School in Battleboro, North Carolina, Rodney Pierce, has faced backlash from parents who say this teaching of history, race and slavery is biased. Pierce is not the only one. A growing number of frustrated and exhausted Black educators are quitting their jobs due to backlash from parents, including threats of violence, against discussions of race in the classroom and school commitments to diversity and equity.

    In Salinas, California, where the school board voted to approve an ethnic studies requirement, some parents and right-wing activists have pushed back against it, arguing that ethnic studies is a way to push critical race theory into the schools. Despite the backlash, students at Salinas Union High School District support ethnic studies and defended it at a Salinas school board meeting in July. Similarly, in Orange County, conservative organizers and parents are opposing ethnic studies curricula in the county, accusing the proposed courses as “anti-white.”

    A Political and Personal Struggle

    I was one of the very few African American men to graduate from Pittsburg High School and attend Stanford University, where I earned my bachelor’s in International Relations. In my decade-long teaching and writing career post-Stanford, I’ve seen how the education system is a site of institutional racism that directly impacts non-white students. I’ve also written about other forms of systemic racism, such as the police and gentrification. Ethnic studies, an educational discipline that teaches non-white students their own history and empowers them to be agents of their own destiny, is crucial to challenging institutional racism within the education system.

    I am part of this fight for ethnic studies because this is tied to my struggle. I am not just speaking as a writer or committee member but from the perspective of someone impacted directly by ongoing systematic anti-Black racism stemming from slavery. I am Black, a proud person of African descent, African diaspora, and, by ethnicity, African American — a descendant of enslaved Africans brought to the United States. My ancestors were kidnapped from Western/Central Africa, trafficked to, and enslaved in the United States. They were the victims and survivors of the transatlantic slave trade and U.S. chattel slavery. Their bodies and slave labor were the start-up capital for American capitalism; their slave labor was exploited to build Wall Street, the nation’s economy and foundational infrastructure, the White House, Washington, D.C. and Capitol Hill, which is where the infamous January 6 attack occurred.

    My true ancestral lineage cannot be traced to one specific African ethnic group or nation of people. The violence of the transatlantic slave trade snatched 45 different Western and Central African ethnic groups and severed direct ties to our Indigenous African cultures. Our Indigenous languages and names were ripped away from us. Enslaved Africans in the United States came from different parts of Western and Central Africa — the Senegambia region, present-day Congo, Ghana, Angola, Nigeria and as far as Mozambique. Therefore, my lineage, like the lineage of other descendants of enslaved Africans in the Americas, is an amalgamation of different African ethnic groups, including the Temne people of Sierra Leone.

    When my ancestors were trafficked to these shores and enslaved, they kept whatever they could from Africa and formed their own ethnicity, culture and way of life within the United States — blues, jazz, barbecue, jambalaya, inventions like the stoplight and cell phone, and much more. Blues and jazz music have enough African cultural retention (jazz — rhythm, polyrhythms, syncopation; blues — blues scale deriving from an African pentatonic system that makes room for blue notes) that they are still part of the larger African cultural family, while also forming the foundation of American popular music. For myself, I embrace my African roots through djembe and other forms of African American music.

    Even in a multi-ethnic city like Pittsburg, California, in a region as culturally diverse and ostensibly progressive as the San Francisco Bay Area, the education on Black history I received in the school district was pretty dismal. It was also pretty dismal when it came to the histories of other marginalized ethnic groups in our community like Mexicans, Central Americans, Filipinos, South Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. The curriculum was pretty Eurocentric and irrelevant to our struggles; I was not the only one who felt this way.

    Thankfully, I was exposed to my own extracurricular reading. As a bookish kid, I was surrounded by books on Black history and raised by a single Black mother (who is a retired public school teacher in the district) and extended family in which race, Black history and culture were a normal part of family discussion. That cultural upbringing shaped my sense of Black identity and I can see how that sense of identity empowered me in my life. Non-white students who have shared histories of being oppressed by white supremacy and colonization should have that same empowering education. This is even more relevant since the school district and state of California are being sued by the ACLU for institutional racism against Black and Latinx students by disproportionately placing them in special education classrooms and denying them necessary services — a sign that the struggle is far from over.

    Because of my African lineage and specific cultural heritage, I am tied to a centuries-long political struggle against racism and settler colonialism in the United States. This is a major reason why I am fighting for ethnic studies in my own community. My community has always been proudly multi-ethnic, with its own Black Bay Area culture, but neither the education curriculum, nor faculty and administration demographic, ever reflected that. It’s time to change that.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Volunteers help victims of flooding from Hurricane Ida in the Flushing neighborhood in Queens, New York.

    When the remnants of Hurricane Ida arrived in the Bronx, I messaged all my group chats. Was everyone safe? Exhausted from everything that is already happening to our BIPOC communities, I couldn’t sleep. I couldn’t stop worrying. I panicked as friends sent videos of their flooding basement. One person’s Instagram showed people in a flooded bus lifting their feet. The videos of strangers’ apartments and water raging into train stops still haunts me. I finally broke when I got a text in a community organizing chat that someone in a wheelchair was stuck in their flooded apartment and needed to get out. We didn’t know their immediate needs, or if they were safe. They got themselves out, alone, and unfortunately had to stay in an inaccessible hotel for the night. However, what we knew from the beginning was that they were calling on the community, not 911, because they did not feel safe.

    This is a part of environmental injustice that many still don’t understand. We are taught in this racist, queerphobic, transphobic, ableist society to rely on racist, queerphobic, transphobic, ableist systems that exterminate us. Everyone says call 911, but why should we when, especially as people of color, we call 911 and could be killed? This person had to choose between risking their life in more ways than cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied white people could ever consider.

    I tried not to cry, thinking about how this individual is just one of many who were and remain in worse situations, especially for unhoused community members, who for the sake of survival cannot put their lives, especially lives of color, in the hands of police. It is this distrust in a time crisis is exactly why we must reallocate funds from violent structures like police and into safer ones like housing, food security and the environment. Scientists predicted more extreme weather, and Ida was proof of it.

    Funding the police, whom I never see wearing masks on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) during this pandemic despite all the signs on transit, was clearly a mistake. When the chance presented itself in 2019, the MTA increased police presence and it cost our community over $260 million. That money could have kept people safe through environmentally conscious steps such as improving ventilation on train cars, pollution reduction measures or improving water pumping systems. After Ida passed over, so many trains were down that it seemed almost impossible to get to work. As a dancer who has to train almost daily, I had to forego class, which reduces my chance at finding work.

    Last year, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a budget cut of $1 billion from the police. This came alongside an increase in police funding in New York public schools. That money could have improved drainage systems, brought more renewable energy resources or could have been invested in housing to keep people safe, especially during COVID. Instead, we are counting deaths that this city could have prevented. We grieve for the people and families drowned in basement apartments, who could still be alive today in environmentally conscious and equitable housing.

    Throughout the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, community organizers immediately took to the streets to provide care and mutual aid. We are already donating clothes, food and cleaning debris. We are keeping us safe. We already have strategies for community safety and de-escalation that do not involve the police — not just during this crisis, but in our direct actions as well. Immediately, folks on the ground organized clothing drives, helped individuals gain flood assistance from the government, and more. We have yet to see police assist in post-Ida destruction, trauma or loss of life. Our tax dollars should be providing this relief, not our personal finances when we are already slammed by the pandemic and barely have the funds to remain housed.

    Whoever becomes the next mayor of this city will inherit a legacy of climate catastrophe, government failures and so much suffering for no reason other than that money was poorly invested in unsustainable sectors. I hope they make the right decisions. I have nothing but doubts.

    I think of the Senate that only last month voted almost unanimously to expand police nationwide by 100,000 and to deny federal funding to any municipality that defunded police. I invite all of them to move into a basement apartment in Queens without their paychecks. The people need that money for greener and more equitable solutions. Policing is not one of them.

    The United States government on every level has failed our communities by investing tax dollars into police instead of holistic community safety that is environmentally conscious. Now, we the people are paying the price for it. Capitalism, in so many ways, is destroying capitalist structures by not investing in our safety.

    As a nation, we stand at a crossroads. It is clearer than ever that the colonial state is collapsing. So, do we remain faithful to an ailing government that claws at systems of capital and control, or band together and care for our communities, in providing sustainable and safe housing, renewable energy, food security, so that we can salvage what is left of a further dimming future?

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A demonstrator rallies near the Capitol Hill residence of then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to call for an extension of unemployment benefits on July 22, 2020.

    An estimated 9 million Americans got the rug pulled out from under them over Labor Day weekend as enhanced pandemic federal unemployment benefits expired, leaving millions of families in the lurch during a record-breaking season for COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations.

    Some 35 million people — nearly 1 in 10 Americans — live in households that will be impacted by the cut. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted a response to those families: “Um, get a job?”

    If only it were that simple.

    Workers in this country aren’t lacking work ethic. They simply don’t have reliable child care, health care, or economic infrastructures to support them in times of crisis.

    As much as lawmakers like Cruz would like to believe that the pandemic is behind us, the number of daily COVID-19 cases is three times higher than a year ago, with children now representing more than a quarter of weekly COVID-19 cases. And there are still 5.7 million fewer jobs than before the pandemic.

    Vaccination rates are still lagging in much of the country, yet many state governments are undermining masking rules and other basic precautions. That makes returning to work more dangerous for frontline workers, many of whom also continue to lack paid leave or reliable child care.

    Additionally, in a pandemic that’s sent billionaire and CEO wealth soaring, many workers are asking if their labor is worth the risk if their bosses are the ones reaping the benefits.

    For instance, Hilton CEO Christopher Nassetta rigged the company’s pay rules to inflate his 2020 compensation to $56 million — 1,953 times more than the company’s median employee. Frontline Hilton workers, meanwhile, face a 39 percent reduction in staffing as the company moves to cut costs.

    How could we expect an abrupt and mass return to work under these conditions?

    Republicans thought they could force it by simply cutting the added $300 a week in federal unemployment insurance. It didn’t work.

    Over the summer, governors in 25 states prematurely ended the enhanced unemployment benefits to pressure people back to work. The results? Unimpressive. Payrolls grew by a meager 1.33 percent in the states that chose to end the benefits — compared to 1.37 percent in states that maintained them.

    Unemployment insurance wasn’t keeping people out of work, it turns out. It was keeping them out of poverty.

    After Congress expanded government assistance programs in spring 2020, including unemployment insurance, the number of people in poverty actually fell. All told, pandemic government aid programs kept 53 million people above the poverty line in 2020.

    Had enhanced programs not been in place, the number of people in poverty would have increased by 2.5 percent, new data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests.

    The pandemic unemployment benefits also, for the first time, reached workers previously left out of our already-faltering unemployment system — including part-time workers, gig workers, and the self-employed.

    Ending enhanced federal unemployment benefits during a global pandemic isn’t just cruel — it’s ineffective. Taking away $300 a week — equivalent to $15,200 a year — from a single parent won’t make that parent return to work during a global pandemic. It will force them deeper into poverty.

    Fortunately, Congress has an opportunity to build a just economy that advances equity in the pandemic recovery and beyond.

    The $3.5 trillion reconciliation package Congress is debating would provide paid leave, universal pre-K, affordable childcare, an expanded Child Tax Credit, and better health care programs. These badly needed investments would provide families and individuals with the social safety net needed to recover from the pandemic before the next crisis hits.

    If policy makers want to get people back to work, they need to make our economy work for people.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Over a hundred people joined Ramarley Graham's family and other organizations and groups for a public action and vigil in conjunction with Beyond The Moments National Day of Action on April 4, 2017.

    This Yom Kippur, a sacred refrain is running back and forth through my head: Texas, what the hell?

    That’s right Texas, what the hell? In just one day, on September 1, the Texas state legislature all but banned abortions statewide, passed the most restrictive voting laws in the U.S., and allowed Texans to carry handguns openly without a license. And if that were not nearly enough, this past June, Texas’s governor signed a bill limiting the teaching of the New York Times’s “1619 Project” and other content deemed by conservatives to be “critical race theory” in public schools.

    Yet, we must also refrain from demonizing Texas as some wholly disconnected outlier. These trends are not at all unique to that state. Indeed Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina and South Dakota are currently preparing abortion bills that mimic the Texas legislation. Meanwhile, there are 20 other states besides Texas that allow permitless handgun carrying. And as of August 26, 27 states have introduced bills or have otherwise taken steps to restrict the teaching of what conservatives see as critical race theory.

    So, while it might feel satisfying for progressives to pile on Texas, it’s probably more accurate to say that this particular state represents a larger phenomenon that has been part of our national culture for some time. For lack of a better term, let’s call it the rage of the white American man.

    White rage is, of course, nothing new, it might be argued that it’s currently entering an era of renewed ferocity. Last month we learned from the Census Bureau that the percentage of white people in the U.S. has actually decreased for the very first time. Since the last report 10 years ago, the overall white population in the U.S. has declined by almost 10 percent. In that same amount of time, the Latinx population grew by 23 percent, the Asian population increased by over 35 percent and the Black population grew by almost 6 percent.

    When you consider that the United States was built on a foundation of white supremacy — that is, by white men, for white men — it’s not difficult to grasp the impact of news such as this. While the country’s percentage of white people may be declining, white supremacists surely won’t go away quietly. We know from history that a dying beast can still do a considerable amount of damage on the way down. Indeed, this is precisely what we’re seeing unfold in Texas and around the country: the anger of white supremacist, misogynist Americans who are increasingly galled by what their country is becoming.

    And they are galled. They’re galled by the fact that the U.S. actually had a Black president for eight years. They’re galled that there’s a new national reckoning going on over the legacy of slavery and structural racism in our country. They’re galled by the increased national attention being paid to police violence against Black people and by a Black Lives Matter movement that mobilized the largest mass protests in U.S. history last summer. They are galled every time another statue of a Confederate is toppled in a Southern state, as was the case at the Virginia statehouse last week.

    And it doesn’t stop there. They’re also galled when women, nonbinary and trans people seek power over their own bodies — and really, whenever they seek more power in general. They’re galled by the rising movement for reproductive justice. They’re galled that there are now a record number of women serving in Congress, including a Palestinian American and a hijab-wearing former refugee from Somalia. They’re galled by the #MeToo movement, which is removing sexually violent men from positions of power. Last November, they were particularly galled when a powerful voting rights organizing effort largely led by Black women helped turn Georgia blue in both the presidential and congressional elections.

    Of course, white and misogynist anger over voting rights in this country didn’t begin last year. It surged in 1870, when the 15th Amendment technically gave Black men the right to vote. It surged in 1920, when the 19th Amendment technically gave women the right to vote. And it surged again in 1965, when the Voting Rights Act went into effect. Even as we celebrate these landmark legislative events, we can’t look away from the immense backlash and rage they engendered — and continue to engender — throughout the U.S., which makes it all the more crucial that we keep fighting for real universal enfranchisement. (It’s worth noting that truly universal enfranchisement would also include populations that don’t yet have the vote, such as undocumented people and most people who are incarcerated in prisons.)

    As we contemplate how to respond to the events transpiring in Texas and around the country, it’s immensely important for us to understand the historical power of white rage. This phenomenon has been part of U.S. national culture since this country’s founding on stolen land, and the colonial mass murder of Indigenous people. The current brand of self-righteous white rage is reminiscent of the racist backlash that played out during Reconstruction. We shouldn’t be surprised by the current devastating setbacks to public policy; on the contrary, we should expect them.

    The staying power of white supremacist anger in this country sometimes reminds me of a certain Biblical trope. Readers of the Hebrew Bible are, of course, familiar with the story of creation in Genesis 1, in which an omnipotent God creates light out of darkness and separates the primordial waters of chaos. It’s a satisfying, deeply aspirational myth that expresses a certain vision of the world as it should be: a neat and tidy process by which the world moves from chaos to greater order and progress.

    However, scholars have pointed out that there is another creation story embedded in the Bible, influenced by epic stories from the Ancient Near East that portray a battle between the gods and powerful sea monsters that represent the primordial forces of chaos. Biblical books, such as the Psalms, Job and Isaiah describe God’s battle with a mighty sea monster named Leviathan, among others. Unlike the orderly movement toward progress that we read about in Genesis 1, this other narrative portrays creation as an ongoing and even desperate struggle. And while God generally gets the upper hand, it’s not at all clear in the Bible that the primordial sea monster is ever completely vanquished.

    It sometimes occurs to me that our conventional, liberal view of history reflects a “Genesis 1 mindset,” i.e., an orderly movement toward greater progress, proceeding neatly from victory to victory. And while these landmark moments certainly represent political progress, they do not fundamentally change the foundational truth of this country. To put it differently, we too often forget that the sea monster is never fully vanquished. Yes, victories should be celebrated. But even more than that, they must also be protected.

    If we were ever sanguine about the threat of white supremacist resentment in this country, we should now have no doubt that it still exists, after the past four years of Trump (which literally culminated in an armed insurrection on the U.S. Capitol). This rage is real and it is mobilizing in truly frightening ways. It’s no coincidence that among the bills passed in Texas earlier this month was legislation loosening restrictions on gun carry laws. Indeed, the dramatic spike in gun ownership and the erosion of gun control measures around the country should make it clear to us that the threat of white nationalism is deadly serious.

    So where do we go from here? How do we resist such fierce and unrelenting rage? Perhaps the first step is to remember that white resentment is fueled by fear — and in truth, white supremacists have genuine cause to be fearful. They are afraid because they know full well that there are more of us than there are of them — and our numbers are growing. We should never forget that while fear may be one of their primary motivations, it’s also a sign of their fundamental weakness.

    White nationalism is essentially a reactionary movement; that is to say, it has historically reacted to changes that genuinely threaten its power and hegemony in this country. But even though by definition, these reactionaries have been playing defense throughout American history, the liberal response to white supremacy has been to resist the prospect of a strong offense as “too much,” “too radical,” or “too extreme.” White liberals often distance themselves from revolutionary people-of-color-led movements in this way, and those of us who are white must consciously resist this form of distancing, because this phenomenon is itself a form of white supremacy preservation. During the years of the civil rights movement — just as we’re seeing today — many white liberal leaders would publicly criticize movement tactics they felt were too radical or extreme.

    This is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr. was addressing when he so memorably wrote from a Birmingham jail, “the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?” The Black playwright Lorraine Hansberry put it succinctly in a 1964 speech entitled “The Black Revolution and the White Backlash,” saying, “We have to find some way to encourage the white liberal to stop being a liberal and become an American radical.”

    In other words, as long as white supremacy is baked into the very systems that govern our country, we can ill afford to play defense. If anyone has any doubts, consider this: Two months before the census reported the decrease in the white population in this country, the Reflective Democracy Campaign released a report that demonstrated how radically white minority rule pervades politics across the U.S. Despite the recent electoral gains for women and people of color, white men represent 30 percent of the population but 62 percent of state and national officeholders. By contrast, women and people of color constitute 51 percent and 40 percent of the U.S. population respectively, but represent just 31 percent and 13 percent of officeholders.

    When the Reflective Democracy Campaign released these findings, its director, Brenda Choresi Carter, put it very well: We have “a political system in general that is not built to include new voices and perspectives. It’s a system built to protect the people and the interests already represented in it. It’s like all systems. It’s built to protect the status quo.”

    As I read those words, I can’t help but ask: Isn’t challenging status-quo systems what Yom Kippur is ultimately all about? Every year at this season, those of us who observe this holiday are commanded to take a hard, unflinching look at the status quo, openly admit what needs changing, and commit to the hard work it will take to transform it. It’s an inherently radical concept: to proclaim every year that the status quo is unacceptable and that nothing short of genuine intervention will do. If our Yom Kippur prayers are to mean anything at all, we must be prepared to act upon this radical idea.

    Organizers and activists working to intervene in our racist, inequitable systems are already lighting a path toward a transformed world. We must take our cue from them. Because in the end, when we fight for voting rights, reproductive justice, racial justice, economic equity, or any other issue, we’re not only advocating for specific causes that have suffered setbacks — we’re fighting to transform systems that are fundamentally unjust.

    So when we sound the shofar with a long blast at the end of Yom Kippur, let’s not only regard it as the conclusion to this season. Let’s consider it a call to action for transformation in the year ahead. And when the inevitable setbacks occur, let us not respond with surprise or dismay; rather, let’s remind each other that setbacks and backlashes are a sign of their fear, not their strength. Let us never forget that there are more of us than there are of them — and if we see fit to summon our strength, we can indeed create the world we know is possible.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders walks to a Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on September 14, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Yesterday afternoon, a trio of conservative Democrats joined every Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, blowing a $600 billion hole in President Biden’s plans to reform Medicare and prescription drug purchasing by way of the Build Back Better Act. Their efforts ultimately failed thanks to some deft maneuvering by the speaker of the House, but the betrayal happened in broad daylight nonetheless. Those three Democrats, you see, had “concerns.” As it turns out, so do I.

    One of the culprits, Democratic Rep. Scott Peters of California, is the top House recipient of campaign donations from the pharmaceutical and health care industries. His San Diego district is home to thousands of research and drug development workers. His wife, Lynn Gorguze, is president and CEO of Cameron Holdings, “an investment firm whose portfolio company provides manufacturing and packaging for pharmaceutical companies,” according to Andrew Perez and David Sirota of The Daily Poster.

    A second culprit, Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon, enjoys similar campaign financing largesse from the pharmaceutical and health care industries. His net worth is pegged around $8 million, at least a portion of which came by way of an inheritance from his grandfather, who was “vice president and director of biochemical research and development at Pfizer,” according to The Oregonian.

    …And the penny drops, literally. It’s more than campaign money for these two. It’s in the family. That would explain why they voted against their own president and party to derail a series of reforms that are massively popular not just with Democrats and the general public, but with Republican voters as well. Even Donald Trump tried to jump on this particular bandwagon, not because he thought it was right, but because voters like it so much.

    Peters and Schrader did not cast these votes in self-defense, to be sure. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) maintains a list of “frontline” Democrats who are vulnerable to defeat come 2022, and neither Peters nor Schrader made that list. In fact, both of them — along with the third “no” vote from yesterday, Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York — hail from very safe districts.

    More to the point, the Democrats who face tougher races in 2022 strongly support the reforms that were voted down, because these reforms are so popular in swing districts. If those “frontline” Democrats don’t have these reforms to vote on, they are made more vulnerable.

    After the vote, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, came out swinging. Declaring that “the pharmaceutical industry owns the Republican Party and that no Republican voted for this bill,” Sanders went on to say that, “there is no excuse for every Democrat not supporting it. At a time when the drug companies are charging us by far the highest prices in the world, Congress must demand that Medicare negotiate prices with this extremely greedy and powerful industry.”

    “The pharmaceutical industry has spent over $4.5 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years and has hired some 1,200 lobbyists to get Congress to do its bidding,” Sanders continued. “They are the most powerful industry on Capitol Hill. Nonetheless, the American people are demanding that Congress stand up to them and finally lower the outrageous price of prescription drugs by requiring Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry. Now is the time for Congress to show courage and stand up to the greed of the pharmaceutical industry. The American people will not accept surrender.”

    Sanders has been spoiling for this fight for just about the full term of his political life, and he’s not wrong about the strength of his long-despised opponent. “The drug industry has spent years donating to political campaigns, lobbying members of Congress, and developing allies in the business community,” reports The New York Times. “They are now urgently leveraging those relationships. PhRMA announced a ‘seven-figure’ advertising buy on Wednesday, and published an open letter in several Washington publications, adding to television ads running on national news programs and football broadcasts. It’s a playbook that other powerful health lobbies have used.”

    Fortunately, there is more than one way to skin a cat in Washington, D.C. After the PharmaDem betrayal in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Speaker Pelosi was able to get the House Ways and Means Committee to advance the same package of Medicare and drug pricing reforms to the House floor, where they will join the rest of the bill for the fraught road ahead. Peters, Schrader, Rice, every Energy Committee Republican, along with Pfizer and its pals, found themselves outflanked for the moment.

    There is a vein of bright, shining irony shot through this whole debacle. After Joe Biden became president, the amen corner that is the corporate “news” media fell over themselves voicing warnings of how his legislative agenda would be foiled because of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “The Squad,” and the Progressive Democratic Caucus in general. Even the slightest bit of static between that cohort and the speaker’s office elicited howls of, “OOOOO, IT’S ON NOW, DEMS IN DISARRAY!” Hardly a day went by without some talking head grimly predicting a progressive uprising against Biden’s agenda.

    Flash forward to the debate over the most consequential piece of legislation in generations, and it has been the progressives offering the steady, guiding hand. They have shown their teeth when necessary, and may do so again if there is a concerted effort to decouple the budget reconciliation bill from the infrastructure bill, but they have been striving to shape the legislation and usher it forward.

    Instead, the process is threatened with collapse because of a pack of conservative Democrats beholden to greedy pharmaceutical companies and polluting coal barons. Bob Dylan was right: Money doesn’t talk, it swears.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People are evicted from a camp site by Civic Center Park in Denver, Colorado, on September 15, 2021.

    Over the past weeks, multiple crises have merged: a crisis of democracy with the most significant attack on voting rights since Reconstruction; a climate crisis with lives and livelihoods upended in the Gulf Coast and the Northeast by extreme weather events and in the West by a stunning fire season; and an economic crisis in which millions are being cut off from Pandemic Unemployment Insurance, even as August job gains proved underwhelming. There’s also a crisis taking place in state legislatures with an ongoing attack on women’s autonomy over our own bodies. The Supreme Court let a law go into effect that makes abortions nearly impossible in Texas and turns its enforcement over to vigilantes. And then, of course, there’s the looming eviction crisis that could precipitate the worst housing and homelessness disaster in American history.

    Indeed, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas abortion ban was hardly its only horrific decision this summer. Its willingness to end a moratorium on evictions instantly put hundreds of thousands of people at risk of eviction, with tens of millions more in danger in the weeks to come. With an unequal economic recovery, surging Covid-19 cases (thanks to the highly infectious Delta variant), and poor and homeless people disproportionately suffering the effects of fires and floods, this decision could truly prove catastrophic. Nor is it the only one likely to impact poor and low-income communities of color drastically. That stacked court, the Trump court (if you want to think of it that way), is offering a remarkably vivid demonstration of just how connected voting rights, women’s rights, immigrant rights, and poverty really are.

    President Biden critiqued the Supreme Court recently for its ruling on the Texas abortion case. “For the majority to do this without a hearing, without the benefit of an opinion from a court below, and without due consideration of the issues,” he said, “insults the rule of law and the rights of all Americans to seek redress from our courts.” And as continued injustices, especially from that court’s “shadow docket,” have come to light, former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, now head of the American Constitution Society, tweeted, “SCOTUS’s increasing use of the shadow docket to issue massive legal decisions is yet another reason why Supreme Court reform needs to be taken seriously.”

    ​In reality, the Supreme Court is an institution of minority rule. According to Ari Berman, a voting-rights expert and journalist who has tracked that court for years, “A majority of conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by GOP presidents who initially lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population.” As he’s also pointed out, “No one has benefited more from minority rule — and done more to ensure it — than Mitch McConnell.”

    After all, McConnell blocked President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court on the flimsy pretext that it was too close to an election, only to ram through Donald Trump’s pick just eight days before the 2020 election when 65 million votes had already been cast. What this amounts to is simple enough: a Supreme Court that doesn’t represent the opinions or values of the majority of Americans.

    As a biblical scholar and Christian pastor, I find the words of the Bible particularly relevant in a moment like this. Proverbs 22 reads, “Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case.”

    In these ever-less United States, of course, it’s not only the Supreme Court that doesn’t respect the rights of the poor. Consider housing and the lower courts. In recent studies of landlord-tenant court cases in states across the country, landlords typically won 95% of eviction cases in Oklahoma and Hawaii and, in 2017, 99.7% percent of those in Kansas City. According to the ACLU, ​​”Eviction proceedings historically have been unfair and imbalanced. In the courts, the odds are stacked against tenants: 90% of landlords are represented by legal counsel in evictions, but fewer than 10% of tenants have representation.”

    Eviction in a Pandemic

    Recently, as Ivana Saric pointed out at Axios, a new report from Goldman Sachs predicted significant hardship because of the way the Supreme Court upended the moratorium on evictions. As she wrote, “Roughly 2.5 million to 3.5 million American households are behind on their rents… They owe landlords between $12 billion and $17 billion… Evictions are likely to be ‘particularly pronounced in the cities hardest hit’ by Covid-19 because they have stronger apartment rental markets.”

    Even more dire, reports CNBC, “The coronavirus pandemic could result in some 28 million Americans being evicted… By comparison, 10 million people lost their homes in the Great Recession.” These predictions come, in part, from Emily Benfer, the chair of the American Bar Association’s Task Force Committee on Eviction and co-creator with the Eviction Lab at Princeton University of the Covid-19 Housing Policy Scorecard. As she points out, “We have never seen this extent of eviction in such a truncated amount of time in our history.”

    Add to that something else: this eviction crisis is happening at a moment when there’s already an existing population of 8 to 11 million homeless Americans who have only been thrown into a deeper set of crises during this seemingly never-ending pandemic. Although some homeless families received relief during the pandemic, homeless assistance funding was based on a count of only half a million homeless Americans and so, was woefully inadequate. Worse yet, sweeps and evictions of homeless encampments continued even during this crisis, while the limited protections won by housing activists — including, in some places, hotel rooms for those previously living on the street or in shelters — have, in many cases, been rolled back.

    To put the eviction moratorium in perspective: Initially, it was instituted as part of the CARES Act that Congress passed in March 2020. Although limited in its reach and scope, it did indeed protect hundreds of thousands of people from homelessness at a moment when, in some places, landlords were flocking to eviction court in the middle of a pandemic to get rid of tenants. The CARES moratorium expired in July 2020. That September, in the absence of any further Congressional action, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stepped in to extend the moratorium to December 31st as a public-health measure to prevent an even greater spread of the virus. Then, in January of this year, the moratorium was extended by the new Congress until July when the CDC again intervened to extend it through October 3rd at least in areas where pandemic cases were high.

    Many are familiar with the stand Congresswoman Cori Bush took in early August when the congressional moratorium expired. As someone who had experienced homelessness herself, she camped out on the steps of the Capitol to call attention to the looming housing disaster. Her actions, combined with powerful organizing by grassroots groups, called attention to the eviction crisis, but more is now needed.

    The average household debt burden has only grown during the pandemic and no legislative action has been taken to relieve such a rent or housing crisis. The stimulus payments, unemployment insurance, and an expanded child tax credit were simply not enough. As a result, more than 10 million households are now estimated to be behind on their rent. Rather than bailing out renters and homeowners by canceling such debts or even efficiently distributing the $45 billion in rental assistance that has largely languished in a bureaucratic hell, Congress failed to extend the eviction moratorium, paving the way for disaster.

    Homeless, Not Helpless

    Over more than 40 years, while a crisis of homelessness has exploded, a narrative has been popularized that sees it largely through stereotypes. For a wealthy elite that’s advanced a generation of neoliberal reforms, it’s been critical to cast homelessness in this way — as an aberration on the margins of an otherwise healthy society, rather than as a startlingly visible indictment of a political and economic order in which homelessness and poverty are at the very core of society.

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, major structural shifts in the global economy were accompanied by deep tax cuts, the deregulation of banking and the financial markets, the privatization of public utilities and services, and anti-labor measures. In the midst of all this, homelessness grew, as the government demolished public housing while investing in private urban development projects that fueled gentrification and pushed poor families from their homes.

    Up from the streets and out of the shelters, poor and homeless people began organizing themselves into communities of mutual-aid and solidarity. In just a few years, the National Union of the Homeless (NUH) broke into the national narrative, challenging the prevailing notion that its members were poor and homeless because of bad personal decisions and moral failures in their family lives. Instead, they targeted the systems and structures that produced their poverty.

    Recently, images of the flooding of Tompkins Square Park when what was left of Hurricane Ida hit downtown New York City received significant attention. Over the summer, the number of homeless people living in that park increased strikingly and neighbors began organizing mutual-aid projects to help the unhoused. Such conditions and projects of survival connect this particular moment to the past — specifically to a time decades ago when homeless and formerly homeless organizers from Tompkins Square first helped form the National Union of the Homeless. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the NUH would organize 25 chapters in cities across the United States representing thousands of homeless people. Its slogans then included “Tompkins Square Everywhere,” “No housing, no peace,” and “You only get what you’re organized to take” — and they still resonate today.

    The NUH was known for coordinating housing takeovers: those lacking housing moved into abandoned, government-owned dwellings in a politicized and organized way. The spectacle of homeless people directly challenging public property in the name of survival was striking. In fact, in the 1980s and 1990s, these bold actions resulted in the union winning the right of the homeless to vote, setting up housing programs run by the un-housed themselves in nearly a dozen cities, and so shifting the national narrative on poverty and homelessness.

    In the midst of the present pandemic and the eviction crisis that now goes with it, the National Union of the Homeless is taking to the streets again. Indeed, its leaders know that it will take the concerted action of the poor and dispossessed continually putting pressure on the powers that be for the legislature and courts to do what’s right.

    After all, history shows that social transformation happens when those most impacted by injustice band together with people from all walks of life and build the political will to push through change. Perhaps this is what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said, “Public sentiment is everything. With it, you can accomplish almost everything. Without it, practically nothing.” It’s what the Reverend Martin Luther King emphasized in 1968 shortly before his death. “Power for poor people,” he said, “will really mean having the ability, the togetherness, the assertiveness and the aggressiveness to make the power structure of this nation say yes when they may be desirous to say no.”

    How Congress Must Act

    I started working with the National Union of the Homeless and other organizations led by the poor in the early 1990s. It was about the time that spell check became commonplace on personal computers. I remember then writing papers and articles on homelessness, which was growing rapidly at the time. But as the word wasn’t yet in the spell-check dictionary, my computer tried endlessly to correct me. One reason for that: economic homelessness — people being downsized from their jobs or paid too little to pay their rent — was then a relatively new phenomenon in this country. In the last three decades, however, it’s grown so commonplace that most of us consider it both age-old and inevitable.

    So, it’s worth saying what should be but isn’t obvious: that poverty, eviction, and homelessness are not eternal, that life truly does not have to be this way. Although in the recent eviction-moratorium debacle the Supreme Court, Congress, and the White House have all tried to shift the blame elsewhere, solutions do exist to address deep-seated, as well as emergency-induced, poverty and deprivation. After all, the very existence of a moratorium on evictions proves that ending them is possible.

    The Supreme Court rationalized its decision by claiming that the CDC had overstepped its authority and that it was up to Congress to resolve the eviction crisis through legislative action. In its majority opinion, the judges highlighted the “irreparable harm” suffered not by the poor but by the association of realtors that brought the case. They wrote, “As harm to the [realtor’s association] has increased, the Government’s interests [in maintaining the moratorium] have decreased.”

    Of course, the genuine irreparable harm suffered in this moment by millions of families facing eviction in a country that has more abandoned houses than homeless people should be obvious. At the same time, a court that increasingly denies people the right to vote and women the right to health care and control over their own bodies should be the definition of “harm.” A government more interested in placating the real estate industry than ensuring that its people are housed should be challenged.

    In fact, at this very moment, grassroots groups have come forward with solutions to just such harm. We would do well to attend to them. They include:

    • Making evictions from any dwelling, including cars, tents, and encampments, illegal.
    • Canceling the housing and rental debt that has been accumulated during the moratorium period.
    • Ending predatory speculation that raises rents and makes housing unaffordable in every state in the country.
    • Ensuring living wages and a guaranteed income so every American can afford a decent place to live.
    • Protecting and expanding voting rights including for the poor, homeless, disabled, and elderly so people have the right to vote officials into office who will represent the interests of the unhoused, the temporarily housed, and those facing evictions.
    • Ending the Senate filibuster that’s preventing the passage of bold and visionary policies, including the expansion of health care, the raising of wages, the introduction of new anti-poverty programs, and so much more.

    Those facing eviction, those underpaid and excluded, and many of the 140 million people who are poor and low-income can’t wait for those in power to act (if they ever do). Grassroots efforts like the National Union of the Homeless, Housing Justice for All, Cancel the Rents, Homes Guarantee, and other networks promoting rent strikes and eviction resistance will continue to organize to ensure that all Americans have a place to live, thrive, and build the sort of society we know is possible.

    In early September, the National Union of the Homeless put out a statement for Labor Day in which they wrote:

    “Our Union members include autoworkers who spent decades on the assembly lines only to end up in the soup line, who built cars only to end up sleeping in them. Our members include former construction workers and farmworkers who provided real homes and grew food for the world but now can’t afford to buy or pay rent in the houses they built or buy the food they harvested…

    “We challenge the false narrative, the mythology that we are an ‘underclass,’ a dredge on society, helpless, deserving only pity or scorn, to be corralled into mass congregant shelters (read: homeless internment camps), and pushed into the ‘Homeless Management Information System’ just to get a few crumbs at the cost of our dignity and our political rights… We reject the false narrative that our plight is the result of our ‘bad choices’ when it’s really about a system that builds for the rich at the expense of the poor, where everyone who works for a living is only one paycheck, one family medical crisis, one eviction away from becoming homeless… Together we can survive today to build a new, fair, and equitable world tomorrow.”

    May it be so.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.