Category: Op-Ed

  • President Joe Biden speaks in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on March 31, 2021.

    Two tidbits of note regarding the United States and its well-fed war machine, the first regarding a familiar problem child: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Coming in at an overall and still-growing project cost of $1.7 trillion, the F-35 was intended to be a kind of flying junk drawer, filled to bursting with neat technological tools to solve any dilemma a hypersonic weapon of mass destruction may encounter.

    Turns out, as many now know, the F-35 is basically just junk. It has never worked properly, never became the huge sales item the Pentagon was hoping for, and House Armed Services Committee chairman Adam Schiff recently called the whole program a “failure on a massive freaking scale.”

    All this was before one of the things shot the shit out of itself in early March. You heard me.

    “A Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighter accidentally shot itself during a practice mission earlier this month,” reports Kyle Mizokami for Esquire, “causing more than $2.5 million in damage. Fortunately, the fighter jet was able to land, and the pilot was unharmed.”

    One does not have to be von Clausewitz to grasp the fact that a flying war weapon capable of firing 25-millimeter PGU-32/U Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer rounds from a side-mounted GAU-22 four-barrel, 25-millimeter Gatling gun at a rate of 3,000 rounds per minute is a damn dangerous thing to have on hand. The inability to prevent that weapon from destroying itself with one of its own weapons casts deep doubt on its place in the skies over “the battlefields of the future.”

    Context, as ever, is king. As the nation wrestles with how to fund the Biden administration’s ambitious and expensive slate of policy proposals, a number of familiar voices have raised the inevitable chorus of “we can’t afford it!” Many of these voices belong to lawmakers who have spent the last several years practically pushing the F-35 down the runway to get it to fly and justify the expenditure. The very existence of hyper-boondoggle programs like the F-35 are a massive testament to the simple fact that we can afford to help people if we choose to. The trick is in the choosing.

    Item two regarding the war machine is as purely American as it gets. As a Trump-established May 1 deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan looms, the same old pushback has returned. “We’ve got to be able to assure the world and the American public that Afghanistan will not be a source of planning, plotting to project terrorist attacks around the globe,” Sen. Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters last month. “That’s the minimum. I’m not sure we can do that without some presence there.”

    Plus, there are all those mineral and natural gas deposits to exploit, all those mines to be dug and pipelines to be laid, all that money to be made. War is a profitable enterprise, though we do not discuss this in polite company… and that’s the funny part: The Pentagon’s newest excuse for staying in Afghanistan is all business. Simply put, they don’t want to get sued if they leave. From CNN:

    Despite the signing of the Doha agreement last February that called for a full drawdown of US troops and personnel from Afghanistan by May 1, the Department of Defense issued nearly a billion dollars in contracts to 17 different companies related to work in Afghanistan past the withdrawal date. There are currently some 18,000 contractors in the country, of which 6,350 are American citizens.

    With the deadline rapidly approaching and no formal decision from the White House, the future of the contracts, some of which have completion dates in 2023 and beyond, remains unclear, but the Pentagon could potentially have to pay hundreds of millions in settlements or face years of litigation if the US pulls out of the country on schedule or by the end of the year as President Joe Biden suggested is likely.

    Please pardon the pun, but this is just too rich. If anyone still doubted that war in the United States is pretty much the biggest business of all, look no further than this report. Like any big contractor, the Pentagon can get sued if it stiffs the subcontractors… but in this case, “stiffing the contractors” means “failing to maintain a violent 20-year military occupation.”

    Why bring these two items up? We are less than three months into a new presidential administration. None can argue that things aren’t on their way to being profoundly different now, when it comes to some matters of domestic policy. On foreign policy, the Pentagon and eternal war, however, very little has changed, right down to the rank absurdities that still make John Yossarian fume.

    “Clearly what is needed is diplomacy and negotiations on contested matters,” linguist and historian Noam Chomsky tells Truthout, “and real cooperation on such crucial issues as global warming, arms control, future pandemics — all very severe crises that know no borders. Whether Biden’s hawkish foreign policy team will have the wisdom to move in these directions is, for now, at best unclear — at worst, frightening. Absent significant popular pressures, prospects do not look good.”

    We have no laurels to rest on with Mr. Biden in the White House. His revival of a 21st century Truman Doctrine of goodwill or humanitarian military intervention around the world sounds good in a speech, but is perilous and expensive in the extreme. In too many ways, it is the same old business in a new wrapper, and even the wrapper ain’t that new.

    Mr. Biden must break free of the war-footing inertia that has trapped so many of his predecessors. And we must keep up the pressure to urge him to do so.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Honduran migrants, part of a caravan heading to the United States, stand in front of a police cordon, in Vado Hondo, Guatemala, on January 17, 2021.

    Joe Biden entered the White House with some contradictory positions on immigration and Central America. He promised to reverse Donald Trump’s draconian anti-immigrant policies while, through his “Plan to Build Security and Prosperity in Partnership with the People of Central America,” restoring “U.S. leadership in the region” that he claimed Trump had abandoned. For Central Americans, though, such “leadership” has an ominous ring.

    Although the second half of his plan’s name does, in fact, echo that of left-wing, grassroots organizations like the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), its content highlights a version of security and prosperity in that region that’s more Cold War-like than CISPES-like. Instead of solidarity (or even partnership) with Central America, Biden’s plan actually promotes an old economic development model that has long benefited U.S. corporations. It also aims to impose a distinctly militarized version of “security” on the people of that region. In addition, it focuses on enlisting Central American governments and, in particular, their militaries to contain migration through the use of repression.

    Linking Immigration and Foreign Policy

    The clearest statement of the president’s Central America goals appears in his “U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021,” sent to Congress on January 20th. That proposal offers a sweeping set of changes aimed at eliminating President Trump’s racist exclusions, restoring rights to asylum, and opening a path to legal status and citizenship for the immigrant population. After the anti-immigrant barrage of the last four years, that proposal seems worth celebrating. It follows in the footsteps of previous bipartisan “comprehensive” compromises like the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and a failed 2013 immigration bill, both of which included a path to citizenship for many undocumented people, while dedicating significant resources to border “security.”

    Read closely, a significant portion of Biden’s immigration proposal focuses on the premise that addressing the root causes of Central America’s problems will reduce the flow of immigrants to the U.S. border. In its own words, the Biden plan promises to promote “the rule of law, security, and economic development in Central America” in order to “address the key factors” contributing to emigration. Buried in its fuzzy language, however, are long-standing bipartisan Washington goals that should sound familiar to those who have been paying attention in these years.

    Their essence: that millions of dollars in “aid” money should be poured into upgrading local military and police forces in order to protect an economic model based on private investment and the export of profits. Above all, the privileges of foreign investors must not be threatened. As it happens, this is the very model that Washington has imposed on the countries of Central America over the past century, one that’s left its lands corrupt, violent, and impoverished, and so continued to uproot Central Americans and send them fleeing toward the United States.

    Crucial to Biden’s plan, as to those of his predecessors, is another key element: to coerce Mexico and Guatemala into serving as proxies for the wall only partially built along the southern border of the U.S. and proudly promoted by presidents from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump.

    While the economic model lurking behind Biden’s plan may be old indeed, the attempt to outsource U.S. immigration enforcement to Mexican and Central American military and police forces has proven to be a distinctly twenty-first-century twist on border policy.

    Outsourcing the Border (from Bush to Biden)

    The idea that immigration policy could be outsourced began long before Donald Trump notoriously threatened, in mid-2019, to impose tariffs on Mexican goods to pressure that country’s new president into agreeing to his demand to collaborate with Washington’s anti-immigrant agenda. That included, of course, Trump’s controversial “remain in Mexico” policy that has continued to strand tens of thousands of asylum-seekers there.

    Meanwhile, for almost two decades the United States has been bullying (and funding) military and police forces to its south to enforce its immigration priorities, effectively turning other countries’ borders into extensions of the U.S. one. In the process, Mexico’s forces have regularly been deployed on that country’s southern border, and Guatemala’s on its border with Honduras, all to violently enforce Washington’s immigration policies.

    Such outsourcing was, in part, a response to the successes of the immigrant rights movement in this country. U.S. leaders hoped to evade legal scrutiny and protest at home by making Mexico and Central America implement the uglier aspects of their policies.

    It all began with the Mérida Initiative in 2007, a George W. Bush-initiated plan that would direct billions of dollars to military equipment, aid, and infrastructure in Mexico (with smaller amounts going to Central America). One of its four pillars was the creation of “a 21st century border” by pushing Mexico to militarize its southern border. By 2013, Washington had funded 12 new military bases along that border with Guatemala and a 100-mile “security cordon” north of it.

    In response to what was seen as a child-migrant crisis in the summer of 2014 (sound familiar?), President Barack Obama further pressured Mexico to initiate a new Southern Border Program. Since then, tens of millions of dollars a year have gone toward the militarization of that border and Mexico was soon detaining tens of thousands of migrants monthly. Not surprisingly, deportations and human-rights violations against Central American migrants shot up dramatically there. “Our border today in effect is Mexico’s border with Honduras and Guatemala,” exulted Obama’s former border czar Alan Bersin in 2019. A local activist was less sanguine, protesting that the program “turned the border region into a war zone.”

    President Trump blustered and bullied Mexico and various Central American countries far more openly than the previous two presidents while taking such policies to new levels. Under his orders, Mexico formed a new, militarized National Guard and deployed 12,000 of its members to the Guatemalan border, even as funding from Washington helped create high-technology infrastructure along Mexico’s southern border, rivaling that on the U.S. border.

    Trump called for reducing aid to Central America. Yet under his watch, most of the $3.6 billion appropriated by Congress continued to flow there, about half of it aimed at strengthening local military and police units. Trump did, however, temporarily withhold civilian aid funds to coerce Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador into signing “safe third country” agreements that would allow the United States to deport people with valid asylum claims to those very countries.

    Trump also demanded that Guatemala increase security along its southern border “to stem the flow of irregular migration” and “deploy officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to advise and mentor host nation police, border security, immigration, and customs counterparts.” Once the Central American countries conceded to Trump’s demands, aid was restored.

    This February, President Biden suspended those safe third country agreements, but is clearly otherwise ready to continue to outsource border enforcement to Mexico and Central America.

    The Other Side of Militarization: “Economic Development”

    As Democratic and Republican administrations alike outsourced a militarized response to immigration, they also sought to sell their agendas with promises of economic-development aid to Central America. However, they consistently promoted the very kind of assistance that historically brought violence and poverty to the region — and so led directly to today’s migrant crisis.

    The model Washington continues to promote is based on the idea that, if Central American governments can woo foreign investors with improved infrastructure, tax breaks, and weak environmental and labor laws, the “free market” will deliver the investment, jobs, and economic growth that (in theory) will keep people from wanting to migrate in the first place. Over and over again in Central America’s tormented history, however, exactly the opposite has happened. Foreign investment flowed in, eager to take advantage of the region’s fertile lands, natural resources, and cheap labor. This form of development — whether in support of banana and coffee plantations in the nineteenth century or sugar, cotton, and cattle operations after World War II — brought Central America to its revolutions of the 1980s and its north-bound mass migration of today.

    As a model, it relies on militarized governments to dispossess peasant farmers, freeing the land for foreign investors. Similarly, force and terror are brought to bear to maintain a cheap and powerless working class, allowing investors to pay little and reap fantastic profits. Such operations, in turn, have brought deforestation to the countryside, while their cheap exports to the United States and elsewhere have helped foster the high-consumption lifestyles that have only accelerated climate change — bringing ever fiercer weather, including the rising sea levels, more intense storms, droughts, and floods that have further undermined the livelihoods of the Central American poor.

    Starting in the 1970s, many of those poor workers and peasants pushed for land reform and investment in basic rights like food, health, and education instead of simply further enriching foreign and local elites. When peaceful protest was met with violence, revolution followed, although only in Nicaragua did it triumph.

    Washington spent the 1980s attempting to crush Nicaragua’s successful revolution and the revolutionary movements against the right-wing military governments of El Salvador and Guatemala. The peace treaties of the 1990s ended the armed conflicts, but never addressed the fundamental social and economic divides that underlay them. In fact, the end of those conflicts only opened the regional floodgates for massive new foreign investment and export booms. These involved, among other things, the spread of maquiladora export-processing plants and the growing of new export-oriented “non-traditional” fruits and vegetables, as well as a boom in extractive industries like gold, nickel, and petroleum, not to speak of the creation of new infrastructure for mass tourism.

    In the 1980s, refugees first began fleeing north, especially from El Salvador and Guatemala, then riven by war, repression, and the violence of local paramilitary and death squads. The veneer of peace in the 1990s in no way brought an end to poverty, repression, and violence. Both public and private armed forces provided “security” — but only to elites and the new urban and rural megaprojects they sponsored.

    If a government did threaten investors’ profits in any way, as when El Salvador declared a moratorium on mining licenses, the U.S.-sponsored Central America Free Trade Agreement enabled foreign corporations to sue and force it to submit to binding arbitration by a World Bank body. In the Obama years, when the elected, reformist president of Honduras tried to enact labor and environmental improvements, Washington gave the nod to a coup there and celebrated when the new president proudly declared the country “open for business” with a package of laws favoring foreign investors.

    Journalist David Bacon termed that country’s new direction a “poverty-wage economic model” that only fostered the rise of gangs, drug trafficking, and violence. Protest was met with fierce repression, even as U.S. military aid flowed in. Prior to the coup, Hondurans had barely figured among Central American migrants to the United States. Since 2009, its citizens have often come to predominate among those forced to flee their homes and head north.

    President Obama’s 2014 Alliance for Prosperity offered a new round of aid for investor-driven economic development. Journalist Dawn Paley characterized that Alliance as in “large part a plan to build new infrastructure that will benefit transnational corporations,” including “tax breaks for corporate investors and new pipelines, highways, and power lines to speed resource extraction and streamline the process of import, assembly, and export at low-wage maquilas.” One major project was a new gas pipeline to facilitate exports of U.S. natural gas to Central America.

    It was Obama who oversaw Washington’s recognition of the coup in Honduras. It was Trump who looked the other way when Guatemala in 2019 and Honduras in 2020 expelled international anti-corruption commissions. And it was Trump who agreed to downplay the mounting corruption and drug trafficking charges against his friend, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, as long as he promoted an investor-friendly economy and agreed to collaborate with the U.S. president’s anti-immigrant agenda.

    The January 2021 Caravan Marks the Arrival of the Biden Years

    All signs point to the Biden years continuing what’s become the Washington norm in Central America: outsourcing immigration policy, militarizing security there, and promoting a model of development that claims to deter migration while actually fueling it. In fact, President Biden’s proposal designates $4 billion over four years for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to distribute. Such disbursement, however, would be conditioned on progress toward Washington-approved goals like “improv[ing] border security,” “inform[ing]… citizens of the dangers of the journey to the southwest border of the United States,” and “resolv[ing] disputes involving the confiscation of real property of United States entities.” Significant resources would also be directed to further developing “smart” border technology in that region and to Border Patrol operations in Central America.

    A preview of how this is likely to work came just as Biden took office in January 2021.

    One predictable result of Washington’s outsourcing of immigration control is that the migrant journey from Central America has become ever more costly and perilous. As a result, some migrants have begun gathering in large public “caravans” for protection. Their aim: to reach the U.S. border safely, turn themselves in to the border patrol, and request asylum. In late January 2021, a caravan of some 7,500 Hondurans arrived at the Guatemalan border in hopes that the new president in Washington would, as promised, reverse Trump’s controversial remain-in-Mexico policy of apparently endless internment in crowded, inadequate camps just short of the U.S.

    They hadn’t known that Biden would, in fact, continue his predecessors’ outsourcing of immigration policy to Mexico and Central America. As it happened, 2,000 tear-gas and baton-wielding Guatemalan police and soldiers (armed, trained, and supported by the United States) massed at the Guatemala-Honduras border to drive them back.

    One former Trump official (retained by President Biden) tweeted that Guatemala had “carr[ied] out its responsibilities appropriately and lawfully.” The Mexican government, too, praised Guatemala as it massed thousands of its troops on its own southern border. And Juan González, Biden’s National Security Council director for the Western Hemisphere lauded Guatemala’s “management of the migrant flow.”

    In mid-March, President Biden appeared to link a positive response to Mexico’s request for some of Washington’s surplus Covid-19 vaccine to further commitments to cracking down on migrants. One demand: that Mexico suspend its own laws guaranteeing humane detention conditions for families with young children. Neither country had the capacity to provide such conditions for the large number of families detained at the border in early 2021, but the Biden administration preferred to press Mexico to ignore its own laws, so that it could deport more of those families and keep the problem out of sight of the U.S. public.

    In late January 2021, CISPES joined a large coalition of peace, solidarity, and labor organizations that called upon the Biden administration to rethink its Central American plans. “The intersecting crises that millions in Central America face are the result of decades of brutal state repression of democratic movements by right-wing regimes and the implementation of economic models designed to benefit local oligarchs and transnational corporations,” CISPES wrote. “Far too often, the United States has been a major force behind these policies, which have impoverished the majority of the population and devastated the environment.”

    The coalition called on Biden to reject Washington’s longstanding commitment to militarized security linked to the creation and reinforcement of investor-friendly extractive economies in Central America. “Confronting displacement demands a total rethinking of U.S. foreign policy,” CISPES urged. As of mid-March, the president had not responded in any fashion to the plea. My advice: don’t hold your breath waiting for such a response.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A medical worker handles a Covid-19 vaccine

    Over the past few weeks, the world has gotten a glimpse of just how ugly international relations could become if the COVID crisis doesn’t ease up in the coming months.

    While a handful of countries — the U.S., the U.K. and Israel in particular — have vaccinated large percentages of their populations, for most of the world, getting vaccinations into arms on a scale capable of blunting the spread of the virus remains a distant aspiration.

    In Brazil, as the virus rampaged and Jair Bolsonaro’s government hemmed and hawed in the face of calamity, by the weekend, close to 4,000 people a day were dying of the disease. In much of Eastern Europe, deaths were higher in late March than at any point to date in the pandemic. Although a frightening COVID spike is ongoing in the United States as well, hopes are still high as vaccinations continue apace, with 28 percent of Americans having received at least one dose of the vaccine.

    As that divide grows between countries with robust vaccination programs and countries with less access, some governments may slide further into what might be called vaccine nationalism: blocking the export of vaccines, even if they have already been paid for by other countries; insisting that people hoping to enter the country have received a vaccine manufactured by that country; and using selective vaccine exports as ways to shore up overseas influence — in a similar way to, say, arms sales or development grants.

    This past month, it was the European Union (EU), which has prided itself historically on its openness and its sense of international spirit, that wielded raw power in a particularly crude way to start blockading the export of vaccines.

    France called it the end of “naivety”; Italy said it was an imperative to halt exports while its own population was under-vaccinated; and Germany — even while using more moderate language — cited the imperatives of protecting one’s own population first and foremost. However it was packaged, the result was the same: The EU, which has massively bungled the rollout and distribution of vaccines within its borders and is being overwhelmed by the spread of the U.K. variant, is now severely restricting exports of vaccines made on European soil to Canada, the U.K., Australia, and other countries whose governments have already paid for certain numbers of doses of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines.

    The European Commission rejected the language of a “blockade,” saying it was just protecting its own in the same way as the U.S. has done, but it’s hard to see how else to interpret the shifting EU priorities. It’s also hard to see how such a policy will be successful in speeding up the EU’s vaccination program, given that many of the bottlenecks have far more to do with an inadequate distribution infrastructure for vaccines than with actual shortages on the continent. In other words, the EU’s aggressive stance is political posturing to deflect attention from a stunning public health failure vis-a-vis vaccine distribution. Tragically, this posturing could cost many lives.

    In the U.K.’s case, the situation could end up being particularly dangerous, as the government has embarked on a strategy of distributing as many first doses as possible, and stretching out the second doses to 12 weeks out — far longer than is permitted in the U.S. That strategy was premised on the assumption that doses contractually signed for would actually be delivered promptly, and the second doses would arrive when expected. Now, however, the steady supply of vaccines is at risk, since the Pfizer doses that the U.K. relies on are manufactured in Belgium, meaning those second doses might be postponed even further. This risks a breakdown in immunity for those who are only partially vaccinated, and could conceivably lead to a new wave of infections in the late spring and summer. Should that happen, the already frayed relations between Brexit Britain and the EU will likely worsen still more.

    Vaccine nationalism is, however, by no means only a European issue. Under Trump, the U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO) and refused to participate in the international COVAX program, designed to deliver vaccines promptly to poor countries that were being frozen out of the marketplace.

    While Biden has rejoined WHO and announced that the U.S. will, indeed, participate in international vaccine-aid efforts, and while the administration recently announced it would send millions of vaccine doses to Mexico and to Canada, the vast majority of U.S.-made vaccines are still being held for use only in the U.S., and poorer countries in the hemisphere are being largely denied access to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Meanwhile, even with renewed U.S. participation, the COVAX program is currently only able to guarantee enough vaccines for Africa over the coming months to ensure that 20 percent of the continent’s population is vaccinated; and, as of now, the entire continent, with well over a billion people, has received only 20 million doses.

    In addition to the U.S., other countries are also wielding vaccines as a form of power, a new tool in a peculiarly 21st-century Great Power game. China, which has some of the most restrictive requirements in the world for anyone hoping to enter the country, is only willing to relax those restrictions for those who have proof that they were inoculated with a Chinese vaccine. It is doing so despite the fact that at least Pfizer and Moderna have produced vaccines that seem to have a far higher efficacy rate than do the Chinese vaccines.

    Meanwhile, Russia is surging exports of its Sputnik V vaccine to many poor countries around the world, particularly in Latin America and in Asia, possibly as a way to re-establish a global footprint in areas from which it was largely ousted in the post-Cold War decades.

    In Israel, which has the highest per capita vaccination rate on Earth — and has begun implementing a vaccine passport system allowing inoculated individuals to go into public spaces barred to the non-vaccinated — the government has implemented what amounts to a vaccine blockade against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, distributing only a few thousand vaccines to local authorities in those regions. Doctors Without Borders has calculated that an Israeli is 60 times more likely to have vaccine access than is a Palestinian living in one of the occupied territories. Meanwhile, settlers in the West Bank have received vaccine access even while Palestinian residents have not. This amounts, in some ways, to a racial or religious litmus test for vaccine access.

    The COVID crisis represents the biggest global public health challenge in more than a century. While the development of vaccines in under a year represents one of the greatest acts of scientific cooperation in human history, now much of that cooperative spirit is being lost in the swirl of nationalist politics and the language of exclusion that surround distribution of the vaccines.

    In the long run, vaccine nationalism, and the protectionism of rich countries against poor countries, helps no one. If new, more contagious variants emerge over the coming months and years in poorer countries that can’t compete for vaccines with the U.S., the U.K., the EU and other powerhouses in the global marketplace, there’s a real risk that some of those variants will end up evading vaccines. Such a development could bring everyone, rich and poor alike, back to square one, and that’s a scenario that would be catastrophic in its global implications.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Biden talks to reporters during a news conference in the East Room of the White House on March 25, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Last week’s press conference by President Joe Biden, his first since taking office, was a deliberate exercise in calm. It was not, unfortunately, a similarly deliberate exercise in fact-seeking. This was not entirely the fault of the president; the folks he shared that room with seemed to have lost the tether on their job description after four years of enforced mayhem.

    The so-called cream of the Washington, D.C. press corps leaned into garish stories their phone algorithms appeared to tell them were important — the border situation and “Is the president senile?” — while failing for most of the hour to ask about, for one example, effective strategies for addressing gun violence. Similarly, and remarkably, not one direct COVID question was asked, though Biden did take a fair portion of the time bringing the assembled up to date on that crisis. The man baked bread with the dough he was handed; what else can you do?

    One question, however, elicited a dramatic response from Biden. When pressed on abolition of the Jim Crow-era filibuster, Biden went silent in a drawn-out moment of pause so wide you could have sailed the Ever Given through the gap without scraping the paint. Locking eyes with his questioner, Biden finally replied in a hushed tone, “Successful electoral politics is the art of the possible.”

    The line was lifted from Otto von Bismarck, the formidable “Iron Chancellor” who dominated German politics at the close of the 19th century, and in using it, Biden was throwing down a clear marker: This administration is going to be about adhering to the passage of a few very specific policies. We cannot do everything at once with Congress in its current state. COVID-19 takes top priority, followed (if indications are accurate) by a massive infrastructure bill to help salvage the economy.

    A thorough search of the press conference transcript reveals the word “climate” was used exactly twice — both times by a reporter — while the word “environment” was used once by Biden himself: “How will people adjust to these significant changes in science and technology and the environment?” When pressed by an Associated Press reporter on the huge slate of issues to contend with, Biden replied, “And the other problems we’re talking about, from immigration to guns and the other things you mentioned, are long-term problems; they’ve been around a long time.”

    COVID and the economy, then. Immigration, guns and climate can take a number for now. The fate of H.R. 1 (also known as the For the People Act) and H.R. 4 (the Voting Rights Advancement Act) hinge on the dismantling of the filibuster; if Biden chooses not to pursue that course, it will be a clear indication that the defense of voting rights will be on the back burner for a while, as well.

    From a purely political perspective, this decision makes unequivocal sense. This Congress is a bag of cats. The COVID bill was needed desperately by the people, and still required reconciliation for passage. It was also the means by which this new administration announced its presence with authority. On infrastructure, there are at least a dozen GOP senators who would love to be a part of a massive rebuilding package. The only thing standing in the way is the partisan sand in the gears, but then again, that’s like saying the only thing keeping you from getting to Nepal from China is Mount Everest and the Himalayan wall.

    On its face, the seeming decision to de-emphasize climate disruption appears to be a terrible error in judgment, yet another short-sighted view of an existential threat unlike any other we currently face. There are wheels within wheels here, however. The proposed infrastructure bill, for one example, is about far more than fixing bridges and filling potholes.

    “Biden and Democrats see an infrastructure package as the best way to tackle climate change and get the country to net-zero electricity emissions by 2035,” reports Vox, “by installing more electric vehicle charging stations on the nation’s roads, modernizing the electrical grid, and incentivizing more wind and solar projects. It could be financed at least in part with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.”

    Biden is also organizing a 40-nation climate summit that seeks to include both China and Russia, two major polluters (along with, of course, the U.S.) whose lack of participation in any future climate endeavors would essentially render the entire effort moot. Biden has also rejoined the Paris climate accord, a further step in re-establishing a U.S. presence in the global climate fight after four years of pollution-happy chaos.

    Let us not delude ourselves: These measures are but a teardrop in the bucket of what will be required to stave off our collective environmental doom. As we creep ever closer to fire season out west, the climate will again become as pressing a national political issue as the children at the southern border. Meanwhile, COVID-19 taps us daily on the shoulder and whispers, “This is the future, this is what environmental degradation can do to you, there is much more to come, and you are woefully unprepared.”

    The COVID example, though, is telling. One year ago, when we were locking down and taking shallow breaths and afraid of everything, the word “vaccine” became almost a prayer. There was only one problem: The record for fastest development of a vaccine was four years, for the mumps. Were we really facing four years of this nightmare before something vaguely normal returned?

    For the moment, the answer to that question appears to be, “No.” In what is arguably the single most incredible human scientific achievement in history, vaccines with 90 percent effectiveness rates were developed, tested and distributed in about as much time as it takes to build a house. Over 100 million doses have been injected into arms so far, and a moment will come soon when we have to start giving vaccine away because we made more than we needed. This is known as a “happy problem.”

    It is all is simultaneously awe-inspiring and not in any way surprising. The awe comes from the astonishing leap made by scientists and researchers to shoot that formidable gap. The unsurprising part? People found a way to save themselves against all odds and with their asses hanging way out over a steep cliff. “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else,” Winston Churchill once famously said. This is that, but with needles and test tubes.

    Cracking the COVID vaccine took funding, cooperation, and the will to get it done in the face of impending catastrophe. That is exactly where we are with the climate. We have proven to ourselves once again that solutions are there to be seized, and the ocean is coming. Let us all remind this president of that truth, of the art of the possible wed to dire necessity, before nature once again decides to do so for us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • St. Louis Red Cross Motor Corps on duty during the Spanish Influenza epidemic, 1918. Photograph shows mask-wearing woman holding stretchers at backs of ambulances.

    Picture the United States struggling to deal with a deadly pandemic.

    State and local officials enact a slate of social-distancing measures, gathering bans, closure orders and mask mandates in an effort to stem the tide of cases and deaths.

    The public responds with widespread compliance mixed with more than a hint of grumbling, pushback and even outright defiance. As the days turn into weeks turn into months, the strictures become harder to tolerate.

    Theater and dance hall owners complain about their financial losses.

    Clergy bemoan church closures while offices, factories and in some cases even saloons are allowed to remain open.

    Officials argue whether children are safer in classrooms or at home.

    Many citizens refuse to don face masks while in public, some complaining that they’re uncomfortable and others arguing that the government has no right to infringe on their civil liberties.As familiar as it all may sound in 2021, these are real descriptions of the U.S. during the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic. In my research as a historian of medicine, I’ve seen again and again the many ways our current pandemic has mirrored the one experienced by our forebears a century ago.

    As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its second year, many people want to know when life will go back to how it was before the coronavirus. History, of course, isn’t an exact template for what the future holds. But the way Americans emerged from the earlier pandemic could suggest what post-pandemic life will be like this time around.

    Sick and Tired, Ready for Pandemic’s End

    Like COVID-19, the 1918 influenza pandemic hit hard and fast, going from a handful of reported cases in a few cities to a nationwide outbreak within a few weeks. Many communities issued several rounds of various closure orders – corresponding to the ebbs and flows of their epidemics – in an attempt to keep the disease in check.

    These social-distancing orders worked to reduce cases and deaths. Just as today, however, they often proved difficult to maintain. By the late autumn, just weeks after the social-distancing orders went into effect, the pandemic seemed to be coming to an end as the number of new infections declined.

    People clamored to return to their normal lives. Businesses pressed officials to be allowed to reopen. Believing the pandemic was over, state and local authorities began rescinding public health edicts. The nation turned its efforts to addressing the devastation influenza had wrought.

    For the friends, families and co-workers of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who had died, post-pandemic life was filled with sadness and grief. Many of those still recovering from their bouts with the malady required support and care as they recuperated.

    At a time when there was no federal or state safety net, charitable organizations sprang into action to provide resources for families who had lost their breadwinners, or to take in the countless children left orphaned by the disease.

    For the vast majority of Americans, though, life after the pandemic seemed to be a headlong rush to normalcy. Starved for weeks of their nights on the town, sporting events, religious services, classroom interactions and family gatherings, many were eager to return to their old lives.

    Taking their cues from officials who had – somewhat prematurely – declared an end to the pandemic, Americans overwhelmingly hurried to return to their pre-pandemic routines. They packed into movie theaters and dance halls, crowded in stores and shops, and gathered with friends and family.

    Officials had warned the nation that cases and deaths likely would continue for months to come. The burden of public health, however, now rested not on policy but rather on individual responsibility.

    Predictably, the pandemic wore on, stretching into a third deadly wave that lasted through the spring of 1919, with a fourth wave hitting in the winter of 1920. Some officials blamed the resurgence on careless Americans. Others downplayed the new cases or turned their attention to more routine public health matters, including other diseases, restaurant inspections and sanitation.

    Despite the persistence of the pandemic, influenza quickly became old news. Once a regular feature of front pages, reportage rapidly dwindled to small, sporadic clippings buried in the backs of the nation’s newspapers. The nation carried on, inured to the toll the pandemic had taken and the deaths yet to come. People were largely unwilling to return to socially and economically disruptive public health measures.

    It’s Hard to Hang in There

    Our predecessors might be forgiven for not staying the course longer. First, the nation was eager to celebrate the recent end of World War I, an event that perhaps loomed larger in the lives of Americans than even the pandemic.

    Second, death from disease was a much larger part of life in the early 20th century, and scourges such as diphtheria, measles, tuberculosis, typhoid, whooping cough, scarlet fever and pneumonia each routinely killed tens of thousands of Americans every year. Moreover, neither the cause nor the epidemiology of influenza was well understood, and many experts remained unconvinced that social distancing measures had any measurable impact.

    Finally, there were no effective flu vaccines to rescue the world from the ravages of the disease. In fact, the influenza virus would not be discovered for another 15 years, and a safe and effective vaccine was not available for the general population until 1945. Given the limited information they had and the tools at their disposal, Americans perhaps endured the public health restrictions for as long as they reasonably could.

    A century later, and a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is understandable that people now are all too eager to return to their old lives. The end of this pandemic inevitably will come, as it has with every previous one humankind has experienced.

    If we have anything to learn from the history of the 1918 influenza pandemic, as well as our experience thus far with COVID-19, however, it is that a premature return to pre-pandemic life risks more cases and more deaths.

    And today’s Americans have significant advantages over those of a century ago. We have a much better understanding of virology and epidemiology. We know that social distancing and masking work to help save lives. Most critically, we have multiple safe and effective vaccines that are being deployed, with the pace of vaccinations increasingly weekly.

    Sticking with all these coronavirus-fighting factors or easing off on them could mean the difference between a new disease surge and a quicker end to the pandemic. COVID-19 is much more transmissible than influenza, and several troubling SARS-CoV-2 variants are already spreading around the globe. The deadly third wave of influenza in 1919 shows what can happen when people prematurely relax their guard.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The container ship Ever Given remains stuck in the canal north of the city of Suez, Egypt, on March 27, 2021.

    You’ve likely seen the memes: what appears as a tiny bulldozer at water’s edge, moving the earth in an effort to dislodge a giant container ship. It has come to represent everything from taking a daily walk in a coronavirus-riddled world to the effort required in the struggle to complete a PhD dissertation.

    But for global capitalism, there’s no joke.

    One of the world’s largest container ships, the Taiwan-owned MV Ever Given (Evergreen) has lodged itself sideways in the narrow waterway of Egypt’s Suez Canal after running aground when a gust of wind blew it off course on Tuesday, March 23. The ship is longer than four football fields, almost as long as New York City’s Empire State Building is tall. The nearly quarter-of-a-mile-long, 247,000-ton ship is blocking the southern entrance to the canal from the Red Sea, bringing marine traffic to a standstill along one of the busiest trade routes on the planet.

    As dredgers, heavy earth-moving equipment, and tugboats work around the clock to free the ship, salvage experts are warning that it could be weeks before traffic can resume again. That is likely the truth, despite the Egyptian president’s advisor on seaports — who also happens to be the former chairman of the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) — telling Agence France Presse on Thursday that navigation through the canal “will resume again within 48–72 hours, maximum.”

    At this writing, the ship hasn’t budged. The SCA said on Thursday that “about 19,600–26,000 cubic yards of sand had to be moved, reaching a depth of 40 to 50 feet along the canal’s bank, to dislodge the ship.”

    The SCA’s pronouncements seem to be little more than wishful thinking. On Wednesday, the agency allowed 13 ships to enter the canal’s northern end from the Mediterranean Sea, but they made it only as far as a mid-canal lake where they have just been “idling.”

    What looms for global capitalism is to be forced to reroute cargo ships around the southern tip of Africa, which would be a devastating blow to global supply networks that have already taken a huge hit from Covid-19. Going through the Suez Canal saves nearly nine days of travel from Singapore to Rotterdam, for example, shaving off some 6,000 kilometers of travel. By contrast, a trip through the canal takes about six hours.

    Beyond the obvious costs, the environmental impact is significant. The canal route cuts carbon dioxide emissions by nearly half.

    Nearly a third of the world’s shipping container freight on any given day passes through the Suez Canal, which is about 12 percent of the total goods traded globally by volume, according to Reuters. The shutdown has an acute effect on Egypt, which counts on canal traffic for much of its hard currency — some $5.6 billion in 2020, even with the generalized slowdown of global trade due to Covid-19.

    The blockage of the Suez Canal — which is holding up about $9.6 billion in goods every day and costing an estimated $400 million per hour — is exacerbating the crisis of capitalism. It has caused crude oil prices to jump — more than 10 percent of the world’s crude oil passes through the canal — and is expected to force major price increases on just about everything that typically makes its way between Asia and Europe, regardless of the direction the goods are headed.

    This could not have come at a worse time for the capitalists. As the Financial Times explains, the accident “has drawn attention to the inherent fragility of tightly stretched global supply chains at the very moment when they are already being buffeted by a pandemic and in an era when the philosophical underpinnings of global trade are being challenged. The strains created by Covid-19 … have exposed problems in the global trading system. Those difficulties could plausibly push governments and businesses alike to rethink a just-in-time supply-chain model that has arguably wrung efficiencies from the system at the cost of resilience.”

    The pandemic, the article continues, “was already exposing vulnerabilities in global supply chains. Container shipping rates have more than tripled as companies that control shipping lines took out capacity in expectation of falling demand. Now it costs about $4,000 to ship a 40-ft container between east Asia and the U.S. west coast, up from $1,500 at the start of 2020.”

    That’s extra money the capitalists do not want to be spending — even with goods moving. To expend such resources so ships can sit idly in the Suez Canal does nothing to help expand the field of profit-making and exploitation global capitalism desperately needs to sustain itself. But, as one supply chain consultant put it, such situations seem unavoidable: “The industry’s supply chain is several miles long, but only an eighth of an inch deep.”

    Stuck in the muck, desperately trying to dig out of a crisis — it’s a metaphor for capitalism, especially since the start of the Great Recession in 2008. When the ship will be freed is anyone’s guess. The one thing we can be certain of is that whatever that costs the capitalists, they will find a way for you and me to pay the price.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Traffic lights at an intersection outside the Amazon.com, Inc. fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama, on March 26, 2021.

    We came down from New York City to cover the historic struggle of Amazon workers to form a union and to amplify the stories of the nearly 6,000 workers who are putting their livelihoods on the line to fight for their right to collectively organize. If this union vote is successful, it will be the first union of Amazon workers in the United States. There is great potential in this union drive — an effort that is being waged by a primarily Black workforce in a virulently racist and anti-union state against one of the largest companies in the world.

    We arrived at the Bessemer facility to stand in solidarity with the workers and take footage of the facility. We moved away from the small group of supporters who come out each day with signs encouraging workers to “vote yes!” on the union, just a few steps down Amazon’s long driveway to film a report in front of the entrance sign. Almost immediately, a police car pulled up next to us. The cop inside told us that we were trespassing and couldn’t film on private property. “You can’t film here!” We were nowhere near the facility, only a dozen feet from the main road. There is no signage demarcating where public land ends and Amazon’s property begins, no signs prohibiting filming or pictures.

    As we began to collect our things, another cop car rushed up to where we were, lights flashing. “Stay where you are. My supervisor needs to collect your names and IDs,” the cop said. “You’re with the press? Which publication?” The two cops got out of their cars and stood close to us to make sure we didn’t move. A few minutes later, a man in a golf cart rolled up behind the police cars. He came up to us and demanded our IDs. “I need to take your names down.” When we asked why, he gave no reply. The cops demanded our IDs again and we refused. After some back and forth, they finally let us go and we walked the two steps back to where other supporters were standing by the side of the road. The cops stayed behind to keep watch.

    In the days leading up to a historic unionization decision, the BHM1 Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama is on lockdown. Only workers on shift and management are allowed in and out, the workers’ every move watched carefully. The company has pulled out all the stops in its union-busting effort, including financial incentives for “unhappy” workers to quit, mandatory anti-union meetings, and placing a mailbox on company property to “collect ballots.” Amazon even petitioned the city to shorten stop light times at its entrance so that workers leaving their shifts could not talk to staffers standing at the entrance or be exposed to pro-union signage.

    Amazon has also enlisted the efforts of the Bessemer Police Department to act as “security” for the facility to intimidate not only workers, but also the many supporters, canvassers, and press who have come from far and wide to cheer on and agitate for the workers’ struggle. Off-duty cops guard the facility at all hours. Bessemer police trucks constantly ride up and down the streets around the facility and patrol the parking lot.

    If you’re not coming into work or just leaving a shift, then the police — operating on the direct orders of Amazon management — are there to make sure you don’t step foot on Amazon property, especially if you’re supporting the union. In the circle of supporters who stand just outside the gates of the facility each day, most people have a story about an encounter with the police and Amazon’s security staff. One person told us that when their GPS took them inside the Amazon parking lot, they were surrounded by eight cops and security officers as soon as they got out of the car. The cops demanded their ID and told them to get off the premises or risk arrest. People in rental cars regularly stop by to take down the license plates of the people who come to flier on the side of the road and show solidarity with the workers inside the warehouse. The facility is surveilled from every angle. And the police are omnipresent, ready for any excuse to harass anyone who supports the union.

    Moonlighting as union-busters for Amazon, the cops are key actors in Amazon’s behemoth campaign to kill the BHM1 union and all it represents. They are literally being paid to contain the union campaign and to create a hostile environment for the workers coming in and out of the facility each day, many of whom are people of color who are already the regular targets of police violence and harassment off the job. Now these workers are forced to come to work each day only to be met with cops watching them as they come and go, patrolling the parking lot and the surrounding streets. The police are there to intimidate workers just as much as supporters. This is yet another example of whose side the police are on: the bosses and the capitalists. And now they are doing the dirty work for a company that raked in $386 billion last year, even as it refused workers enough time to go to the bathroom, forced them to walk four flights of stairs innumerable times a day, exposed thousands of workers to Covid-19, and revoked their hazard pay in the middle of the pandemic. In this, the police are fulfilling their historic role as the guard dogs of capital, poised to keep workers in line and prevent them from exercising even the basic right to unionize or fight for better conditions for themselves and their families.

    This is the same role the police played at the Hunts Point strike in New York City in January, when hundreds of workers at the most important produce market in the United States walked off the job to demand a $1 raise. The police arrested workers as they blocked a truck from entering the facility. The police stand at the ready — acting on the orders of Republican and Democratic mayors alike — to tip the scales in the bosses’ favor and undermine the struggle of rank-and-file workers to win even a fraction of what they deserve.

    Yet at the same time that they repress working people, targeting people of color and killing Black union members like Philando Castille, they are also organized alongside workers in unions. If Bessemer workers are successful in their union drive, then they will join the ranks of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU), which is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. This organization, which comprises most of the unionized workers in the United States, organizes thousands of cops across the country, welcoming the enemies of the working class into the house of labor. The cops are organized alongside the very workers they have been ordered to intimidate.

    Of course, the cops’ role is not just to protect the interests of the bosses against the workers in the workplace, but to repress working class and oppressed people in every corner of society. The police who are now patrolling the Amazon facility night and day are part of the very institution that upholds systemic racism, killing Black and Brown people with impunity and who beat, pepper sprayed, and in some cases killed anti-racist protesters in nearly every city across the United States this summer. The police exist to repress class struggle wherever it appears, to beat the working class and oppressed into submission in order to ensure the smooth functioning of capitalist exploitation. Many of the workers at Amazon in Bessemer marched in the Black Lives Matter uprising this summer — the very police who repressed them in the streets are the same ones who are now acting under the direct orders of Amazon to undermine the union drive.

    Cops are not workers. They exist to repress working people and bust unions. They serve only to protect the interests of the capitalist class and facilitate the daily exploitation of workers around the world. As such, they have no place at BHM1 and no place in the organizations of working people. In the spirit of the Black Lives Matter movement, Alabama’s militant labor history, and the Civil Rights Movement which preceded this historic fight in Bessemer, the rank-and-file of this potential new union must fight to prevent the police from intimidating workers and supporters. But that’s not enough: If the Amazon union is to stand a chance against one of the most powerful companies in the world, then these workers must organize alongside other unions to expel the police from all workers’ organizations.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A marcher waves the trans and gay pride flags at a protest

    On February 24, 2021, the day before the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act by a vote of 224-206, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene stole the headlines. First Greene attempted to delay the Act’s passage by filing a motion to adjourn; later, back at her office, she posted a sign that read: “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. ‘Trust The Science!’”

    The next television news cycle focused more than twice as much attention on Greene’s intolerant opposition as on the House’s passage of the legislation, which would extend civil rights protections to LGBTQ people by prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

    The disproportionate news coverage epitomizes a number of significant patterns — and problems — in news coverage of the Equality Act, which became woefully apparent throughout the course of the three-year study that we recently completed concerning television and newspaper stories about the legislation.

    Centering the Equality Act

    News coverage of the Equality Act is important for several reasons. First and foremost, an alarming majority of Americans, including a large percentage of those in the LGBTQ community, are unaware of the lack of LGBTQ federal protections, according to a report by GLAAD, a media monitoring organization that advocates for LGBTQ equality. Lack of awareness of the patchwork of legal protection hinders LGBTQ communities’ ability to advocate for greater equity and inclusion. Furthermore, the corporate media have consistently failed to emphasize how the Equality Act will expand existing federal civil rights protections for members of other marginalized groups, including people of color, women, immigrants, and religious minorities.

    We analyzed television and newspaper coverage of the Equality Act from March 2019 through March 2021 as part of an ongoing project examining anti-LGBTQ biases in news reporting and online content. Television and print news coverage has marginalized the Equality Act, while social media platforms including Facebook have circulated virulent disinformation about it.

    Intolerance on Television

    Coverage of the Equality Act by major news organizations has been sparse and lacking in context. Inadequate coverage of this landmark piece of civil rights legislation follows a general downward trend in coverage of LGBTQ-related news, as reported by Real Clear Politics in 2019. The problematic patterns of coverage documented in that report have persisted under the new Biden administration.

    We examined television coverage of the Equality Act, from March 3, 2019, through March 4, 2021, using the Television News Archive. We found that MSNBC covered the Equality Act 40 percent more often than Fox News and 35 percent more frequently than CNN. By contrast, Fox News devoted 87 percent more airtime than other networks to coverage of “religious freedom” issues. As other commentators have noted, when we examined Fox’s coverage of “religious freedom” concerns, we found thinly veiled homophobic and transphobic positions presented as newsworthy content.

    Reviewing clips of Fox News showed that the network did indeed cover the Equality Act, but that coverage consistently highlighted anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and falsehoods. Fox featured news segments promoting claims that the legislation would undermine parental and conscience rights, lead to the “death” of women’s sports, and erase protections for religious freedom. Too frequently, inflammatory language and fear mongering (for example, referring to the bill as the “women’s cancellation act,” for example) plagued most TV coverage of the Equality Act, promoting not only opposition to it but also the dehumanization of transgender people.

    Less strident TV outlets, such as CNN, often marginalized the Equality Act, mentioning it only in passing, neglecting to provide relevant background, and rarely including members of the LGBTQ community as featured sources.

    According to GLAAD’s 2021 Media Report Card, Fox News along with CNN deserved failing grades because their coverage of the Equality Act failed to include LGBTQ voices while providing prominent platforms for transphobic rhetoric. Both news agencies failed to cover the history of the Equality Act, the earliest iteration of which dates back to 1974.

    Eclipsed Print Coverage

    The nation’s most prominent newspapers have marginalized the Equality Act. A mere 92 news items across 734 days of reporting by the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post even mentioned the Equality Act, according to ProQuest’s US News Dailies database.

    When those newspapers have covered the Equality Act, their reporting typically frames the legislation as less important than other related topics. For example, 20 percent of coverage that made mention of the Equality Act focused on how it might impact the 2020 elections; 13 percent focused on music celebrity Taylor Swift and her political activism; and nearly 12 percent highlighted the Supreme Court’s June 2020 decision banning workplace discrimination against LGBTQ workers’ rights. Just under 23 percent of newspaper coverage focused on the Equality Act as a newsworthy item in its own right.

    Roughly one in four newspaper items mentioning the Equality Act identified it by name only, without any account of it. Somewhat more frequently newspaper coverage provided minimal descriptions of the legislation, but no more than that. For instance, a January 2020 New York Times article reported that the legislation would “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Minimal descriptions of the Equality Act do little to inform newspapers’ readers about the legislation’s specifics or significance.

    Slightly more than one in three news items provided details about the Equality Act’s legislative history. Only rarely did such coverage note how then-majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow the Senate to vote on the Act after the House passed it by 236-173 in May 2019.

    The paucity of substantive reporting about the Equality Act creates a vacuum that conservative demagogues with homophobic and transphobic agendas have been more than ready to fill.

    Fear Mongering on Social Media

    Between October 2020 and March 2021, twenty-nine of the forty most popular news articles on Facebook about the Equality Act originated from Breitbart, the Daily Wire, and other extreme-right news outlets, according to data from BuzzSumo. The news articles with the highest engagement (including likes, comments and shares) on Facebook not only opposed the Equality Act, they propagated false and offensive claims (referring to “the end of females”) and misleading perspectives (claiming that the Equality Act “Viciously Attacks Christians, Freedom, Society, Sex, And You”).

    With a staggering 807k Facebook engagements, the leading article, published by the New York Post, repeated false claims about the legislation’s threats to women’s rights and religious conscience rights, arguing that its passage would “persecute those who don’t embrace newfangled gender ideologies.”

    The Daily Wire, which specializes in anti-LGBTQ bigotry, has a documented wide reach through its network of covert Facebook pages, which boosts the engagement of its hateful content across the platform in a coordinated fashion.

    Better News: Providing Context, Checking Hateful Rhetoric, Maintaining Focus

    The nation’s major news outlets have recurrently failed to inform Americans about the Equality Act. Without more prominent, substantive news coverage, a majority of uninformed Americans are unlikely to pressure their senators to support the Equality Act.

    Worse yet, due to widespread circulation via social media of virulent and misleading opposition to it, a smaller but outspoken minority of misinformed Americans will likely embrace the distorted claims and divisive opposition of elected officials such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Sen. Lindsey Graham, who told Fox News that he would filibuster until he collapsed “to make sure that the Equality Act doesn’t become law.”

    Our previous research documents that while Donald Trump was president corporate news not only failed to provide historical context for understanding LGBTQ issues but also whitewashed anti-LGBTQ advocates’ most hateful statements. From 2019 to the present, the most prominent news outlets’ coverage of the Equality Act confirms that these biases in news coverage — while amplified during Trump’s presidency — persist, largely unchecked, under Biden’s administration.

    Providing context for the Equality Act is essential to mobilizing support for it. Reporters covering congressional and public debate about passage of the Equality Act must do more to inform their audiences that the majority of LGBTQ Americans live in states that offer them no protections from discrimination. Ironically, this misunderstanding may be compounded by the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in June 2020, which established important and overdue protections against workplace discrimination, but did provide protections against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in housing, credit, education, federally funded programs, and other fundamental areas of everyday life.

    Corporate coverage of the Equality Act also fails to contextualize the current balance of power between the judicial and legislative branches when it comes to LGBTQ protections. Although news coverage has focused on how Trump stacked the courts with conservative appointees, the TV and newspaper reports we studied failed to connect the dots between one legacy of Trump’s presidency — that nearly 40 percent of the federal judges Trump appointed to the courts of appeals have “a demonstrated history of hostility towards the LGBTQ+ community” — and the increased necessity of federal protections such as the Equality Act would provide. Schoolchildren learn to understand the interdependence of the government’s executive, legislative and judicial branches, but when it comes to covering the need for LGBTQ protections, reporters at the nation’s most prominent news outlets appear to be flummoxed.

    Fear fuels ignorance, which powers hate. Our analysis of the most popular articles about the Equality Act on social media exposes a thinly veiled version of this logic. Under the guises of religious freedom and the rights of women and girls, opponents of the Equality Act who fear the consequences of providing basic everyday protections to LGBTQ Americans seek to undermine popular support for the Equality Act by pressuring conservative senators to oppose it.

    News coverage guided by ethical standards — including the commitments to seek and report truth and to minimize harm — ought to inform us about Marjorie Taylor Greene’s belief that “the science” proves gender is binary, and Lindsey Graham’s fear of the Equality Act “destroying the difference between men and women.” But ethical journalism is not achieved simply by reporting powerful public figures’ provocative, prejudicial views.

    In such cases, reporting the truth and minimizing harm go hand-in-hand: Reporters can and should call out the fallacies embedded in Greene’s and Graham’s harmful rhetoric. Doing so fulfills rather than undermines reporters’ commitments to ethical journalism.

    But even calling out Greene’s misunderstanding of “the science” will not necessarily recenter attention on the Equality Act itself. Prejudiced public figures can sustain criticism and nevertheless succeed in distracting public attention from compelling arguments in favor of the Act. We should call out news coverage and online platforms that allow virulent fearmongers and their reckless claims to set the news agenda.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trump supporters gather in the state capital of Pennsylvania on November 7, 2020, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

    Democracy has always been fragile in the United States, but at the present moment, it has moved from being imperfect to collapsing under the rubric of a failed state. The threat of authoritarianism is no longer on the horizon. It has arrived, forecasting a bleak future haunted by the poisonous ghosts of a poisonous past.

    The Republican Party no longer hides its racism and boldly engages in widespread voter suppression. As of February 27, 253 restrictive voting bills in 43 states have been either introduced or pre-filed, mostly by Republicans.

    As Robin D.G. Kelley has brilliantly argued, Republicans have made clear that they endorse the white supremacist notion that “the United States [should] be a straight, white nation reminiscent of the mythic ‘old days’ when armed white men ruled, owned their castle, boasted of unvanquished military power, and everyone else knew their place.” It is crucial to mention that these bills are also aimed at preventing youth from voting as well. Republicans have also argued openly that voter suppression policies are meant to enable permanent minority rule for them, the end point of which is a form of authoritarianism.

    This contemporary appropriation of the tools of a fascist politics is exacerbated by the undermining of a public vocabulary and modes of civic literacy capable of critically addressing the profound structural changes produced by neoliberalism’s practice of deregulation, privatization, devaluation of the welfare state, and deterioration of public goods such as the educational system, the health care system and the welfare state. Neoliberalism in this instance reveals its fascist values given the violent nexus between the carceral state and what has been called racial capitalism with its long history of “colonial dispossession and racial slavery.”

    The threat of violence once associated with fringe extremist groups has found a home in a Republican Party that now endorses the political, ideological and social conditions that have given rise to a number of violent white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. Racialized violence now runs through American society like an overcharged electric current.

    Fascist politics has emerged out of a form of neoliberal capitalism that does more than engage in privatization, deregulation and commodification in the interests of financial markets. It also shapes the identities, values and subjectivity of individuals

    Three Fundamentalisms Undergird Neoliberal Fascism

    A crucial challenge for progressives is to counter the underlying conditions that cause the collective consciousness to incorporate elements of fascist politics. This would mean interrogating the ensemble of institutions, meanings, ideologies and pedagogical practices that create formative cultures that promote a mix of intersecting fundamentalisms. Such a task is crucial for rethinking and reclaiming definitions of power, education and politics that are central to the creation of a “new sensibility” capable of embracing a public imagination synonymous with the imperatives of democratic socialism.

    Three intersecting formative cultures or fundamentalisms have strongly shaped the emergence of a new political formation that I call neoliberal fascism. These three fundamentalist formative cultures both normalize the unthinkable and create the conditions for morally compromised lives willing to become complicit with the ugliness of cultural formations steeped in an authoritarian politics of disposability and a racialized form of neoliberal capitalism.

    Free-Market Fundamentalism

    The first of these formative cultures is a free-market fundamentalism that functions educationally to rewrite politics and define the obligations of citizenship through the ethos of consumerism, commercializes all social relations, defunds public goods such as schools, and separates economic activity from social costs. Moreover, free-market fundamentalists wage a full-fledged attack on the social contract and the welfare state, and in doing so, limit the scope of agency for millions to what can be called the politics of survival. Under such circumstances, people spend their daily lives fighting for the bare necessities of life.

    One consequence is a mode of agency in which time is a liability rather than an enabling force for developing one’s capacity to be a critically engaged and informed citizen. All personal, political and social relations are now defined in market terms, rendering matters of meaningful agency, identity and dignity subject to the market’s totalizing rule. As Naomi Klein points out, human dignity expressed as the right to “basic security in your job … some certainty that you will be taken care of in old age [and not] be bankrupted by illness, and that your kids will have access to the tools they need to excel” have been dismissed by many conservative politicians and pundits as privileged policies for “welfare queens” and freeloaders rather than as human rights. Of course, the real issue here is the political and ethical aversion on the part of neoliberals, centrists and conservatives to redistribute wealth and restructure power in order to address real problems caused by inequality.

    As Wendy Brown has noted: “casting markets and market conduct as appropriate for all human and organization — neoliberal reason has a specific antipathy to politics, and even to democratic power sharing (apart from voting). It treats politics and democracy as at best ruining markets and at worst leading toward tyrannical social justice programs and totalitarianism.” In a society marked by staggering inequalities, people cannot define their lives outside of the market’s limited boundaries. Undermining all notions of the social, neoliberalism has become the enemy of democracy and social justice and must be resisted at all costs.

    White Evangelical-Led Religious Fundamentalism

    The second cultural formation that functions as a toxic pedagogical force in American culture is a brand of religious fundamentalism that “has turbocharged the support among Trump loyalists, many of whom describe themselves as participants in a kind of holy war.” Largely made up of white evangelical Christians and other Christians, this form of religious fundamentalism has become a solid mainstay of the Republican Party as it has moved into an ideological position that is aligned with extremist anti-democratic authoritarian policies, values and practices. Not only does it collapse the line between religion and the state, but it also advocates a theocratic model of politics that Chris Hedges has labeled as an American form of fascism. The most extreme elements of the white-evangelical movement embrace a militaristic ideology that is central to radical extremists’ groups such as the “boogaloo” boys who view themselves as participants in a holy war. Former Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and Security Policy at the Department of Homeland Security Elizabeth Neumann argues that Christian nationalism has become pervasive among white evangelicals. She states that increasingly, large segments of this group view “America as God’s chosen nation [and] believe the United States has a covenant with God, and that if it is broken, the nation risks literal destruction — analogous to the siege of Jerusalem in the Hebrew Bible. In the eyes of these believers, that covenant is threatened by cultural changes like taking prayer out of public schools and legalizing abortion and gay marriage.”

    This extremist religious movement functions as an educational and political force that legitimizes the worst forms of bigotry, wages war on reproductive rights and same-sex marriages, pushes creationism in the schools, is anti-science, and perpetuates a rigid moralism and messianic view of the world that promotes a disdain for critical thinking and progressive forms of education. At the same time, it has played a crucial role in supporting Trump’s toxic policies that include putting immigrant children in sordid detention centers, imposing a reign of terror on people of color, bungling the COVID-19 response, and supporting the intersection of anti-intellectualism, antisemitism and systemic racism. This is a conservative movement that lives in circles of certainty, and adherents believe that they are fighting a war between the forces of evil and good. This is more than a perilous binary; it is also a prescription for a lethal form of ignorance that supports both a form of Christian nationalism and a white nationalism aligned with the toxic notion of “blood and soil.” Hedges makes a compelling case in labeling white Christian leaders as fascist by pointing to their call to make “America a Christian state,” the cult of personality that they support, their authoritarian denial of equal rights to non-Christians and their belief in “cleansing power of apocalyptic violence.”

    The Fundamentalism of Manufactured Ignorance

    The third cultural formation is a form of manufactured ignorance and militarized illiteracy that works through numerous registers to empty language of meaning and eliminate the standards for distinguishing right from wrong, historical memory from historical amnesia, and social responsibility for ethical and political irresponsibility.

    As Karen J. Greenberg makes clear, the suppression of history, memory and language opens the doorway to fascism and “a state of unparalleled heartlessness and greed.” It also erases those echoes of the past that should shed light on and sound the alarm bells when select groups are dehumanized and treated as unknowable and undesirable. Under the Trump regime, a culture of lying normalized a world where truth was not only undermined but lost its legitimacy. In the age in which the truth is relegated to fake news, argue Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis, “everything that matters is denied and everything that embodies evil is reinvented.” This was a form of illiteracy sanctioned at the highest levels of the former Trump administration and is the outgrowth of a society inundated with a militarized culture of commands, ignorance, consumerism and immediacy.

    Post-truth is a conceptual signifier that operates in the service of violence against the ethical imagination and the standards at work in producing civic literacy and the institutions that support it. Increasingly, meaning has been emptied out of its critical and moral referents and subjected to the dual vocabulary of the market and war. This is a language that reduces people to commodities and feeds a society of the spectacle through a language that trades in violence, a friend/enemy distinction, and rewrites history in the discourse of the powerful; that is, a discourse of white supremacy.

    The signposts for a cultural formation of ignorance are evident in the long-standing attack on public schooling, teachers and unions, with “education” being reduced to the market imperatives of neoliberal capital. Defunded and turned into testing centers and efficiency mills, public schooling as a democratic public sphere has been privatized, degraded and broken, furthering a culture of ignorance and illiteracy. Market values instrumentalize education and find critical thinking dangerous. In a culture dominated by corporations and the profit motive, political passions and moral convictions have become a liability. Moreover, the United States is now hostage to a culture of immediacy driven by social media. Knowledge now begins with tweets, Facebook postings and endless streams of selfies on Instagram. Many Americans no longer read, choosing instead to scan selected bits of information, disconnected from broader narratives.

    Under the rule of corporate controlled power, the apparatuses of social media often strip knowledge of any substantive context and accelerate time at a pace that prevents both contemplation and experience from crystalizing into a politics of thoughtfulness and responsibility. Ideas, values, and ideologies that offer a sense of critical agency and civic and social imagination have no room in a society in which reason, truth, science and informed judgments are viewed with contempt. Destabilized perceptions and normalized fictions have now become the dominant currency of politics.

    As the capacity for political speech withers, there is a breakdown of shared values and the widening abyss of malignant normality, moral depravity and civic illiteracy. Under the reign of market values, ignorance thrives in a society in which all matters of responsibility are individualized. Under neoliberal capitalism, human connections give way to an ethos of individualism that views all problems as personal failings. This constitutes a war on the ethical imagination as individuals increasingly under the onslaught of neoliberal capitalism become prisoners of their own experiences.

    To Resist Neoliberal Fascism, We Must Make Education Central to Politics

    As C. Wright Mills has made clear, under such circumstances, it is difficult for individuals to translate private into public issues and see themselves as part of a larger collective capable of mutual support. The erosion of public discourse and the onslaught of a culture of manufactured ignorance have allowed the U.S.’s Nazi problem to emerge with renewed vigor, and one lesson to be learned from the current assault on democracy regards the question of what role education should play in a democracy. As Wendy Brown observes, democracy cannot exist without an educated citizenry. It “may not demand universal political participation, but it cannot survive the people’s wholesale ignorance of the forces shaping their lives and limning their future.”

    Max Horkheimer was right in 1939 when he suggested that it was impossible to talk about fascism without talking about capitalism, especially as it works relentlessly “to transform democratic citizens into totalitarian subjects” through what he and Theodor Adorno called the culture industry. Moreover, the educational force of neoliberal culture now prepares its willing subjects from the inside, molding their desires, anxieties and identities through psychological domination. The misery created by neoliberal capitalism bears down not only on the body, but colonizes the mind through the force of a formative educational apparatus that emerges out of the crisis of democratic institutions, civic values and political culture.

    Education has always been the substance of politics, but it is rarely understood as a site of struggle over agency, identities, values and the future itself. Unlike schooling, education permeates a range of corporate-controlled apparatuses that extend from the digital airways to print culture. What is different about education today is not only the variety of sites in which it takes place, but also the degree to which it has become an element of organized irresponsibility, modeled on a flight from critical thinking, self-reflection and meaningful forms of solidarity.

    Education now functions as part of the neoliberal machinery of depoliticization that represents an attack on the power of the civic imagination, political will and a substantive democracy. It is also functioning as a politics that undermines any understanding of education as a public good and pedagogy as an empowering practice that gets people to think critically about their own sense of agency in relation to knowledge and their ability to engage in critical and collective struggle.

    Under Trumpism, education has become an animating principle of violence, revenge, resentment and victimhood as a privileged form of identity. Political illiteracy has moved from the margins to the center of power and is now a crucial project that the Republican Party wants to impose on the wider public. As the philosopher Peter Uwe Hohendahl has noted, the real danger of authoritarianism today “lay in the traces of the fascist mentality within the democratic political system.”

    We must therefore raise questions about not only what individuals learn in a given society but what they have to unlearn, and what institutions provide the conditions to do so. Against such a pedagogy of closure, there is the need for a critical pedagogical practice that values a culture of questioning, views critical agency as a condition of public life, and rejects voyeurism in favor of the search for justice within a democratic, global public sphere.

    Such a pedagogy must reject the dystopian, anti-intellectual and racist vision at work under Trumpism and its underlying racist currents, its thrill for authoritarian violence, and its grotesque contempt for democracy. In doing so, there is the need for educators and other cultural workers to provide a language of both criticism and hope as a condition for rethinking the possibilities of the future and the promise of global democracy itself. At the same time, it must struggle against the concentration of power in the hands of the few who now use the instruments that use cultural politics as an oppressive ideological and pedagogical tool.

    This is a crucial pedagogical challenge in order for individuals to become critical and autonomous citizens capable of interrogating the lies and falsehoods spread by politicians, pundits, anti-public intellectuals and social media while being able to imagine a future different from the present. The will to refuse the seductions of false prophets, neo-fascists mentalities and the lure of demagogues preaching the swindle of fulfillment cannot be separated from learning how to be self-reflective, self-determining and self-autonomous.

    The overarching crisis facing the United States is a crisis of the public and civic imagination, and this is a crisis that at its core is educational. Such a crisis suggests closing the gap between educational/cultural institutions and the public by creating the ideas, narratives and pedagogical relations necessary for connecting the shaping of individual and collective consciousness to the conditions necessary for individuals to say no, understand the causes of systemic violence and free themselves from the social relations put in place by neoliberal capitalism.

    If the civic fabric and the democratic political culture that sustains democracy are to survive, education, once again, must be linked to matters of social justice, equity, human rights, history and the public good. Education in this sense frees itself from the technocratic obsessions with a deadening instrumental rationality, a regressive emphasis on standardization, training for the workplace and the memorizing of facts.

    On the contrary, to make the political more pedagogical, education must affirm in its vision and practices the interdependence of humanity and embrace hope against indifference. In this sense, education is not just a struggle over knowledge, but also a struggle about how education is related to the power of self-definition and the acquisition of individual and social forms of agency. More specifically, education is a moral and political practice, not merely an instrumentalized practice for the production of pre-specified skills.

    Matters of education are crucial to developing a democratic socialist vision that examines not only how neoliberal capitalism robs us of any viable sense of agency, but also what it means to think critically, exercise civic courage and define our lives outside of the pernicious parameters imposed by the veneration of greed, profits, competition and capitalist exchange values. Education is a place where individuals imagine themselves as critical and politically engaged agents.

    James Baldwin was right in stating at the end of his essay “Stranger in the Village” that, “People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.”

    At the heart of Baldwin’s message is that the state of a country’s morality and politics can be judged by the degree to which education becomes a central force in producing a political culture and public imagination that expands the notion of freedom, social justice and economic equality as part of the long march towards a democratic socialist future. At a time when the fascist ghosts of the past have once again emerged and the monsters are no longer lurking in the shadows, we must reclaim the public imagination and develop the mass educational and political movements that make such a future possible. The forces of resistance and radical collective movements are once again on the march, and it is crucial to remember that education opens up the space of translation, breaks open the boundaries of common sense, and provides the bridging work between the self and others, the public and the private.

    Against the dictatorship of ignorance and the destruction of the public imagination is the need for a politics of education that interrogates the claims of democracy, fights the failures of conscience, prevents justice from going dead in ourselves, and imagines the unimaginable.

    Any struggle against the dictatorship of ignorance will not only have to take matters of education seriously in the effort to address the current crisis of consciousness, it will also have to bring diverse movements together in order to build a common agenda under the rubric of creating critically engaged populace willing to fight for a democratic socialist society. We owe such a challenge to ourselves, to new and younger generations, and a future global socialist democracy waiting to be born.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden delivers brief remarks to the press during a meeting with members of his cabinet and immigration advisors in the State Dining Room on March 24, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.

    There is a whole lot of happy noise coming out of the Biden administration lately, the sum and substance being that this White House — which has “already been transformative,” according to Axios — is looking to rassle the historic New Deal and Great Society policy initiatives for their places in the history books.

    “President Biden recently held an undisclosed East Room session with historians that included discussion of how big is too big — and how fast is too fast — to jam through once-in-a-lifetime historic changes to America,” reads one Axios report this week. “The historians’ views were very much in sync with his own: It is time to go even bigger and faster than anyone expected. If that means chucking the filibuster and bipartisanship, so be it.”

    A second Axios report was even bubblier: “Hosting historians around a long table in the East Room earlier this month, President Biden took notes in a black book as they discussed some of his most admired predecessors. Then he said to Doris Kearns Goodwin: ‘I’m no FDR, but…’ He’d like to be.”

    This is, of course, a balm to the ears of progressives who have watched the last 50 years of right-bent trickle-down economic plunder shred the country. However, it bears remembering that the five decades of damage we’re facing down has come at the hands of giddily complicit Democrats nearly as often as it has the Republicans.

    Two distinct parties became, in a sense, one big corporate party after the old Democratic coalition collapsed, a “centrist” party if you mark the political center somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon. One party favored abortion rights, the other detested them, but when it came to worshiping at the church of supply-side neoliberal economics — “feed the rich” — the two shared a pew and dipped greedily into the same corporate-fattened donation basket.

    One of the avatars of that center-right Democratic transformation is none other than President Biden. During his time as a senator, Mr. Biden championed draconian crime bills, drafted ruinous banking bills, and voted to allow catastrophic Republican follies like the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As recently as last September, Mr. Biden was unable to keep his story straight about that war vote, and spent a good deal of his presidential campaign backpedaling vigorously away from much of his record.

    These are not “attacks” on Mr. Biden. They are a recitation of black-letter history. It is, therefore, no surprise to see furrowed brows decorating the progressive landscape when the senator from MBNA talks as though he has suddenly been transformed into some Roosevelt-Johnson superbeing. Once bitten, twice shy? We’ve been bitten more often than the curator of an Arizona rattlesnake farm. Forgive us for being bluntly dubious in the face of such shiny talk.

    And yet, the possibilities are enormous, aren’t they? Esquire blogger Charles P. Pierce took a hard look one year ago not only at who Biden is, but who he could someday become:

    [Biden] has been a loyal party man. This led him, as it did all loyal party folk, into some rather skeevy alliances with some more-than-skeevy people, and it has led him to adopt positions that have come back to bite him as a revived progressive wing asserted itself. That’s the way it’s supposed to happen, and Biden knows that as well as anybody.

    The main question going forward, especially for those progressive voters who are not necessarily Bernie-or-Bust people, is how sincere do you believe Joe Biden is in his newfound adoption of positions that would have been unthinkable 20 years—or 20 months—before. If he thinks that’s where the party’s headed, he will go along. His history proves that he will, and that he likely will do it with gusto. (Emphasis added)

    “With gusto.” Even for a crusty old campaigner like me, that line pops a few goosebumps. So OK, let’s say for the sake of argument that Biden means every word, that he intends to take his slim majority in Congress and knock some shit down with it. Nothing would be more welcome, but the second question remains: How?

    At some point, the filibuster has to go, even in the face of Mitch McConnell’s puny bluster. As it stands, a number of “centrist” Democrats and every single Republican are against this action, though the reticence of those Democrats has begun to waver in the face of the fact that the GOP intends to filibuster everything including the sink in the men’s room in order to thwart Biden’s agenda.

    Just two weeks ago, Biden himself sounded a lot like Joe Manchin when it came to filibuster reform. But if Axios has the right of it, the president has changed his tune dramatically. Angus King of Maine, an Independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats, has likewise moved to the filibuster-abolition camp. More pointedly, he believes those senators who are hesitant to make this change will come around after watching serial GOP obstructionism upend vital legislation like H.R.1, the vast and historic voter protections bill that just passed the House on a straight party vote.

    Even stubborn Joe Manchin may have his price regarding the filibuster, and more importantly, he may have already signaled what that price is.

    “Sen. Joe Manchin said Wednesday that he favors a large infrastructure package that would be paid for in part by raising tax revenues,” reports NBC News, “a point of contention between the two parties. ‘I’m sure of one thing: It’s going to be enormous,’ the West Virginia Democrat, who is seen as a swing vote in a chamber divided 50-50, told reporters at the Capitol.”

    Is there room here for a deal? If Biden promises to go full bore on Manchin’s massive infrastructure bill in exchange for Manchin and his cohort of “centrists” agreeing to vote an end to the filibuster, it could be hats over the windmill.

    Clearly, we are not there yet… but I have a vision in my mind’s eye that won’t go away. In my vision, the filibuster remains intact for the senate vote on H.R.1, and the bill gets filibustered to death by McConnell or one of his underlings. Thus, the gauntlet is thrown.

    Senate Democrats then feed other enormously popular bills — gun background checks, say, or infrastructure — into the maw of the GOP filibuster. Blow by blow, bill by bill, it will become clear even to the stoniest “centrist” Democrat that their own political aspirations will rise or fall on the ability, simply, to get things done.

    And then, as tensions peak, a House and Senate coalition, led by the Congressional Black Caucus and fully supported by Mr. Biden, once again puts H.R.1 up for a vote. Their main argument? The hundreds of bills emerging nationwide that seek to obliterate the right to vote for people of color, and for anyone else who does not reliably vote Republican. All eyes turn, again, to the filibuster.

    … and after all that? None can say. The way is there, however, eight lanes wide and screaming for boldness.

    Who are you, Joe Biden? Are you going to be a president who prioritizes real human needs? If you are, we need you to fight now. Win first, improve people’s lives by way of desperately needed progressive legislation, and wait for the lightbulb moments to start flashing all over the country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden walks out with Vice President Kamala Harris, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deliver remarks on the American Rescue Plan in the Rose Garden at the White House on March 12, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In the decade following the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Texas and 18 other Republican-led states took the extraordinary step of refusing free money — namely, rejecting an infusion of federal funds that would have allowed them to expand Medicaid coverage for many of their uninsured residents.

    Now, the GOP is attempting to orchestrate a redux of this cruel politics. This time around, in pandemic-era 2021, a coalition of 21 states is ginning up a lawsuit to prevent implementation of a key part of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP), namely a $350 billion investment in local and state governments.

    Back when it was Medicaid expansion that was on the line, there was no good reason for Republican states to block the infusion of federal cash other than sheer orneriness, and a deep-seated aversion to using government resources to improve the prospects of those at the bottom of the social and economic ladders. It wasn’t as if the Medicaid expansion envisioned by the ACA was dumping the problem on states; quite the contrary — it was providing vast federal subsidies to the states to make the lives of their poorer residents a little bit easier. In fact, Medicaid expansion was as close a free lunch for the states as exists in U.S. politics. And yet, GOP states resisted signing on — and in February 2018, many ultimately joined with Texas in suing to overturn the entire Affordable Care Act, a lawsuit the Trump administration signed onto.

    As a result of this ideological intransigence, millions of Americans who would otherwise have been under health care umbrellas were left without stable and regular medical coverage — with devastating results in poor regions, as the COVID-19 crisis has shown. Each year, even absent a deadly pandemic, tens of thousands of Americans die not because their diseases can’t be treated, but because they lack the insurance that would allow them to access that treatment. In 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that more than 17 percent of Texans — 5 million people — lacked health insurance. By the middle of last year, as the pandemic ravaged the state, that number had grown by an additional 659,000.

    The ARP’s $350 billion to the cities and state wouldn’t lead to simply a few marginal investments and minor grants that remain largely “out of sight, out of mind” for the public. Instead, sums of money this large represent an infusion of so much cash that it has the potential to transform infrastructure very much in the public eye: school systems, public transport and housing infrastructure, public health systems, environmental support networks, and many other critical services and systems for decades to come. The Brookings Institute recently published a report on how cities and states could spend the money; among other conclusions, it recommended massively shoring up the country’s public health infrastructure, bulking up affordable housing, and creating regional recovery coordinating councils to bring in both the public and private sectors in reimagining local economies.

    The immediate impetus for sending such large sums of money to local and state governments was to protect services and public workers during a period when, because of the pandemic, upwards of 1.4 million of these workers had been laid off. But, beyond simply protecting existing jobs, the sums of money involved are large enough to allow for important investments that, for decades, cash-strapped governments have been unable to make. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently awarded the United States a C- grade for the quality of its aging infrastructure — and that was actually an improvement over the D grades the society has handed out in previous years. That a country as affluent and resource-rich as the U.S. can fail so dismally when it comes to maintaining or developing state-of-the-art infrastructure has nothing to do with an innate lack of resources and everything to do with political failings and an inability to raise enough tax revenues to make such projects possible.

    Biden’s ARP is ambitious in many ways, and arguably nowhere more so than in its belief that injecting enough money into cities and states will be able to kick-start these long-delayed societal improvements.

    There is, however, a catch. The ARP’s authors were aware of the political temptations states and cities would face to use the funds to pad their general funds and then seek political capital with voters by handing out tax cuts. And so, to minimize this risk, the monies distributed to local and state governments under the ARP come with a caveat: While they can be used to build private-public partnerships, they cannot be used simply to cut taxes.

    That’s where the Republican attorneys general have stepped in. Such a restriction is, they are arguing, an infringement on basic constitutional rights that states have to set their own tax rates. Last week, Ohio became the first of the 21 states to sue the Biden administration over this provision. In the coming weeks, other states will likely follow suit.

    There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy to these lawsuits. For, even though every GOP member of the Senate voted against the ARP, there’s no indication that, if the tax-provision was removed, Republican-led states and cities would reject the money. Rather, after lambasting Democrats for what they call a “bailout” of “mismanaged” blue cities and states, they now want to be able to use at least part of those funds to continue their decades-long rollback of taxes, especially those levied against high-earning individuals and companies. They want to retain the right to do so even if those tax-breaks — giveaways aimed at consolidating local support for the GOP — come at the expense of social programs urgently needed by those at the bottom of the economy. And, to that end, they are willing to ask the courts to spike the entire $350 billion unless they get their way on taxes.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • a young white man shops for guns

    The last two weeks, coincident with warming weather and incrementally looser quarantine restrictions, saw two more mass shootings, in the Atlanta, Georgia, area and in Boulder, Colorado. Is it true that only a global pandemic forcing people indoors was enough to significantly slow the pace of that quintessentially American phenomenon: mass shootings?

    As communities, families, government and the media react to these shootings, forensically analyzing the conditions that led to them, there are numerous variables: While the perpetrators are overwhelmingly men often young men, and usually white their motives, backgrounds, social and economic class tend to be variable. White supremacy and misogyny (or both, as was the case in the Georgia massacre) are often at the root of the shootings. Others’ roots have remained mysterious. The instrument of death, however, is constant: firearms. There is another constant, too: The manufacturers of these tools for committing massacres are legally shielded from liability for their overproduction and dangerous marketing strategies. Until that changes, massacres of these types will likely continue.

    After the Atlanta-area killings, it was widely reported that the shooter was able to buy a gun and begin his attacks on the same day. Gun control advocates typically argue that we must center our policy responses on the consumers of weapons, to make acquiring and owning a gun more difficult — often including criminal penalties for gun ownership in various scenarios.

    As we’ve argued in this space before, this approach suffers from multiple risks and weaknesses. First, gun control laws that require enforcement from local police departments and federal agencies are simply more likely to disproportionately target workingclass people of color, who face disproportionate arrest and sentencing. Second, imposing consumer-focused measures without imposing steep costs on the gun industry is like wading into a flood with a mop and ignoring the open spigot. Without a strategy that attacks the forces of capital benefitting from the flood of guns, ever-increased policing will just drag more and more people into the carceral system.

    As it stands, the pain of mass shootings is borne by victims, their families and communities, and the public. Meanwhile, the gun industry is consistently ramping up production—there are currently about 400 million guns in circulation in the United States, a country of 330 million. Getting guns into circulation quickly is an acknowledged part of the strategy of undercutting regulatory efforts. Consider this statement from the CEO of Palmetto State Armory, a gunmaker and retailer:

    I hope in thirty years people look back and say…we tried to pass gun control…but it wasn’t very effective…because this pesky company made 20 million ARs…they got them into circulation…and now the regulations we put into effect have little effect because there’s so much of it out there already.

    There needs to be a direct connection between the social and public health impact of gun proliferation and the costs imposed on the industry. Put another way, regulations like stricter design standards and safety features are sensible and could be effective, but they will ultimately become another line in the cost-of-production calculation of manufacturers. Meanwhile, the public absorbs billions in public health and social decay impacts that the manufacturers are never called to account for. Regulations disconnected from the actual costs on the public will end up as legislative tug-of-wars so long as there is an immensely profitable industry untouched by the cost of their conduct.

    The most plain way to impose a cost on the gun manufacturing industry is repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and subjecting the industry to public nuisance and public health theories of liability. These strategies would begin to compel the industry to bear actual, constant and proportional costs of its reckless overproduction and marketing of arms.

    To better understand what this means in practice, it’s important to understand the unique challenge the firearms industry poses. Unlike most products, guns are intended to maim and kill. So there is little room for a “product liability” theory, under which a consumer sues the manufacturer of a product for a defect in the product. A gun that maims or kills has most likely operated perfectly well, not defectively. So the public is left with two primary paths: claims of negligence (in the form of negligent marketing) and public nuisance claims.

    In negligent marketing claims, plaintiffs could allege that manufacturers knowingly oversell handguns, particularly into markets with more lax gun regulations, knowing that the initial and wholesale purchasers are essentially buying for sale into second-hand markets, including gun shows and private sales. The proliferation of guns drives the prices down and increases the ease with which any given person can secure a firearm fairly easily. Two cases from the early 2000s, prior to the passage of the PLCAA, tested these theories: In Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and Merrill v. Navegar, negligent marketing and overpromotion theories could not meet the standards of common law negligence or the public policy in favor of lawful gun ownership. Positive legislation from the federal government needs to make these types of cases easier to bring and likelier to succeed.

    A public nuisance theory has even greater potential. Rooted in the common law, the concept of public nuisance is that the public has certain “general rights” that should not be violated by private actors, the most obvious examples being factories that create a noise nuisance or polluters that contaminate drinking water.

    In the context of gun crime, the theory would be that the public safety our right to be free from the actual occurrence or constant risk of bodily harm from guns has been recklessly or intentionally harmed by gun manufacturers. Particularly since the PLCAA, these theories have not fared well in the courts, because that law allowed for only narrow exceptions where manufacturers could be held liable — the so-called “predicate exception.” Judges have tended to find that the right in question freedom from gun-related maiming and killing is not sufficiently harmed by the production of guns in the way that poisoning drinking water would threaten the public generally, because the harm is not suffered by the public in general but by individuals in particular.

    But there is hope. Both a change in judicial understanding of nuisance and positive legislation from states and municipalities could help speed things along. In the last handful of years, suits brought against pharmaceutical companies involved in the production of opioids have rested on a public nuisance theory and seen success in the form of large settlements, as companies scramble to avoid “bellwether” verdicts that create templates for more lawsuits.

    The opioid industry has been one of the parties complicit in hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in the last 20 years, as well as untold millions of destroyed lives and the dilapidation of families and communities. But there’s a critical difference: Opioids at least do have an important functional use easing serious pain and their manufacturers produce myriad other products that are critical to public health. The firearms industry has no comparable social value, and therefore, legislators should feel freer to legislate for broader grounds and steeper penalties for liability.

    The proliferation of guns has imposed immense financial costs even beyond the generally circulated figure of $170 billion annually. Consider, for example, the cost of the purchase, maintenance and replacement of tens of thousands of metal detectors in public schools and other public buildings, added security for those same facilities, the knock-on cost of over-burdened trauma centers in major urban centers, etc. When you consider that the only arguable public utility of gun ownership is to protect against other people with guns, the industry can and should be wholly liable for these costs borne by the public.

    Yet currently, the industry has no material negative feedback from mass shootings. The increase in gun production over a period of increased mass shootings demonstrates this fairly unequivocally. The industry needs to feel the same panic and dread the public does after a massacre. And that is only likely to happen when it can expect to be compelled into the courthouse and made to pay for its reckless conduct. Under the current Second Amendment regime, imposing steep costs for the proliferation of guns is the only apparently evident means of stanching their flow.

    Stopping the overproduction of guns serves multiple purposes: by starting to dry up the supply, it reduces the prevalence of gun crimes, which in turn could help stem the demand for more guns (since guns are generally purchased for self-defense). In turn, that begins the process of drying up the immense profits of the industry. Imposing liability on the gun industry through state and private litigation commencing in myriad jurisdictions all at once can quickly sap the industry’s war chests, tie up its resources and send insurers fleeing.

    All of these steps could, in turn, give policy makers and communities breathing space to experiment with deeply needed public health approaches to addressing gun violence, rather than merely creating more and more intrusive policing strategies that will inevitably fall hardest on workingclass communities of color.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sydney Powell stands next to Rudolph Giuliani

    After almost six years of diving, we may have finally found the bottom of the barrel.

    The latest news on the Trump team is the whole shabby satchel of “Trumpism” itself, tied up in a bow. It’s the burning bag of dog poop left by Trump’s own team on the front porch of all those who decided Trump Twitter was the new gospel. The rot at the core of Trumpism does not get any more stark than this.

    “Legal representatives for Sidney Powell, a lawyer aligned with former President Donald Trump who filed numerous lawsuits promoting his quest to overturn the 2020 presidential election on the false basis of election fraud, responded to a lawsuit against her this week by suggesting her allegedly defamatory words shouldn’t be taken as serious by ‘reasonable people,’” reports Chris Walker for Truthout.

    In the immortal words of Chuck Palahniuk, we’ve just lost cabin pressure.

    The suit in question was filed by Dominion Voting Systems, which has asked for more than $1.3 billion in damages from Powell for her various public anti-Dominion tirades during her efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election on behalf of then-President Trump. Powell, along with co-counsel (and now defense attorney) Lin Wood and a dim constellation of bottom-shelf legal minds, threw ten thousand pounds of bullshit at the courts trying to toss the people’s vote, and failed all the way down the line.

    The core of Powell’s argument asserts that the “highly charged and political context of her statements” essentially means those statements are prima facie not to be believed. Her own motion describes her theories as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Who, therefore, would lend credence to such brazen poppycock? According to Law & Crime, Powell’s arguments against her own legal arguments continue in this vein:

    They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible” the motion to dismiss continues, referring to the conspiracy theories peddled by Powell, her law firm and her non-profit group Defending the Republic. “Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”

    Here is the distilled essence of Trumpism, bleeding on the platter for all to see: Lie with impunity, then deny your lies, and in extremis claim it doesn’t matter if you lied because you were right to do it anyway… and in the end, those who go along are on their own. Powell and Wood ran their barrage of election lies day after day in courtroom after courtroom after the race was called for Joe Biden. They followed that up with serial right-wing network television appearances, where their lies and fabrications were transmogrified into holy writ within the ossified logic circuits of Trump’s fervent base.

    To this day — hell, to this hour — Donald Trump is still fountaining the lies that were peddled by Powell and her team, despite having booted her after she gave one of the most ludicrous pressers in history. You will recall this one from late last November, when Rudy Giuliani appeared to be melting. Powell let fly with false campaign allegations of “massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China and the interference with our elections here in the United States.” According to false claims that Powell made at that press conference, Dominion voting systems “were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez.”

    There is an adage of internet culture called Poe’s Law, which roughly dictates that it is no longer possible to distinguish between actual right-wing farce and parody of right-wing farce. Powell and Giuliani made this rule axiomatic that day, and still, Trump let Powell back into the White House in mid-December to continue helping him plot the overthrow of the election. This time, she counseled Trump to take a “scorched-earth” approach to obtaining victory. Three weeks later, the Capitol Building was stormed by pro-Trump rioters who believed every word Powell and Trump said.

    Now, with that profound stain and a potential $1.3 billion ruling hovering over her, Powell has asked the court to believe that no rational person would believe her. “Chutzpah” does not begin to cover it. I have written often about the power of shamelessness as deployed by the Republican right. This level of shamelessness, however, is straight through the Oort Cloud and out into interstellar space. I have never seen the like.

    Meanwhile, numerous Trump loyalists such as Graydon Young, a member of the “Oath Keepers” militia who was amid the mob that sacked the Capitol on January 6, continue to be incarcerated while awaiting trial. “The psychological burdens of being detained pending trial are very real for Mr. Young. Since he has no previous experience with the criminal justice system, being detained is taking an extremely high toll on his mental well-being,” Young’s lawyers filed in a recent motion.

    Few outside the circles of those who swaddle themselves in Trumpean faux-heroism will weep many tears for an Oath Keeper who cannot abide the fact that violent actions have immediate consequences. Still, what do you suppose will happen when people like Young hear the argument being put forth by Powell, one of the clarion voices they listened to and believed in the run-up to January’s lethal mayhem? “No reasonable person? But we believed you!

    Even now, months after the deal went down, more than two-thirds of Republicans believe in the core arguments that were coughed up by Powell and her crew. Now, according to Powell, two-thirds of the Republican Party are not reasonable people. I’ve made that argument, but you have to wonder how it’s going to taste when they eat it from one of their own.

    Finally, there is the Big Man himself to consider.

    “Powell’s defense is to throw Trump under the bus,” argues Noah Feldman for Bloomberg News. “The basic idea: He is such a known liar that any assertion made on his behalf in an election can’t be taken as remotely plausible.”

    Trump has continued to give wind to Powell’s lies in order to maintain his hold over the party and rake in fundraising cash. Now he is suddenly confronted with one of his own lawyers arguing in court documents that the whole thing was a grift no sensible person would fall for. There is simply no way to square that circle, and though Trump’s people live within a comfortable information bubble, this astonishing argument from Powell is certain to ring more than a few bells way down deep in the cathedral of pride. No reasonable person…

    The sagging carcass of Trumpism will surely drag itself on for a while longer, because large things in motion still have inertia even as they crumble and collapse. This is the juncture history will remember, however, the biggest Quiet Part Said Loud moment in modern political history.

    This article has been updated.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A protester in a red DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST CLUB t-shirt holds a sign reading "TAX THE RICH" at a protesy\t

    During the Trump administration, the running not-so-funny joke was that every week was “Infrastructure Week.” Periodically, like a clockwork designed by M.C. Escher, Trump or one of his flapdoodle minions would pop up and announce that a massive overhaul of the nation’s crumbling roads, bridges, airports, subways and water systems was a mere “two weeks” away.

    Those mythical 14 days spent four years on repeat, “Two weeks!” — like the lady whose head explodes in Total Recall. Mine exploded listening to that long-form nonsense more than once, and of course, it never came to pass. Trump & Co. slithered into the bottom pages of history after trying to light the city on fire like some orange-dyed British garrison from days of yore… and our national infrastructure continues to molder beneath an indifferent sun.

    Enter the Biden administration, and a renewed push for massive and unprecedented infrastructure repair. Biden’s people do not appear to be stuck in screw-around mode. The legislation they are discussing runs into the trillions, and covers a vast swath of areas that have never before been categorized as infrastructure — for one example, this would be a climate bill as much as anything else.

    Predictably, Mitch McConnell and the disloyal GOP opposition in Congress are gearing up to fight this legislation to the knife, so the reconciliation process run by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders may once again prove to be the only viable route to passage. This fight will be hotter than the last, however, because of the red-flag word that always elicits a dynamic response from the Republican lizard brain: Taxes.

    “Mr. Biden campaigned on a sprawling infrastructure agenda,” The New York Times reported on March 3, “with trillions of dollars invested in transportation, water and sewer lines, and the scaffoldings of an energy sector that significantly reduces the United States’ carbon emissions, funded by tax increases on multinational companies and high earners.”

    Cue Mitch: “I don’t think there’s going to be any enthusiasm on our side for a tax increase,” he told reporters last week, before going on to describe the still-nonexistent bill as a “Trojan horse” for new taxes.

    If this sounds drearily familiar, that’s because you’ve heard it all before. Republicans are always frantic about spending unless they are the ones doing the spending (see: the massive 2017 tax cut for rich folks). The lines are being drawn for yet another bottomless gibberish festival from the right, designed only to impede if not destroy the progress promised by a full-fledged infrastructure bill with its eye on sustainability and the threat of climate disruption.

    Before we get lost in that bog, I have an idea. The papers were awash yesterday with reports that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has all but gotten out of the business of taxing the wealthy, resulting in uncollected taxes estimated to add up to $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

    “A new analysis by IRS researchers and academics published Monday morning estimates that the richest 1 percent of U.S. households don’t report around 21 percent of their income,” reports Common Dreams, “often using complex tax avoidance strategies that allow them to outmaneuver the federal government’s increasingly rare audits of the wealthy.”

    “From a policy perspective, our results highlight that there is substantial evasion at the top which requires administrative resources to detect and deter,” the authors of the study explain. “We estimate that 36% of federal income taxes unpaid are owed by the top 1% and that collecting all unpaid federal income tax from this group would increase federal revenues by about $175 billion annually.”

    I’m just going to throw this out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up: Before we foray into a massively expensive infrastructure bill — or any other kind of costly legislation, for that matter — we must get our financial house in order and tell the IRS to stop pretending rich people don’t exist.

    The New York Times op-ed board has already put forth one clever way to address the situation — basically, make banks do W-2 forms for their rich clients, because the W-2s are how the tax man knows about the rest of us — and more are surely out there.

    Once we get that squared away, we can buy the IRS some stout boats and send them off to the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and all the other places the world’s wealthy have hidden their money. Remember the Panama Papers? As much as $32 trillion in untaxed money is estimated to have been squirreled away offshore.

    “The wealthiest of the wealthy using tax dodges and offshore safehouses to hide their money from the tax man is an international phenomenon, to be sure, but the issue takes on a decidedly unique slant here in the United States,” I wrote in June of 2017. “It was confirmed in the original reporting on the Panama Papers last year that hundreds of the wealthiest US citizens enjoy the privileges of offshore cash havens, even as the new government in Washington pleads abject poverty while seeking to bleed the poorest among us for the benefit of the richest.”

    It’s a new day in Washington, D.C. — passage of the American Rescue Plan drove at least a temporary dagger through the heart of the austerity lies that have been bleeding this nation dry for decades. So much more is required, and if we are going to talk about “repairing our infrastructure,” we need to start by fixing the basic infrastructure of the government’s broken taxation system.

    Want to cause a real ruckus, President Biden? Draft a bill demanding massive IRS overhaul and a detailed, no-bullshit investigation into the phenomenon of the Panama Papers. Between removing the loopholes for the rich and levying taxes on the trillions they’ve stashed, a bricks-and-mortar infrastructure bill would be paid for with interest.

    That, right there, would change the nation, and end a half-century of trickle-down plunder with the stroke of a pen.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A girl in a jumpsuit sits on the beach

    Hello! Hello out there! Hello? (knocks on mic) Is this thing on? Can you hear me in the back? Ready?

    IT’S NOT OVER YET.

    There were more than 65,000 COVID-19 cases reported on Friday, and almost 60,000 cases reported on Saturday. The seven-day average for infections stands at 56,348, with a national total soon to top 30 million. Almost 1,000 people are dying per day, and more than 542,000 are already gone. All of those numbers are incredibly awful. It’s not over yet. Not even damn close.

    Cases have spiked in 21 states, most significantly in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island and Michigan. Overtopping all is Florida, where scenes of beaches, bars and streets packed with unmasked Spring Break revelers make for a galling counterpoint to the experts on TV split screens pleading with viewers to locate a molecule of responsibility. Most of those party people are not from Florida, and when they return home, at least some will almost certainly take COVID with them wherever they go.

    Cognitive dissonance abounds in Michigan, too. The state reported 2,660 more new cases and 47 more deaths as of Friday, a spike that momentarily leads the national pack. Several regions in the state have been moved back up to the highest measurement level of risk. “We may be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, but we’re still in the tunnel,” Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said on Friday. “The only way out is to move forward and to do it together.”

    An odd declaration, that, since it was Governor Whitmer who on the same day announced that Michigan stadiums and arenas can begin allowing people inside as of Monday (albeit at 20 percent capacity). For a state standing at the highest risk level in many places, with infections and deaths spiking, the cognitive dissonance of Whitmer’s warning in combination with her stadium/arena decision is bewildering. Unfortunately, Whitmer is not alone.

    “The concern is that throughout the country, there are a number of state, city, regions that are pulling back on some of the mitigation methods that we’ve been talking about: the withdrawal of mask mandates, the pulling back to essentially non-public health measures being implemented,” COVID expert Anthony Fauci said at a Friday briefing. “So it is unfortunate but not surprising to me that you are seeing increases in number of cases per day in areas — cities, states, or regions — even though vaccines are being distributed at a pretty good clip of 2 to 3 million per day. That could be overcome if certain areas pull back prematurely on the mitigation and public health measures that we all talk about.”

    It has been a year of COVID-19, and still there are leaders who refuse to see this situation as it is: 1 to 0. Either we manage this thing properly or we don’t. It is not 1.1, a little give and take because we’re tired of the restrictions. COVID has proven every day that it will take that 0.1 and run up our noses with it, and it is happening again.

    Beyond the basic fact of saving lives and protecting health, the need to knuckle up and crush this thing is pressing because of what happens when we don’t: variants. An unchecked virus like this allowed to breed and breed will eventually mutate, and mutate again, until it becomes something our science has not seen. This is already taking place.

    “The highly contagious variant first identified in the U.K. likely accounts for up to 30% of Covid infections in the U.S. Health officials say the variant could become dominant,” reports CNBC. “The variant is seen as the cause of Europe’s third coronavirus wave. Several countries including France and Italy have imposed new lockdown measures to mitigate virus spread as cases surge.”

    Thus far, vaccines have proven to be effective against the variants, according to experts like Fauci. CNN reports that, regarding the U.K. variant, “vaccines appear to protect well against B.1.1.7 and treatments such as monoclonal antibodies also appear to work against this particular variant, Fauci said. That makes it more important than ever to get people vaccinated quickly, he said.”

    If we lose the vaccination footrace with COVID, however, those vaccines could become little more than vials of tap water in the fight against an onslaught of highly contagious, highly lethal variants. In no small part, the crashing negligence of the previous administration has us already in a place where variants have happened. Keeping more from becoming active is one of our most important tasks as a species right now.

    The task is daunting, because it is not just COVID in the United States we must reckon with. Two known variants have already risen from the United Kingdom and South Africa, and Brazil has become a horrifying petri dish for more, including a ruthless variant designated as P1.

    “Brazil is experiencing a historic collapse of its health service as intensive care units in hospitals run out of capacity, its leading health institute, Fiocruz, has warned,” reports the BBC. “Covid-19 units in all but two of Brazil’s 27 states are at or above 80% capacity, according to Fiocruz. In Rio Grande do Sul state there are no intensive care beds available at all. The warning came as the country registered its highest daily death toll yet with 2,841 dying within 24 hours…. The latest surge in cases has been attributed to the spread of highly contagious variants of the virus.” (Emphasis added.)

    PAY ATTENTION,” comes the Twitter warning from noted epidemiologist and health economist Eric Feigl-Ding. “There is one crisis we all needs to pay attention to — and that is the unprecedented Brazil surge of the P1 variant, overloaded hospitals, & sharp mortality spike. If more contagious P1 out of control worldwide, we are all endangered.”

    P1, first discovered in Brazil, is much more contagious than the original COVID-19. According to Forbes, “To date, at least 48 cases of the variant have been reported in over 16 states, and is now present in at least 25 other countries.” P1 is present in Florida, right alongside all those Spring Breakers, and has most recently been found by Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. The New York patient is a resident of Brooklyn with no travel history.

    This is the last thing folks want to hear right now, but it is the truth and must be spoken at top volume from all the rooftops: We must stay the course.

    Now, when the sun is coming back and the vaccines are flying. Now, even as your head is filled with wind and straw from the desolation of this year. Now, though your children are climbing the walls and gnawing on the furniture. Now is the hardest part, because of all that, and because it is not over yet.

    Not only must we stick to the dreary business of COVID self-defense in all its grinding forms. We must, as a nation, become an ambassador of those vaccines. We must give them away by the millions to other nations, particularly those acutely afflicted, as soon as we are able. If we do not, nations like Brazil, the U.K., South Africa, and others will keep introducing COVID variants into the global slipstream, and we could wind up all the way back to where we started, but with a million dead to contemplate in the obsidian darkness of another long winter.

    Please do not choose that fate.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Two women smile as they speak to a bank teller

    Just over two months into the new year, 2021 has already seen a flurry of public banking activity. Sixteen new bills to form publicly-owned banks or facilitate their formation were introduced in eight U.S. states in January and February. Two bills for a state-owned bank were introduced in New Mexico, two in Massachusetts, two in New York, one each in Oregon and Hawaii, and Washington State’s Public Bank Bill was re-introduced as a “Substitution.” Bills for city-owned banks were introduced in Philadelphia and San Francisco, and bills facilitating the formation of public banks or for a feasibility study were introduced in New York, Oregon (three bills), and Hawaii.

    In addition, California is expected to introduce a bill for a state-owned bank later this year, and New Jersey is moving forward with a strong commitment from its governor to implement one. At the federal level, three bills for public banking were also introduced last year: the National Infrastructure Bank Bill (HR 6422), a new Postal Banking Act (S 4614), and the Public Banking Act (HR 8721). (For details on all these bills, see the Public Banking Institute website here.)

    As Oscar Abello wrote on NextCity.org in February, “2021 could be public banking’s watershed moment.… Legislators are starting to see public banks as a powerful potential tool to ensure a recovery that is more equitable than the last time.”

    Why the Surge in Interest?

    The devastation caused by nationwide Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020 has highlighted the inadequacies of the current financial system in serving the public, local businesses, and local governments. Nearly 10 million jobs were lost to the lockdowns, over 100,000 businesses closed permanently, and a quarter of the population remains unbanked or underbanked. Over 18 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, and moratoria on rent and home foreclosures are due to expire this spring.

    Where was the Federal Reserve in all this? It poured out trillions of dollars in relief, but the funds did not trickle down to the real economy. They flooded up, dramatically increasing the wealth gap. By October 2020, the top 1% of the U.S. population held 30.4% of all household wealth, 15 times that of the bottom 50%, which held just 1.9% of all wealth.

    State and local governments are also in dire straits due to the crisis. Their costs have shot up and their tax bases have shrunk. But the Fed’s “special purpose vehicles” were no help. The Municipal Liquidity Facility, ostensibly intended to relieve municipal debt burdens, lent at market interest rates plus a penalty, making borrowing at the facility so expensive that it went nearly unused; and it was discontinued in December.

    The Fed’s emergency lending facilities were also of little help to local businesses. In a January 2021 Wall Street Journal article titled “Corporate Debt ‘Relief’ Is an Economic Dud,” Sheila Bair, former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Lawrence Goodman, president of the Center for Financial Stability, observed:

    The creation of the corporate facilities last March marked the first time in history that the Fed would buy corporate debt… The purpose of the corporate facilities was to help companies access debt markets during the pandemic, making it possible to sustain operations and keep employees on payroll. Instead, the facilities resulted in a huge and unnecessary bailout of corporate debt issuers, underwriters and bondholders….This created a further unfair opportunity for large corporations to get even bigger by purchasing competitors with government-subsidized credit.

    ….This presents a double whammy for the young companies that have been hit hardest by the pandemic. They are the primary source of job creation and innovation, and squeezing them deprives our economy of the dynamism and creativity it needs to thrive.

    In a September 2020 study for ACRE called “Cancel Wall Street,” Saqib Bhatti and Brittany Alston showed that U.S. state and local governments collectively pay $160 billion annually just in interest in the bond market, which is controlled by big private banks. For comparative purposes, $160 billion would be enough to help 13 million families avoid eviction by covering their annual rent; and $134 billion could make up the revenue shortfall suffered by every city and town in the U.S. due to the pandemic.

    Half the cost of infrastructure generally consists of financing, doubling its cost to municipal governments. Local governments are extremely good credit risks; yet private, bank-affiliated rating agencies give them a lower credit score (raising their rates) than private corporations, which are 63 times more likely to default. States are not allowed to go bankrupt, and that is also true for cities in about half the states. State and local governments have a tax base to pay their debts and are not going anywhere, unlike bankrupt corporations, which simply disappear and leave their creditors holding the bag.

    How Publicly Owned Banks Can Help

    Banks do not have the funding problems of local governments. In March 2020, the Federal Reserve reduced the interest rate at its discount window, encouraging all banks in good standing to borrow there at 0.25%. No stigma or strings were attached to this virtually free liquidity – no need to retain employees or to cut dividends, bonuses, or the interest rates charged to borrowers. Wall Street banks can borrow at a mere one-quarter of one percent while continuing to charge customers 15% or more on their credit cards.

    Local governments extend credit to their communities through loan funds, but these “revolving funds” can lend only the capital they have. Depository banks, on the other hand, can leverage their capital, generating up to ten times their capital base in loans. For a local government with its own depository bank, that would mean up to ten times the credit to inject into the local economy, and ten times the profit to be funneled back into community needs. A public depository bank could also borrow at 0.25% from the Fed’s discount window.

    North Dakota Leads the Way

    What a state can achieve by forming its own bank has been demonstrated in North Dakota. There the nation’s only state-owned bank was formed in 1919 when North Dakota farmers were losing their farms to big out-of-state banks. Unlike the Wall Street megabanks mandated to make as much money as possible for their shareholders, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) is mandated to serve the public interest. Yet it has had a stellar return on investment, outperforming even J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. In its 2019 Annual Report, the BND reported its sixteenth consecutive year of record profits, with $169 million in income, just over $7 billion in assets, and a hefty return on investment of 18.6%.

    The BND maximizes its profits and its ability to serve the community by eliminating profiteering middlemen. It has no private shareholders bent on short-term profits, no high-paid executives, no need to advertise for depositors or borrowers, and no need for multiple branches. It has a massive built-in deposit base, since the state’s revenues must be deposited in the BND by law. It does not compete with North Dakota’s local banks in the retail market but instead partners with them. The local bank services and retains the customer, while the BND helps as needed with capital and liquidity. Largely due to this amicable relationship, North Dakota has nearly six times as many local financial institutions per person as the country overall.

    The BND has performed particularly well in economic crises. It helped pay the state’s teachers during the Great Depression, and sold foreclosed farmland back to farmers in the 1940s. It has also helped the state recover from a litany of natural disasters.

    Its emergency capabilities were demonstrated in 1997, when record flooding and fires devastated Grand Forks, North Dakota. The town and its sister city, East Grand Forks on the Minnesota side of the Red River, lay in ruins. The response of the BND was immediate and comprehensive, demonstrating a financial flexibility and public generosity that no privately-owned bank could match. The BND quickly established nearly $70 million in credit lines and launched a disaster relief loan program; worked closely with federal agencies to gain forbearance on federally-backed home loans and student loans; and reduced interest rates on existing family farm and farm operating programs. The BND obtained funds at reduced rates from the Federal Home Loan Bank and passed the savings on to flood-affected borrowers. Grand Forks was quickly rebuilt and restored, losing only 3% of its population by 2000, compared to 17% in East Grand Forks on the other side of the river.

    In the 2020 crisis, North Dakota shone again, leading the nation in getting funds into the hands of workers and small businesses. Unemployment benefits were distributed in North Dakota faster than in any other state, and small businesses secured more Payroll Protection Program funds per worker than in any other state. Jeff Stein, writing in May 2020 in The Washington Post, asked:

    What’s their secret? Much credit goes to the century-old Bank of North Dakota, which — even before the PPP officially rolled out — coordinated and educated local bankers in weekly conference calls and flurries of calls and emails.

    According Eric Hardmeyer, BND’s president and chief executive, BND connected the state’s small bankers with politicians and U.S. Small Business Administration officials and even bought some of their PPP loans to help spread out the cost and risk….

    BND has already rolled out two local successor programs to the PPP, intended to help businesses restart and rebuild. It has also offered deferments on its $1.1 billion portfolio of student loans.

    Public Banks Excel Globally in Crises

    Publicly-owned banks around the world have responded quickly and efficiently to crises. As of mid-2020, public banks worldwide held nearly $49 trillion in combined assets; and including other public financial institutions, the figure reached nearly $82 trillion. In a 2020 compendium of cases studies titled Public Banks and Covid 19: Combatting the Pandemic with Public Finance, the editors write:

    Five overarching and promising lessons stand out: public banks have the potential to respond rapidly; to fulfill their public purpose mandates; to act boldly; to mobilize their existing institutional capacity; and to build on ‘public-public’ solidarity. In short, public banks are helping us navigate the tidal wave of Covid-19 at the same time as private lenders are turning away….

    Public banks have crafted unprecedented responses to allow micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), large businesses, public entities, governing authorities and households time to breathe, time to adjust and time to overcome the worst of the crisis. Typically, this meant offering liquidity with generously reduced rates of interest, preferential repayment terms and eased conditions of repayment. For the most vulnerable in society, public banks offered non-repayable grants.

    The editors conclude that public banks offer a path toward democratization (giving society a meaningful say in how financial resources are used) and definancialization (moving away from speculative predatory investment practices toward financing that grows the real economy). For local governments, public banks offer a path to escape monopoly control by giant private financial institutions over public policies.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Our system subsidizes the "generous donations" of billionaires in the form of lost tax revenue.

    We are treated each day to multiple stories about billionaire philanthropy and acts of generosity, often with eye-popping figures. Whether we like the donor’s giving strategy or not, we are encouraged to think of these as private actions and choices of beneficent people. Instead we should be thinking, “these are our tax dollars at work.”

    In discussions of billionaire philanthropy, we should not lose sight of two fundamental points:

    1. We as taxpayers subsidize these donations, in the form of lost tax revenue. And the wealthier the donor, the bigger the tax subsidy we provide. For every $1 a billionaire gives to charity, the rest of us chip in as much as 74 cents in lost tax revenue, as we will explain below.
    2. Philanthropy is not a substitute for a fair tax system, where the wealthy pay their fair share to support an adequately funded public sector at the local, state and national level. Charitable dollars don’t built electric grids or water treatment facilities, or provide medical care for the elderly and people with disabilities. Philanthropy does some things well, but it is insufficient in tackling our biggest shared problems.

    As a pluralistic society, we benefit from having an innovative and independent third-sector — an alternative to government programs and private corporate power. But too often we think charity is the answer to major social problems when it is, more appropriately, a laboratory or incubator.

    The public has a legitimate and appropriate public interest in the seemingly private charity of the wealthy. And as wealth inequality grows and philanthropy becomes more top heavy — with a growing percent of the charitable giving pie coming from the top 10 percent and top 1 percent — we should pay additional attention.

    For example, we should be concerned that some private foundations continue to warehouse substantial charitable dollars, even during a pandemic. And we need to fix the design flaw that enables donors to make substantial donations to donor-advise funds (DAFs) with no requirement for payout. In both cases, donors have already banked their tax deductions so there is a public interest that funds move in a timely way to active charities.

    When we think of the value of the tax deduction, we most often consider the income tax. If I’m in the top income tax bracket, currently 37 percent, then my charitable donation reduces my income tax by that percent. For every dollar I donate, the taxpayer chips in 37 cents of my gift in lost revenue.

    But when the very wealthy give, the donation not only reduces income taxes, but also lowers their capital gains and estate and gift taxes. If I donate $1 billion to my private foundation, I have reduced my taxable estate by $1 billion. If I donate $20 million in appreciated stock to my donor-advised fund, I get a substantial reduction in capital gains taxes.

    As professors Roger Colinvaux and Ray D. Madoff write in Tax Notes, “The federal government has long provided generous tax incentives for charitable donations, with current benefits reaching up to 74 percent of the amount of the gift.” They add:

    Although a contribution of cash can save the donor as much as 37 cents for each dollar donated, a contribution of appreciated property can save the donor 57 cents for each dollar donated (taking into account both capital gains taxes and income taxes but not potential estate taxes).

    In their detailed notations, Colinvaux and Madoff also observe that:

    These savings are possible for a gift of appreciated property which the donor has a zero cost basis. The charitable deduction will save the donor 37 percent of the value of the gift; an additional 20 percent of the value of the contributed property if it is subject to capital gains taxes; and, if the donor is subject to estate taxes, another 17 percent (40 percent of the remaining 43 percent) that would otherwise be remaining in the estate if no gift had been made. The tax benefits can be even more if the property is overvalued, a recurring issue for non-publicly traded assets.

    In an article in Nonprofit Quarterly, Madoff writes about the tax advantages of donor-advised funds (DAFs), which are favored for donations of complicated appreciated assets. Madoff writes:

    Missing from the conversation regarding DAFs is how these donations may impose significantly greater costs — in terms of foregone tax revenue — than the public receives in terms of charitable benefits. This loss of revenue burdens all American taxpayers, who must pick up the slack. The starting point is that donors get significantly more tax benefits by making contributions of appreciated property rather than cash to a charity.

    Indeed, my conversations with several tax accountants suggested scenarios where the tax subsidy is even greater than 74 cents on the dollar.

    So next time you hear about a billionaire donation to a university or wing of an art museum, take pride. You paid for that too.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Dr. Bernard Lown

    In December 1985, a movement of doctors committed to overcoming Cold War divisions in the interest of peace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As doctors, they argued, they had the duty to confront the grave threat to human life posed by impending nuclear war. The movement’s co-presidents, Yevgeny Chazov from the Soviet Union and Bernard Lown from the United States, accepted the Peace Prize on behalf of the movement. In his Nobel address that evening, entitled “A Prescription for Hope,” Lown said, “Only those who see the invisible can do the impossible.” This apparently irresolvable affirmation captures the idealism and realism of Lown’s activist message. It conveys the challenge that his life poses to the rest of us. Lown died on February 16 at the age of 99.

    Bernard Lown was a person of the 20th century. When he was a youth in the 1930s, his family emigrated from Lithuania to Maine as antisemitism and Nazism took hold of Europe. Many of his relatives did not survive the onslaught of fascism. The political, technological and human horrors of modern genocide were thus a personal experience for Lown. Later, Lown became a pioneering cardiologist who used 20th-century science and technology in the service of health. He was responsible for numerous innovations in patient care, including the invention of the direct current defibrillator, which successfully used electrical shock to treat deadly heart arrythmias. He was committed, in his words, to both “mastering the science” and “practicing the art of healing.” As an activist, he organized many of his colleagues around the world to confront the enormity of the Cold War, perhaps the defining political conflict of the century in view of its global fallout. In 1961, he founded Physicians for Social Responsibility at his home near Boston, Massachusetts, and, in 1980, IPPNW, both of which addressed the crisis of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    As Lown later wrote in his memoir of the doctors’ movement, Prescription for Survival, “The doctors made millions of people aware of a frightening reality: medicine had nothing to offer in the case of such a war.” The aim of IPPNW, he wrote, “was to promote citizen diplomacy to cut through the fog of dehumanization that blocked awareness of our shared plight and threatened to bring about our mutual extinction.… We believed that there was no greater force in modern society than an educated public, activated and angered, to effect change.”

    In the course of the struggle against nuclear war, Lown’s perspective became globalized. The human costs of exorbitant military spending and the consequences of nuclear war were global. He recognized that growing, global inequality was a world-shaping process that yielded not only disastrous outcomes for human health but also the conditions for political morbidities propagating violence. But the globalization and interconnectivity that marked the closing decades of the 20th century shaped Lown’s vision, too. The organizations SatelLife and ProCor, founded by Lown, used satellite and internet technologies to create access to medical information for health workers in developing countries and a global forum of health workers focused on the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

    Lown’s notes for an unfinished essay read, “In my lifetime three issues have catapulted the world to a doom’s day scenario. The nuclear threat, Climate Change, and the growing inequality conflated with the morbid colonial legacy of the North South divide are the three issues that could make life unlivable on this planet.” Each issue could be called epoch-defining, each he sought to address, and they remain with us into the coming years.

    Though distinctly a person for his time, Lown was oriented towards the future. His was always a message that mingled hope with challenge. In a 2010 address, marking the launch of the Bernard Lown Scholars in Cardiovascular Health Program at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Lown said, “In an epoch of quavering certitudes, we need to cultivate moral vision as well as a moral commitment. This is the categoric imperative of our age. Otherwise the barbarisms of the 20th century will spill over into this millennium.”

    A proliferation of wars and the turn of a new century in an explosion of terrorisms, the resurgence of fascism around the globe, and a worsening pandemic of inequality warn that “barbarism” has proven durable. A pandemic of a different sort ravages health and exacerbates inequality of all kinds. “What, if anything,” Lown asked in a 2013 essay on the disastrous consequences of anthropocentric climate change and the inaction surrounding this global threat, “can we learn from the nuclear brinkmanship that threatened to incinerate planet Earth a mere quarter century ago?”

    The lesson is that of the “Prescription for Hope”: of seeing and doing.

    Lown understood a courageous “new way of thinking” — that nuclear proliferation was not ordained, that the self-imposed, destructive confines of the arms race could be transgressed — as the way out of the deadly Cold War that threatened extinction. But, at the same time, the action of IPPNW and a host of other peace groups were required for the transgression of the “possible” and inauguration of the “impossible.” Lown observed in 2015, “A life time of organizing has taught me that no radical transformative change can occur without a people’s movement, fueled by an agenda, whatever else is addressed, [that] does not ignore the numerous injustices that plague their daily lives.”

    Bernard Lown’s life and example challenge us to pursue what he called a “renaissance of perception” and to affirm it through activism, which he called “a certain antidote to hopelessness by making the impossible seem achievable.” The “Prescription for Hope” remains with us 35 years later, as we contend with the trials of our time. Those who see the invisible can do the impossible. The question for our century is the same as it was in his: whether those who see will choose to do.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A baby monkey in a laboratory is examined by employees in the National Primate Research Center of Thailand at Chulalongkorn University in Saraburi, Thailand, on May 3, 2020. Scientists at the center tested potential vaccines for the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) on animals, including monkeys.

    There have been concerted efforts on the part of primate researchers to convince the public and political leaders that more money and monkeys are needed for COVID-19 vaccine research. It’s not surprising that monkey researchers would attempt to exploit people’s fears about the pandemic to increase “supplies” and funding for their work.

    What is surprising, however, is the complete lack of differing scientific views offered. The problem with the assertions made by pro-monkey research groups is their lack of supporting evidence.

    Most findings in animals, including nonhuman primates (NHPs), do not predict human results — and, thus, far from being helpful, they are actually misleading.

    More than 700 human trials of potential HIV/AIDS vaccines have been conducted, all of which gave encouraging results in animals including monkeys and chimpanzees — yet not one has worked in humans. In fact, some HIV vaccines actually increase the risk of HIV in humans. And as models of human diseases, NHPs have failed for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, neuroscience/brain research, stroke, cancer, hepatitis C, and many more.

    More than 90 percent of drugs that appear to be safe and effective in animals fail in human trials. Vaccine development has an even higher failure rate. Only 6 percent of vaccines make it to the market. Can you imagine if you boarded a plane, and the pilot announced that you have a 6 percent chance of landing safely at your destination? You would demand an overhaul of the entire airline industry. Yet, when it comes to the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines and drugs we put into our bodies, monkey researchers want you to believe that clinging to the tools of old (i.e., monkeys) is a good idea. We don’t see anyone suggesting we should stick to the 8-track tape when we can stream music on our phones.

    There is a valid reason why we need diverse representation in human clinical trials. No one human can accurately represent how a vaccine or drug will work in another human. How can we expect another species to effectively predict biological responses in humans?

    Although COVID vaccines were tested in animals for regulatory reasons — tradition-based, rather than science-based — there is devil in the detail. Biologically, very different processes are occurring with the COVID-19 virus. Mice proved difficult to infect with the virus, even when genetically modified to make them more susceptible. If they did show symptoms, they were mild. Different species of monkeys also failed to replicate human symptoms, and where symptoms did appear, they too tended to be mild, reflecting different infectious processes.

    Human trials of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine proceeded despite prior monkey data that showed it did not prevent infection, and the Moderna vaccine was first encountered by humans without preceding animal trials. This would not have happened if the animal trials had been a crucial step in ensuring safety and efficacy.

    Expert opinion agrees: the chief medical officer at Moderna stated, “I don’t think proving this in an animal model is on the critical path to getting this to a clinical trial.” Operation Warp Speed’s chief scientific adviser said Human data is “100 times more significant” than NHP data, and Anthony Fauci stated that translating animal vaccine results to humans has been “one of the banes of our existence.” Pfizer and BioNTech recognized early on that mRNA vaccines work very differently in animals compared to humans.

    Biomedical research is increasingly utilizing innovative techniques that are human-specific. These techniques include human mini-organs (organoids) and human organs-on-a-chip, where 3D cultures of human cells are housed on small chips, with circulatory systems and other means of mimicking real-life function and physiology of actual human organs and the human body.

    These techniques are being used ever more widely in disease research and in drug discovery and development, and were used in pivotal stages of the COVID-19 vaccine development, alongside computational approaches to their design. Entire human immune systems can be cultured, as can lymph nodes (pivotal to immune function) specific to individual people to reflect interhuman variability, and reflective of both diseased and healthy states — all without the confounding issues of extrapolation between different species.

    For the sake of human health, our tax dollars should be directed into the best science. Whichever way you look at it, future biomedical research, including vaccine development for pandemics like COVID-19, will be based on human biology and human-specific testing methods. These methods are quicker, cheaper, more humane and — most importantly — relevant.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo speaks before getting vaccinated at the mass vaccination site at Mount Neboh Baptist Church in Harlem on March 17, 2021, in New York City.

    The current spotlight on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s history of sexually abusing his staff is consistent with his history of structurally misogynistic treatment of the people — especially survivors of gender-based violence — incarcerated in New York prisons.

    The breadth of Cuomo’s interpersonal abuse is disgusting and infuriating. Unfortunately, it is not surprising, given the systemic violence that has characterized the Cuomo administration’s attitude to marginalized New Yorkers.

    As organizers from Survived and Punished NY (S&P NY), an abolitionist group working to free criminalized survivors of gender-based violence and to decriminalize self-defense and other survival acts, we have long been privy to Cuomo’s pattern of further abusing survivors by incarcerating them. These actions are only Cuomo’s latest in a long list of harms, particularly to incarcerated survivors of gender-based violence, which do not garner the same level of attention as his violence toward victims that have made the news.

    In light of his long history of harming survivors and marginalized New Yorkers, it is past time for Cuomo to actively support incarcerated survivors by freeing them all and then resigning from office. It is also past time for the public to turn its moral outrage toward all elected officials who leave mostly survivors of color in the abusive and death-making conditions of the prison industrial complex day after day.

    Throughout Andrew Cuomo’s tenure as governor of New York, he has shown deplorable apathy toward incarcerated survivors. As governor, Cuomo has the power to release people from prison at any time using commutations. Executive clemency is the power of the governor to either pardon people convicted of a crime or commute their sentence, often to time served. S&P NY focuses on commutations because it is a way for the governor to release criminalized survivors and all people incarcerated in New York state prisons with just a stroke of the pen. Many incarcerated survivors are serving decades-long sentences. For some of them, clemency from the governor is their only hope at survival. These are individuals with communities waiting to reunite with them on the outside. Many have children.

    Abolitionist organizations like Survived and Punished NY and Release Aging People in Prison (RAPP) have lifted up these incarcerated survivors’ names and Cuomo’s inaction for many years. Each year, we are among thousands of community members pleading with Cuomo and organizing to release our loved ones from cages, yet each year, he ignores us without any accountability. Governor Cuomo has granted only 31 commutations since taking office in 2011. This is a shockingly small number compared to other governors. While he promises to increase the number of clemencies he grants, we know him to be a hypocrite and a liar when it comes to actually following through on valuing safety for survivors.

    As one example, in 2015 Cuomo announced a program that purported to provide pro bono support to incarcerated people seeking clemency. It was touted as a way to make clemency accessible, and he encouraged incarcerated New Yorkers to apply. This was followed two years later by Cuomo encouraging family members to apply for clemency on behalf of their loved ones. Thousands of requests were received, yet almost none were granted. His false promise to grant mass clemencies was nothing more than a “cruel, soul-crushing hoax,” in the words of CUNY law professor Steve Zeidman.

    Cuomo’s lack of action in regard to criminalized survivors of gender-based violence stands in sharp contrast to his public declarations of support for survivors and initiatives to combat domestic violence. Refusing to use his executive powers to free survivors, particularly during COVID-19’s added threat to those inside, underscores Cuomo’s complete disregard for the reality of gender-based harm and a sheer lack of commitment to “gender equity.”

    Cuomo ignores these clemency applications and routinely subjects people to the horrors of incarceration. Doing so mirrors the abusive power and control cycle. Activists working against gender-based violence in 1980 described this cycle as a wheel with power and control at its center, physical and sexual violence as the wheel, and the ways an abusive partner may enact that violence to achieve power and control as the spokes. More recently, Monica Cosby, a formerly incarcerated survivor, compared her experience of abuse at the hands of a partner with her experience of abuse at the hands of the state, and updated the idea of the power and control wheel to incorporate both intimate partner violence and state violence. According to Cosby, “if there is anybody out here who’s never been in prison that can understand what it feels like to be in prison, it’s someone who’s been stuck in an abusive and violent relationship.” While we struggle to create communities built for true healing and justice for survivors, we know that incarceration does not end violence — it only exacerbates it and hides it behind prison walls.

    As Ruth Wilson Gilmore says, state policy has used prison and jails as “catchall solutions to social problems,” rather than providing the housing, food, health care and other public goods that create safety and healing. As a proponent of carceral “solutions,” Andrew Cuomo has long failed to provide safety and healing by maintaining a system that perpetuates sexual violence and abuse, particularly against low-income, Black, Latinx, Indigenous, disabled, queer, trans and sex worker communities.

    In his 10 years as governor, Cuomo has enacted austerity budgets that defund social services that survivors need and has prioritized punishment through the prison industrial complex. Organizers also know Cuomo as a friend of the prison industrial complex from his pattern of dragging his feet to support, or all-out opposing, reforms that would materially improve the lives of marginalized New Yorkers, like supporting the rollbacks to New York’s 2020 bail reform, which excluded even more people from basic pretrial justice.

    Governor Cuomo’s legacy is marked by punishment and apathy, and his policies have long denied people what they need to survive and thrive. As a result, many of our most harmed survivors have been ripped from our communities permanently.

    While our hope is that this moment pressures Cuomo to take accountability for his long-standing patterns of abuse and neglect, we are disturbed and enraged that survivors trapped in Cuomo’s cages are being erased. This national moment of attention highlights the lack of empathy afforded to people behind prison walls and particularly to survivors who do not fit neatly into the “deserving victim” narrative. This harmful narrative emerges from society’s racist perception of people of color, particularly Black women, who act in self-defense and are often not given empathy for securing their own survival. While these survivors are flattened and misunderstood, the governor is attempting to garner unearned empathy, painting himself as a victim of political persecution.

    The governor is no victim. He is only facing a fraction of the heat he deserves for his decade of injustices. State violence is violence. Prisons and jails are sites of extreme sexual and physical violence, and Governor Cuomo has been directly responsible for years of obscene violence, neglect and death. As such, it is frustrating and enraging to see a privileged white man in power being afforded a level of humanization and sympathy that incarcerated survivors of color largely do not receive.

    We strongly believe that all survivors deserve true healing and justice, and as such, our vision is a New York free of the abusive system of incarceration. Given that prison is itself abusive and a form of gendered violence, our demand is that Cuomo immediately commute the sentences of criminalized survivors — and everyone inside — and then resign. Politicians and advocates who have recently called on Cuomo to resign due to his pattern of interpersonal abuses should join us in this demand connecting the abuses to structural violence, and recognize the everyday abuses survivors endure while incarcerated in our state.

    Our goal remains abolition of the prison industrial complex because, as the criminalized survivor members of Survived and Punished NY testify to every day, the healing and safety that survivors and impacted communities of color deserve cannot happen from inside dehumanizing cages.

    For thousands of New Yorkers inside of prisons and their loved ones, Cuomo’s misogynistic structural decisions and commitments to punishment are deeply personal. Last spring, we lost Survived and Punished NY’s beloved inside comrade Darlene “Lulu” Benson-Seay to COVID-19. Her death was entirely preventable by Cuomo, who chose to keep her and thousands like her locked up. We urge the public — including New York anti-violence organizations and advocates that often overlook survivors inside prisons — to support the campaign to free them all, for all the comrades we lost and for all the comrades still with us.

    With each day that Cuomo overstays his welcome in office, we must echo this question from Crystal, one of our members on the inside: “What is he doing about all those clemencies sitting on his desk waiting for an answer?”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Afghan security official inspect the scene of a blast in Kabul, Afghanistan, on March 15, 2021.

    War in Afghanistan. In my mind, after all these years, those two words sound like a rock dropped into a bottomless well.

    Forty years ago, the whimsy of Cold Warriors motivated the United States to turn its imperial gaze upon that long-battered country. The subsequent actions and decisions — from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to the first George Bush — led directly to the attacks of September 11 and the U.S. invasion of that nation. Twenty years later, the U.S. military remains in Afghanistan.

    In Afghanistan, generations have seen foreign armies invade, retreat, invade again, yet never ultimately prevail. The Persians, the Greeks, the Mongols and Murghals, the British, the Soviets, and finally the United States … all have come, and all have gone, except for us, lo these 20 long years.

    What began — this time — with George W. Bush has passed through the hands of Barack Obama and Donald Trump to land on the desk of Joe Biden. The specific circumstances of the moment may differ, but the decision before Biden is age-old: Leave in defeat, or remain and be defeated. What do you get when you sift through ashes? You get ashes.

    The Afghanistan situation at present serves to highlight one of the most galling elements of the now-departed Trump era. Trump campaigned on the idea that he would not repeat U.S. failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, that he would bring the troops home, and would not start any new wars unless provoked. These were hopeful notes — for those who believed him. That folly was not long-lived, except among those who accept something as true only if Trump says it is.

    Trump did not start any wholly new wars, but the rest of these promises were, of course, flat-out broken. He didn’t bring the troops home, but merely moved them like breathing chess pieces to various points on the map, deranging a number of long-standing alliances in the process.

    Aside from Syria and the Kurds, nowhere was this wrongheaded approach to policy more vividly apparent than Afghanistan. The Trump administration negotiated a May 1 withdrawal date with the Taliban, on the promise that the Taliban would end attacks on U.S. forces and cut ties with al Qaeda. According to observers, the Taliban has failed to live up to those terms.

    Perhaps worse, the kind of military drawdown promised by Trump requires an extensive array of logistics, plus the time to effectively implement them. When President Biden took office, none of those logistics were anywhere near being in place, even as the May 1 deadline was breathing down his neck. As with all things Trump — COVID and vaccines most particularly — there was a whole lot of talk but almost no work put into the effort.

    Biden had a front-row seat to the eight years President Obama failed to extract us from Afghanistan. He is on record as having opposed Obama’s decision to increase U.S. forces there, and today is confronted with a public that has soured deeply on the Forever Wars. Will that be enough to motivate him to finally end this two-decade disaster? “It could happen, but it is tough,” he told ABC News on Tuesday. “The fact is that, that was not a very solidly negotiated deal that (Trump) … worked out.”

    The reasons why it is so “tough,” of course, are chalked up to “national security,” the always-available excuse for those who wish to continue dodging this decision. “We’ve got to be able to assure the world and the American public that Afghanistan will not be a source of planning, plotting to project terrorist attacks around the globe,” Sen. Jack Reed, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently told reporters. “That’s the minimum. I’m not sure we can do that without some presence there.”

    The government’s policy shops unsurprisingly concur. “The Afghan government would probably lose the capability of flying any of its aircraft within a few months and, to be quite blunt, would probably face collapse,” John Sopko, special inspector for Afghanistan reconstruction with the US Department of Defense told a House committee on Tuesday.

    Is that it, really? I believe this goes far beyond concerns about national security, and deals far more deeply with the hubris of empire and the colonial mind.

    Afghanistan was an attractive target not just because it is a profit engine for the “defense” industry that drives so much of U.S. military policy, though that is certainly an unblinking truth and motivating factor. There are also the investors into wildly profitable pipelines and mineral rights to consider. Estimates say there could be $3 trillion in natural resources waiting to be plundered, if only the problems with the Taliban could be settled.

    The U.S. has already spent nearly $1 trillion on that war, so maybe if we stay a little longer — undoubtedly killing more people — we can lay that pipe and dig those mines, and maybe make our money back. U.S. capitalism is plunder, and there sits the prize.

    The hubris of empire and colonialism, and the lure of profit. We are the United States: When we come, we seldom leave until we get what we came for. On the rare occasions we have been forced out of somewhere, the world was greeted with images of defeat and humiliation that no modern politician wishes to risk repeating. Presidents from Carter to Biden — with a brief Clintonian interlude while Afghanistan was left to burn from the inside out — have played a politics of merciless intervention in that country. This meddling wrought a terrible price 20 years ago, in Afghanistan and the U.S., and the bleeding has never stopped.

    May 1 will come and go, and like as not U.S. forces will still be in Afghanistan to see their 21st year in that place. Biden has said that even if the May deadline is missed, our troops will not be there for much longer. By my count, he will be the fourth president to say some version of that since 2001.

    It is time to leave.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Mitchell Mcconnell frowns

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell indulged himself on Tuesday in some cosplay of himself as Senate Majority Leader, and it was farce. The inspiration for his laughable performance was the filibuster, that old, racist parliamentary weapon used time and again as a dagger aimed at the heart of legislative progress. A growing chorus in that chamber believe the filibuster’s dubious usefulness has come and gone, and if President Biden’s nation-in-crisis agenda has any hope of seeing daylight, the dagger must be sheathed.

    Ol’ Mitch ain’t having it, though. He puffed himself up like an adder and hissed a warning to the assembled. “Let me say this very clearly for all 99 of my colleagues,” said McConnell. “Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin, can even begin, to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like. I want our colleagues to imagine a world where every single task, every one of them, requires a physical quorum.”

    This is parliament-speak for a threat to gum up the works, all the works, all the time. A quorum in the Senate requires 51 members to be present in the chamber. Every piece of business before the Senate would be frozen in place until enough warm bodies are present in the room. Those who watch C-SPAN know the Senate chamber is empty most of the time, with Senators delivering oratory to the backs of unoccupied chairs.

    If McConnell were to pull this stunt, it would almost certainly come in combination with an order for every Republican Senator to avoid that chamber like it was radioactive. Democrats only have 50 Senators, plus Vice President Harris, so achieving a quorum absent all Republicans would require every Democratic Senator plus the vice president to be in the room for every bit of work that needed doing. It would be, in sum, an enormous pain in the ass.

    “This chaos would not open up an express lane to liberal change,” McConnell continued. “It would not open up an express lane for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books. The Senate would be more like a 100-car pile-up, nothing moving.”

    A version of this brand of obstructionism has been playing out in the House of Representatives, where disgraced “Q Party” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been making a mess of the process in retaliation for losing all of her committee assignments. Most bills in the House pass or fail by simple voice vote, but Rep. Greene has insisted that dozens of bills be voted on by roll call, which means everybody needs to be there. The tactic has begun to get deeply under the skin of her Republican colleagues, but Greene shows no sign of stopping.

    Given everything happening in the country — COVID, mass unemployment, spreading hunger, the threat of mass evictions, an immigration crisis, a violent uprising from the far right of McConnell’s own party, a climate in dire crisis and a frontal assault on the basic right to vote — McConnell’s threat is nothing short of monstrous.

    It is also flatly pathetic, the howl of a party bereft of ideas beyond rolling rocks into the road to delay the process. It is tantrum in a $500 tie. Let us remember that it was McConnell who refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing after President Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court, and it was McConnell’s strategy to have those same Republicans filibuster everything that moved in the Senate while Obama was in office. The idea that this new threat is anything other than more of the same is ridiculous.

    Beyond that, the political price McConnell and the GOP could pay for such tactics would be enormous. This is not Mitch McConnell’s America, not after COVID and its attendant horrors. The whole idea of government as the enemy and of austerity as the answer has been chased out of the room like a rabid cur. This sea change in perception is perhaps temporary, perhaps here for a nice long stay, but it is here now, and will almost certainly remain so into the 2022 midterm election season.

    Is it a gamble to call McConnell’s bluff? Of course, but then again, so is everything. President Biden has endorsed the idea of modifying the filibuster, and former filibuster defenders like Richard Durbin have come around to the same belief. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema still exist, and will not be easy to convince. Even if the change is made, it has limits on its overall effectiveness. Only the outright abolition of the filibuster will serve, and that is a mighty hill to climb even absent McConnell’s obstruction.

    “The obstinate refusal of the Republican Party to be a good-faith partner in actually governing the country has made the demise of the filibuster the only real remedy that will allow anything to get done in the Senate,” writes Esquire blogger Charles P. Pierce. “Let Mitch flex to his heart’s content. Let him fume and bluster. Then do what you want anyway. Get it while you can.”

    Let Mitch stand in the doorway one last time before he slinks back to Kentucky. If he does, the nation will see this crisis deepen at the hands of a man who has been an impediment to progress since he first drew a level elected breath. The alternative — a 60-vote threshold left to the tender mercies of a radicalized Trumpian party — is barely worth discussing, and the cost to McConnell and the GOP could well be historically severe. Go on with your bad self, Mitch. We’ll be watching.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A man is arrested by cops

    This past year of the pandemic has seen a horrifying uptick in anti-Asian violence and hate crimes in the U.S., many targeting the elderly. From Vicha Ratanapakdee, an 84-year old Thai man who was knocked to the ground, to Noel Quintana, a 61-year old Filipino man who was slashed in the face, many Asian elders have been assaulted and attacked since the pandemic’s onset. Asian people, especially Chinese folks have been subjected to verbal and physical violence — much of which has been fueled by Trump’s anti-Asian rhetoric pertaining to COVID-19’s origins. Racial epithets such as “kung flu” and “Chinese virus” have only exacerbated the situation. While some people have donated or raised awareness, others have expressed their grief by calling on more policing as a means for justice. The problem is that more policing rarely results in justice for anyone, and only puts Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color (BIPOC), including Asian people, at risk for more violence.

    From 1977 to 2017, state and local spending on policing increased from $42 billion to $115 billion. Policing is not only problematic, but would further negatively impact the health, well-being, safety, and livelihood of BIPOC and other marginalized people. Research has shown that police brutality has ramifications on Black health, underscoring the importance of reallocating police funds to community-based interventions. It’s linked to death and excess morbidity including fatal injuries, adverse physiological responses, racist reactions that exacerbate stress, arrests and incarceration, and systematic disempowerment.

    Policing is a system deeply rooted in upholding white supremacy and anti-Blackness, while enabling racist systems to inflict harm on communities of color. The origins of policing have been linked to slave patrols that date back to the 1700s who chased down runaway slaves and prevented rebellions from occurring. We see the legacy of this policing today in the mass killing of unarmed and innocent Black people from Trayvon Martin to Eric Garner.

    Additionally, more policing only catalyzes racial tensions between Asian and Black communities — a racial divide that has persisted in large part due to the model minority myth. The stereotype ahistorically and dangerously portrays Asian people as “successful” and able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps even in the face of racism and systemic oppression. It’s used as a weapon to pit Asian people against Black communities by implying that anti-Blackness and white supremacist systems — like policing — benefit Asian people.

    This is a lie. Far from protecting us, policing has also harmed and taken the lives of Asian Americans, such as Angelo Quinto, a 30-year old Filipino American man who was knelt on and killed by Antioch Police, and Fong Lee, a 19-year old Hmong man who was killed in 2006 by the Minneapolis police — the same institution and system that would kill George Floyd, a 46-year old Black man, 15 years later. Policing is a harmful and inequitable system of justice and advocating for more policing in our communities does not mean we will see more justice or less crime. It would only call for more violence against BIPOC communities, especially police brutality and unfair treatment on Black and brown lives, violence that Asian Americans have taken part in as police officers themselves.

    Instead of calling on more policing, we need Asian solidarity with Black and brown communities as a catalyst for tackling white supremacy and the systems that continuously uphold and enable racism. Dismantling these divides requires unlearning the “scarcity mindset,” a belief that tells us that there are not enough resources for everyone’s needs. In Audre Lorde’s Sister Outsider, Lorde highlights “the false notion that there is only a limited and particular amount of freedom that must be divided up between us … So instead of joining together to fight for more, we quarrel between ourselves for a larger slice of the one pie.”

    Scarcity mindset underpins the lie that we should fight solely for Asian liberation at the expense of others, and ignores an existing history of alliance and successful collaboration between Asian Americans and Black and brown communities. For example, Jesse Jackson, a Black political activist, called for justice for the murder of Vincent Chin, a Chinese American draftsman who was beaten to death by two white men. Yuri Kochiyama, a Japanese American civil rights activist and Grace Lee Boggs, a Chinese American social activist advocated alongside the civil rights and social justice movements for Black liberation–which served as inspiration that was used to advance Asian American liberation. So much of Asian American rights that we see today are in large thanks to Black activists and their fight and struggle for freedom. Further, the Delano Grape Strike, one of the most important economic movements in U.S. history, resulted from the collaboration of Filipino and Mexican farmworkers, led by Larry Itliong, César Chávez, and Dolores Huerta. Sadly, much of this history is erased and ignored while conflicts between Asian American communities and other BIPOC, particularly Black communities, are amplified to the benefit of the white supremacist systems that oppress us all.

    While the fight for racial justice is a collective effort, working in solidarity does not mean that we should expect Black communities to do or lead the work. Asian Americans must talk directly with family and friends who believe that “police keep us safe,” giving family members the opportunity to share how they feel before speaking, because family members are more likely to listen when you hear them out first. We must remind our communities of the many examples of America’s racist history toward Asians, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the colonization and denigration of Filipinos, and Executive Order 9066–which incarcerated a disproportionate amount of Japanese people who were “under suspicion as enemies” during WWII, and how this was a prelude to more recent hate crimes such as the murder of Vincent Chin, the targeting of South Asians since 9/11, and prominent Asian Americans like Jeremy Lin speaking about the racist harassment he’s experienced on the NBA courts. You can learn more about having these conversations by following organizations such as AAPI Women Lead and South Asians for Black Lives, both of which have created and shared informative content about speaking with elders or loved ones who might not speak English about breaking anti-Black stereotypes in the household.

    Another way to engage is by learning how to stop xenophobia and harassment targeting Asians in America through bystander training. In collaboration with Hollaback, Asian Americans Advancing Justice offers free bystander and de-escalation training to learn how to intervene when anti-Asian hate and harassment occurs.

    White supremacist systems like policing thrive on the dissonance between BIPOC communities. Asian lives cannot afford to have hate and racism win. Instead of looking to more policing as a solution, we must redirect our grief toward positive healing in the form of solidarity. We must organize together, mobilize together, and stand alongside one another in all spaces, and not just in performative ways. There is a long history of Asian American communities working in collaboration with Black and other communities of color that offers far richer and more beneficial pathways to justice than more police, and as we’ve seen time and again, we’re stronger and safer when we work together for our mutual liberation.

    Prism is a BIPOC-led nonprofit news outlet that centers the people, places and issues currently underreported by national media.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A nurse fills a syringe with a dose of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine at Wayside Christian Mission on March 15, 2021, in Louisville, Kentucky.

    Just shy of four years ago, I got laid out flat by a bout of acute double-lung pneumonia that had me in the ICU for 11 days, with a fair portion of the time spent on a ventilator. When I got out, my lungs were ragged, shabby things raddled with scar tissue. I am fine at rest, but stairs remain daunting even after all this time, and I am winded after the simplest activities. This is how it is for me now, and how it will always be.

    Despite Donald Trump’s best efforts, however, irony is still alive and kicking. I know this because my near-death pneumonia experience, the single worst thing to happen to me physically in my life, helped to qualify me for an early shot of the new COVID-19 vaccines, which could very well save my life because my rotten lungs would fare poorly against the Rona. Life is weird, man.

    My nurse-practitioner confirmed my status, I filed out the registration, and zap, straight to (almost) the front of the line. I was scheduled for an injection the first week in April, and I freely confess to feeling guilty about it. I am no picture of health, to be sure, but there had to be others out there who deserved it more than I do. I stewed on this a bit until a friend, another medical professional who has been eyes-deep in the COVID wars since the beginning, set me straight with authority.

    I really wish people would stop feeling guilty for getting the vaccine,” she told me. “Every one of us who gets it is helping the greater cause. And you ALL deserve it. They had to use certain criteria because of the shortages but more and more vaccines are becoming available. I’m relieved and hopeful with every single person I hear getting it. Congratulations.”

    I know when I’ve been pwned, so OK then, time to wait… and friends, that’s when the really weird music started. Those of you have read any of the 100,000+ words I’ve written on COVID since this nightmare began know I have written about fear more than once. It was a manageable fear, though, at least for me. Stick to the rules, keep the bubble as intact as much as possible, wear the mask, stay home, and maximize your chances of seeing the far side of this thing. I have stuck to that for a year and it has served me well. The fear was there, but in a corner, mostly minding its business. I was functionally terrified, but fully functioning.

    In the movie Jaws, there’s an iconic scene where Quint, the salty old shark hunter, tells his tale of being on the U.S.S. Indianapolis when it was torpedoed in the Pacific, all the men went into the sea, and the sharks came marauding. After three days, a rescue ship appeared on the horizon, and the surviving sailors queued up to climb aboard. “You know that was the time I was most frightened,” said Quint. “Waitin’ for my turn.”

    I know exactly how he felt. The mere thought that this was going to happen, that a gleam of hope was shining a little more than a month away, almost froze me in place. I curtailed my activities even further, isolated myself more — and waited.

    As it turned out, the wait was not long at all. My little corner of New Hampshire has been so efficient at vaccine delivery that the organizers were able to move everyone on the list up a full month. My call came just a few days ago: Can you and your mother be here at 5:00 pm today for your shots? My mom is age-qualified and even more bunkered in than I am, so the answer was easy: Hells to the yes, we’ll be there.

    The process was a Swiss clockwork of logistical management. We drove to an open athletic field behind the Keene State sports facilities and parked in ordered rows alongside dozens of other cars. National Guard soldiers took our names and confirmed our date of shot. A few medical questions were asked.

    After a few minutes, two nurses carrying plastic baskets filled with Pfizer-shot syringes and wipes appeared and began to move from car window to car window injecting passengers. Zap, boom, done.

    We all sat for 15 minutes with our hazard lights blinking, waiting to see if any immediate side effects presented themselves. (At one point during the wait, I slowly lunged at my mom in the passenger seat snarling “Brains, brains, must eat brains!” and the folks in the next car over nearly went straight up to Jesus through the sunroof, because I am a bad person.) None did, and one by one we rolled off into the dusk. The whole thing took less than an hour, and removed several tons of invisible bricks from my chest. This was happening. No, this happened.

    I took a bit of a beating in the side effects category, which isn’t necessarily typical for dose 1. Nothing terrible by any means, but for three days I felt like I was trying to walk underwater, malaise, fatigue, all of which was cured by sleeping through it as much as I could. For a day, my injection site in my left bicep felt like my boyhood friend Andrew had landed a perfect dead-arm punch, but that passed just as quickly. That was it. Today, I’m all the way back, and looking giddily forward to my booster, which happens to land on the day I was supposed to get my first shot. Life is weird, man.

    One grim aspect came to me as I sat in my car and watched those professionals roll through the process. How many people would still be alive and healthy, I wondered, if the previous administration had made a real effort to respond rapidly and broadly to COVID? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? The Army does something very much like this every day to feed the troops; it is logistics, nothing more or less. It is effort, period. As I watched the clockwork spin, the full weight of Trump’s crimes against us all had never, ever felt so present.

    Even now in this post-Trump era, vast vaccine inequities continue to play out. “As of March 10, anyone 60 years and older can sign up for the vaccine in the Empire State,” reports Leanna First-Arai for Truthout. “Grocery, restaurant, delivery workers and other ‘public-facing’employees in various nodes of the food industry have been eligible since late February. But farmworkers — including those milking cows, feeding chickens and picking tomatoes in close quarters inside greenhouses — are still not among those who may sign up for vaccination.” These disparities fall along racial, economic and disability-related lines. In a number of cases, access to the internet can determinate who may access the vaccine.

    As for the vaccines themselves, am I worried about the long-term effects of this massive and unprecedented global science experiment? At present, not really. Part of it is simple giddy trust in the idea that turning a billion people into zombie monsters would be bad for the bottom line over at Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, and they know this. This was a dazzling leap forward for medicine, Star Trek shit, and it will serve us well as we enter the Age of the Pandemic for real.

    Part of it is the fact that I have only so much RAM in my head for theoretical horrors, given how much actual horror surrounds us every day. Example: Some 25 percent of Republicans in congress have refused to get the shot, pretty much because Trump hasn’t given it his blessing yet. No surprise here: These are the same Republicans taking credit for the stimulus bill they unanimously voted against. This is where I spend my RAM; vaccine “what if’s” can take a number in the face of this endlessly grasping, self-destructive nonsense.

    These people, however, are outliers; a majority of the country is actively seeking vaccination, and in an excellent sign, almost all who require two shots are returning to get the second one. Bet your bippy I’ll be going for mine unless the creek rises, and I urge all who read this to do the same when you have access. Is it a leap of faith? I suppose, yeah, and we all have to make our own choices.

    “Someday this war’s gonna end,” said Col. Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. This war will end not with a bang, or a whimper, but a dose in the arm. We’ll figure out the rest as it goes. The variants are out there, and if everything changes for the worse in a month, we’ll figure that out, too. When it becomes available to you, get the shot.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Construction equipment is used to move earth

    During the Trump years, the phrase “Infrastructure Week” rang out as a sort of Groundhog Day-style punchline. What began in June 2017 as a failed effort by The Donald’s White House and a Republican Senate to focus on the desperately needed rebuilding of American infrastructure morphed into a meme and a running joke in Washington.

    Despite the focus in recent years on President Trump’s failure to do anything for the country’s crumbling infrastructure, here’s a sad reality: considered over a longer period of time, Washington’s political failure to fund the repairing, modernizing, or in some cases simply the building of that national infrastructure has proven a remarkably bipartisan “effort.” After all, the same grand unfulfilled ambitions for infrastructure were part and parcel of the Obama White House from 2009 on and could well typify the Biden years, if Congress doesn’t get its act together (or the filibuster doesn’t go down in flames). The disastrous electric grid power outages that occurred during the recent deep freeze in Texas are but the latest example of the pressing need for infrastructure upgrades and investments of every sort. If nothing is done, more people will suffer, more jobs will be lost, and the economy will face drastic consequences.

    Since the mid-twentieth century, when most of this country’s modern infrastructure systems were first established, the population has doubled. Not only are American roads, airports, electric grids, waterways, railways and more distinctly outdated, but today’s crucial telecommunications sector hasn’t ever been subjected to a comprehensive broadband strategy.

    Worse yet, what’s known as America’s “infrastructure gap” only continues to widen. The cost of what we need but haven’t done to modernize our infrastructure has expanded to $5.6 trillion over the last 20 years ($3 trillion in the last decade alone), according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Some estimates now even run as high as $7 trillion.

    In other words, as old infrastructure deteriorates and new infrastructure and technology are needed, the cost of addressing this ongoing problem only escalates. Currently, there is a $1-trillion backlog of (yet unapproved) deferred-maintenance funding floating around Capitol Hill. Without action in the reasonable future, certain kinds of American infrastructure could, like that Texas energy grid, soon be deemed unsafe.

    Now, it’s true that the U.S. continues to battle Covid-19 with more than half a million lives already lost and significant parts of the economy struggling to make ends meet. Even before the pandemic, however, America’s failing infrastructure system was already costing the average household nearly $3,300 a year.

    According to ASCE, “The nation’s economy could see the loss of $10 trillion in GDP [gross domestic product] and a decline of more than $23 trillion in business productivity cumulatively over the next two decades if current investment trends continue.” Whatever a post-pandemic economy looks like, our country is already starved for policies that offer safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable future infrastructure systems. Such a down payment on our future is crucial not just for us, but for generations to come.

    As early as 2016, ASCE researchers found that the overall number of dams with potential high-hazard status had already climbed to nearly 15,500. At the time, the organization also discovered that nearly four out of every 10 bridges in America were 50 years old or more and identified 56,007 of them as already structurally deficient. Those numbers would obviously be even higher today.

    And yet, in 2021, what Americans face is hardly just a transportation crisis. The country’s energy system largely predates the twenty-first century. The majority of American electric transmission and distribution systems were established in the 1950s and 1960s with only a 50-year life cycle. ASCE reports that, “More than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in the lower 48 states’ power grids are at full capacity.” That means our systems weren’t and aren’t equipped to handle excess needs — especially in emergencies.

    The country is critically overdue for infrastructure development in which the government and the private sector would collaborate with intention and urgency. Infrastructure could be the great equalizer in our economy, if only the Biden administration and a now-dogmatically partisan Congress had the fortitude and foresight to make it happen.

    American History Offers a Roadmap for Infrastructure Success

    It wasn’t always like this. Over the course of American history, building infrastructure has not only had a powerful economic impact, but regularly garnered bipartisan political support for the public good.

    In December 1928, President Calvin Coolidge signed a bill authorizing the construction of a dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River in the American Southwest, a region that had faced unpredictable flooding and lacked reliable electricity. Despite the stock market crash of 1929 and the start of the Great Depression, by early 1931, the private sector, with government support, had begun constructing a structure of unprecedented magnitude, known today as the Hoover Dam. As an infrastructure project, it would eventually pay for itself through the sale of the electricity that it generated. Today, that dam still provides electricity and water to tens of millions of people.

    Having grasped the power of the German system of autobahns while a general in World War II, President Dwight D. Eisenhower would, under the guise of “national security,” launch the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, with bipartisan support, creating the interstate highway system. In its time, that system would be considered one of the “greatest public works projects in history.”

    In the end, that act would lead to the creation of more than 47,000 miles of roads across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It would have a powerful effect on commercial business activity, national defense planning, and personal travel, helping to launch whole new sectors of the economy, ranging from roadside fast-food restaurants to theme parks. According to estimates, it would return more than six dollars in economic productivity for every dollar it cost to build and support, a result any investor would be happy with.

    Equivalent efforts today would undoubtedly prove to be similar economic drivers. Domestically, such investments in infrastructure have always proven beneficial. New efforts to create sustainable green energy businesses, reconfigure energy grids, and rebuild crippled transit systems for a new age would help guarantee U.S global economic competitiveness deep into the twenty-first century.

    Infrastructure as an International Race for Influence

    In an interview with CNBC in February 2021, after being confirmed as the first female treasury secretary, Janet Yellen stressed the crucial need not just for a Covid-19 stimulus relief but for a sustainable infrastructure one as well.

    As part of what the Biden administration has labeled its “Build Back Better” agenda, she underscored the “long-term structural problems in the U.S. economy that have resulted in inequality [and] slow productivity growth.” She also highlighted how a major new focus on clean-energy investments could make the economy more competitive globally.

    When it comes to infrastructure and sustainable development efforts, the U.S. is being left in the dust by its primary economic rivals. Following his first phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Biden noted to a group of senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee that, “if we don’t get moving, they are going to eat our lunch.” He went on to say, “They’re investing billions of dollars dealing with a whole range of issues that relate to transportation, the environment, and a whole range of other things. We just have to step up.”

    As this country, deep in partisan gridlock, stalls on infrastructure measures of any sort, its global competitors are proceeding full speed ahead. Having helped to jumpstart its economy with projects like high-speed railways and massive new bridges, China is now accelerating its efforts to further develop its technological infrastructure. As Bloomberg reported, the Chinese are focused on supporting the build-up of “everything from wireless networks to artificial intelligence. In the master plan backed by President Jinping himself, China will invest an estimated $1.4 trillion over six years” in such projects.

    And it’s not just that Asian giant leaving the U.S. behind. Major trading partners like Australia, India, and Japan are projected to significantly out-invest the United States. The World Economic Forum’s 2019 Global Competitiveness Report typically listed this country in 13th place among the world’s nations when it came to its infrastructure quality. (It had been ranked 5th in 2002.) In 2020, that organization ranked the U.S. 32nd out of 115 countries on its Energy Transition Index.

    Despite the multiple stimulus packages that Congress has passed in the Covid-19 era, no funding — not a cent — has been designated for capital-building projects. In contrast, China, Japan, and the European Union have all crafted stimulus programs in which infrastructure spending was a core component.

    Infrastructure Development as a Political Equalizer

    Infrastructure could be the engine for the most advantageous kinds of growth in this country. An optimal combination of federal and private funds, strategic partnerships, targeted infrastructure bonds, and even the creation of an infrastructure bank could help jumpstart a range of sustainable and ultimately revenue-generating businesses.

    Such investment is a matter of economics, of cost versus benefit. These days, however, such calculations are both obstructed and obfuscated by politics. In the end, however, political economics comes down to getting creative about sources of funding and how to allocate them. To launch a meaningful infrastructure program would mean deciding who will produce it, who will consume it, and what kinds of transfer of wealth would be involved in the short and long run. Though the private sector certainly would help drive such a new set of programs, government funding would, as in the past, be crucial, whether under the rubric of national security, competitive innovation, sustainable clean energy, or creating a carbon-neutral future America. Any effort, no matter the label, would undoubtedly generate sustainable public and private jobs for the future.

    On both the domestic and international fronts, infrastructure is big business. Wall Street, as well as the energy and construction sectors, are all eager to learn more about Biden’s Build Back Better infrastructure plan, which he is expected to take up in his already delayed first joint address to Congress. Actions, not just words, are needed.

    Expectations are running high about what might prove to be a multitrillion-dollar infrastructure initiative. Such anticipation has already elevated the stock prices of construction companies, as well as shares in the sustainable energy sector.

    There are concerns, to be sure. A big infrastructure package might never make it through an evenly split Senate, where partisanship is the name of the game. Some economists also fear that it could bring on inflation. There is, of course, debate over the role of the private sector in any such plan, as well as horse-trading about what kinds of projects should get priority. But the reality is that this country desperately needs infrastructure that, in turn, can secure a sustainable and green future. Someday this will have to be done, and the longer the delay, the more those costs are likely to rise. The future revenues and economic benefits from a solid infrastructure package should be key drivers in any post-pandemic economy.

    The biggest asset managers in the country are already seeing more money flowing into their infrastructure and sustainable-energy funds. Financing for such deals in the private sector is also increasing. Any significant funding on the public side will only spur and augment that financing. Such projects could drive the economy for years to come. They would run the gamut from establishing smart grids and expanding broadband reach to building electric transmission systems that run off more sustainable energy sources, while manufacturing cleaner vehicles and ways to use them. Going big with futuristic transit projects like Virgin’s Hyperloop, a high-speed variant of a vacuum train, or Elon Musk’s initiative for the development of carbon-capture technology, could even be included in a joint drive to create the necessary clean-energy infrastructure and economy of the future.

    Polling also shows that such infrastructure spending has broad public support, even if, in Congress, much-needed bipartisan backing for such a program remains distinctly in question. Still, in February, the ranking Republican senator on the environment and public works committee, West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito, said that “transportation infrastructure is the platform that can drive economic growth — all-American jobs, right there, right on the ground — now and in the future, and improve the quality of life for everyone on the safety aspects.” Meanwhile, the committee’s chairman, Democratic Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, stressed that “the burdens of poor road conditions are disproportionately shouldered by marginalized communities.” He pointed out that “low-income families and peoples of color are frequently left behind or left out by our investments in infrastructure, blocking their access to jobs and education opportunities.”

    Sadly, given the way leadership in Washington wasted endless months dithering over the merits of supporting American workers during a pandemic, it may be too much to hope that a transformative bipartisan infrastructure deal will materialize.

    Infrastructure as the Great Economic Equalizer

    Here’s a simple reality: a strong American economy is dependent on infrastructure. That means more than just a “big umbrella” effort focused on transportation and electricity. Yes, airports, railroads, electrical grids, and roadways are all-important economic drivers, but in the twenty-first-century world, high-capacity communications systems are also essential to economic prosperity, as are distribution channels of various sorts. At the moment, there’s a water main break every two minutes in the U.S. Nearly six billion gallons of treated water are lost daily thanks to such breaks. Situations like the one in Flint, Michigan, in which economic pressure and bankruptcy eventually led a city to expose thousands of its children to poisonous drinking water, will become increasingly unavoidable in a country with an ever-deteriorating infrastructure.

    The great economic equalizer is this: the more efficient our infrastructure systems become, the less they cost, and the more they can be readily used by those across the income spectrum. What American history shows since the time of Abraham Lincoln is that, in periods of economic turmoil, major infrastructure building or rebuilding will not only pay for itself but support the economy for generations to come.

    For the next generation, it’s already clear that clean and sustainable energy will be crucial to achieving a more equal, economically prosperous, and less climate-challenged future. A renewables-based rebuilding of the economy and the creation of the jobs to go with it would be anything but some niche set of activities in the usual infrastructure spectrum. It would be the future. High-paying jobs within the sustainable energy sector are already booming. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that among the occupations projected to have the fastest employment growth from 2016 to 2026 will be those in “green” work.

    Wall Street and big tech companies are also paying attention. Amazon, Google, and Facebook have become the world’s biggest corporate purchasers of clean energy and are now planning for some of the world’s most transformational climate targets. That will mean smaller companies will also be able to enter that workspace as innovation and infrastructure drive economic incentives.

    The Next Generation

    It may be ambitious to expect that we’ve left the Groundhog Day vortex of “infrastructure week” behind us, but the critical demand for a new Infrastructure Age confronts us now. From Main Street to Wall Street, the need and the growing market for a sustainable, efficient, and clean future couldn’t be more real. An abundance of avenues to finance such a future are available and it makes logical business sense to pursue them.

    It’s obvious enough what should be done. The only question, given American politics in 2021, is: Can it be done?

    The economy of tomorrow will be built upon the infrastructure measures of today. You can’t see the value of stocks from space, nor can you see the physical value of what you’ve left to the next generation from stat sheets. But from the International Space Station you can see the Hoover Dam and even San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. What will future generations see that we’ve left behind? If the answer is nothing, that will be a tragedy of our age.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Passengers check in at Hamburg Airport in Germany, on March 14, 2021.

    After a year of canceled concerts, closed-door sporting events and restricted air travel, vaccine passports are being touted as a way to quicken the route back to normalcy.

    The premise is straightforward: A digital or paper document will indicate whether individuals have received a COVID-19 vaccination or, in some cases, recently tested negative for the coronavirus. This could allow them to travel more freely within their communities, enter other countries or engage in leisure activities that have largely been closed off during the pandemic.

    Vaccine passports seem like a desirable alternative to continuing lockdowns until herd immunity — estimated to occur at about a 70%-85% vaccination rate — is achieved.

    As a global health management researcher, I can certainly see the benefits of vaccine passports. But I’m also aware of the pitfalls. While vaccine passports may open the world to many, they may lead to discrimination — especially against the poor.

    Return to the Skies

    Undoubtedly there is a desire to get back to normality as quickly as possible.

    For the tourism industry, which is estimating more than US$1 trillion in losses due to COVID-19, a reopening of travel would be much-needed relief. Even for those able to travel during the pandemic, arrival in most countries has required significant restrictions, often including a hotel quarantine of up to 14 days.

    Vaccination passports could allow families separated by local lockdowns, or state or country border restrictions, to meet in person.

    Pushing the case for a digital passport, an executive from Air New Zealand told The Guardian, “Reassuring customers that travel is, in fact, safe is one of our priorities. By using the app, customers can have confidence that everyone onboard meets the same government health requirements they do.”

    And it isn’t just travel. Passports could also open the door to everyday pursuits that seemed normal before the pandemic. In Israel, the country with the fastest vaccination rate, citizens with a vaccination “green pass” will be allowed entry to gyms, hotels, concerts and indoor dining at restaurants.

    And some employers are considering requiring proof of vaccination to return to work.

    Getting a Green Pass

    In short, the concept of vaccine passports is no longer theoretical, as it was early in the pandemic, when the World Health Organization recommended against their use.

    It has even been suggested that the lure of a vaccine passport could result in more people stepping forward to get vaccinated.

    Israel instituted its green pass program on Feb. 21, both to reopen the economy and to encourage young people to get vaccinated.

    Other countries are monitoring the success of Israel’s program. The U.K. has shown interest in the idea of vaccine passports, and the 27 member states of the European Union are considering some form of vaccine-certification system to allow easier cross-border travel in the EU.

    In the U.S., President Joe Biden has directed government agencies to “assess the feasibility” of some form of digital vaccine certificate, analogous to the concept of a vaccine passport.

    Pandemic Inequities

    This potential opening up of the world after months of restrictions is welcomed. But the concern is that the benefits will not be distributed equitably, and as a result some groups will be disadvantaged.

    After all, a pandemic once considered a “great equalizer” soon turned out to be anything but.

    As with most health crises, racial minorities made up a higher proportion of those affected in the U.S. — as seen in their higher rates of hospitalizations and deaths.

    Disparities along income and racial lines have persisted in vaccination campaigns. In the United States, for example, Black Americans have received the vaccine at half the rate of white Americans, and the disparity is even larger for Hispanic Americans. Globally, rich countries have ordered almost all of the currently available vaccines, meaning that the average citizen in a high-income country is much more likely to receive a vaccine than a health care worker or high-risk citizen in lower-income countries.

    It is also likely that demographic groups with higher levels of trust in authorities and medical institutions are the most willing to be vaccinated, and this may adversely affect marginalized communities. A recent study found that Black Americans — perpetuate existing inequities within countries if those who are vaccinated can enjoy the freedom to move about their community while others remain in lockdown.

    A World Divided?

    Given the global imbalance of vaccine availability, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where the citizens of rich countries may regain their rights to travel to environments where local populations are still in some form of lockdown.

    This potential to further divide the global rich from the global poor is a significant concern. Once economies start to “open” and those with vaccine passports are able to go about their business as usual, the urgency to deal with COVID-19 in marginalized communities may dissipate.

    Further, vaccination passports may give populations an inaccurate level of risk perception. It is still unclear how long immunity will last. It is also unclear the extent to which virus transmission is limited once one is vaccinated. Public health authorities still suggest that vaccinated individuals wear masks and maintain distancing in public for now, especially if interacting with unvaccinated people.

    These recommendations have led to concerns that vaccinated tourists, diners and shoppers may act in ways that might risk the unvaccinated service and hospitality employees with whom they are interacting.

    [Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

    There are also privacy concerns with vaccine passports, which are primarily being proposed in a digital format.

    In the U.K., the proposed vaccine certification would come in the form of an app, which could be scanned to gain entry to restaurants and venues. It has sparked concerns that digital passports may infringe on the rights to privacy, freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.

    Countries that rank low in global freedom indices, such as Bahrain, Brunei and China, are also using apps, often with troubling implications. In China, the app was found to be linked to law enforcement, and as people checked into locations across the city, their locations were tracked by the software.

    Despite the upsides of vaccines passports, these concerns remain. The World Health Organization has called on nations to make sure that, if implemented, vaccine passports are not responsible for “increasing health inequities or increasing the digital divide.”

    The danger is that thus far, at every stage the pandemic has exposed society’s inequities. Vaccine passports may perpetuate these inequities as well.The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden participates in a bill signing as Vice President Kamala Harris looks on in the Oval Office of the White House on March 11, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Joe Biden and his Democratic allies in government have successfully gotten their signature stimulus package through Congress. Despite many compromises to the right wing of the Democratic Party along the way, the package is still one of the most expensive in U.S. history, totaling $1.9 trillion. With the pandemic passing into its second year and an economy that is still far from recovered, the Democrats passed (without any Republican votes) a stimulus that is double the size of the Obama stimulus in terms of percentage of GDP, signaling what might be an important shift in the government’s approach to economic crisis. While critics and supporters alike are hailing this as the “inequality stimulus,” a closer look reveals a more complex picture. On the one hand, it is true that this package includes many meaningful concessions to the working class, and those concessions should be analyzed in terms of both their content and the method in which they were won. However, on the other hand, many of the more progressive measures were removed from the bill before its passage, and many of the concessions given are only temporary.

    The package includes a $300 weekly boost to jobless benefits extended through September, direct stimulus payments of up to $1,400 per person, $350 billion in aid to the states, increased child tax credits, and a 15 percent increase in food stamp benefits through September. In addition, the bill also offers $50 billion in support for small businesses, expands Obamacare, and changes the rules for the direct payments to allow more people to collect, including those with disabilities, students, and those in mixed-immigration status families. The stimulus does not, however, include the $15 minimum wage hike that many had promised it would. Nor does it include any debt forgiveness.

    FDR, LBJ, Joe Biden?

    The stimulus bill is incredibly controversial with some economists who fear that it will “overheat” the economy by lowering unemployment below the “desired” rate and increasing inflation. That there is a desired rate of unemployment is but one of the many obscenities of the capitalist system; capitalism requires a “reserve army of labor” of unemployed workers whose existence helps keep wages low by keeping the fear of unemployment and demand for limited jobs over workers’ heads. Other fears from the right about the stimulus involve concerns about the national debt, government deficits, and other fears about “fiscal irresponsibility.” Critiques of Biden and the Democrats using this stimulus to enact “policy initiatives” and “combat inequality instead of the pandemic” run rampant in right-wing circles. Still others are concerned that by improving unemployment benefits, the bill deters workers from re-entering the workforce, possibly stagnating the growth of the economy.

    Setting aside the more theoretical discussions about what impact the stimulus will have on the debt and deficit, it is important to engage with the question of how far-reaching the stimulus bill is in addressing the economic problems of the working class and poor people. The New York Times took the position that the stimulus signaled that Biden was becoming a “crusader for the poor” and that the bill was the “biggest antipoverty effort in a generation.” Jacobin Magazine took the more moderate approach that the bill is “good but not good enough” but also asserted that the bill signals “that the Democratic Party is finally willing — at least for a moment — to turn on the money hose and for once aim it not at Wall Street moguls, but instead at the raging wildfire of poverty and desperation incinerating the poor and middle class.” The more right-wing Wall Street Journal unfavorably compared the bill to Lyndon Johnson’s famous (or infamous, depending on who is asked) Great Society programs.

    So is this the anti-poverty bill of our generation? The only reason these publications can even seriously debate this position is because the last generation of politics was characterized by attacks on the working class and tax cuts for the wealthy, creating the vast wealth inequalities that led to destabilizing political phenomena from Sanderism, Trumpism, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter. And it’s true. This bill is focused around short term help for the working class.

    But the most progressive measures in the bill, which would have actually helped working people over the mid- and long-term, were killed in the crib, leading to a stimulus that more or less aims to give a “shot in the arm” to the economy rather than doing anything to address longer term trends. This can be seen in the fact that many of the more sweeping provisions (such as unemployment extensions and tax credit reform) will expire after a year at most. This means that any measure of support that those policies provide for working people will disappear as soon as the capitalists feel like the economy is back on its feet.

    By cutting checks for Americans, Biden and his allies are hoping that consumer spending will restart the economy without many lasting scars. This ignores the true scope of the current crisis. For decades, wealth inequalities have been spiking, with the United States having the highest level of inequality of any G7 nation. In addition, the working class never fully recovered from the 2008 economic recession, so the economic devastation that we are currently seeing is merely the tree that is bearing fruit from seeds that were planted almost 13 years ago.

    For example, even before the pandemic started, many working people struggled to afford rent. Once the pandemic started and many lost work or had a reduction in hours, it became impossible to pay. While Biden has provided some money to help provide emergency rent support, he hasn’t done anything to address the larger trends of rent becoming unaffordable for working people in the long term or even taken steps to cancel rent in the short term. There are no rent control measures in the bill, nor is there a wage hike. Indeed, the bill also doesn’t extend the eviction moratorium, which will now expire on March 31. In these examples, we can see that these concessions in the bill are just a stop-gap measure meant to tide the workers over for a few more months until the pandemic is resolved and everything can go back to how it was before.

    Dropping the $15 minimum wage from the bill is the perfect example of this. Despite $15 an hour being far below an actual living wage, it would have represented a sizable increase in income for low-wage workers. That provision was dropped largely because the Democrats didn’t have the support from within their own party to pass it. This gives lie to all of their playacting as “crusaders of the poor.” They could have actually passed a bill that gave long-term help to working people, and they chose not to. This is obscene, and all of the applauding of the bill is quietly brushing over the fact that the most helpful concession for working class people was taken out of the bill.

    However, it would also be inaccurate to simply write off this stimulus as more of the same from Washington. This is a far-bigger concession to working people than we’ve seen in decades.

    For example: the stimulus does increase the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit (CTC)— though both are only increased for one year. This change is impactful insofar as it represents a relatively major extension in “welfare” for working families. Indeed, the changes to the tax credits are the rationale for all the Democratic back-patting for supposedly lifting half of impoverished children out of poverty. These changes, while they may very well be helpful while they last, go away after a year — this is not some sort of lasting measure to minimize poverty. In addition, as Matt Bruenig wrote for Jacobin: “the new tax credit regime continues to exclude the poorest kids from the majority of the nation’s tax credit benefits…. the poorest kids will only receive $3,000 from the tax credit system, while kids with incomes right around the poverty line will receive more than twice that amount, $6,618.”

    To return to the more theoretical debates among economists, this is the point that underlines them all: the U.S. economy is fundamentally unstable, and Biden must take increasingly desperate measures to stabilize it. How exactly he ought to go about this is a debate among bourgeois economists, but they all fundamentally agree that too much in either direction (be it spending or austerity) could tip the economy into even greater instability. This brings us to another fundamental fact of the economy: that the capitalists have very few solutions to the crisis facing them. So, they are offering half-measures and one-time payments in hopes that an injection of capital into the economy will artificially speed up recovery.

    In this, we should be very hesitant to hail this as the second-coming of FDR and the New Deal. For all of its many flaws, the New Deal created lasting social programs that are far harder to undo than this or that temporary provision. In general, the New Deal was a much greater concession because Roosevelt was able to convince the capitalists to give up some of their rate of exploitation in order to avoid very combative (and possibly revolutionary) class struggle. In this, we cannot consider the Biden stimulus, no matter how sweeping it may be, to be comparable to FDR’s New Deal. Biden’s stimulus is a one-time steroid injection into working class and poor households in hopes to get the economy up and running. There is essentially nothing lasting in this bill.

    How Concessions Are Won

    Biden helped shepherd the Obama stimulus package along, which was mostly a Wall Street bailout with very little for the working class. This stimulus bill is distinctly different in that it is primarily directed at working class people. Why did Biden pass a Wall Street bailout then and this stimulus now?

    Biden was elected with broad support ranging from Wall Street and much of the Bush administration to the BLM movement. This coalition was always going to be an unstable one that would leave Biden in a very complex position as president. He has to both be a servant to capital, which bankrolled his election, and also keep the more progressive elements of the Democratic party in the fold. Add to this the fact that the polarization between the left and the right has only increased as a result of the economic crisis. In this sense, members of the Biden coalition supported him for very different reasons. Wall Street wants enough stability to go back to normal, Bush-era neocons want to re-establish American hegemony abroad, and BLM and progressives supported Biden to stop a dangerous and far-right Trump.

    Biden’s presidency, then, takes on a very contradictory character, mixing some progressive reforms with “back to normal” capitalist politics. One day he’s rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, and the next he’s bombing Syria. One day he’s ending the ban on trans* people serving in the military, and the next he’s keeping the concentration camps open. This stimulus is in many ways another element of this vacillation, with Biden offering some crumbs to his base to keep them believing both in him and the institutions of government (whose reputations were severely damaged by four years of Trump). In other words, Biden wants to pass a huge stimulus so that he can say that he is a friend to working people and that the government can still work on the side of working people. In addition, some sectors of capital believe that stimulating the economy in this way will help get consumer spending up again, which will restart the economy. The concessions offered to the working class in the stimulus are an attempt to ensure greater earnings for the capitalists.

    It should also be noted that, if this package seems better than average, that is in large part a result of the threat of class struggle. In other words, like FDR and others before him, Biden is offering some preemptive concessions to the working class in a time of economic strife in order to kill any potential of class struggle that could win more sweeping concessions, while also hoping to abort any radicalization that may happen inside or outside of the Democratic Party. Conversely, we also have to acknowledge that if there was more class struggle happening currently, then the concessions in the bill would be even stronger. The relatively low level of class struggle right now resulted in less pressure on the Democrats to actually pass lasting reforms, which is another reason why the benefits are going to expire as soon as the pandemic is over.

    If Biden and the Democrats hadn’t offered up some level of conciliation to their working class base, then they would run the risk of both losing that base in the next election and threatening the very stability that Biden was elected to ensure. Biden is trying to soothe the working class so that they are more demure in the eventuality that austerity comes along down the line. He wants to toss us some crumbs so that we think he’s on our side so that we fight less when he comes to knife us in our sleep.

    Biden has already failed to deliver the $15 minimum wage hike (which is already a massive step down from what would actually constitute a living wage), and his promises of student loan forgiveness have yet to materialize.

    It should also be noted how absolutely undemocratic the process of passing this stimulus was. Much of the bill was tailored to win support from one single senator (the notoriously right-wing Democrat Joe Manchin), allowing him almost total veto power over the contents. In general, this stimulus process shows the failings of bourgeois democracy. It should make us sick to watch these people with six-figure salaries sit in expensive suits and argue on television about whether we deserve to make more than $7.25 an hour. That is shameful, as is the debate over whether or not giving unemployed folks more money during a pandemic and economic crisis will discourage them from finding work. The fact that we have essentially no say in the policies handed down from Washington should be crystal clear, no matter what Biden and his allies want to say on cable news.

    What We Need

    Working people can win reforms from the Biden administration (just as they could win reforms from the Trump or Obama or Bush administrations), but they must understand that Biden will never offer reforms open-handed. We have to fight for every needed reform and can’t trust any member of the capitalist parties — even progressive ones like AOC or Sanders — to give us the reforms we need. Struggles of this kind pose a threat to the capitalist order, so the capitalists, their politicians, and their allies in the union and social movement bureaucracies do whatever they can to ensure that class struggle never develops. Sometimes that looks like brutal repression, and sometimes it looks like concessions in hopes we’ll take what amounts to a buyout. Biden et al are trying to buy our passivity for $1400 and an extra $300 a week. We can’t make that bargain.

    Instead, we need to raise demands for the working class that will actually go a long way towards resolving the crisis. We don’t just need one-time payments of $1400; we need a monthly quarantine wage paid to all workers who are unable to safely return to work. We don’t just need a $300 weekly bonus added to unemployment benefits; we need federal jobs programs that distribute working hours amongst all available workers without reduction in pay. We don’t just need more money for testing; we need a public health service run by the healthcare workers and the patients, not the bosses who want to enrich themselves off of our diseases. There is money for this; in fact, just the money that billionaires have gained since the beginning of the pandemic could pay for two-thirds of the entire stimulus bill. But to get these reforms, we will have to fight for them. We can’t trust Biden and his cronies in capital to give them to us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A light is seen from a house in Waco, Texas, as severe winter weather conditions over the last few days has forced road closures and power outages over the state on February 17, 2021.

    We used every coat, blanket, sweater, and pair of socks in the house — even when we slept.

    We only cooked once a day. We couldn’t bathe or do laundry. Unlike many families, we had water — but it looked almost like milk coming out of the tap.

    It was the Texas freeze, and we were cold and dirty and hungry and parched.

    In some ways, we were lucky. At least 80 people died, and possibly many more. And even now, we still have neighbors without water coming over to shower and use our bathroom.

    Our state is a cautionary tale about power generation that’s privatized and poorly regulated. The big companies who run so much of the grid in Texas failed to winterize their infrastructure, leading to massive blackouts and tremendous suffering.

    We knew this could happen, because it already did. These same failures wreaked havoc after a winter storm back in 2011, but politicians — often with industry donations in their pockets — failed to fix the problem.

    A decade later, the blackouts were five times as destructive — and could have been even worse. Reports now say we were just four and a half minutes from a total grid failure in Texas, which could have caused blackouts for weeks and even months.

    Unfortunately, we have a governor and conservative legislators who seem to care more about private profits than our lives and health. They care more about golfing and going to resorts in Cancun than whether my children have heat or drinking water.

    It was the corporations, utilities, and regulators who failed. But it’s ordinary folks who bore the brunt of losing power who are being forced to pay — literally.

    The state’s grid manager overcharged Texans by at least $16 billion during the storm, leading to power bills that ran thousands of dollars during the blackouts. And authorities are now saying they won’t even bother to sort out the over-charges.

    Why are they doing this? Because they can. Our deregulated, privatized utilities in Texas are designed for private gain at public expense.

    This was true even before the freeze. This summer they charged me so much for electricity that I had to choose between eye appointments, doctor visits for my kids, and power enough to run the air conditioner in the unforgiving Texas summer.

    And this is hardly the only crisis we’re living through right now.

    Last May, my boss reopened my place of employment without any safety precautions. I’d been promised the opportunity to work from home to help my kids with their online schooling. They went back on that promise, so I was forced to quit.

    Now, the governor has gone ahead and thrown out every single remaining COVID-19 safety measure — even with every new aggressive virus variant now present in Texas. This will force millions more of us to make dreadful choices.

    Is this leadership?

    All of these issues are interlocked — jobs that don’t pay enough, utilities that cost too much, the lack of basic public health protections at work. These bad policies hit us in the Black, Brown, and immigrant communities the hardest. But no matter where we come from or what we look like, all of us deserve better than this.

    That’s why I organize with the Poor People’s Campaign — to help other low-income parents fight for a $15 minimum wage, paid sick leave, and affordable health care and housing. If there’s something worse than not being warm or bathed or properly fed for weeks, it’s having lawmakers who bring home huge paychecks and ride out storms in resorts while we suffer.

    We need to use our collective voice to make them change. It’s you and me that will make the change, together.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden and U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken participate in a virtual meeting with leaders of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue countries March 12, 2021, at the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, DC. President Biden and Vice President Harris met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, and Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan to discuss regional issues.

    The new Biden administration’s centering of the climate crisis — including through the cabinet appointment of Indigenous leader Deb Haaland, the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and the creation of a nation-wide climate policy task force — is a significant victory for the environmental movement.

    At the same time, there are also aspects of Biden’s climate plan, his international agenda in particular, which are far from progressive. This has been reflected in the administration’s approach to India, the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter.

    The developing country, which is rapidly expanding its investment in coal, is expected to double its energy consumption by 2040 — making it thus an essential partner in international climate change mitigation.

    While the partnership between Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to spur India’s “Green Transition” is likely to prioritize “green finance” and “knowledge transfers,” no clear effort has been made to address the well-documented ways in which the Indian state has exploited the “green energy” label to recklessly expand ecologically hazardous projects, to the detriment of marginalized people.

    Moreover, the Biden administration’s recent expression of support for the three contentious agricultural laws passed by the Modi government, which have been met by a three-month-long protest involving hundreds of millions of farmers and workers, is anathema to a serious vision of global climate justice. These laws, in short, are expected to have the effect of deepening India’s dependence on a fossil fuel-intensive agricultural regime, putting a downward pressure on agricultural prices through market deregulation, and diminishing other food security initiatives which are key to the survival of 67 percent of the country. The reforms come at a time when the country is emerging from its worst economic recession in a century.

    The White House has also been passive about the farmers’ struggle and the ruthless repression the Modi-led government has wielded against it. In fact, just days after Biden met with the Indian prime minister, Delhi police arrested and illegally detained 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi, along with 30-year-old Nikita Jacob and 31-year-old Shantanu Muluk, invoking a colonial-era sedition law for helping create and share a toolkit which suggested ideas to support the farmers’ protests, originally tweeted by Greta Thunberg. Aside from Ravi, Jacob and Muluk, all of whom are members of the Extinction Rebellion chapter in India (XR India), the Modi regime has targeted dozens of the farmers’ supporters over the preceding months. Many of them have been severely deprived of their rights and, as in the cases of youth labor union leaders 24-year-old Shiv Kumar and 23-year-old Naudeep Kaur, brutally tortured at the hands of the police. The Biden administration has not said a word about these transgressions.

    Contemporary India is, thus, a prime example of why an internationalist approach to climate justice is more crucial now than ever. The alarming growth of far right proto-fascist politics in India (as in much of the world) adds urgency to this task, as the ecological crisis both feeds into and is intensified by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) agenda. A robust vision of climate justice for the U.S.-India partnership must therefore include an explicit rejection of ethnonationalist politics and focus on building policies that strengthen rather than marginalize communities that are most vulnerable to the changing climate.

    India’s Farm Laws Are Disaster Capitalism

    The fundamental contradiction that lies therein is the incompatibility of climate justice with the profit motives of capital and the trade agenda of the U.S. government. From the perspective of the U.S., India is an “emerging market,” ripe for foreign direct investment. And while India is already the U.S.’s 13th-largest agricultural export market, the U.S. has a history of retaliating against the developing country for its “excessively high tariffs” and investment barriers; for example, in 2019 President Trump terminated India’s special developing country status in the World Trade Organization after alleging that India failed to offer the US equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors including dairy and agricultural products.

    India’s domestic agribusiness investors like Adani and Reliance — owned by two of India’s richest and most politically influential men — also have much to gain from the removal of “inefficient” government price supports to farmers, which will drive down prices of agricultural produce and facilitate greater corporate control over markets. The Biden administration’s congratulatory tone thus reflected the interests of large capital rather than the scores of environmental and farmers organizations, lawyers and labor unions in the U.S. and globally who have called on the administration to take decisive measures to protect Indian farmers.

    The protesting farmers who have vowed to remain put at the border of Delhi for “six months or six years” — however long it takes to repeal the three agricultural laws — have in essence created a microcosm of democracy within a country which has grown increasingly authoritarian since Modi’s rise to power in 2014. Crafting their own newspaper to counter the jingoistic, pro-corporate mainstream media, erecting shelters and communal kitchens through small donations, and at times engaging in a kind of mass therapy to heal divisions between religious communities that were stoked by the BJP government. These acts — while mostly concentrated in India’s wheat-growing states of Punjab and Haryana — have been received with enormous solidarity from all corners of the country and the world. As a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, signed by 75 international nonprofit organizations, reads: “To Indian farmers: You have ignited one of the largest protests in human history. From the fields of Punjab, to the villages of Kerala, to the streets of New Delhi, your voices echo around the world. Now we raise our voices in solidarity.”

    Still perhaps one of the most remarkable achievements of this movement is the way it has brought a degree of unity to sections of civil society and political economy which are usually highly fragmented. Owing to the sweeping nature of the laws — which threaten the livelihoods of not only large grain farmers but also agricultural laborers and small farmers, who consume more of their yield than they sell — the movement has attracted people from a variety of class positions. Samyukt Kisan Moorcha (SKU), the leadership body which formed in the aftermath of the BJP government’s passage of the three farm laws, consists of over 40 farmers unions that range ideologically from Gandhian to Communist, and is equally diverse. The emerging solidarities between agriculturalists and climate justice warriors are also an important development of this struggle.

    While the organizing links are nascent, the material basis of such a unity is strong. At the most basic level, in order to grow crops, there must be predictable climatic conditions. But as the globe warms, India’s extreme weather events have soared; from 1950 to 2015 these events have tripled, costing India’s economy $3 billion USD per year, according to a study in the journal Nature.

    These losses have been ruinous for India’s small farmers (85 percent of all farmers) whose crops are dependent on the vagaries of the weather, especially precipitation. At the same time, erratic climatic conditions have perhaps exacted a more extreme toll on the medium-size farmers who adopted mechanized and input-intensive agriculture during the Green Revolution of the 1960s. Yields initially were impressive, bringing new levels of wealth to the largely upper-caste beneficiaries who could afford the onerous costs of chemical inputs and high yielding variety crops (HYVs). Eventually, however, these practices depleted nutrient density in the soil and a sinking water table soured the fortunes of many. Declining yields have prompted farmers to seek out higher loans to invest in more toxic fertilizers and pesticides.

    In this context, even a minor change in weather fluctuations has the ability to drive a family farm into an extreme crisis of overindebtedness. The APMC system (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) — in which the government procures and provides a remunerative price on select crops, namely wheat and rice at public market yards — has been one of the only reliable lifelines for grain farmers of Punjab and Haryana. In places where the Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) are non-existent or poorly enforced, such as the cotton farming belt of Maharashtra, the situation is even more dire — as seen by the farmer suicide crisis (more than a third of the 300,000+ deaths since 1995 are concentrated in Maharashtra).

    This socially and ecologically hazardous agricultural regime adopted by India and many developing countries across the world in the 1960s under the influence of the U.S. government cannot persist in its current form. But the transformation cannot be achieved through brute force or the market-driven decimation of farmers’ livelihoods — and certainly not through the current laws which are more likely to expand capital intensive agriculture.

    This is why the US must support the farmers’ demands for a more ambitious scheme of government support, one where not only grains, but all crops, are covered under the MSP. And while not officially endorsed by the SKU, the movement has also brought forth demands that could benefit the largely Dalit (ex-untouchable caste) landless laborers — a class that rarely finds common cause with farmers’ movements in India. For example, organizations like the Punjab Khet Mazdoor Union (PKMU) and Mazdoor Adhikar Sangh (MAS) have pushed for the enforcement of minimum wages and aid to families of laborers who have commit suicide (currently only landed farmers are counted in farmer suicide databases — and thus compensated — by the government).

    Without such measures, coupled with investments in a more ecologically-appropriate rural economy — including incentives for farmers such as the expansion of stable non-farm employment — a just transition will not be possible.

    Kicking Away the Ladder to Food Security

    The argument being made by the U.S. and crony capitalist class in India that opening India’s agricultural markets further to market forces, and doing away with price subsidies would “help” the majority of small farmers (who comprise 85 percent of India’s agrarians) does not hold water. In fact, it is contrary to the development record of virtually every wealthy nation in this world. The U.S. and other nations heavily subsidized their infant industries and agriculturalists. In 2020 an estimated 39% of net farm income came from the federal government. Now that poorer nations seek to do the same, the advanced nations are attempting to “kick away the ladder,” to borrow the words of the economist Ha-Joon Chang.

    Moreover, in India, where there are 189.2 million undernourished people (that’s more than half the population of the United States) and nearly 70 percent of the Indian population depends on the agricultural sector either directly or indirectly for their livelihoods, deregulating agricultural markets would be playing with fire. On top of the human toll, subjecting farmers to market forces only has potential to improve the economy when a base level of development has already been attained. Moreover, according to Chang, “for countries that have not reached this level, a fall in food import capacity even for a year or two may have serious irreversible negative consequences for long-term productivity of many people due to irreversible falls in the provision of nutrition and, for children, education.”

    It appears that the current regime has little regard for “hierarchy of human needs — where food is the most basic of consumption goods.” This has been illustrated through not only the farm laws, but also draconian measures such as the lockdown in March 2020, which left millions of migrant workers stranded in far-flung places without work or food rations; and the botched demonetization drive of 2016, which cost the country 1.5 million jobs and dealt a crushing blow to small businesses that operate in the informal sector.

    Modi’s Fossil Fuel Fascism

    Finally, growing outrage by the various oppressed communities that have been further subordinated by the ruling BJP’s majoritarian political program since Modi’s rise to power in 2014 is also helping to fuel to the current movement.

    The BJP and the larger “family” of organizations to which it belongs, known as the Sangh Parivar, espouse an ideology known as “Hindutva,” which professes that India is a nation belonging exclusively to Hindus. The hundreds of millions of religious minorities (Muslims, Christians and Dalits), environmentalists, human rights advocates, secularists, communists and anti-caste activists are all “enemies” of the nation to be destroyed.

    The founders of the “parent” organization of the Sangh, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), were explicitly inspired by the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini. The man who fired three bullets into Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, Nathuram Godse, was a proud member of the RSS, and is celebrated by Hindu nationalists as a “patriot.”

    What makes this movement particularly dangerous is not simply the ideology but the way it has so thoroughly embedded itself in civil society. The Sangh Parivar comprises a network of dozens of institutions, including schools, women’s clubs, publishing houses, “IT cells,” health centers, and many more. The RSS claims to have 5-6 million members and 50,000 centers (shakhas) across the country. These centers act as sites of ideological indoctrination, but also weapons-training grounds. One could say it is the largest network of fascist organizations by membership in the world.

    Aside from possessing many of the classical features of fascism, what should be particularly of interest to the Biden administration’s climate team is the Sangh’s politics of “fossil fuel fascism.”

    Climate Justice Project Director at the Institute for Policy Studies Basav Sen has studied the obsession of fascist movements across the world with fossil fuels (in the U.S., Brazil and India). In part it has do with “notions of conquest, and the notions of control of resources,” he told Truthout. “In America, we have the displacement and dispossession of Indigenous populations. White supremacists lay claim to the Indigenous lands and the resources in it which includes fossil fuels. Similarly, in India, the caste Hindu power structure and the elite see the resources of Adivasis’ [Indigenous] land as something they have an inherent right to. If Adivasis are in the way, drive them out.”

    Conversely, as has been documented in places across the world, the impacts of climate change fuel extremist politics. In India we see this in the Hindutva’s response to increasing undocumented immigration from neighboring Bangladesh. “Outside of island chains in the Pacific, Bangladesh is probably the country most vulnerable to sea level rise in the world,” Sen said. “Two-thirds of country is a river delta, and a lot will be inundated with seas rising and the Himalayas melting. It’s not the only factor driving people to migrate, but it certainly is a factor.”

    Rather than providing refuge to these vulnerable populations, India’s response has been to militarize the border. The BJP in particular has used the rhetoric of the “invasion” of “illegal” Muslims as a way to win popularity. It has been a big part of the BJP’s electoral messaging in West Bengal, where politicians have increasingly used Facebook to demonize and provoke supporters to commit acts of violence against religious minorities. Mythologies of Muslim invasion and demographic takeover were also central to the BJP’s national mobilization in support of the controversial Citizens Amendment Act passed in 2020, which creates a pathway to citizenship for all major religious minorities from bordering states except for Muslims.

    No Internationalism, No Green New Deal

    Climate diplomacy and cooperation is impossible in the context of fascist dictatorship — the U.S. government should thus be very concerned with the road India is traveling.

    In 2014, while even conservative media outlets like The Economist had made the editorial decision to oppose the candidacy of Narendra Modi due to his ethnonationalist politics and violent past, President Obama diligently worked to “rehabilitate” Modi. Previously, under a 1998 U.S. law which bars entry to foreigners who have committed “particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” the Hindu supremacist was banned from the U.S. It is widely held that as chief minister of Gujarat, Modi was responsible for the 2002 pogroms which saw 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, perish.

    Donald Trump’s affinity for so-called “strongmen” only deepened U.S. ties to Modi’s agenda. In February 2020, Trump infamously traveled to Delhi just as the Sangh Parivar was painting the streets of Delhi red with the blood of Muslims, and mentioned nothing about the carnage. And while the Biden administration likely won’t be replicating Trump’s expressions of bonhomie such as the 2019 “Howdy Modi” event in Houston, the anti-farmer and anti-climate trade policies currently being pursued by the Biden-Modi partnership both strengthen the hand of fascism and threaten progress on global climate justice.

    The contemporary youth-led climate movement in the U.S. and abroad has demonstrated why militant and aggressive organizing to pressure the Biden administration must be an integral part of the climate justice strategy in the years ahead. There is no question that activists have already pushed Biden’s climate policy to a far more ambitious place than it would have otherwise been. And while it may seem farfetched to get the U.S. administration to care about the farmers of the Global South and to take steps to reverse the spread of ecofascism, the degree to which progressives have moved them so far brings hope.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Trump meets with bank CEOs about COVID-19 response in the Cabinet Room at the White House on March 11, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

    COVID-19 was already here a year ago today, and already spreading across the U.S., with more than 1,000 confirmed cases and dozens of deaths on the books. Still, consensus has settled on today as a proper marker for the one-year anniversary of the long, grinding, lethal nightmare we have endured, and continue to endure.

    One year ago today, the World Health Organization officially labeled the crisis a “pandemic,” but most people I’ve spoken to don’t remember that specifically. Today became “Shit Got Real Day” for most of them when it was announced that actor Tom Hanks and his wife had been diagnosed. Later in the evening, the NBA went up in flames, basically calling off the season just before tipoff of a Jazz–Thunder game in Oklahoma City.

    The basketball fiasco coughed up its first COVID villain not named Donald Trump. Two days before the season was suspended, Jazz center Rudy Gobert ran around a packed press room and touched every microphone with his bare hands, an act of witless defiance that endeared him to the same subset of the population that sacked the Capitol building the following January.

    Two days later, Gobert was diagnosed with COVID, and his teammates, opponents and everyone who went near those microphones suddenly found themselves in the valley of the shadow of death. Gobert’s behavior and subsequent diagnosis were the prime impetus for curtailing the season, and all the other major sports leagues — college athletics as well — almost immediately followed suit.

    One year ago tonight, then-President Trump gave a speech that forecast exactly how he planned to let half a million people die because he feared looking weak and culpable. He announced, “The virus will not have a chance against us…. Our future remains brighter than anyone can imagine.” That speech set the tone for what would be his final year in office: His behavior was horrifying and not at all surprising in equal measure. He carried that tune to his last day in the building, and beyond.

    “I needed a president to tell me about the availability of testing for the virus, about deliberate actions taken to contain the spread, about social distancing and other preventative measures, about preparedness for a disruption that may last weeks,” I wrote after Trump’s address a year ago. “I needed to know there was a steady hand on the wheel, if only for a few minutes. I needed to know the facts if I am to properly protect my people, and by proxy my community. Of course, this president let me down. Donald Trump’s barefaced unreliability is the single most reliable aspect of his existence.”

    Thus began the silent spring. Hospitals filled to bursting with the desperately ill, and medical workers found themselves wearing garbage bags and used Lysol-dipped masks because nobody was in charge and everything was someone else’s fault. The schools emptied, and millions of children found themselves trapped at home like bugs in a bottle. Parents began to buckle under the strain of working and schooling from home.

    By April, business leaders and some Republican governors were pushing hard for a return to normal, because capitalism cares not one fig for your well-being. You, me, we: All replaceable in the clockwork of profit and “growth.” Things loosened up over the summer, a false dawn belied by the fact that the U.S. led the world in infections per capita. Thanksgiving and Christmas stoked the flames, and this past winter saw the worst days of this pandemic stack up like bodies in a cold storage truck.

    There seems little merit in cataloging my own personal damage after this year. I am alive and uninfected, at least for now, which at times feels miraculous. At some point my number will come up and I will get the vaccine. My daughter has shown me what resilience looks like, and I am grateful for that beyond measure. Perhaps I will get sick, and perhaps I will die, but not today, probably.

    Millions of people in hyper-affected communities of color cannot say the same. Nearly 30 million people in the U.S. were infected and survived over the last year. Now, only God knows how many face what is being called “Long COVID,” a debilitating post-infection barrage of brutal symptoms that simply will not abate. Once this is over — if it is ever over — those untold thousands of “long-haulers” will be forced to live with the damage in a country that has a grim knack for ignoring and underserving the disabled.

    Meanwhile, even those of us who did not fall ill are experiencing the impact of the past year. Although I have not experienced the worst of it by far, my mind is not right. Specifically, I am forgetting things I once knew by rote. I took my car to the car wash yesterday to scrape the last of winter off, and forgot how to do it for a minute. I’ve run my car through the wash a dozen times since I got it — New Hampshire road salt eats cars — and it’s always the same: Aim left front wheel into groove, pull up until told to stop, put car in neutral, and wait for the scrubbing octopus to attack as I am pulled through the process.

    Yesterday, I stared at the gear shift for a long moment after I’d grooved the wheel, and put the car in park, thinking it was neutral. I had forgotten where neutral was on my shifter. The wash tried to pull my car into the water, but because it wasn’t in neutral, my whole front axle was nearly torn off. I jolted and threw it into the proper gear while the wash attendant looked at me like I was some strangely ignorant species of bug. I hid my face as I was finally pulled into the maw.

    That kind of thing has been happening to me at increasing intervals lately, and I am not alone. “I can’t stop noticing all the things I’m forgetting,” writes Ellen Cushing for The Atlantic. “Sometimes I grasp at a word or a name. Sometimes I walk into the kitchen and find myself bewildered as to why I am there. (At one point during the writing of this article, I absentmindedly cleaned my glasses with nail-polish remover.) Other times, the forgetting feels like someone is taking a chisel to the bedrock of my brain, prying everything loose…. Everywhere I turn, the fog of forgetting has crept in.”

    A scrap of Pearl Jam verse wafts through my head often these days: “And to this day, she’s glided on / Always home but so far away / Like a word misplaced / Nothing to say, what a waste…” I find it a fitting epitaph for 2020: Always home, so far away, a word misplaced, what a waste.

    Even with three different vaccines cascading (with irregular and racially disparate availability) into the population, even with much of the U.S. finally taking seriously the necessity of wearing masks, and even as the winter gives way to spring, I am nowhere near feeling a sense of optimism for the future.

    All across the country, state governments that should know better are loosening COVID restrictions exactly, precisely when they should be holding fast. The variants are out there, and COVID is as cunning and ruthless as anything humanity has ever encountered. Quite simply, we as a nation are perfectly capable of screwing ourselves out of all this progress. Some experts say that at least another year must pass ensconced in these fearful doldrums before anything like “normal” comes sniffing around again.

    Fear. That is what I will remember, always. Like a thrum below the sternum, a flutter in the blood, fear has been my dismal resting state this year. Fear for myself, my family, my friends, my country and my planet. There is no escaping or assuaging it, because I could be sitting here infected right now and not know it. I feel like $100 and it doesn’t matter a damn. It is impossible to rest, really rest, with this shadow on me.

    Fear, and sorrow. A fathomless woe yet unspeakable. Someday, perhaps, I will find the words to explain it. I am not nearly there. There is still a vice around my heart, and sometimes I have to remind myself to breathe.

    It did not have to be this way, and the ones who made it this way have raked hundreds of millions of dollars off the people they duped into believing it isn’t actually this way at all. I will never forget that, I will never forgive it, and I await a reckoning the way my little girl anticipates Christmas on the balls of her feet.

    One year later, with nearly 530,000 dead and almost 30 million infected, I recall what Trump said a year ago yesterday: “It will go away, just stay calm. Be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen.”

    What a waste.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.