Campaigning for Democracy And Socialism |
|
March 29, 2024: The Week in Review
Upside Down & Inside Out: Trump's Law and Order
|
|
Trump as the candidate of 'law and order?
Listening to 'the predecessor' attending a policeman's funeral in New York City this week and making this proclamation brings out a combination of laughter and disgust.
We know many politicians are prone to hyperbole and elastic notions of fact, but this bit of Orwellian Newspeak should make all of them blush. Here is the only candidate in our history under more than 80 felony indictments in four pending trials. He's already been found guilty of rape, defamation and fraud in two civil trials where he is now reduced to appealing not his guilt or innocence, but the size of $500 million in judgements.
Where is any standard of 'law and order' in his bragging that he could shoot someone on NYC's Fifth Ave in broad daylight and get away with it? Or proclaiming hundreds of the current inmates who plead guilty or were convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6 insurrection as 'great patriots' and 'political prisoners' that he would free on the first day of his hoped-for re-election?
We are well aware of the fact our current system of law and order is seriously flawed with class and racial bias. We can claim 'no man is above the law' all we want, but currently there are thousands of our citizens sitting in jails for years and not yet convicted of any major crime, simply because they couldn't make cash bail.
Take the case of Kalief Browder. He was an African American youth from The Bronx, New York, who was held at the Rikers Island jail complex, without trial, between 2010 and 2013 for allegedly stealing a backpack containing valuables. During his imprisonment, Browder was kept in solitary confinement for 800 days, itself defined as 'cruel and unusual punishment.' Finally in 2015, he committed suicide as his only way out.
Trump has a long-standing record on such things. Take the case of the Central Park Five, a group of black youths falsely charged and convicted of rape. Trump took out full-page ads against the Five in NYC newspapers demanding the restoration of the death penalty. Eventually the real rapist was found and convicted, and the Five were exonerated. Did Trump back down? No, he stood by his ads. As we all know by now, Trump doesn't make mistakes, and when caught in them, he simply doubles down, even when it keeps adding millions of dollars in addition penalties and gag orders against any intimidation of witnesses, jurors and others working in the courts.
Even our criminal justice system biased toward our upper crust is unacceptable to Trump. In his claims on the campaign trail, the Democratic Party is 'communist' and all states, cities and courts with Democrats in charge are under 'communist rule.' (If such a thing were only so, with an electorate that agreed and put them there!) Trump has also told us what will happen on his next 'Day One,' all these 'communists' will be rounded up into massive camps, charged with 'treason' and dealt with accordingly. If you want all the fine details, study the 'Project 2025' documents produced for Trump by the Heritage Foundation. Believe them.
One final point here. There are some groupings on the left trapped in the thinking that electoral politics doesn't matter that much, or that there's not that much difference better Biden and Trump, or even if Trump's return would be a bit nasty, it would spur new upsurges and hence new recruits for their groups. We have news for you to ponder. How long do you think it would take for a new Trump regime to round up, say, all 75,000 DSA members and put them in camps? Or any other left group, not to mention Bernie and the Squad? This editorial page is not asking any among you to like or even endorse Joe Biden while criticizing his policies. Many will, but its not required.
What is required is that we all engage maximum energy in a common project in the next months to defeat the MAGA GOP in November. If successful, we will be able to continue to organize under and against our current warped system of law and order, rather than Trump's 'law and order,' where we would not be able to organize, save for those already with organizations currently prepared to work under the severe restrictions of an anti-fascist underground. Even those of us who favor organizations so prepared know we are far from adequate to the looming task. View and assess the whole terrain, then plan and act accordingly.
|
|
|
|
 |
WE ARE INVITING FEEDBACK!
Please send us your letters, comments, queries, complaints, new ideas. Just keep them short and civil. Longer commentaries and be submitted as articles.
DIFFICULTY READING US?
|
We're going to try something new, and you are all invited.
Saturday Morning Coffee!
Started in August 2022, then going forward every week.
It will be more of a hangout than a formal setting. We can review the news in the previous days' LeftLinks or add a new topic. We can invite guests or carry on with those who show up. We'll try to have a progressive stack keeper should we need one.
Most of all, we will try to be interesting and a good sounding board. If you have a point you would like to make or a guest to invite, send an email to Carl Davidson, carld717@gmail.com
Continuing weekly, 10:30 to Noon, EDT.
The Zoom link will also be available on our Facebook Page.
Meeting ID: 868 9706 5843
Let's see what happens!
|
Honoring the Life and Work of John Hagedorn
April 1, 2024
@ 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm CDT
|
Yo, WE, the 52nd contingent of the Venceremos Brigade is excited to share with you all the brigade application. You can fill out the application at bit.ly/VB52application!
|
The Return of John Brown:
Abolitionist Comes Back
to Life in New Musical
The first show will debut on April 26 in Baltimore, followed by a show on April 27 in Washington, DC. The next weekend on May 4 and 5, the play will be featured at the Kennedy Farm, the Harpers Ferry location where John Brown staged his famous anti-slavery raid.
Director: Jayne LaMondue Price
Musical Director: Glenn Pearson
For more information email Returnofjohnbrown@gmail.com.
|
|
|
|
Campaigns, Movements, and Organzing Strategies
with Bill Fletcher Jr.
and Carl Davidson
|
China, Confucius: Philosophy
in the Quest for Peace
Online Event
Tuesday, April 2nd 2024,
7pm (EST)
|
Bernie Sanders: I am excited to announce that, this week, I am launching a new podcast. In it, we discuss my recent book, It's Ok to Be Angry about Capitalism.
If you'd like a copy of the book, you can make a contribution today — of $12 any amount you can afford —at berniesanders.com/book and we'll send it to you in the mail.
|
We’ve officially launched our NEW documentary, BEYOND BARS, and we’d like you and your community to host a screening for free! During an election year with over two million Americans currently incarcerated, BEYOND BARS exposes the continuing impact of white supremacy, all through the powerful story of former San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin and his family. Organize and mobilize with us!
|
This featured story are reflections by labor and community activist Jeff Crosby, son of Harry Crosby, a prominent character in the Apple TV series “Masters of the Air.” The series depicts the courage of young men who risked, and often sacrificed, their lives to defeat fascism during World War II. The non-profit group Greater Lynn Senior Services (GLSS) interviewed Jeff about his father and his experience with the making of the series.
|
ANGELA DAVIS:
STANDING WITH PALESTINIANS
Reflecting on
the past 60 years.
The emotional turbulence so many of us have experienced for the past five months as we’ve witnessed the unprecedented damage the Israeli military has inflicted reminds me just how central the Palestinian quest for justice is to liberation struggles here in the U.S. and in other parts of the world, as well as to my own sense of self in our extremely complicated political world. ...Read More
|
|
|
|
Last Week's Saturday Morning Coffee
|
|
News of the Week, Plus More
|
|
Normalizing 'Blood Bath' or, When Someone Tells
You Who They Are, Believe Them the First Time
By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Liberation Road
March 27, 2024 - Former President Trump has done it again, and so has much of the mainstream media! In a speech on March 16th, 45 suggested there would be a bloodbath if he does not win the November election.
The immediate response was predictable. Democrats and others attacked the provocative nature of the comments. Trump and his allies mocked the Democrats and claimed that he was talking about the impact of his loss on the auto industry. Much of the mainstream media attempted to discern his alleged real meaning.
Throughout his political career, Trump has used the tactic of making incendiary comments and suggestions to “wink” at his supporters. In almost every case, he implies that he is being misunderstood by the media and by anti-Trumpers. Yet he never fully walks back on comments. When, for instance, he described the 2017 fascist march on Charlottesville, Virginia, as supposedly containing good people on both sides, he never stepped back to be self-critical and to point clearly at the fascists as the actual threat. His supporters knew this, and so should have the mainstream media.
The constant suggestions of violence, including his speech on January 6, 2021, represent who he is. He has been telling us. His failure to intervene when the de facto coup unfolded on January 6th should have confirmed the nature of the animal for everyone. Yet, in almost every case where Trump uses violent, provocative language or suggestions, the mainstream media goes elastic in attempting to explain that his actual meaning may not have been…his actual meaning.
This is a form of “normalizing.” What the mainstream media is doing is not offering analysis. They are providing an escape hatch through which Trump and the MAGA forces can escape any accountability for their promotion of rightwing violence and terror.
The implications are significant. Treating Trump as an acceptable political candidate who is prepared to operate within the guidelines of the system stands in contrast with who he is. Consider not just his words, but the content—and intent—of the rightwing Heritage Foundation’s so-called 2025 Plan. Drafted to be used by Trump, should he be elected, it calls for a radical restructuring of government, foreign policy, and basic rights—including the potential use of the 1861 Insurrection Act against opponents of a Trump administration—proposals that openly challenge the notion of Constitutional rule. It would, in effect, be a coup. The fact that the Insurrection Act is under consideration by Trumpers speaks to the opposition that the far Right anticipates and their willingness to violently crush said opposition.
There is no bluff here and this is not a drill. For those who believe there to be no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, please take a look at the Heritage Foundation’s plan and the proposals by the American Legislative Exchange Council for a Constitutional Convention, and Trump’s language—including his evasiveness on Putin’s murder of opposition leader Navalny. Then consider the following: Recognizing that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are parties for socialism, under which scenario will Left and progressive forces have the better chance of expanding and winning?
No, this is not about whether we prefer either party in the abstract. It is about appreciating that Trump, et al. mean what they say, and they have been more than clear about it. When they say “bloodbath,” our response cannot be “Did he really mean it?” or “That is an exaggeration.” Rather, it needs to be, “Battle-stations; the enemy is at the gates.”
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a socialist, trade unionist, international solidarity activist, and writer. ...Read More
|
|
Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza
Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November
By Jeffrey M. Jones
News.Gallup.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After narrowly backing Israel’s military action in Gaza in November, Americans now oppose the campaign by a solid margin. Fifty-five percent currently disapprove of Israel’s actions, while 36% approve.
The latest results are from a March 1-20 survey. The Israel-Hamas war has continued for five months and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis. Major parts of Gaza have been destroyed, complicating efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians still living there. The United Nations and international community, including the Biden administration, have called for a cease-fire, but the two warring sides have been unable to agree.
The poll was completed before the U.N. Security Council on Monday passed a resolution calling for a cease-fire during Ramadan. The measure passed because the United States abstained rather than vetoing the resolution. The U.S. had previously vetoed other resolutions calling for a cease-fire.
Seventy-four percent of U.S. adults say they are following news of the Israeli-Hamas situation closely, similar to the 72% Gallup measured in November. One-third of Americans (34%) say they are following the situation “very closely.”
Disapproval of Israel’s military action is similar regardless of how much attention Americans are paying to the conflict. However, those paying less attention are more likely than their counterparts to have no opinion on the matter, resulting in lower approval than seen among people paying greater attention.
Republicans Retain Positive Stance; Independents Decidedly Negative
All three major party groups in the U.S. have become less supportive of Israel’s actions in Gaza than they were in November. This includes declines of 18 percentage points in approval among both Democrats and independents and a seven-point decline among Republicans.
Independents have shifted from being divided in their views of the Israeli military action to opposing it. Democrats, who were already largely opposed in November, are even more so now, with 18% approving and 75% disapproving.
Republicans still support Israel’s military efforts, but a reduced majority -- 64%, down from 71% -- now approve.
Democrats’ widespread opposition to Israel’s actions underscores the difficulty of the issue for President Joe Biden among his most loyal supporters. Some Democratic critics believe Biden has been too closely aligned with Israel by not taking stronger actions to promote a cease-fire and to assist Palestinian civilians caught in the war zone.
Biden’s approval rating for his handling of the situation in the Middle East, at 27%, is his lowest among five issues tested in the survey. This is because far fewer Democrats (47%) approve of how he is handling the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians than approve of his handling of the economy, the environment, energy policy and foreign affairs, broadly. On those issues, no less than 66% of Democrats approve of Biden.
Only further contributing to Biden’s low rating on the Middle East situation, just 21% of independents and 16% of Republicans approve of his performance on the issue.
Still, it appears that the Middle East conflict has not taken an obvious toll on Biden’s political standing. His overall job approval rating is 40%, compared with 37% in October and November surveys, perhaps being lifted by Americans’ greater confidence in the U.S. economy.
Bottom Line
As the Israel-Hamas war drags on, U.S. support for its ally’s actions in the war is slipping. This follows Gallup’s February poll finding that Americans hold less positive views of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Like many issues, U.S. partisans find themselves on opposing sides. Most Republicans, though fewer than in the fall, support Israel's actions, while the vast majority of Democrats are opposed. Independents’ opinions are now much closer to those of Democrats.
Although Americans rate Biden's handling of the conflict poorly, his overall job approval rating is no lower now than before the conflict began. The issue does not register highly when Americans are asked to name the most important problem facing the U.S. Nor does it rank highly when Americans rate each of several international issues as critical threats to U.S. vital interests. It could hurt the president by dampening turnout among would-be Biden voters who care deeply about the issue and are upset with his handling of the situation. ...Read More
|
|
Photo: Over 1,000 workers have simultaneously blocked four arms factories across the UK which provide components for arms used by Israel in its bombardment of Gaza.
Trade Unionists Shut Down UK Arms Factories Demanding Halt Of Arms Exports To Israel
Over 600 workers undeterred by UK Government’s ‘threats’ to pro-Palestine protest
By Hannah Davenport
defenddemocracy.press
March 21, 2024 - Hundreds of trade unionists have blockaded major arms factories in England and Scotland today demanding the UK Government halt arms supplies to Israel.
Access to UK arms factories which produce components for Israeli fighter jets have been shut down this morning, according to the group Workers for a Free Palestine, in order to disrupt the flow of arms to the Israeli military.
It follows the Canadian Government’s announcement last night that it will stop arms sales to Israel after a parliamentary motion was passed in the House of Commons. Many are demanding the UK government do the same as well as supporting an immediate and permanent ceasefire.
Over 600 workers are involved in the blockade, including teachers, hospitality workers, academics and artists from trade unions including Unite, Unison, GMB, the NEU, the BMA, UCU, Bectu and BFAWU.
GE Aviation Systems in Cheltenham and Leonardo UK in Edinburgh have been targeted as the factories produce components for F-35 fighter jets which are currently being used by Israeli forces in its brutal attacks on Gaza.
As Israel prepares for a ground invasion of Rafah, a supposed ‘safe’ place according to Israel holding 1.5m people, workers are defying the UK Government’s threats to curb protest to shine a light on Britain’s continued provision of military support to Israel despite damning evidence of war crimes being committed.
Cam, a local resident taking part in the action said they don’t blame the workers at the sites, but the bosses who sell the components.
Read also:
Jeremy Corbyn: a Man Who Didn’t Try to Fashion a Career
“We can’t allow arms being used to massacre Palestinians to be supplied in our name and funded by our taxes, and as local residents we don’t want murder being manufactured on our doorstep,” said Cam. “It makes us feel complicit.”
Trade unionist and Workers for a Free Palestine organizer Laura said government ‘threats’ will not stop Brits organizing, as the majority of the British public support a ceasefire.
“It’s ludicrous to suggest the extremists are those of us who want to stop genocide, rather than the politicians and companies which arm it,” said Laura.
“We will not be cowed by such threats. Today’s arms factory shutdowns are a defiant response to these intimidation tactics during a month of direct action answering the call of Palestinian trade unions on workers around the world to disrupt Israel’s murderous war machine.”
Workers for a Free Palestine said the blockades will form part of a month of disruptive direct action while the humanitarian crisis and heartbreaking loss of life in Palestine continues.
Today an IPC report warned of an imminent famine in Gaza and over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military. ...Read More
|
|
Black Women Are Struggling To Stand Tall
By Jamala Rogers
Black Commentator
I cherish every March when the triumphs and contributions of women get a spotlight during Women’s History Month. The brilliance of women of color, particularly women of African descent, desperately struggles to reach its full luminosity under the burgeoning systems of oppression. A designated month of positivity cannot obscure the disturbing statistics that increasingly engulf Black women.
We are the backbone of the labor force. We are the nurturers of the children. We are the caretakers of our communities. The heavy load that Black women have shouldered for generations is taking its toll as the political climate becomes more anti-Black, anti-women and anti-trans.
There are many reports that track the well-being of Black girls and women including the recently released “Women’s Incarceration: The Whole Pie” by the Prison Policy Initiative. They chart a trajectory of unhealthy futures for Black girls and women:
- Black mothers (regardless of their class status) and their babies have the highest mortality rates of any other racial and ethnic background.
- Black women participate in the workforce at much higher rates than most other women yet earn less than all other racial or gender groups.
- Black women experience higher unemployment and poverty rates than the U.S. average for other women.
- Black women are subjected to high levels of racism, sexism, and discrimination at levels not experienced by Black men or White women.
- Black women and girls make up only 7 percent of the U.S. population and come up missing or murdered more than any other race or ethnicity.
- Black women are two and a half times more likely to be murdered by men than their white counterparts.
- One out of five Black women will report being raped during their lifetimes - a higher rate than among women overall; many more will never report their sexual assaults.
- Black girls account for 32 percent of all girls in juvenile facilities despite making up just 14 percent of girls under 18 years nationwide.
- Black women are imprisoned at nearly twice the rate of white women.
Given this reality, it should come as no surprise that our mental health is taking a hit. Suicide rates among Black women and girls have climbed for the last two decades. The stereotype of the strong, resilient Black woman who can survive anything is literally killing us.
This is a situation that calls for serious rethinking and regrouping of our current conditions on both personal and socio-political levels. Black women must rethink our lifestyles and relationships so that we are (re)aligned physically, emotionally and spiritually.
Our intergenerational sisterhood has kept us from drowning in the tumultuous waters of racial capitalism where we are devalued as humans. But we need more support, a different kind of support system. We call on our forward-thinking brothers and other allies to join us in a strategy that affirms healthy men and women who are responsible for raising healthy children and creating healthy and sustainable communities.
Together, we must demand from our government what our tax dollars are supposed to fund and I’m not even talking about reparations yet. The safety net, the housing incentives, the entrepreneur programs and more are designed to keep people from sinking into the abyss of poverty and psychological meltdowns.
Together, our community must draw from our talents and skills to create a world that respects and protects us as a people. This means embracing the important, personal transformative work so that we understand the harmful manifestations of internalized oppression. If we let it, the violence that is escalating in mainstream society will find its way into our homes, our relationships, our parenting.
Black Lives Matter is not just a slogan directed at the white supremacist world order. It is a daily reminder for all of us of African descent to resist the infectious virus of self-loathing and self-destruction spawned and perpetuated by our oppressors.
There is an African proverb that says, “When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.” We must remember the work to be done is not sequential with an endpoint, it is overlapping and ongoing. Together. ...Read More
|
|
Photo: Phyllis Bennis and Gaza ruins via Democracy Now
UN Security Council's Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution Is a Start
Despite weaknesses and false U.S. claims that the resolution is nonbinding, it demands an end to the bombing and a massive influx of humanitarian aid.
By Phyllis Bennis
LA Progressive
March 26, 2024 - Five and half months into Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza with more than 32,000 Palestinians already killed, six weeks after the International Court of Justice found Israel plausibly committing genocide and ordered it to stop, and after four earlier tries, the UN Security Council on Monday finally passed a resolution submitted by all ten elected members aiming to stop the slaughter.
The resolution has lots of weaknesses and shows the effects of U.S. pressure—but it demands an end to the bombing and a massive influx of food and medicine. And that means the possibility of saving lives.
The resolution demanded an immediate ceasefire leading to a lasting and sustainable ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and compliance with international law in treatment of all those detained. The Council also demanded “the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale,” reminding the world of the need for massive expansion of that aid and for protection of Palestinian civilians across the entire Gaza Strip.
The resolution’s passage was uncertain until the very last moment. An hour before the vote, U.S. diplomats won a final concession—replacing the original demand for a “permanent” ceasefire” to the squishier, less clear “lasting.” And there are significant other weaknesses in the resolution.
When U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield claimed that the Council vote was “nonbinding,” she was setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the UN Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution’s terms.
The most important flaw in the Council’s text is that it calls for a ceasefire only “for the month of Ramadan.” This most important of Muslim holidays began on March 11, so the demand for a ceasefire is only for about two weeks. And while it does demand that the immediate halt lead to a lasting ceasefire, two weeks is still a much too-short time.
Other problems reflect deliberate obfuscation of language. The demand that all parties treat “all persons they detain” in compliance with international law clearly refers to the thousands of Palestinian detainees Israel is holding, many in administration detention without even the pretense of legitimate legal procedures, whom international law requires to be immediately released. Their detention violates a host of those laws, but by not naming them directly, diplomatic wrangling always threatens to deny them their rights.
And in the paragraph focusing on the catastrophic humanitarian situation across Gaza, the Council’s demand for “lifting all barriers to provision of humanitarian aid at scale” should be a clear and straightforward message to Israel that it must open the gates, end its rejection of goods on the spurious grounds of potential “dual use,” replace its deliberately complex and time-consuming inspection processes and more. But that reference to “lifting all barriers” is hidden in a long sentence within a reference to an earlier resolution. The first part of the sentence merely “emphasizes” the need for more humanitarian aid and protection for Palestinian civilians. And in UN diplo-speak, especially in the Security Council that actually has the right to enforce its resolutions, “emphasizing” something ain’t even close to “demanding” that it happen.
Israel was still not pleased, of course. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately announced his delegation, expected in Washington tomorrow to discuss Tel Aviv’s planned escalation against Rafah, will stay home instead.
But even if the resolution is not all it should be, its passage (14 in favor, the U.S. abstained) still represents a powerful global rejection of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault against Palestinians in Gaza, and an important expression of support for the South African-led intervention at the International Court of Justice designed to prevent or stop Israeli genocide and to hold Israel accountable for its crimes. Importantly, and despite U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield’s false claim following the vote, all decisions of the Council, as stated in Article 25 of the UN Charter, are binding on Member States.
That puts a big obligation on the U.S. and global movements for ceasefire, massive escalation of humanitarian aid, and resumption of funding UNRWA. Left to its own devices, the Council will almost never move to enforce its own decisions. That responsibility, that obligation, lies with our movements—and, in the UN context, with the General Assembly. The legacy of the South Africa anti-apartheid movement, especially through the 1970s and 80s, and into the early 1990s, shows that model.
The U.S. and Britain over and over again vetoed resolutions in the Security Council for sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Over and over again the General Assembly passed the resolutions—for banking, trade, and other sanctions, for arms embargoes and much more. Eventually, public pressure against Washington and London forced a pull-back, and eventually, reluctantly and grudgingly, those governments gave in, stopped vetoing the Council resolutions and started abiding by the calls of the Assembly. It all played a huge role in ending South African apartheid.
Left to its own devices, the Council will almost never move to enforce its own decisions. That responsibility, that obligation, lies with our movements—and, in the UN context, with the General Assembly.
When U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield claimed that the Council vote was “nonbinding,” she was setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the UN Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution’s terms. But enforcement of Council decisions can take shape in many forms—protest movements around the world can demand their governments move to pressure Israel to abide by the Council’s demands.
The General Assembly can urge Member States to impose some of those same sanctions it used so successfully against apartheid South Africa. Maybe the Assembly and global movements together can escalate the call urging boycotts of Israeli products, divestment from companies profiting from Israel’s occupation or apartheid, and sanctions on banking transactions or trade, and the imposition of arms embargoes. ...Read More
|
|
Photo: Protesters outside the Supreme Court. Photograph by Maansi Srivastava / NYT / Redux
The Shameless Oral Arguments in the
Supreme Court’s Abortion-Pill Case
Even some conservative Justices seemed unpersuaded by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s claims.
By Amy Davidson Sorkin
The New Yorker
March 27, 2024 - There were times, during the oral arguments on Tuesday in the Supreme Court case about mifepristone, an abortion pill, when the Justices seemed struck by the shamelessness of what the litigants trying to limit access to the drug were demanding. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put it, “I’m worried that there is a significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that is being sought.”
The case, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, stems from the A.H.M.’s claim that some of its members are anti-abortion doctors who might someday suffer a “conscience injury” as the result of being asked to treat a patient who needed care after taking mifepristone. Such personal objections, the group says, give it what’s known as “standing” to go to court and demand that the F.D.A. rewrite its rules to limit access to mifepristone for everyone—even in states where abortion is legal.
As Jackson pointed out, “the obvious common-sense remedy” would be to provide any such doctors with an exemption—which, as it happens, they already have. Federal law allows doctors to decline to take part in an abortion at any stage. The A.H.M. wants “more than that,” Jackson said. “And I guess I’m just trying to understand how they could possibly be entitled to that.”
She wasn’t the only Justice to wonder. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was part of the conservative majority that overturned Roe v. Wade in the 2022 case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, had only one question during the oral arguments. He wanted the Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, who was arguing on behalf of the F.D.A., to confirm that federal law exempts doctors from having to participate “or assist” in abortions. She did (noting that the fact that federal funds go to health-care providers gives the government that prerogative) and said that many state laws add to those protections. Justice Amy Coney Barrett followed up to ask if the exemption would apply even to “transfusions or D. & C.s”—dilation and curettages—“after the abortion is otherwise complete because tissue needs to be removed.” Yes, Prelogar said, again.
Barrett’s question was relevant because of the scenarios that the A.H.M. had spun out to try to justify its position. The group was represented by Erin Hawley, who is married to the Republican senator Josh Hawley, of Missouri. (All three lawyers who appeared before the Court on Tuesday—Prelogar, Hawley, and Jessica Ellsworth, who represented Danco Laboratories, the drug’s manufacturer—are women.) Hawley argued that the exemption isn’t good enough, because of the possible “emergency nature” of encounters that the group’s members might have with a hypothetical patient.
This is far-fetched; mifepristone is very safe, and Prelogar, citing one study, noted that half of the very small percentage of people who do go to an emergency room after taking it end up needing no treatment at all. (In some cases, they are simply unsure about how the procedure is progressing.) The idea that a complication might occur involving, say, an incomplete abortion that has to be carried to the end, and that there would be any barrier to a particular doctor belonging to the A.H.M. invoking the exemption (a circumstance that hospitals tend to plan for) verges on the fantastical. Perhaps because of that unlikelihood, Hawley seemed to take the position that any post-abortion care would be a problem, too.
To an extent, that claim of outrage may have been made simply to get an anti-mifepristone case before the Court. But it also betrays a certain heartlessness. Hawley envisioned a doctor encountering a patient—who might, for example, be losing blood—and not knowing why that person needed care: “It could be a miscarriage, it could be an ectopic pregnancy, or it could be an elective abortion.” As a result, the doctor couldn’t instantly be sure whether the patient was a person they thought deserved their help—or whether they would rather walk away. The Justices struggled to get Hawley to lay out the limits of what she meant when she said that the doctors could not be “complicit” in the patient’s care. “Handing them a water bottle?” Jackson asked.
At other times, Hawley suggested that the exemption wasn’t sufficient because invoking it would be “stressful.” Days with cases like these were not “why they entered the medical profession.” That position at least has the advantage of suggesting that the doctors might have some qualms about where their ideological or religious position had led them. But it’s far from a basis for forcing the F.D.A. to limit access. As Ellsworth, the Danco lawyer, argued, allowing litigants to challenge F.D.A.-licensed drugs on such attenuated grounds would have consequences beyond abortion, allowing for all manner of challenges and upending the drug-approval system.
The F.D.A. approved mifepristone in 2000. (It had been used in other countries even earlier.) In 2016, the F.D.A. changed the number of clinical visits required for a medical abortion from three, over the course of fourteen days, to a single initial visit. It also approved the drug for use up to the tenth week of pregnancy (the limit had previously been seven). There were further changes in 2021—allowing for a telemedicine clinical visit, and for pharmacies to mail the pills. The A.H.M. has been trying to undo the 2000 authorization and everything that followed it, and thus take mifepristone off the market entirely; so far, it has succeeded in getting a lower court to undo only the 2016 and 2021 changes. That order has been stayed pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The possibility of getting a prescription for a medication abortion after a telemedicine appointment has, unsurprisingly, become increasingly important in the wake of Dobbs. Fourteen states have almost entirely banned abortion. In another breathtaking leap, Hawley claimed that the real victims of these prohibitions were, of all people, anti-abortion doctors.
She cited statistics from the Guttmacher Institute suggesting that a growing number of people have been compelled to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. Such women, she reckoned, would return to homes far away from their abortion provider, and thus be more likely to “turn E.R. rooms into those follow-up visits”—increasing the likelihood that they would encounter one of the A.H.M.’s morally aggrieved members. Anti-abortion groups might have thought of that before they drove clinics in so many states to close. The building once occupied by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization is now a high-end consignment store.
At one point, when Hawley was dodging Jackson’s questions about the breadth of the remedy she sought, Justice Neil Gorsuch jumped in. “We have before us a handful of individuals who have asserted a conscience objection,” Gorsuch said. “And this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on—on—on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal-government action.” Gorsuch, a conservative, didn’t seem satisfied by Hawley’s answer, which was, again, to say that the doctors’ options weren’t good and that limiting access was “appropriate.”
Not all the conservative Justices seemed skeptical of the A.H.M. position. Justice Samuel Alito was almost openly hostile to the F.D.A. and to Danco, demanding to know who, if not A.H.M., would be in a position to sue to block the drug if the F.D.A. was wrong about its safety. (One answer was that cases could be brought through the tort system.) And he asked Ellsworth if Danco’s interest in the case is that “you’re going to make more money”—suggesting that the company was just a greedy abortion-pushing profiteer. But on this day, in this case, it seemed that there should be enough Justices, with enough of a sense of how radical the case before them was, to keep women in need of abortion care from being entirely abandoned. ...Read More
|
|
Photo: Maria Bartiromo talks to Sen. Rick Scott on Fox Business on Tuesday, March 26, 2024. (Fox Business)
Conservatives Wasted No Time Getting Wildly Racist About the Baltimore Bridge Collapse
Even as the search continued for survivors, the right-wing ecosystem was using the tragedy to smear immigrants and Black people.
By Rebekah Entralgo
The Nation
For most people, the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore on Tuesday was a shocking disaster. But for many in the conservative world, it was a chance to do their favorite thing: inject racism into the discourse.
Even as first responders searched the frigid waters of the Patapsco River for survivors, the right-wing machine was using the tragedy to fuel its never-ending xenophobic and bigoted campaign against immigrants and perceived “wokeism.”
“The White House has issued a statement on this saying that there’s no indication of nefarious intent in the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge,” Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo told her guest, Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.). “But of course, you’ve been talking a lot about the potential for wrongdoing or the potential for foul play given the wide open border.”
On X, formerly known as Twitter, verified right-wing users–boosted by the site’s algorithm—shared videos of Brandon Scott, the Black, 39-year-old mayor of Baltimore, with racist dog whistles.
“This is Baltimore’s DEI mayor commenting on the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge,” wrote one user with over 250,000 followers. “It’s going to get so, so much worse. Prepare accordingly.”
Conservative lawmakers also joined in, hoping to leverage the tragedy to gain cultural and political clout among their rabid base. Phil Lyman, a Republican state representative and current candidate for governor of Utah, responded to a post from the Young Conservative Federation targeting Port of Baltimore Commissioner Karenthia Barber, a Black woman whose professional biography describes her as specializing in “diversity, equity and inclusion audits and consulting,” among other things.
“This is what happens when you have Governors who prioritize diversity over the wellbeing and security of citizens,” he wrote. In a follow-up tweet he added, “DEI=DIE.”
The governor in question—Maryland’s Wes Moore—is, like Mayor Scott, a young, Black man.
The bridge’s collapse, which officials say occurred after a cargo ship lost power and crashed into a support column, has laid bare the extent to which conservatives will seize any opportunity to warp our collective reality to further their cultural crusade against immigrants and Black people.
As much as those on the right would like for the general electorate to submit to their narrative that the nation is under siege—if not by undocumented immigrants then liberal bureaucrats pushing an “anti-white” agenda—the reality on the ground does not bear that out.
Setting aside the lie that diversity and incompetence go hand in hand, the notion that, for instance, Scott—who was overwhelmingly elected to lead a majority-Black city after nearly a decade on the city council—is some kind of diversity hire is laughable on its face. But it provides cover for what conservatives really want to say, which is that a young Black mayor is unqualified, ill-equipped, and culpable for any tragedy.
While federal investigators believe the bridge collapse is not the result of terrorism or any intentional act, immigrants are involved in the catastrophe, though just not in a way that serves the narrative of Fox News. Six construction workers, who were working the overnight shift fixing potholes on the Francis Scott Key Bridge when it collapsed, remain missing and are feared dead. All six are young Latino men originally from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, with families living in Baltimore’s close-knit immigrant neighborhoods of Highlandtown and Dundalk.
“They are all hard-working, humble men,” Jesus Campos, an employee of contractor Brawner Builders—whose workers are among the missing—told The Baltimore Banner through a translator. Campos added that all of them came to the city for a better life—not necessarily for themselves, but for the loved ones they left behind.
“I feel devastated with what happened. They are all my friends, they are coworkers. I feel very sad,” he said.
It is these men’s lives—and their possible deaths—along with the mere existence of a majority-Black city led by Black elected officials, that the conservative media ecosystem so gleefully exploits for their own political gain. ...Read More
|
|
Digging Deeper into the Current Conjuncture: |
|
|
Photo: The U.S. has had several fascist leaders and movements in its history, but the danger of MAGA looms over them all. From left: Silver Legion leader William Dudley Pelley in fascist uniform; Henry Ford receives a medal of appreciation from Nazi Germany for his work in the U.S. to spread anti-Semitic views; radio priest Father Coughlin rails against communism and Judaism; famed aviator Charles Lindbergh offers a fascist salute at an America First rally. | Illustration: People's World
Why are the MAGA Republicans the most dangerous fascists in U.S. history?
There has always been a fascist strain in the U.S. but MAGA adds a new and more dangerous element.
By John Wojcik
People's World
March 28, 2024 - Back in the 1930s and ’40s, and even before that, there were fascist operatives in the U.S. with significant followings. Their aim was to destroy the U.S. government and remake America in their own image.
William Dudley Pelley, leader of the fascist Silver Legion and the Christian Party during the Great Depression, espoused many of the same things put forward by Christian nationalists of today. He relied on right-wing followers to provide the soldiers for his movement and dressed them in silver shirts, modeled on Hitler’s Brownshirts and Mussolini’s Blackshirts.
His anti-Semitic party promoted a program full of the kind of positions backed by the modern-day religious and fascist right. The torch-light paraders in Charlottesville who Trump said were “very fine people” would have felt at home in Pelley’s movement.
Some know about the 1933 Wall Street “Business Plot” to remove President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace him with a military dictator, but most have forgotten these days about another planned fascist revolt that involved figures at the highest levels of power in Washington.
In the 1944 “Sedition Trial,” dozens of people were charged for plotting to undermine democracy with help directly from Hitler’s Germany—a scheme that involved several sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate who were using taxpayer dollars to pump Nazi propaganda into American homes. Connected to these figures were well-armed groups who schemed to kill Roosevelt and install a fascist dictatorship.
Unfortunately, the judge died during the proceedings, leading to a mistrial. Furthermore, the war had turned against the Germany at this point, and with the Justice Department slow to prosecute the case in the first place (Doesn’t that sound familiar?) the whole matter was dropped.
There was an attempt to start up the prosecutions again during the Truman presidency, but it’s been reported that when he saw how many still-sitting members of Congress had been among the Nazi plotters, he ordered again that the whole affair be swept under the rug.
Other fascist and pro-Nazi figures active at the time included people like Charles Lindbergh, the aviator, Fr. Charles Coughlin, the infamous right-wing radio priest, and, who could forget, the big American capitalist, Henry Ford. Friendship with Hitler’s Germany was a cause dear to them all.
Lindbergh was a prominent voice in the isolationist and racist America First Committee, lending his name and support to it. At its peak, the organization had over 800,000 members and 450 chapters across the country. He openly espoused anti-Semitic views, opposed U.S. aid to Britain following Hitler’s attack, and encouraged Germany to invade the Soviet Union.
Coughlin was a Roman Catholic priest who had a radio show with 30 million listeners that he blasted daily with extreme right-wing propaganda. There was no internet or television in those days, and the population of the U.S. was only 130 million, so you can see how influential Coughlin was able to be.
He was so much of a problem that FDR called the Pope to complain about him, but the Pope himself was not, at that time, so sure that he actually wanted to be known as an anti- fascist. So, the Vatican didn’t do much at all to help out Roosevelt.
Coughlin told his listeners that ballots would eventually become useless and would have to be replaced with bullets. “It is fascism or communism,” Coughlin repeatedly told his listeners. “We are at a crossroads, and I take the road to fascism.” The “Christian Front,” which was guided by his broadcasts, worked with the German-American Bund, attacked organized labor, and promoted boycotts of Jewish businesses. Hundreds of National Guard and NYPD officers were members.
It was Henry Ford, however, who stood out as one of the most influential fascist leaders of the era. Known as the inventor of the iconic Model-T Ford automobile, the capitalist entrepreneur was one of the most prolific English-language fascist writers of all time. He was one of those men who felt they would make the greatest of dictators, if only the masses could be made to see it.
By 1918, he was already writing that Jews were responsible for everything wrong with the world. High on the list of Jewish crimes, he said, was their role in supporting the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In the U.S., he said, Jews had ruined culture, music, and baseball.
He ran his own anti-Semitic newspaper in Michigan and distributed half-a-million copies of his book, The International Jew, to his huge network of car dealerships and subscribers. He did more than any other fascist leader to take anti-Semitism mainstream in the U.S.
Ford was the only American, in fact the only non-German, that Hitler wrote about in his Mein Kampf. When a reporter from the Detroit News interviewed Hitler in his office in Munich, she came back to the States describing how the Nazi leader has a portrait of Ford hanging on the wall behind his desk. Hitler told her, “Ford taught us how to be the most effective anti-Semites.”
In picking out Nazi sympathizers in those days, people often said one should look at the pictures they have in their offices or on their walls. A better question in some cases would have been, “Of what Americans do famous Nazis have pictures on their walls?”
False narratives let fascists in the door
These figures and their movements fought tooth and nail to either keep the U.S. out of World War II altogether or, if not, then to enter the fight on the side of Nazi Germany. The narrative so many of us grew up with was that we in the U.S. were the anti-fascist “good guys” who defeated the evil fascists overseas and made the world safe for democracy. Obviously, though, not everyone here at home was on board with that mission. ...Read More
|
|
|
|
Why We Can’t Stop Arguing About Whether Trump Is a Fascist
In a new book, “Did it Happen Here?,” scholars debate what the F-word conceals and what it reveals.
By Andrew Marantz
The New Yorker
March 27, 2024 - At this point, we know everything there is to know about Donald Trump. His diehard admirers—not all seventy-four million people who voted for him in the 2020 election but his immovable base, maybe thirty per cent of Republicans—admire him still, now more than ever.
Is he a racist? Sure, by many definitions. Is he a sexual abuser? Yes, according to at least one jury. Is he corrupt? Cartoonishly so. Would he like to be a “dictator”? Perhaps, if you take him at his word, although, on second thought, his word is famously unreliable.
Yet he is his party’s presump-tive nominee, without even having to sweat for it, and, if you believe most polls, he is favored to win in November.
Among the nonadmirers, the debate continues. Not about whether all of this is no-good, very bad news but about how, exactly, Trump and Trumpism are bad—how to put the man and the movement in historical context. “He is an authoritarian personality devoid of any commitment to the rule of law, political tradition, or even ideology,” the emeritus Columbia historian Robert O. Paxton wrote, in 2017, in Harper’s Magazine. “Are we therefore looking at a fascist? Not really.” Paxton, one of the preëminent scholars of twentieth-century European Fascism, acknowledged that many elements of Trump’s rhetorical style and political program were “fascist staples.” Still, the dissimilarities, in his view, outweighed the similarities.
But history keeps happening, and historians’ minds can change. Here’s Paxton again, a few days after January 6, 2021, contra himself. The headline, in Newsweek, was “I’ve Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now.” “Trump’s incitement of the invasion of the Capitol,” Paxton wrote, “crosses a red line. The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary.”
The latter piece is collected in the new volume “Did It Happen Here?: Perspectives on Fascism and America” (Norton), which brings together a lot of short essays like Paxton’s: scholars and journalists writing in an urgent (sometimes breathless) persuasive mode. It would be a stretch to call it light reading, but it does go quickly, in part because it’s full of such reversals.
Spend a few pages with Sarah Churchwell, an Americanist at the University of London, and it’s easy to entertain the possibility that the shoe fits (“It matters very little whether Trump is a fascist in his heart if he’s fascist in his actions”). Flip to Richard J. Evans, an emeritus Cambridge historian, and suddenly the clown shoes look several sizes too big (“American democracy is damaged, but it survives”). The collection starts with what it calls “classic texts” (Umberto Eco’s “Ur-Fascism,” Hannah Arendt’s “The Seeds of a Fascist International”) before turning to contemporary concerns (climate change, social media) and reconsiderations of the classics, with every side citing Arendt for its purpose. “Arendt cautioned against prematurely crying totalitarianism in a U.S. context,” the writer Rebecca Panovka notes, quite reasonably, although, of course, Arendt also wouldn’t have wanted us to sound the alarm too late.
The Princeton philosopher Jan-Werner Müller is not convinced (at least so far) that Trumpism is a species of fascism—he prefers to call it “far-right populism”—yet he concedes the simple point that “it would be foolish to start reflecting on fascism only when it is fully fledged.” Gaze at the whole picture for long enough, and you can will yourself to see the line drawing as either a rabbit or a duck; trying to see both perspectives at once is a good way to expand your dystopic imagination, or to give yourself a headache. Did it happen here? To misquote another democratically elected, democratically impeached President, it depends on what the definition of “it” is.
Does it matter? Or is this just semantic hairsplitting—a coterie of blinkered progressives trying to police one another’s language? Many of the writers in the collection are deceased, European, or ensconced at élite universities in Connecticut or Massachusetts—not exactly key swing demographics in the 2024 election. There are no Never Trump Republicans represented in the book, much less full-throated Trump apologists. Yet the purpose of a collection like this is not representation but analytical precision. Historical context is indispensable, but Trumpism is not mere history. It shapes our present, and it could dominate our future. Something happened here. If we can’t be clear-eyed about what it was, then how can we prepare for what might happen here—maybe again, maybe anew—in a few months?
If Fascism is a distinctly historical phenomenon, something that took place only in Western Europe in the middle of the twentieth century, then it can’t happen here, by definition. (As the old Internet joke goes, it’s only true fascism if it comes from Italy; otherwise, it’s just sparkling authoritarianism.) As soon as you allow for a broader definition, though, the debate becomes more subjective. In the nineteen-teens, Benito Mussolini adopted the fasces, a bundle of sticks with an axe at its center, as a symbol of military might and unity of purpose. Even in its original form, fascism represented a bunch of conflicting impulses bound together—“a beehive of contradictions,” in Eco’s words. (Some have claimed that Trumpism is too devoid of consistent ideological content to be mapped onto any previous movement; others have countered that its fluidity makes it more like fascism, not less.) The sociologist Dylan Riley, in the New Left Review, writes that “the interwar fascist regimes were a product of inter-imperial warfare and capitalist crisis, combined with a revolutionary threat from the left.” He argues that the structural conditions in the contemporary U.S.—no military draft, a “smaller, weaker” left, and a relatively stable two-party system—do not justify the comparison. “Preparing for war,” Evans points out, “defined fascist theory and praxis.” Trump does enjoy a military parade, but, Evans continues, “there is no indication . . . that he has been consumed by a desire for foreign conquest.”
Paxton, in his canonical 2004 book, “The Anatomy of Fascism,” attempts to define fascism in one overbrimming sentence: “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline . . . in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues . . . internal cleansing and external expansion.” ...Read More
|
|
|
|
Photo: A gun rights advocate with an “I VOTED” sticker on his holster gathers with others for an annual rally on the steps of the state Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., Monday, May 6, 2019. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
Fearing Political Violence, More States Ban Firearms At Polling Places
Two Pennsylvania lawmakers introduced a bill in February that would prohibit guns inside a building where votes were being cast
By Matt Vasilogambros And Kim Lyons
Penn-Capital Star
March 24, 2024 - Facing increased threats to election workers and superheated political rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and his supporters, more states are considering firearm bans at polling places and ballot drop boxes ahead of November’s presidential election.
This month, New Mexico became the latest state to restrict guns where people vote or hand in ballots, joining at least 21 other states with similar laws — some banning either open or concealed carry but most banning both.
Nine of those prohibitions were enacted in the past two years, as states have sought to prevent voter intimidation or even violence at the polls driven by Trump’s false claims of election rigging. At least six states are debating bills that would ban firearms at polling places or expand existing bans to include more locations.
In Pennsylvania, state Reps. Tim Brennan (D-Bucks) and Mary Jo Daley (D-Montgomery) introduced a bill in February that would prohibit the carrying of firearms at all polling places. House Bill 2077 would not apply to law enforcement or military personnel on duty at polling places, and anyone licensed to carry a firearm could keep the firearm in their vehicle while voting, but not bring it into the building where votes are being cast.
“Over the years, we have heard more and more about voters and election workers being threatened, harassed, or intimidated at polling places,” the two write in a memo for HB 2077. “As a result, many voters have expressed concerns about voting in person at their assigned polling location, and many voting districts have struggled to find or retain volunteers to work at such locations.”
Daley told the Capital-Star that when she was a committee member in the 1990s she remembers someone coming to a polling place with a gun and it frightened the poll workers. “And we were in a much more peaceful time then,” she said. Daley added she has introduced similar legislation several times but with Democrats in the minority in the House until 2022, there was little chance of it moving forward.
HB 2077 was referred to the House State Government committee March 5. “I think it’d be great to bring it up because quite honestly, we have some members who talk about the value of life, but that doesn’t seem to bear out all lives,” Daley said.
“When you think of elections in Pennsylvania, it’s a community activity,” Daley added. “But it doesn’t mean that some communities aren’t really struggling with this issue.”
New Mexico law
The New Mexico measure, which was supported entirely by Democrats, applies to within 100 feet of polling places and 50 feet of ballot drop boxes. People who violate the law are subject to a petty misdemeanor charge that could result in six months in jail.
“Our national climate is increasingly polarized,” said Democratic state Rep. Reena Szczepanski, one of the bill’s sponsors. “Anything we can do to turn the temperature down and allow for the safe operation of our very basic democratic right, voting, is critical.”
She told Stateline that she and her co-sponsors were inspired to introduce the legislation after concerned Santa Fe poll workers, who faced harassment by people openly carrying firearms during the 2020 presidential election, reached out to them.
Our national climate is increasingly polarized. Anything we can do to turn the temperature down and allow for the safe operation of our very basic democratic right, voting, is critical. -– New Mexico Democratic state Rep. Reena Szczepanski
The bill carved out an exception for people with concealed carry permits and members of law enforcement. Still, every Republican in the New Mexico legislature opposed the measure; many said they worried that gun owners might get charged with a crime for accidentally bringing their firearm to the polling place.
“We have a lot of real crime problems in this state,” said House Minority Floor Leader Ryan Lane, a Republican, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month. “It’s puzzling to me why we’re making this a priority.”
But over the past several years, national voting rights and gun violence prevention advocates have been sounding the alarm over increased threats around elections, pointing to ballooning disinformation, looser gun laws, record firearm sales and vigilantism at polling locations and ballot tabulation centers.
In February, Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt said that the that the turnover among experienced election officials in Pennsylvania counties is “a real concern” ahead of the 2024 elections. Some 70 senior directors or those directly underneath them have left, Schmidt said.
National surveys show that election officials have left the field in droves because of the threats they’re facing, and many who remain in their posts are concerned for their safety.
Add in aggressive rhetoric from Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and it becomes “a storm” that makes it essential for states to pass laws that prohibit guns at polling places, said Robyn Sanders, a Democracy Program counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights group based at the New York University School of Law.
“Our democracy has come under new and unnerving pressure based on the emergence of the election denial movement, disinformation and false narratives about the integrity of our elections,” said Sanders, who co-authored a September report on how to protect elections from gun violence. The report was a partnership between the Brennan Center and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.and are ineffective... ...Read More
|
|
China’s Goals for 2024: 5% Growth, 12 Million New Jobs
China’s top political event of the year, the 'two sessions,' which sets the government’s economic and social agenda, began Monday.
By Sixth Tone
March 05, 2024
China aims to bolster its economy with a growth target of around 5% and create over 12 million new urban jobs this year, Premier Li Qiang announced Tuesday in Beijing.
He was speaking at the opening session of the National People’s Congress, the country’s top legislature, which meets once a year as part of the annual “two sessions.” The crucial series of gatherings, known as lianghui in Chinese, also includes the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and signals the nation’s economic, social, and political strategies for the year ahead.
China’s economy is on the rebound, with a gross domestic product surpassing 126 trillion yuan ($17.5 trillion) and a growth rate of 5.2% in 2023, Premier Li stated.
In response to hiring pressures, Premier Li, delivering his inaugural work report, stated that the country generated 12.4 million urban jobs in 2023, maintaining an average unemployment rate of 5.2%. He also underscored that the government aims to create over 12 million new jobs this year.
Zhang Bochao, an associate researcher at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Economics, emphasized that the targets reflect a commitment to progress and stability.
“Given the challenges to expanding employment and enhancing household incomes, reaching these objectives necessitates a careful balance between emerging industries and transitioning existing sectors to new economic growth engines, all while deepening reforms,” Zhang told Sixth Tone.
In his work report, Premier Li stated that the economy still faced domestic and international challenges but asserted that “the basic trend of economic recovery and long-term improvement has not changed and will not change.”
Underlining the importance of widespread collaboration, Li emphasized: “Achieving this year’s expected goals will not be an easy task, and requires focused policy efforts, doubled work efforts, and all parties to work together.”
China has already initiated a series of measures to meet its objectives, particularly toward promoting a “national unified market.” This strategy aims to standardize the domestic market and encourage internal circulation, according to Zhou Ting, an associate researcher at the Institute of Economics, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.
“The national unified market has played a positive role in stabilizing development expectations,” Zhou told Sixth Tone. “It has addressed key issues of local protectionism and market fragmentation, facilitating substantial advancements in market interconnectivity.”
According to her, China is also pursuing a strategy of high-standard opening-up, focused on collaborative development and enhancing the well-being of its citizens.
Premier Li also committed to increasing domestic demand and fostering consistent growth in consumer spending with a year-long program designed to stimulate consumption.
Highlighting China’s technological progress in 2023, Li pointed to the domestically built C919 passenger jet, which began commercial operations, the introduction of the country’s first domestically produced large-scale cruise ships, and the strong performance of China’s electric vehicle industry, which now accounts for 60% of global sales. ...Read More
|
|
New Journals and Books for Radical Education...
Use Changemaker for Your Holiday Gifts,
Thus Lending Us a Hand, Too!
|
|
From Upton
Sinclair's 'Goose Step' to the Neoliberal University
Essays on the Ongoing Transformation of Higher Education
Paperback USD 17.00
This is a unique collection of 15 essays by two Purdue University professors who use their institution as a case-in-point study of the changing nature of the American 'multiversity.' They take a book from an earlier time, Upton Sinclair's 'The Goose-Step A Study of American Education' from 1923, which exposed the capitalist corruption of the ivory tower back then and brought it up to date with more far-reaching changes today. time. They also include, as an appendix, a 1967 essay by SDS leader Carl Davidson, who broke some of the original ground on the subject.
|
|
The Man Who Changed Colors
By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
When a dockworker falls to his death under strange circumstances, investigative journalist David Gomes is on the case. His dogged pursuit of the truth puts his life in danger and upends the scrappy Cape Cod newspaper he works for.
Spend a season on the Cape with this gripping, provocative tale that delves into the
complicated relationships between Cape Verdean Americans and African Americans, Portuguese fascist gangs, and abusive shipyard working conditions. From the author of The Man Who Fell From The Sky.
“Bill Fletcher is a truth seeker and a truth teller – even when he’s writing fiction. Not unlike Bill, his character David Gomes is willing to put his life and career in peril to expose the truth. A thrilling read!” − Tavis Smiley, Broadcaster & NY TIMES Bestselling Author
|
|
VVAW: 50 Years
of Struggle
By Alynne Romo
While most books about VVAW focus on the 1960s and 1970s, this photo-with-text book provides a look at many of actions of VVAW over five decades. Some of VVAW’s events and its stands on issues are highlighted here in stories. Others show up in the running timelines which also include relevant events around the nation or the world. Examples of events are the riots in America’s urban centers, the murders of civil rights leaders or the largely failed missions in Vietnam.
Paul Tabone: This is a must read for anyone who was in the war, who had a loved one in the war, who is interested in history in general or probably more importantly for anyone who wants to see how we repeat history over and over again given the incredible idiot and his minions that currently occupy the White House. To my fellow Viet Nam veterans I say "Welcome Home Brothers". A must read for everyone who considers them self an American. Bravo.
|
|
|
A China Reader
Edited by Duncan McFarland
A project of the CCDS Socialist Education Project & Online University of the Left
244 pages, $20 (discounts available for quantity orders from carld717@gmail.com), or order at :
The book is a selection of essays offering keen insight into the nature of China and its social system, its internal debates, and its history. It includes several articles on the US and China and the growing efforts of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples.
|
|
|
|
Taking Down
White Supremacy
Edited by the CCDS
Socialist Education Project
This collection of 20 essays brings together a variety of articles-theoretical, historical, and experiential-that address multi-racial, multi-national unity. The book provides examples theoretically and historically, of efforts to build multi-racial unity in the twentieth century.
166 pages, $12.50 (discounts available for quantity), order at :
|
|
|
|
Photo: Díaz-Canel in the streets of Santiago de Cuba on May 21; Presidencia Cuba
What Happened On March 17 In Cuba?
The U.S. plan of economic asphyxiation and media toxication
By Charles Mckelvey
charlesmckelvey.substack.com
March 26, 2024
In the March 20 inaugural edition of the YouTube program sponsored by Presidencia Cuba, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel stated that two things happened on March 17, 2024.
The first was a group of persons, understandably bothered by long power cuts and by disruptions in the delivery of food in the state-subsidized monthly food basket, went looking for explanations from local authorities. Groups formed in three localities in the eastern provinces of Santiago de Cuba and Bayamo, numbering approximately 1,000 citizens in total in the three places. Explanations were provided by the local authorities, and the majority of persons were satisfied with the explanations, such that normality was soon reestablished.
The second thing that occurred was the construction from these events of a virtual reality, in which sustained protests and rebellions occurred, converting the affair into something more permanent and of greater magnitude. This simulation was constructed by online clusters of counterrevolutionaries, and it included the use of tools of artificial intelligence. In the simulated construction, the events were presented as continuing into the late evening and early morning hours, when in fact things had returned to normal in the real world in the afternoon.
Díaz-Canel noted that the persons who had assembled were bothered by conditions that had been provoked primarily by the intensification of the blockade against Cuba, which had been initiated by the Trump administration and maintained by Biden. He maintained that the entire affair makes clear the two dimensions of the U.S. strategy with respect to Cuba: economic asphyxiation and media toxication.
On the day of the events, Díaz-Canel posted on his X (Twitter) account that the enemies of the Revolution were taking advantage of difficulties in Cuba with the intention of creating a situation of destabilization. He noted that terrorists in the USA promote acts against the public order in Cuba, through a counterrevolutionary media campaign utilizing the multiplication of messages of hate and subversive content, divulged in anti-Cuban sites and networks, which distort and manipulate the demands expressed by groups of citizens who are reasonably upset with respect to the problems concerning the electric service and the distribution of food.
He further observed that the authorities of the Party and the government are oriented to attending to the demands of the Cuban people. The authorities are disposed to listen, to dialogue, and to explain the numerous efforts that are being made to improve the situation.
On March 17, the Cuban Internet news outlet Cubadebate reported that Beatriz Johnson, First Secretary of the Provincial Committee of the Communist Party in Santiago de Cuba, addressed the concerns of the citizens in front of a city government building in Santiago de Cuba, where a group of persons had gone to express their dissatisfaction with the power cuts and with the distribution of food, especially milk. The Secretary informed them that the distribution of the basic food basket, including three pounds of rice and four pounds of sugar for each person, was in process, and it had attained a partial distribution. A great mobilization was being undertaken by the leadership to respond to these dissatisfactions, she reported. The First Secretary also conversed with the gathering concerning the supply of electricity, which was affected by problems confronted by the thermoelectric centers and by the availability of fuel.
The First Secretary reported in her X account on March 17 on the respectful attitude of the population of Santiago de Cuba. They listened attentively to the explanations being given by the city leadership in relation to the distribution of the basic food basket and milk as well as the power cuts.
In a March 19 Granma editorial entitled “The lords of chaos did not attain their desire,” Raúl Antonio Capote stresses the U.S. financing of a mediatic campaign that was designed to manipulate public opinion on the island, confusing the people and seeding fear, insecurity, and lack of confidence in the revolutionary leadership. He writes, “from the bot farms created by the CIA labs, thousands of fake news stories were launched, multiplied to saturate the receiver, limiting their ability to analyze and respond objectively.” He notes that analyses of websites and social media of recent days show a multiple increase in the “news” related to violent events, massive acts of corruption, and popular protests.
Capote further observes that the demands with respect to power cuts and food distribution were made in a peaceful manner, and Cuban police responded in a non-repressive form. “Anyone who sees the images of our police, without shields, without helmets, without weapons to launch tear gas, without water carts, together with the people, understands the difference between those who called for violence and those people who demanded the attention of the authorities.”
Capote cannot hide his disdain for those who called for violence, who “tried to sow chaos in our cities and towns . . . from the comfortable armchairs of their homes, or hidden behind the webcams of their computers, far away from the streets they wanted to ‘heat up.’” But their discrediting campaign failed: “The blood did not flow, as they wanted, through the streets of the island. Our cities and streets were not set on fire. We Cubans show ourselves with total nobility, never surrendering, always dignified, united, politically mature, and unscathed in the face of slander and lies.”
On March 19, the newly formed Institute of Information and Social Communication presented a report to the chiefs of government in a session chaired by Díaz-Canel and attended by Prime Minister Manuel Marrero and other leaders. The Institute was created as a new entity of the state administration, replacing the Cuban Institute of Radio and Television, in accordance with the new Law of Social Communication, which constituted an implementation of the new Constitution of 2019. At the conclusion of the session, Díaz-Canel made comments with respect to the importance of the Institute, because of the great importance of educating everyone, through communication, including the leaders as well as the people.
The Cuban President declared that one should speak not only of social communication, but also of political communication. We need users participating in the social networks today who are not only users but also communicators, capable of transmitting our content, in response to the “cultural colonialism” of the social media platforms. Political and social communicators who can explain the two-dimensional U.S. strategy of economic asphyxiation, involving the intensification of the blockade and the inclusion of Cuba on the list of terrorist countries; combined with mediatic toxication, characterized by the denunciation of non-existent events, fake news, lies, and false videos, generated with the aid of artificial intelligence. He noted that we still have not been capable, as much as we have tried, of explaining to our people the consequences of being included on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism.
With respect to the events of March 17, Díaz-Canel noted that local leaders conversed with the people and clarified things, and most returned to their homes. He declared that he understands the difficulties with respect to the living conditions in the present time, and that the people are not satisfied. But they also “have to know all that is being done, because there is no one here with their arms crossed, every day we spend most of the time dedicated to the search for solutions.” He also noted that the problems that we have with economic inefficiency in national production are very far from being the fundamental cause of what is happening.
The Cuban President observed that the enemies of the revolution were hoping for a social explosion on March 17, but they did not attain it, because of the unity of the revolutionary leadership, explaining the truth to the people, confronting with the truth the doubts that the people have. Díaz-Canel further observed that on this occasion, the purposes and perversity of the government of the United States has been demonstrated once again, along with its contempt for the people of Cuba and the Cuban Revolution, and “its contempt for our desire to be free, sovereign, independent, and have our self-determination.".
Díaz-Canel reiterated “the willingness of the Cuban government, of the Party, and of our institutions to dialogue with our population, to explain, to convoke, to unite, to work, to continue seeking with our own efforts and with our own talent solutions to the difficult situation in which we are living.”
The inaugural session of the YouTube program “Desde la Presidencia” [“From the Presidency”] was recorded on the evening of March 20. In the initial program, President Díaz-Canel and the Minister of Energy and Mines, Vicente de la O Levy, were interviewed by journalist Arleen Rodríguez, General Coordinator and frequent host of Mesa Redonda, a nightly television news interview program. Rodríguez began by asking Díaz-Canel to explain what occurred on March 17.
The Cuban President explained that there are economic difficulties, including power cuts, shortages in food, and fractures in the distribution of the family food baskets. These problems under-standably bother the population a great deal. He also noted that the basic food basket, which the Cuban government provides in a highly subsidized manner, should be larger, and it should arrive to the people with greater efficiency, which it would if it were not for the limitations imposed by the blockade.
This situation, Díaz-Canel reported, provoked a group of persons in three localities in Santiago de Cuba and Bayamo, involving 500 persons in the first location, 300-400 in the second, and 100 in the third. Basically, they were looking for explanations with respect to two themes: prolonged electric power cuts and the lack of food.
The authorities of the local and provincial governments responded immediately, the President stressed. They presented themselves before the persons to explain the circumstances. The explanation, the President noted, has to do with the intensification of the blockade during the past four years, which has affected the daily life of Cubans and has included the placing of Cuba on a spurious list of nations that sponsor terrorism. In addition, there were some bad administrative decisions due to an element of bureaucratism related to the distribution of the food basket, which were being made in complex conditions, in that there has been a shortage in recent months of fuels fundamental for providing electricity.
We do not always have the foreign currency we need, he declared. In addition, the blockade includes an energy persecution, in which they pressure a company supplying fuel to not do so. They pressure shipowners that could bring the fuel to our ports to not touch Cuban ports. And they pressure insurers of ship cargos.
Díez-Canel noted that long electricity blackouts are very troublesome for the Cuban family. The outages affect the capacity to cook and to supply water. So the authorities explained the reasons, and the majority of the persons that were participating in the interchanges understood. After a relatively short period of time, things returned to normal. Although there were some who chanted counterrevolutionary slogans, creating a situation of possible vandalism, and they were disrespectful to the authorities, as a consequence of mediatic toxication, above all in the social media. Later, there were two or three incidents more in two or three barrios with the participation of ten or twelve persons that were related to such discontent, and they lasted minutes.
That was what happened on Sunday March 17 in real Cuba, Díaz-Canel stated. But there also was a virtual Cuba. A construction from these events, making them longer lasting and of greater magnitude. They constructed a virtual reality, making it appear similar to what had occurred on July 11, 2021, accompanied by a negative media narrative concerning the Revolution.
Díaz-Canel declared that the Cuban revolutionary leadership is convinced that all this has roots in an April 1960 memorandum by the U.S. government official Mallory, which affirmed that the majority of Cubans support the Revolution, and therefore, one must provoke popular discontent through the creation of economic and material difficulties, employing all possible means to weaken the economic life of Cuba, to reduce financial resources and real salaries, provoke hunger and desperation, and derail the government. Today they are applying this strategy.
The empire speaks clearly, Díaz-Canel observed, of its hegemonic intention of dominating all those that seek to live in dignity and defend their sovereignty and self-determination. Accordingly, there is today an intense media discrediting campaign against Cuba.
Thus, the Cuban President observed, we can see that the campaign against Cuba has two dimensions: economic asphyxiation and media toxication. It is a program of cultural colonization and capitalist and neoliberal restauration imposed on Cuba through silent bombs that intend to suffocate our economy, supported with mediatic missiles.
Minister of Mines and Energy de la O Levy explained that on the day of March 17, as in the previous days, there were blackouts of twelve to eighteen hours in some sections of Santiago de Cuba. But, the Minister declared, we had explained to the people that this situation was coming to an end on March 18. The problems provoking the situation had been overcome. We were not yet going to be able to completely end the planned stoppages, but the situation was going to be substantially improved. March 17 was going to be the last day of the prolonged power cuts.
Rodríguez noted that some media, above all those in southern Florida, have stressed that Díaz-Canel always blames the United States. How does he respond?
Díaz-Canel responded that one must speak of the great blame of the government of the United States, because it is fundamental. He believes that the U.S. perspective is perverse: acting to cause problems in the Cuban economy, and then saying that the blame lies with the Cuban government. They apply the blockade, they pressure ships and insurance agencies, they apply illegal extraterritorial laws, they try to pressure investors and countries to not have relations with Cuba, they close the doors to credit and to commerce, and they close income from transmittances. They prohibit North American citizens from traveling to Cuba; and they prohibit cruise ships. That government acts in a manner that provokes shortages in fuel, thus provoking power cuts and important lacks in food, medicine, raw materials, and supplies, affecting our principal productions of goods and services. In addition, they place Cuba on a list of states that supposedly sponsor terrorism. “We have every sovereign right to blame the government of the United States.”
At the same time, Díaz-Canel observed, the evidence in recent days is clear. When these events began, the Cuban authorities, in the exercise of full socialist democracy, went to the places involved to speak with our people. The institutions of the government and the Party always have had full capacity to converse with our people, because there is no separation between the government/Party and the people. We always possess the will to speak, discuss, and dialogue. Decisions in Cuba take into account the opinion of the population and the analysis of the people. The most complex processes in our country are submitted to the debate of the people. We presently, for example, have initiated four processes of discussion, which will arrive to the local communities, concerning the economic measures announced by the Prime Minister at the National Assembly of People’s Power.
The enemies of the Revolution always apply the same method, the Cuban President noted. They focus on peaceful demonstration, and later they speak of police repression, and then of political prisoners; then they speak of ungovernability and of a failed state. Later, they begin to speak of regime change. All this is mounted by influencers and youtubers with a strategy that follows the U.S. manuals of unconventional war.
A high government official of the United States, Díaz-Canel noted, was saying in Twitter that the blockade will continue as long as Cuba does not open to democracy. They do not recognize our democracy, which is much better and much more democratic than theirs. Note their arrogance. They are saying that if the Cuban government and the Cuban people do not assume the democracy that they want to impose, then the blockade will persist... ...Read More
|
|
CHANGEMAKER PUBLICATIONS: Recent works on new paths to socialism and the solidarity economy
Remember Us for Gift Giving and Study Groups
Interested in Studying Gramsci? In a Serious way? We have a group that meets Sundays via Zoom, 11am-12:30pm, facilitated by Piruz Alemi. We go paragraph by paragraph, even line by line, reading aloud, then discussing, through The Prison Notebooks, using an online PDF. If you are interested contact Carl Davidson at carld717@gmail.com
|
|
Treat someone to a wonderful book.
And treat yourself, too!
Powerful stories, wonderful gifts.
As they stand up, slow down, form unions, leave an abusive relationship or just stir up good trouble, the characters in this multi-generation novel entertain and enlighten, make us laugh and rage, and encourage us to love deeply, that we may continue the fight for justice.
"So much fiction is about escape and fantasy, but these powerful Tales of Struggle will enrich our real and daily lives." ─ Gloria Steinem
“What a wonderful story of class, class struggle and regular people. The story is about struggle and change, but also about joy and humor. Great work! ─ Bill Fletcher, Jr., author of Solidarity Divided
Price: $15.00
|
|
Photo credit: Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images
History Lesson of the Week:
A Short History of 1967’s 'Summer of Love'
By U.S. History
In 1967, San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district became the home base for a burgeoning counterculture. Known as the “Summer of Love,” the social movement was defined by a collective rejection of mainstream values and an embrace of ideals centered around peace, love, and personal freedom.
An estimated 100,000 young people descended on the area; these artists, musicians, and drifters — collectively referred to as “hippies” — created an unforgettable cultural shift, touching everything from the way we view the self, to innovations in music, fashion, and art, and our approach to making an impact on society. More than 50 years later, the Summer of Love still dances freely in America’s memory.
The Summer of Love Actually Started in the Winter
Contrary to its name, the Summer of Love actually kicked off in the wintertime. In January 1967, in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, more than 20,000 people who shared a desire for peace, personal empowerment, and unity gathered for an event called the Human Be-In. It was a loud and proud harbinger to the blossoming counterculture movement set to congregate in Haight-Ashbury in just a few months.
The idea for the Human Be-In — also known as the “Gathering of the Tribes” — sprung from the similar, but much smaller, Love Pageant Rally that was held on October 6, 1966 — the day that California made LSD illegal. Organizers Allen Cohen and Michael Bowen, co-founders of the underground newspaper the San Francisco Oracle, wanted to re-create the peace and unity of that day, only on a larger scale. Their aim for the Human Be-In was to spread positivity and bridge the counterculture’s anti-war and hippie communities, while raising awareness around the pressing issues of the time: questioning authority, rethinking consumerism, and opposing the Vietnam War.
On January 14, 1967, the idea came together. Counterculture icons such as Beat poet Allen Ginsberg and LSD advocate Timothy Leary spoke to the masses — the latter famously urged participants to “turn on, tune in, drop out” — and the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, and other legends performed at the event. The optimism that collective action could have a tangible impact on society felt stronger than ever. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ralph Gleason said it was “truly something new,” calling it “an affirmation, not a protest… a promise of good, not evil.” The wheels for the Summer of Love were in motion. ...Read More
|
|
Epic Fail: 50 Years of the War on Drugs
Mexico Solidarity Project News
from March 27, 2024
|
|
Patricia Escamilla-Hamm’s expertise in national security grew out of her interest in US imperialism.
After teaching courses on drug policy, organized crime, and national security, she joined a binational academic team to research US-Mexico border security at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF) in Tijuana, Mexico. As a professor of national security affairs at the William J Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies in Washington DC, her signature course was on combating transnational organized crime. She’s been a consultant for both the Mexican and US governments.
In the US, preventing drugs from entering the US via Mexico is a major presidential campaign issue, framed as a national security concern. Is this the right framework?
No, not if the objective is to reduce the voracious appetite for drugs in the US. Americans are the largest consumers of illicit drugs and the most lucrative market for them worldwide. In 2016, Americans spent $150 billion yearly on illicit drugs, a powerful magnet that attracts drug dealers from everywhere. We can’t pretend the black market drug supply can be stopped without addressing domestic drug demand.
The US adopted a “security” framework in 1971. Nixon made a choice: science and health experts warned him that using police and military means to stop drug use wouldn’t work, but his political advisors said it would boost his popularity. He based his decision on politics, and the policy remained until 2021 — 50 years.
The “drug war” was fought within the US at first; it expanded to include Mexico in 2007. In 2006 the US and Mexico jointly agreed to the Merida Initiative, intending to take out drug cartel kingpins through military means. It became a game of whack-a-mole! If you take out one kingpin, another guy — or several others — pops up to take his place. Thus, more violence, more recruitment, more killings between rival factions.
The Merida Initiative was a failure. Drug use and trafficking haven’t diminished, drug deaths have increased, and the cartels still have power. What’s that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? So, this is insanity!
The drug trade is a matter of supply and demand, but US policy focuses only on the supply side. It’s ideological too: some politicians simply believe that using force is always best. As yet, the US Congress won’t shift gears.
After Mexico signed on to the US “War on Drugs,” what was the result in Mexico?
Cartel operations multiplied and enhanced their operational capabilities. The military used guns against the cartels, so cartel demand for guns went up to defend themselves. It’s forbidden to buy guns made or sold in Mexico but easy to buy them across the border: 200,000 guns enter Mexico from the US every year. According to the US General Accounting Office, about 70% of confiscated arms have been bought from US gun shops or gun shows along the border, especially in Texas. The US is arming the enemy!
The US shut down the sale of rocket-propelled weapons, but 50-caliber machine guns capable of penetrating bullet proof vests and armored vehicles, admiringly named “cop killers,” are now a cartel favorite. When there’s demand, suppliers find a way.
Also, the Merida Initiative ignited a brutal competition between cartels, generating a surge in deadly violence in Mexico: since 2007, half a million Mexicans have died from organized crime.
The “war” opened the door to more corruption at every level and in both countries — from customs officials to police and military personnel to the DEA — to García Luna. He was Secretary of Public Security when the Merida Initiative was signed and implemented between 2006 and 2012, and a key US partner. In 2023, the US convicted him of colluding with the Sinaloa cartel.
The question is: did Luna “reform” the federal police structure to benefit drug trafficking? When AMLO took office, he found a corrupt and repressive federal police force, infiltrated by officials and narcos supporting the Sinaloa Cartel. It was a political tool, not a security force to protect the public. AMLO had promised to get the military out of public security, but found he needed to keep it in place while he created a new, more professional National Guard — an intermediate force, part civilian and part military. A major step — but reform is not yet consolidated. ...Read More
|
|
New Liberation Road
Booklets supporting the Mexico Solidarity Project
By Bill Gallegos
Liberation Road is the only major US revolutionary socialist organization that has a developed position on Chicano Liberation, and one of the few that understands and works to build solidarity with the socialist movements and revolutionaries of Mexico. Now we have something that explains those positions - a series of Liberation Road pamphlets entitled Adelante! (Forward!). The pamphlets were developed collectively by several comrades, with support from comrades outside the organization.
The articles are enhanced and enriched by the powerful art and culture that is a major component of the pamphlets. While Adelante! was introduced at the recent Mexico Solidarity tour of the Mexico Solidarity Project they are meant as important resources for all comrades of Liberation Road — to better understand our strategic perspectives on Chicano Liberation and Mexico Solidarity (internationalism), and to help us promote those perspectives in all of our mass and red work.
This has always been an important task for our organization, but now more than ever as the New Confederacy seems to have made immigration the center of their attack on democracy, equity, and social justice. In order to support comrades in understanding and advancing our strategic perspectives we are going to be conducting at least one webinar to discuss our line and how to integrate Adelante! in your work. Adelante! is a product of love comrades, an expression of the spirit element that Che Guevarra insisted is at the heart of every true revolutionary’s work. A link to download the booklets will be available by next week. Meanwhile, contact Bill Gallegos at billg4@gmail.com
|
|
|
Our Amazing Resource for Radical Education
From the settlers to the present, and how its consciousness is conflicted. Prepared by Carl Davidson and Rebecca Tarlau,
with some help from the DSA Rust Belt group.
|
There are hundreds of video courses here, along with study guides, downloadable books and links to hundreds of other resources for study groups or individuals.
Nearly 10,000 people have signed on to the OUL for daily updates, and more than 150,000 have visited us at least once.
Karl Marx's ideas are a common touchstone for many people working for change. His historical materialism, his many contributions to political economy and class analysis, all continue to serve his core values--the self-emancipation of the working class and a vision of a classless society. There are naturally many trends in Marxism that have developed over the years, and new ones are on the rise today. All of them and others who want to see this project succeed are welcome here.
|
|
|
|
Video for Learning: Karl Marx and the Birth of Modern Society with Michael Heinrich ...90 min
|
|
Harry Targ's 'Diary of a Heartland Radical' |
This week's topic:
Dr. King Speaks: Economic Consequences of the Capitalist/War System
Some Remembrances of Dr. King Who Was Killed 56 Years Ago
Click the picture to access the blog.
|
|
Tune of the Week: Merce Lemon - 'Will You Do Me A Kindness' ...7 min
|
|
Book (and Film) Review: Street-Level Bureaucracy or How the Welfare State Fails the Poor
A bureaucratic paper chase undermines compassion and practical help for the needy, while Wall Street gets whatever it wants. It doesn’t have to be that way.
BY Robert Kuttner
The American Prospect
MARCH 19, 2024 - The failure of the liberal welfare state can be seen in a superb Oscar-nominated short documentary produced by The New Yorker called The Barber of Little Rock. The film is ostensibly about the heroic efforts of one man to do something about the Black-white wealth chasm. The broader implication is my own takeaway.
Arlo Washington was a successful young Black barber in Little Rock. He observed the gaping disparity in wealth between his own community and the white parts of town. He appreciated that being a barber allowed him to run his own small business and to be reasonably secure financially. So he created a barber college in 2008 that has trained over 1,500 barbers to operate successful small businesses, too.
But Washington quickly grasped that you can’t solve the Black-white wealth gap just with more barbers. What would help more would be a bank.
So Washington got a charter for what became People Trust, the only community development bank in the state of Arkansas and the only one located in the Black community. Washington and his colleagues began making mortgage loans and small-business loans. But as People Trust’s reputation spread, the bank was soon inundated with people desperately seeking personal loans.
They had medical bills they couldn’t pay and then got behind on their other bills. They had been laid off from jobs and had run out of resources to cover basic expenses. They had just been released from prison without a penny. They didn’t really qualify for personal loans, which would only put them deeper in debt.
So Washington raised some foundation money to underwrite small emergency grants as well as loans. Some of the most revealing and poignant moments in the film are exchanges like these:
Washington: How much was the rent?
Woman: It’s $525.
Washington: How about we give you a grant for one month’s rent so you can find another place, would that help?
Woman (in tears): It would help a lot.
Washington is surely a hero. Here’s where the film leaves off and my own takeaway begins.
The welfare state has mutated into a bureaucratic monster with little room for the simple human kindness and personal compassion of the kind displayed by Arlo Washington and his colleagues. If the same people went to a local welfare office with the same hard-luck story, they would be eyed with suspicion from the outset as potential scammers, and would be made to jump through all manner of eligibility hoops.
To be a poor person in America reliant on means-tested programs—food stamps, Medicaid, TANF, housing vouchers, subsidized child care, etc.—is to spend half your waking hours dealing with different eligibility bureaucracies. The definitive book on the subject is Michael Lipsky’s classic, Street-Level Bureaucracy. As Lipsky points out, the few portals that offer help are overwhelmed by need. Workers in the welfare state, drawn to the job by compassion for the poor, become burned out and cynical as they try to ration aid. Eligibility tests drain energy from frontline workers as well as from clients.
What’s the cure for this? Here, conservatives divide from progressives.
The conservative remedy is voluntary organizations and especially churches. Black churches do play an essential role in helping the needy. Evangelical churches also produce loyal congregants, not just via a common theology but through a range of services and a sense of community. But voluntary and faith-based efforts, even if they solve the bureaucratic paper chase, will never solve the Black-white wealth gap.
For starters, we need to make every possible social program universal, and to drastically simplify income tests where they are unavoidable. For instance, New York City now provides free pre-K to everyone. You just need to demonstrate residency. The Biden universal child allowance that was in effect for a year was a refundable tax credit for all; you didn’t have to demonstrate poverty.
The welfare state has mutated into a bureaucratic monster with little room for simple human kindness and personal compassion.
In several cities and states, there are now universal, free school lunch programs, with no need to prove poverty (and endure the stigma attached to that). If there were universal health care in a single-payer system, that would be the end of Medicaid, as a separate means-tested program for the certified poor.
This would leave a much smaller set of targeted programs such as food stamps, but even in these cases, eligibility could be drastically simplified. People could self-certify, with government spot checks for fraud.
Where does this leave the Barber of Little Rock, and the personal touch? Here, community development financial institutions (CDFIs) occupy an important middle ground, but there is also a cautionary tale worth remembering.
The original CDFI, before it was even a concept, was the South Shore Bank of Chicago. Another young inspirational citizen like Arlo Washington, named Ron Grzywinski, realized that small businesses and aspiring homeowners on Chicago’s mostly Black South Side were starved for credit. So in the early 1970s, he founded South Shore National Bank, later renamed ShoreBank.
Over more than three decades, the bank demonstrated that with careful underwriting and counseling, businesses and homebuyers in poor Black neighborhoods could be sound credit risks, and that a committed local bank could make a big economic difference. ShoreBank qualified homebuyers for conventional mortgages and avoided risky speculative gimmicks like subprime.
Bill Clinton got wind of Grzywinski’s bank, and got legislation enacted to disseminate the model, which was named a community development financial institution. Today, there are more than 1,300 such banks.
But Clinton also supported extensive financial deregulation. One of the casualties was the subprime boom and bust, and the related 2008 financial collapse. ShoreBank, despite never having made a subprime loan, was soon underwater because the value of the homes against which the bank wrote mortgages were worth less than the mortgages.
President Obama used trillions of dollars to bail out the biggest Wall Street banks that had caused the collapse. But Obama, worried about the appearance of helping a bank in his old Chicago neighborhood, refused a modest loan under the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to save ShoreBank, which went under.
Wall Street banks were too big to fail. ShoreBank was too small to matter. It was one of Obama’s worst deeds.
The CDFI model, at its best, bridges impersonal welfare-state approaches with warm-hearted personal help, of the sort personified by Arlo Washington and Ron Grzywinski. But it exists in a much larger policy context, which is either friendly to these efforts or hostile to them. The worst possible blend is the marriage of means-tested help for the poor and blank checks for Wall Street. ...Read More
|
|
Film Review & Interview: ‘Civil War,’ Alex Garland’s Dystopian Thriller
Stimulates the Intellect, if Not the Emotions
The actor, who plays a journalist in Alex Garland’s film about the deadly effects of political polarization, opens up about the provocative shoot.
By Seija Rankin
Hollywood Reporter
MARCH 28, 2024 - In Civil War, the grisly, cautionary new film from A24 and Alex Garland, there’s a scene toward the end of the second act in which a machine gun-toting Jesse Plemons asks Wagner Moura, “What kind of American are you?” When Moura was filming in Atlanta two years ago, the stomach-turning threat inherent in the line awoke a latent nightmare in the actor. “I’m an American citizen, but I speak with an accent and I’m not from here,” says Moura. “It made me start thinking about, ‘What if I’m driving somewhere deep in the U.S. and I stop at a gas station and someone asks me where I’m from or what I’m doing there? How would I react?’”
Moura, who launched a successful acting career in his native Brazil before breaking out more widely with his role as Pablo Escobar in Narcos, stars — along with Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley Henderson — as a Reuters journalist documenting the end of American democracy as we know it. The film’s discourse has, in large part, preceded its April 12 release. Its SXSW premiere had viewers simultaneously exhilarated and terrified by the ways Garland depicts the consequences of a nation’s deep divisions.
Over fountain sodas in the THR cafeteria, Moura (who went to journalism school before becoming an actor) speaks with passion about his love for the film’s quality and for his co-stars but is somber when reflecting on its real-life implications and understands how deeply it can affect viewers. “I was really destroyed afterward,” he says, returning to the scene with Plemons. “We filmed that part for two days, and afterward I just laid down in the grass and cried.”
A lot of people have been talking about the backstory — or lack thereof — to the onscreen civil war, and how Texas and California came to team up. Did Alex give you actors more info than viewers?
He didn’t. I think it’s a great move in terms of script-writing, but also, when I think of the movies I’ve seen about American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, they don’t explain the situation. They’re just there, and then the action takes place. And I think it’s smart that he doesn’t have an ideological agenda. People are expecting the war to be along liberal or conservative lines, and it’s more about war in general and how horrible the aftermath of a polarized situation can be. I don’t believe in saying that a film has a certain message because everyone has their own read, but to me it’s about the horror of war.
Did you need to create any sort of backstory for your character, Joel, in order to play him effectively? What sorts of understanding did you have for his motivations as a journalist or as a citizen going through the war himself?
I actually studied journalism in college, and I worked as a journalist at the beginning of my career. But I didn’t actually play one as an actor until I did a series called Shining Girls, with Elisabeth Moss. Most of my best friends are journalists, so I reached out to people while I prepared for that role. But that was investigative, and war journalism is a whole other thing — the experiences they go through in war zones, it’s similar to what happens to soldiers. They come home and shit stops making sense. To prepare for this movie I read many books about combat journalism, and my friends put me in touch with some people to talk to. I wasn’t looking for an intellectual understanding of the character so much as the feeling he would have in his body. What do you feel as a civilian in a war zone? I learned that, mostly, time passes very differently.
What did you know about this movie before you started conversations about being in it?
Nothing until I read the script, and the first time I read it I really felt this was no ordinary project. I’m a very political person — the only film I’ve directed so far was also a very political film — so this was very much my thing. I remember I was staying in a house in Laurel Canyon during the pandemic, and I did a Zoom call with Alex and we really connected. We’d met before, when he was casting another movie. That hadn’t worked out for me, but this time Alex said, “Listen, I want you in the film. I have to talk to A24, but you are who I want.” ...Read More
|
|
522 Valencia St.
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-6637
|
|
|
|
Is the content of this email relevant to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
