To whatever extent we reach our potential in this world, my grandmother would be furious if I didn’t say that it was due to a combination of our individual talents and the societal conditions – the real existing material conditions, as a good Marxist might say – that have shaped our lives. But while she would probably not admit it, the faith in her eyes – the challenge to imagine with others a better world and actively move with them towards it, to engage in collective struggle to achieve a more humanistic society – that faith will always remain with us.

— Dorothy Ray Healey remembrance, Jewish Women’s Archive

“Without vision, the people perish.” This famous quote from Proverbs 29:18 in the Old Testament is absolutely on target, based on my experiences over many years. A variation of this quote—if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there—underlines the danger of not having a vision. A road to nowhere is a dangerous road.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had a vision, summed up in the phrase, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Was this an original idea back then, 177 years ago? I don’t think so.

In his younger years Marx was connected to religion; he was baptized as a Lutheran at the age of six. He studied religion, ultimately leading him to develop his well-known critique of it as an “opiate of the people.”

The book of Acts is a religiously oriented history of the first years and decades of the Christian church after Jesus of Nazareth was killed. In chapters two and four, it is made clear that in these early days of the Christian religion, the concept of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” was a central vision.

Here’s how it is described in Acts 2: 44-45: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all as any had need.” And similarly in Acts 4: 32 and 34: “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common… There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.”

I’m pretty sure that Dorothy Healey got this. She was the first socialist I ever heard quote Bible verses as she made her case from the podium speaking to hundreds of mostly young people at a national conference of the now-defunct New American Movement in 1974. I don’t remember exactly what she said, but I remember thinking that I wished I could do that. Why did I feel that way?

One reason is that I had generally positive experiences growing up in the church my parents took me to every Sunday, as well as with others in my extended family, especially my grandparents, who were devout Christians. But it was also because, as I became a peace and justice and impeach Nixon activist in my late teens and early 20’s, and as I was exposed to individuals who looked to Marx and Engels and “scientific socialism” as their “bible,” it seemed to me that one thing both had in common was a vision for a very different kind of society than the one dominating much of the world.

And let’s be real: what both also have in common is the corruption of the original vision of their founders as they grew politically stronger and more institutionalized. That is a reality that can never be forgotten, something those of us today need to study and learn from going forward.

Healey tried to put the two positive visions together. She believed in Christian/Marxist unity. She may or may not have been an atheist, I don’t know, but her life was grounded in the best of both those worlds.

All of us have a responsibility to “imagine with others a better world and actively move with them towards it, to engage in collective struggle to achieve a more humanistic society” with the long term goal, one many of us will not see, of human societies where the abilities of all are used to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of all. We must hold fast to this vision whatever the odds against us right now.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ted Glick.

The Journalist Assistance Network comprises five founding members: the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, International Women’s Media Foundation, PEN America and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 

Since the November 2024 U.S. election, requests for assistance from journalists and newsrooms in a wide range of areas have increased significantly to each of the five groups. The requests include everything from digital and physical security advice, to immigration guidance, to legal risk assessment and newsgathering support. 

“Journalists and newsrooms from across the country are increasingly concerned about a raft of measures and actions that threaten press freedom in the United States,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “We hope this network will make it easier for individuals and media organizations to locate advice and assistance.” 

The Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, International Women’s Media Foundation, PEN America and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press will:

• Coordinate holistic safety and legal training for U.S. journalists, journalist organizations and newsrooms.
• Promote safety and legal resources to help reporters understand what assistance is available.
• Refer requests for support to other and any member organizations within the Journalist Assistance Network who can meet the specific need. 

“We hope that by making it clear that we are working together – and that through any one of these organizations you have access to the resources of the broader coalition – we can help reporters get the best information in the fastest way possible,” said IWMF Executive Director Elisa Munoz.

The five organizations have many years of experience working together and have been actively collaborating to provide safety and legal training and assistance across the United States, along with a number of other organizations and partners working in the field of press freedom and journalist protection. They have deep experience in physical safety, digital security, legal support, mental health, and online abuse defense.

“We want to make it easy for any journalist who needs help to find it, no matter the issue. We’re bringing our organizations together, each with specific expertise in the areas where we know the needs are most critical, to do just that,” said Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press President Bruce D. Brown.

“With the unprecedented number of journalists in dire need of more digital security and legal protection, this coalition could not come at a better time,” said Freedom of the Press Foundation Executive Director Trevor Timm. “It’s all hands on deck in this unprecedented moment, and by working together we will be able to help more journalists than ever before.” 

“With both the media and civil society increasingly under attack in the U.S., it is particularly important that organizations like ours come together to ensure that journalists and newsrooms can find the support they need to continue doing their vital work,” said PEN America Interim Co-CEO Summer Lopez.

The network is expected to expand over time to include participating partners that offer services, resources and information in these fields and to better direct requests for support. Please contact emergencies@cpj.org if you are interested in more information about joining the network.

Notes for Editors

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an international non-profit organization headquartered in the United States. It provides free digital and physical safety training, individual advice and resources to journalists and newsrooms, as well as financial assistance for short-term emergency support to journalists following an incident related to their work. CPJ provided safety training and advice to more than 950 journalists in the United States in 2024 compared to 106 the previous year and just 20 in 2022. For media queries, please contact press@cpj.org.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides free legal support and legal resources, including training, direct legal representation, and reporting guides, to protect First Amendment freedoms and the news gathering rights of journalists both nationally and locally in the U.S. The Reporters Committee’s Legal Hotline is available 24/7 to working journalists and offers a privileged, secure way to obtain legal help from its attorneys. For media queries, please contact media@rcfp.org.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) protects and defends press freedom in the United States. Its digital security training team has taught thousands of journalists how to better protect themselves online. FPF also builds secure communications tools used by many of the nation’s top investigative news organizations, systematically tracks press freedom violations in the United States, and advocates for stronger laws protecting reporters’ rights at the local, state and national level. For media queries, please contact trevor@freedom.press. 

The International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) strengthens equal opportunity and press freedom worldwide. In the United States, IWMF offers customizable Hostile Environment and Emergency First Aid Trainings (HEFATs), in-person newsroom trainings, and one-on-one safety consultations. Topics can include risk assessment, contingency plans, personal security, psychosocial and mental health awareness, and preparedness discussions surrounding active shooters and protests. In 2024, the IWMF trained and surveyed 610 journalists across 200 media outlets in 13 U.S. states. For media queries, please contact cfox@iwmf.org. 

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. Its digital safety programming focuses on helping journalists, writers, and their advocates navigate online harassment and other safety challenges; collaborating with media organizations, publishers, and other institutions to strengthen safety infrastructure; conducting research and advocacy on digital safety and free expression; and working in coalition with partner organizations to fight back. PEN America also co-led, alongside the Aegis Safety Alliance and Journalist Assistance Network members, a recent pilot project to coordinate proactive and reactive safety support for U.S.-based journalists and news outlets at risk following the US election. For media queries, please contact strimel@pen.org.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

American film star celebrity John Cusack, who describes himself on his x-page bio as an “apocalyptic shit-disturber”, has posted an open letter to the world denouncing the Israeli “mass murder” in Gaza and calling for “your outrage”.

While warning the public to “don’t stop talking about Palestine/Gaza”, he says that the “hollow ‘both sides’ rhetoric is complicity with power”.

“This is not a debate with two sides that can be normalised — and all the hired bullshit in print and on tv will never change the narrative,” he said.

• READ MORE: Israel bombs Gaza’s Nasser Hospital, unleashes wave of raids on Khan Younis
• ‘Cracks are opening up’ in Western complicity over Gaza genocide, says Minto
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

His statement comes as hundreds of directors, writers, actors have denounced Israeli genocide in Gaza and the film industry’s “silence,” “indifference” and “passivity” coinciding with the Cannes Film Festival.

More than 350 prominent directors, writers and actors signed an open letter condemning the genocide and the “official inaction” of the film industry in regard to the mass suffering.

The industry open letter was published on the first day of the Cannes festival. It began by calling attention to the fate of 25-year-old Fatma Hassouna, a Palestinian freelance photojournalist, who was murdered in an Israeli air strike on April 16.

She was assassinated after it was announced that Iranian director Sepideh Farsi’s film Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk, in which she Hassouna was the star, had been selected in the ACID parallel, independent film section of the festival.

She was about to get married.

Cusack’s own open letter, offered as a template at X@JohnCusack last week, said:

“To Whom it May Still Concern

“There is a genocide unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. Not a metaphor, not a tragedy in the abstract — a genocide. Carried out in real time, in front of satellites, smartphones, and sanitized press conferences. And what has the so-called “land of the free” done? Applauded. Armed. Rationalised. Looked away.

London protest: ‘No to another Nakba”    Video: Al Jazeera

“The blood in Gaza does not just stain the hands of those launching the missiles. It stains every hand that signs off on the bombs, every hand that wrings itself in liberal anguish but does nothing, and every hand that beats its chest in right-wing bloodlust cheering it all on.

“The American far right sees in this mass killing a projection of its own fantasies — walls, camps, and the unrelenting dehumanisation of the “other.” No surprise there. And where are the liberals? Their silence is violence. Their hollow “both sides” rhetoric is complicity with power. And mass murder. And the machine of empire—greased with our taxes, shielded by our media, and excused by our moral debauchery .
How’s everybody at the Met gala doing tonight ?

“If you claim to care about justice — if you ever marched, ever lit a candle for any cause — then your voice should be raised now. Or it means nothing. The children of Gaza do not need your sorrow. They need your outrage. Your pressure. Your courage.

“End the siege. End the weapons shipments. End the lies. Call this what it is: a genocide.

“And if your politics cannot confront that—then your politics are worthless.

“In furious solidarity

“John Cusack”

Here’s a template –

To Whom It May Still Concern,

There is a genocide unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. Not a metaphor, not a tragedy in the abstract—a genocide. Carried out in real time, in front of satellites, smartphones, and sanitized press conferences. And what has the…

— John Cusack (@johncusack) May 7, 2025

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

American film star celebrity John Cusack, who describes himself on his x-page bio as an “apocalyptic shit-disturber”, has posted an open letter to the world denouncing the Israeli “mass murder” in Gaza and calling for “your outrage”.

While warning the public to “don’t stop talking about Palestine/Gaza”, he says that the “hollow ‘both sides’ rhetoric is complicity with power”.

“This is not a debate with two sides that can be normalised — and all the hired bullshit in print and on tv will never change the narrative,” he said.

• READ MORE: Israel bombs Gaza’s Nasser Hospital, unleashes wave of raids on Khan Younis
• ‘Cracks are opening up’ in Western complicity over Gaza genocide, says Minto
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

His statement comes as hundreds of directors, writers, actors have denounced Israeli genocide in Gaza and the film industry’s “silence,” “indifference” and “passivity” coinciding with the Cannes Film Festival.

More than 350 prominent directors, writers and actors signed an open letter condemning the genocide and the “official inaction” of the film industry in regard to the mass suffering.

The industry open letter was published on the first day of the Cannes festival. It began by calling attention to the fate of 25-year-old Fatma Hassouna, a Palestinian freelance photojournalist, who was murdered in an Israeli air strike on April 16.

She was assassinated after it was announced that Iranian director Sepideh Farsi’s film Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk, in which she Hassouna was the star, had been selected in the ACID parallel, independent film section of the festival.

She was about to get married.

Cusack’s own open letter, offered as a template at X@JohnCusack last week, said:

“To Whom it May Still Concern

“There is a genocide unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. Not a metaphor, not a tragedy in the abstract — a genocide. Carried out in real time, in front of satellites, smartphones, and sanitized press conferences. And what has the so-called “land of the free” done? Applauded. Armed. Rationalised. Looked away.

London protest: ‘No to another Nakba”    Video: Al Jazeera

“The blood in Gaza does not just stain the hands of those launching the missiles. It stains every hand that signs off on the bombs, every hand that wrings itself in liberal anguish but does nothing, and every hand that beats its chest in right-wing bloodlust cheering it all on.

“The American far right sees in this mass killing a projection of its own fantasies — walls, camps, and the unrelenting dehumanisation of the “other.” No surprise there. And where are the liberals? Their silence is violence. Their hollow “both sides” rhetoric is complicity with power. And mass murder. And the machine of empire—greased with our taxes, shielded by our media, and excused by our moral debauchery .
How’s everybody at the Met gala doing tonight ?

“If you claim to care about justice — if you ever marched, ever lit a candle for any cause — then your voice should be raised now. Or it means nothing. The children of Gaza do not need your sorrow. They need your outrage. Your pressure. Your courage.

“End the siege. End the weapons shipments. End the lies. Call this what it is: a genocide.

“And if your politics cannot confront that—then your politics are worthless.

“In furious solidarity

“John Cusack”

Here’s a template –

To Whom It May Still Concern,

There is a genocide unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. Not a metaphor, not a tragedy in the abstract—a genocide. Carried out in real time, in front of satellites, smartphones, and sanitized press conferences. And what has the…

— John Cusack (@johncusack) May 7, 2025

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

American film star celebrity John Cusack, who describes himself on his x-page bio as an “apocalyptic shit-disturber”, has posted an open letter to the world denouncing the Israeli “mass murder” in Gaza and calling for “your outrage”.

While warning the public to “don’t stop talking about Palestine/Gaza”, he says that the “hollow ‘both sides’ rhetoric is complicity with power”.

“This is not a debate with two sides that can be normalised — and all the hired bullshit in print and on tv will never change the narrative,” he said.

• READ MORE: Israel bombs Gaza’s Nasser Hospital, unleashes wave of raids on Khan Younis
• ‘Cracks are opening up’ in Western complicity over Gaza genocide, says Minto
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

His statement comes as hundreds of directors, writers, actors have denounced Israeli genocide in Gaza and the film industry’s “silence,” “indifference” and “passivity” coinciding with the Cannes Film Festival.

More than 350 prominent directors, writers and actors signed an open letter condemning the genocide and the “official inaction” of the film industry in regard to the mass suffering.

The industry open letter was published on the first day of the Cannes festival. It began by calling attention to the fate of 25-year-old Fatma Hassouna, a Palestinian freelance photojournalist, who was murdered in an Israeli air strike on April 16.

She was assassinated after it was announced that Iranian director Sepideh Farsi’s film Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk, in which she Hassouna was the star, had been selected in the ACID parallel, independent film section of the festival.

She was about to get married.

Cusack’s own open letter, offered as a template at X@JohnCusack last week, said:

“To Whom it May Still Concern

“There is a genocide unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. Not a metaphor, not a tragedy in the abstract — a genocide. Carried out in real time, in front of satellites, smartphones, and sanitized press conferences. And what has the so-called “land of the free” done? Applauded. Armed. Rationalised. Looked away.

London protest: ‘No to another Nakba”    Video: Al Jazeera

“The blood in Gaza does not just stain the hands of those launching the missiles. It stains every hand that signs off on the bombs, every hand that wrings itself in liberal anguish but does nothing, and every hand that beats its chest in right-wing bloodlust cheering it all on.

“The American far right sees in this mass killing a projection of its own fantasies — walls, camps, and the unrelenting dehumanisation of the “other.” No surprise there. And where are the liberals? Their silence is violence. Their hollow “both sides” rhetoric is complicity with power. And mass murder. And the machine of empire—greased with our taxes, shielded by our media, and excused by our moral debauchery .
How’s everybody at the Met gala doing tonight ?

“If you claim to care about justice — if you ever marched, ever lit a candle for any cause — then your voice should be raised now. Or it means nothing. The children of Gaza do not need your sorrow. They need your outrage. Your pressure. Your courage.

“End the siege. End the weapons shipments. End the lies. Call this what it is: a genocide.

“And if your politics cannot confront that—then your politics are worthless.

“In furious solidarity

“John Cusack”

Here’s a template –

To Whom It May Still Concern,

There is a genocide unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. Not a metaphor, not a tragedy in the abstract—a genocide. Carried out in real time, in front of satellites, smartphones, and sanitized press conferences. And what has the…

— John Cusack (@johncusack) May 7, 2025

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

It seems like an odd moment for the US media to do a hit job on Brazil’s coffee industry.

Protective tariffs have been used since the 1800s in the US to protect domestic industry and increase employment. As Raúl Prebisch, Celso Furtado and other economists influential on Latin America’s “Pink Tide” argued, tariffs are also fundamental for Global South nations to escape from the prison of agricultural commodity export dependence, by enabling them to industrialize through import substitution.

Regardless of heterodox economists’ arguments in favor of import tariffs, however, there seems to be little sense in the US government imposing tariffs on products that can never be produced nationally, like bananas or coffee. This is what it did on April 2—the day after April Fool’s day—when President Trump announced new, blanket tariffs on all imports from 57 countries around the world.

Compared to other countries (like Cambodia or Madagascar) in the Global South, Brazil, which had a trade deficit with the United States in 2024, got off relatively easy, with 10%. One sector that will hurt, however, is coffee.

Brazil is the largest coffee producer in the world, and its largest export market is the United States. Brazil exported $1.8 billion, or 15% of its total coffee production, to the United States in 2024. In 2025, US consumers will have to foot the bill for a 10% tariff on a product whose price has already increased by 6.9% this year, due to the effects of climate change weather events on last year’s harvest cycle.

‘Harvested by trafficked slaves’

AP (4/24/25): “Eight Brazilian coffee workers…allege… they were put in filthy housing and the cost of their transportation, food and equipment was deducted from their pay.”

The US’s new tariffs on Brazil came into effect on April 5. Nineteen days later, a Delaware-based NGO named Coffee Watch, which provides no funding transparency on its website, conducted a media blitz against Brazil’s coffee industry. It issued a letter to the US Customs and Border Protection, demanding a halt on all Brazilian coffee imports to the United States. On April 24, the New York Times, Guardian and AP, which sells content to hundreds of sites and newspapers, ran simultaneous articles on Coffee Watch’s campaign.

Coffee Watch built on the stories of eight workers rescued by Brazilian federal labor inspectors from what the Brazil’s government called “slave-like conditions.” These workers came from five of Brazil’s 330,000 coffee farms. Coffee Watch and other quoted experts extrapolated from their cases to advocate for a complete halt of Brazilian coffee exports to the United States—itself a country where hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants work on farms under conditions that could be categorized as “slave-like” within Brazil’s legal framework.

The New York Times article (4/24/25), headlined “Forced Labor Taints Brazilian Coffee, Say Complaints to US Authorities,” detailed a lawsuit filed against Northern companies, including Starbucks, Nestlé and Dunkin’, on behalf of eight workers from five of the 19,000 farms affiliated with the Cooxupé cooperative. The article, by the Times‘ Ephrat Livni, went on to describe Coffee Watch’s efforts to force the US Customs and Border Protection to block all coffee entering from Brazil.

“This isn’t about a few bad actors,” the Times quoted Etelle Higonnet, the founder and director of Coffee Watch. “We’re exposing an entrenched system that traps millions in extreme poverty and thousands in outright slavery.”

The subheading of the Guardian article (4/24/25) read, “Brazil has been the world’s leading coffee producer due to the forced labor of enslaved Africans and Afro-Brazilians.”

AP (4/24/25) quoted International Rights Advocates founder Terry Collingsworth, who is representing the plaintiffs, saying, “Consumers are paying obscene amounts for a cup of Starbucks coffee that was harvested by trafficked slaves.”

More labor rights than US

New York Times (4/24/25): “The laborers end up…harvesting coffee under conditions not so different from those of their enslaved forebears.”

From reporting like this, the casual reader might think that Brazil’s coffee industry is based on slave labor, and that many or most of the people who work picking coffee are enslaved. This is a greatly misleading depiction of the very real labor issues in Brazil.

Although landless agricultural workers in Brazil, like nearly everywhere else in the world, suffer from low wages, lack of job stability and oppressive labor conditions, Brazil’s coffee farm workers have significantly better labor rights than farm workers in the United States. Nearly half of the US farm workforce are undocumented immigrants with no labor rights whatsoever, in fear of being arrested, imprisoned and/or deported by ICE.

The arguments advanced to justify banning coffee imports from Brazil to the US rely on outliers representing a tiny portion of the workforce, not the norm, as these sensational articles present.

Brazil’s coffee industry provides 580,000 full time jobs and millions of harvest-season temp jobs. According to Coffee Watch’s own letter, the highest number of workers rescued from “slave-like conditions” in any year since 2003 was 333, in 2023.

When Higonnet tells the Times that “thousands” of coffee workers in Brazil work in “outright slavery” (a more than semantic leap from the Brazilian legal category of “slave-like” working conditions), she is misleadingly referring to Coffee Watch’s composite figure of 4,128, cited in Coffee Watch’s letter to Customs as the total number of coffee workers rescued from “slave-like” conditions between 2003 and 2024.

Whereas the number of 221 workers rescued from slave-like conditions in 2024 certainly doesn’t represent the total number of workers subjected to those conditions that year, no methodology is presented to estimate what that undercount might be. The number of Brazil’s federal labor inspectors is 2,800, including 900 new hires this year, and the number estimated by IPEA needed to bring Brazil up to international standards is 3,700, so an undercount is a clear possibility, but it’s certainly a far cry from Collingsworth’s insinuation that most Starbucks coffee purchased from Brazil was produced by “trafficked slaves.”

On the back of slave labor

Guardian (4/24/25): “Starbucks charges like $6 for a cup of coffee, where most of that has been harvested by forced laborers and child laborers.”

Like the United States and most other countries in the Americas, Brazil was built on the back of slave labor, and was the last country to eradicate it, in 1888. The legacy of this today is that it has the highest Afro-descendent population outside of Africa, and huge problems of structural racism, including large but shrinking levels of inequality, and lack of opportunities for the poorest segments of society, which are disproportionately constituted of the 56% of the nation’s population that is Afro-Brazilian.

There is a large population of landless rural workers, who with support from the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST in Portuguese) and the National Confederation of Agricultural Workers (CONTAG) have been successfully fighting for land rights since the end of the US-backed military dictatorship in 1985. Today, although millions of landless rural workers toil away in degrading conditions for low wages on farms producing export commodity crops like coffee, sugar and soy—some of which cross the line into violating Brazil’s slave-labor legislation—there is also a growing population of millions of family farmers who don’t employ anyone.

Today, 78% of Brazil’s 330,000 coffee farms, producing around 48% of the total amount of coffee, are small-holder family farms. If Coffee Watch succeeds in lobbying the US government to halt imports from Brazil, the hardest-hit sector will be the same group that fair trade advocates work to empower. Without millions ferreted away in investment funds and offshore holdings, it’s the family farms that run the risk of financial ruin, not the agribusiness plantations, or companies like Starbucks and Nestlé that work with them. When small farmers lose their livelihood, they often become rural workers themselves, which, as Coffee Watch’s own letter to Border Patrol demonstrates, are among the lowest-paid and most vulnerable labor sectors in Brazil.

Based on the actions of five farms that belong to a cooperative of 19,000 of them, Coffee Watch and the media organizations supporting its campaign are targeting an industry largely composed of family farmers. It’s reminiscent of Operation Car Wash, an “anti-corruption” campaign backed by the US DoJ that bankrupted Brazil’s five largest construction and engineering companies, and caused 4.4 million direct and indirect job losses, under the guise of punishing a handful of corrupt business executives.

Just as was the case with corruption in the construction industry, the directors of the farms, the cooperative and the US corporations they sell to deserve to be held liable for their labor crimes. But punishing the industry as a whole will cause disproportionate suffering for the working class and poor, and raise Brazil’s level of extreme poverty.

Different definitions

Coffee Watch’s letter to acting Customs Commissioner Pete R. Flores cited US and International Labor Organization (ILO) legislation on slave labor used to justify the demand to block coffee imports from Brazil, but uses the Brazilian federal government’s much wider definition of “slave-like” labor conditions for the facts and figures used to back its argument.

Brazil, a nation with a long history of slavery and oppressive labor conditions in rural areas, first recognized modern slavery as a problem in 1995, and widened its definition of “slave-like” labor in 2003 under President Lula da Silva. It created a series of enforcement mechanisms to hold companies accountable for violating labor laws, including a “dirty list” of companies convicted of using slave labor. These employers are required to pay a minimum of 20 months salary at minimum wage to each rescued worker, as well as court fines, and can face up to eight years in prison.

Companies stay on the dirty list for two years and, during this time, are blocked from receiving government contracts or credit. Among the best-known companies that have appeared on the list is FEMSA, the world’s largest bottler of Coca-Cola. FEMSA was put on the list in 2018 after labor inspectors discovered truckers and warehouse workers at one of its Brazilian plants were being forced to work between 80 and 140 hours of overtime per month.

This was one of many cases in which “slave-like” working conditions, although oppressive and illegal, did not mean they were being held captive or forced to work for no remuneration. Brazil’s definition of slave-like working conditions has some overlap with US and ILO law, for example, holding workers in captivity and forcing them to work for very low or no wages. But it also includes things that are legal in the US, even for those US agricultural workers who are not undocumented, let alone the US’s 800,000 prison slave laborers.

As Brazil’s National Justice Council explains, the 2003 change in Brazil’s definition of slave labor represents

significant progress in the fight against this social problem, because it goes beyond lack of freedom, expanding the criminal definition of slavery to include cases of subjection to degrading working conditions, exhaustive work hours or debt bondage.

Coffee Watch’s own letter to Flores states:

The Brazilian approach to forced labor is somewhat more expansive than the ILO’s, as it may allow for prosecution of employers who subject workers to extremely degrading conditions, regardless of whether coercion was present in the employment relationship.

Any single violation of Brazil’s different criteria for slave-like working conditions makes the employer liable. This can include things like excessively long work days, not having an adequate number of bathrooms for the number of workers, making workers rent gloves and other safety equipment from the employer, not compensating workers for transportation to and from the work site, and not providing an adequate amount of drinking water. It would be easy enough for an organization such as Coffee Watch to verify this, but it’s a fair assumption to make that at least some of the coffee workers rescued from slave-like conditions since 2003 were victims of oppressive labor conditions that would not constitute slave labor by ILO or US legal criteria.

Landless rural laborers

This is in no way meant to minimize the oppression of those rural workers in Brazil’s coffee trade who are working in what Brazil’s government calls slave-like conditions. With over 1 million people employed in the sector, however, their situation is an outlier. Much more troublesome are the low wages and lousy working conditions that represent the norm in the industry—especially the fact that most temporary harvest laborers work off the books, outside of many of the safeguards in place to protect worker rights.

Another problem is the low number of labor inspectors—the result of six years of gutting of the Labor Ministry by neoliberal presidents Michel Temer and Jair Bolsonaro, who, thanks to a constitutional amendment passed in 2017, left the government with neoliberal spending caps. These were only partially dismantled by a compromise amendment called the New Fiscal Framework, enacted as Lula returned to power in 2023.

Capping social spending increases at 2.5% per year above inflation may have led to the compromise of only hiring 900 of the 1,800 inspectors needed to bring Brazil up to international labor standards, but the fact remains that Brazil has not reached the goal of one inspector for 10,000–15,000 workers recommended by the International Labor Organization.

Around the world, landless rural laborers are among the most oppressed, poorest members of the labor force. Nevertheless, Brazilian coffee farms are not regularly raided by masked government police and their workers thrown into prison camps. In this political juncture, US institutions have little moral standing to criticize labor rights for agricultural workers in other countries—especially in countries like Brazil, whose labor rights issues stem in part from the US-backed military dictatorship’s systematic campaign of arrest, torture and murder of labor union leaders.

Fundraising boost

The idea that Trump’s US Customs and Border Protection would act to increase the price of coffee right now, in the name of “human rights,” based on abuses in five coffee farms, is very unlikely. This exposes the move as a publicity stunt, clearly designed to boost fundraising and legitimacy for a new NGO.

If Coffee Watch were focused more on improving the lives of coffee workers than on institutional promotion, it could show solidarity by supporting the MST and CONTAG in their fight to help landless agricultural workers start their own farms.

Taking big corporations like Starbucks and Nestlé to task for failing to obey local labor laws is commendable. But given the long history of US NGOs acting as regime change cheerleaders for the US State Department in Latin America, the priority that many of these organizations place on self-advancement over benefiting their target populations, and the long, cushy relationship between sleazy corporations like ExxonMobil and NGOs like Transparency International USA, can human rights guidelines for the Global South established by a US organization with no funding transparency really be trusted?

You would think a publication like the New York Times would exercise enough due diligence to include the voice of, say, someone from Brazil’s DA office, or an official from an agency that works to monitor, punish and prevent occurrences of slave-like working conditions. Instead, it published a slightly modified press release from Coffee Watch, and the journalists involved probably thought they were doing their good deed for the month.

Featured image: Cachoeirinha farm in Nova Resende, Brazil, on the government’s “dirty list” for labor abuses (photo: Ministry of Labor and Employment).

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Brian Mier.

This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on May 13, 2025. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

House Republicans on Monday quietly revived a proposal that would grant the Trump administration broad authority to crush nonprofits it views as part of the political opposition, from environmental justice organizations to news outlets.

Fight for the Future and other advocacy groups called attention to the measure, which was buried in the final pages of the House Ways and Means Committee’s draft reconciliation bill, starting on page 380.

A markup hearing for the legislation is scheduled to take place on Tuesday at 2:30 pm ET.

The proposal would empower the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits deemed material supporters of terrorism, with only a hollow simulacrum of due process for the accused organizations. It is already illegal for nonprofits to provide material support for terrorism.

“The House is about to hand the Trump administration the ability to strip nonprofits of their 501(c)3 status without any reason or recourse. This is a five-alarm fire for nonprofits nationwide,” said Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future. “If the text of last autumn’s H.R. 9495 is passed in the budget, any organization with goals that do not line up with MAGA can be destroyed with a wink from Trump to the Treasury.”

The measure passed the Republican-controlled House late last year with the support of more than a dozen Democrats, but it never received a vote in the Senate.

“This terribly thought-out legislation means that under the current administration, every environmental, racial justice, LGBTQ+, gender justice, immigration justice, and—particularly—any anti-genocide organization throughout the country may be on the chopping block,” said Holland. “If Democrats capitulate to the wanton destruction of crucial civil society institutions, they had better expect civil society to burn them to the ground for that betrayal.”

The GOP’s renewed push for what opponents have called the “nonprofit killer bill” comes as the Trump administration wages war on nonprofit organizations, threatening to strip them of their tax-exempt status as part of a sweeping attack on the president’s political opponents.

“In the months since inauguration, Trump and his Cabinet have found other means of cracking down on political speech—particularly speech in favor of Palestinians—by deporting student activists and revoking hundreds of student visas. He has already threatened to attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, part of his larger quest to discipline and punish colleges,” journalist Noah Hurowitz wrote for The Intercept late Monday.

“But the nonprofit clause of the tax bill would give the president wider power to go after organizations that stand in his way,” Hurowitz added.

Robert McCaw, government affairs director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Monday that “this provision is the latest in a growing wave of legislative attacks on constitutional rights.”

“CAIR is urging every member of the Ways and Means Committee to VOTE NO on the inclusion of this provision and to support an expected amendment to strike the language,” the group said in a statement. “Three Democratic members of the committee—Reps. Brad Schneider (Ill.), Tom Suozzi (N.Y.), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.)—previously voted in favor of the Nonprofit Killer Bill on the House floor last year. They must reverse course and vote to oppose it in committee.”

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Jake Johnson.

The post Michigan’s Incarcerated Women: The Urgent Need for Resources  appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

“The escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan has already taken a toll on civilians. Amnesty International is concerned by reports of loss of civilian lives in both India and Pakistan. In every armed conflict, protecting civilians is paramount— it’s a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law which binds all nations. Deliberate, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks harming civilians or damaging civilian infrastructure such as homes, hospitals, schools, and essential services, are strictly prohibited under the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols and under customary international law.

“Amnesty International calls on the governments of India and Pakistan to uphold their obligations under both international human rights and humanitarian law. They must take all necessary measures to protect civilians and minimize any suffering and casualties in both countries. As forces from both countries are now engaged in open hostilities, Amnesty International insists that neither security nor justice will be achieved with the senseless loss of more civilian lives.

In every armed conflict, protecting civilians is paramount.
Carolyn Horn, Programme Director for Law and Policy at Amnesty International

“We extend our condolences to the families on both sides of the border who have lost their loved ones and borne the devastating cost of the current escalation in what has been a long-standing conflict. We unequivocally condemn the deliberate targeting and unlawful killing of civilians by armed groups during the horrific attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, on 22^nd April and call for an independent, transparent and thorough investigation to bring the suspected perpetrators of the atrocity to account through fair trials, without recourse to the death penalty.”

Background

India conducted several airstrikes in Pakistan and in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in the early hours on Wednesday, 7 May 2025. Pakistan officials claim that 31 people have been killed and 57 injured by the air strikes including children, women and families and claims one civilian was killed by drone-related attacks on 8 May.

Meanwhile, India’s army claims that at least 15 civilians were killed and more than 40 injured by Pakistani shelling on its side of the line of control since the airstrikes.

The escalation of hostilities between the two nuclear-armed countries came after the horrific killing of at least 26 civilians, mainly tourists and families, by five members of armed groups near Pahalgam in the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April. India claims it has evidence linking the armed attack to Pakistan – a claim Pakistan denies. Pakistan has said that India has not offered any evidence to support its claim and has requested for an independent investigation.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Instead, the cooperative intends to sell its tax credits as soon as it can, said Gregory King, the organization’s president. This will bring in more cash early on, reduce the amount of debt required, and improve the financial outlook of the project. 

In the past, a scheme like this would have required whoever purchased the credits to retain an ownership stake in the project for at least five years — an unthinkable prospect for a cooperative that aims to provide its member-owners, primarily Black and brown residents of disinvested areas of Boston, with a modest passive income from the energy generated by the panels. But the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, not only revamped old tax credits and introduced fresh ones, it also made these credits transferable. In other words, anyone developing a clean energy project who didn’t have enough tax liability to take full advantage of the tax credits could sell them to a company that did, without ceding ownership.

This change has enabled countless clean energy projects to get off the ground. Wind farms, geothermal plants, large-scale battery facilities, electric vehicle charging banks, manufacturing projects, and even mining operations for critical minerals have all taken advantage of the tax credits markets that emerged and matured in just a year and a half after transferability went into effect. Crux Climate, one of the companies that built a platform to facilitate tax credit transfers, estimates that $24 billion worth of IRA-related credits were exchanged in 2024 alone.

“Before the IRA passed, it was very difficult for a lot of renewable energy developers to take full advantage of the tax credits,” said Charles Harper, a senior policy lead with the climate advocacy nonprofit Evergreen Action.

This is because tax credits work as a form of discount on a business or individual’s annual tax bill, allowing them to cut a chunk out of what they owe the government based on the dollar value of the credit. This can save a lot of money — if you owe enough taxes in the first place. “Tax credits are only good if you have enough tax liability that you owe the government to remove,” Harper said.

The IRA made it easier for project developers without major tax liabilities, like the Boston Community Solar Cooperative, to sell their credits at a discount before breaking ground on a solar or wind project. This allows the developers to bring in much-needed cash to pay for equipment and labor. Meanwhile, buyers — which can include banks, companies, and even some high net-worth individuals — get an additional write-off on their own hefty tax statements.

It was technically possible to shift tax credits from one entity to another before the IRA, but the process was complicated and onerous, meaning very few players had the appetite to sell or buy credits. “The largest banks make up the overwhelming share of that market,” said Alfred Johnson, CEO of Crux Climate. This limited how many developers could actually sell their tax credits and often made the deals inaccessible to small developers and community-based projects.

“Transferability was a godsend in many ways, because it simplified the process,” said Derek Silverman, co-founder of Basis Climate, another site for trading tax credits. 

Before a clean energy developer can list a credit for sale on an exchange like Crux Climate, they must first get their credits pre-approved by the Treasury Department. To do so, they need to submit paperwork showing that they control the site where the project will be developed and that they have a contract with a customer who will purchase the electricity once it’s flowing.

The process isn’t frictionless, but it’s no longer as difficult as it was before the IRA. Now, instead of navigating complex legal agreements to move tax credits from developer to investor, “it’s like going and buying a Walmart gift card for 85 cents on the dollar,” said Jon Abe, CEO of the clean energy investment firm Sunwealth, “but with a lot more paperwork.”

That 85-cents-on-the-dollar discount is what attracts buyers to these markets. On Crux Climate’s platform, the actual per-dollar markdown shifts based on the size of the transaction, from 89 cents or less for the smallest deals to 95 cents for the largest. 

But even if the developers of smaller projects sell their tax credits for a deeper discount, it can still make a pronounced impact. Based on King’s estimates, Boston Community Solar Cooperative could bring in around $150,000 from its tax credit sales. And last year, Basis Climate helped the solar service provider Navajo Power Home sell credits for $355,000 to support a project that is bringing solar and battery systems to Navajo Nation and providing electricity to more than 100 homes that would otherwise have to rely on diesel generators.

“Solar is pretty capital-intensive. So to the degree that you could use someone else’s money and not have to take on debt to bring that capital to your project,” King said, “you’re much more likely to have projects that pencil,” or make financial sense.

In addition to making material improvements in disadvantaged communities, the transferable tax credits have spurred private investments that create jobs and expand domestic manufacturing, all while helping big businesses lighten their tax load. Yet these tax credits are under threat as congressional Republicans work through budget reconciliation, a special legislative process that allows Congress to fast-track spending legislation and bypass the Senate filibuster. (The IRA itself was adopted through budget reconciliation.) 

Right now, the main priority for Republicans in this process is extending tax cuts worth $4.5 trillion over a decade that would primarily benefit the wealthy, and reducing federal spending by at least $1.5 trillion to make up some of the difference. It’s not yet clear what might get cut, but the IRA tax credits are being considered. In February, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that his approach to repealing the IRA would “be somewhere between a scalpel and a sledgehammer.”

But an estimated 85 percent of IRA-related investments have flowed into Republican districts, inspiring four Senate Republicans to come out in favor of the tax credits this month. This came after nearly two dozen House Republicans co-signed a letter in March in defense of the law’s tax provisions. “If at least a handful of those 21 House members are serious about protecting investment and jobs in their districts that the [IRA tax credits] are providing,” said Harper, “then that would be huge.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A simple tweak to tax law has helped bring solar power to the communities that need it most on Apr 22, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Syris Valentine.

Sudan is facing the world’s largest humanitarian crisis after two years of war between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, or RSF. Thousands have died, and some 13 million have been forcibly displaced. There are also widespread reports of sexual and ethnically motivated violence and a worsening hunger crisis. Emtithal Mahmoud, a Darfurian refugee and humanitarian activist, describes how the violence has impacted her own family, including in a recent RSF attack on the Zamzam refugee camp where fighters killed and tortured many civilians. “They kidnapped 58 of the girls in my extended family, and we are still searching for them,” says Mahmoud. “We need the world to pay attention.” Unlike the Darfur crisis of the early 2000s, when it was on the agenda of many world leaders, the current conflict is being largely ignored by the international community, says Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council. “It is by far the worst displacement crisis in the world,” notes Egeland.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Photo by Jessica Ruscello

Growing up as an avid reader, I loved trips with my mom to our local library. It also served as a community space where I attended many birthday parties and baby showers to celebrate our neighbors.

If you love your local library too, you’ll want to listen up.

A few weeks ago, President Trump issued an executive order calling for the elimination of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), adding to a growing list of illegal efforts to bypass Congress and abolish entire government agencies. All staff at the agency were placed on administrative leave on March 31.

IMLS is an independent federal agency that provides crucial financial support to America’s 125,000 public, school, academic, and special libraries and museums nationwide.

In fiscal year 2024, Congress set aside $266.7 million for IMLS. It may sound like a big number, but that’s just 0.003 percent of the federal budget. It amounts to only about 75 cents per person. The savings will be minimal, but the costs will be huge.

Completely dissolving the agency would cancel important grants that help states support and expand library programming and services. They’d effectively disappear, creating immense financial insecurity for libraries across the country and hurting their ability to serve their communities.

Beyond carrying books and DVDs, libraries provide essential programs and resources to the people they serve. While every library is unique, offerings include: helping students with homework or research, reading and literacy programming for children of all ages, as well as English language, GED, and citizenship classes.

Many libraries also offer employment assistance for job seekers, braille or audio books for individuals with visual impairments, and bookmobile services for those who can’t get to their library. And this list is surely incomplete.

Slashing federal library funding will have devastating repercussions for libraries everywhere, with rural communities and small towns experiencing the brunt of the impact. Over 30 million Americans are served by rural library systems — and over three-fourths of public libraries serve areas with fewer than 25,000 people.

My home state of New Mexico is largely rural, with 127 public and tribal libraries. In remote and unincorporated places, libraries even offer telephone service and drinking water for residents who don’t have access to it.

Computers and high-speed internet are another library service that over 77 million Americans depend on every year. Many libraries also distribute non-partisan voter information and serve as polling stations during elections.

In recent years, libraries in the United States have come under a “culture war” assault as certain politicians and extremists try to censor books about race/ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in their catalogs. The administration’s targeting of IMLS builds on this onslaught, seeking to further undermine truth and dismantle libraries as pillars of equitable access to information and opportunity.

The return on the small investments taxpayers make in libraries is enormous, including increased literacy and economic opportunities. What’s more, libraries are one of the only accessible and free gathering spaces in many communities. Two-thirds of Americans think that closing their local public libraries would hurt their communities, Pew Research found.

Our libraries deserve more support, not less. So what can you do?

Contact your legislators directly: Tell Congress to hold the line against the Trump administration and DOGE and protect this vital funding and agency.

Show up: Attend community meetings to advocate for continued funding and emphasize why libraries matter. Visit your local library — and get a card if you don’t have one already!

Speak out: Share your support online and tell your own library stories. Use hashtags like #FundLibraries or #ShowUpForLibraries and check out the American Library Association’s social media toolkit at ala.org/advocacy.

The post Libraries are Priceless and They Need Our Support appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Aspen Coriz-Romero.

“Yet this type of ordinary advocacy is exactly what is under attack in the more than $660M jury verdict against Greenpeace entities in a lawsuit brought by pipeline company Energy Transfer. Oil companies know that protest works – which is why they’re trying to make the stakes so high no one will be willing to take the risk,” Raman said.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

As someone who strongly opposed disastrous unfettered free trade deals with China, Mexico and other low-wage countries, I understand that we need trade policies that benefit American workers, not just large corporations. Targeted tariffs can be a powerful tool to stop corporations from outsourcing American jobs. They can help level the playing field for American autoworkers or steelworkers to compete fairly against companies who have moved production to countries where they can pay starvation wages.

But Trump’s chaotic across-the-board tariffs are not the way to do it.

Imposing steep tariffs on countries like Germany or France will not bring jobs back to America. These are not low-wage countries. Corporations are not shutting down plants in America and moving them to Switzerland. Trump’s blanket tariffs will just raise prices for American consumers and hurt our relationships with allies, undermining our global position.

Trump’s trade chaos – changing policy from day to day – is rapidly undermining our economy and making it impossible for households and small businesses to function. How can you plan for next week, let alone next year, when the rules might change tomorrow? People in my home state of Vermont are hurting.

This is exactly why the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to raise taxes and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” not the President. What Trump is doing is unconstitutional. Trump has claimed supposed “emergency” powers to bypass Congress and impose unilateral tariffs on hundreds of countries. The last president to try something like this was Richard Nixon, and his overreach prompted Congress to pass the law Trump is now abusing. This is another step toward authoritarianism.

And let’s be clear about why Trump is doing all this: to give massive tax breaks to billionaires. These tariffs will cost working families thousands of dollars a year, and Trump plans to use that revenue to help pay for a huge tax break for the richest people in America. That is what Trump and Republicans in Congress are working on right now: If they have their way on the tariffs and their huge tax bill, most Americans will see their taxes go up, while those on top will get a huge tax break.

Enough is enough. We need a coherent trade policy that puts working people first.

The post We Need a Trade Policy That Works for People appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Bernie Sanders.

Photo by Brian Wertheim

If the Government makes a mistake, the newspapers will find out and the problem may then be fixed. But if freedom of the press were lost, the country would soon go to pieces.

— I.F. Stone

Media scholar Carl Jensen was deeply influenced by the independent muckraking journalists of the twentieth century—so much so that he founded Project Censored at Sonoma State University, in 1976, in the wake of the Nixon administration’s Watergate scandal, as a watchdog organization focused on exposing “the news that didn’t make the news.” Project Censored began in a sociology course Jensen taught at Sonoma State, but quickly evolved into a national effort to promote independent journalism and news literacy. The Project produced an annual list of the most important investigative news reports, which attracted attention—and praise—from some of Jensen’s best-known contemporaries, including broadcast journalists Walter Cronkite and Hugh Downs, reform activist Ralph Nader, and a contemporary muckraker, investigative journalist I.F. “Izzy” Stone.

Jensen’s purpose was not to tear down so-called “mainstream” media outlets but to constructively criticize their news judgment. By showing what the major media missed, or even “censored,” he hoped to improve what he saw as the lifeblood of democracy: a truly free press. Industry professionals didn’t always take kindly to such criticism, which led Jensen to turn his critique into a systematic study of what they did cover. He discovered a morass of fluff, sensationalism, and pap—what used to be called “yellow journalism” in the early 1900s. Jensen called it Junk Food News in 1983. He saw that the public would ultimately pay the price for the major media outlets’ myopic focus and critical omissions in the form of accelerating civic decay. Sadly, he wasn’t wrong.

Today, we are awash in 21st-century versions of junk food news, as produced by corporate media and propagated on social media. Worse, we are also subject to ‘round-the-clock infotainment and propaganda masquerading as journalism, what Jensen’s successor, sociologist Peter Phillips, called News Abuse in the early 2000s (now also referred to as malinformation). Of course, numerous media critics and scholars—including Edward Herman, Noam Chomsky, Ben Bagdikian, Neil Postman, and Robert McChesney—have long warned against rising levels of mis- and disinformation, increased consolidation of media ownership, and their combined toll on press freedom and a well-informed public. In the last decade, with the moral panic around the weaponized epithet of “fake news,” these challenges have spawned a cottage industry of so-called fact-checkers—supposedly objective third parties trying to reverse the troublesome trend of declining public trust in the Fourth Estate.

However, most of those efforts have been exposed as Trojan horses for re-establishing corporate media dominance in a digital era of podcasts, TikTok, Instagram reels, and “tweets” (or “posts” as they are now called on X). As Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Emma Tucker bemoaned last year at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, news industry leaders are losing control of the narrative:

“If you go back really not that long ago, as I say, we owned the news. We were the gatekeepers, and we very much owned the facts as well. If it said it in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, then that was a fact. Nowadays, people can go to all sorts of different sources for the news, and they’re much more questioning about what we’re saying. So, it’s no longer good enough for us just to say, this is what happened, or this is the news. We have to explain– almost like explain our working. So, readers expect to understand how we source stories. They want to know how we go about getting stories. We have to sort of lift the bonnet, as it were, and in a way that newspapers aren’t used to doing and explain to people what we’re doing. We need to be much more transparent about how we go about collecting the news.”

“Lift the bonnet.” “Explain to people what we’re doing.” It’s almost as if the public wants more fact-based, transparently sourced reporting in their news, not partisan propaganda. And, go figure, in a rabidly consumerist culture, they want receipts too. Tucker seems to agree, though the corporate media and their advertisers/investors from Big Pharma, Big Tech, the Military-Industrial Complex, and other powerful institutions whose narratives the public is questioning, likely do not. For Tucker and other gatekeepers, this public scrutiny is inconvenient, perhaps even impertinent, but also a market reality news organizations must now at least pay lip service to addressing. Perhaps this is what has contributed to record-low levels of approval and trust of the news media among the public.

Indy Journalism Can Build Public Trust While Fighting Fake News

Media scholars have described this conundrum as an epistemic one, the ushering in of a “post-truth” world “in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” The mis- and disinformation ecosystem that has emerged in this post-truth climate has establishment institutions from the WEF to Congress and the mass media themselves clutching pearls. Even the American public has come to believe that the lack of trustworthy information is a greater threat than terrorism. With the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, these concerns, along with increasing existential attacks on journalists and the news media itself, including ABC, CBS, NPR/PBS, and even the Associated Press as “enemies of the American people,” are growing rapidly and in unprecedented ways.

There certainly are major issues with corporate media and establishment outlets, which we at Project Censored have documented for nearly half a century. However, our critiques are not meant to undermine major media for partisan gain. Instead, the Project’s criticisms of corporate news expose systemic gaps and slant in coverage, in order to pressure the nation’s most prominent news outlets to use their massive budgets and influence to serve the public good, rather than private interests, by holding corporate and government abusers of power accountable. Given the well-documented limitations of corporate media, we support a robust, independent, and public media system, because a commercial, for-profit model cannot “tell the people what is really going on,” as George Seldes once put it. The solution to our present journalistic woes does not lie with industry leaders, biased fact-checkers, or Big Tech content moderators. It rests on critical media literacy and a fiercely independent free press.

In support of this proposed solution, Project Censored advocates for a healthy democracy by promoting news literacy education, especially by providing hands-on training in critical media literacy for students, through our curriculum, student internships, and Campus Affiliates Program, each of which distinguishes Project Censored from other news watch organizations and press freedom groups. Further, each year, Project Censored also recognizes some of the best independent journalists, reporting factually, transparently, and ethically in the public interest, pointing out that these are among the best advocates of news literacy, literally teaching by example. So, ironically, the very solutions to the revitalization of our failing Fourth Estate are its most radical independent practitioners, not their owners/employers or meddling partisan outsiders. History shows this to be the case, and we should listen to what the past can teach us.

“All Governments Lie”

Among the many books Jensen published, one of the most significant might be Stories That Changed America: Muckrakers of the 20th Century. In it, he collected exemplary work by nearly two dozen legendary journalists, his selection of the previous century’s most significant truth-tellers, including excerpts from decisive reports by Ida Tarbell (The History of the Standard Oil Company), Lincoln Steffans (The Shame of the Cities), Upton Sinclair (The Jungle and The Brass Check), George Seldes (In Fact), Edward R. Murrow (In Search of Light), and I.F. Stone (I.F. Stone’s Weekly). As Jensen wrote, “Their words led to a nationwide public revolt against social evils and [decades] of reforms in antitrust legislation, the electoral process, banking regulations, and a host of other social programs.” The reporting Jensen collected in Stories That Changed America continues to inspire those of us who believe journalism can make a difference.

“All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out,” the iconic muckraker “Izzy” Stone once wrote. But Stone had great faith in the power of the press to expose and counter those lies. We need brave, independent journalists and newsrooms to tackle the most controversial and suppressed issues of our era. Stone relentlessly exposed governmental prevarications and injustices throughout his career. He also saw the shortcomings of his own profession, to the point of resigning from the National Press Club in 1941, rather than kowtowing to its racism and political sycophancy. After realizing he had limited influence in the establishment press, he started I.F. Stone’s Weekly and dared to report the truth on his own. He took on McCarthyism at a time when his peers were being attacked, arrested, deported, and disappeared. He fought for truth and peace in the face of the unjust, murderous conflicts of the Cold War, especially in Vietnam. Sound familiar?

Governments lie. Stone’s insight is timeless, but it seems more relevant than ever in 2025. The Trump administration and its enablers bombard us daily with lies and half-truths, what Reporters Without Borders has characterized as “a monumental assault on freedom of information.” At best, the establishment press seems capable of little more than chronicling the barrage; at worst, they capitulate to it.

The notion of a press “watchdog” on a governmental leash did not begin with the current administration—as Jensen and his students at Sonoma State noted in 1976 looking back on the eve of Richard Nixon’s re-election, no major news outlet even mentioned the Watergate scandal—and the roots of a subservient press reach back to the earliest history of American journalism on the presidency. But the return of Trump to power is a nadir for many of our cherished freedoms, including those of the First Amendment, which links freedom of speech and press with the rights to assemble and petition—and the public, our democracy, needs journalism that can help us awaken from what historian Timothy Snyder has described as a “self-induced intellectual coma” that is characteristic of  “the politics of inevitability.”

The Izzy’s Are Coming!

Calling out counter-democratic measures is one way to resist the onslaught of authoritarianism. A free press provides the means for this, but people need to act in response. Rather than complain that “the left” needs a media power like Rupert Murdoch’s to “compete,” we should open our eyes and support the amazing people and organizations doing this invaluable work already. Project Censored highlights the most important but under-reported independent news stories each year, promoting the work of independent journalists, news outlets, and press freedom organizations that exemplify “media democracy in action.” Their work embodies the very spirit of resistance and amplifies the voices of those trammeled by oligarchs and would-be despots.

The Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College shares this ethos, supporting independent media as a bulwark against everyday injustices and creeping tyranny. Among the only academic centers of journalism in the United States focused solely on independent media, each year, PCIM honors the leading independent journalists of our time with its Izzy Award, named in honor of I.F. “Izzy” Stone. April 30 marks the seventeenth annual award ceremony, which will also be the occasion for numerous muckraking journalists and free press organizations to convene and build coalitions, strengthen solidarity, and fight to protect our democratic republic from anyone, whether they bat for Team Red or Team Blue, who would subvert it for their own private gain.

The Izzy Award celebrates the practice of radical muckraking journalism in the public interest, and its continuing relevance in our current Gilded Age of Big Tech plutocracy. The work at PCIM and Project Censored reminds us that we cannot wait for change to simply emerge; we must create it ourselves. If past is prologue, we also have much to learn from and pass on to the next generation, whose experiences and voices will inform and express the stories that change America again, to paraphrase Jensen.

Now is not a time for cowering; it is a time to exhibit what political activist and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg called civil courage, regardless of the odds. Or, as Izzy noted, it is time “to defend the weak against the strong; to fight for justice; and to seek, as best I can to bring healing perspectives to bear on the terrible hates and fears of [humankind], in the hope of someday bringing about one world, in which [people] will enjoy the differences of the human garden instead of killing each other over them.”

Hear, hear. Let’s not get lost in the smoke of the hashish blown in our faces by elite media and government actors. Let’s instead recognize and support the reportorial canaries in the coal mines, from the climate crisis and Kafkaesque raids on the vulnerable among us to the dismantling of education, attacks on the arts, and an ongoing genocide. Let’s act on the information independent journalists share at their own risk, for we ignore them at our own.

This first appeared on Project Censored.

The post “All Governments Lie”: Why We Need a Radical and Independent Free Press Now appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Mickey S. Huff.

Jensen’s purpose was not to tear down so-called “mainstream” media outlets but to constructively criticize their news judgment. By showing what the major media missed, or even “censored,” he hoped to improve what he saw as the lifeblood of democracy: a truly free press. Industry professionals didn’t always take kindly to such criticism, which led Jensen to turn his critique into a systematic study of what they did cover. He discovered a morass of fluff, sensationalism, and pap—what used to be called “yellow journalism” in the early 1900s. Jensen called it Junk Food News in 1983. He saw that the public would ultimately pay the price for the major media outlets’ myopic focus and critical omissions in the form of accelerating civic decay. Sadly, he wasn’t wrong.

Today, we are awash in 21st-century versions of junk food news, as produced by corporate media and propagated on social media. Worse, we are also subject to ‘round-the-clock infotainment and propaganda masquerading as journalism, what Jensen’s successor, sociologist Peter Phillips, called News Abuse in the early 2000s (now also referred to as malinformation). Of course, numerous media critics and scholars—including Edward Herman, Noam Chomsky, Ben Bagdikian, Neil Postman, and Robert McChesney—have long warned against rising levels of mis- and disinformation, increased consolidation of media ownership, and their combined toll on press freedom and a well-informed public. In the last decade, with the moral panic around the weaponized epithet of “fake news,” these challenges have spawned a cottage industry of so-called fact-checkers—supposedly objective third parties trying to reverse the troublesome trend of declining public trust in the Fourth Estate.

However, most of those efforts have been exposed as Trojan horses for re-establishing corporate media dominance in a digital era of podcasts, TikTok, Instagram reels, and “tweets” (or “posts” as they are now called on X). As Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Emma Tucker bemoaned last year at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, news industry leaders are losing control of the narrative (emphasis added):

If you go back really not that long ago, as I say, we owned the news. We were the gatekeepers, and we very much owned the facts as well. If it said it in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, then that was a fact. Nowadays, people can go to all sorts of different sources for the news, and they’re much more questioning about what we’re saying. So, it’s no longer good enough for us just to say, this is what happened, or this is the news. We have to explain– almost like explain our working. So, readers expect to understand how we source stories. They want to know how we go about getting stories. We have to sort of lift the bonnet, as it were, and in a way that newspapers aren’t used to doing and explain to people what we’re doing. We need to be much more transparent about how we go about collecting the news.

“Lift the bonnet.” “Explain to people what we’re doing.” It’s almost as if the public wants more fact-based, transparently sourced reporting in their news, not partisan propaganda. And, go figure, in a rabidly consumerist culture, they want receipts too. Tucker seems to agree, though the corporate media and their advertisers/investors from Big Pharma, Big Tech, the Military-Industrial Complex, and other powerful institutions whose narratives the public is questioning, likely do not. For Tucker and other gatekeepers, this public scrutiny is inconvenient, perhaps even impertinent, but also a market reality news organizations must now at least pay lip service to addressing. Perhaps this is what has contributed to record-low levels of approval and trust of the news media among the public.

Indy Journalism Can Build Public Trust While Fighting Fake News

Media scholars have described this conundrum as an epistemic one, the ushering in of a “post-truth” world “in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” The mis- and disinformation ecosystem that has emerged in this post-truth climate has establishment institutions from the WEF to Congress and the mass media themselves clutching pearls. Even the American public has come to believe that the lack of trustworthy information is a greater threat than terrorism. With the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, these concerns, along with increasing existential attacks on journalists and the news media itself, including ABC, CBS, NPR/PBS, and even the Associated Press as “enemies of the American people,” are growing rapidly and in unprecedented ways.

There certainly are major issues with corporate media and establishment outlets, which we at Project Censored have documented for nearly half a century. However, our critiques are not meant to undermine major media for partisan gain. Instead, the Project’s criticisms of corporate news expose systemic gaps and slant in coverage, in order to pressure the nation’s most prominent news outlets to use their massive budgets and influence to serve the public good, rather than private interests, by holding corporate and government abusers of power accountable. Given the well-documented limitations of corporate media, we support a robust, independent, and public media system, because a commercial, for-profit model cannot “tell the people what is really going on,” as George Seldes once put it. The solution to our present journalistic woes does not lie with industry leaders, biased fact-checkers, or Big Tech content moderators. It rests on critical media literacy and a fiercely independent free press.

In support of this proposed solution, Project Censored advocates for a healthy democracy by promoting news literacy education, especially by providing hands-on training in critical media literacy for students, through our curriculum, student internships, and Campus Affiliates Program, each of which distinguishes Project Censored from other news watch organizations and press freedom groups. Further, each year, Project Censored also recognizes some of the best independent journalists, reporting factually, transparently, and ethically in the public interest, pointing out that these are among the best advocates of news literacy, literally teaching by example. So, ironically, the very solutions to the revitalization of our failing Fourth Estate are its most radical independent practitioners, not their owners/employers or meddling partisan outsiders. History shows this to be the case, and we should listen to what the past can teach us.

“All Governments Lie”

Among the many books Jensen published, one of the most significant might be Stories That Changed America: Muckrakers of the 20th Century. In it, he collected exemplary work by nearly two dozen legendary journalists, his selection of the previous century’s most significant truth-tellers, including excerpts from decisive reports by Ida Tarbell (The History of the Standard Oil Company), Lincoln Steffans (The Shame of the Cities), Upton Sinclair (The Jungle and The Brass Check), George Seldes (In Fact), Edward R. Murrow (In Search of Light), and I.F. Stone (I.F. Stone’s Weekly). As Jensen wrote, “Their words led to a nationwide public revolt against social evils and [decades] of reforms in antitrust legislation, the electoral process, banking regulations, and a host of other social programs.” The reporting Jensen collected in Stories That Changed America continues to inspire those of us who believe journalism can make a difference.

“All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out,” the iconic muckraker “Izzy” Stone once wrote. But Stone had great faith in the power of the press to expose and counter those lies. We need brave, independent journalists and newsrooms to tackle the most controversial and suppressed issues of our era. Stone relentlessly exposed governmental prevarications and injustices throughout his career. He also saw the shortcomings of his own profession, to the point of resigning from the National Press Club in 1941, rather than kowtowing to its racism and political sycophancy. After realizing he had limited influence in the establishment press, he started I.F. Stone’s Weekly and dared to report the truth on his own. He took on McCarthyism at a time when his peers were being attacked, arrested, deported, and disappeared. He fought for truth and peace in the face of the unjust, murderous conflicts of the Cold War, especially in Vietnam. Sound familiar?

Governments lie. Stone’s insight is timeless, but it seems more relevant than ever in 2025. The Trump administration and its enablers bombard us daily with lies and half-truths, what Reporters Without Borders has characterized as “a monumental assault on freedom of information.” At best, the establishment press seems capable of little more than chronicling the barrage; at worst, they capitulate to it.

The notion of a press “watchdog” on a governmental leash did not begin with the current administration—as Jensen and his students at Sonoma State noted in 1976 looking back on the eve of Richard Nixon’s re-election, no major news outlet even mentioned the Watergate scandal—and the roots of a subservient press reach back to the earliest history of American journalism on the presidency. But the return of Trump to power is a nadir for many of our cherished freedoms, including those of the First Amendment, which links freedom of speech and press with the rights to assemble and petition—and the public, our democracy, needs journalism that can help us awaken from what historian Timothy Snyder has described as a “self-induced intellectual coma” that is characteristic of  “the politics of inevitability.”

The Izzy’s Are Coming!

Calling out counter-democratic measures is one way to resist the onslaught of authoritarianism. A free press provides the means for this, but people need to act in response. Rather than complain that “the left” needs a media power like Rupert Murdoch’s to “compete,” we should open our eyes and support the amazing people and organizations doing this invaluable work already. Project Censored highlights the most important but under-reported independent news stories each year, promoting the work of independent journalists, news outlets, and press freedom organizations that exemplify “media democracy in action.” Their work embodies the very spirit of resistance and amplifies the voices of those trammeled by oligarchs and would-be despots.

The Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College shares this ethos, supporting independent media as a bulwark against everyday injustices and creeping tyranny. Among the only academic centers of journalism in the United States focused solely on independent media, each year, PCIM honors the leading independent journalists of our time with its Izzy Award, named in honor of I.F. “Izzy” Stone. April 30 marks the seventeenth annual award ceremony, which will also be the occasion for numerous muckraking journalists and free press organizations to convene and build coalitions, strengthen solidarity, and fight to protect our democratic republic from anyone, whether they bat for Team Red or Team Blue, who would subvert it for their own private gain.

The Izzy Award celebrates the practice of radical muckraking journalism in the public interest, and its continuing relevance in our current Gilded Age of Big Tech plutocracy. The work at PCIM and Project Censored reminds us that we cannot wait for change to simply emerge; we must create it ourselves. If past is prologue, we also have much to learn from and pass on to the next generation, whose experiences and voices will inform and express the stories that change America again, to paraphrase Jensen.

Now is not a time for cowering; it is a time to exhibit what political activist and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg called civil courage, regardless of the odds. Or, as Izzy noted, it is time “to defend the weak against the strong; to fight for justice; and to seek, as best I can to bring healing perspectives to bear on the terrible hates and fears of [humankind], in the hope of someday bringing about one world, in which [people] will enjoy the differences of the human garden instead of killing each other over them.”

Hear, hear. Let’s not get lost in the smoke of the hashish blown in our faces by elite media and government actors. Let’s instead recognize and support the reportorial canaries in the coal mines, from the climate crisis and Kafkaesque raids on the vulnerable among us to the dismantling of education, attacks on the arts, and an ongoing genocide. Let’s act on the information independent journalists share at their own risk, for we ignore them at our own.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Mickey Huff.

The post “All Governments Lie”: Why We Need a Radical and Independent Free Press Now appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

We get an update on “the darkest hour of need” for the Burmese people, from Maung Zarni, a Burmese human rights activist, after a 7.7-magnitude earthquake hit Burma Friday, leaving at least 2,700 dead, with the death toll expected to rise as rescue efforts continue. Aid groups in the worst-hit areas of Burma, also known as Myanmar, said there was an urgent need for shelter, food and water. The country’s civil war has complicated efforts to reach those injured and made homeless in the disaster, and Amnesty International says the military needs to allow aid to reach areas of the country not under its control.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

This will touch on something that is unusual about how I use programming languages in general. The common practice in the industry is one that involves very slow feedback loops, these things we call compile-test cycles: edit, compile, test. I tend to use programming languages that are much more interactive. This is the family of programming languages that come down to us from the communities of LISP and SmallTalk, primarily. In these languages, you’re engaged in a conversation with the computer — your program is running the whole time, you’re modifying it while it’s running, and you can inspect the state within the program to see what’s happening.

This is particularly good for exploratory programming, but also for art making. I can have a sketch running that is using a generative system I’ve created to produce some kind of visual effect. I could think, “What if this parameter were slightly different?” and instead of building a bespoke control panel to do that, I can execute a tiny snippet of code inside my editor that changes what’s happening in the program, so I’m still working in the same medium and I don’t need to switch to a different tool.

I might start with a blank canvas with a loop running that is redrawing something, but it doesn’t know what it’s redrawing yet. Then I will gradually add elements, and those elements may have some innate structure. They may be drawn from nature in some way. Often, in my work, I will start with some natural system I found intriguing, and I’ll think, “What would have to happen geometrically to create a thing that has a form like that?” Then I’ll try to build a system where I’m planting the seed, but the growth happens within the simulation.

I also do a lot of work that is inspired by different periods of art. Maybe there will be something Bauhaus-inspired; I’ll look at a pattern Kandinsky drew by hand and think, “What if I wanted an infinite number of those that were all as good as the one he did by hand? What would I need to tell the computer for it to know [how to do that]?” In that sense, my artwork is often at that meta level. I’m less interested in the single-object output than I am interested in the underlying system that makes things of that nature possible.

Your background is traditionally technical. How has that influenced your identity or your sense of aesthetics as an artist?

I don’t regard scientists and artists as fundamentally different kinds of people. In fact, I regard them as more alike than they are different.

The sort of division you see among people in modern American culture is, to me, a cultural artifact; it’s just an accident of education. I would say the same thing about athletics. The jocks versus geeks division is an entirely synthetic thing that arose in post-1950s America and spread in a diseased way to other parts of the world. There’s nothing about being good at using your nervous system to move your body through space that would make you bad at using your nervous system to reason about geometry.

Based on some early tests that show an aptitude or a proficiency, we’ve narrowly focused people into what we think is going to be the box in which they will perform, when we should be spending more time cultivating what people are innately and immediately good at but also filling in the rest of the profile. So if you’re somebody who finds mathematics easy but is intimidated by the idea of drawing classes, then you should be doing that. These things are all aspects of humanity, and it’s a mistake to leave any of them behind.

In your 2019 ClojuTRE talk on computational creativity, you gave a brief survey of historical definitions of creativity. After absorbing all of those, where do you net out? What grand unified theory of creativity do you subscribe to?

I think it’s the fundamental aspect that makes us human beings. Creative problem-solving is the thing that we do better [than any other species]. Communication is the other thing that we do better, which allows us to do creative problem-solving in groups. If you want to know why we’ve spread over the entire world and lived in every kind of ecosystem successfully, it’s because we’ve been able to creatively solve problems along the way. Without that, I don’t think we’re really people. Leaving aside your creative drives as an individual is a mistake, because it’s leaving aside your birthright as a human.

A question in the AI discourse right now is whether AI will ever be able to create the way a human does. Large language models can create reasonable facsimiles of mediocre writing and drawing, but that sort of path-breaking creative synthesis still seems to be uniquely human. As someone who has been in this field for a long time, what do you think is coming in terms of the influence of AI?

To touch on the first part of what you said, about mediocrity: when you have a big statistical model that is essentially taking the sum and then the average of the internet, whether it’s in words or pictures, then you can expect the output to be [average] by definition. Now, you can steer these models to get you somewhat surprising outputs, and that’s cool. I have some friends who train their own models and build complex workflows to come up with things that are very nice in terms of the outputs they achieve. For me, mostly, if I’m using a prompt to an LLM to generate an image, I can get an output that looks okay to good, because I word good and I have enough taste to pick the images that I think are okay. But after I’ve done that, I don’t feel like I’ve done anything, because I don’t feel like there’s any of me in the output.

I think a lot of where our good stuff comes from is actually from how the act of making the art changes us as individuals. Ages ago, I went to art school at night while I was doing a startup in Silicon Valley. I’d been a lifelong musician, and playing music my whole life meant that I heard everything differently. When I hear the leaves rustling, I hear the rhythm of the leaves rolling along the ground. When I hear the whistle on my kettle, I know what pitch it is. So I thought, “I’ll go to art school, and maybe it will change the way I see.” And of course it did. There’s no way you can learn to draw in charcoal and capture light and shadow without it changing the way you see everything for the rest of your life.

What if we take away the need to do any of those things to produce those outputs? Then we get an entire generation of people who do not transform themselves into having a higher level of perception. What does that do for our ability to discriminate between what is just AI slop and what is actually something amazing and beautiful? It’s leaving behind part of our birthright as humans, to outsource some of the best stuff we have going to the machines, even if the machines can do it.

Also, the more stuff there is, the more sifting has to be done to find the good stuff. Making a machine for the unlimited production of mediocre junk means that the signal-to-noise ratio is getting worse all the time, and I dislike this vigorously.

On the other hand, I think these technologies can become the components of amazing engineering solutions later on. An example of this, not in the artistic context, is that I took some LLMs and I attached them to a query apparatus for WikiData, the database version of Wikipedia. I was able to use the LLM to get the data into the system from natural language. Then I do a query against this fact database, and then I take the series of dry facts that it returns and have it reformatted as nice, flowing prose. So I get something that you can get into and out of with human language that doesn’t hallucinate any details, and this is actually immediately useful.

I think many things of that nature are coming. Artistic tools where the trained model is more like a paintbrush and less like an outsourced cheap artist are going to be extremely powerful. In cinema, I think we’ll see the cost of making movies drop to one-one-hundredth of the time and one-one-hundredth of the cost using these kinds of tools, because CGI is such an important part of film production already. In this sense, when the good tools come out of it, you will see actual artists be able to do more and better.

Have you been able to find a balance between the things you do to pay the bills and the things you do to satisfy an artistic impulse? Do you find the same amount of creativity and joy in your work at Applied Sciences as you do in the art you make?

Here, I have to start by saying that I’m in a position of ridiculous privilege. I came of age at a time when the things I liked to do for fun were among the most lucrative things you could do for a living.

Throughout my career, I have been able to work on only things I’m interested in and be paid very well for them, both on the science and programming side and also on the art side. Obviously, I make more money from the tech stuff than the art stuff. But in years when I’m more active, like in 2020, I made enough that I could have made a living in Berlin just from the art side. This is possible. It’s difficult and it requires a lot of luck, but it is possible. So I’m in the weird position where I don’t have to choose between the things I love and the things that pay the bills because everything I get paid for is also something I love. And I recognize the tremendous privilege of that statement.

What do you think it takes to do that, beyond luck? Are there things a person can do to be more likely to have that kind of outcome?

Having a very active daily practice, and never letting it get away from you, is incredibly important. Björk has a fantastic quote about not letting yourself get gummed up and only releasing something every seven years because it puts you out of the flow of creating: “Don’t hold your breath for five or seven years and not release anything, and then you’ve just got clogged up with way too much stuff… You lose contact to the part of you, your subconscious, that’s writing songs all the time, and the part of you that’s showing it to the world… That’s more important, to sustain that flow, than to wait until things are perfect.”

Whatever it is that you do, you have to really do it. If you have a choice between doing it for three hours on Sunday or doing it for 15 minutes a day for the rest of the week, do it 15 minutes a day, because what you do every day is what your brain is working on when you’re not paying attention. Your subconscious is making progress on the things you do constantly. There’s a bowdlerization of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that gets quoted a lot, which is that excellence is just a function of habit. It’s what you do repeatedly. Lean into it. Do the work.

And — this is the bad news, because many programmers or artists are not necessarily interested in standing up on a chair and shouting about themselves in public—if you do beautiful work and nobody sees it, you’re not going to have a good career. You have to find a way to surface what you’re doing.

If it were five to 10 years ago, I would say to get a Twitter account, communicate with the kinds of people who are interested in the kind of thing you do, post all of this work that you’re doing as your daily practice, and you will be noticed. Today, it’s a more complicated situation. Some arsonists have set fire to Twitter and it’s now full of smoke and dead bodies, so very few people you would want to find your work will go to that place. I think we’re in an interregnum where there isn’t a good public space to demonstrate excellence for most arts. But it is important that you find a way to do that, or you will likely go unnoticed.

I also wanted to ask you about your time AT&T Research, formerly Bell Labs. Bell Labs has a mythical place in tech lore. It was a hotbed of innovation and a Schelling point for practically every computer science pioneer you’ve ever heard of. Did that still penetrate the company’s DNA when you were there?

It was definitely a unique environment. First, as in any such situation, it was the people. You had a large concentration of brilliant people all in one place. That’s always a good thing.

The facility where I worked, the Claude Shannon Lab, was in a leafy suburb in New Jersey. We would go down to eat in the cafeteria, and there were floor-to-ceiling glass windows, and we would see deer outside. In my wing, the people in the other offices were Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++, and David Korn, who created KornShell. I used to ride in his minivan from downtown Manhattan, because there were a bunch of us who preferred to live in the city. So the vibe had mostly to do with the people, and then the facility itself being the perfect leafy campus environment, but tuned for grown-ups — well, eternally Peter Pan grown-ups.

We did some great work there, even though when I worked there it was after the heyday. Unix was invented around the time I was born, so I missed out on all those great things. But I know most of those people because I was very young when I got started in the industry, and they weren’t dead yet. Some of them are still walking around. So I have all the stories, I’m happy to report. The vibe, I think, was still similar, but obviously the level of work, while good, wasn’t as world-shaking as it was earlier in the 20th century.

Why do you think that was? Was it a function of something changing in the way the work was supported?

There were a couple of things. One is that the way research was supported changed. Here we come back to that idea of patronage. Both artists and scientists have in common that they do their best work when they are left alone and allowed to chase their own curiosity and their own aesthetics and their own feelings. The appetite and the surplus to allow that has decreased year on year since the middle of the 20th century.

There was a period where this was really celebrated, and it was considered a good use of funds to have people do things that may pay you back nothing but also may give you a whole different world. You would fund it with some faith in the fact that if the people are talented enough, something good will come out of it.

After the Reagan–Thatcher revolution, that became less of a thing. Ideologically, everything shifted to this idea that you should have a return-on-investment angle on what happens. And because you can’t predict the outcome of research, it is effectively impossible to have a return on investment attitude towards it.

A great example of this is the iPhone. The capacitive touch display was invented 25 years before that at Bell Labs by somebody who was just chasing their own interest. If that person hadn’t had the opportunity to plant those seeds, then Apple could not have reaped the benefits later. Right now, I feel like we’ve really shifted towards reaping, and left sowing to be somebody else’s problem. This will continue to harm us in the future, because if we keep doing basically the same things over and over again, we won’t have any new seed corn.

There are certainly little pockets where that focus on something other than ROI still exists. But I agree. It feels like everyone recognizes the value of something like Bell Labs, yet very few people have the risk appetite or long-term thinking to fund that anymore.

It’s not just the absence of a Bell Labs sort of thing. There are other social opportunities available that are not followed. For example, I was talking to some people who will remain nameless but who are very high in an organization that makes a popular search engine and browser. I wanted them to fund some improvements to a text editor called Emacs that I’ve been using for nearly 40 years. With a good team working on it and with some actual financial support, a lot could be improved. Around half of their employees use Emacs, so it seemed like it would even pay them back, in some sense. But they told me that the most their enormous, many-billions-a-year company could possibly [contribute] was funding for some student [project].

This kind of thing is insane. These are public goods that they consume, but they don’t see it as their responsibility to help support that commons. This is a problem with open-source software in general — it is insufficiently supported. It’s shared infrastructure, and shared infrastructure requires shared support.

If you could reshape the way the internet has evolved, where would you start?

I would try to prioritize [changing] some of the infantilizing drives of current products. It is very fashionable at the moment to believe that if a person can’t use something immediately on first seeing it, then it should be thrown away, because people are stupid and have no patience. This is a prevalent way of thinking about user interfaces. But if you look at the user interface of the violin, it’s terrible for quite a while. You have to put in some effort before you can do anything useful with the violin. But then you can do something that you simply cannot do with a tiny children’s xylophone. There are effects you can achieve if you’re willing to put in the work.

I feel like there’s a large area to explore of slightly more difficult things that have a higher ceiling. I believe you should raise the floor as much as you can, but you shouldn’t do it by lowering the ceiling.

I would like to make it more possible for people to, for example, automate things on their own; end user programming is the technical term for this. In a system like HyperCard, this was very effective. People could build systems to run their entire business inside of this very cool piece of software that you ran on a Macintosh. I don’t see a modern thing that is as good. There’s more we can do to democratize the programmatic aspects of owning a computer so that people have more power as individuals.

There have to be these open-box systems where you can play with the parts. Otherwise, you’re strictly a consumer. On Instagram, that’s exactly how I feel. I post my artwork there, but that’s the limit of what I can do. Someone else has decided the limits of my world. And I resent that.

At the end of your talk on creative computation, you give some recommendations for programmers who want to get in touch with their creative side: take an art course, meditate, take psychedelic mushrooms. I assume those recommendations still hold, but what else would you recommend to anybody who wants to connect with their creativity?

The important thing, and I tried to stress it in that talk, is that you can approach things as a reasoning and reasonable agent who is putting one fact in front of another and trying to be very orderly and systematic. That is an important way of being. But there’s another way of approaching things, which is to open yourself up to your own intuition and to feel your way through things. That’s no less important a way of being. You have to have both to be a complete human being. So whether a person is a programmer who isn’t as in touch with their intuition, or they’re an artist who is not as in touch with their ability to be analytical, I feel that whichever side you’re coming from, you should be trying to fill in the part at which you are the weakest so that you can be a more complete person.

For a lot of people, getting in touch with the intuitive side also has to do with the body itself, because many people are very disembodied. So, going to a yoga class, taking up meditation, doing things that allow you to realize that you are an embodied creature, and then starting to listen to how your body is feeling. Having a daily practice of checking in with yourself can automatically and immediately start to open you up to being able to do creative things. If you combine that with the daily practice of journaling or drawing or something else that allows you to focus those feelings and externalize them in some way, very quickly you’ll discover you have an artistic side you never knew was there.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Rebecca Hiscott.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Leaders at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered staff this week not to release their experts’ assessment that found the risk of catching measles is high in areas near outbreaks where vaccination rates are lagging, according to internal records reviewed by ProPublica.

In an aborted plan to roll out the news, the agency would have emphasized the importance of vaccinating people against the highly contagious and potentially deadly disease that has spread to 19 states, the records show.

A CDC spokesperson told ProPublica in a written statement that the agency decided against releasing the assessment “because it does not say anything that the public doesn’t already know.” She added that the CDC continues to recommend vaccines as “the best way to protect against measles.”

But what the nation’s top public health agency said next shows a shift in its long-standing messaging about vaccines, a sign that it may be falling in line under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of vaccines:

“The decision to vaccinate is a personal one,” the statement said, echoing a line from a column Kennedy wrote for the Fox News website. “People should consult with their healthcare provider to understand their options to get a vaccine and should be informed about the potential risks and benefits associated with vaccines.”

ProPublica shared the new CDC statement about personal choice and risk with Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health. To her, the shift in messaging, and the squelching of this routine announcement, is alarming.

“I’m a bit stunned by that language,” Nuzzo said. “No vaccine is without risk, but that makes it sound like it’s a very active coin toss of a decision. We’ve already had more cases of measles in 2025 than we had in 2024, and it’s spread to multiple states. It is not a coin toss at this point.”

For many years, the CDC hasn’t minced words on vaccines. It promoted them with confidence. One campaign was called “Get My Flu Shot.” The agency’s website told medical providers they play a critical role in helping parents choose vaccines for their children: “Instead of saying ‘What do you want to do about shots?,’ say ‘Your child needs three shots today.’”

Nuzzo wishes the CDC’s forecasters would put out more details of their data and evidence on the spread of measles, not less. “The growing scale and severity of this measles outbreak and the urgent need for more data to guide the response underscores why we need a fully staffed and functional CDC and more resources for state and local health departments,” she said.

Kennedy’s agency oversees the CDC and on Thursday announced it was poised to eliminate 2,400 jobs there.

When asked what role, if any, Kennedy played in the decision to not release the risk assessment, HHS’ communications director said the aborted announcement “was part of an ongoing process to improve communication processes — nothing more, nothing less.” The CDC, he reiterated, continues to recommend vaccination “as the best way to protect against measles.”

“Secretary Kennedy believes that the decision to vaccinate is a personal one and that people should consult with their healthcare provider to understand their options to get a vaccine,” Andrew G. Nixon said. “It is important that the American people have radical transparency and be informed to make personal healthcare decisions.”

Responding to questions about criticism of the decision among some CDC staff, Nixon wrote, “Some individuals at the CDC seem more interested in protecting their own status or agenda rather than aligning with this Administration and the true mission of public health.”

The CDC’s risk assessment was carried out by its Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics, which relied, in part, on new disease data from the outbreak in Texas. The CDC created the center to address a major shortcoming laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic. It functions like a National Weather Service for infectious diseases, harnessing data and expertise to predict the course of outbreaks like a meteorologist warns of storms.

Other risk assessments by the center have been posted by the CDC even though their conclusions might seem obvious.

In late February, for example, forecasters analyzing the spread of H5N1 bird flu said people who come “in contact with potentially infected animals or contaminated surfaces or fluids” faced a moderate to high risk of contracting the disease. The risk to the general U.S. population, they said, was low.

In the case of the measles assessment, modelers at the center determined the risk of the disease for the general public in the U.S. is low, but they found the risk is high in communities with low vaccination rates that are near outbreaks or share close social ties to those areas with outbreaks. The CDC had moderate confidence in the assessment, according to an internal Q&A that explained the findings. The agency, it said, lacks detailed data about the onset of the illness for all patients in West Texas and is still learning about the vaccination rates in affected communities as well as travel and social contact among those infected. (The H5N1 assessment was also made with moderate confidence.)

The internal plan to roll out the news of the forecast called for the expert physician who’s leading the CDC’s response to measles to be the chief spokesperson answering questions. “It is important to note that at local levels, vaccine coverage rates may vary considerably, and pockets of unvaccinated people can exist even in areas with high vaccination coverage overall,” the plan said. “The best way to protect against measles is to get the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.”

This week, though, as the number of confirmed cases rose to 483, more than 30 agency staff were told in an email that after a discussion in the CDC director’s office, “leadership does not want to pursue putting this on the website.”

The cancellation was “not normal at all,” said a CDC staff member who spoke anonymously for fear of reprisal with layoffs looming. “I’ve never seen a rollout plan that was canceled at that far along in the process.”

Anxiety among CDC staff has been building over whether the agency will bend its public health messages to match those of Kennedy, a lawyer who founded an anti-vaccine group and referred clients to a law firm suing a vaccine manufacturer.

During Kennedy’s first week on the job, HHS halted the CDC campaign that encouraged people to get flu shots during a ferocious flu season. On the night that the Trump administration began firing probationary employees across the federal government, some key CDC flu webpages were taken down. Remnants of some of the campaign webpages were restored after NPR reported this.

But some at the agency felt like the new leadership had sent a message loud and clear: When next to nobody was paying attention, long-standing public health messages could be silenced.

On the day in February that the world learned that an unvaccinated child had died of measles in Texas, the first such death in the U.S. since 2015, the HHS secretary downplayed the seriousness of the outbreak. “We have measles outbreaks every year,” he said at a cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump.

In an interview on Fox News this month, Kennedy championed doctors in Texas who he said were treating measles with a steroid, an antibiotic and cod liver oil, a supplement that is high in vitamin A. “They’re seeing what they describe as almost miraculous and instantaneous recovery from that,” Kennedy said.

As parents near the outbreak in Texas stocked up on vitamin A supplements, doctors there raced to assure parents that only vaccination, not the vitamin, can prevent measles.

Still, the CDC added an entry on Vitamin A to its measles website for clinicians.

On Wednesday, CNN reported that several hospitalized children in Lubbock, Texas, had abnormal liver function, a likely sign of toxicity from too much vitamin A.

Texas health officials also said that the Trump administration’s decision to rescind $11 billion in pandemic-related grants across the country will hinder their ability to respond to the growing outbreak, according to The Texas Tribune.

Measles is among the most contagious diseases and can be dangerous. About 20% of unvaccinated people who get measles wind up in the hospital. And nearly 1 to 3 of every 1,000 children with measles will die from respiratory and neurologic complications. The virus can linger in the air for two hours after an infected person has left an area, and patients can spread measles before they even know they have it.

This week Amtrak said it was notifying customers that they may have been exposed to the disease this month when a passenger with measles rode one of its trains from New York City to Washington, D.C.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Patricia Callahan.

So, it isn’t surprising that the Tesla Takedown campaign has blossomed with large and enthusiastic protests with people from all walks of life and ages to stop this madness. As a result, Tesla’s stock has tanked with its brand now viewed as more akin to Hitler’s Volkswagen than a vehicle to fight climate change. In Germany, Tesla’s sales have crashed and a miniscule number of people have said they will buy one in the future.

Tesla Takedown is one of the many raging streams of opposition to Trump and Musk, most visible with Bernie Sanders “The Fighting Oligarchy Tour ” drawing thousands of people, many in Republican strongholds, across the country. As Bernie declared at a recent rally at Arizona State University:

“It’s not just oligarchy that we are going to fight. It’s not just authoritarianism that we’re going to fight. We will not accept a society today in which we have massive income and wealth inequality, where the very rich have never done better while working families are struggling to put food on the table.”

Income inequality, fear of authoritarianism, and working class concerns are not where you usually find British television personality Jeremy Clarkson, an enthusiastic Thatherite, multi-millionaire, former co-host of Top Gear and the Grand Tour, and currently the host of Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon Prime.

Let’s be clear that he is not on our side, but he has taken the opportunity to puff out his chest and declare that he was right all along about Elon Musk. Musk sued Clarkson for defamation for a critical review of one of Tesla’s early vehicles nearly two decades ago. Musk lost the case. Musk, like Trump, uses lawsuits whatever their merit to silence critics. So, it was a good thing that Musk lost the suit. And, Clarkson is greatly enjoying the turn-of-event against Musk. But, he can’t leave at that.

He recently wrote in the Sunday Times:

The fact, then, is this. I was always scrupulously fair with my car reviews. Musk claimed I wasn’t. And this is his payback. And what makes it so juicy is that he’s being pecked to death by the very people who put him on the pedestal in the first place. The eco hippies.

“Eco-hippies” is the type of nasty swipe that Clarkson likes to make against anyone concerned about climate change. The fact is that Tesla cars were bought by a largely upper, middle-class grouping, where climate change was a way Musk marketed his cars to them. The turn against Musk is not first and foremost about his cars, but his political role in the Trump administration.

I’ve seen a lot of people passing around Clarkson’s pompous column, Seventeen years after that nice Mr. Musk sued me, victory is mine, as if it is something that vindicates our opposition to Trump and Musk. It is not. Clarkson is a notorious bigot and misogynist, who was fired from the BBC’s top-rated Top Gear for assaulting a staffer. For opponents of Trump and Musk, Jeremy Clarkson is not our friend.

The post Opponents of Elon Musk Don’t Need Jeremy Clarkson appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Joe Allen.

So, it isn’t surprising that the Tesla Takedown campaign has blossomed with large and enthusiastic protests with people from all walks of life and ages to stop this madness. As a result, Tesla’s stock has tanked with its brand now viewed as more akin to Hitler’s Volkswagen than a vehicle to fight climate change. In Germany, Tesla’s sales have crashed and a miniscule number of people have said they will buy one in the future.

Tesla Takedown is one of the many raging streams of opposition to Trump and Musk, most visible with Bernie Sanders “The Fighting Oligarchy Tour ” drawing thousands of people, many in Republican strongholds, across the country. As Bernie declared at a recent rally at Arizona State University:

“It’s not just oligarchy that we are going to fight. It’s not just authoritarianism that we’re going to fight. We will not accept a society today in which we have massive income and wealth inequality, where the very rich have never done better while working families are struggling to put food on the table.”

Income inequality, fear of authoritarianism, and working class concerns are not where you usually find British television personality Jeremy Clarkson, an enthusiastic Thatherite, multi-millionaire, former co-host of Top Gear and the Grand Tour, and currently the host of Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon Prime.

Let’s be clear that he is not on our side, but he has taken the opportunity to puff out his chest and declare that he was right all along about Elon Musk. Musk sued Clarkson for defamation for a critical review of one of Tesla’s early vehicles nearly two decades ago. Musk lost the case. Musk, like Trump, uses lawsuits whatever their merit to silence critics. So, it was a good thing that Musk lost the suit. And, Clarkson is greatly enjoying the turn-of-event against Musk. But, he can’t leave at that.

He recently wrote in the Sunday Times:

The fact, then, is this. I was always scrupulously fair with my car reviews. Musk claimed I wasn’t. And this is his payback. And what makes it so juicy is that he’s being pecked to death by the very people who put him on the pedestal in the first place. The eco hippies.

“Eco-hippies” is the type of nasty swipe that Clarkson likes to make against anyone concerned about climate change. The fact is that Tesla cars were bought by a largely upper, middle-class grouping, where climate change was a way Musk marketed his cars to them. The turn against Musk is not first and foremost about his cars, but his political role in the Trump administration.

I’ve seen a lot of people passing around Clarkson’s pompous column, Seventeen years after that nice Mr. Musk sued me, victory is mine, as if it is something that vindicates our opposition to Trump and Musk. It is not. Clarkson is a notorious bigot and misogynist, who was fired from the BBC’s top-rated Top Gear for assaulting a staffer. For opponents of Trump and Musk, Jeremy Clarkson is not our friend.

The post Opponents of Elon Musk Don’t Need Jeremy Clarkson appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Joe Allen.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Progressives, put aside your justifiable detestation of Donald Trump and his Musky minions for one second, and answer this question:

Q: What’s the most important difference between MAGA Republicans and Democrats?

A: MAGA Republicans have a program for change.

Yes, it’s a terrible program: a toxic mix of pro-oligarchy economic policy, tribal-nationalist politics, patriarchal social values, and hatred of the public sector.  But MAGA policies are based on a relatively coherent ideology that identifies what right-wingers consider the main sources of oppression – the administrative state, left-leaning universities and news media, undocumented immigrants, street criminals, and foreign competitors – and that promises to eliminate or transform them.

MAGA leaders believe that the American system is broken and that they know how to rebuild it.  Therefore, once in power, they implement immediate measures to change existing institutions. True, these initiatives tend to be poorly thought through, arbitrary, and inhumane, and they generate legal challenges to the authority of the President and other executive officials.  But social movements with a program for change frequently strain or violate existing norms.  Furthermore, their advocates tend to take strong action, while defenders of the established status quo seem content just to talk.

Talk about role reversals!  By acting as change-agents, the MAGA-pols have maneuvered the Democrats into the position of acting as backward-looking defenders of the Establishment.  The anti-Trumpers mean well, but all their handwringing about the President’s authoritarianism, venality, and cruelty will not change the fact that his forces have a program for change, and they do not.

Most Democratic politicians do not think that the system is broken, only that it needs minor repairs.  As a result, the policies and public actions they envision for the future differ hardly at all from those of a Joe Biden or a Bill Clinton. Most of them embrace a mishmash of liberal (but not too liberal) attitudes regarding domestic political issues and militaristic flag-waving (which they call “American global leadership”) in foreign affairs.  Raise the minimum wage they say – but not too high, and don’t even think about altering the established system of private financial power and “management rights.”  Tax the rich, but not too severely, and never talk about redistributing wealth to poor and near-poor working people.  Support clean energy and environmental protection – but protect the fossil fuel industries!  Work for international peace – but don’t antagonize the military-industrial complex!

This sort of vacuous, passive thinking, not just the benighted views of the MAGA base, were responsible for the disastrous decline in Democratic votes in the last election and, therefore, for the Trump victory.  On the other side, MAGA leaders working through right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and correctly assessing the high degree of civic discontent developed radical policies purporting to solve working people’s problems.  That these policies made no sense was politically irrelevant.  In 2024, there was no leftist alternative to the rightists and their Project 2025.  When there is no Left, and when the existing system fails to satisfy people’s basic needs, discontented voters predictably turn Right.

The Urgent Need for New Discussions and Organization

What would a genuinely progressive program look like?  I have a few ideas about this – and I’m sure you do, too – but we desperately need discussions starting immediately and continuing through the year to surface key ideas, assess their effectiveness and practicality, and convert them into workable policy proposals. Think tanks can sponsor some of these exchanges, but people of all ages and backgrounds can meet in churches and clubs, high schools and universities, town halls, popular bars, and other public forums to let their views be known.

One goal crucial to these deliberations is the need to unite key sectors of the population that Trump and MAGA-ism have divided: in particular, workers in high tech and public service industries and those in older industries and occupations.  Note that the need for unity does NOT require that we become more “moderate.”  On the contrary, it means developing problem-solving solutions radical enough to make problems based on unnecessary scarcities and manipulated insecurities disappear, and to change key elements of a dysfunctional market-driven system.

Here are a few of the specific issues that I would raise at a public discussion. But make up your own list – the more, the merrier!

Problem: The Oligarchy.  Solution: Redistribute wealth and power.  Like drunks after a bad night before, pretty much all the Dems now declare themselves allies of the People against the Bad Oligarchs. But raising the minimum wage and taxing the rich a bit more will not change the system that has produced fifty years of wage stagnation, deep urban poverty, rural decay, and gross inequality.  

Why not consider a 100% income tax on incomes over $1 million, and a wealth tax designed to lessen our exploding social disparities?  Why not talk about nationalizing Big Pharma and the high-tech giants that depend on government grants and research to survive?  Oligarchical capitalism inevitably produces authoritarian politics designed to serve the billionaires’ interests by crippling the labor movement and privatizing social services. Why not reverse Citizens United, finance election campaigns publicly, and stop the legalized bribery of American politicians?  How about slashing the administrative state’s vast corporate welfare programs instead of the public interest programs that MAGA hates?

Problem: Unnecessary scarcities. Solution: Democratic planning.  Politicians of both major parties spend most of their time arguing about conflicts that need not exist at all if the scarcities that generate them could be eliminated.  But it takes planning to reduce scarcity, and to all Reps and most Dems planning is a dirty, “socialist” word.

Isn’t this absurd?  Since economic planning is tabooed, deep poverty persists, along with the street crime and mass incarceration that it generates.  Because Trump hates industrial policy, he relies on tariffs (i.e., corporate welfare) to stimulate domestic industry and gives us — ta dah! — trade wars.  With a modicum of community-controlled planning we could develop a rational, humane immigration policy – but the politicians would rather play anti-immigrant games.  In one of the world’s richest countries, marginalized social groups compete against slightly better-off groups for jobs and college admissions.  Why fight over DEI, when with popular control over our economy we could easily create enough jobs and college slots for everyone?

Problem: The American Empire and its endless wars. Solution: Positive peace.  Many of Trump’s opponents are enraged by his apparent unwillingness to maintain the system of “global order” instituted by regimes since World War II – a system designed to maintain American hegemony as the world’s leading military power and international decision-maker.  They don’t seem to understand that most of the world’s people consider Trump’s weird mix of selective imperialism, nuclear militarism, and “America First” isolationism an improvement over Biden-era warmongering.

The progressive opposition needs to consider what America’s foreign policy should be other than a revival liberal gun-running masquerading as democracy promotion.  What does genuine internationalism look like in an era of increasing nationalist prejudice and threats of war?  How can peaceful conflict resolution leading to positive peace become the chief driver of U.S. global policy?  Reducing the trillion-dollar U.S. military budget by at least half would open the door to secure funding of social security and other needed public services.  In international as well as national politics, there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

It’s time to talk together about all these issues – and many, many others.  Some influential liberals will no doubt warn that “divisive” discussions are dangerous since they could split the party and strengthen Trump – but listening to this sort of “wise advice” is what got us where we now are.  By contrast, right-wing ideologues like Steve Bannon risked splitting the Republican party to give it a philosophy and program reflecting their values and capable of energizing a mass base.  On the strategic level, the left-hating Bannon understands Marx and Lenin a good deal better than most of those declaring themselves leftists! To prevent Trump and his successors from consolidating a permanent dictatorship of the oligarchs, the Democratic Party needs to become a force for systemic change – or else yield to those capable of forming a genuinely progressive party.

This is why we need discussions now.  Reacting to every Trumpian initiative with anger and despair, while refusing to formulate an alternative program to change a broken system, simply plays the MAGA game.  I don’t want to hear any more denunciations of Trump by outraged Congresspeople or cable news anchors longing for a return to power by the “good” oligarchs and “responsible” generals and spy chiefs.  You don’t defeat the Far Right by sentimentalizing the Respectable Center.

We need to learn from our mistakes.  We need a genuine people’s party.  And a people’s party needs a credible program for positive change.  Let’s stop obsessing over the Demagogue-in-Chief and get on with the business of creating that program.

The post We Need A New Progressive Program, And We Need It Now! appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Richard Rubenstein.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

As a Catholic-educated youth from the Midwest, now in my eighties, I am appalled by the President’s current policy of mass deportation. I view the nationwide ICE raids and harsh treatment of detainees as sorely lacking in the social justice of religious teaching.

Operating without moral limits, the indiscriminate deportation of undocumented immigrants proceeds apace, with cruel and humiliating treatment of those apprehended and deported. Young men handcuffed and shackled are forced onto planes heading to the Guantanamo prison or to third countries, where they are incarcerated under undisclosed conditions. Others are held in one or another of the many for-profit “detention centers” scattered about the United States. The ICE roundups target not only criminals and gang  members,  but also undocumented foreign-born residents who have resided peacefully and productively in the U.S. for years or even decades.

ICE raids, detentions and mass deportations now underway utterly disregard religious principles regarding the treatment of migrants and immigrants.  In the Old Testament, Leviticus Chapter 19 enjoins followers to “treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you.”  In the New Testament, Matthew, Chapter 25, God says to the righteous “I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.” In the Holy Quran, Verse 17:70 asserts that everyone’s God-given human dignity must be respected.

In his February 10 letter to the Bishops of the United States. Pope Francis stressed the “infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person.” Referring to the mass deportations in America, he said, “The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to …express its disagreement with any measure that… identifies the legal status of some migrants with criminality.”  While acknowledging a nation’s right to “keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes,” the Pope warned that an immigration policy “built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly.”

In its January 2025 Statement, which draws from Catholic social teaching on migration, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) proposed the following six elements of immigration reform:

1. Enforcement efforts should be targeted, proportional, and humane.

2. Humanitarian protections and due process should be ensured.

3. Long-time residents should have an earned pathway to citizenship.

4. Family unity should remain a cornerstone of the U.S. system.

5. Legal pathways should be expanded, reliable, and efficient.

6. The root causes of forced migration should be addressed.

Based on such principles and especially on the inherent dignity of every human person, faith-based immigration reforms would limit deportations to convicted criminals, drug traffickers, and gang leaders; and assure humanitarian protections for detainees, expand pathways to legal status or citizenship (especially for long-term residents), promote family unity, and address the root causes of forced migration (such as violence or economic crisis).  As the Bishops Conference document states, “a country’s rights to regulate its borders and enforce its immigration laws must be balanced with its responsibilities to uphold the sanctity of human life, respect the God-given dignity of all persons and enact policies that further the common good.”

Faith-based immigration reform would also relieve the terrible fear and anxiety that now afflict our immigrant population–anxieties that keep children out of school, prevent their parents from reporting crime, and discourage  medical and court appointments.

Fortunately, there is in the legislative pipeline a bill that would address at least three important principles of faith-based reform: legal pathways, asylum reform, and humanitarian concerns. The bipartisan Dignity Act of 2023 would greatly strengthen enforcement efforts at the U.S.-Mexico border. At the same time  it would create new options for obtaining lawful status for many or most of the 12 million documented immigrants now in our country. The bill’s Dignity Program would offer deferral from removal for seven years and employment and travel authorizations for those who comply with the conditions. Some elements of the program would even create a pathway to citizenship.

The Dignity Act of 2023 falls short of some biblical principles in its emphasis on immigration ceilings, its strict application requirements, and its failure to define humanitarian standards for the so-called “Humanitarian Campuses.”  Despite the bill’s shortcomings, the USCCB called the Dignity Act of 2023 “a welcome step in the right direction.”

Let’s hope that a more welcoming Dignity Act will one day replace today’s cruel ICE raids and mass deportations. Faith-based immigration reform would recognize the dignity of each person, whether immigrant or asylum-seeker.

The post We Need Faith-Based Immigration Reform appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by L. Michael Hager.

Image by Valeriia Miller.

Reading all the news in my temporary flat at Cambridtge University, where my wife is on a year’s sabbatical leave, I’m able to view all the slaughter in the world and the chaos, increasingly blatant presidential power-grabbing and corporate influence in the US with a certain degree of detachment. That has made me think that it is time for a reassessment of the whole international political situation we’ve been mired in since the end of World War II.

These days seem so reminiscent of 1938, or even 1913, those years leading up to the two World Wars, when there was a grim, seemingly inevitable slog towards war in Europe and, in the case of WWII, also in the western Pacific. During both those antebellum times there were interlocking webs of mutual assistance treaties that had been created as bulwarks against a war, premised on the notion that if attacking a weak country would mean going to war against a number of countries bound by treaty to come to that country’s assistance, such an initial attack would not happen.

In the end, that idea failed catastrophically and in fairly short succession. Instead of preventing war, such treaties instead assured that any first attack would spread like the spark of a prairie fire that under dry climate conditions, or, in a political context, an environment of mutual distrust and paranoia, spreads out of control. In a span of just 31 years during the first half of the 20th Century, that resulted in a total of 85-107 million civilian and military deaths — 70-85 million of these occurring in WWII, and 15-22 million in WWi.

With the benefit of hindsight, I have to say it looks like the tired trope that WWII happened because British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler, has it wrong. Chamberlain was mindful of the incredible destructive power of the modern military war machines of the major powers in the late ‘30s and was trying to prevent a war from happening. He failed not because he was naive but because the network of treaties obliged Britain and France to go to war against Germany once Hitler and Stalin attacked Poland which then meant a war across virtually all of Europe and in its colonial possessions. Similarly, in 1914, a massive war was assured by the interlocking mutual assistance treaties among the European powers, who ended up having to go to war over a single anarchist’s assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne since not responding would have besmirched the honor of those bound by the treaties.

But surely both those wars could have been avoided and over 100 million lives saved — 100 million men, women and children!. As war clouds began to loom on the horizon both times, the governments of the various potential combatants should have held a grand meeting and worked out a rational solution to their disagreements, grievances, fears and perceived threats. Doing so would not have been seen by the populations of the nations as appeasement but as cause for relief.

In today’s world, where we have incomparably more destructive weapons that would make a global conflict vastly more lethal, with death tolls numbered in the billions, not millions, and could potentially wipe out what passes for “civilization,” quite possibly humanity, and even potentially life on Earth. (The total tonnage of explosives used in all of WWII, including the two atomic bombs dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was 3 megatons. Since the largest thermonuclear bomb in the US nuclear arsenal at present, the B83 is 1.2 megatons, that means just three of these bombs, each designed to be delivered by a low-flying B-1 bomber moving at supersonic speed, would alone significantly exceed the destructive power of all weapons used by all sides in WWII. And there would be hundreds or even thousands of nuclear bombs used in a global nuclear war, or even in a war between two of the larger nuclear nations. )

Back in the most scary days of the Cold War and nuclear arms race, British philosopher and Nobel Peace Laureate Bertrand Russell, in calling for nuclear disarmament, was widely linked to the protest chant “Better Red than Dead!” Though he insisted it wasn’t his phrase, he said he agreed with its rationality. Certainly in the era of nuclear weapons its opposite, “Better dead than Red,” makes no sense at all, since opposing launching a nuclear war is not an act of individual courage, but rather of mass murder/suicide. Meanwhile, the problem with mutual assistance treaties is that they automate the decision to go to war once one country attacks another that is protected by such a pact. No matter the reason for the invasion, the signers all are bound to join the fray. That is unacceptable madness where nuclear weapons are involved.

Given this reality, and the numbers of human beings who would die in even a limited war between two nuclear nations, it is time for the nations of Europe and the Asia-Pacific and the United States, to come together in a global conference to de-escalate the rhetoric, the threats, and the paranoia and to work out a way to get along. The starting point is a global ceasefire in all conflicts and the calling of a global peace conference. The people of the world need to demand this of their leaders.

There is, we know, a crisis facing humanity that is much bigger than any crisis faced by individual nations. A crisis of survival that while it may not be felt yet or acknowledged by many, is inexorably approaching. That is the climate catastrophe of global heating which will make the world unlivable at worst, and certainly incapable of supporting even the current population of 8.31 billion people alive today.

That crisis is daunting already and will become increasingly daunting as the years slip by with no concerted global action to address it. Humanity has thus far done little and in many cases has been slipping backwards, particularly in the US. In fact quite the opposite, the nations of the world together spent $2.1 trillion on war and preparation for war in 2024 and are on track to spend more this year even if a major war doesn’t break out.

The US, by conservative estimates, spent $811 billion that year, almost three times China, the second biggest arms spender at $298 billion. America’s arms spending also exceeds the spending of the next nine biggest military spenders, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea.

it is thus incumbent on the US, the country with the largest and most powerful military the world has ever known—one which enjoys the most geographically protected location, bounded as it is by thousands of miles of ocean separating it from countries that could even contemplate attacking it—to take the first step in moving towards a world without war.

How such a winding down of the threat of war can be worked out at the United Nations remains to be seen. But the first task, which would set things moving in the right direction, would be to end the very dangerous war between Ukraine and Russia, and the Israeli war on Gaza. and the West Bank.

Both these conflicts should be resolvable. In the case of Ukraine, it is clear that Russia invaded Ukraine, but it is also clear that the invasion of Ukraine was driven by a legitimate fear Russia — a nation repeatedly attacked over its history by powerful nations to its west — had of the US-promoted drive to sign up nations that were formerly under the control of the Soviet Union or were part of the old Soviet Union, bringing them under the protection of NATO and even placing US military equipment and nuclear weapons and delivery systems at bases in those countries near to or even bordering Russia, and was pushing to do the same with Ukraine, a former soviet (state) of the USSR.

There had been a golden opportunity, with the 1991 collapse of the Communist government of the USSR and its dissolution into the Russian Federation and a group of smaller new independent states. At that point Russia, whose economy was in collapse, would have welcomed being brought into the European Union and NATO (the military pact created expressly to “contain” the USSR), but the US was not interested in doing that, so it didn’t happen.

Even Henry Kissinger, the hardline Secretary of State and national security advisor to Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, a committed anti-Communist and no soft-hearted peacenik, at that historical inflection point in world history, had argued against the US “taking advantage” of Russian weakness to expand NATO and against continuing with the “containment strategy” of the Cold War. Instead of listening to him, a series of US presidents beginning with Bill Clinton and on through Joe Biden did just that, with the result that Russia recovered economically and rearmed in response to the threat posed by NATO and turned towards a increasingly powerful ally, China, leading to the situation we have today.

“Stupid’ is the only word to apply to US policy since the Reagan-Gorbachev summit that brought an end to the Cold War and the only major nuclear disarmament agreement of that frightening era.

With Russia having invaded and conquered 20% of Ukraine and with the US and a number of major NATO allies having provided Ukraine with over a billion dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry to combat Russian troops and even to launch missiles and drones deep into Russian territory, it will be difficult now to get back to a condition of mutual trust, but it must be done. And again, it has to be the US that takes the lead. It is not the US that is threatened, it is the European countries that remember being attacked by Germany (and in Poland’s case, the Germany and the Soviet Union) in 1939, and it is Russia, attacked by France in 1812 and by Germany in 1941-45 ad that the we were threatening with nuclear missiles and in nuclear-capable bombers and supersonic fighter bombers placed in NATO countries throughout the Cold War, and that was having NATO bases placed in countries right on its borders in the more recent 1991-2022 period.

So let’s, as citizens of the US, start letting our government — Senators, Representatives and President Trump and the mass media — know that we want an honest peace in Europe. The US and the European nations of NATO need to offer an end to all the sanctions that have been plaguing Russia in return for an immediate ceasefire, a neutral an independent Ukraine, recognition of the majority Russian regions of eastern Ukraine as either an autonomous state or as part of Russia, following an internationally supervised plebiscite, and a dismantling of the anachronistic NATO, with the proviso that NATO could be revived if Russia were to return to hostilities against Ukraine. In return, Russia would be invited to become part of the European Economic Community.

Turning to the Gaza war, the solution is relatively simple: That festering sore of a captive and subjugated Palestinian population under the thumb of the Israeli state has been allowed to go on for way too long. Again its roots go back to the Cold War that followed World War II, which saw the US adopt and bankroll the new state of Israel founded in 1948 as a reliable ally in the strategically important oil-rich Middle East and North Africa at a time that the Arab nations and the Persian nation of Iran were trying to rid themselves of the colonial bonds and legacy of France and the UK. So important to the US was Israel during that era of US-USSR global rivalry that Washington allowed Israel to establish a theocratic apartheid and specifically Jewish state, with Palestinians suffering political exclusion, second-class status, pogroms, property expropriation, and expulsions.

All that abuse of a captive people has to end in order for peace to come to that powder-keg region. The US alone has the power to stop it. Israel’s genocidal leveling of Gaza over the last two years had been perpetrated largely using the planes, howitzers, tanks, rockets, bombs and diplomatic cover provided by the United States. If the Trump administration and Congress were to cut off those weapons and the spare parts needed to keep American planes flying, Israel would have to back off. The US could demand that Jewish Israeli settlers who been allowed to expropriate and move into territory in the conquered and Israeli-occupied West Bank must be compelled to return stolen lands, IDF forces would have to leave Palestinian territory, and a major redevelopment program to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state would have to be undertaken.

After those two conflicts are resolved, the world can move on to solving other smaller conflicts, and proceed with a phased reduction by all countries of their outsized military forces, beginning with the US, which should offer an immediate unilateral 25% reduction in its military budget, including offering to a negotiate major reduction in its and Russias’s still absurdly huge nuclear stockpiles. (Russia has 5977 nuclear weapons and the US has 5428 — numbers so large that if even a significant percent of them were used by only one country in a successful first-strike, would destroy both countries and much of the world.)

The time for such action to move towards global peace is now!

President Trump claims he wants peace, both in Ukraine and in Gaza, but he’s going about it wrong. It’s not “Peace through American strength” that the world needs; it’s leadership towards global peace through example by the world’s most powerful nation“ that is called for at this historic time. And that will only happen if the American people, many of whom are fed up with massive military spending of needed funds, demand it.

Then we can really start to confront the real enemy of mankind: climate apocalypse.

The post We Urgently Need a Global Peace Movement to Combat Climate Change and Avoid Nuclear Apocalypse appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Dave Lindorff.

Janine Jackson interviewed Dartmouth-based Anne Sosin about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and rural health for the February 7, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

The Hill (1/13/25)

Janine Jackson: A Senate panel voted narrowly this week to advance the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has been emphatically opposed by a range of public health experts for reasons including, but not limited to, his stated belief that vaccines have “poisoned an entire generation of American children.” Yes, his children are vaccinated, but he wishes he “could go back in time” and undo that.

Also, that Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people, while Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese are most immune; that the HPV vaccine causes a higher death risk than the cancer it prevents; that fluoride causes IQ loss; that Vitamin A and chicken soup are cures for measles; that AIDS is not caused by HIV; and that we had almost no school shootings until the introduction of Prozac.

Nevertheless, Kennedy may soon be overseeing Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, coordinating the public health response to epidemics, as well as the approval process for pharmaceuticals, vaccines and supplies.

Our guest says RFK Jr is absolutely a threat to public health, but nixing his nomination is not the same thing as meaningfully engaging the problems that lead people to support him.

Anne Sosin is a public health researcher and practitioner based at Dartmouth College. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Anne Sosin.

Anne Sosin: Thank you so much for having me on the show.

FAIR.org (12/5/24)

JJ: There are a number of people, in lots of places, who have centered their lives perforce on concerns around food and health and medicine. And they see a guy who seems to be challenging Big Pharma, who’s saying food additives are problematic, who’s questioning government agencies. There are a lot of people who are so skeptical of the US healthcare and drug system that a disruptor, even if it’s somebody who says a worm ate his brain—that sounds better than business as usual. And so that’s leading some people to think, well, maybe we can pick out some good ideas here, maybe. But you think that is the wrong approach to RFK Jr.

AS: I think that that’s misguided. Certainly, there are some people who see RFK as a vehicle for championing their causes. And there are other people who think that we should seek common ground with RFK, that we should acquiesce, perhaps, on certain issues, and then work together to advance some other causes.

And I think that that’s misguided. I think we need to recognize what’s given rise to RFK and other extreme figures right now, but we need to make common cause with the communities that he’s exploiting in advancing his own personal and political goals.

JJ: And in particular, you’re thinking about rural communities, which have played a role here, right? What’s going on there?

AS: Yes. My work is centered in rural communities right now, and I think we need to understand the political economy that’s given rise to RFK and other figures—the social, economic, cultural and political changes that have given him a wide landing strip in rural places, as well as some of the institutional vacuums that RFK and other very extreme and polarizing figures are filling.

JJ: Expand on that, please, a little.

Anne Sosin: “Resistance to public health measures often, in my view, reflects unmet need.”

AS: So we’re seeing growing resistance in some places, including rural communities, to public health and interventions that have long been in place, including vaccination and fluoridation. And resistance to public health measures often, in my view, reflects unmet need.

Sometimes those needs are material. We see that people resist or don’t follow public health programs or guidance because they don’t have their material needs met. And those material needs might be housing, paid leave or other supports that they need. But the unmet need might also be emotional or affective, that some people may resist out of a sense of economic or social dislocation, a feeling of invisibility, or something else. And those feelings get expressed as resistance to public health measures that are in place.

And so understanding and recognizing what those unmet needs are is really important. And then thinking about how do we address those needs in ways that are productive, and don’t undermine public health and healthcare, is really important.

JJ: Vaccinations are obviously a big concern here, particularly as we may be going into another big public health concern with bird flu. So the idea that vaccines cause disease is difficult to grapple with, from a public health perspective. Vaccines can’t be a “choose your own adventure” if they’re going to work societally. And it almost seems like, around vaccination, we’re losing the concept of what public health means, and how it’s not about whether or not you decide to eat cheese, you know? There’s kind of a public understanding issue here.

AS: I think you’re correct. I think we’ve seen, just in the US, an increasing DIYification of public health, a loss of the recognition that public health means all of us. Public health is the things that we do together to advance our collective health. And the increased focus on individual decision-making really threatens all of us.

NPR (5/12/21)

And we look for it around vaccination: We have seen very well-funded initiatives to undermine public confidence in vaccination over the last several years. There has been a lot of money spent to dismantle public support and public confidence in vaccination and other lifesaving measures. And it really poses a grave threat, as we think about not only novel threats like H5N1, but also things that have long been under control.

JJ: Finally, I took a quick look at major national media and rural healthcare, and there wasn’t nothing. I saw a piece from the Dayton Daily News about heart disease in the rural South, and how public health researchers are running a medical trailer around the area to test heart and lung function. I saw a piece from the Elko Daily Free Press in Nevada about how Elko County and others are reliant on nonprofits to fill gaps in access to care, and that’s partly due to poor communication between state agencies and local providers.

And I really appreciate local reporting; local reporting is life. But some healthcare issues, and certainly some of those that would be impacted by the head of HHS, are broader, and they require a broad understanding of the impact of policy on lots of communities. And I just wonder, is there something you would like to see news media do more of that they’re missing? Is there something you’d like them to see less of, as they try to engage these issues, as they will, in days going forward?

AS: Certainly local coverage is essential, and I’m really pleased when I see local coverage of the heroic work that many rural healthcare providers and community leaders are delivering. We see very creative and innovative work happening in our rural region, in our research, in our community engagement. And so it’s very encouraging when I see that covered.

But all of the efforts on the ground are shaped by a larger policy landscape and a larger media landscape, larger political landscape. And what we see, often, is efforts to undermine the policies that are critical to preserving our rural healthcare infrastructure. We see well-funded media efforts to erode social cohesion, to undermine our community institutions, to sow mistrust in measures such as vaccination. We see other work to harden the divisions between urban and rural America, and within rural places.

And so I hope that media will pay attention to the larger forces that are shaping the landscape of rural life, and not just see the outcome. It’s easy to take note of the disparities between urban and rural places, but it’s much harder to do the deep and complex work of understanding the forces that generate those uneven outcomes across geographic differences.

JJ: All right, well, we’ll end on that important point.

We’ve been speaking with Anne Sosin, public health researcher and practitioner based at Dartmouth College. Anne Sosin, thank you so much for joining us today on CounterSpin.

AS: Thank you for the invitation.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says New Zealand is asking for too much oversight over its deal with China, which is expected to be penned in Beijing next week.

Brown told RNZ Pacific the Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship was reciprocal.

“They certainly did not consult with us when they signed their comprehensive partnership agreement [with China] and we would not expect them to consult with us,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific and China reports

“There is no need for New Zealand to sit in the room with us while we are going through our comprehensive agreement with China.

“We have advised them on the matter, but as far as being consulted and to the level of detail that they were requiring, I think that’s not a requirement.”

Brown is going to China from February 10-14 to sign the “Joint Action Plan for a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership”.

The Cook Islands operates in free association with New Zealand. It means the island nation conducts its own affairs, but Aotearoa needs to assist when it comes to foreign affairs, disasters, and defence.

NZ seeks more consultation
New Zealand is asking for more consultation over what is in the China deal.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters said neither New Zealand nor the Cook Island people knew what was in the agreement.

“The reality is we’ve been not told [sic] what the nature of the arrangements that they seek in Beijing might be,” he told RNZ Morning Report on Friday.

In 2023, China and Solomon Islands signed a deal on police cooperation as part of an upgrade of their relations to a “comprehensive strategic partnership”.

Brown said he had assured New Zealand “over and over” that there would be no impact on the countries’ relationship and “no surprises”, especially on security aspects.

“But the contents of this agreement is something that our team are working on with our Chinese counterparts, and it is something that we will announce and provide once it is signed off.”

He said it was similar to an agreement New Zealand had signed with China in 2014.

Deep sea mining research
Brown said the agreement was looking for areas of cooperation, with deep sea mining research being one area.

However, he said the immediate area that the Cook Islands wanted help with was a new interisland vessel to replace the existing ageing ship.

Brown has backed down from his controversial passport proposal after facing pressure from New Zealand.

He said the country “would essentially punish any Cook Islander that would seek a Cook Islands passport” by passing new legislation that would not allow them to also hold a New Zealand passport.

“To me that is a something that we cannot engage in for the security of our Cook Islands people.

“Whether that is seen as overstepping or not, that is a position that New Zealand has taken.”

A spokesperson for Peters said the two nations did “not see eye to eye” on a number of issues.

Relationship ‘very good’
However, Brown said he always felt the relationship was very good.

“We can agree to disagree in certain areas and as mature nation states do, they do have points of disagreement, but it doesn’t mean that the relationship has in any way broken down.”

On Christmas Day, a Cook Islands-flagged vessel carrying Russian oil was seized by Finnish authorities. It is suspected to be part of Russia’s shadow fleet and cutting underwater power cables in the Baltic Sea near Finland.

Peters’ spokesperson said the Cook Islands shipping registry was an area of disagreement between the two countries.

Brown said the government was working with Maritime Cook Islands and were committed with aligning with international sanctions against Russia.

When asked how he could be aligned with sanctions when the Cook Islands flagged the tanker Eagle S, Brown said it was still under investigation.

“We will wait for the outcomes of that investigation, and if it means the amendments and changes, which I expect it will, to how the ship’s registry operates then we will certainly look to make those amendments and those changes.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

“We see that states continue to promote the same types of industrial activities and exploitation of nature as before, but now under new labels and justifications,” said Saami Council President Per-Olof Nutti. “These processes are often extremely lengthy and complex, leaving the Sámi with little or no opportunity to influence our own future.” 

Sámi homelands, known as Sápmi, stretch across northern Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia, and the report’s authors highlight that climate change threatens Sámi people in two ways: direct environmental impacts, and an increasing number of green energy projects and extractive industries needed for the green transition.

The report focuses on three case studies in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Because of the war in Ukraine, the authors said it was impossible to do research there. In Norway, the Fosen wind farm was greenlit in 2010 without Sámi consent and resulted in legal battles spanning years. In 2021, the country’s Supreme Court ruled that the wind farm was unconstitutional; however, turbines are still in operation because of a settlement last year. In Finland, exploration permits to build a mine in Sápmi have angered Sámi leaders, but the Sámi lack the legal mechanisms to protect the area. In Sweden, a nickel mine in Rönnbäcken, in reindeer-herding territory, was given exploration permits starting in 2005. The Sámi say the effort threatens the land essential to herding reindeer, and the long battle has exacerbated racism from non-Sámi locals in the area. 

“There are many more,” said Elina Mikola, an Amnesty International researcher. “This development is really worrying, and it’s obvious that there will be more and more of these land-use conflicts in the near future.”

The report’s authors highlight that the Sámi, as Indigenous people, have collective rights that are enshrined in international treaties and law — specifically, the right to self-determination: the right of Indigenous peoples to freely determine their political status and futures through the exercise of free, prior, and informed consent, also known as FPIC. However, the report also reveals that Sweden, Finland, and Norway have failed to adequately implement FPIC and other international laws that would protect Sápmi from exploitation.

The report took three years to complete, partly, because of intersecting laws in different countries. Like many Indigenous communities, Sámi homelands don’t sit squarely within one state’s borders and can span multiple jurisdictions. Mikola said that the report wanted to focus on the Sámi and not individual countries. “It’s a bit of a de-colonial approach because we really wanted to treat the Sámi as all one nation, one area.” 

In addition to including FPIC reform, the report recommends Finland, Sweden, and Norway review their regulations and implement laws that strengthen the protection of traditional livelihoods like reindeer herding. The authors also recommend that Sámi people be compensated for their time when consulting with companies and governments — a practice enshrined in international human rights law that would allow the Sámi to maintain cultural traditions.

Spokespersons from Finland, Norway, and Sweden did not respond to requests for comment by publication.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Sámi need better legal protections to save their homelands on Feb 4, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Taylar Dawn Stagner.

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the H-1B guest worker program. Elon Musk and a number of other billionaire tech company owners have argued that this federal program is vital to our economy because of the scarcity of highly skilled American engineers and other tech workers. I disagree. The main function of the H-1B visa program and other guest worker initiatives is not to hire “the best and the brightest,” but rather to replace good-paying American jobs with low-wage indentured servants from abroad. The cheaper the labor they hire, the more money the billionaires make.

In 2022 and 2023, the top 30 corporations using this program laid off at least 85,000 American workers while they hired over 34,000 new H-1B guest workers. There are estimates that as many as 33 percent of all new Information Technology jobs in America are being filled by guest workers. Further, according to Census Bureau data, there are millions of Americans with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math who are not currently employed in those professions.

If there is really a shortage of skilled tech workers in America, why did Tesla lay-off over 7,500 American workers this year – including many software developers and engineers at its factory in Austin, Texas – while being approved to employ thousands of H-1B guest workers?

Moreover, if these jobs are only going to “the best and brightest,” why has Tesla employed H-1B guest workers as associate accountants for as little as $58,000, associate mechanical engineers for as little as $70,000 a year, and associate material planners for as little as $80,000 a year? Those don’t sound like highly specialized jobs that are for the top 0.1 percent as Musk claimed this week.

If this program is really supposed to be about importing workers with highly advanced degrees in science and technology, why are H-1B guest workers being employed as dog trainers, massage therapists, cooks, and English teachers? Can we really not find English teachers in America?

Let’s be clear. To the extent that there may be labor shortages in our country in some highly specialized areas that need to be filled by employees from abroad through the H-1B program, we must utilize this program as a very short-term and temporary approach. In the long term, if the United States is going to be able to compete in a global economy, we must make sure that we have the best educated workforce in the world. And one way to help make that happen is to substantially increase the guest worker fees large corporations pay to fund scholarships, apprenticeships, and job training opportunities for American workers. This is something that I have advocated from my first days as a U.S. senator.

Further, we must also significantly raise the minimum wage for guest workers, allow them to easily switch jobs, and make sure that corporations are required to aggressively recruit American workers first before they can hire workers from overseas. The widespread corporate abuse of the H-1B program must be ended.

Bottom line. It should never be cheaper for a corporation to hire a guest worker from overseas than an American worker.

Mr. Musk, Mr. Ramaswamy, and others have argued that we need a highly skilled and well-educated workforce. They are right. But the answer, however, is not to bring in cheap labor from abroad. The answer is to hire qualified American workers first and to make certain that we have an education system that produces the kind of workforce that our country needs for the jobs of the future. And that’s not just engineering. We are in desperate need of more doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers, electricians, plumbers, and a host of other professions.

Thirty years ago, the economic elite and political establishment in both major parties told us not to worry about the loss of blue-collar manufacturing jobs that would come as a result of disastrous unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China (PNTR). They promised that those lost jobs would be more than offset by the many good-paying, white-collar information technology jobs that would be created in the United States.

Well, that turned out to be a Big Lie. Not only have corporations exported millions of blue-collar manufacturing jobs to China, Mexico, and other low-wage countries, they are now importing hundreds of thousands of low-paid guest workers from abroad to fill the white-collar technology jobs that are available.

At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the richest three people in America now own more wealth than the bottom half of our country and when the CEOs of major corporations make almost 300 times more than their average workers, we need fundamental changes in our economic policies. We need an economy that works for all, not just the few. And one important way forward in that direction is to bring about major reforms in the H-1B program.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

On Saturday the Council of Canadians Treasurer and board member sent his PeaceQuest list an error filled, anti-Palestinian, power-serving ‘questionnaire’. As Israel’s holocaust in Gaza enters its fourteenth month, Staples published “4 ways to ‘shake off’ antisemitism claims. Can the pro-Palestinian movement take advice from Taylor Swift?” At the top of his smear against those challenging Canada’s complicity in genocide Staples quotes anti-Palestinian bigot Jim Good. A few posts below the one quoted by Staples, Good wrote on Facebook: “Return the hostages. Surrender. Recognize Israel. The only peaceful way forward. Otherwise Israel will annex Gaza. No country wants Palestinians. Don’t let them in to Canada! Everywhere they go it’s death to this, death to that. Death, death, and more death. They are insane! Anyone supporting them is a willing dupe.”

In a post just below that one, Good notes, “Fuck off with your Intifada bullshit. Hamas are like ISIS. A warped, perverted death cult. Incapable of peace. … They’d love to start a civil war, here. They hate us. They want us to die.

Hamas want it to hurt. Their hatred is that strong. They are mad. Hamas hide behind their own children, intentionally draw fire, and escape into a tunnel, leaving the families to perish. They’re convinced if they die martyrs they’ll have a great afterlife. 18 virgins or something like that.”

Alongside quoting a not-so-subtle racist expressing hate towards those being ethnically cleansed, Staples cites police and politicians’ lies sullying activists. In his genocidal apologia, the self-proclaimed “respected figure in global peace advocacy” states that “cars [were] alit by demonstrators” at the main anti-NATO protest in Montreal last week. While the police initially blamed protesters for setting fires in two cars, TVA and the Montreal Gazette subsequently reported that they backtracked after evidence emerged that tear gas canisters fired by the police were likely responsible (the fact police sent anti-war protesters to hospital is also ignored by Staples). In making his case that “the pro-Palestinian movement … can’t seem to shake off the accusation that it harbours antisemitism, or is itself antisemitic”, Staples sloppily merges two different protests. He writes that “a woman in the Montreal march was recorded giving a Hitler salute” and saying, “the final solution is coming your way”. But that incident took place a day before the anti-NATO demonstration in reaction to a small group of genocide advocates counter-protesting a large anti-holocaust rally that was part of a student strike at Concordia University. The Sieg Hitler gesture transpired as maybe 200 marchers arrived from Dawson College to the Concordia rally. Older than the largely teenage college students and walking in an oddly aggressive manner, I took note of the woman before seeing subsequent media reports of her actions. In fact, I happened to film the woman’s Sieg Hitler gesture, which appears to be prompted by a pro-genocide protester yelling something. The first part of her odd outburst — suggesting pro genocide activists are Nazis — is a damaging tactic, but not morally objectionable from my standpoint. The final solution reference is odious.

Despite losing her Second Cup franchise at the Jewish General Hospital due to her actions, the incident remains somewhat suspect. It wouldn’t surprise me if she was a plant designed to discredit a historic student strike for Palestine, which saw more than 40 student association representing 85,000 students in Quebec vote to stop classes for two days to pressure their institutions to sever all ties with Israel. Her relatively inconsequential outburst garnered as much attention as the historic student strike (Staples, for his part, mentioned her but not the strike).

As for the Friday “Block NATO” protest that led to some smashed windows, the Montreal police explicitly rejected claims of antisemitism. They neither saw anything anti-Jewish nor received any complaint to that effect. But Staples echoed Poilievre and Trudeau. (Jagmeet Singh had the good sense to stay out of it.)

At best, Staples’ argument is that if anti-genocide forces just conceded more to the genocide lobby’s antisemitism panic the movement would be more palatable to the power structure. At worst, he’s expressing power-worshipping anti-Palestinian racism under the guise of opposing antisemitism.

As part of his strategy to ‘mainstream’ the movement, Staples believes anti-holocaust activists should devote more attention to the “terrible crimes committed by Hamas on October 7”. But he omits mention of the far greater violence and oppression inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza prior to October 7, not to mention the last fourteen months of hell.

As part of centering Israeli and Jewish Canadian sensitivities, Staples wants the movement to echo the genocidal state’s atrocity propaganda, decrying that some “justify the attacks (or deny the well-documented rapes) at worst.” I invite Staples to provide his audience with the name of an Israeli woman raped during what was organized as a quick strike bid to tear down the Gaza cage on October 7.

Staples make a bizarre, paternalistic, demand of Canadians opposing their country’s complicity in a holocaust. He writes, “the movement should be clear that it seeks a truly democratic and legitimate leadership based on the values of peace and justice, not rape and murder.” Is he suggesting Canadians should decide Palestinian leadership? And isn’t it Israel that has murdered (or jailed) virtually every Palestinian leader that didn’t submit to its colonial project?

While Staples frames his missive as “advice” to help “the movement”, it doesn’t seem like he’s actively participated in the popular uprising against Canada’s role in genocide. If Staples hasn’t marched in some of the hundreds of demonstrations against the genocide he should hang his head in shame.

This isn’t the first time Staples has echoed the genocidal mainstream narrative. He’s repeatedly two-sided the holocaust against the long-oppressed Palestinians, publishing “Might pro-violence chants undermine Gaza peace rallies?” and “Israel and Hamas leaders benefiting from Gaza war” (only one side has largely been killed).

Claiming to be an important player in “global peace advocacy”, Staples joined the establishment in criticizing a historic student strike for Palestine that broadened to challenge a belligerent militarist alliance meeting in Montreal. With ‘friends’ like Staples the anti-war, anti-genocide and pro-Palestinian movements don’t need enemies.

Any progressive donating to PeaceQuest should redirect their assistance to groups actually opposing Canada’s complicity in genocide.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.

Janine Jackson interviewed Good Jobs First’s Arlene Martinez about Amazon‘s subsidized misconduct for the December 6, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Jeff Bezos (CC photo: Daniel Oberhaus)

Janine Jackson: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” So wrote Upton Sinclair in 1934. It’s hard not to think about that as we see corporate news media report on Amazon, whose leader is, of course, the owner of the Washington Post, but whose influence as retailer, landowner, policy shaper is multi-tentacled in ways you and I probably don’t even know.

That outsized, multi-front power is behind the resistance to Amazon, the urgent need to illuminate what a private company on this scale can do in the country and the world’s political, consumer, regulatory, labor ecosphere, and what needs to happen to address that power.

Arlene Martinez is deputy executive director and communications director at Good Jobs First. She joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Arlene Martinez.

Arlene Martinez: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Good Jobs First (11/29/24)

JJ: You wrote recently, with colleagues, that the #MakeAmazonPay campaign was about calling attention to Amazon‘s

mistreatment of workers, disregard for consumers whose data it misuses, bullying of small local businesses and accelerating climate destruction, especially during the holiday shopping season.

That’s before we get to how we the people enable all of that through government subsidies, which we will talk about.

But first, let’s talk about some of the documented complaints and concerns about Amazon‘s day-to-day practices, the way they operate. Because it’s not about “hating them because they’re beautiful.” It’s not about jealousy because they built a better mousetrap. This is concern about things that just shouldn’t happen, period, right?

The Nation (5/2/24)

AM: That’s right. And I really liked the way that you opened up our conversation here, because it’s really hard to overstate just how powerful Jeff Bezos is, and how many areas Amazon is in, and the way that they run their business across all the different areas that they touch, how harmful it is, whether you’re talking about the environment, and all the data centers that they’re building as they capitalize on AI, artificial intelligence. Or the way that they are so punishing to workers that the injury rate is several times that of any other warehouse company. How they drive down wages wherever they locate. How they squeeze small businesses; a report from the Institute of Local Self-Reliance found that 45 cents of every dollar that a business made selling on the Amazon platform went to Amazon.

So I could just go on and on, but there are so many ways that Amazon harms the entire ecosystem of business worldwide. And one of the worst parts about it, and there are a lot of bad parts about it, is that we are subsidizing that, because communities are giving Amazon billions of dollars in direct cash payments. They don’t have to pay their taxes, or they’re given straight cash, or reduced land, whatever the case may be. And that doesn’t even begin to include the procurement and other public contracting money that they received. I’ll open there.

JJ: Well, and I want to get into that. I think for many folks, maybe they’ve heard about workers being cheated out of wages, but that is so crucial to the subsidy conversation. But let’s start with the fact that we do have evidence that Amazon is under-serving their workers, not just in terms of wages, but also in terms of health and safety, and what do we know about that?

Good Jobs First: Violation Tracker

AM: We run a database called Violation Tracker, where we look at over 450 regulatory agencies that we get data from, so we can begin to see part of Amazon‘s behavior toward its workers. We capture how much money Amazon has stolen from its workers, in the form of wages, and we also look at some health and safety violations.

One of the reasons that Amazon‘s dollar total is so much lower than, for example, Bank of America, which has billions and billions and billions of dollars in penalties and fines—Amazon‘s comparative total is so much lower because the federal agencies that are in charge of protecting workers only have the authority to give thousands of dollars in fines, versus a regulatory agency that oversees banks that can give billion dollars in fines in one single case. So what we see is, as bad as Amazon‘s record is, and it is bad, it would be worse if we treated workers with the same care and with the same concern that we do as investors who got cheated on an investment.

JJ: That’s so deep, because it speaks to, like, folks might want to get mad at a corporation, like Amazon, but then you also have to understand the weakening of the regulatory agencies that are meant to be addressing that. It’s not as simple as one might hope it would be. And folks have heard, for example, on this show, talking about the IRS saying, “We understand that rich people cheat more on their taxes than poor people, but it’s easier for us to go after poor people, because it’s much simpler.” And so a company like Amazon can just make things so complex, in a regulatory framework, that it’s very hard to address the harm that they’re doing. It’s kind of a big-picture problem.

Arlene Martinez: “So many of the issues with Amazon, and the reason that Amazon exists in the first place, is because we’ve lacked a lot of the regulatory mechanisms to contain it from ever becoming this big.”

AM: Yeah, that’s right. So many of the issues with Amazon, and the reason that Amazon exists in the first place, is because we’ve lacked a lot of the regulatory mechanisms to contain it from ever becoming this big. If, for example, some of the antitrust legislation had been implemented and upheld, Amazon never might have been able to grow to this size. That’s why it’s been so promising in recent years to see the FTC and Lina Khan really take on corporate giants like Amazon, which have essentially become monopolies and dominate entire spaces. So it really is a big structural issue.

I get asked a lot about, should people just not shop on Amazon? Well, that would be nice. I mean, I don’t shop on Amazon, but that isn’t the answer. Like I said, it would be nice, but the answer is really these structural problems that enabled Amazon to get so big in the first place. And these regulatory agencies need to flex their muscle to make sure that Amazon is broken up, or contained, or not allowed to dominate entire industries and sectors the way that it is.

And you’ve probably seen it’s moving into even more areas. Now it’s going into chips, and now it’s going into pharmacies and healthcare. And its goal is to dominate the world, and it’s headed there without some proper agency there flexing their muscle to rein it in.

JJ: I wanted to pull you out on one question, which is data centers, which is, we hear, and folks at the local media level may hear, Amazon‘s coming in, and they’re going to locate here, and that’s going to provide jobs. And sometimes what they’re talking about is data centers. Why don’t data centers equal jobs? Can you talk a little bit about that?

ProPublica (8/4/24)

AM: Data centers are essentially huge warehouses that just store big, basically, server farms. They’re just running data all the time, and there’s very few people that are needed to actually staff these facilities. So they don’t create many jobs, because there aren’t many functions that are required as part of these data centers. I mean, there’s the construction phase, and then a few dozen people that are needed to staff them.

And yet they’re getting what’s often several million dollars per job. We did a study in 2016 that looked at the average for the Apples, the Googles, the Amazons, the Metas, was about $2 million per job. But we’ve seen a lot of cases now where it’s a lot higher per job, and a community can never make that money back.

But I think the other question, too, and I think what gets missing from a lot of stories that I see about data centers, is why data centers are getting subsidized in the first place. When you think about what an incentive was supposed to even do in the first place, it was to spur something to happen that wouldn’t otherwise happen.

We know that AI is the future. These companies are racing to build data centers, because they have to, to remain competitive. So there is absolutely no business case to be subsidizing companies to build a data center, especially considering the low job return.

Nonprofit Quarterly (8/7/24)

JJ: In this deep piece about corporate government giveaways, you cite Neil deMause, who is a FAIR favorite, who, with Joanna Cagan, wrote Field of Schemes about subsidizing sports teams’ building of new arenas, and it’s kind of a familiar template, where folks say we’re going to bring in profit, and yet it’s something that would happen anyway. There’s kind of a—it’s not even a bait and switch, it’s just misinformation that is put forward to cities, when something like a sports team, or something like an Amazon, says, “We’re going to bring a lot of stuff to your community, and therefore you should subsidize our taxes.”

And some of us are like: “Well, wait, you’re a business. You’re going to make a profit here. Why would we subsidize it?” There’s kind of a big-picture misunderstanding here.

AM: Yeah, and part of it is that it just becomes irresistible for a lot of politicians to have the opportunity to stand next to a Jeff Bezos, or some other high-ranking official, or a billionaire owner of a sports team. And then you have access to these box-level seats that you couldn’t afford on your own. And all of that is really irresistible. So there’s really a very human element to giving subsidies that are proven to not drive economic development, like a stadium, which study after study has shown does nothing to improve the lives of residents in that community, but it just becomes very irresistible.

And I think on a local level, too, with someone—I was a reporter for many years, covering a lot of city council meetings and school board meetings, and knowing that these council members, most of them who are part-time, get a few hundred dollars a month in pay, they want to do good for their community, and they think bringing in an Amazon is a good move for their community, without realizing what they’re really doing is bringing in a company that hurts their workers, pays them very little and damages their existing small businesses in their community. But they’re thinking they’re doing a good thing.

JJ: Well, and part of it is a kind of numerical thing where media talk about, “Well, these folks will pay this money in taxes,” and that makes it sound like it’s a profit. There’s kind of a basic math problem that sometimes happens here. When you talk about tax breaks to be given to whatever entity, media can sometimes present that as though that’s money that’s going into the tax coffers, which is not what’s happening.

Nonprofit Quarterly (8/3/22)

AM: That’s right. I mean, there’s a lot of companies that really profit based on the size of the incentive. There are a lot of site location consultants, for example. The bigger the subsidy, the more their percentages. So their drive is to get the biggest subsidy possible, even though it isn’t in the best interest of their community.

JJ: Subsidies are sold to communities as profit, as though it’s going to be money, somehow, that’s going to go right into the community, when that’s not the way it plays out.

AM: Yes, and this is a big issue in our space, in terms of the media coverage that we often see. It’s because you get what are called “economic impact reports,” and I say “economic impact” in quotes because it isn’t actual economic impact, and it’s nowhere close to being a cost/benefit analysis. What it does is it takes this big, big smorgasbord of everything, every dollar that’s spent on construction phase, or supply chain, or the entire salary sometimes of a worker is included in this economic impact report. And a lot of times you have no idea what’s actually in there, because the people who produced it say it’s proprietary, and they won’t give it to the public.

And a lot of times, those people that are hired to produce the economic impact report, and we see this a lot in the stadium space, are people who are working for the team owners, or who are working for Amazon, they will be the ones producing these economic impact reports. So you have a real conflict of interest that I think is missed sometimes in the reporting, and just makes these studies bogus.

When I talk to reporters about how to cover and report on economic development incentives, I tell them to ask for everything that went into that economic impact report. And if they don’t release it, then don’t include their numbers, and say that they won’t give it to you.

JJ: That gets right to the point of transparency, which I just wanted to ask you about. I think that, whether you understand an issue or don’t, transparency about what’s happening ought to be ground zero. And yet that is difficult to get from some corporations, and also from some government agencies. But journalists should have that as a basic fundamental.

AM: Yes. And we also run these databases called Amazon Tracker and Subsidy Tracker, and both of them look at companies that have received subsidies. And you’ll see, among Amazon subsidies, and also Subsidy Tracker, which is broader, you’ll see a lot of entries that say “undisclosed,” because even though a company is getting public money, they’re not releasing the value of that subsidy. Reporters should insist on that, and make it really clear in stories when they’re not getting it.

Real News Network (7/22/23)

JJ: And I’ll end on that. But I will say that, obviously, I’m angry about media for my job, but it’s not that they don’t do critical stories sometimes; it’s this connecting of the dots. So when I see a storyline that says that Amazon or Walmart is a “successful business,” and then I see another story that says, oh yeah, a lot of their workers still need to rely on public assistance to not starve. But then on the other page, I’m still reading Amazon as a “successful business.” So I feel like at a certain point, it’s not about there’s never any good stories or critical stories. It’s about a failure to connect the dots, to say, “What does it mean for a company to be ‘successful’ right now, and what harm is required to get to that?”

AM: Those are all such great points, and it’s true that we have seen a lot of really amazing reporting around Amazon, and Bloomberg is the outlet that reported about how Amazon was driving down wages in the warehouse sector, because they took an industry-wide look, and were able to see that anytime Amazon entered a community, wages dropped for the entire sector, including non-Amazon workers.

And the Morning Call in Allentown, Pennsylvania, wrote one of the first stories, 12 years ago, to report on ambulances being placed outside of Amazon warehouses, rather than Amazon investing in air conditioning and heating for their workers. So they were getting ill from heat exhaustion.

So there has been a lot of amazing reporting, but I think you’re right in connecting all those dots, it’s very hard to see. And when Amazon releases a press release about how they gave a $500,000 loan, reporters repeat that as if it’s some gift, even though it might not include the fact that Amazon got a billion dollars in that same community as a subsidy. So it is a mixed bag.

JJ: I appreciate the bright critical spots. I’m upset about the fact that it doesn’t seem to get stirred into an understanding of what we, as a democratic society, should ask from corporations, and why do we call a company “successful” whose workers need to rely on public assistance? There’s some kind of connected story that’s not happening there.

ProMarket (5/30/17)

AM: I’ll just add, I remember as a reporter—and I was a reporter for many years—I was very fixated on holding government accountable. Really felt like that was a big role of mine, and I spent a lot less energy thinking about holding corporations accountable. And now that I’ve left the space, and I’m in this nonprofit watchdog space, and a lot of my work involves corporate governance, and overseeing their practices, I really see those gaps even more stark, and how, in general, I think journalists don’t do the best job about covering companies, and we could do a lot better, which is why I think shows like yours are so helpful, why I hope organizations like ours are useful, so that we start putting the same kind of scrutiny on corporations that we have long done on governments.

JJ: I will just add, we hope for journalists to look to see critically powerful actors, and those powerful actors are in corporations, and they’re in government. And then here’s us, we the people, and that’s where we would look for journalists to look out for the public interest, however that is affected by whatever forces are in power, and that’s why I appreciate your work.

AM: Thank you so much.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Arlene Martinez. She’s deputy executive director and communications director at Good Jobs First. You can find their extensive work on Amazon and other corporate and government accountability on GoodJobsFirst.org. Arlene Martinez, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

AM: Thanks for having me, and thanks for your work.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

A leader of a major West Papuan political movement has praised the recent judgment of the Permanent People’s Tribunal on the Melanesian region colonised by Indonesia for the past 63 years.

“Indonesia knows they have lost the political, legal, and moral argument over West Papua,” said United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) interim president Benny Wenda.

“Their only remaining tactics are brutality and secrecy — brutality to crush our struggle and secrecy to hide it from the world.”

• READ MORE: PNG’s Parkop tells exiled Papuans ‘don’t lose hope – keep up the freedom struggle’
• West Papuans in Port Moresby host family day
• Other West Papua reports

Saying he welcomed the release of the judgment of the Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT) on West Papua, he added: “Our independence is not only urgent for West Papua, but for the entirety of Planet Earth.”

After testimonies from West Papuans on the ground and from legal and academic experts, the tribunal found Indonesia guilty on all four counts:

• Taking by various means the ancestral land of the Indigenous Papuan people against their will, employing racial discrimination which leads to the loss of culture, traditions and Indigenous knowledge, erases their history and subsumes them into the Indonesian national narrative;
• Violent repression, including unlawful detention, extra-judicial killing, and population displacement in West Papua as a means of furthering industrial development;
• Organised environmental degradation, including the destruction of eco-systems, contamination of land, the poisoning of rivers and their tributaries and of providing the permits, concessions and legal structure of non-compliance for national and foreign companies to invest in West Papua in a way that encourages environmental degradation; and
• colluding with national and foreign companies to cause environmental degradation, population displacement and sustain violent repression in West Papua.

The Hague,has hosted a Climate Change gathering prior to hearing the ICJ meeting where Koteka Wenda, fwpc spoke person from West Papua spoke, about WP being the 3rd largest rainforest after the Amazon and the Congo. “If you save West Papua, you save the lungs of the world” pic.twitter.com/aUJzV354qG

— Benny Wenda (@BennyWenda) December 7, 2024

“This judgment is a total vindication of everything the West Papuan liberation movement has been saying for decades. We are not safe with Indonesia,” said Wenda.

“If we continue to be denied our right to self-determination, everything that makes West Papua unique will disappear.”

Guilty of ‘ecocide’
The PPT had found the Indonesian state guilty of ecocide, of “rapidly destroying our forest” and “poisoning our rivers” through mines, plantations, and huge agribusiness food estates.

“But not only this: the judges also linked Indonesia’s ecocidal destruction to the systematic destruction of West Papua as a people,” said Wenda.

“As they put it: ‘ecological degradation can’t be disaggregated from state and corporate projects which are tending toward the obliteration of a people, or what was called by more than one witness a ‘slow genocide’.”

The PPT found in West Papua everything that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights would also find — ecocide, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass displacement, said Wenda.

“That is why Indonesia continues to deny the UN access to West Papua, despite more than 110 countries demanding their visit.”

Wenda said thde ULMWP considered this judgment a “significant step forward in our quest for liberation”.

‘Nothing left to save’
“The case for self-determination presented by the PPT is comprehensive and undeniable. We already know that our people want freedom — the West Papuan People’s Petition for self-determination was signed by 1.8 million Papuans, more than 70 percent of our population.

“Now the PPT has shown how urgently we need it.,” Wenda said

“Our independence is not only urgent for West Papua, but for the entirety of Planet Earth.

Because Papuans are the stewards of the third largest rainforest in the world, the Indonesian occupation is one of the most severe threats to a habitable global climate.

“If Indonesia continues to destroy our forest at its current rate, there will soon be nothing left to save.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Joakim Wei Bernild: I’m not going to get into how we met, but as to how the band started out, I think Anton was the initiator—he’d made some music and called me up, right?

Anton Falck: I had made a demo song and some music guy had heard it, randomly, and wanted to book me for a festival, and I was like, “What the fuck?” And then I felt like I had to make a band. Joakim was a natural choice, because we were both noobs, so we were on the same level, on the same page.

JWB: Even though we only had one or two songs, we were given a 45-minute slot.

AF: We didn’t understand then that we had the power to say that we wouldn’t be able to play for that long.

JWB: We sat down and made 45 minutes’ worth of songs.

AF: Really long songs.

I’m going to assume that “Holiday,” one of your earliest singles, which is fairly standard-length and radio-ready, wasn’t one of them. I love the journey—the sort of “breakup in paradise” plot line—that “Holiday’s” lyrics chart. Its first lines—“Good, skin-kissing summer days/ Sun City, I’m here to stay”—capture the feeling, the boundless optimism, that characterizes the first moments of going on vacation. I still like to listen to it whenever I’m stepping out of an airplane, down one of those staircases on wheels. It’s the perfect score for that moment: the humid air of somewhere tropical hitting you in the face, and you’re all hyped up about how much leisure lies ahead of you.

AF: It’s funny because I’m really not a vacation person. I’ve never traveled to a warm country with palm trees just to relax. I tried doing it for the first time two years ago. I went on a normal holiday because we’d been traveling so much, seeing the world, but always through the lens of being on tour. It is a very different way of traveling. I find that going—just going—on a vacation is really, really weird. I don’t know what to do with myself. It’s not for me. I think that, for me, the song is more of a metaphor, somehow—a state of mind.

I had taken the song’s refrain—“Our love was a holiday”—and the plea that it ends on—“Won’t you just hold me one last time?”—to describe a kind of romance that can’t be fitted into a routine, and can only exist in this exceptional, time-out-of-time space of a vacation.

JWB: We had a few years, three or four years, during which we toured a lot, and that’s when we wrote that song.

AF: When you’re a musician at our level of the industry, the work of touring is its own reward, because you know you’re not going to come home with a ton of money. It was always about trying to have as much fun as possible while away. We knew it was a specific time in our lives that we would look back on at some point, one that wouldn’t last forever. Touring is this weird kind of holiday. You’re away from home, but it’s still work.

You’re both from Denmark. A lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of the outsized success that Scandinavians—and, I think, Swedes in particular—enjoy in the field of popular music. There’s this cultural hypothesis that it’s because they place a great deal of emphasis on music education programs and choral music in early childhood.

AF: It could also have something to do with the way a language is built. When Swedish people talk, they sound like they’re singing. I speak Swedish, and for a long time when we were writing songs, I would sing in Swedish first to come up with the melodies, then translate the lyrics, because we don’t want to release music in Swedish.

JWB: We’ve done something similar with Japanese. We don’t speak Japanese, but we can emulate the way it sounds to come up with melodies.

AF: Languages really change the way you sing. Japanese songs rarely rhyme, but somehow they don’t sound weird. If you were to sing without rhyming in Danish, it would sound really, really strange.

Did you guys see that movie Triangle of Sadness? So much of the dialogue didn’t hit my ear right, and I think that had a lot to do with the fact that Ruben Östlund, the film’s writer and director, was working outside his native language. It struck me that what might figure as a hurdle for someone writing a film in which the characters engage in believable exchanges might actually be ideal for someone writing really moving pop songs, which tend to deal in hyperbole and cliché. To write a pop song in English, you don’t necessarily need to be extremely acquainted with how native speakers actually go about using it in their day-to-day lives. What do you make of your choice to write and record music in English?

AF: We never could have written the same songs in Danish; listening to them would probably make us want to throw up. Then, of course, there’s the practicality of wanting to be understood by as many people as possible, to have an audience outside of little baby Denmark, a country of only six million people. When I write in English, I find myself falling into using the same 500 words that are nearest to me. In English, we can get away with expressing ourselves in a way that is somehow more blunt and honest. I spend a lot of time reading thesauruses, looking words up online, or even taking my lyrics and translating them into Latin or Portuguese, then translating the output into yet another language, back and forth a few times in Google Translate, and then bringing them back into English. Somehow, Google Translate will fuck it up or add some weird extra layer, and sometimes—by doing shit like that—I’ll find the most beautiful words. We proudly use a lot of cheat codes.

There’s this line in your song “Someone New” that goes, “Hey baby, this is goodbye. Like, ‘talk to you never.’” How eye-roll-inducing that would be as a line of dialogue in a film or a novel! Yet it plays so well in the context of a pop song; it really lands.

AF: We’re always trying to position ourselves right on the cusp of irony and a kind of seriousness that can be cringe. It might be hard for people to decipher, but we actually—most of the time—mean everything we say.

JWB: It’s difficult for us to imagine what it would be like to listen to our music as a native English speaker. I often think about that with rap music, where all of these really harsh things are said. If the same things were being said in Danish, I don’t know if I could bear being out in society—to hear that playing in the background, very casually, in the supermarket while I shop.

Speaking of supermarkets, I wanted to ask you guys about money—

AF: How much do you need?

A lot! Last year, you had an installation at the Copenhagen Contemporary, a kind of popup shop called the First Hate Supermarket, stocked with items—such as framed portraits and towels with your faces printed on them—that far surpassed the typical merchandise offering for bands.

AF: I don’t know how this compares internationally, but in Denmark right now, people are really focused on owning the right apartment, the right designer clothes, the right car—maybe a Tesla if they can. Everybody’s having kids and everything has to look perfect. For a while, we were also considering where to take this project, sort of along those lines. Did we want to follow our guts and keep making weird, alternative pop music? Should we record a song in Danish and make it a national hit in Denmark and try to make money off it? We put so much work into the music, but when it comes down to it, with the way the music industry is put together now, with Spotify and streaming, we aren’t really making any money from the music. We want to make a living from what we do, but people only want to buy things. The “Supermarket” was a provocation. We wanted to make money by selling all of this stuff that is external to the music, while also drawing attention to the reality that it’s one of the only ways that we can make a living.

Much of the merchandise was emblazoned with this logo, a sort of amalgamation of various planetary symbols, that appears throughout your imagery as a band. Your song “Fortune Teller” features a play on words in the phrase “pull up,” which means both the action of drawing a Tarot card and, in contemporary slang, of arriving somewhere in style. Is astrology something you believe in? Is magic?

AF: It’s a funny tendency how, in the last few years, everyone in our generation got a deck of Tarot cards or downloaded some kind of astrology app, but these things have definitely always been a theme for us. The First Hate symbol is more than just a logo; it’s also a rune or a sigil. It’s a way of directing a lot of energy into a single symbol—and it doesn’t have to be something that other people understand for it to make sense to us. I mean…maybe if you know, you know.

Your first full-length album was titled A Prayer for the Unemployed. What kinds of jobs have you guys held—or not held?

AF: We’ve always been hustling different jobs. Our friend Dee, who’s from Scotland, found a laminated card in a church where she grew up that said “A Prayer for the Unemployed,” and we thought that was really funny.

When your song “Commercial” was released in the spring of 2022, I and many other barely employed members of our generation’s creative class were, perhaps a little cynically, banking on the belief that investing in cryptocurrencies and other digital assets would be our ticket to long-term financial solvency. I would listen to that song on repeat during the days when it was my job to moderate a group chat for the owners of an NFT—a literal .gif that they had purchased for hundreds of dollars. I was supposed to whip them into a frenzy, insisting that the token’s value was poised to surge, and muting or blocking users for expressing what we called “F.U.D”—which, initially, I thought stood for “fucked-up discourse,” but actually stood for “fear, uncertainty, and doubt.” It was weird, the way that song’s refrains of “Money loves me” and “Pump the prices” were uncanny echoes, almost word for word, of the sorts of sentiments I was being paid to encourage and reward.

JKB: What you were doing there is very much what major labels do with their artists. They take an artist and pump them up and give them loans—money, but also jewelry and fancy cars—and then they push the image that a certain rapper, a certain singer, is so successful, that people come to believe it. And then they are! That’s also like a magic spell, in many ways.

The chorus of your new song “Run Down Love” goes: “Run down love/ Run down my thighs/ Run down love / cruising tonight.” It seems to be about cruising for sex, the chance sexual encounter in a public place. How do things like chance, serendipity, and randomness play into your process of composing and recording songs?

JWB: This feels like a bit of a cliché, but sometimes when we are recording, the first attempt will sound the absolute best, and you can’t replicate it, and you can’t edit it.

AF: When we’re writing lyrics, sometimes a sentence pops out of nowhere, and then we build a whole song around that. All of these small moments of luck are much more valuable than sitting down with the intention of working with a theme, somehow. And yeah, that song is about cruising, which is, as you said, all about luck: you never know who’s hiding in the bush.

How did you land upon your band’s name? Is it an inversion of “first love?” A play on “first date?”

AF: Thank you bandnamemaker.com.

Really? That’s a bit of randomness.

AF: Most of the things we do are very random. Things don’t have to make sense to begin with.

JWB: You can always give them meaning later.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Karim Kazemi.

They contacted a few contractors, who provided quotes in the $28,000 range for the solar system. But each bid came with a caveat: photovoltaic panels can last 25 years or more, but the roof on their 2,000-square-foot home had about 10 years left in it. This made for a difficult decision: Pay for a replacement now, which would nearly double the cost of the project, or install all that hardware knowing they’d need to remove and reinstall it when it came time to reroof — a job that can cost hundreds of dollars per panel.

“At that point we froze,” said Bryan Stubblefield. “The fact that we had one more decision to make caused pause.”

The Stubblefields are far from alone in this dilemma, said Amy Atchley, one of the contractors the couple contacted. Among the first questions her company,Amy’s Roofing and Solar, asks a customer is the age and condition of their roof. About half need work done to accommodate solar and, she says, the path forward can be particularly vexing for those who still have five, 10, or even 15 years to go before needing a reroof.

“It’s really hard to counsel people,” she said. “Most people just decide to wait.”

Residential solar systems usually provide 5 to 11 kilowatts of power, which, with some 5 millions homes tapping the sun, adds up to over 38 gigawatts nationally. That’s the equivalent of more than 11,000 wind turbines. Aside from helping mitigate climate change, photovoltaic panels can also help provide resiliency against outages. But when homeowners have to align their desire to go green with the age of their roof, those benefits can be delayed — or frightfully expensive. 

Read Next

They thought getting their home off fossil fuels would be straightforward. Chaos ensued.

Tik Root

One reason the question can be so vexing is because unlike solar panels, tax incentives don’t help offset underlying roof issues — even when addressing them is done while going solar. The Internal Revenue Service makes clear that the federal tax credit that can cover as much as 30 percent of a photovoltaic system does not include “traditional building components that primarily serve a roofing or structural function.” 

The Stubblefields said the lack of assistance “absolutely” influenced their decision to wait. But Bryan Stubblefield said he understands that it would be quite expensive for the government to subsidize such a major expense.

The potentially good news is that — regardless of roofing incentives — the residential solar market is nascent enough that it may not yet need to worry much about losing customers like the Stubblefields. The half a million or so residential solar systems that come online each year is far short of the 5 million or so homes that need a new roof each year. That means that there are still plenty of potential solar customers who need a new roof anyway — and it’s a demographic that many companies are targeting.

“The best time to go solar is when you’re getting a new roof,” said Kealy Dewitt, vice president of marketing and public policy at the roofing company GAF. The organization recently designed a product it calls Timberline Solar, which incorporates a photovoltaic panel into a shingle that is installed much like a conventional shingle. If GAF can get more people who need new roofs to convert to solar shingles, Dewitt said it would be “a massive deployment opportunity for clean energy.”

Atchley agrees. Although there may be some situations where it makes financial sense to install panels and dismantle them later to reroof, waiting to do it all at once makes the most sense. Many of her customers find her while seeking bids for a roof and end up installing solar, too. It rarely happens the other way around, she said.

Like Dewitt, she thinks the government could do more to incentivize integrated roofing and photovoltaic technologies. Her company, for example, sells a metal roof designed to easily accept solar and have a lifespan almost twice that of the average panel. It doesn’t currently qualify for clean energy incentives. 

“You’re getting the roof and solar,” she said. “It should count.”

Lawmakers have tried to address this issue. In 2021, democratic members of Congress introduced the “RAISE the Roof Act” that would have expanded the solar tax credit to include these integrated solutions. Such efforts have gone nowhere, however, leaving many would-be solar adopters with difficult calculations to make about their roof. That includes the Stubblefields, who have since moved.

“It looks like we have about 5 to 10 years left on the roof,” said Bryan. “We’re faced with the same question again.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Thinking of going solar? Wait until you need a new roof. on Oct 17, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Tik Root.

When I thought about why I wanted to embark upon this very special yet very challenging thing that I’ve never done before, one of the things that I kept coming back to was that I knew that there were recipes that were very familiar to me and very special to the regions that I felt like made me who I am as a chef that needed to be highlighted, documented, talked about. And one of the moments that I kept going back to was me being a young chef and having a really hard time finding this lens. And I just know that having that information and having those food ways [and] their history talked about on such a platform—having that readily available for me, I think, would’ve been very transformative. So, no, I didn’t know initially that this is how it was all going to play out.

I appreciate the way that you take us through your early childhood. You describe yourself as a precocious only child in Coastal Virginia, and how that was really important as one of your earliest food experiences. And then you also talk about your grandparents, their relationships to food and the land, and the visits that you made to family members throughout the South. What was it like to revisit these memories?

Revisiting the memories of my childhood was a really large part of writing this. And doing that was very nostalgic. I learned a lot about my family—some things that I didn’t know. It helped me to see the power of food. It really showed me how powerful food was in my family because, I mean, I even was finding skeletons in closets. And ones that I couldn’t believe were right in front of me growing up, all along. Those moments where we allowed the kitchen to be the gathering place, those integral moments where food was at the center—that just showed me how food truly is the great unifier. So, yes, it was a very special and emotional time diving back in that way.

You give us this great visual of your journey, going to Hampton University to study business marketing, but spending your time watching Food Network and cooking. You’d later go on to be a finalist in Top Chef. How have TV and pop culture been important in your journey?

For my family— my parents—me wanting to be a chef was a really hard sell. And for me, knowing that this is something that I wanted to do, I felt that I needed proof that I could do it. I wouldn’t call Virginia Beach a food city. I didn’t live in New York City, where you know who’s cooking the food in the kitchen. So when I was actually looking for tangible examples, it was easy to turn to places like Food Network and see someone like Rachael Ray or Bobby Flay and find inspiration in that. And also, being a latchkey kid, my parents worked quite a bit growing up, so I wasn’t supposed to be, but I did watch a lot of Food Network when they were at work… That was an introduction to ingredients that I didn’t have readily available and I wasn’t accustomed to. Things like Food Network had a pretty big impact on my formative years, and just falling in love with food.

Was it surreal, then, to be on Top Chef later?

Yes. Definitely, I feel like for the first time, I was able to understand what that phrase “out-of-body experience” meant. It was really important for me at that time to ground myself, and just remember that I had worked really hard to get there, but also that I was so grateful to be in that space with such amazing talent. Yeah, it was a pretty wild experience.

One thing that you’re really transparent about is how the food you grew up with, you didn’t really see as the food that you “should be” making as a chef. You write that you fantasized about going to restaurants that you read about in magazines like Food & Wine and that you felt like earning the respect of your peers in the kitchen meant cooking the food that you were seeing in these magazines. Why was it important to include this internal struggle?

It was important to include because there was a moment—this intersection in my career—where I just stopped caring what people thought. I just turned away from what I felt was this box that I was put in as a Black chef. In doing that, I readily turned to the food that was most familiar to me. And I was in a position where I was able to put that food in the same restaurants that I would’ve never expected to [see it] before. And the response was very warm… It was a really defining moment for me as a chef.

You mentioned that sometimes you felt like leaving the industry entirely. One thing that came to mind for me was just this, I think, push and pull that sometimes creative folks have—it’s like the industry itself as an institution can really get you down, but it’s not always necessarily about the craft. What fueled you to keep going?

I mean, it’s that thing you said: It’s the institution, I think, that can really grind my gears—this French hierarchy that doesn’t have the same warm, fuzzy feelings that I grew up with. And for me, people talk about hating their jobs often—and that’s not something I’ve ever experienced because I’ll never stop loving food. As long as my job relates to food, I’m always going to love it, and that’s always the thing that continues to pull me back in. So, I mean, I think it’s that—and just the respect of the humble Southern ingredient, and the makers that work so hard to get these beautiful things on our tables. Those are the things that allow me to continue to have that drive, even when the industry itself doesn’t always feel so good.

In 2020, you started to collaborate with other chef friends, putting on pop-up events, and then you were able to open your own restaurant, Good Hot Fish, in 2024. What were your priorities when you were starting your own space?

I was so focused on finding a creative space. I knew that, at the time, that creative space was owning my own restaurant and finally feeling like I have ownership of my own stories. And having that autonomy that I never really felt like I had as a chef—and being able to travel and cook with chefs that I really admire.

My biggest thing as a Black chef, as a woman that’s only worked for white people [is] I never felt like I had a seat at the table. And while I’ve put in so much sweat equity, I’d never felt like I learned the guts of how to run a restaurant. I helped so many people open their own restaurants, but I still just felt like I didn’t get it.

And that was the one thing that was really special about that time—I had friends that would sit me down and we would just go over their P&L statements for hours. And they would go over food and labor costs with me. That was something that I really cherished. Beyond that, of course, it was [about] having that platform where I could cook food without any real boundaries, and get some honest immediate feedback about it as well.

You shared that you realized, later in your career, that you weren’t the first person in your family who had multiple side hustles—that you were part of this long lineage of women who were also using their talent in the kitchen. What’s your advice, or what are some insights, for folks in creative careers that are maybe feeling unsure about this feeling of patching together side hustles? Or, maybe, folks who aren’t feeling ready for the leap, but they have something in mind that they want to pursue?

A lot of my drive is driven by just my personality. I don’t know if this is advice, but just in describing my personality and where that drive comes from, it is because of—even your question, what advice for other creators, because there isn’t a lot of advice out there. People often feel like there’s a glass ceiling and they can’t [do it] because there aren’t a lot of examples and they don’t see a lot of people like them doing it. And that is part of what drives me and why I push myself.

So I don’t even know if that is advice necessarily, but it is something to reflect on as a creative, especially Black and Brown creatives. Sometimes what keeps me in the game is that there’s going to be a lot of people, I would hope, that look like me and can find a reflection of themselves and find hope in that. It’s easy for me to note how much fulfillment I find in my career as well. And of course, there are things about what I do that can feel thankless, but I’ve been able to find such reward in what I do. So I think just focusing on what that reward and fulfillment is for you, and going after that is probably the best bit of advice I can give. Because it’s going to be really hard, so sometimes you really do just have to stare at the finish line.

Yeah, definitely. You’ve also mentioned that, in Asheville, you’re really surrounded by a lot of writers, and makers, and artists, and how you feel really grateful for that community. I’m curious: Is community and collaboration something that also feeds your drive at this point in your career?

Yes, and part of my gratitude in living here is that there’s just so much creativity around me, and that also fuels me. I talk about that in the book—we have so many makers around us, even just from the folks that grow our iceberg lettuce for our wedge salad to the trout farmers. And the folks that mill our cornmeal 15 miles down the road. That inspires me. And when I have a really special product like that in my hand, I want to make sure that I do it its due diligence. So, I mean, even down to the ingredient and just knowing that there’s a restaurant a couple blocks away that is doing some really cool things too. There’s a really incredible chef community here that’s super tight-knit, and that certainly helps when times get tough.

I would imagine you keep very busy, but I was curious if there are any non-cooking, non-food avenues of inspiration that you find?

Yes, but it’s funny because it all ends up tying back to food. I really enjoy nature and specifically foraging, fishing. Those are things I really enjoy. And of course, I usually do something with my harvest. But, yeah, I’m starting to get into more design stuff. My wife and I just bought a house not too long ago, so that’s been a fun and very, very new undertaking. So maybe a new interest, we’ll see if it sticks.

That’s exciting, congratulations!

Thanks.

In your cookbook, there’s such a visual lushness both in the photography that you include, but also just in your writing and the way that you’re setting these scenes from your childhood to present time. Why was this an important part of your process?

So, I mean, obviously, I’m a new writer, so I think I was doing a lot of what just comes naturally to me. I talked about just going back and revisiting a lot of those places. I did that physically as well. And even my proposal was written in my childhood home—a lot of times, I was just sitting in my backyard, the first place I ever foraged. And so maybe I was cheating a little, but that made it really easy to put all of these descriptors around these places, because I was in it. And also, the memories are so vivid. I can often close my eyes and just be in them again. And of course, like you said, the photography—I was able to go back to all of these places and just instantly feel like a kid again, and [access] a lot of those memories as an adolescent just learning what food meant to me.

What are some recent or significant interactions that you’ve had with other folks who have resonated with your story?

One thing I will never forget is this little sweet girl named Marley, who I think, at the time, was in the fourth grade. It was when I was a chef at Benne on Eagle, and it was during Black History Month. She did her Black History Month project on me and did her presentation in front of the class. Her mom took pictures, and at the time, I think I wore a bandana almost every day to work. She wore a bandana and had a little chef shirt on. It was really cool. And I still have the pictures from that.

We have another little regular that comes into Good Hot Fish all the time and wrote us this letter that inspired some merchandise. And it’s just things like that that really keep me going and make me smile… Like I said, some days can feel a little thankless, and those are things I hold onto.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Eva Recinos.

As a strategy, the net-zero target has been criticized by climate advocates; at its worst, it can be a vague, unenforceable greenwashing program. But global efforts are underway to write standards for what makes a good one — and hold the target-setters to them. The net-zero targets that have actually been adopted display a surprisingly wide variety in terms of their substance: some refer to all greenhouse gas emissions, and others only to carbon dioxide; the strongest include sector-specific implementation plans and credible near-term targets, and cover all three emissions scopes up and down the value chain.

On Monday, the Net Zero Tracker, a collaboration between four climate organizations, released its most recent “Net Zero Stocktake” — a survey of the world’s climate pledges, including evaluations of how serious the plans are to actually follow through on them. Since the group began publishing such reports annually since 2021, it has found that, at the national level, after years of more and more countries setting net-zero targets, the growth of such pledges has now leveled off, with 147 countries, as well as the European Union, having now set a target. They include most of the highest-emitting countries. China, the world’s largest emitter, committed to carbon neutrality by 2060 in 2020 at the UN General Assembly. A significant exception is Azerbaijan, the oil-rich, gas-leaking host of November’s COP29 UN climate change conference, which has no net-zero target.

But net-zero targets continue to proliferate in subnational governments, especially at the state and regional levels, and in the private sector. In the 18 months since the 2023 report was published, the number of companies with net-zero targets has increased by 23 percent, and local regions by 28 percent. (Cities’ pledges only increased by 8 percent.)

The growth of regional targets is important because local governments play an important role in helping countries actually achieve decarbonization. “Subnational regions have huge responsibility for realizing net zero on the global scale,” said Sybrig Smit, a coauthor of the report, in a press briefing, adding that, in countries that have adopted national targets, “the credibility of those net zero targets simply increases when also on lower levels of government this ambition level is shown.” In the U.S., 19 states have net-zero targets — and five of them aim for an earlier deadline than the federal goal of 2050.

But the pledges vary widely in substance — and very few meet anything like a gold standard. “For all the subnational governments and companies, only a very small percentage of them actually meet all of the robustness or the integrity criteria” that were tracked in the report, said Takeshi Kuramochi, another of the report’s coauthors, in the briefing. For example, of the companies surveyed (the 2,000 largest in the world), only about half of those with net-zero targets covered all greenhouse gases, rather than just carbon dioxide. The metric that companies and governments alike scored worst on was clarity on the use of offsets: less than 10 percent of the net-zero targets set by companies, cities, and regions specify how much they will use offsets to achieve their goal.

While the overall landscape of net-zero targets appears plagued by insincerity, the report’s authors gave credit to those whose pledges were more substantive — and highlighted their role in leading by example, particularly as standards are formalized for net-zero targets. The report spotlights Costa Rica’s 2030 net-zero target, which covers all greenhouse gas emissions and includes sector-specific and interim targets. In the private sector, Google and the Volvo Group received special commendation in the report for covering all three emissions scopes — which means they can’t simply pass their emissions onto suppliers or ignore the footprint of their electricity usage. 

Giving credit where it’s due — in the hopes of incentivizing better performance through public scrutiny — is part of the theory of change according to which setting best practices for net-zero targets might actually be an effective mechanism for climate action. 

“Ultimately, a lot of things will need to be regulated, and that’s a positive thing,” said Catherine McKenna, a former Canadian environment minister who chaired a United Nations expert group on nonstate net-zero targets, in the briefing. “It creates a level playing field. It means there are consequences if you don’t do the work, and if you are doing the work then you can demonstrate that you are doing the work. We need to distinguish between those who are and those who aren’t, and [ensure] that the people who are doing the work feel really good.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Net-zero targets are everywhere. But to be effective, they need accountability. on Sep 25, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Gautama Mehta.

Heavy rains and flooding during the recent rainy season caused damage to about 1,900 pagodas at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Bagan, and many of the ancient Buddhist temples are now at risk of collapse, an archaeologist told Radio Free Asia.

The deterioration over the last few months to the temples – many of which were built between the 10th and 13th centuries – follows several years of inadequate preservation work, according to Thura Aung, former secretary of the Myanmar Archaeology Association.

Additionally, the 2021 military coup d’etat and subsequent fighting between factions in the region has left the Bagan Archaeological Zone understaffed, he said.

“Currently, the staff at Bagan’s Archeological Department is insufficient, and there is no plan to address the shortage,” he said. “Bagan is a vast area with numerous temples, but the available workforce is inadequate. There is no strategy in place to resolve the staffing issue.”

Bagan’s soaring spires and iconic Buddhist pagodas and temples, a main attraction for Myanmar’s tourism industry, are popular with religious pilgrims and tourists who scale the monuments to watch the sun set.

A major earthquake in 1975 severely damaged more than half of the area’s pagodas and temples and toppled the notable Buphaya Pagoda, which broke apart and fell into the Irrawaddy River.

Restoration work was carried out in the 1990s when a previous military junta ruled Myanmar, but the work was criticized by art historians and preservationists worldwide for its use of modern materials and scant adherence to original architectural styles.

In 1996, Myanmar officials put in an initial application for the Bagan archeological site and pagodas to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The bid was rejected, apparently because of poor management strategies and improper restoration work.

Bagan was finally added to the World Heritage list in 2019. But much of Bagan’s preservation oversight fell away after the 2021 coup when teams from France, South Korea and Japan withdrew.

“In the past, the pagodas were constructed with tightly compacted, well-baked bricks, pressed layer by layer with great care, which is why they withstood time,” a resident of Bagan who has worked on pagoda restoration told RFA. 

“If a collapse were due to age, it would be understandable,” he said. “But now, the temples are collapsing before their time, and this is due to the methods, and most importantly, the quality of the materials used.”

Maintaining the temples requires the proper baking of bricks and ensuring correct proportions, he said. Workers must also seal ramps and terraces with water-resistant materials and remove any wild plants that grow on the pagodas.

‘Cement is prohibited’

A report released by the military junta’s Ministry of Information on Sept. 13 acknowledged that stairways, brick walls and decorated archways have recently deteriorated at noted temples such as Shwezigon, Thatbyinnyu and Htilominlo.

Additionally, the lower terraces and sections of platforms have collapsed at two pagodas in the Hnetpyittaung pagoda group. Damage was also found at three other nearby pagodas, according to the report.

RELATED STORIES

Construction in ancient city of Bagan goes unchecked under junta

Interview: ‘We Recommend That All Governments Include Risk And Disaster Management In Their Management Plans’

Myanmar President Visits Bagan to Survey Quake-Damaged Pagodas

These temples are currently being repaired, said Kyaw Myo Win, director of the Bagan branch of the junta’s Department of Archaeology.

“Since becoming a World Heritage Site, all restoration work has adhered to traditional principles. Even the use of cement is prohibited,” he said. “We recreate the original mortar using the same traditional mixing methods, and when we use bricks, they match the original size and color.”

But according to Thura Aung, there is no consistent practice in place for maintaining the pagodas. Modern, readily available materials are too often being used for repairs, he said.

“The claim that they are preserving the original method is just on paper,” he said. “In reality, it’s being revised without maintaining its true authenticity.”

Critics have also cited an increase in construction projects in the ancient city that are undertaken without heritage impact reports and have disrupted irrigation systems and water drainage in the increasingly urbanized landscape.

Last week, junta leader Senior General Min Aung Hlaing visited Bagan to inspect recent repairs aimed at preventing future flooding from the zone’s lakes and reservoirs, several junta newspapers reported.

Translated by Kalyar Lwin. Edited by Matt Reed.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

As New York City’s Climate Week begins, we speak to environmental justice activist Kumi Naidoo, the former head of Greenpeace International and Amnesty International and now the president of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, about his work to end the use of fossil fuels, the leading driver of climate change. Naidoo calls for “urgency and the fastest withdrawal” from the world’s dependence on fossil fuel companies, slamming the “arrogance,” “control” and “impunity” of their profit-maximizing CEOs. Naidoo is from South Africa, which brought the genocide case against Israel to the International Criminal Court, and he has joined other climate activists in linking the climate justice and antiwar movements. “We have to recognize many of the struggles we face are very intersecting and very connected.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Yoon set out his thoughts on Friday, while on a visit to the Czech Republic, when asked by a reporter if South Korea was seriously considering nuclear weapons.

“Seoul sees beefing up its own defense capabilities as well as strengthening the enforceability of the U.S.-South Korean extended deterrent as the best defense against the North Korean nuclear threat,” he said.

“We established the NCG through the ‘Washington Declaration’ in April last year, and the United States and South Korea are currently promoting nuclear strategic planning as well as joint implementation through the Conventional-Nuclear Integration,” said Yoon, referring to a Nuclear Consultative Group and the strategy of being prepared to survive and respond to a nuclear attack.

The U.S. and South Korea held their inaugural  NCG meeting in July last year, when they discussed information sharing, consultation mechanisms, and joint planning and execution to enhance nuclear deterrence against North Korea.

The NCG framework was announced during the bilateral summit in Washington last April against the backdrop of growing demands in South Korea for its own nuclear weapons in light of North Korea’s escalating nuclear threats.

Yoon also highlighted the importance of cooperation between the U.S., South Korea and fellow U.S. ally, Japan.

“Since the Camp David Summit in August last year, the three countries have established a trilateral cooperation system to enhance efforts to promote security and peace in the Indo-Pacific region,” he said.

At their Camp David meeting, the leaders of Japan, the U.S. and South Korea, agreed on several key initiatives aimed at strengthening trilateral cooperation. 

These included commitments to enhance joint military exercises, increase intelligence sharing and deepen economic ties. Additionally, the summit produced a joint statement that emphasized the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific, underscoring the trilateral alliance’s role in maintaining regional stability and countering China’s growing influence.

“As challenges to the international order based on freedom, human rights, and the rule of law grow, especially if they are pursued through force and coercive diplomacy, the need for cooperation between the three countries as partners of values and interests will only increase,” the South Korean president said.

Yoon’s remarks came about a week after the North unveiled details of its uranium enrichment facility for the first time, with its leader Kim Jong Un calling for increasing the number of centrifuges for uranium enrichment so it can increase its nuclear arsenal for self-defense. 

RELATED STORIES

Satellite photos show expansion of suspected North Korean uranium enrichment site

North Korea unveils uranium enrichment facility for the first time

Kim Jong Un says North Korea to increase its arsenal of nuclear weapons

Radio Free Asia reported on Thursday, based on analysis of satellite imagery, evidence that a suspected North Korean uranium enrichment facility that may have been toured by leader Kim Jong Un recently has grown significantly since construction was first spotted there in February.

Impact of Russian sanctions

When questioned on whether sanctions against Russia have had any impact on the South Korean economy, Yoon said that since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the volume of trade between South Korea and Russia has dropped significantly, and South Korean companies had suffered as a result.

“Nevertheless, as a responsible member of the international community, my government will continue to work in international co-operation to safeguard peace,” he added.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned South Korea in June that sending  weapons to Ukraine would be a “very big mistake” after South Korea said it would consider doing so in response to a pact between Russia and North Korea to come to each other’s aid if attacked.

At that time, South Korea announced it would reconsider its policy of not sending arms to Ukraine in response to North Korea and Russia signing a treaty that included a mutual pledge to provide immediate military assistance if either was attacked.

Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Taejun Kang for RFA.

The post The Need for Independent Media: Voices For Peace in a World at War appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

Fueled by global warming, extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the United States. It claims the lives of around 2,000 workers and injures another 170,000 in heat stress-related incidents each year, according to Public Citizen.

Workers whose jobs expose them to dangerous heat — like farm, construction, maintenance, delivery, and warehouse workers — are the most vulnerable. Underlying inequities further compound the risks for lower-income workers and workers of color.

In August, as temperatures in Baltimore approached 100 degrees, heat tragically killed 36-year-old Ronald Silver II, a city sanitation worker. “He was found lying on the hood of a car and asking for water,” reported The Guardian. In other instances,airport workers have passed out and suffered from other symptoms of heat exhaustion while on the job.

These deaths and illnesses could have been prevented if long overdue, proper workplace heat protection standards had been in place.

Some life-saving relief may be on the horizon, however. On July 2, the Biden administration announced a new proposed rule that would establish the country’s first federal heat safety standard. It would help protect around 36 million workers — both indoor and outdoor — from heat-related deaths and injuries.

If finalized, the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations would require employers to provide drinking water and rest breaks when the combined temperature and relative humidity hit 80 degrees.

Employers would also be required to develop a heat injury and illness prevention plan, provide training, and immediately assist a worker who is experiencing a heat emergency. Additional protections would be triggered once the heat index reaches 90 degrees, including a minimum 15-minute paid rest break every two hours.

In the absence of a nationwide standard, only five states have implemented their own regulations to protect workers from heat: California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota. The types of industries covered vary for each state, as do the workplace settings (indoor and/or outdoor) and the temperature levels that trigger safety requirements.

Some localities have taken matters into their own hands. The city of Phoenix, which endured 31 consecutive days of temperatures over 110 degrees last summer, passed an ordinance in March that requires city contractors and subcontractors to provide access to shade, rest, water, and air conditioning for their outside workers, including construction and airport workers.

In stark contrast, several states cruelly continue to prevent localities from implementing the most basic protections.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill last year that rescinded mandatory rest and water breaks for construction workers. And at the urging of powerful business interests and their lobbyists, this year Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a measure that bans localities from passing heat protections like water breaks and shade for outdoor workers. At least two farmworkers in Florida died last year from heat exposure.

A federal heat safety standard would help counter these unconscionable attacks on workers and save lives. But it could take years to finalize. In addition to election year uncertainties, final approval will likely face challenges from big business and lobbying groups, particularly from the agricultural and construction sectors.

Until then, state governments should act urgently and adopt their own worker protections. Congress can also direct OSHA to issue an interim heat safety standard until a final heat standard is issued.

The summers won’t be getting any cooler. And workers’ lives hang in the balance.

The post Workers Need Protection From Record-Breaking Heat appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Farrah Hassen.

Ger van Elk, Symmetry of Diplomacy, 1975, Groninger Museum

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

– President John F. Kennedy, Inauguration Speech, January 20, 1961.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech last week was a tour de force.   It was presidential; it was compelling; it demonstrated presence and power.  But it provided no indication that she will address the weakest aspects of President Joe Biden’s national security policy, the failure to restore diplomacy as the central tool of foreign policy and to reestablish the primacy of arms control and disarmament.

Harris has a compelling personal story; she used the story effectively to introduce herself to the American public.  Harris’s confidence and charisma allowed her to connect to her audience, and perhaps to impress independents and even some Republicans to take a second look at a political figure who was caricatured unfairly by the mainstream media from the outset of the Biden administration.  She was so effective that it is difficult to imagine an incoherent and rambling Donald Trump sharing a stage with her at their debate that is scheduled for September 17th.

It is unreasonable to expect any vice president to deviate from the president’s foreign policy imperatives, but an opportunity was missed to at least introduce new aspects of foreign policy that were not addressed during Biden’s presidency.  One possible indicator of a more pragmatic approach is the fact that Harris’s foreign policy advisor is Philip Gordon, whose writings suggest an awareness of the limits of American power and a willingness to negotiate with autocratic regimes.

As an official in the Department of State during the Obama administration and a White House advisor to Obama on the Middle East, Gordon worked on the Iran nuclear accord, the effort to reset relations with Russia after its invasion of Georgia, and advised against supporting regime change in Syria.  The so-called reset with Russia contributed to the successful effort to remove chemical weapons from Syria. (Obama has been unfairly criticized for the failure to use force against the Assad regime in Syria, and the success of bilateral diplomacy with Russia has not been acknowledged.)  According to the Financial Times, Gordon has been responsible for crafting Harris’s more sympathetic tone for the plight of the Palestinians.

Although Biden put great stock into personal diplomacy, his team demonstrated no willingness to open areas of dialogue with key adversaries.  We have obvious differences with Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi, and Iran’s Ayatollah.  But over the past several months, these leaders have demonstrated an interest in pursuing substantive discussions with the United States.  It was encouraging that Harris did not personally mention these leaders and only singled out North Korea’s Kim Jong Un for criticism, although Kim’s interest in dealing with the United States is also apparent.

There is no sign of Harris’s positions on Biden’s policy choices that would suggest strong differences or alternative approaches to change the direction of U.S. policy.  Harris at this point cannot deviate from President Biden’s key positions on sensitive issues, although Vice President Hubert Humphrey probably lost the election in 1968 to Richard Nixon because of a belated critique on U.S. policy in Vietnam.  Biden’s unwavering support for Israel could ultimately hurt Harris in key states such as Michigan.

Harris acknowledged that she was the “last person in the room” on the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, and it was well known that she wanted to protect the Afghan women and children who would be most affected by the Taliban’s return to power.  But Harris, like Biden, was “eager” to find a political solution that would allow the withdrawal of American forces, which was the correct position after two decades of military and political failure in Afghanistan.

Ironically, when Joe Biden was vice president, he took strong exception to President Barack Obama’s decision to increase the U.S. force presence in Afghanistan and even warned the president to avoid getting “boxed in” by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that were pressing for a large increase in military forces.  Biden took the unusual step of sending a classified message to Obama to prevent any increase in the U.S. presence, and wrote a personal note for the record that he was “thinking I should resign in protest over what will bring his administration down.”

According to the Washington Post, Biden privately stated that protecting Afghan women was not a cause worthy of continued U.S. military intervention.  (My personal view is that Biden has been unfairly pilloried for ending the “forever war” in Afghanistan, which cost the United States more than $2 trillion.  It was one of Biden’s greatest achievements, refusing to prolong a war that made no sense and was never worth the cost after the initial success in 2001.)

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how Harris will handle two of Biden’s greatest failures: his continuation of Donald Trump’s failed policy toward China and his intense support for the illiberal and militaristic policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The pursuit of containment against China is a losing hand that must yield to more nimble strategies and tactics.  Israel’s dangerous escalation in Gaza prevents any possibility of serious negotiations in the region, let alone a compromise for peace.  The “alliance” with Israel is a shackle that chains U.S. policy to Israel’s dangerous illusions and aspirations.  It must be addressed.

Harris’s speech ended with the usual tropes associated with presidential national security policy.  She stressed that she would “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” and that she would “take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.”  Her emphasis on “standing up for Israel’s right to defend itself” obfuscates the fact that Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza and the West Bank have nothing to do with defense.

Our policy of globalism has been overly dependent on support for military lethality, which led us into losing wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; our stress on terrorism led us into the “Global War on Terror,” which led to a wrongful expansion of U.S. power into the Middle East and even Africa.  Our reliance on strategic superiority, which will require continued modernization of strategic forces, will be a costly liability in times such as these that require more stable and subtle policies.  There is much work to be done and, at this point, no clarity on the shape and substance of future foreign policy.

The post Harris and the Need for Diplomacy appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Melvin Goodman.

Ger van Elk, Symmetry of Diplomacy, 1975, Groninger Museum

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

– President John F. Kennedy, Inauguration Speech, January 20, 1961.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech last week was a tour de force.   It was presidential; it was compelling; it demonstrated presence and power.  But it provided no indication that she will address the weakest aspects of President Joe Biden’s national security policy, the failure to restore diplomacy as the central tool of foreign policy and to reestablish the primacy of arms control and disarmament.

Harris has a compelling personal story; she used the story effectively to introduce herself to the American public.  Harris’s confidence and charisma allowed her to connect to her audience, and perhaps to impress independents and even some Republicans to take a second look at a political figure who was caricatured unfairly by the mainstream media from the outset of the Biden administration.  She was so effective that it is difficult to imagine an incoherent and rambling Donald Trump sharing a stage with her at their debate that is scheduled for September 17th.

It is unreasonable to expect any vice president to deviate from the president’s foreign policy imperatives, but an opportunity was missed to at least introduce new aspects of foreign policy that were not addressed during Biden’s presidency.  One possible indicator of a more pragmatic approach is the fact that Harris’s foreign policy advisor is Philip Gordon, whose writings suggest an awareness of the limits of American power and a willingness to negotiate with autocratic regimes.

As an official in the Department of State during the Obama administration and a White House advisor to Obama on the Middle East, Gordon worked on the Iran nuclear accord, the effort to reset relations with Russia after its invasion of Georgia, and advised against supporting regime change in Syria.  The so-called reset with Russia contributed to the successful effort to remove chemical weapons from Syria. (Obama has been unfairly criticized for the failure to use force against the Assad regime in Syria, and the success of bilateral diplomacy with Russia has not been acknowledged.)  According to the Financial Times, Gordon has been responsible for crafting Harris’s more sympathetic tone for the plight of the Palestinians.

Although Biden put great stock into personal diplomacy, his team demonstrated no willingness to open areas of dialogue with key adversaries.  We have obvious differences with Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi, and Iran’s Ayatollah.  But over the past several months, these leaders have demonstrated an interest in pursuing substantive discussions with the United States.  It was encouraging that Harris did not personally mention these leaders and only singled out North Korea’s Kim Jong Un for criticism, although Kim’s interest in dealing with the United States is also apparent.

There is no sign of Harris’s positions on Biden’s policy choices that would suggest strong differences or alternative approaches to change the direction of U.S. policy.  Harris at this point cannot deviate from President Biden’s key positions on sensitive issues, although Vice President Hubert Humphrey probably lost the election in 1968 to Richard Nixon because of a belated critique on U.S. policy in Vietnam.  Biden’s unwavering support for Israel could ultimately hurt Harris in key states such as Michigan.

Harris acknowledged that she was the “last person in the room” on the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, and it was well known that she wanted to protect the Afghan women and children who would be most affected by the Taliban’s return to power.  But Harris, like Biden, was “eager” to find a political solution that would allow the withdrawal of American forces, which was the correct position after two decades of military and political failure in Afghanistan.

Ironically, when Joe Biden was vice president, he took strong exception to President Barack Obama’s decision to increase the U.S. force presence in Afghanistan and even warned the president to avoid getting “boxed in” by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that were pressing for a large increase in military forces.  Biden took the unusual step of sending a classified message to Obama to prevent any increase in the U.S. presence, and wrote a personal note for the record that he was “thinking I should resign in protest over what will bring his administration down.”

According to the Washington Post, Biden privately stated that protecting Afghan women was not a cause worthy of continued U.S. military intervention.  (My personal view is that Biden has been unfairly pilloried for ending the “forever war” in Afghanistan, which cost the United States more than $2 trillion.  It was one of Biden’s greatest achievements, refusing to prolong a war that made no sense and was never worth the cost after the initial success in 2001.)

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how Harris will handle two of Biden’s greatest failures: his continuation of Donald Trump’s failed policy toward China and his intense support for the illiberal and militaristic policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The pursuit of containment against China is a losing hand that must yield to more nimble strategies and tactics.  Israel’s dangerous escalation in Gaza prevents any possibility of serious negotiations in the region, let alone a compromise for peace.  The “alliance” with Israel is a shackle that chains U.S. policy to Israel’s dangerous illusions and aspirations.  It must be addressed.

Harris’s speech ended with the usual tropes associated with presidential national security policy.  She stressed that she would “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” and that she would “take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.”  Her emphasis on “standing up for Israel’s right to defend itself” obfuscates the fact that Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza and the West Bank have nothing to do with defense.

Our policy of globalism has been overly dependent on support for military lethality, which led us into losing wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; our stress on terrorism led us into the “Global War on Terror,” which led to a wrongful expansion of U.S. power into the Middle East and even Africa.  Our reliance on strategic superiority, which will require continued modernization of strategic forces, will be a costly liability in times such as these that require more stable and subtle policies.  There is much work to be done and, at this point, no clarity on the shape and substance of future foreign policy.

The post Harris and the Need for Diplomacy appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Melvin Goodman.

Authorities in Dien Ban town are seeking Quang Nam province’s permission to tear down the two-decade-old military monument and replace it with a larger and grander tribute to Vietnam’s military.

One expert told Radio Free Asia the job would provide a perfect cover for corruption, with local officials and construction firms working in tandem to inflate the project budget and pocket the difference.

The “upgrade” to the Dien Ngoc Gallant Soldiers Monument would cost 88 billion dong, or about US $3.5 million, according to a proposal made public by Vietnamese state media. The reportedly dilapidated current statue was built in 2005 for only 1.5 billion dong, or about $60,000.

That has left some locals with severe sticker shock.

“Demolishing the current Dien Ngoc Monument and using 88 billion dong to rebuild and upgrade it is a waste and too costly. It won’t bring much spiritual value,” said a local construction worker, who spoke with RFA on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from officials.

He suggested that the provincial government should reject the proposal so that the funds can instead be used to provide loans for the town’s residents to help them overcome the financial difficulties they have faced since the COVID pandemic routed local businesses.

According to state media, the current statue, though rarely visited by local residents, was built to commemorate “the sacrifice of seven Dien Ngoc gallant soldiers in the battle against the American imperialists and their henchmen” in the local area in the early 1960s.

Neverending development

RFA Vietnamese’s calls to the Dien Ban People’s Committee to seek further information about the project went unanswered.

But the proposal argues that a complete rebuild of the monument is needed because the 2005 monument is in a state of disrepair. The requested funds, it says, would also help upgrade gardens near the monument.

The Dien Ngoc Gallant Soldiers Monument is only the latest of a growing number of monuments around Vietnam that local authorities have sought to rebuild, seemingly for propaganda purposes.

Many in Vietnam suspect another motive, though.

A lecturer at the Hanoi University of Civil Engineering told RFA, also on the condition of being granted anonymity, that many monuments were being rebuilt to provide officials an easy way to embezzle state funds.

“It’s not really understandable that cities and provinces that are as poor as church mice, and whose residents are constantly hungry, insist on building monuments,” the lecturer said, adding that costly monuments could prove “seductive” due to the possibility of kickbacks.

“That seductive and magic force, to put it bluntly, is personal gain,” they explained. “Money from project funds will be stolen and then go straight into the pockets of officials and their cronies.”

Out of every 10 dong spent on a given project, the lecturer said, only about two or three dong would ultimately be spent on the project.

“That’s why,” they said, “nine out of 10 monuments quickly deteriorate.”

And that only opens up opportunities for more future rebuilds.

A monument to corruption

Vietnamese state media has not shied away from reporting on the issue, noting that many multi-billion-dong monuments have been left in a ruinous state only years after being unveiled in ceremonies.

Some of the most high-profile flops have included the Phan Dinh Phung Monument in Ha Tinh province in the country’s north, which cost about 30 billion dong, or about US $1.2 million, and the “Uncle Ho and Vietnamese Farmers” monument in nearby Thai Binh province, which took 203 billion dong, or about US $8 million, out of state coffers.

Some government officials have even been imprisoned for embezzlement of state funds for their monumental ploys.

A high-profile example was the Dien Bien Phu Victory Monument, which was inaugurated on May 7, 2004, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Dien Bien Phu victory against the French.

Not long after its completion, the monument base cracked and began to sink, while the bronze statue atop the base rusted away due to the low proportion of bronze used. Original designs had called for 220 tons of bronze, but only 120 tons reportedly ended up in the statue.

Eight people were arrested and prosecuted for the graft scheme, including the deputy director of Dien Bien Phu’s department of culture and the director of its historical site management board. In 2011, the provincial court sentenced the latter to more than 3 years in prison.

Still, an architect in Hanoi said the real money for officials was not in the monuments game. Speaking to RFA on condition of anonymity, he said infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges cost significantly more than monuments and so left more room for “kickback money.”

But in smaller areas of Vietnam without the imminent need for such large-scale projects, he said, monuments with a conspicuous political element were the most sure-fire way for local officials to profit.

Translated by Anna Vu. Edited by Alex Willemyns.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

Image by Candice Seplow.

Learn how political nonviolence can rehumanize us to one another and defend democracy in the U.S. and around the world.

After the shooting at former President Trump’s campaign rally, many people rushed to say that “political violence has no place in our democracy.”

Let’s go even further and boldly say: political nonviolence is essential for democracy.

The ties between nonviolence and democracy run deep. We know from the groundbreaking research of Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan that even if a nonviolent movement fails to achieve its primary goals, it often leaves a more democratic society in its wake. On the other hand, violence swiftly destroys democracies, shoving them toward authoritarianism and “politics at the barrel of a gun.”

Political violence has a terrible track record. It has spent centuries delivering and defending injustice, abuse, discrimination and destruction.

So, what should we do instead? Boldly and with vision, we should be building a culture of active nonviolence, including defining and implementing new standards of political nonviolence.

For 11 years, Campaign Nonviolence has been working to mainstream nonviolence and build a culture that implements nonviolent values, solutions, worldview and approaches. We have persevered in this work even as political violence has heightened — because we already know that more violence and continued inaction will not get us out of this mess. We need a profoundly different approach.

If we want to have a politics where every voice feels safe and respected, where each citizen has a right to participate, and where no one will be harmed for their political beliefs, nonviolence needs to be both a state and an individual policy.

Amidst the George Floyd Protests in 2020, Vox editor Ezra Klein wrote an essay, “Imagining the nonviolent state,” asking the thought-provoking question: “What if nonviolence wasn’t an inhuman standard demanded of the powerless, but an ethic upon which we reimagined the state?” He goes on to explore new standards of policing, restorative justice and responding to protest movements.

In a world of political nonviolence, we’d see these kinds of changes:

Nonviolent protesters are allowed to exercise freedom of speech and assembly without fear of police repression.

The use of nonviolent action as a tool for social, political, cultural, and economic power is fully protected for all people.

Police are not allowed to use violent repression against unarmed protesters.

Political events are weapons-free for all participants.

Polling places are protected by peace teams. Every citizen trains in violence de-escalation and anti-harassment skills.

No one makes threats of violence or intimidation over political views.

Political campaigns are legally required to refrain from hate speech, discrimination and violent rhetoric

Debate, discourse, voting and democratic process is held as sacred by all.

Each community trains to defend democracy with nonviolent action, learning how to thwart coups, attempts to steal elections and unjust policies that undermine fair participation in the political process.

What can you do to make this vision a reality?

Start talking about political nonviolence and the specific ways we uphold it. Reach out to public officials, policy makers, police and activist groups with these ideas.

Work with groups like Meta Peace Teams, DC Peace Team and Joy To the Polls on election safety and keeping the polls safe for all voters.

Engage with your fellow citizens about this by fact-checking, fostering civic discourse and working to build understanding rather than fear and division. Join efforts like Braver Angels that help people rehumanize one another in times of extreme polarization.

Learn how nonviolent action defends democracy. Check out how Choose Democracy and Hold The Line protected the 2020 elections, and consider how these strategies can be adapted to help us now.

The long-term work of building a culture of active nonviolence can start right here in addressing the political violence that is threatening our country. The United States is not alone in dealing with these issues. Around the world, many nations are grappling with authoritarianism, extreme politics, politically motivated violence and increased repression of protests.

We need political nonviolence more than ever. It’s a vision of democracy worth striving for.

The post We Need Political Nonviolence Now More Than Ever appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Rivera Sun.

Saturday’s assassination attempt of Donald Trump is widely viewed as the Secret Service’s biggest failure since 1981, when a gunman shot President Ronald Reagan just over two months into his first term. Reagan was hospitalized for nearly two weeks. Three other people were injured, including Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, who was shot in the head and left partially paralyzed. Brady and his wife Sarah would go on to become prominent gun control advocates pushing for a bill that became known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Brady was also involved in a gun control organization that changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, now known simply as Brady. “Reasonable and appropriate gun violence prevention measures save lives,” says Kris Brown, the president of Brady. Brown advocates for critical gun control measures that would interrupt the Republican Party’s vision of “guns everywhere, for anyone, at any time.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The spotlight

At a library in Dover, New Hampshire, earlier this year, the shelves of books and CDs typically available for lending were accompanied by something else — racks of clothes. Every Sunday and Monday from December through mid-January, community members could visit a lecture hall in the Dover Public Library to participate in the pilot of a new type of lending project: a clothing library. Visitors could check out up to five garments for two weeks at a time. The collection focused on “occasion wear,” the types of things people might buy for the purpose of wearing once: a holiday party dress, a wedding outfit, a ski trip ensemble.

But more than displacing those types of purchases, and the resulting waste, the real idea behind the project was to facilitate a shift in behavior, said Stella Martinez McShera, the clothing library’s creator. “How can we bridge the gap between people buying, whether that’s new or secondhand, to borrowing?”

McShera with the clothing library setup. Courtesy of Stella Martinez McShera

I met McShera while reporting another newsletter story on the world’s first degrowth master’s program, run by a university in Barcelona. She’s a recent graduate of the online master’s, and the clothing library was her thesis project. In that story, we explored what happens when the philosophical ideas of a new economic system meet the realities of the one we have. McShera’s project is one example of what that looks like in practice.

McShera started her career in fashion. In 2000, she launched the first fashion incubator in the U.S. But as much as she loved the essence of fashion, she knew that the industry was guilty of horrifying human rights abuses, pollution, and waste. She had long been interested in circular fashion, but she came to feel that even a circular approach was not enough to get to the root of all the ills associated with fast fashion. When she discovered degrowth and the master’s program, it became a proving ground for her ideas about replacing fast fashion and extraction with borrowing and being resourceful with what already exists.

McShera started building her clothing library pilot by collecting surplus garments from local thrift and vintage stores. It’s estimated that thrift stores sell only about 20 percent of the donated clothing they receive. Even vintage boutiques and curated consignment shops will end up getting rid of some garments they weren’t able to sell in a set time. “They have to cycle stuff in,” she said. “So even if it’s something really cute, maybe they overpriced it at the thrift store, or maybe it just didn’t sell in two weeks because it’s a sweater and it’s unseasonably warm.”

Just from local secondhand shops, McShera quickly gathered over 5,000 garments — even more than she could take, she said. She donated her own surplus to a housing shelter, winnowing the library collection down to about 1,500 items.

McShera kicked off the launch with a fashion show in the stacks. Professionally coiffed librarians modeled items from the collection for photographers and a crowd of over 160 attendees. “It was so much fun,” said Denise LaFrance, the Dover library’s director. The fashion show was the biggest indoor event at the library in her 25-year tenure. “I mean, seriously, people still are talking about it.”

Models walk the runway during the fashion show at the Dover Public Library. Jason Shamesman

During the pilot, McShera also hosted an eco-fashion panel and three workshops on mending and styling, intended to help people think differently about their relationship to their wardrobes. “Because it’s free, people were more willing to experiment with their style,” McShera said. There was no guilt or shame associated with returning something, because returning was an understood part of the process.

LaFrance borrowed, among other things, a pair of gray silk pants that she remembered loving, even though they weren’t the type of thing she would typically shop for. When she checked them out, they still had their original price tag attached. They retailed for about $400. “I would never buy $400 pants,” she said. “But they were fabulous.”

Over just 12 days of being open, McShera said, the library saw over a hundred people come through, and 65 borrowed something. And of the more than 100 garments that were checked out during the library’s pilot, all of them came back clean and in good condition.

“It’s the commoning of clothing,” McShera said. “It’s free access versus ownership.”

With the pilot concluded, and McShera’s thesis complete, she’s now looking toward the next steps of bringing clothing libraries to fruition in her community and beyond. She presented the concept at the 10th International Degrowth Conference last week in Spain, and plans to publish a manual that will empower community members all over the world to start their own projects, in partnership with their local libraries. Someday, she’d like to see a network of clothing libraries — sharing resources and knowledge, advocating for policy change, and possibly even swapping clothes to help keep their collections fresh.

Although she feels there’s more testing to be done, a few more local libraries in her area have already expressed interest in hosting a pilot, she noted.

“The most difficult thing about this was space and time,” said LaFrance. The library is in an old building, she said, “and we’re kind of bursting at the seams.” She suspects that most libraries would be similarly pressed to carve out space for a small shop’s worth of clothing racks. One thing she suggested to McShera was a setup more like a traveling bus.

But McShera’s ultimate vision is to integrate clothing into the normal functioning of a library. “The reason I wanted the model to be in partnership with the public libraries is because the behavior’s normal. People already know, I go in and I borrow,” she said. She added that libraries tend to be centrally located in cities and neighborhoods, highly visible and easily reachable by foot or transit. And many libraries — including Dover’s — already branch out from books, lending things like tools, games, and music.

“This just seems like a logical next step,” she said.

Rather than a pop-up in an event room, she envisions a future where clothing racks could find a permanent home in the library. There could even be regular staff members with fashion expertise who could steward the collections. “Just like if someone needs help using the photocopier or help researching something, you ask the librarian for help,” McShera said. “So if you wanted some help styling, you could say, ‘Hey, is there a clothing librarian on shift today?’”

— Claire Elise Thompson

More exposure

• Read: an in-depth look at the harms caused by fast fashion, and why (and how) this culture needs to change (Vox)
• Listen: to a discussion of how the quality of clothing has changed overtime, and what that has to do with our consumption habits and care of what we own (Culture Study Podcast)
• Read: about another free and sustainable way to change up your closet — the clothing swap — and how it can be a form of community care (Refinery29)
• Read: about the many crucial ways public libraries foster climate resilience (Nonprofit Quarterly)

A parting shot

It has become increasingly common for public libraries and other community-serving organizations to offer “libraries of things” — collections of functional stuff that people might want to borrow for a short time, like toys, gear, musical instruments, and more. Here’s a photo of one such offering in the corner of a library in Frankfurt, Germany.

IMAGE CREDITS

Vision: Grist

Spotlight: Courtesy of Stella Martinez McShera; Jason Shamesman

Parting shot: Sebastian Gollnow / picture alliance via Getty Images

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Need a new outfit? Try the library. on Jun 26, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Claire Elise Thompson.

…all those McCarthy-Loving Feds and Politicians have tapped the nerds and software billionaires to watch our every fucking move!!!!!!!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Haeder.

The post The Need for Studying Zionism, Critically appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Susie Day.

“The need for sovereignty for all Indigenous peoples is critical, is paramount, to us literally surviving,” said Gomes, reflecting on the forum Wednesday. 

Gomesʻ conclusion isn’t just her opinion. It’s a message that underpins a new report released this week by the United Nations summarizing the official recommendations from this year’s gathering. The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is an United Nations’ advisory body dedicated to representing the perspectives of Indigenous peoples who otherwise would not have a voice in the UN General Assembly.

The final report is a a 30-page list that details a broad list of recommendations aimed at specific countries, international agencies and U.N. member states. 

While this year’s forum wasn’t officially climate-focused, attendees spoke again and again about how climate disasters, environmental degradation and other modern-day challenges are rooted in the exploitation of Native land and how the green energy transition compounds that exploitation. 

The final report urges U.N. agencies to do more to ensure carbon credit programs are effective and not harmful. Carbon credit programs are intended to decrease carbon emissions, but Indigenous advocates say they in practice divide and exploit Indigenous peoples. 

“The Forum urges the secretariats of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to demand high-integrity projects that have clear accountability for carbon emissions and biodiversity as well as measured benefits for Indigenous Peoples,” the report said. 

All four United Nations bodies are invited to report on their work at next year’s Permanent Forum gathering in New York City, the report said. 

U.N. agencies should stop conflating Indigenous peoples with the more amorphous term “local communities,” which could dilute Indigenous rights, the report advised. 

The Permanent Forum also repeatedly called on the need for more climate funding for Indigenous peoples and the importance of involving Indigenous peoples in efforts to establish more protected areas. “Conservation efforts worldwide must recognize and respect the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and resources,” the report said. 

The final report also urges specific countries to respect Indigenous peoples. In particular, the Permanent Forum said it regretted the outcome of Australia’s failed referendum last year that would have given Indigenous people an official voice in government. 

Repeatedly, the reportʻs recommendations refer to the need to support Indigenous peoplesʻ right to self-determination.

“The Forum further recommends that States engage in processes focused on decolonization and reconciliation policies that facilitate the path of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination, with the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples,” the report said. 

That message is on Gomes’ mind this week as she participates in another major gathering of Indigenous peoples, this time a festival celebrating Indigenous Pacific peoples in Hawaiʻi. On Wednesday, canoes were officially welcomed to Hawaiʻi after sailing  thousands of miles across the Pacific without compasses, navigating through Indigenous knowledge of the stars and waves.

Gomes thought about how the crews had sailed from independent Pacific nations to the Hawaiian archipelago that is dominated by the American flag. 

“We are not free until we all are free,” she said. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Nations need to do more to defend Indigenous rights, UN report says on Jun 6, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Anita Hofschneider.

The unrest that has gripped Kanaky New Caledonia is the direct result of French President Emmanuel Macron’s partisan and stubborn political manoeuvring to derail the process towards self-determination in my homeland.

The deadly riots that erupted two weeks ago in the capital, Nouméa, were sparked by an electoral reform bill voted through in the French National Assembly, in Paris.

Almost 40 years ago, Kanaky New Caledonia made international headlines for similar reasons. The pro-independence and Kanak people have long been calling to settle the colonial situation in Kanaky New Caledonia, once and for all.

• READ MORE: France sends armoured vehicles with machine gun capability to New Caledonia
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

Kanak people make up about 40 percent of the population in New Caledonia, which remains a French territory in the Pacific.

The Kanak independence movement, the Kanak National and Socialist Liberation Front (FLNKS), and its allies have been contesting the controversial electoral bill since it was introduced in the French Senate by the Macron government in April.

Relations between the French government and the FLNKS have been tense since Macron decided to push ahead with the third independence referendum in 2021. Despite the call by pro-independence groups and the Kanak people for it to be deferred due to the covid pandemic and its high death toll.

Ever since, the FLNKS and supporters have contested the political legitimacy of that referendum because the majority of the indigenous and colonised people of Kanaky New Caledonia did not take part in the vote.

Peaceful rallies
Since the electoral reform bill was introduced in the French Senate in April this year, peaceful rallies, demonstrations, marches and sit-ins gathering more than 10,000 people have been held in the city centre of Nouméa and around Kanaky New Caledonia.

But that did not stop the French government pushing ahead with the bill — despite clear signs that it would trigger unrest and violent reactions on the ground.

The tensions and loss of trust in the Macron government by pro-independence groups became more evident when Sonia Backés, an anti-independence leader and president of the Southern province, was appointed as State Secretary in charge of Citizenship in July 2022 and then Nicolas Metzdorf, another anti-independence representative as rapporteur on the proposed electoral reform bill.

Macron can deploy thousands of troops and military arsenals. France will never silence Kanaky aspirations for freedom https://t.co/GJcXFCDvLY

— Jimmy Naouna (@JNaouna) June 3, 2024

This clearly showed the French government was supporting loyalist parties in Kanaky New Caledonia — and that the French State had stepped out of its neutral position as a partner to the Nouméa Accord, and a party to negotiate toward a new political agreement.

Then last late last month, President Macron made the out-of-the blue decision to pay an 18 hour visit to Kanaky New Caledonia, to ease tensions and resume talks with local parties to build a new political agreement.

It was no more than a public relations exercise for his own political gain. Even within his own party, Macron has lost support to take the electoral reform bill through the Congrès de Versailles (a joint session of Parliament) and his handling of the situation in Kanaky New Caledonia is being contested at a national level by political groups, especially as campaigning for the upcoming European elections gathers pace.

Once back in Paris, Macron announced he may consider putting the electoral reform to a national referendum, as provided for under the French constitution; French citizens in France voted to endorse the Nouméa Accord in 1998.

“To me Kanak independence is inevitable” /
“I think France is prolonging the inevitable.” Sir Collin Tukuitonga
New Caledonia’s fires for freedom https://t.co/PB0edo9XWg

— Jimmy Naouna (@JNaouna) May 27, 2024

More pressure on talks
For the FLNKS, this option will only put more pressure on the talks for a new political agreement.

The average French citizen in Paris is not fully aware of the decolonisation process in Kanaky New Caledonia and why the electoral roll has been restricted to Kanaks and “citizens”, as per the Nouméa Accord. They may just vote “yes” on the basis of democratic principles: one man, one vote.

Yet others may vote “no” as to sanction against Macron’s policies and his handling of Kanaky New Caledonia.

Either way, the outcome of a national referendum on the proposed electoral reform bill — without a local consensus — would only trigger more protest and unrest in Kanaky New Caledonia.

After Macron’s visit, the FLNKS issued a statement reaffirming its call for the electoral reform process to be suspended or withdrawn.

It also called for a high-level independent mission to be sent into Kanaky New Caledonia to ease tensions and ensure a more conducive environment for talks to resume towards a new political agreement that sets a definite and clear pathway towards a new — and genuine — referendum on independence for Kanaky New Caledonia.

A peaceful future for all that hopefully will not fall on deaf ears again.

Jimmy Naouna is a member of Kanaky New Caledonia’s pro-independence FLNKS Political Bureau. This article was first published by The Guardian and is republished here with the permission of the author.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Lea o escuche la versión en español.

This guide will be released in Spanish in several formats to make this information more widely accessible. If you want to receive printed booklets that you or your organization can share with dairy workers in Wisconsin, or if you want to be notified when we post related videos on TikTok and YouTube, sign up here.

We are reporters at ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative news organization. Over the past two years, we have reported on the lives of dairy workers in Wisconsin and the dangers they face on the job.

Dairy workers are excluded from many state and federal legal protections that help other workers. As a result, if they are injured on the job, they often face obstacles to getting medical care or the time needed to recover.

Many dairy workers have seen relatives or co-workers lose their jobs and get kicked out of farm housing after an injury. Others have ended up with disfigured bodies and massive medical debt.

Many are undocumented. They worry about being deported if they speak up about an injury.

We heard these concerns repeatedly in our interviews with more than 100 immigrant workers. We know people often feel hopeless.

But while there are real challenges, our reporting has shown us that for some workers, there can be a path toward getting treatment after an injury. Here is some of what we found:

• Workers who are injured on larger farms have more protections. This is because of an insurance system called workers’ compensation. You can benefit even if you are undocumented.
• The workers’ compensation system is complex and difficult to navigate. Employers sometimes discourage workers from filing claims. Getting a lawyer can be critical, especially if you have a permanent disability.
• Workers who are injured on smaller farms usually can’t access workers’ compensation. The only way to compel an employer to cover medical costs is to file a lawsuit. These lawsuits can be extremely difficult to win. Because of that, attorneys may not want to take your case.
• You may be able to access free or low-cost medical care. Ask about hospital charity, free clinics and a Wisconsin insurance plan called BadgerCare Plus.

Few of the workers we’ve interviewed understood their rights after an injury. This guide is our attempt to explain your options, as limited as they are. We also want to answer questions that many workers have asked based on situations they’ve found themselves in. It is based on conversations with workers, attorneys, health care providers, community advocates, interpreters, researchers and farmers. It covers what you can do before you get to a farm, how to navigate the workers’ compensation system, and your options if you get injured on a farm that doesn’t have workers’ compensation.

The guide is especially focused on the workers’ compensation system because it is one of the few areas where injured dairy workers have a right to medical care. We know this system has limitations and isn’t available to everybody. However many workers have found it to be useful, particularly if they get help from an attorney.

This guide does not provide legal or medical advice. We strongly encourage you to talk to a lawyer or a doctor about your situation. We’ll point you to some resources in the last section.

We welcome your thoughts and questions. Please feel free to write us an email or call us by phone or WhatsApp. Thank you.

Maryam Jameel: Maryam.Jameel@propublica.org or 630-885-6883

Melissa Sanchez: Melissa.Sanchez@propublica.org or 872-444-0011

Farming in general has one of the highest fatality rates of industries in the U.S. Almost every year in Wisconsin, dairy farmers or their employees die on the job, crushed under tractors or drowned in manure lagoons or trampled by cows.

Injuries are even more common. But they are not always reported. That makes it impossible to accurately compare the dangers on dairy farms with other types of jobs. In our reporting, however, most workers told us they had been injured on the job. “If you haven’t been injured,” one former worker said, “then you haven’t really worked on a farm.” Cows can be unpredictable; workers told us they’d been kicked, stepped on and smashed against barn walls by the 1,500-pound animals.

We have spoken to several workers who lost fingers inside of machinery, a man whose legs were crushed by heavy metal gates and a woman who got trampled and thrown over a fence by a bull. Other workers have chronic pain from the repetitive motions of attaching tubes to cow teats hundreds of times a day.

In the winter, temperatures in Wisconsin can drop below zero, with high winds, snow and ice. Many workers have suffered serious injuries after they slipped on ice-covered concrete floors. Others have suffered frostbite.

Medical and public health officials said some workers develop infections and other issues from their exposure to animal feces and other harmful substances common on farms.

No government agency rates dairy farms on safety. In fact, even when workers die or are injured, dairy farms are not always inspected.

There is no guarantee that you will be safe on any farm. But farms can take steps to protect their workers and make sure they receive the medical treatment they need after an injury. One of the best ways to learn about safety issues on a farm is by talking to current or former employees.

Some questions you can ask:

• What kind of training do workers get when they are hired?

• Did you feel that the training was enough to help you do your job safely?

• What is the pace of work? Are there enough workers to do the job?

• Can cows easily kick you as you milk them?

• Can you describe a recent injury that happened to you or a coworker and how the supervisor responded? Did that worker get medical care or time off to heal?

• Do you know whether the farm has workers’ compensation insurance?

• How do the supervisors treat you? Do they speak to you respectfully?

We have also found that local Latino grocery stores can be good places to learn more about specific farms. Workers cash their checks at these businesses and often share information about work conditions with the clerks and owners. Ask them about a farm’s reputation and if there is anything they think you should know.

One sign that a farm may be a good place to work is if workers stay there for a long time.

The answer depends on how many workers the farm employs.

In general, if the farm has six or more employees, it should have a type of insurance called workers’ compensation that is supposed to cover these costs. Workers’ compensation is different from medical insurance. (If you are counting how many workers a farm has, don’t count the farm owners and their close relatives who work on the farm.)

If a farm has fewer than six employees, it does not have to have workers’ compensation under state rules. Workers who are hurt at these farms have only one legal avenue to get help paying for medical care. They may be able to file a lawsuit. (See the “Resources other than workers’ compensation” section for more information.)

You can ask your employer or look it up yourself online. If the farm has workers’ compensation insurance, it should be listed here: https://www.wcrb.org/coverage-lookup/. But the site, run by the Wisconsin Compensation Rating Bureau, is only available in English.

You’ll need to know the farm’s name or its address to do a search. If you don’t find the farm listed, you can email the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, which oversees the workers’ compensation system, at WCINS@dwd.wisconsin.gov, or call 608-266-3046. If you speak Spanish, you can ask for an interpreter.

You may know a farm by a nickname. To find out a farm’s official name, look at the upper left-hand corner of your paycheck, above the address. Or you can check the main entrance, where many farms have signs with their name.

State officials and lawyers say you should tell your employer right away that you got hurt and get the medical treatment you need. The Department of Workforce Development said any delays may hurt your workers’ compensation case.

Gabriel Manzano Nieves, a workers’ compensation attorney in Madison, said many people he works with don’t want to report what seems like a minor injury. He said he’s had clients who thought at first that they had a sore shoulder or a sprain. Weeks later a doctor told them that they had a permanent injury. He added: “Later their employer might say, ‘How do I know this didn’t happen at home?’ Reporting time is really important for proving it happened at work.”

1. After you report your injury, your employer is supposed to file a claim with their insurance company within seven days. (Your employer can be fined if they delay filing a claim on purpose.) Your medical provider — usually that’s your doctor — can also file a claim for you.
2. Then the insurer is supposed to report this information to the state.
3. Once the claim is filed, the insurer will usually send you a letter or call and ask for your permission to get your medical records related to the injury.
4. The insurer will look at your records to decide whether to accept the claim and pay the medical costs. The company may also send you to an independent doctor or nurse who may make a different decision about your injury and treatment.
5. You may be entitled to some of your pay if you need days off work to recover from your injury. You should get a check from your employer’s insurance carrier, usually 14 days after your injury or illness, though lawyers say it can take longer.

Explain how you got injured and that it happened at work. Otherwise you may not get workers’ compensation. State officials recommend that you say this before you get treated. Give the name of the farm and the workers’ compensation insurer, if you know it, so that the hospital or doctor’s office can bill the insurer. Attorneys suggested that if you get any medical bills, you send them to the insurer.

Be open and detailed about your pain so your doctor can accurately assess your health. We know some workers sometimes don’t tell their doctors everything because they are embarrassed, they want to seem strong, they fear the cost of treatment, or for other reasons. Many other workers say their employers have told them not to tell the hospital that their injury was work-related in order to avoid filing a workers’ compensation claim. In some cases, employers promise to pay the medical bills out of pocket.

You have the right to choose your own doctor and to be alone with them during your visits; that means your employer does not have a right to be in the room if you do not want them there. Several attorneys said you can also ask your doctor if they would recommend any restrictions on how or how much you work, such as limiting how much weight you carry or how many hours a day you work.

The Department of Workforce Development encourages workers to try to return to work anyway. “You will be in a stronger position to obtain additional benefits if you attempted to return than if you refused an offer of work,” state officials said. But if you have work restrictions, tell your employer you are willing to work within them, attorneys said. And if you feel any pain, tell your supervisor. Your employer should report it to their insurance company. Also, see a doctor to reassess your health, attorneys said.

No. In Wisconsin, your immigration status does not affect your eligibility. Nearly every part of the Wisconsin Workers’ Compensation Act applies to workers regardless of their immigration status.

“Whether you’re in the country legally or not, it’s not relevant,” said Douglas Phebus, an employment attorney who has represented dozens of dairy workers in Wisconsin.

However, he said workers have told him their bosses threatened to get them deported after they asked about workers’ compensation. “That’s ridiculous but it’s scary,” Phebus said.

Deporting undocumented immigrants who are not a threat to national security or public safety is not a priority for the Biden administration, according to official guidance.

The state’s Department of Workforce Development said it does not share information with federal immigration authorities.

Many undocumented immigrants work under fake names and Social Security numbers. Martha Burke, a workers’ compensation attorney, said that when she fills out workers’ compensation paperwork, she often includes both names that workers use. State officials said workers don’t have to provide a Social Security number.

If you need less than three days to recover, you won’t be paid for that time off of work. State law only allows payment to start on the fourth day off from work. You could get paid two-thirds of your wages.

At this stage — as medical bills may be piling up — many workers and advocates suggest talking to an attorney.

You can also call the Department of Workforce Development’s workers’ compensation division to discuss problems with a claim. (See the resources page at the end of this guide to find this contact information.) You can ask state officials to review your claim and try to resolve your dispute with the insurance company, or ask for a formal hearing. The vast majority of workers who ask for hearings have attorneys, state officials said.

You may qualify for other benefits. How much depends in part on how much a doctor thinks your injury will affect your ability to work and earn money in the future.

Doctors might not try to determine if your injury is permanent or note that in your file unless you ask them to. You have to be your own advocate, said Marisol González Castillo, a personal injury attorney who used to specialize in workers’ compensation.

To get permanent disability benefits, you may need help from an attorney. We spoke to two workers whose fingers were amputated in farm accidents. Both got their initial medical bills paid but didn’t get any permanent disability compensation. Years later, each of them wondered if they should have looked for an attorney to help them make a claim.

State law gives workers six years after their injury or most recent workers’ compensation payment to file for permanent disability benefits. (If your injury happened before March 2, 2016, you have 12 years after the date of injury to file a claim.)

The dead worker’s dependents, usually their spouse or children, may be able to qualify for death benefits and burial expenses from the workers’ compensation insurer. Employers are supposed to report deaths to the state within one day.

You can file a claim to request benefits through the state’s Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF). You must call (608) 266-3046 to ask for an application. There is an option for Spanish speakers. You will be asked to give them certain documentation, such as copies of check stubs and medical records.

Some attorneys said you may want to collect information to help the state confirm the actual number of workers on the farm; this could include the names of your coworkers or copies of work schedules.

Thousands of farm workers are excluded from the state’s workers’ compensation system because the farms where they work are too small to be required to have insurance. In addition, many workers who get injured on large farms told us their employers refused to file a claim for them. The workers said they didn’t get medical care because they were afraid their employer would retaliate against them.

Given this reality, we wanted to explain what your options are, even though there aren’t very many, and point you to resources that could help you.

You are not automatically entitled to get help from your employer. This means you could end up with thousands of dollars in medical bills. Hospitals can sue you over unpaid medical debt, which could lead to a court-ordered garnishment of your wages. Garnishment is when money is automatically taken out of your paycheck to pay down your debt.

We know of several farmers who have paid out of pocket for their workers’ medical costs. So you should ask for help, several workers and attorneys said. But the only legal avenue to get your employer to pay your medical bills is to file a personal injury lawsuit.

Given their limited protections, workers who get injured on small farms are in a difficult situation, said Matthew Keifer, a doctor who specializes in occupational safety and is the former director of the National Farm Medicine Center. He said workers should think about finding a job on a larger farm where they would have workers’ compensation. “I know a lot of small farmers who are just wonderful people and would bend over backwards for their employees,” he said. “But there’s a lot that are not.”

These are lawsuits against the employer that ask for money for an injury that a worker thinks was the employers’ fault. Workers can also ask for more money for their pain and suffering.

But unlike in workers’ compensation cases, you have to prove that your employer was to blame for your injury. For example, you may have to show that your employer knew about a workplace hazard but did not fix it.

It can be hard to prove that someone was negligent, said Phebus, the employment attorney. He said he turns away about two-thirds of the dairy workers who call his office asking about personal injury lawsuits.

“People come to see us and they got hurt, but it wasn’t any particular act of negligence,” he said. “It’s just that farming is very dangerous.”

One worker who was injured by a bull on a small farm said she spoke to several attorneys before she found one who took her case.

Brian Laule, a personal injury attorney in River Falls, agreed that these cases can be difficult. But he said workers should not feel hopeless. Instead he encouraged workers to do their research and call several attorneys. “Run the situation by them,” he said. “You can reach out to attorneys for free and find out if you have any recourse.”

You may have to pay your own medical bills. Here are some programs that may help you:

• Charity care: Many hospitals offer charity care programs that cover some or all medical bills for uninsured, low-income patients. You will likely need to fill out an application and share information about your income to find out if you qualify. Ask hospital staff if this is an option.
• Payment plans: Several medical professionals and attorneys also recommended that workers ask about payment plans to avoid having their bills sent to collections. (This is when debt collectors try to make you pay and sometimes charge fees or interest that can make your debt bigger.) Many hospitals have “patient navigators” on staff who can help you apply for charity care or get on a payment plan.
• BadgerCare Plus: This is a state public health insurance program for low-income residents. Undocumented immigrants who have children can get coverage in medical emergencies. (You can also qualify if you are pregnant.) You can call your local health agency to find out if you qualify. Visit this page and click on your county to find the phone number. If you speak Spanish, you can ask for an interpreter.
• Free and low-cost clinics: We also know many workers have long-term pain from repetitive motion injuries, which is damage caused by doing the same actions, such as milking cows, over and over. You may be able to get medical care for these and other nonemergency injuries from “safety net” clinics for free or at a low cost. Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services maintains a page with the names, addresses and phone numbers of these clinics across the state. These facilities are not where you should go if you have serious or life-threatening injuries.
• Urgent care clinics: Hospital emergency room visits can be extremely expensive, warned Aida Bise, the director of migrant and seasonal agricultural worker services for Family Health La Clinica, a community health clinic in Wautoma. For minor injuries, Bise says that workers should think about going to an urgent care clinic. “These are way cheaper,” she said.

One worker whose shoulder was injured when a cow slammed him against a wall on a small farm in 2022 said his employer refused to pay his hospital bills. As a result, the man, an undocumented and uninsured immigrant from Mexico, didn’t initially get the treatment he needed.

“It’s an immense, intolerable pain that’s hard to describe,” he said. “I just want to get the bills paid and recover.” More than five months passed before he got treatment; a community advocate helped him get surgery and other treatment covered by the hospital’s charity care.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is in charge of enforcing workplace safety laws in Wisconsin. It investigates deaths and injuries that happen on the job. You can file a confidential complaint online or call 1-800-321-6742.

Not every complaint will lead to an on-site inspection, which is when an OSHA official comes to the farm and checks for safety hazards. Once again, workers on small farms have fewer protections. If a farm has fewer than 11 employees, federal law may ban OSHA from investigating deaths, injuries or complaints. (Read our story about inconsistencies in OSHA's work on small farms.)

We have talked to many workers who were fired, kicked out of farm housing or threatened with deportation after an injury.

It can be hard for workers to challenge these actions. Each case is different, so you may want to talk to an attorney.

If you lose your housing: Your rights depend on whether you’re considered a tenant under Wisconsin law. You may be a tenant if you pay rent or if your landlord takes rent out of your wages.

• If you are a tenant: You cannot be forcibly removed from housing without a court order. You have a very short amount of time when you can defend against an eviction in court; several attorneys said you should call an attorney quickly if you want to challenge the process or if you have been forced out without a court order.
• Legal Action of Wisconsin has this explainer about tenants’ rights.
• If you are not a tenant: Your rights are more limited. Some attorneys said they have negotiated more time for their clients to move out of farm housing. Again, call an attorney early to explore your options.

If you got fired: If you believe that you were fired because an injury left you with a disability, you may be able to file a discrimination complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development’s equal rights division. Call 608-266-6860 to learn more; if you speak Spanish, you can request an interpreter. If you work on a farm with at least 15 employees, you may be able to file a discrimination charge with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Call 1-800-669-4000 to learn more; there is an option for Spanish speakers.

Separately, your employer can be penalized for refusing to hire you back after an injury because you filed a workers’ compensation claim.

We’ve talked to many workers who were not paid for their last week of work before getting fired. You can file a complaint with the Department of Workforce Development’s equal rights division to try to get your wages back. You can do that online here, though that form is not in Spanish. Or you can call 608-266-6860 and ask to speak to somebody in Spanish and have a complaint form mailed to you.

If you are worried about being deported: If you are in a dispute with your employer over unpaid wages or another workplace issue, or if you are cooperating with a labor-related investigation at your job, you may qualify for deferred action. This is a temporary protection from deportation. An OSHA investigation can count as a labor dispute. The agency would have to write a letter on your behalf to request deferred action. The U.S. Department of Labor has information about how this program works.

How to report retaliation: You have the right to file a whistleblower complaint with OSHA if you believe your employer retaliated against you for exercising certain rights, such as expressing concern over a workplace safety issue. You can file a complaint online or call 1-800-321-6742. These complaints are not confidential, which means your employer will know you filed one.

If two or more workers have come together to discuss collective concerns about their workplace — including safety or injuries — they have another protection against retaliation. They can file a complaint under the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Call 608-243-2424 to learn more; Spanish speakers need to request an interpreter. This process can be complex, even for people who don’t have a language barrier, several attorneys said; you may want to get an attorney or somebody who can help you file the complaint.

There is no single place where you can get information about what to do if you get injured on a Wisconsin dairy farm. But we wanted to share a list of some of the resources we learned about that can be helpful.

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development: This is the agency that oversees the state’s workers’ compensation system. You can call 608-266-1340 to speak to a specialist about problems with a claim, discuss late payments, ask for a hearing application, or talk about any other related issues. Spanish speakers can request an interpreter when they call.

Farmworker Project: This is part of the Legal Action of Wisconsin, a nonprofit organization that provides legal services to low-income residents. Attorneys can’t take every case but may be able to provide a consultation. They can also refer workers to bilingual private attorneys. You can call or text 920-279-7025 with questions. This phone number is also available on WhatsApp.

State Bar of Wisconsin: This organization has a search tool on its website that lets you look for attorneys by county and learn whether they speak a language besides English. The site is only available in English.

211 Wisconsin: If you are in Wisconsin, you can dial 2-1-1 and get connected to a free phone-based information service. It is available in Spanish. This program can connect you to specialists who can get you referrals for thousands of programs and services across the state. It is available 24 hours a day. The nonprofit United Way of Wisconsin manages this program.

Voces de la Frontera: This is the state’s largest immigrant rights organization. Voces offers workers’ rights training and has a network of advocates across the state who may be able to connect you to resources in your area. You can contact Voces at 414-643-1620.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by .

The story of  “John Doe 1” of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is tucked in a lawsuit filed five years ago against several U.S. tech companies, including Tesla, the world’s largest electric vehicle producer.

In a country where the Earth hides its treasures beneath its surface, those who chip away at its bounty pay an unfair price. As a pre-teen, his family could no longer afford to pay his $6 monthly school fee, leaving him with one option: a life working underground in a tunnel, digging for cobalt rocks. 

But soon after he began working for roughly 2 U.S. dollars per day, the child was buried alive under the rubble of a collapsed mine tunnel. His body was never recovered. 

The nation, fractured by war, disease, and famine, has seen more than 6 million people die since the mid-1990s, making its conflict the deadliest since World War II. But, in recent years, the death and destruction have been aided by the growing number of electric vehicles humming down American streets.

In 2022, the U.S., the world’s third-largest importer of cobalt, spent nearly $525 million on the mineral, much of which came from the Congo.

As America’s dependence on the Congo has grown, Black-led labor and environmental organizers here in the U.S. have worked to build a transnational solidarity movement. Activists also say that the inequities faced in the Congo relate to those that Black Americans experience. And thanks in part to social media, the desire to better understand what’s happening in the Congo has grown in the past 10 years. In some ways, the Black Lives Matter movement first took root in the Congo after the uprising in Ferguson in 2014, advocates say. And since the murder of George Floyd and the outrage over the Gaza war, there has been an uptick in Congolese and Black American groups working on solidarity campaigns.

Throughout it all, the inequities faced by Congolese people and Black Americans show how the supply chain highlights similar patterns of exploitation and disenfranchisement.

Bakari Height, the transit equity organizer at the Labor Network for Sustainability, says the global harm caused by the energy transition and the inability of Black Americans to participate in it at home are for a simple reason. 

“We’re always on the menu, but we’re never at the table,” he said. “The space of transportation planning and climate change is mostly white people, or people of color that aren’t Black, so these discussions about exploitation aren’t happening in those spaces — it is almost like a second form of colonialism.”

Height said, however, when Black people are in the room, these conversations are not only more prevalent, but also more action-oriented. His organization supports Black workers and helps craft policies that support “bold climate action in ways that address labor concerns without sacrificing what science is telling us is necessary.”

While the American South has picked up about two-thirds of the electric vehicle production jobs, Black workers there are more likely to work in non-unionized warehouses, receiving less pay and protections. The White House has also failed to share data that definitively proves whether Black workers are receiving these jobs, rather than them just being placed near Black communities. 

“Automakers are moving their EV manufacturing and operations to the South in hopes of exploiting low labor costs and making higher profits,” explained Yterenickia Bell, an at-large council member in Clarkston, Georgia, last year. While Georgia has been targeted for investment by the Biden administration, workers are “refusing to stand idly by and let them repeat a cycle that harms Black communities and working families.”

Solidarity activism reached a national stage last week at the Morehouse College graduation ceremony, when professors at the school sent clear messages to President Joe Biden. Samuel Livingston and Cynthia Hewitt unfurled a Congolese flag as Biden gave his speech. And Dr. Taura Taylor, wearing a DRC pin on her cap, stood up, raised her fist and turned her back to the president. Yet, less publicized has been the work of Congolese and Black American groups building bridges, including the Congo Initiative based in the Congo and the D.C.-based group Friends of the Congo.

Friends of the Congo has worked on several educational campaigns at home, brought Black Americans to the Congo for activism trips, and offered regular support to Congolese youth leaders. 

The work is sorely needed, as “John Doe 1’s” story has only become more common in the country. 

Roughly 75 percent of the world’s reserves of cobalt, the precious mineral with a sometimes reddish, teal, or violet tint needed for cellphones, laptops, and electric car batteries, lie under the chalky surface. 

On average, an electric vehicle battery requires 30 pounds of cobalt, meaning millions of tons of the mineral is needed for America’s EV boom, which will continue to push thousands of Black women, men, and children into pits and tunnels. In the U.S., these battery packs range from around $7,000 to nearly $30,000, while Congolese miners make mere dollars for mining most of the material found in them. 

“The country,” explained Maurice Carney, executive director of Friends of the Congo, “was designed for extraction, not development.” 

Read Next

Ignoring Indigenous rights is making the green transition more expensive

Anita Hofschneider

“Cobalt mining is the slave farm perfected”

Of the 255,000 Congolese citizens mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children. They are not only exposed to physical threats but environmental ones. Cobalt mining pollutes critical water sources, plus the air and land. It is linked to respiratory illnesses, food insecurity, and violence. 

Still, in March, a U.S. court ruled on the case, finding that American companies could not be held liable for child labor in the Congo, even as they helped intensify the prevalence. 

Companies operating in the country are “primarily concerned about their own welfare, filling their own pockets. They’re not really concerned about the welfare of the Congolese people,” Carney said earlier this year. 

Carney, a former research consultant for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, has spent years pointing out the link between the Congolese and Black American struggles.  

“What we say to people is that in a country that’s so critical to the future of the planet, a country that we’re all connected to through our cellphones and iPads or electric vehicles — even if you’re in California, you’re connected to the Congo,” he said. 

“Congolese women have the highest metallic content in the body in the world because they’re digging in the soil to get those minerals,” he added.

Similarly, in the U.S., as poor birth outcomes have been linked to higher exposure to pollutants, pregnant Black women are more likely to live in poor-quality environments compared to white women.

Cobalt accounts for as much as 60 percent of the batteries that drive our lives because the mineral possesses a unique electron configuration that allows the battery to remain stable at higher energy densities. This means cobalt-heavy batteries can hold more charge. 

While there has been a push to use alternative minerals in electric batteries, most other options are unstable and unsafe for the user. Some experts have argued that the U.S. should turn its attention to Canada, which is among the top five countries producing cobalt and the only nation in the Western Hemisphere with deposits of all the minerals required to make next-generation electric batteries. But it is a more costly venture that, to this point, has yet to make waves in the U.S. 

In the interim, no one knows how many women, men, and children have been killed in the Congolese operations, but the tally, which is likely to be thousands of lives per year, is expected to rise, researchers believe.

In the coming years, it is estimated that more than half of the world’s cobalt will be used just for EVs. The federally subsidized push to increase electric vehicle production by 2030 calls for a 15-fold increase in battery production. Already, the nation’s imports of cobalt increased by 35 percent from 2021 to 2022. 

Still, the U.S. has been slow to acknowledge its role. 

In a February White House press briefing about the U.S.’ effects and efforts on the environment across the African continent, the Congo and cobalt were never mentioned. And earlier this month, Amos Hochstein, White House senior adviser for energy and investment, encouraged mining minerals in “risky” countries in the name of the clean energy transition.

“We can all live in the capitals and cities around the world and say, ‘I don’t want to do business there.’ But what you are really saying is we’re not going to have an energy transition,” he said. “Because the energy transition is not going to happen if it can only be produced where I live, under my standards.”

The Congo is home to more than 90 times the amount of cobalt reserves found in the U.S., where Native American tribes are being exploited for the resource. (Over two-thirds of America’s cobalt is on Native American land.) 

It is one of several movements around the clean energy transition where workers and activists are highlighting how the greening of the world is coming at the expense of Black and Native lives.

Recently, the push for mining in the Congo has reached new heights because of a rift in China-U.S. relations regarding EV production. Earlier this month, the Biden administration issued a 100-percent tariff on Chinese-produced EVs to deter their purchase in the U.S.

Currently, China owns about 80 percent of the legal mines in the Congo, but tens of thousands of Congolese people work in “artisanal” mines outside these facilities, where there are no rules or regulations, and where the U.S. gets much of its cobalt imports.  

“Cobalt mining is the slave farm perfected,” wrote Siddharth Kara last year in the award-winning investigative book Cobalt Red: How The Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives. “It is a system of absolute exploitation for absolute profit.”

While it is the world’s richest country in terms of wealth from natural resources, Congo is among the poorest in terms of life outcomes. Of the 201 countries recognized by the World Bank Group, it has the 191st lowest life expectancy.

Read Next

Arizona wants to mine uranium near the Grand Canyon. Tribal nations are fighting back.

Taylar Dawn Stagner

Dreaming of actual societal benefits

The exploitation of Black workers in the Congo has contributed to some Black transit activists in the U.S. not fully supporting the transition to electric vehicles, despite the benefits for health and reducing pollution for some Black communities at home. The American Lung Association says 110,000 lives would be saved and 2.7 million childhood asthma attacks avoided by 2050 if Biden’s goals are reached and transportation pollution is lowered. 

But today, although EVs do not directly emit fossil fuels, the energy generated to charge an EV mainly comes from polluting fossil fuel power plants, which are disproportionately found in Black communities.

The activists say that moving toward more mass transit options would create actual societal benefits.

 “We don’t all live in big cities, but mass transit is still 100 percent the better option,” Height said. “More investment in mass transit options gives us different ways and methods of looking at how we can clean up many of these systems.”

While America’s dependence on cars has grown to the second highest globally, American buses, subways, and light rail lines consistently have lower ridership levels, fewer service hours, and longer waits than those in virtually every comparable country. 

It is true, Height acknowledged, that electric buses still rely on cobalt, but investment in mass transit options would dramatically lower the nation’s dependence on the mineral and the need for new infrastructure. Infrastructure, he said, that is not being used. Since 2021, the federal government has doled out nearly $10 billion for public electric vehicle charging infrastructure, for example, but only four states have built stations using the money. 

As it is now, EVs are also perpetuating economic inequality. Statistically, most households purchasing EVs earn more than $100,000 per year. The median Black household takes in just $46,000 annually, which could explain why only 2 percent of EV drivers are Black. 

Height believes that these discrepancies show the need for other investment options. While the Biden administration has allocated more than $65 billion for electric vehicles, the nation’s biggest climate spending bill allocated just $1 billion for clean heavy-duty vehicles like buses.

The investment, Height said, also “needs to come with a behavioral shift. People need to question: Do you really need a vehicle if you’re going to the same place that your neighbor is going, or the same direction as the people down the street? 

“We need to do it before this next individualistic idea of you get an EV, you get an EV, and you get an EV takes root,” he argued. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Electric vehicles need cobalt. Congolese miners work in dangerous conditions to get it. on Jun 2, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Adam Mahoney, Capital B.

By a Kanak from Aotearoa New Zealand in Kanaky New Caledonia

I’ve been trying to feel cool and nice on this beautiful sunny day in Kanaky. But it has already been spoiled by President Emmanuel Macron’s flashy day-long visit on Thursday.

Currently special French military forces are trying to take full control of the territory. Very ambitously.

They’re clearing all the existing barricades around the capital Nouméa, both the northern and southern highways, and towards the northern province.

• READ MORE: Macron delays New Caledonia voting rolls “unfreeze” after riots
• Media fuss over stranded tourists, but Kanaks face existential struggle
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

Today, May 25, after 171 years of French occupation, we are seeing the “Lebanonisation” of our country which, after only 10 days of revolt, saw many young Kanaks killed by bullets. Example: 15 bodies reportedly found in the sea, including four girls.

[Editor: There have been persistent unconfirmed rumours of a higher death rate than has been reported, but the official death toll is currently seven — four of them Kanak, including a 17-year-old girl, and two gendarmes, one by accident. Lebanonisation is a negative political term referring to how a prosperous, developed, and politically stable country descends into a civil war or becomes a failed state — as happened with Lebanon during the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War.]

One of the bodies was even dragged by a car. Several were caught, beaten, burned, and tortured by the police, the BAC and the militia, one of whose leaders was none other than a loyalist elected official.

With the destruction and looting of many businesses, supermarkets, ATMs, neighbourhood grocery stores, bakeries . . . we see that the CCAT has been infiltrated by a criminal organisation which chooses very specific economic targets to burn.

Leaders trying to discredit our youth
At the same time, the leaders organise the looting, supply alcohol and drugs (amphetamines) in order to “criminalise” and discredit our youth.

A dividing line has been created between the northern and southern districts of Greater Nouméa in order to starve our populations. As a result, we have a rise in prices by the colonial counters in these dormitory towns where an impoverished Kanak population lives.

President Macron came with a dialogue mission team made up of ministers from the “young leaders” group, whose representative in the management of high risks in the Pacific is none other than a former CIA officer.

The presence of DGSE agents [the secret service involved in the bombing of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior in 1985] and their mercenaries also gives us an idea of ​​what we are going to endure again and again for a month.

The state has already chosen its interlocutors who have been much the same for 40 years. The same ones that led us into the current situation.

Therefore, we firmly reaffirm our call for the intervention of the BRICS, the Pacific Islands Forum members, and the Melanesian Spearhead group (MSG) to put an end to the violence perpetrated against the children of the indigenous clans because the Kanak people are one of the oldest elder peoples that this land has had.

There are only 160,000 individuals left today in a country full of wealth.

New Caledonia police kill Kanak protester https://t.co/7fnNPlx5W8
A day after president Macron’s visit..

— Jimmy Naouna (@JNaouna) May 24, 2024

Food and medical aid needed
Each death represents a big loss and it means a lot to the person’s clan. More than ever, we need to initiate the decolonisation process and hold serious discussions so that we can achieve our sovereignty very quickly.

Today we are asking for the intervention of international aid for:

• The protection of our population;
• food aid; and
• medical support, because we no longer trust the medical staff of Médipôle (Nouméa hospital) and the liberals who make sarcastic judgments towards our injured and our people.

This open letter was written by a long-standing Kanak resident of New Zealand who has been visiting New Caledonia and wanted to share his dismay at the current crisis with friends back here and with Asia Pacific Report. His name is being withheld for his security.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The post From East Palestine to Palestine, People Need Help appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

In the case of Indigenous peoples, there also needs to be a variety of support and cultural understanding.

That’s according to Kimberly Yazzie, a Diné researcher in ecology at Stanford University, who has seen how Indigenous communities have been harmed in the race to establish wind, solar and mining projects. 

“There’s this history of tribes not getting a fair deal, and so this history needs to be addressed,” she said. “There’s work that needs to be done.”

As lead author in an article published this week in Science, she outlined ways Indigenous peoples can move forward on the journey to save the planet. 

Many green projects over the last few years have been criticized for not including tribes in important decisions that infringes or even destroys ancestral land. 

Yazzie cautioned that building a just and equitable energy future will take relationship building, research, and consultation. That can take time, she admitted, and while it’s not a luxury many feel we have, it’s essential so mistakes of the past are not repeated. 

“To go fast, start slow,” she said.  

The three big takeaways from the paper include: flexible application deadlines, equal access to updated and accurate information, and resources to build stronger infrastructure within tribes for projects. Since 2021, federal money has been available for tribal renewable energy projects — an amount that now stands at around $14 billion dollars — and Yazzie hopes that the paper can help tribes access those dollars. 

Strict deadlines, for instance,can shut tribes out from funding due to how long it takes to identify resources, secure other funding sources, and tailor competitive applications. The paper calls for rolling deadlines, and specifically mentions the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program as an example of how more applications should accept applications at any time. 

A second solution includes increasing access to updated and accurate information for tribal green energy projects. Although the federal government has a database, it can be hard to find state or private information. One solution could be a database updated with funding sources, not only from federal programs but philanthropic organizations, with funding amounts and requirements clearly outlined for easy reference. Or having readily available technical information or experts to answer nuts-and-bolts type questions about solar and electrical projects. 

Clara Pratte is a Diné researcher and a tribal government consultant. She’s a co-author on the paper and said that having a more effective way to share information was very important. 

“There’s no best practice guide on how to run projects like these,” she said. “And at the end of the day, we want better, more mindful, culturally competent development to happen on tribal lands.”

It’s also important that funding goes to the people on the ground and not just to the project, a way to make sure tribal members are involved. Pratte specifically said the role of “tribal energy champions” can make or break a idea. These are tribal members who stick with a given endeavor through the very early stages till its completion, and can pool information and resources from other tribal energy projects.

Pratte said that ideally this work would be done by tribal members who have cultural knowledge valuable to the ethical development of these projects. 

“Just because it’s ‘green’ doesn’t mean it’s going to be done in a thoughtful way, so I think tribes and tribal people really have to be at the forefront of defining what that process looks like,” she said.

Yazzie said she’d also like to take a closer look at the future, especially when the Biden administration’s financial support ends.

“I think a question we’re going to have to ask ourselves is what are we going to do when that administration changes and when funding programs run out,” she said. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline For a just transition to green energy, tribes need more than money on Apr 11, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Taylar Dawn Stagner.

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

How rich have America’s super-rich become? The annual compensation of Steve Schwarzman, the chief exec of the private-equity colossus Blackstone Inc., offers up one telling yardstick.

In 2023, we learned earlier this year, Schwarzman’s take-home actually fell some 30 percent off what he collected the year before. But Schwarzman’s overall payday for that year, even after that tanking, still amounted to a jaw-dropping $896.7 million.

The current personal net worth of Blackstone’s CEO? The Bloomberg Billionaires Index puts that figure at a sweet $42.3 billion.

Schwarzman’s current political net worth? That remains to be seen. In the 2020 presidential election cycle, this Wall Street titan spent over $27 million on donations to his favorite office-seekers, over five times what he spent in the 2016 election cycle. Since 2020, Schwarzman’s personal fortune — what he has available to shower down on his election-day favorites — has more than doubled.

The total wealth of billionaires worldwide, over that same span, has more than tripled, from $76 to $233 billion, according to just-published Forbes data. Four years ago, Forbes counted more billionaires in the United States — 614 — than in any other nation. Today, the latest Forbes tally tells us, some 813 billionaires call the USA home.

These billionaires — and the mere centi-millionaires so yearning for billionaire status — aren’t just prospering. They’re exerting an unmatched influence on our politics and our future.

Americans of modest means, back in the early 1900s, confronted an eerily similar political situation. They would come to understood, as the great U.S. Supreme Justice Louis Brandeis once put it, that “we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” They did their best to de-concentrate the nation’s wealth — and made some serious progress.

By the middle of the 20th century, thanks to that progress, America’s richest were facing a 91 percent federal tax on their income over $400,000, the equivalent of about $4.6 million today. Until 1980, those same rich also faced tax rates as high as 70 percent on the fortunes they willed at their deaths to their dearly beloveds.

Tax rates that stiff have all evaporated over the past half-century. America’s 400 richest today, analysts at the Biden White House have calculated, have of late been paying a minuscule 8.2 percent of their annual actual incomes in federal taxes.

How can we turn that 8.2 percent into something more like 82 percent? How can we start taxing the kingpins of the profiteering private sector at the same sort of high rates that helped the mid-20th-century United States give birth to history’s first mass middle class?

Maybe we need to start by focusing on the kingpins of the nonprofit sector.

The post To Trim Our Richest Down to Democratic Size, We Need to Think Big appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sam Pizzigati.

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

I usually see things pretty much the same way as Paul Krugman, but I seriously disagree with his column “Bidenomics is making China angry. That’s okay.” Krugman makes some reasonable points in the piece. Protecting our electric car industry and other green technologies is probably a good idea in order to give them some breathing space to grow and compete. It also makes sense to have productive capacity for advanced semi-conductors, so as not to be dependent on Taiwan in the event of a military conflict.

But it really is not okay that our policies are making China angry. We have to pursue policies that are in the U.S. national interest, but we should not be looking to gratuitously put it in China’s face. It will not be to our advantage, or the world’s, to have a Cold War with China similar to the one we had with the Soviet Union.

For those who are too young or too old to remember, we spent a huge amount of money on the military during the Cold War. In the 1970s and 1980s, when we were not in hot wars, military spending averaged over 7.0 percent of GDP.[1] When we were in hot wars like Korea and Vietnam, the tab came to well over 10.0 percent of GDP, with peaks in the early fifties of more than 15 percent of GDP. By contrast, last year we spent 3.6 percent of GDP on the military.

Apart from the lives lost in our wars (far more for the host countries than for us), this is also an enormous amount of money. If we increased our spending from last year’s 3.6 percent of GDP to 7.0 percent of GDP, the difference of 3.4 percent of GDP would translate into almost $1 trillion a year in our current economy (more than $8,000 per family). Double that if you want to have another Vietnam or Korea-type war.

And, if we’re talking about an arms race with China, these numbers would likely be very conservative. At its peak the Soviet economy was around 60 percent of the size of the U.S. economy. China’s economy is 25 percent larger than the U.S. economy and growing far more rapidly. It would require Trumpian levels of delusional thinking to believe that we could spend China into the ground, as we arguably did with the Soviet Union.

A Cooperative Alternative

We should not have illusions about China’s government. It is hardly anyone’s ideal of a liberal democracy. China’s president, Xi Jinping, is an authoritarian ruler who imprisons critics and is willing to use force to suppress political opposition. But that hardly distinguishes Xi from any number of leaders with whom the United States regularly does business.

Even if we go back to the Cold War with the Soviet Union, our foreign policy often looked to areas for possible cooperation. First and foremost, we had a number of arms control agreements designed to limit spending and the risks of accidental war. But we also looked to cooperate in other areas, most visibly space travel.

We can take a similar tack in our dealings with China. We can look to cooperate in areas that are mutually beneficial. Two obvious areas that stand out are climate and health. There could be enormous gains for both the U.S. and the world if we freely shared technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as technologies to prevent disease and improve health.

This would mean that our scientists and engineers would be collaborating with Chinese scientists in these areas, freely sharing their latest research findings. That means scientists from both countries could build on successes and learn from failures. It also would mean that once a technology is developed it can be freely employed, without having to worry about patent monopolies or other bureaucratic obstacles.

In the case of climate, we would likely benefit from getting access to China’s latest battery technology, where they appear to be well ahead of the United States. The U.S. also has innovations in many areas, such as geothermal energy, that would be valuable to China.

In the case of health, both countries have extensive networks of research in a wide range of areas. While it is common to tout the rapid development of Covid vaccines in the United States as a result of Operation Warp Speed, China developed its own vaccines in a comparable timeframe. These vaccines also proved to be very effective in preventing serious illness and death.

There would have been tremendous gains to the world if these technologies had been freely shared so that anyone anywhere in the world with the necessary manufacturing facilities could have begun producing the vaccines as soon as they were in the clinical testing phase. (The cost of throwing out a hundred million vaccines that proved ineffective is trivial compared to the benefit of having a hundred million vaccines in storage waiting to be distributed once they are shown to be effective.)

We are not going to get from where we are now to a massive sharing of technology in these two huge sectors overnight, but we can begin a process. We can pick limited areas where the gains are likely to be greatest, for example vaccines against infectious diseases. We would have to set ground rules for committing funding and the openness of research. Ideally, we would pull the rest of the world into this sort of collaboration since everyone would be in a position to benefit from having access to open research.

This sort of sharing would mean a different mechanism for supporting research and innovation. Instead of relying on government-granted patent monopolies, we would have to pay for the research upfront, as we did with the development of the Moderna vaccine. Paying directly for research is not an alien concept, we currently spend over $50 billion a year on biomedical research through the NIH.

In principle, there is no reason that we couldn’t replace the research now funded by government-granted patent monopolies with publicly funded research, but it is likely to mean fewer big paydays for those at the top. Successful researchers should get generous paychecks, and these could even be supplemented by prizes like the Nobel Prize. But in a system of direct funding, we probably would see fewer Moderna billionaires and others getting super-rich in these areas.

That is likely the biggest obstacle to pursuing this sort of cooperative path towards relations with China. There are people with big dollars at stake who are happy to keep the status quo and are just fine if we go the route of a Cold War with China.

It’s worth remembering that the first Cold War was often as much about corporate profits as confronting the Soviet Union. That is obviously true in the case of the big military contractors like Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. But there were also plenty of cases where powerful corporations got the U.S. military to do its bidding to support their operations around the world. The concern of these companies is their profits, not the well-being of the United States or the future of democracy and the planet.

And we should recognize that if we go the full Cold War route, it is likely the future of the planet is at stake. We are having a hard enough time garnering political support for measures to limit global warming now. What would the situation look like if we are coughing up another $1 to $2 trillion a year to compete in an arms race with China?

There’s one other point worth noting about the route of increased cooperation, it may help to lead to a liberalization of China’s regime. I don’t mean to get pollyannish, there were many people who argued for admitting China to the WTO on the idea that increased trade would somehow turn the country into a liberal democracy. That one proved to be seriously wrong.

But as a practical matter, the Chinese engineers and scientists who are collaborating with their counterparts in the U.S. are likely to be children, siblings, and parents of the party officials who are calling the shots in China. If these people develop an appreciation for liberal values, it’s hard to believe that some of that doesn’t rub off on their family members.

I wouldn’t push that line with any great confidence, social psychology is not my terrain. But I will say that it offers more hope than the idea that shoe manufacturers getting rich off of cheap labor will somehow become great proponents of liberal democracy.

If Bidenomics Makes China Angry, That’s not Okay

The basic point here is that we should care a lot about our relations with China. That doesn’t mean we should structure our economy to make its leaders happy. We need to implement policies that support the prosperity and well-being of people in the United States. But we also need to try to find ways to cooperate with China in areas where it is mutually beneficial, and we certainly should not be looking for ways to put a finger in their eye.

Notes.

[1] These figures use the definition of military spending in the National Income and Product Accounts. This is somewhat different than the measure used in the budget, primarily because it includes depreciation of capital equipment. The patterns of spending are similar in the two series.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

The post Do We Need to Have a Cold War With China? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Dean Baker.

An immigration battle continues on the border between Texas and Mexico, as Texas’s state government increases its militarization of the region, deploying hundreds of National Guard troops and constructing new infrastructure on the border. Meanwhile, a new federal spending bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden has increased funding for ICE and CBP, and state and federal courts have been wrangling over the legality of SB4, a new Texas state law that gives local police sweeping powers to arrest and deport anyone they suspect has entered the United States without authorization. We hear more from Fernando García, founder and executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, in El Paso. García says the influx of special forces with “no training with how to deal with a civilian population,” alongside the “show me your papers’’ atmosphere created by SB4, is increasing the daily violence faced by Latinx residents on the U.S. side of the border, all while “illegally impeding” the right to seek asylum by those in “desperate” straits on the Mexico side. Instead of capitulating to anti-immigrant politicians, he continues, “We needed for the federal government to stop Texas, stop the governor” from targeting “Latinos, people of color, migrants and people looking for asylum, for protection.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Ocasio-Cortez noted that "years of grassroots organizing on behalf of vulnerable Americans led to the creation of the first federal public housing units—but, for decades, the federal government has allowed our limited public housing stock to fall into disrepair."

"Residents are dealing with mold growth, lead-based paint hazards, lack of central cooling and heating, failing water infrastructure, and numerous other safety concerns," the congresswoman said. "It is beyond time for the federal government to take responsibility and pass legislation that offers comprehensive, public solutions."

"The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act will allow for an increase in public housing units, create an estimated 280,000 jobs, and invest up to $23 billion a year over 10 years for highly energy-efficient developments," she explained. "This will produce on-site renewable energy, expand workforce capacity, and focus on community development. Every American deserves to live in a safe, vibrant, and environmentally conscious community—including public housing residents. I am confident this legislation is how we make that a reality."

The jobs estimate comes from an analysis released Thursday by the Climate and Community Project and the Socio-Spatial Climate Collaborative—which also found that the proposed upgrades to U.S. public housing stock would cut carbon emissions by 5.7 million metric tons, the equivalent of taking 1.26 million cars off the road each year.

"Public housing is an essential source of stable and affordable housing for 1.7 million Americans, and our research shows we are rapidly losing units to conversions, demolitions, and deterioration," said Kira McDonald of Climate and Community Project. "This legislation would constitute decisive action to stave this loss and transform living conditions for public housing residents. In so doing, it would improve residents' health, safety, help eliminate carbon emissions, and help build the new green industries we need to decarbonize."

As Ocasio-Cortez's office summarized, the bill would:

• Expand federal programs to provide residents with meaningful work investing in their communities, to own and operate resident businesses, to move toward financial independence, and to participate in the management of public housing;
• Expand resident councils so that public housing residents have a seat at the table for important decisions regarding their homes; and
• Replenish the public housing capital backlog and repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which limits the construction of new public housing developments.

The legislation would also create two grant programs for deep energy retrofits; community workforce development; upgrades to energy efficiency, building electrification, and water quality; community renewable energy generation; recycling; resiliency and sustainability; and climate adaptation and emergency disaster response.

As world leaders dragged their feet on climate action last year, declining to demand a global phaseout of planet-heating fossil fuels at the most recent United Nations climate conference, all life on Earth was forced to contend with record high temperatures. The United States alone saw 28 disasters that each caused at least $1 billion in damage, collectively costing at least $92.9 billion.

"In these difficult times, we must move forward boldly to address the systemic and existential crises facing us today and that includes urgently combating climate change and making sure every American has a safe and decent place to call home," Sanders said Thursday. "It is unacceptable that, on a single given night in America, over 650,000 people are homeless."

That record number comes from an annual report released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in December. As Common Dreamsreported at the time, academics and advocates have long stressed that the formal figure only represents a faction of the people dealing with housing insecurity nationwide.

"It is unacceptable that, in the richest country in the history of the world, people are choosing between paying rent and putting food on the table," argued Sanders. "It is unacceptable that our nation's public housing is in a state of chronic disrepair and energy inefficiency after generations of government neglect. It is unacceptable that we have not done more to transform our energy systems, our communities, and our infrastructure away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. This legislation is a major step in the right direction, and I am proud to partner with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez in introducing it today."

Joining the pair in backing the bill are 55 other House Democrats and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

Markey, who has spearheaded the broader battle for a Green New Deal with Ocasio-Cortez, said that "in the five years since its introduction, Green New Deal advocacy has catapulted environmental justice to the top of the national agenda, helped deliver historic victories, and charted a course for a better future."

The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act is also endorsed by over 70 advocacy groups and labor unions, including the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) Action, Movement for Black Lives, MoveOn, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Public Citizen, and Sunrise Movement.

"Our opponents use tactics like the Faircloth Amendment to defund our public housing. And then they point to our public housing and say, 'Look, it's not working.' That's what they do—but we're not confused," declared DaMareo Cooper, co-executive director of CPD Action.

"We're in another awakening right now. People have been through too much. They are tired. We are tired. Enough is enough," Cooper added. "We all know that it's impossible for you to think that a government in this day and age cannot create housing for everyone."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Janine Jackson interviewed U Penn’s Victor Pickard about the crisis of journalism for the March 1, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: The fact that every news program is peppered with advertising, even on public broadcasting; that the newspaper you hope will give a fair accounting of, for example, economic inequality, will bring you that story next to an ad for $2,000 shoes; the fact that the cost of learning about the world means sifting through mountains of media designed to get you to buy stuff, via outlets that are themselves owned by massive, profit-driven corporations—well, for many of us, that’s just how it is.

But it isn’t how it is everywhere, or how it’s always been, or how it has to be. Changing things isn’t just a matter of policy or law, but of reimagining the role of journalism in our public life.

Victor Pickard is professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, where he co-directs the Media, Inequality and Change Center. He’s the author, most recently, of Democracy Without Journalism?: Confronting the Misinformation Society from Oxford University Press. He joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Victor Pickard.

Victor Pickard: Thanks so much for having me, Janine.

JJ: I guess I’ll ask you to start by just outlining what you see as the core troubles with what we’ve got now, the current media landscape. What sets it on a course that runs afoul of democracy, or democratic aspirations, as I say?

NPR (10/11/23)

VP: There are so many troubling signs right now. It’s difficult to know exactly what to focus on, but to speak in really broad strokes, I would point to the massive recent layoffs, especially in our newspaper industry. The LA Times recently cut over 22% of its newsroom. Before that, the Washington Post had cut about 10% of its employees.

And these, of course, are both billionaire-owned newspapers. Until recently, they were considered the success stories in our new, very challenging digital age for journalism.

But I think this all points to a bigger picture. In many ways, what we’re seeing are the continuing death throes of an industry that’s reached a point of no return. And if we turn back to 2005—and of course at that point, it’s not as if we were living through a perfect golden age for journalism—but since 2005, we’ve seen about two-thirds of our newspaper journalists and about a third of newspapers disappear. And this is creating vast and expanding news deserts, where tens of millions of Americans have access to little or no local news media whatsoever. And it’s creating all kinds of problems for any semblance of democratic self-governance.

And, of course, when we’re talking about the newspaper industry, it’s not as if it’s just about nostalgia, but it happens to be the primary source for most original news and information and original reporting that permeates through our entire news media ecosystem. So when we lose newspapers, we lose local journalism, and that’s a tragedy for all of us.

JJ: I think many folks might think, “Oh, I don’t even read the newspaper.” But the work that newspapers do then shows up on television and on radio, and maybe it’s the behind-the-scenes investigation, the actual reporting, and you think, “Well, I don’t read the paper, so it doesn’t affect me.” But, of course, it obviously affects the whole climate of what we know, what we know about what the government is doing, what we know about what is happening around the world, right? So you don’t have to read a paper to be affected by this.

VP: Exactly. I mean, even hearing word-of-mouth information from our neighbors, or gleaning commentary from various social media feeds, or looking at cable television, if you listen closely, most of the original news information still traces back to the beleaguered newspaper industry. And, of course, things like what’s happening with the local school board or city hall or our state legislatures, these are all beats that traditionally and historically have been covered by newspaper reporters, and those beats are rapidly disappearing.

The Conversation (2/13/24)

JJ: I do think that folks can see, if they’re looking, the layoffs and the closing of outlets, and as you mentioned, lots of people live in kind of flyover towns, where they can get news from the nearest big city, hundreds of miles away, but there’s nothing local and serious. In a recent piece with NYU’s Rodney Benson, you take issue, though, with what some folks have presented as the savior, as a way forward, namely benevolent billionaires.

VP: That’s right. And there’s long been this kind of wishful thinking that, OK, if the advertising model for supporting journalism is no longer viable, and if people aren’t paying enough for their news and information, then maybe we can look to these so-called benevolent billionaires to swoop in and save the day.

And, at best, they were always expected to maybe save a newspaper here and there. But even those hopes are proving to be ill-founded, and even billionaires face various kinds of sticker shock when they’re losing tens of millions of dollars a year on their pet projects. So I don’t think, and this was never a systemic fix to begin with, but I don’t think that they can even save some of our major newspapers, as was previously hoped.

JJ: Let’s turn to the forward-looking, I guess. You talk about non-reformist reforms, which, I love that language, and I’ll ask you to kind of say what you mean there, but I also wanted to just kind of throw in there, are there lessons or models from other countries that could be meaningful here?

VP: I do think it’s always useful to look internationally, and also historically, at some of our own experiments that we’ve tried here in the US, to expand our imagination about what’s possible, to glean best practices. And I think, at the very least, we can point to some, actually many, democracies, most democracies around the planet fund robust public broadcasting systems, public media systems, which I think is always a good conversation starter, to at least begin imagining what might our public media system look like if we start living up to global norms, and actually funding our systems accordingly.

But then, also, to look at how countries like Norway and Sweden, some of the Western and Northern European countries, are directly funding their newspaper industries, or at least indirectly subsidizing them. And I think these are all things that we could start thinking about, especially as it’s so clear that there simply is not a commercial future for many kinds of journalism, especially local journalism. So we have to start thinking outside of the market, and really pushing for a paradigm shift, when we see journalism as not just a commodity whose worth is determined by its profitability on the market, but rather as a public service upon which democracy depends.

JJ: What do you mean when you talk about reforms as being non-reformist? What are you getting at there?

VP: It’s kind of a wonky phrase, but what I’m really trying to get at is, we’ve often heard of this dichotomy between reform versus revolution: Can we radically change our core systems overnight, or is this more of a gradual reformist process that we make small tweaks as we can? And there’s actually a middle road, where I think we can focus on these structural reforms in the short term, with an eye towards a more radical distant horizon, where we’re really seeking to transform the system.

And this is sounding a little bit abstract, but to give a few examples, if we today recognize that we need to salvage the journalism that’s still being practiced, so we would try to transition these failing commercial models into nonprofit or at least low-profit institutions, with an eye towards a more ambitious project, where we really try to build out a new public media system, so a system that’s not reliant on benevolent billionaires or other forms of private capital, but instead is reliant on public financing, that’s federally guaranteed, but locally owned and controlled and governed.

And I think that’s what we need to place on the horizon, to have this sort of long-term, might-take-decades-to-get-there, but to really have that as our north star, instead of constantly reacting to whatever problem is arising at the moment.

JJ: I like that you mentioned that you don’t have to only look overseas. You can also look to our own history. Some people may remember that public broadcasting in this country began with some lovely language about providing “a forum for controversy and debate,” and for including voices that would “otherwise be unheard,” specifically that commercial networks didn’t want to air.

So, in other words, public media weren’t intended to be a more edumacated version, a less shouty version, of the same perspectives we got from commercial media. They didn’t write the Public Broadcasting Act so we could get Masterpiece Theater.

But we know it lost its way with a congressional short leash for funding. So now we have PBS programs bringing us stories about weapons while being sponsored by Lockheed Martin.

You’ve already started to tell us about your vision of what public media could look like. I’d ask you to expand on that, but also, we know that, as Americans, we’re told to hate the government; private is always better. As soon as you talk about government funding or state funding for broadcasting, people talk about state censorship, as though there were no such thing as corporate censorship. But talk a little bit more about what your vision of public media could be.

Victor Pickard: “The government is always involved in our news information systems. But the question is, how should it be involved?”

VP: That’s right. And to get there, I will hit on a couple of points you just mentioned in passing, which is this notion that the government isn’t involved in our media system. It’s a libertarian fantasy. The government is always involved in our news information systems. But the question is, how should it be involved? Should it be serving corporate interests, or should it be serving public interest? And that’s really, as a democratic society, a question we should always be grappling with, in trying to design our news information systems, so that they are privileging democracy over profit imperatives.

And if you look at our history, public media subsidies are as American as apple pie. Going back to the postal system, which initially was primarily a newspaper delivery infrastructure that we heavily subsidized. In today’s dollars, it would be tens of billions of dollars towards disseminating news and information to far-flung communities across the country.

The same was true for broadcasting, for the internet: that came about through massive public subsidies. And certainly looking at our lost promise of public broadcasting, that was always meant to be an alternative, a structural alternative, to the commercial system, to this systemic market failure that’s always there with commercial media outlets.

So I think we need to recover that initial ideal, and really try to not just build out and redesign our public infrastructures, but entirely reimagine them. We could be using post offices, libraries, public broadcasting stations, these all could be outlets to serve as these public media centers where every community across the country would have its own anchor institution of newsrooms that look like the communities they purportedly serve, to make sure they’re owned and controlled by journalists and community members themselves.

So this is the kind of non-reformist reform vision that I think we should be working towards. Again, it’s not happening tomorrow, or even next year, but that’s something we need to work towards.

JJ: It’s interesting, the idea that government somehow is not involved in the media that we have. I seem to remember Bob McChesney saying something like, when the government gives out broadcast licenses, they aren’t setting rules; they’re picking winners.

VP: That’s right. Yeah, I mean, those licenses are essentially monopolistic privileges for these corporations to use the public airwaves. And that’s a tremendously valuable public resource that we all should be able to benefit from. And this is just one example of where we really need to take media out of the market. We need to separate capitalism and journalism, which was always a very troubling union, to say the least.

JJ: And then, of course, in an election year, when you start to see those election ads, you have to remember that this is politicians and political parties just dumping money into media outlets for political advertising.

VP: That’s right. It’s essentially a payola system, pay to play. And we’re constantly being bombarded with these kinds of corporate messages, when we’re not discussing the climate crisis, we’re not discussing growing inequality, and so many crises facing us today. And that’s ideally what a publicly owned and controlled—so not just public in name only, but actually serving the public—a system based on those logics, I think, could try to live up to these democratic ideals.

JJ: I so appreciate projects like the New Jersey Civic Information Consortium, that shift the focus, as we’re talking about, from shoring up existing outlets toward asking whether the community’s information needs are being met. I love that language means something, and that is a categorically different project.

VP: Yeah, that’s exactly how it should be framed: based on needs, not the profit imperatives of a small number of investors and advertisers and media owners.

And I’m glad that you mentioned the New Jersey project, because this is a proof of concept that we’re seeing replicated in other states as well, similar programs taking off in California, most recently, Wisconsin and Illinois. DC is looking at a news voucher program.

So there are all these exciting projects and experiments that show that government can indeed play a very productive role in guaranteeing the level of news and information that all members of society should have access to. It’s a way of empowering local communities, and I really think we need to see more of this, but, of course, we also need to scale it up beyond just state governments, to a federal government level that can really guarantee that sort of universal service ethic to all members of society.

CounterSpin (5/6/22)

JJ: And I would encourage folks to go back and listen to an interview that I did, with Mike Rispoli from Free Press, specifically about that New Jersey project. It wasn’t like a foundation coming in and saying, “Let’s do this.” It involved early, formative input from a whole range of community groups. It really is a bottom-up conversation.

And I think that also reflects a recognition that it’s the already marginalized, economically and otherwise marginalized, that suffer currently the most from media distortions, and from the problems we’re discussing with media. So this way forward is not just—and I appreciate that you’re saying that it takes time—but it’s not just an end goal. The process itself is something good, I think.

VP: That’s absolutely right. And Mike Rispoli knows better than anyone I’m aware of that this really needs to begin with community organizing. It must be a grassroots effort. It can’t be dropped in. As important as the foundations are in trying to feed this growing nonprofit sector, we really have to make sure we’re not just decommercializing media, but we’re also democratizing media. And I think those kinds of efforts that begin with local communities, making sure that they’re involved at the ground floor, is so key. And I’m cautiously optimistic we’re going to be seeing more of these experiments take root across the country.

JJ: And then, once you see it working—as you say, proof of concept—there’s an imagination effort that needs to happen. And I think people are tired and beleaguered and have other things to do. So to have a project happen and see, “Oh yeah, that can happen,” that is a tremendous addition of energy towards making it happen in other places and other times, because people see that it is genuinely possible, and they won’t be throwing their energy down a hole.

VP: That’s so true. And so much of this is, as you say, about really expanding our imagination about what is possible. We’ve been so conditioned to think that if the market doesn’t support something, that it’s just going to have to wither away, as unfortunate as that might be. And these kinds of experiments show there is something we can do about it. We do have agency, we can intervene. These are political choices, and we can choose to have a much more democratic media system that serves us all.

JJ: Let me ask you, finally, it might sound a little bit afield, but I don’t think so. The subhead on the book is Confronting the Misinformation Society, and we sometimes say at FAIR that if our purpose was to make the New York Times suddenly much better, well then we would just pull up the covers, because that’s not happening. But we do think that we help people understand how to read the New York Times, and not to be affected or influenced by it in exactly the same way that they might have.

And so I just wanted to ask you, where does media literacy fit into this? It’s not a no/but, it’s a yes/and, because at the same time, we need to be helping folks navigate the system that we’ve got, so that they can see the omissions and the need for better.

Oxford University Press (2019)

VP: That’s exactly right. It needs to always be an essential tool in our toolbox for really trying to decipher the predictable patterns in our heavily commercialized media system. And I think that is a way of building up agency. It’s not going to structurally transform the entire system, but I think if we understand the structural critique, that we see the political economy behind these news outlets, we understand what are the commercial logics that are driving them to tell these kinds of stories and not others, to talk to these people and not other people, I do think that that is so important for us to do, and that’s certainly what I’ve dedicated my career to doing, and I’ll continue doing my best to try to really cultivate this critical consumption of our news media.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Victor Pickard. The book Democracy Without Journalism? is available from Oxford University Press, and you can find the piece “Saving the News Media Means Moving Beyond the Benevolence of Billionaires” on TheConversation.com, as well as Common Dreams and various other places. Victor Pickard, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

VP: Thank you, Janine. It was so great talking to you.

The post ‘We Need to Separate Capitalism and Journalism’ appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Russia is increasing its cooperation with China in 5G and satellite technology and this could facilitate Moscow's military aggression against Ukraine, a report by the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) security think tank warns.

The report, published on March 1, says that although battlefield integration of 5G networks may face domestic hurdles in Russia, infrastructure for Chinese aid to Russian satellite systems already exists and can "facilitate Russian military action in Ukraine."

China, which maintains close ties with Moscow, has refused to condemn Moscow's invasion of Ukraine and offered economic support to Russia that has helped the Kremlin survive waves of sweeping Western sanctions.

Beijing has said that it does not sell lethal weapons to Russia for its war against Ukraine, but Western governments have repeatedly accused China of aiding in the flow of technology to Russia's war effort despite Western sanctions.

The RUSI report details how the cooperation between Russia and China in 5G and satellite technology can also help Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

"Extensive deployment of drones and advanced telecommunications equipment have been crucial on all fronts in Ukraine, from intelligence collection to air-strike campaigns," the report says.

"These technologies, though critical, require steady connectivity and geospatial support, making cooperation with China a potential solution to Moscow's desire for a military breakthrough."

According to the report, 5G network development has gained particular significance in Russo-Chinese strategic relations in recent years, resulting in a sequence of agreements between Chinese technology giant Huawei and Russian companies MTS and Beeline, both under sanctions by Canada for being linked to Russia's military-industrial complex.

5G is a technology standard for cellular networks, which allows a higher speed of data transfer than its predecessor, 4G. According to the RUSI’s report, 5G "has the potential to reshape the battlefield" through enhanced tracking of military objects, faster transferring and real-time processing of large sensor datasets and enhanced communications.

These are "precisely the features that could render Russo-Chinese 5G cooperation extremely useful in a wartime context -- and therefore create a heightened risk for Ukraine," the report adds.

Although the report says that there are currently "operational and institutional constraints" to Russia's battlefield integration of 5G technology, it has advantages which make it an "appealing priority" for Moscow, Jack Crawford, a research analyst at RUSI and one of the authors of the report, said.

"As Russia continues to seek battlefield advantages over Ukraine, recent improvements in 5G against jamming technologies make 5G communications -- both on the ground and with aerial weapons and vehicles -- an even more appealing priority," Crawford told RFE/RL in an e-mailed response.

Satellite technology, however, is already the focus of the collaboration between China and Russia, the report says, pointing to recent major developments in the collaboration between the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS and its Chinese equivalent, Beidou.

In 2018, Russia and China agreed on the joint application of GLONASS/Beidou and in 2022 decided to build three Russian monitoring stations in China and three Chinese stations in Russia -- in the city of Obninsk, about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow, the Siberian city of Irkutsk, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in Russia's Far East.

Satellite technology can collect imagery, weather and terrain data, improve logistics management, track troop movements, and enhance precision in the identification and elimination of ground targets.

According to the report, GLONASS has already enabled Russian missile and drone strikes in Ukraine through satellite correction and supported communications between Russian troops.

The anticipated construction of Beidou's Obninsk monitoring station, the closest of the three Chinese stations to Ukraine, would allow Russia to increasingly leverage satellite cooperation with China against Ukraine, the report warns.

In 2022, the Russian company Racurs, which provides software solutions for photogrammetry, GIS, and remote sensing, signed satellite data-sharing agreements with two Chinese companies. The deals were aimed at replacing contracts with Western satellite companies that suspended data supply in Russia following Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The two companies -- HEAD Aerospace and Spacety -- are both under sanctions by the United States for supplying satellite imagery of locations in Ukraine to entities affiliated with the Wagner mercenary group.

"For the time being, we cannot trace how exactly these shared data have informed specific decisions on the front line," Roman Kolodii, a security expert at Charles University in Prague and one of the authors of the report, told RFE/RL.

"However, since Racurs is a partner of the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is highly likely that such data might end up strengthening Russia's geospatial capabilities in the military domain, too."

"Ultimately, such dynamic interactions with Chinese companies may improve Russian military logistics, reconnaissance capabilities, geospatial intelligence, and drone deployment in Ukraine," the report says.

The report comes as Western governments are stepping up efforts to counter Russia's attempt to evade sanctions imposed as a response to its military aggression against Ukraine.

On February 23, on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion, the United States imposed sanctions on nearly 100 entities that are helping Russia evade trade sanctions and "providing backdoor support for Russia's war machine."

The list includes Chinese companies, accused of supporting "Russia's military-industrial base."

With reporting by Merhat Sharpizhanov

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

Flooded pasture, coastal Oregon, January 2024. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Taking a brief break from felling and working up next year’s cordwood (and a couple weeks beyond Punxsutawney Phil’s prognostication) a mid-winter musing intrudes. Ruralist wisdom has long held that “Half your wood and half your hay, you should have at Candlemas Day”— Candlemas Day being what we now call “Groundhog Day.” That’s still true, more or less and I guess we’ll make it this year, though mostly purchased wood filled the shed. Alas, the indignities of advancing age and desperate seasonal tillage distractions….

But I digress.

Though other towns–see “Woodstock Willie”–have tried to cash in on the touristy PR phenomenon of Punxsutawney-ism, (when the Pennsylvania town swells from 7000 to sometimes 40,000 consumers— plus live-stream gawkers), “Phil,” the Keystone State’s favorite rodent still still reigns as the king whistle-pig “seer-of-seers.” This year he reportedly  failed to see his shadow when pulled rudely from his pen and the word was spread across hibernation nation (normally focused on fear & loathing, Stupor Bowling Tay-Tay & Trav Talk, and Pseudo-Reality Smack-Downs) that an early spring would follow.

Yes, dear reader, early springs and scorching summers are trending these days thanks to fossil carbon loading of the atmosphere. The UK Guardian headlines (2/17/24), “February on course to break unprecedented number of heat records.” The report focuses especially on dramatic ocean warming: “A little over halfway through the shortest month of the year, the heating spike has become so pronounced that climate charts are entering new territory, particularly for sea-surface temperatures that have persisted and accelerated to the point where expert observers are struggling to explain how the change is happening.”

“Humanity is on a trajectory to experience the hottest February in recorded history after a record January, December, November, October, September, August, July, June, and May, according to… Berkeley Earth scientist Zeke Hausfather.”

The Guardian piece quotes Nature Conservancy chief scientist Katherine Hayhoe observing that this heating is “happening at a much faster rate than ever documented in the past.” Further, she cautions, “If anything, we are much more likely to underestimate the impact of those changes on human society than to overestimate them.”

Here in Maine, “underestimation” rules. With less than an inch of snow left on the ground, trucking enough into the downtown for a “sliding hill” at the increasingly climate-afflicted “Winterfest” pseudo-event was looking iffy. Putting revelers on donated bikes was suggested. Meanwhile two record busting coastal storms lashed the southern Maine coast (a scant 5 miles east of our downscale dirt farm) causing flooding and property damage.

The Wiscasset Newspaper (2/03/24) cites Hannah Baranes, of the Maine Research Institute as observing that “The coastal storms’ severity was significantly impacted by sea level rise. In addition it is likely that one or both storms resulted in the highest recorded sea level in any given area on the Maine coast…”

“Baranas said sea level rise will increase because oceans have not yet seen the effect from the anticipated melting of the polar ice caps due to global warming. In addition, she said sea levels have been buffered by an 18.6 year cycle of the moon that makes tidal ranges rise and fall by 5 to 7.5 inches, the effect is almost at its minimum and, in about a year it will draw the ocean upwards.”

Undeterred—– business-as-usual prevails in pursuit of “economic development” and now, “affordable housing.” (More equals affordable, presumably.)  Hence our local Twin Cities are moving ahead with new turnpike interchanges, the better to speed car-cultural sprawl. Just to the north, the Maine Turnpike Authority gears up to plow a “Gorham By-pass” toll road through what Portland Press Herald editors conceded was an “impressive and charming farm” and a 5 mile stretch of back-country sacrificial remainder. The stated vision is that all those happy-motoring commuters/consumers will hurtle along in electric vehicles–fraudulently  green-washed as having “zero-emissions.” (That depends on where you start counting and where you stop.) (But I digress.)

Locally the push is on to consider zoning changes to perhaps facilitate the transformation of fields and forests into “solar farms,” the better to generate green electricity with which to propel the ecocidal sprawl machine.

That machine also gets political juice from the Reagan/Clinton “re-inventing government” malefactors who re-jiggered policy to promote the suicidal idea that private profit/ “markets” could somehow promote the public good. Thus we have a rail system of which “Bulgaria would be ashamed,” the world’s most expensive “health care system” and declining life expectancies it sponsors, crushing educational debt, people “sleeping-rough” (as the Brits call it) in doorways and tents next to the sewage treatment plant downtown, and a profit-grasping media system that  seeks to infantilize, coarsen, distract, and despoil a population whose “interest, convenience, and necessity” it is supposed to serve.

We don’t need a rotund rodent to predict our thermal future.

Spoiler alert: It’s not kool.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Richard Rhames.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

As major U.S. museums in recent weeks closed displays and exhibit halls containing Native American objects, the Museum of Us in San Diego hasn’t done the same.

That’s not because the anthropological museum is ignoring new federal repatriation rules, which took effect this year. Rather, more than five years ago, its board of trustees adopted a policy on collections from Indigenous communities that addressed the concerns the new rules focus on.

In its policy, the Museum of Us admitted it had blocked the repatriation of items and excluded Indigenous perspectives in exhibits centered on the groups’ cultures. It also acknowledged that it had failed to link the collecting practices it embraced after its founding in 1915 to the history of genocide against Native Americans.

“We’re not scrambling,” Kara Vetter, the Museum of Us’ senior director of cultural resources, said of the new regulations. “It doesn’t really change anything for us.”

The fact that the Museum of Us addressed its collections years ago stands in sharp contrast to the American Museum of Natural History in New York, which shuttered two exhibit halls where items from tribes in the northern U.S. were displayed. Harvard University’s Peabody Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York also have removed select items from display. And Chicago’s Field Museum has shrouded dozens of display cases in its ancient Americas, northwest coast and arctic exhibits.

Each of those museums say they are prioritizing repatriations under NAGPRA and the perspectives of tribes. They also have removed items from display in the past in response to requests from tribes but are now closing or covering displays as they review information about the items and meet the mandates of the new federal regulations.

Founding displays at many of the country’s older museums reflected the once-widespread, racist view held by many white anthropologists and early archaeologists that Native Americans were an inferior and dying race of people whose ancestors needed to be studied and preserved.

Under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, institutions are required to provide summaries of their holdings to tribes and federal officials — which then allows tribes or descendants to begin the process of reclaiming the items or their ancestors’ remains. In a series of articles last year, called “The Repatriation Project,” ProPublica reported how today, hundreds of institutions still hold the remains of over 97,000 Native Americans, along with tens of thousands of belongings that were buried with them.

Because museums have been so slow to relinquish hundreds of thousands of objects — often obtained generations ago through exploitative purchases or grave looting — they now face a new mandate to again consult with tribes about the items they still have, including those on display.

The rules mandate that museums have a “duty of care” to defer to tribes’ requests and customs in handling their ancestors and belongings in storage facilities. They also require the consent of tribes in order to exhibit cultural and funerary items.

While closures at some high-profile museums made headlines, other institutions like the Museum of Us and History Colorado, a publicly funded network of museums, had no need to scramble because they had already taken measures to work with tribal nations in deciding what items should be displayed and how.

“This is just a little piece of what NAGPRA is about, and if institutions were doing what they were supposed to do, this is not what they would have to do today,” said Shannon O’Loughlin, an attorney and chief executive of the Association on American Indian Affairs. “They would have already repatriated and educated the public more appropriately about who Native people are.”

Under the policy adopted in 2018, Museum of Us staff must obtain documented authorization from tribal communities to continue housing tens of thousands of items in its collections. And no items subject to NAGPRA, such as items taken from graves, are to be displayed. Museum leaders’ meetings with Indigenous people about the collection are expected to foster new exhibits that tell authentic and nuanced stories, according to its policy.

Today, the museum is years into a process that’s now mandated by the new NAGPRA regulations.

It has transferred items to tribes that request them. But it has also found that some tribes want items made by their ancestors to stay at the museum — such as several baskets from the Jamul Indian Village, 20 miles east of San Diego.

At History Colorado, curators also have not had to remove objects from exhibits or cover displays since the rules took effect. Founded as the state government’s historical society in the late 1800s, it has already returned to tribes all items and human remains subject to NAGPRA.

Today, History Colorado’s museums continue to present exhibits about tribes and their histories, but collaboration with tribal representatives who help make decisions about displays is now a “guiding virtue,” said Dawn DiPrince, History Colorado’s CEO and president. “Some of this really is about where authority is held and whose knowledge should come to bear. This is something that we deal with in the creation of exhibitions and materials in our collections.”

History Colorado improved its collaboration with tribes following a painful episode more than a decade ago in which the museum opened and promptly closed an exhibit on the Sand Creek Massacre. More than 230 Cheyenne and Arapaho people were murdered on the plains of eastern Colorado in the 1864 attack, and tribes have long told of how the trauma caused by the massacre has persisted among Cheyenne and Arapaho people for generations. Yet tribal representatives were excluded from the planning of the 2012 exhibit, “Collision: The Sand Creek Massacre, 1860s to Today,” which showcased weapons.

Tribes were immediately critical, pointing out that the exhibit’s title suggested the massacre was a two-sided battle when the tribes had not sought a confrontation with the U.S. government, whose troops killed women, children and elders at Sand Creek. They also noted the insensitivity of displaying weapons, DiPrince said.

Following years of talks, History Colorado began to work directly with tribal members on exhibits — first on one about Ute tribal nations that opened in 2018 and then a new exhibit on the Sand Creek Massacre, which opened in 2022, without items from the massacre site.

“Tribal reps and staff weighed every single word in that exhibition,” DiPrince said. “The belongings that are on exhibit were also selected by them.”

Chance Ward, History Colorado's NAGPRA coordinator who is Lakota and a citizen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, said that the state historical society also now accommodates tribal members’ requests for access to objects that are on display. For example, a ceremonial staff with eagle feathers in the Sand Creek exhibit is still used by the tribes, including during an annual healing run at Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. Afterward, tribal members return the staff to the exhibit, where text explains what it was used for in the past and how it is still used today.

“That’s a great example of what exhibits should reflect in all museums, that tribes are still alive and they still use modern contemporary items in their culture and for ceremonies and it’s not just black and white photos of us,” said Ward, who joined History Colorado in September.

He said History Colorado updated its repatriation policy this month to ensure its museums continue honoring tribes’ wishes, especially when a tribe initially consents to the museum possessing or displaying an object but later wants it to be returned.

“Consent today does not equal consent in the future,” the museum’s updated policy states. “Consultation with Native American and Indigenous Peoples on how to present their histories is an ongoing process that cannot be rushed.” The Museum of Us’ policy uses similar language.

It’s important for museums to acknowledge their past, said Elysia Poon, director of the Indian Arts Research Center at the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Poon said she’s noticed over the past decade more museums are trying to work with tribes, but leadership’s involvement is a key factor in whether that happens.

Last year, she and a group of colleagues from tribal museums, culture centers and other institutions published new industry standards, calling for more deference to Native traditions and knowledge when displaying and storing Native American items. The standards inform the museum accreditation process through the American Alliance of Museums but are not formal criteria, Poon said, adding that their hope is to address the need for greater cultural competency and sensitivity within institutions.

“These are issues that have long been identified as problems with museum structures,” Poon said. “The structures are colonial inherently.”

When NAGPRA passed in 1990, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii acknowledged that reality, telling members of Congress, “For museums that have dealt honestly and in good faith with Native Americans, this legislation will have little effect.”

But for museums that have “consistently ignored the requests of Native Americans,” he said, “this legislation will give Native Americans greater ability to negotiate.”

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Mary Hudetz and Logan Jaffe.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or UNOCHA, said in a statement marking the third anniversary of the Feb. 1, 2021, takeover that widespread conflict has left millions displaced, facing food insecurity and malnutrition, unable to access health care and education, and at risk of severe mental health issues and physical harm.

The situation in Myanmar prompted a special meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, at which council members called for the immediate provision of humanitarian assistance to the country.

“Three years in, more than 18 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance,” British Ambassador to the U.N. Barbara Woodward said at a press conference after the meeting. “We reiterate the call for unimpeded humanitarian access to all people in need, including women, children, and members of ethnic and other minority populations.”

The food security situation in Myanmar has gotten so bad that people in Chin state’s Mindat township told RFA they can no longer afford to buy the once-plentiful staple of rice.

One resident of the township who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, said most people can only afford millet for breakfast and boiled yams for dinner.

“I doubt there are 10 households in the township that can eat rice,” said the woman, who is pregnant. “Only those who can afford it are able to stave off their childrens’ hunger. I don’t even want to talk about nutrition.”

Armed conflict in the region has severed transportation routes, causing the prices of commodities to rise and cutting off access to much needed crop markets, stretching what little income residents have, she said.

‘Waiting for the army to come and kill us’

But fighting between the military and anti-junta forces is ongoing in nearly every part of the country three years into the coup, UNOCHA said in its statement, noting that clashes in western Rakhine state have ramped up in intensity in recent months, while a fragile ceasefire in northern Shan state is at risk of imminent collapse.

Amid the ceasefire in Shan state, the military has focused its efforts on clearance operations in Sagaing region, forcing residents to flee amid the threat of death, arrest, and arson.

A resident of Sagaing’s Ye-U township said those who haven’t fled are hunkering down in fear, with little to sustain them.

“Farmers now don’t dare to store [surplus] rice … for themselves, because they have lost everything in [junta] arson attacks,” said the resident, adding that “even rice farmers have to buy rice to eat.”

“We receive food provided as humanitarian aid, but it is just a small amount, since it has to pass many steps before we get it,” he said. “People are simply waiting for the time when the army will come and kill us by eating the humanitarian food provided by the world. Life is so meaningless.”

Meanwhile, although Myanmar’s shadow National Unity Government, or NUG, has stepped in to run schools for the displaced, children are unable to study regularly due to frequent military raids and airstrikes, residents said.

The health care situation in the country is far worse, they said, as the displaced lack access to basic medical treatment for common illnesses and have difficulty buying medicine.

UNOCHA said that Myanmar’s health sector is in “crisis,” as millions of people lack safe shelter or access to drinking water. A faltering economy has made families more financially distressed, while interruptions to agriculture and rapid inflation have made it harder for people to get food, leading to climbing malnutrition, it added.

A resident of the commercial capital Yangon told RFA that three years after the coup, the lives of ordinary citizens are far worse than before.

“Regular people are starving more and more, and everyone is in deep trouble – whole families of the poor have to beg for food and money,” he said. “[The junta has] no clue. I feel deep pity for the people. Everyone, including our elders, are begging at bus stops and junctions because there are no jobs to be had.”

Calls by RFA to junta spokesman Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun seeking comment on the humanitarian aid situation in Myanmar went unanswered Thursday.

Aid cooperation

On Feb. 6, Than Swe, the junta’s foreign minister, met with Sajjad Mohammad Sajid, head of the UNOCHA office in Myanmar, to discuss the possibility of providing humanitarian assistance to people in need and cooperation between the junta and United Nations agencies, according to a statement by the military regime.

The same day, the minister met with Myanmar representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to discuss issues of cooperation.

The NUG’s Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management said in an online session of parliament on Feb. 2 that it had provided 10.5 billion kyats (about US$5 million) in humanitarian aid to the people in the three years since the coup.

The ministry said that its aid had gone to victims of arson, the displaced, family members of civilians killed in armed conflict, disaster victims, state employees who left their jobs and joined the anti-junta Civil Disobedience Movement, and political prisoners.

The aid was largely funded through civilian donations, said Ngai Tam Maung, deputy minister of the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management, adding that the ministry is working to increase international support.

“For international humanitarian assistance, we are making efforts to continue cooperation with donor countries, neighboring countries and international humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,” or ASEAN, he said. “We will have to work harder to get international aid in 2024.”

According to UNOCHA’s report, humanitarian organizations have requested funds of US$994 million in order to provide urgent assistance in Myanmar in 2024. It said that while the number of people in need of assistance has increased to 18 million, funding difficulties have made it impossible to provide adequate assistance.

The UN humanitarian office has warned that in order to cope with these challenges, more international attention and support is needed for Myanmar’s humanitarian crisis.

Translated by Htin Aung Kyaw. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Burmese.

"We have a deal.... This locks in steadfast, long-term, predictable funding for Ukraine. The EU is taking leadership & responsibility in support for Ukraine; we know what is at stake," European Council President Charles Michel wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, after the deal was reached rapidly after the start of a special summit in Brussels on February 1.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Ukraine is in desperate need of financial and military assistance amid signs of political fatigue in the West as the war kicked off by Russia's unprovoked full-scale invasion nears the two-year mark.

In a video address to EU leaders after the deal was agreed, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hailed the move as "a clear signal that Ukraine will withstand and that Europe will withstand."

"It is also really important that the decision was made by all of you, all 27 member states, which is another clear sign of your strong unity," Zelenskiy told the EU leaders.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the only EU leader who maintains warm relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, had been repeatedly at odds with the other leaders of the bloc over measures to help Ukraine since Russia's invasion.

Orban, a right-wing populist who has been in power since 2010, has faced criticism that his opposition to EU aid for Ukraine amounts to an attempt to blackmail the bloc into disbursing billions of euros in EU funds for Hungary frozen by Brussels over rule-of-law and democracy concerns.

In December he vetoed the package, and ahead of the February 1 summit in the Belgian capital he appeared on track to try and do the same again.

But a deal was swiftly announced on February 1 after Orban held talks with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

"He gave some ground," one European diplomat told AFP. "He saw that people were growing irritated, that there was a line not to cross," said the diplomat, who spoke under the condition of anonymity.

All of the bloc's 27 members must unanimously vote in favor of the aid package from Ukraine that would come from the EU's common budget.

"A good day for Europe," von der Leyen wrote on X, formerly Twitter after the deal.

"Once again, Europe has delivered," European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said on X.

In a video on Facebook, Orban put on a brave face, presenting the move as a victory for Hungary, saying that a review mechanism accompanying the aid package would “guarantee the rational use of the funds.”

"Hungarians’ money cannot be given to Ukrainians," Orban said. "We will not take part in the war, we will not send weapons, we continue to stand on the party of peace!"

An unnamed EU source said the leaders agreed that the European Commission would propose a review of the Ukraine aid package in two years, if needed, but such a move wouldn't include a veto right for Budapest.

Following the agreement, Ukraine said it expected to receive the first tranche of 4.5 billion euros ($4.9 billion) from Brussels next month.

Ukrainian leaders have been warning for months that they are desperately in need of fresh supplies of weapons and ammunition as Kyiv's counteroffensive stalls.

In his video address to the summit, Zelenskiy also warned that Ukrainian forces were in a race against the clock with the Russian invaders as intelligence reports confirmed that Russia was receiving 1 million artillery shells and missiles from North Korea.

"Meanwhile, the implementation of the European plan to supply 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine is being delayed," Zelenskiy said, adding that this was "a competition Europe cannot afford to lose."