RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Donald Trump Is the Mosquito, Not the Zika Virus Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6396"><span class="small">Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Monday, 06 June 2016 08:12

Engelhardt writes: "Perhaps it would be better to see Donald Trump as a symptom, not the problem itself, to think of him not as the Zika Virus but as the first infectious mosquito to hit the shores of this country."

Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)
Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)


Donald Trump Is the Mosquito, Not the Zika Virus

By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch

06 June 16

 


Steve Fraser's superb new book, The Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and Fractured America, is still on offer at our donation page. Any reader willing to contribute $100 or more ($125 if you live outside the United States) can get a signed, personalized copy and give this website a lift. And here's a deep bow to those of you who have already done so!

I’ve long had a weakness for commencement addresses, or at least for what they might be rather than what they usually are, which is why I’ve written them relatively regularly myself. Since no actual college or graduating class has ever asked me to give such a speech, I’ve addressed the graduates of 2015 and other years from what I’ve called “the campus of my mind.” I couldn’t resist doing so again.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


Class of 2016, Tell Us Who We Are

raduates of 2016, don’t be fooled by this glorious day.  As you leave campus for the last time, many of you already deeply in debt and with a lifetime of payments to look forward to, you head into a world that’s anything but sunny.  In fact, through those gates that have done little enough to protect you is the sort of fog bank that results in traffic pile-ups on any highway.

And if you imagine that I’m here to sweep that fog away and tell you what truly lies behind it, think again.  My only consolation is that, if I can’t adequately explain our American world to you or your path through it, I doubt any other speaker could either.

Of course, it’s not exactly a fog-lifter to say that, like it or not, you’re about to graduate onto Planet Donald -- and I don’t mean, for all but a few of you, a future round of golf at Mar-a-Lago.  Our increasingly unnerved and disturbed world is his circus right now (whether he wins the coming election or not), just as in the Philippines, it’s the circus of new president Rodrigo Duterte; in Hungary, of right-wing populist Viktor Orbán; in Austria, of Norbert Hofer, the extremist anti-immigrant presidential candidate who just lost a squeaker by .6% of the vote; in Israel, of new defense minister Avigdor Lieberman; in Russia, of the autocratic Vladimir Putin; in France, of Marine le Pen, leader of the right-wing National Front party, who has sometimes led in polls for the next presidential election; and so on.  And if you don’t think that’s a less than pretty political picture of our changing planet, then don’t wait for the rest of this speech, just hustle out those gates.  You’ve got a treat ahead of you.

For the rest of us lingerers, it says something about where we all are that, once through those gates, you’ll still find yourself in the richest, most powerful country around, the planet’s “sole superpower.”  (USA!  USA!)  It is, however, a superpower distinctly in decline on -- and this is a historic first -- a planet similarly in decline.

How Trumpian Is American Authoritarianism?

In its halcyon days, Washington could overthrow governments, install Shahs or other rulers, do more or less what it wanted across significant parts of the globe and reap rewards, while (as in the case of Iran) not paying any price, blowback-style, for decades, if at all.  That was imperial power in the blaze of the noonday sun.  These days, in case you hadn’t noticed, blowback for our imperial actions seems to arrive as if by high-speed rail (of which by the way, the greatest power on the planet has yet to build a single mile, if you want a quick measure of decline).

Despite having a more massive, technologically advanced, and better funded military than any other power or even group of powers on the planet, in the last decade and a half of constant war across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, the U.S. has won nothing, nada, zilch.  Its unending wars have, in fact, led nowhere in a world growing more chaotic by the second.  Its militarized “milestones,” like the recent drone-killing in Pakistan of the leader of the Taliban, have proven repetitive signposts on what, even in the present fog, is surely the road to hell.

It’s been relatively easy, if you live here, to notice little enough of all this and -- at least until Donald Trump arrived to the stunned fascination of the country (not to speak of the rest of the planet) -- to imagine that we live in a peaceable land with most of its familiar markers still reassuringly in place.  We still have elections, our tripartite form of government (as well as the other accoutrements of a democracy), our reverential view of our Constitution and the rights it endows us with, and so on.  In truth, however, the American world is coming to bear ever less resemblance to the one we still claim as ours, or rather that older America looks increasingly like a hollowed-out shell within which something new and quite different has been gestating.

After all, can anyone really doubt that representative democracy as it once existed has been eviscerated and is now -- consider Congress exhibit A -- in a state of advanced paralysis, or that just about every aspect of the country’s infrastructure, is slowly fraying or crumbling and that little is being done about it?  Can anyone doubt that the constitutional system -- take war powers as a prime example or, for that matter, American liberties -- has also been fraying?  Can anyone doubt that the country’s classic tripartite form of government, from a Supreme Court missing a member by choice of Congress to a national security state that mocks the law, is ever less checked and balanced and increasingly more than “tri”?

In the Vietnam era, people first began talking about an “imperial presidency.”  Today, in areas of overwhelming importance, the White House is, if anything, somewhat less imperial, but only because it’s more in thrall to the ever-expanding national security state.  Though that unofficial fourth branch of government is seldom seriously considered when the ways in which our American world works are being described and though it has no place in the Constitution, it is increasingly the first branch of government in Washington, the one before which all the others kneel down.

There has, in this endless election season, been much discussion of Donald Trump’s potential for “authoritarianism” (or incipient “fascism,” or worse).  It's a subject generally treated as if it were some tendency or property unique to the man who rode a Trump Tower escalator into the presidential race to Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World,” or perhaps something from the 1930s that he carries in his jacket pocket and that his enthusiastic white working class followers are naturally drawn to and responsible for.

Few bother to consider the ways in which the foundations of authoritarianism have already been laid in this society -- and not by disaffected working class white men either.  Few bother to consider what it means to have a national security state and a massive military machine deeply embedded in our ruling city and our American world.  Few think about the (count 'em!) 17 significant intelligence agencies that eat close to $70 billion annually or the trillion dollars or more a year that disappears into our national security world, or what it means for that state within a state, that shadow government, to become ever more powerful and autonomous in the name of American “safety,” especially from “terrorism” (though terrorism represents the most microscopic of dangers for most Americans).

In this long election season, amid all the charges leveled at Donald Trump, where have you seen serious discussion of what it means for the Pentagon’s spy drones to be flying missions over the “homeland” or for “intelligence” agencies to be wielding the kind of blanket surveillance of everyone’s communications -- from foreign leaders to peasants in Afghanistan to American citizens -- that, technologically speaking, put the totalitarian regimes of the previous century to shame?  Is there nothing of the authoritarian lurking in all this?  Could that urge really be the property of The Donald and his followers alone?

Perhaps it would be better to see Donald Trump as a symptom, not the problem itself, to think of him not as the Zika Virus but as the first infectious mosquito to hit the shores of this country. If you need proof that he’s at worst a potential aider and abettor of authoritarianism, just take a look at the rest of our world, where the mosquitoes are many and the virus of right-wing authoritarianism spreading rapidly with the rise of a new nationalism (that often goes hand in hand with anti-immigrant fervor of a Trumpian sort).  He is, in other words, just one particularly bizarre figure in an increasingly crowded room.

Bursting Bubbles and Melting Ice Caps

If, as the first openly declinist presidential candidate, it’s The Donald’s job to make America great again, and if, despite its obvious wealth and military strength, the heartlands of the U.S. do look ever more Third World-ish, then consider the rest of the planet.  Is there any place that doesn’t look at least a little, and in a remarkable number of cases, a lot the worse for wear?  Leave aside those parts of the world from Afghanistan to Syria, Yemen to Libya, Nigeria to Venezuela that increasingly have the look of incipient or completely failed states.  Consider instead that former Cold War enemy, that “Evil Empire” of a previous incarnation, the once-upon-a-time Soviet Union, now Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

It has made it to the top of the American military's list of enemies.  And yet, despite its rebuilt military and still massive nuclear arsenal, the superpower of yesterday is now a rickety petro-state with a restive population, a country that is neither great, nor rising, and may in fact be in genuine trouble.  Yes, it has been aggressive in its borderlands (though largely in response to a sense of, or fear of, being aggressed upon) and yes, it is an authoritarian land, but no longer is it the planet’s second superpower or anything remotely like it.  Its future looks, at best, insecure, at worst bleak indeed.

Even China, the only obvious rising power on the planet (now that countries like Brazil and South Africa are falling by the wayside), that genuine economic powerhouse of the last decade, has seen its economy slow significantly.  In such a moment, who knows what one burst bubble, real estate or otherwise, might do there?  An economic meltdown in the People’s Republic, with an expanding middle class that still remains small compared to its peasant masses, and an unparalleled record of peasant revolts extending back centuries, could prove an ominous event.

And mind you, graduates of 2016, that’s just to begin a discussion of the stresses on a planet whose ice caps are melting, sea levels rising, waters warming, forests drying, fire seasons expanding, storms intensifying, and temperatures rising (while petro-states, frackers, and giant oil companies keep pumping fossil fuels in ever more inventive ways as if there were -- and don’t just think of it as a figure of speech -- no tomorrow).  In such a situation, no place, including this country, is too big to fail.  And on such a helter-skelter planet, who will be there to bail out the too-big-to-fail states or anyone else?  Judging by none-too-big-to-fail countries like Libya, Yemen, and Syria that have already essentially collapsed, the answer might be no one.

Decades ago, in the mid-1970s, in the first book I ever wrote, I labeled our American world “beyond our control.”  Little did I know!

American Magical Realism

Now, let’s turn to you, graduates of 2016, and while we’re at it, to what we’re still calling an “election.”  I’m talking about the roiling, ever-expanding phenomenon that now fills our TV screens and the “news” more or less 24/7 and for which, whatever he’s done and whomever he’s insulted, Donald Trump cannot all by himself be held to blame.

There is, to my mind, one question that makes what we call “election 2016” of paramount interest, even if we seldom bother to think about it: What the hell is it?  We still refer to it as an “election,” of course, and on November 4th millions of us will indeed enter voting booths and opt for a candidate.  Still, don’t tell me that, in any normal sense, this is an election, this weird money machine pouring billions and billions of dollars into the coffers of media barons, this endless, overblown, onrushing event with its “debates” and insults and anger and minute-by-minute polling results and squadrons of talking heads yammering away about nothing in particular, this bizarre stage set for an utterly unfiltered narcissist and reality-show host and casino owner and bankruptee and braggart and liar and fantasist and womanizer and... well, you know the list better than I do.  Yes, it will put someone in the Oval Office next January and fill Congress with the usual set of clashing deadheads, but in any past sense of the word, an election?  I don’t think so.

Don’t tell me it isn’t something new and different.  Everyone knows it is.  But what, exactly?  I have no idea.  It’s clear enough, however, that our American system is morphing in ways for which we have no names, no adequate descriptive vocabulary.  Perhaps it’s not just that we have no clear bead on what's going on, but that we prefer not to know.

Whether Donald Trump wins or not, rest assured that we all have an education ahead of us.  This, after all, is our world now.  You have no choice but to leave these grounds and neither, in a sense, do your parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, the whole lot of us.  Whether we like it or not, we’re all being shoved unceremoniously into an American world that’s changing in unnerving ways on a planet itself in transformation.

Which brings me to the task ahead of your generation (not mine), as I imagine it.  After all, I’m almost 72 years old.  I’m superannuated.  When something goes wrong on my computer I genuinely believe myself doomed, grieve for the lost days of the typewriter, and then, in despair, call my daughter.  And if I can’t even grasp the basics of the machine I now live on much of the time, how likely is it that I -- and my ilk -- can grasp the world in which it’s implanted?

As I see it, you’ve been attending classes, studying, and preparing all these years for just this moment.  Now, it’s your job to step into the fog-bound landscape beyond these gates where the pile-ups are already happening and make sense of it for the rest of us.  Soon, graduates of 2016, you will leave this campus.  The question is: What can you do for yourself and the rest of us then?

Here’s my thought: to change this world of ours, you first have to name (or rename) it, as any magical realist novelist from Gabriel Garcia Márquez on has long known.  The world is only yours when you've given it and its component parts names.

If there’s one thing that the Occupy Wall Street movement reminded us of, it was this: that the first task in changing our world is to find new words to describe it.  In 2011, that movement arrived at Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan calling the masters of our universe “the 1%” and the rest of us “the 99%.”  Simply wielding those two phrases brought to the fore a set of previously half-seen realities -- the growing inequality gap in this country and the world -- and so briefly electrified the country and changed the conversation.  By relabeling the mental map of our world, those protesters cleared some of the fog away, allowing us to begin to imagine paths through it and so ways to act.

Right now, we need you to take these last four hard years and everything you know, including what you weren’t taught in any classroom but learned on your own -- your experience, for instance, of your education as a financial rip-off -- and tell those of us in desperate need of fresh eyes just how our world should be described.

In order to act, in order to change much of anything, you first need to give that world the names, the labels, it deserves, and they may not be “election” or “democracy” or so many of the other commonplace words of our past and our present moment.  Otherwise, we’ll all continue to spend our time struggling to grasp ghostly shapes in that fog.

Now, all you graduates, form up your serried ranks, muster the words you’ve taken four years to master, and prepare to march out of those gates and begin to apply them in ways that your elders are incapable of doing.

Class of 2016, tell us who we are and where we are.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower WorldTom Engelhardt gave this address only in the campus of his mind.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What Will Finally Shut Down Diablo Canyon Nukes? Could a Bernie Win Help? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29327"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, EcoWatch</span></a>   
Monday, 06 June 2016 08:09

Wasserman writes: "The two deadly, dangerous nuke reactors at Diablo Canyon may be on the brink of shut-down. Citizen action is desperately needed on upcoming state regulatory decisions that could flip Diablo’s off switch."

Harvey Wasserman. (photo: Laura Flanders’ show)
Harvey Wasserman. (photo: Laura Flanders’ show)


What Will Finally Shut Down Diablo Canyon Nukes? Could a Bernie Win Help?

By Harvey Wasserman, EcoWatch

06 June 16

 

he two deadly, dangerous nuke reactors at Diablo Canyon may be on the brink of shut-down.

Citizen action is desperately needed on upcoming state regulatory decisions that could flip Diablo’s off switch, but would a Bernie Sanders victory in the California primary speed the process?

A dozen earthquake faults surround this huge double reactor complex, which sits 9 miles west of San Luis Obispo, half-way down the coast from San Francisco to Los Angeles. A disaster there would spew radiation into the Central Valley, where much of the nation’s winter produce is grown. Los Angeles would have just hours to evacuate in the wake of a Fukushima-type catastrophe.

But these 30-year-old nukes cannot be guaranteed to safely withstand a likely seismic shock according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) own Dr. Michael Peck. Peck served five years as the NRC’s resident safety inspector at Diablo. He was transferred after he filed reports warning that required studies on Diablo’s ability to withstand seismic shocks had not been completed.

Diablo’s operating license should now be invalid. But the feds are letting it run anyway.

Would a President Sanders step in and force the reactors to shut until those studies were done? Would properly done studies then show that Diablo cannot, in fact, meet safe seismic standards and must be permanently closed?

On June 28, the California Lands Commission will meet in Sacramento to decide on a critical lease extension. The three-member commission includes Gavin Newsom, the likely Democratic front-runner in the 2018 race for the governor’s seat being vacated by Jerry Brown.

The extension involves land leased by Pacific Gas & Electric for Diablo. Linda Seeley of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace characterizes its deliberations like this:

It’s whether or not a full California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review must be done, which would force an Environmental Impact Review. The CEQA review would be of the environmental impacts to the tidelands that are leased from the state. The environmental review would be of the intake and outfall water systems, diesel plant, harm to fish and endangered species (plants and animals), harm to air, possibly taking into account the health impacts of radiation releases, harm to indigenous lands and spaces, and other concerns that environmental groups and individuals might bring up in the scoping process.

It would require a preliminary EIR, time to review, and then a final EIR. All of this takes a lot of time. PG&E would have to mitigate for environmental harms, but for some of them there could be no mitigation. The whole process could take a long time, and the mitigations could cost PGE lots of dinero.

The California Coastal Commission and State Water Resources Board could also hang Diablo in regulatory requirements. Despite the hype that it “helps” with global warming, Diablo dumps more super-heated water into the ocean than any other California power plant. Should cooling towers be required, PG&E would have to get the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to force rate payers to foot the bill, which could soar as high as $14 billion.

The CPUC recently approved a 15 cents/kwh tariff for solar-generated electricity, which, along with cheap gas has thrown Diablo’s economics into chaos. In 2010 PG&E’s negligence caused a natural gas explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno. It is under federal indictment for those deaths, and is being investigated for a cover-up. The CPUC fined PG&E $1.4 billion in the case.

None of that has deterred a desperate nuke power industry. Reactors are now at the brink in Massachusetts, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Alabama and elsewhere. California “No Nukers” forced shut reactors at San Onofre, Rancho Seco and Humboldt, and stopped construction at Bodega and Bakersfield.

The industry is spending millions to keep our biggest state from going totally post-nuclear. Hugely funded pro-nukers have poured into San Luis Obispo to stage “grassroots” marches and rallies prior to the June 28 California State Lands Commission meeting. PG&E lawyers demand the CPUC be abolished for having fined the company, for supporting solar energy and possibly in anticipation of trying to force the public to pay for cooling towers.

Coming from Vermont, where grassroots action has shut the Yankee nuke, Candidate Sanders’s official position is this:

Begin a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States. Sanders believes that solar, wind, geothermal power and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear—even without tax incentives—and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit. Especially in light of lessons learned from Japan’s Fukushima meltdown, Sanders has also raised questions about why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry. We can have an affordable carbon-free, nuclear-free energy system and we must work for a safe, healthy future for all Americans.

Since the Diablo license is soon up for renewal, and since its operations depend on federal subsidies (most importantly for liability insurance), a Sanders victory in Tuesday’s California primary might mark a step toward shutting Diablo.

But far more important is that Sanders’ supporters stick with the issue. To make a real difference, Sanders voters in California and elsewhere must escalate their activism after they cast their ballots.

The ultimate difference will be made by those who turn the tide June 28 at the California State Lands Commission, and at the Coastal Commission and CPUC hearings to come, and in the day-to-day organizing by which we shut these nukes.

In the weeks and months to come, it’s the tangible activism beyond voting that must shut Diablo before it blows.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
All Hands on Deck! Two Ways to Build The Revolution in the CA Primary Print
Sunday, 05 June 2016 14:24

Stein writes: "At this historic moment, as voters reject the Clinton and Trump campaigns with record high levels of dislike and mistrust, I ask not just for your vote for me, but also for your vote for Bernie."

Jill Stein. (photo: Jill2016)
Jill Stein. (photo: Jill2016)


All Hands on Deck! Two Ways to Build The Revolution in the CA Primary

By Jill Stein, Reader Supported News

05 June 16

 

Vote for Me if You’re Registered Green - Vote for Bernie if You’re Independent or a Democrat

alifornia voters have a chance to put us on the road to revolutionary change in the June 7 primary.

At this historic moment, as voters reject the Clinton and Trump campaigns with record high levels of dislike and mistrust, I ask not just for your vote for me, but also for your vote for Bernie. These votes are powerfully synergistic as we build an historic grassroots movement and a political vehicle to carry it forward.

If you’re a registered Green, I need your vote in the contested Green Party primary, so we can continue to build an enduring political home for revolutionary change. You will be voting for the only national party not poisoned by corporate money, and for the policy solutions we urgently need: an emergency Green New Deal providing 20 million green jobs to transition to 100% renewable energy and avert climate catastrophe, to cancel student debt and make public higher education free, to provide health care and education as basic rights for all, to create a welcoming path to citizenship, end police violence and the war on drugs, and to provide a foreign policy based on international law and human rights.

If you are registered as a Democrat or as “No Party Preference”, please vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary. The Sanders campaign is putting up a valiant fight, despite the shameless assault by the Democratic Party. From super-delegates to election “irregularities”, stifled debates, manipulated conventions, an army of Clinton loyalist insiders, and a corporate media machine - the party has been trying to marginalize the Sanders campaign from the get go. And this isn’t the first time. From redistricting Dennis Kucinich, smearing anti-war candidate Howard Dean with the “Dean scream”, and demonizing Jesse Jackson with a public relations fear campaign, the Party has repeatedly shown why it’s hard to have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party.

Still, the battle is not over. The Democratic nomination is in contention. The more the Sanders team can raise the bar for the people not the billionaires, the stronger we will all be for it.

I urge you to reject the propaganda of powerlessness peddled by the corporate pundits and party operatives of the liberal elite. They tell us all – Berners and Greens alike – we must rally around Hillary Clinton as the lesser evil alternative to Donald Trump.

The pundits should know better. Donald Trump is riding a wave of right-wing extremism produced by the Clintons’ very own neoliberal policies – NAFTA and Wall Street deregulation that crashed the economy and caused so much continuing pain. Five million families were cheated out of their homes, nine million jobs destroyed, and this low wage economy is still on the rocks. Another Clinton in the White House will only create more economic despair fanning the flames of right wing extremism.

And with the Clintons’ record of service to fossil fuel giants and war profiteers, it’s not just the economy that’s at stake here. Sure there are differences between Trump and Clinton, but not enough to save your job, your life, or the planet.

It’s Bernie, not Hillary, who is solidly beating Trump in the polls. And besides, the lesser evil is not a solution to the greater evil – because people stop coming out to vote for what’s throwing them under the bus, as we saw in the 2014 mid term elections. The real solution to Trump is revolutionary progressive policies. And that will only come from the agenda of economic and racial justice shared by Bernie’s and my campaigns.

The establishment insiders tell us to vote against what we fear instead of for what we believe. But this politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of. All the reasons we were told to vote for the lesser evil – because you didn’t want massive Wall Street bailouts, the offshoring of our jobs, the meltdown of the climate, the attack on immigrants and our civil liberties, the expanding prison state, endless war – that’s exactly what we’ve gotten because we allowed ourselves to be silenced.

In fact, the problem of vote splitting could be solved with the stroke of a pen with Ranked Choice Voting, which is used in cities around the nation. California and other state legislatures could pass it right now and avoid any “spoiling” of the presidential election. But the machine Democrats have refused to consider such bills because they rely on fear to coerce your vote. That in itself tells you they’re not on your side, and do not deserve your vote.

Don’t doubt for a minute your ability to transform this election. Bernie is proving that the majority of Americans want a progressive campaign independent of the billionaires. If Bernie is denied the nomination, don’t discount the potential for our Green campaign to carry the movement forward to become a major force in the election. Forty-three million people – a winning plurality in this race – are locked in student debt and their only way out is my plan to bail them out, like Obama bailed out Wall Street. If milllennials in debt decide to get the word out, hold on to your hat for a voter revolt that could go a very long way, even perhaps to the White House.

Here’s the bottom line. Democracy doesn’t need silence and fear. It needs voices and values, and a moral compass. We must be that moral compass. The clock is ticking – on the next Wall Street collapse, the climatemelt down, expanding war, the slide towards fascism, nuclear confrontation and more. This is the time to stand up with the courage of our convictions, while we still can.

The corporate candidates will not fix this for us. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Come out on June 7 and vote for me, Jill Stein, if you are registered Green, and for Bernie Sanders if you are Democratic or “no party preference”.

Together we can reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good – like our lives depend on it, because they do. #ItsInOurHands



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: "Historic" Empty Suit Visits Hiroshima Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 05 June 2016 11:49

Boardman writes: "The sterile language of a detached president illustrates how far we are from facing the reality of our own government's deliberate atrocities."

President Obama lays a wreath at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. (photo: AP)
President Obama lays a wreath at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. (photo: AP)


"Historic" Empty Suit Visits Hiroshima

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

05 June 16

 

“Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.”

he sterile language of a detached president illustrates how far we are from facing the reality of our own government’s deliberate atrocities. Hiroshima was certainly destroyed, abstractly, with “a terrible force unleashed” – but by no one? In the president’s passive parsing, it’s as if he thought it was an “act of God.” More honestly told: President Truman approved the atomic bombing of Japan, which was carried out on August 6, 1945, by a Boeing B-29 named Enola Gay, after the pilot’s mother, that dropped a uranium-235 fission bomb cutely nicknamed “Little Boy” on a largely civilian city, killing an estimated 140,000 people (thousands of whom were vaporized without a discoverable trace, while thousands more died from radiation effects over ensuing years, a death toll made worse by US denial of radiation danger and strict censorship of any public discussion during the occupation). Hiroshima was one of the greatest military massacres in history, eclipsing American massacres of Native Americans by several orders of magnitude.

In his initial announcement of the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman said, misleadingly, that the bomb had “destroyed [Hiroshima’s] usefulness to the Army.” In a radio broadcast three days later, Truman falsely characterized Hiroshima as “a military base.” Hiroshima was not a military base, though it had some relatively unimportant military installations. Hiroshima was chosen as the A-bomb target in part because it had so little military significance that it was one of the few Japanese cities that had gone almost un-attacked by the daily American bomb runs. Because it was largely intact, Hiroshima was ideal as a place to demonstrate the A-bomb’s total destructiveness.

The US chose an almost undamaged city full of civilians as the target that would best bring the Japanese to their knees. Now that is something to “ponder,” as Obama suggested, but chose not to do. It doesn’t take much pondering to begin to wonder whether incinerating thousands of civilians might not be a war crime. It would be, if it happened today. During World War II, the laws of war made it a war crime for armies on the ground to attack, harm, and kill civilians. The laws of war did not specifically apply to aerial warfare, and so all sides cheerfully murdered civilians from the air with the kind of legalistic self-righteousness only corrupt lawyers can create. That’s why there were no war crimes trials for any of the horrendous bombings of the war – Rotterdam, Shanghai, Coventry, Cologne, Warsaw, Tokyo, to name a few.

Are war crimes actually war crimes until they’re illegal?

The Anglo-American firebombing of Dresden in February 1945 burned tens of thousands of people alive, including mostly civilians and prisoners of war (one of whom was Kurt Vonnegut, who survived). The actual death toll is unknown, with good faith and politically-motivated estimates ranging from 25,000 to 500,000. The US firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 killed more than 100,000 people and destroyed more than 15 square miles of the city. By any reasonable moral reckoning, all these air campaigns were war crimes, crimes against humanity in the most obvious sense. American history teaches us that World War II was a just war, “the last good war,” and there’s a case to be made for that. It was also, on all sides, a ruthless criminal enterprise.

None of this very real history was part of Obama’s speech in Hiroshima. American presidents are not expected to be truthful, and would likely be crucified if they were. Once Obama acknowledged the “terrible force unleashed” out of nowhere by nobody, he shifted to a conventionally maudlin but politically shifty call “to mourn the dead,” whom he listed by category. First he somewhat lowballed the Japanese dead, consistent with US policy for 71 years now. Then he mentioned “thousands of Koreans,” a reference to Korean forced labor that would play well in Seoul if not Tokyo. And then he referred to those 12 “Americans held prisoner,” for decades an official secret, in part because other POWs who survived were suffering from radiation sickness and the US government didn’t want anyone to know about that.

Now the first sitting president of the US has visited Hiroshima, has solemnly visited a scene of American crime, and has been greeted with equally hypocritical solemnity by a Japanese government whose own hands are just as dirty and whose own current ambitions are as imperial as America’s in Asia. Obama’s speech would have you believe that that his goal is to “eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons” and to mark “the start of our own moral awakening.” That doesn’t fly when he’s making nice with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose goal is to re-militarize Japan and eliminate all pacifist tendencies from its constitution. Obama is an enabler of Japanese militarization, not only for the sake of arms sales, but also as a “response” to China’s agitation over US provocations under the strategic umbrella of Obama’s “pivot to Asia.”

Why does Obama address Hiroshima in the passive voice?

The conventional wisdom and mainstream media call Obama’s trip to Hiroshima “historic” because he’s the first US president to go there, not because there’s anything actually historic about the visit. Politically, the Hiroshima event appears to be pretty reactionary on both sides. Before Obama in 2016, Richard Nixon went to Hiroshima in 1964, before he was president, and former president Jimmy Carter went there in 1984 when he, too, pledged to “eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of this earth.” Early in his presidency in 2009 in Prague, Obama echoed this sentiment:

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. [Applause.] I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, “Yes, we can.” [Applause.]

But this was only a sentiment, expressed in campaign rhetoric. America had made no such commitment, even if the president was sincere. America is a long, long way from making such a commitment. American presidents and candidates still talk about using nuclear weapons as if that were a sane option. Yes, the Obama administration negotiated a new treaty (START) in which the US and Russia each agreed to deploy no more than 1550 strategic nuclear warheads and bombs each. That’s a cap, but a high cap. And it applies to no one else, leaving the UK, France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, and even North Korea a rational basis for each having its own 1550 nukes. The US currently says it has 1528 warheads and bombs deployed, ready to use. The US also says it can “maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear weapons from the level established in the New START Treaty.” [Emphasis added.]

Both Bushes reduced nuclear weapons more than Obama

At its peak in 1967, the US had more than 30,000 nuclear warheads, both deployed and in reserve. By September 30, 2014, the total was 4766 warheads. This represents roughly a 10% reduction since Obama took office. Among other presidents, Reagan maintained the US nuclear arsenal at well over 20,000; George H.W. Bush cut the greatest number of warheads of any president (41% of more than 20,000); and George W. Bush cut the greatest percentage, 50% of slightly more than 10,000 when he took office).

To get Republican support for the START treaty in 2010, President Obama had to promise to improve and expand the US nuclear arsenal in other, creative ways. Obama’s nuclear “modernization” plans, insofar as they’re known, will cost the US an estimated $1 trillion over the next 30 years (more than $30 billion a year). “Modernization” includes things like nuclear-tipped cruise missiles or new, “smaller” bombs that might be politically easier to use. By today’s standards, the Hiroshima bomb is “small.” (Nuclear modernization is also intended to upgrade “a command and control unit tasked with coordinating the operational functions of the nation's nuclear forces [that] still uses 8-inch floppy disks and runs on an IBM / Series 1 computer … first produced in 1976” even though the Pentagon says “it still works.”)

Factors like these – the slow pace of reducing redundant weapons and the willingness to risk a renewed arms race with nuclear “modernization” were enough to arouse one Democratic senator – but only one, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts – to criticize the president:

If Obama wants to keep the pledge he made in 2009 to “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security,” he must rein in this nuclear spending insanity. The lesson of Hiroshima is clear: Nuclear weapons must never be used again.

If the United States wants other countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and restrain their nuclear war plans, it must take the lead. It cannot preach nuclear temperance from a bar stool.

Preaching nuclear temperance has been done to inebriation, as it were

Picturing Obama preaching from a bar stool might seem harsh. But the United Nations’ Open-Ended Working Group on multilateral nuclear disarmament, with more than 100 countries, has been working for two years – without US participation. Also without participation by China, France, Russia and the UK – and they don’t even preach from barstools. Nor do many of them visit Hiroshima. The vision of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial is the complete international abolition of all nuclear weapons and the promotion of world peace. It’s where officials go to engage in lip services.

If Obama had wanted to be genuinely historic, he could have visited Nagasaki. There was no excuse for Nagasaki; it was a pure war crime. Unlike Hiroshima, there’s no credible military argument that Nagasaki had to be destroyed to get Japan to surrender. Hiroshima on August 6 was probably enough. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria and declaration of war on Japan on August 8 was surely enough. The class was done, all the grown-ups had to do was collect the papers and start grading them. Japan’s Emperor Hirohito publicly accepted the terms of unconditional surrender on August 15. The Soviets, who had been begged by the Allies for months to enter the war, continued fighting till the official surrender on September 2.

Some historians argue persuasively that the US used the atomic bomb more as a warning to the Soviet Union than as a military necessity, although these are not mutually exclusive – not for Hiroshima in any case. The bombing of Nagasaki was gratuitous overkill with no demonstrable military value in the field. But testing the Nagasaki bomb had real value as a military experiment. Unlike the uranium fission bomb that obliterated Hiroshima, the Nagasaki bomb, nicknamed “Fat Man,” was the last atomic bomb the US had, and it was different: it was an implosion bomb with a plutonium core. Its prototype had worked in the first atomic explosion in a controlled test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, less than a month earlier. But would it work operationally? Military planners wanted to know and, without any order from the president, they successfully destroyed Nagasaki and some 70,000 people (even though the bomb was two miles off target). The experiment proved that the US could build two kinds of atomic bomb, and both worked.

Truman had his fill of killing “all those kids,” as he said

Apparently surprised by the gratuitous wiping out of Nagasaki, Truman issued an order that no more A-bombs be used, apparently unaware that the entire US atomic arsenal had been expended.

Obama seems to hope, like any rational person, that nuclear weapons will never again be used, but he has done little to change the governmental reality that holds nuclear weapons high on its list of final military solutions. Obama could have gone to Nagasaki and talked about Truman’s order to use no more. He could go to Alamogordo and express sadness that the first test worked. He could go to Bikini and finally make things better for Marshall Islanders who were victims of US nuclear testing. He could go to the Nevada proving grounds where the US government used American soldiers as guinea pigs in assessing the effects of ionizing radiation, and he could apologize for that and so much more. But he didn’t, he hasn’t, and probably he won’t. Crocodile-tear rhetoric is the best we’re likely to get. And maybe that’s because the dream of nuclear disarmament is impossible to realize in a world where the US can’t be trusted.

Even as the president was all hopey-changey in Hiroshima, his government was in its second year of participating in a criminal war in Yemen, where the US is helping the Saudis and their allies slaughter civilians from the air. It took over a year for the US to stop selling internationally condemned cluster bombs to the Saudis. And every time this president orders another drone strike on someone he decides with no due process is an enemy, he commits another of his own war crimes. “We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil,” Obama said at Hiroshima – a homily he illustrates with his failure to confront evil. As the country approaches the 2016 election, Obama has created a context where the president can act as assassin-in-chief with impunity and where the development of miniaturized nuclear warheads for drones is a possibility. Sounds like the ingredients for making America great again.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump Is Not Hitler, At Least Not Yet Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 05 June 2016 10:42

Weissman writes: "Though hardly more than a one-man band, The Daily Stormer is arguably the most noxious face of Donald Trump's nativist, xenophobic, racist, Muslim-bashing, and Jew-baiting base."

The cover of 'TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald' by Timothy O'Brien. (photo: Warner Books)
The cover of 'TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald' by Timothy O'Brien. (photo: Warner Books)


Trump Is Not Hitler, at Least Not Yet

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

05 June 16

 

ilthy Jew Terrorist William Kristol Says a Third Party Candidate will be Introduced,” the headline screamed. America's top neocon had just tweeted that he would soon announce an “impressive” independent candidate to run against both Republicans and Democrats, and the pro-Trump Daily Stormer was responding in its customary fashion.


America’s most successful neo-Nazi website, The Daily Stormer proudly takes its name from Julius Streicher’s notorious Nazi hate sheet, Der Stürmer. It openly calls Trump “The Leader” ? in German, Der Führer. And though hardly more than a one-man band, The Daily Stormer is arguably the most noxious face of Donald Trump’s nativist, xenophobic, racist, Muslim-bashing, and Jew-baiting base.

Wondering aloud whether Kristol’s intervention was “just a way to confound the goyim,” the Stormer’s founder and editor, Andrew Anglin, made clear where he was coming from. “Is this tweet serious?” he asked. “Is it a joke? Or is it simply intended to cause fear in the hearts of White Americans?”

“Trump responded to the Jew,” Anglin reported. “If dummy Bill Kristol actually does get a spoiler to run as an Independent,” the presumptive Republican presidential candidate tweeted, “say goodbye to the Supreme Court!”

Anglin saw even greater danger. “Any third party candidate would have zero chance of winning,” he wrote. “The goal is to get Hillary elected.”

“After Hillary, there will be no country left,” he went on. “She will destroy absolutely everything. She will ban the First and Second Amendments by installing communist judges and she will flood the country with so many immigrants – and give citizenship to those already here – that it will be impossible for a non-Democrat to ever win an election.”

“So the #NeverTrump Jews are actually calling for an end to America.”

Kristol’s effort has so far proved a damp squib. The most impressive candidate he could find is David French, a highly decorated combat officer, conservative lawyer, and columnist for the right-wing National Review. Widely unknown, French has yet to say yes. Even if he does, Kristol – the neocon nursemaid to Dan Quayle, the Iraq War, and Sarah Palin ? will once again look like a loser.

Anglin and his Daily Stormer are playing to win. Donald Trump, his Leader, clearly built on the white supremacist attitudes to which the Republican Party has pandered since Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and “War on Drugs.” Trump also draws on the liberal racism that Bill and Hillary Clinton embraced with their attacks on black “super-predators” and their mass incarceration crime bill, not to mention the way Slick Willie rushed back to Arkansas during his presidential campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally handicapped black man named Ricky Ray Rector.

But Trump goes beyond coded dog whistles and liberal pretense. A skilled demagogue and relentless bigot, he consciously plays to the longstanding racism that the anti-Muslim “War on Terror” and election of a black president brought to the fore – overt racial hatred that Trump himself helped stir up with his widely publicized claims that Barack Obama had not been born in the United States.

The neo-Nazi Anglin was quick to see the potential Trump represented, endorsing him last June, only days after the showman threw his hat into the ring and at a time when most other observers saw him as little more than entertainment and a profit source for big media.

“The modern Fox News Republican has basically accepted the idea that there is no going back from mass immigration,” Anglin wrote in his Daily Stormer. “Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: It’s time to deport these people. He is also willing to call them out as criminal rapists, murderers and drug dealers.”

Trump’s overt bigotry has enabled a motley crew of neo-Nazis and white supremacists to crawl out from under the rocks where they have lived for years. But none have used the opportunity more cleverly ? or pungently ? than the Internet-savvy Anglin and his Daily Stormer.

“Just like Hillary has no strategy to fight The Leader,” he wrote on June 3, “the Jews have no strategy to fight the Alt-Right.”

“The Jews” are, of course, the evil masterminds behind all efforts to suppress the white race, while the “Alt-Right” is the common front of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and their useful idiots.

In the past, white nationalists had taken great pains to pretend that they were not about hate. But Anglin urges them to new candor.

“Now, when these kikes say that the rising neo-Nazi Alt-Right movement wants to gas the six million, we’re just like “yeah I know right, lol, get in the oven filthy kike ? daddy needs a new pair of lampshades.”

Donald Trump has enabled Anglin’s all-out effort to win over America’s white working class to unabashed racist hatred. Neo-Nazis and Christian Nationalists make similar appeals to disaffected whites in Europe, though they generally find it an easier sale to bash Muslims than Jews.

How do decent people beat back the hate? Only by offering the disaffected a clear understanding of how corporate globalism, neo-liberal economics, and Wall Street-inspired trade treaties have killed middle-class jobs and any hope for the future. Bernie Sanders tries to do that. Hillary Clinton does not. Which do you think has a better chance to stop the juggernaut that Trump has set in motion?



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Next > End >>

Page 2018 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN