RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Can President Trump Really Order Troops Into Cities? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51459"><span class="small">Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 June 2020 12:04

Toobin writes: "In his speech in the Rose Garden on Monday evening, President Trump said, 'If the city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.'"

Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)


Can President Trump Really Order Troops Into Cities?

By Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker

02 June 20

 

n his speech in the Rose Garden on Monday evening, President Trump said, “If the city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” Can he do that? Can the President send the U.S. military into a state, even when the governor of that state doesn’t ask for its assistance, or even if the governor actively opposes such a step?

The answer is no, probably. The reasons relate to a venerable principle in American law: that the military should stay away from actions on domestic soil. One of the founding principles of the Republic was that the federal military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement. But, over the years, the law has carved out certain narrow exceptions to that rule, notably in the form of the Insurrection Act, from 1807. This law says that “whenever there is an insurrection in any state against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or its governor,” call in the armed forces. So that seems pretty simple. The President can bring in the military only if a governor or a state requests it. In recent years, the law has been invoked only when governors have requested the assistance of federal troops, such as in 1992, when California sought help in quelling the rioting after the acquittals in the Rodney King case. (Similarly, in 1967, Governor George Romney, of Michigan, requested federal troops to control riots in Detroit.) Now, however, the governors of California, Illinois, and Michigan have all made it clear that they will not seek the involvement of federal troops in their efforts to handle disturbances in their states.

But that’s not the end of the story. There is another provision of the Insurrection Act that arguably gives the President greater unilateral authority. This provision states that, when the President determines that there are unlawful activities which “make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States,” he may call in the armed forces. It was passed in 1956, in order to give Presidents the authority to enforce civil-rights laws. President Eisenhower invoked it to send Army troops to enforce the integration of the public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. It’s unclear whether the law, which was based on the protection of constitutional rights, would give Trump the authority he wants to overrule governors today.

In other words, there appears to be some ambiguity about the President’s authority to do what he promised to do. It may be, of course, that Trump merely wanted to threaten the use of the military without ever intending to follow through. On Monday, the President was governing by spectacle—ordering the clearing of peaceful protesters so that he could stage a photo opportunity with a Bible at a nearby church. The threat to send troops was a similarly showy gesture. Trump was trying to look tougher than the governors, but he didn’t take any actual responsibility for bringing calm to the country. If he were to send troops, the burden would be on him to show results.

In all likelihood, then, there will not be the clashes that the President’s remarks portend. He will not send troops into a state that doesn’t want them. But, in threatening to do so, Trump has shredded another norm. He has abused his power in yet another way, extending his legacy of lawlessness and authoritarianism, with more such abuses likely in the months to come.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: A Boot Is Crushing the Neck of American Democracy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54559"><span class="small">Cornel West, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 June 2020 11:08

Excerpt: "The fundamental question at this moment is: can the United States be reformed?"

Cornel West. (photo: David Levene/Guardian UK)
Cornel West. (photo: David Levene/Guardian UK)


A Boot Is Crushing the Neck of American Democracy

By Cornel West, Guardian UK

02 June 20


The fundamental question at this moment is: can the United States be reformed?

ere we go again. Another black person killed by the US police. Another wave of multiracial resistance. Another cycle of race talk on the corporate media. Another display of diversity with neoliberal leaders, and another white backlash soon to come. Yet this time might be a turning point. 

The undeniable barbaric death of George Floyd, the inescapable vicious realities of the unequal misery of the coronavirus, the massive unemployment at Depression levels and the wholesale collapse of the legitimacy of political leadership (in both parties) are bringing down the curtain on the American empire. 

The increasing militarization of US society is inseparable from its imperial policies (211 deployments of US armed forces in 67 countries since 1945). The militaristic response to the killing of Floyd tells a story of oversized police presence, unprovoked assaults and excessive force. Ironically, the misleading debate over rioters v protesters and outside agitators v legitimate local citizens turns attention away from how heavy law enforcement presence fuels disrespect for the police. The stark contrast of the police response to rightwing provocateurs who show up inside and outside state capitols with guns and loaded ammunition looms large.

I recall my own experience of protesting in Charlottesville, Virginia, against hundreds of masked, armed Nazis with live ammunition in which the police stepped back and remained still and silent as we were mercilessly attacked. Without the intervention and protection of antifa, some of us would have died. Sister Heather Heyer did die. I believe the attack on any innocent person is wrong, but the focus on the protesters’ assaults on persons or property takes our attention away from the police killing of hundreds of black, poor and working-class people.

It also obscures the role of the repressive apparatus in preserving an order so unjust and cruel. The rule of big money, class and gender hierarchies and global militarism must be highlighted in our profound concern with anti-black police murder and brutality.

The four catastrophes Martin Luther King Jr warned us about – militarism (in Asia, Africa and the Middle East), poverty (at record levels), materialism (with narcissistic addictions to money, fame and spectacle) and racism (against black and indigenous people, Muslims, Jews and non-white immigrants) – have laid bare the organised hatred, greed and corruption in the country. The killing machine of the US military here and abroad has lost its authority. The profit-driven capitalist economy has lost its glow. And the glitz of the market-driven culture (including media and education) are more and more hollow. 

The fundamental question at this moment is: can this failed social experiment be reformed? The political duopoly of an escalating neofascist Donald Trump-led Republican party and a fatigued Joe Biden-led neoliberal Democratic party – in no way equivalent, yet both beholden to Wall Street and the Pentagon – are symptoms of a decadent leadership class. The weakness of the labor movement and the present difficulty of the radical left to unite around a nonviolent revolutionary project of democratic sharing and redistribution of power, wealth and respect are signs of a society unable to regenerate the best of its past and present. Any society that refuses to eliminate or attenuate dilapidated housing, decrepit school systems, mass incarceration, massive unemployment and underemployment, inadequate healthcare and its violations of rights and liberties is undesirable and unsustainable.

Yet the magnificent moral courage and spiritual sensitivity of the multiracial response to the police killing of George Floyd that now spills over into a political resistance to the legalized looting of Wall Street greed, the plundering of the planet and the degradation of women and LGBTQ+ peoples means we are still fighting regardless of the odds. 

If radical democracy dies in America, let it be said of us that we gave our all-and-all as the boots of American fascism tried to crush our necks. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Fire, Pestilence and a Country at War With Itself: The Trump Presidency Is Over Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9643"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 June 2020 08:41

Reich writes: "You'd be forgiven if you hadn't noticed. His verbal bombshells are louder than ever, but Donald J Trump is no longer president of the United States."

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Fire, Pestilence and a Country at War With Itself: The Trump Presidency Is Over

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

02 June 20


A pandemic unabated, an economy in meltdown, cities in chaos over police killings. All our supposed leader does is tweet

ou’d be forgiven if you hadn’t noticed. His verbal bombshells are louder than ever, but Donald J Trump is no longer president of the United States.

By having no constructive response to any of the monumental crises now convulsing America, Trump has abdicated his office. 

He is not governing. He’s golfing, watching cable TV and tweeting.

How has Trump responded to the widespread unrest following the murder in Minneapolis of George Floyd, a black man who died after a white police officer knelt on his neck for minutes as he was handcuffed on the ground?

Trump called the protesters “thugs” and threatened to have them shot. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” he tweeted, parroting a former Miami police chief whose words spurred race riots in the late 1960s.

On Saturday, he gloated about “the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons” awaiting protesters outside the White House, should they ever break through Secret Service lines. 

Trump’s response to the last three ghastly months of mounting disease and death has been just as heedless. Since claiming Covid-19 was a “Democratic hoax” and muzzling public health officials, he has punted management of the coronavirus to the states.

Governors have had to find ventilators to keep patients alive and protective equipment for hospital and other essential workers who lack it, often bidding against each other. They have had to decide how, when and where to reopen their economies.

Trump has claimed “no responsibility at all” for testing and contact-tracing – the keys to containing the virus. His new “plan” places responsibility on states to do their own testing and contact-tracing.

Trump is also awol in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

More than 41 million Americans are jobless. In the coming weeks temporary eviction moratoriums are set to end in half of the states. One-fifth of Americans missed rent payments this month. Extra unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of July.

What is Trump’s response? Like Herbert Hoover, who in 1930 said “the worst is behind us” as thousands starved, Trump says the economy will improve and does nothing about the growing hardship. The Democratic-led House passed a $3tn relief package on 15 May. Mitch McConnell has recessed the Senate without taking action and Trump calls the bill dead on arrival. 

What about other pressing issues a real president would be addressing? The House has passed nearly 400 bills this term, including measures to reduce climate change, enhance election security, require background checks on gun sales, reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and reform campaign finance. All are languishing in McConnell’s inbox. Trump doesn’t seem to be aware of any of them.

There is nothing inherently wrong with golfing, watching television and tweeting. But if that’s pretty much all that a president does when the nation is engulfed in crises, he is not a president.

Trump’s tweets are no substitute for governing. They are mostly about getting even.

When he’s not fomenting violence against black protesters, he’s accusing a media personality of committing murder, retweeting slurs about a black female politician’s weight and the House speaker’s looks, conjuring up conspiracies against himself supposedly organized by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and encouraging his followers to “liberate” their states from lockdown restrictions.

He tweets bogus threats that he has no power to carry out – withholding funds from states that expand absentee voting, “overruling” governors who don’t allow places of worship to reopen “right away”, and punishing Twitter for factchecking him.

And he lies incessantly.

In reality, Donald Trump doesn’t run the government of the United States. He doesn’t manage anything. He doesn’t organize anyone. He doesn’t administer or oversee or supervise. He doesn’t read memos. He hates meetings. He has no patience for briefings. His White House is in perpetual chaos. 

His advisers aren’t truth-tellers. They’re toadies, lackeys, sycophants and relatives.

Since moving into the Oval Office in January 2017, Trump hasn’t shown an ounce of interest in governing. He obsesses only about himself.

But it has taken the present set of crises to reveal the depths of his self-absorbed abdication – his utter contempt for his job, his total repudiation of his office.

Trump’s nonfeasance goes far beyond an absence of leadership or inattention to traditional norms and roles. In a time of national trauma, he has relinquished the core duties and responsibilities of the presidency.

He is no longer president. The sooner we stop treating him as if he were, the better.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Don't Fall for the Myth of the "Outside Agitator" in Racial Justice Protests Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54558"><span class="small">Glenn Houlihan, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 June 2020 08:41

Houlihan writes: "It's a trope that should be immediately recognized as both false and designed to downplay and write off the widespread anger that led to these rebellions."

Protesters rally outside the Fifth Police Precinct on May 29, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Protesters rally outside the Fifth Police Precinct on May 29, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)


Don't Fall for the Myth of the "Outside Agitator" in Racial Justice Protests

By Glenn Houlihan, Jacobin

02 June 20


Whenever mass protests of any kind kick off, defenders of the status quo immediately accuse protesters as being duped by “outside agitators.” Don’t fall for it — the lie of the outside agitator is designed to weaken protests and downplay our widespread anger at injustice.

ver the last few days, we’ve seen a national uprising against racism and police brutality. In response, the first instinct of the defenders of the status quo was to unite behind an old talking point: the uprising was carried out by “outside agitators” from beyond the communities where the protests took place. It’s a trope that should be immediately recognized as both false and designed to downplay and write off the widespread anger that led to these rebellions.

President Donald Trump, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, and Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey have all blamed out-of-state agitators for the “riots.” Mainstream media soon echoed this narrative. NBC and the Hill were among the outlets reporting St. Paul mayor Melvin Carter saying, “Every single person we arrested last night, I’m told, was from out of state.”

As it turns out, an investigation by KARE 11, an NBC-affiliated television station in Minneapolis, states that “local jail records show the vast majority of those arrested for rioting, unlawful assembly, and burglary are Minnesotans.” The data, taken from the Hennepin County Jail roster, shows that “of thirty-six cases, about 86 percent of those arrested [from May 29 to May 30] listed Minnesota as their address” — four times more than the 20 percent Gov. Walz estimated at a press conference on Saturday morning. Mayor Carter subsequently retracted the incorrect statement, blaming inaccurate information during a police briefing.

Why does this matter? The “outside agitator” trope is today often accompanied by a tirade against “white anarchists” or “Antifa” carrying out the rebellion — while people of color don’t. This is an attempt to isolate and weaken protesters from each other, to make the “good” protesters distrustful and paranoid about “infiltration” by white radicals. (Radicals of color, meanwhile, are nowhere to be found.) Fostering distrust among developing coalitions is a quick and easy way to ensure their swift demise.

These accusations have long popped up in response to civil rights struggles. In 1965, the White Citizens’ Council posted over two hundred billboards throughout the South attempting to discredit Martin Luther King Jr by associating him with communism. One, which shows a photo of King attending a 1957 event at the Highlander Folk School, a key training site for many civil rights activists, is titled “Martin Luther King at Communist Training School.” On the billboard, a giant, cartoonish arrow points directly to King.

Red-baiting accompanied King wherever he went in the South. In 1965, just before the brutal police crackdown of civil rights demonstrators in Selma, Alabama, Dallas County sheriff Jim Clark implied King was an outsider agitator and estimated the march was “possibly made up of one-fourth communists and one-half pro-communists.”

For Clark and scores of white racists throughout the South, the paternalistic idea was that “our Negroes” would never engage in such protests, as they were largely content but were being stirred up by outside troublemakers. Acknowledging that enormous numbers of local African Americans were deeply angry at the status quo and ready to revolt would have meant acknowledging that the status quo was rotten.

Richard Seymour wrote in 2014, in response to the term being employed by both liberals and reactionaries during the Ferguson uprising, “The ‘outside agitator’ line reeks of good old boy vigilantism, the commingling of race-baiting and red-baiting that was typical of Southern counterrevolution in the dying days of Jim Crow.”

Segregationists sought to preserve Jim Crow law by branding black radicals as communists, condemning black activists to destructive investigations from the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and elsewhere. As Paul Heideman states, “The anticommunist purges of the late 1940s and early 1950s dealt a hammer blow to the movement for racial equality.” A reactionary crusade against communists, aided and abetted by liberal Democrats and premised in many ways in the myth of the outside agitator radical being responsible for civil rights unrest, successfully demolished an emerging coalition between left-led workers’ unions and civil rights activists.

In 2020, the phrase, and these tactics, have once again reared their ugly head. The myth of “outside agitators” is being simultaneously weaponized by conservatives and liberals to demean and intimidate protesters. We shouldn’t let them — it’s an accusation designed to downplay the widespread anger so many are feeling and acting on in this country.

King warned us, “We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools.”

Don’t fall for defenders of the status quo continuing to blame “outside agitators” for the rebellions sweeping the country right now — they want us to perish together as fools.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Language of Extinction Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54555"><span class="small">Holly Haworth, In These Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 June 2020 08:41

Haworth writes: "The modern industrial and capitalist mindset pits human culture against nature, and the conservation movement, with different intentions, has tended to do the same."

A south-eastern red-tailed black cockatoo. (photo: Sean Garnsworthy/Getty Images)
A south-eastern red-tailed black cockatoo. (photo: Sean Garnsworthy/Getty Images)


The Language of Extinction

By Holly Haworth, In These Times

02 June 20


When wildfires destroy habitats, more than species are lost.

t is often the case now that we do not know of an animal’s or insect’s or plant’s existence—do not ever hear its name—until it is almost gone.

When that species lives across the globe from where we live, this is, in one sense, not surprising. And still, it’s strange that language travels this way, the names of things populating faraway tongues for the first time at the moment they are disappearing. Such was the case this winter when I obtained a list published by the Australian Department of Environment and Energy of vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species whose habitats have diminished since the bushfires began in July 2019. The fires had spread red on the maps, red on the aerial news cameras, as I watched from afar in horror in the midst of winter in the United States, a winter that hadn’t yet made me shiver until I saw the summer flames engulfing the Australian continent, and the images of koalas and kangaroos trying to escape the blazes.

I also wanted to know the names of living beings that weren’t mentioned on the news; I had never heard of the more than 330 species that filled the list. The names alone—to say nothing of the lives of the things in their various habitats—are a poem, the entire bulk of which would not fit here. I felt compelled to read them aloud:

spectacled monarch, magenta lilly pilly, spiral sun-orchid, austral toadflax, shrubby hazelwood, grey-headed flying-fox, glossy black-cockatoo, long-nosed potoroo, Wallum leek-orchid, Wollumbin dogwood, Booroolong frog, marble daisy-bush, regent honeyeater, satin flycatcher, satin-top grass, velvet wattle, milky silkpod, pale golden moth …

For 114 of the species, the report stated, more than half their known habitat has been damaged by fire. As I said their names, I imagined the list not only as a poem but as a roster, with fewer and fewer answering “here.”

It is not lost on me that almost all the names of the species are given in English, the language I write and speak in, and Australia’s dominant language. The inhabitants of the continent once spoke roughly 250 different languages with 800 distinct dialects, Rhonda Smith at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies tells me; now there are only 13. What names were these insects and plants and animals called in the 800 dialects? And what living things were lost entirely along with the people who shared a habitat with them?

The sweeping flames seem to mirror the way one worldview—that of domination and extraction—has engulfed the globe, leaving behind cultural homogeneity, what environmentalist Vandana Shiva calls “monoculture of the mind.”

The modern industrial and capitalist mindset pits human culture against nature, and the conservation movement, with different intentions, has tended to do the same. But a wave of anthropological and biological scholarship since the 1990s has made it clear that cultural diversity and biological diversity are intertwined. One study, for example, shows 70% of the world’s languages are found “within the planet’s biodiversity hotspots.” A proliferation of life goes hand in hand with a richness of human language, story, song and oral histories, all of which serve as vessels in indigenous cultures for the complex ecological knowledge needed for good land management. That there is no word for “nature” in indigenous languages the world over indicates the degree to which indigenous people have seen their cultures as interwoven with their living habitats.

Though fire is the source of the destruction in Australia, the tragedy has compelled indigenous people across the continent to share their cultural stories about how fire has been used to nurture biodiversity since before European colonization, before indigenous fires, songs and stories began to be suppressed.

“Our ancestors managed this landscape for millennia and fire was one of our [principal] management tools,” writes Oliver Costello, of the Bundjalung people, in an article for The Guardian’s IndigenousX series. “Through colonization we have seen a rapid decline in our practices and, equally, a rapid decline in the values associated with this country,” Costello writes. 

Controlled burning removes vegetation that is more likely to worsen wildfires; it encourages new growth and avoids burning the canopy. “In traditional times, you would’ve been punished for [burning the canopy],” former firefighter and member of the Wiradjuri people, Den Barber, tells Earther. “If you’re burning the canopy, you’re burning not only the shade that the trees offer, but you’re burning perhaps the seedbed. You’re burning habitat. You’re burning flowers. That’s where all the magic is, where all the things that sustain us are.”

The canopy is where the birds sing, another language in itself. Birds can fly away in managed fires, but in large wildfires, they become disoriented by smoke and flames. They die, their lilting songs going with them.

In his book Cultures of Habitat: On Nature, Culture, and Story, ethnobiologist Gary Paul Nabhan writes of how the Warlpiri people of Australia’s Tanami Desert once hunted an animal they called mala, a marsupial weighing less than five pounds. “[The Warlpiri] did not eat them into extinction,” writes Nabhan. They managed their habitat with controlled burning. Nabhan quotes a naturalist who explained the burning practice to him:

Aboriginal fire created a mix of old and new vegetation, and therefore of shelter and food. … The mala’s well-being is very much governed by the right kind of fire. The patchiness of aboriginal burning leaves part of the vegetation untouched. Clumps of old spinifex provide the mala with its shelter, from which it moves to new growth to feed on the seed heads and young leaves of forbs and grasses. 

But with colonization came the disconnection of Warlpiri from their land, fire suppression and rabbits—an introduced species that took over the habitat. When the mala began to disappear, Nabhan writes, so did what is known as its Dreaming tradition—the rituals of songs and stories performed for the mala were stopped. A terrible silence. And then the mala were gone from the continent.

While fires raged uncontrolled this past winter, sweeping at 60 miles per hour across the continent, they once were lit with careful precision, small fires licking at the little mounds of vegetation, kindled with knowledge of each unique habitat across the country, where the 250 languages and 800 dialects were used to speak of them. The insects, plants and animals on my list are only the ones that have survived colonization and the disruption of their homes, as the 13 languages have survived the same.

And still, they survive. Native voices are still speaking. Malarndirri McCarthy, senator of Australia’s Northern Territory, said in a speech responding to the wildfires that fire “runs through all aspects of [First Nations] lives, our spirituality and the way we interact with the ecology, and it has done so for many thousands of years. … It’s knowledge that we so want to share.” And many in the country seem to be ready to receive it. Since 2007, Australia’s Indigenous Ranger program has recognized the value of traditional knowledge for conservation. More than 2,000 First Australians now manage the country’s Indigenous Protected Areas to protect biodiversity on more than 166 million acres of land and waters. These rangers are working harder than ever to bring back traditional burning.

In a New York Times article, Alexis Wright, professor of Australian literature at the University of Melbourne and member of the Waanyi nation, spoke with Murrandoo Yanner, a Gangalidda leader who runs the Jigija Indigenous Fire Training Program. “If we can understand, learn from and imagine our place through the laws and stories of our ancestors … then we will have true knowledge on how to live, adapt and survive in Australia, just as our ancestors did,” Yanner said.

Yet, the ancestors did not face climate change and its increase of drought and fire.

In a Cherokee story I have heard from the original inhabitants of the place I am from—the Smoky Mountains, some of the world’s most diverse temperate forests, which saw unprecedented wildfires blazing the ridges in 2016—the animals decide to steal fire from a lightningstruck sycamore tree because they are cold. When Känäne’skï Amai’yëhï, the Water Spider, finally gets it for them, they gather around it, grateful. 

That humans could wield fire and control it made us unique and helped us survive. The ability to cook our food may be what made us intelligent enough to drill into the earth for the fuel of ancient fossilized forests. But when we lit fossil fuels on fire, our population skyrocketed and the world changed. Now it’s getting hotter each day, due to the warming caused by the billions of fires in our gas furnaces, coal plants and combustion engines. All these fires have led to a world now suffering from more uncontrollable fire, wild fire. 

“Consciousness is kin to fire,” Christopher Camuto writes in Another Country: Journeying Toward the Cherokee Mountains, and I imagine the first stories of our origins told around the fire, flames leaping across the face of storytellers and dancing at the edges of the night. Now we sit around a different fire with a different story on our lips—not of origins but of the ends of so many things. We’re not cold anymore. The animals once contrived to steal fire to warm themselves, but now they are running from it. If fire is kin to consciousness, then humankind is more conscious than ever of the role we have played in this catastrophe, of how much our stories, whether of domination and extraction or of stewardship and care, matter.

If fire is kin to consciousness, our imaginations must be sparked greater than ever before, and faster, by these large blazes—in order that we might remember how to wield fire consciously, so that our stories, our names for animals, insects and plants, might still be spoken. So that the languages of all the living things might still be heard.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 Next > End >>

Page 466 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