RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Having It Easy in the Beginning, Tough in the End: How My Dad Predicted the Decline of America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=13111"><span class="small">William J. Astore, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Tuesday, 31 March 2020 08:21

Astore writes: "My dad was born in 1917. Somehow, he survived the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919, but an outbreak of whooping cough in 1923 claimed his baby sister, Clementina."

U.S. Special Operations personnel prepare to board a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter during a mission in Afghanistan. (photo: U.S. Department of Defense)
U.S. Special Operations personnel prepare to board a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter during a mission in Afghanistan. (photo: U.S. Department of Defense)


Having It Easy in the Beginning, Tough in the End: How My Dad Predicted the Decline of America

By William J. Astore, TomDispatch

31 March 20

 


I often imagine somehow summoning my mother and father (who died in 1977 and 1983) back to this planet of ours. I’m curious to know what they would make of the almost unimaginable world we now live in -- not that they didn’t live through their own threatening, topsy-turvy global moments. Both were only in their twenties when the Great Depression hit. Unfortunately, I know few details about their lives then. (When you’re young and they’re your parents, you’re just not interested, of course, because... well, they’re your parents.) I do know that times were tough for my dad then, in part because his own father’s world crashed and burned in those depression years.

But my parents also lived through World War II. Right after Pearl Harbor, at age 35, my father volunteered for the Army Air Corps. He would become operations officer for the First Air Commandos in Burma. My mother -- and this I’ve written about -- was a theatrical cartoonist, known in the newspaper gossip columns of those years as “New York’s girl caricaturist.” During the war, when her workday was done, she put in endless time at the Stage Door Canteen, a cafeteria, dance hall, and nightclub on Broadway, where servicemen could eat, listen to bands, and relax -- for free -- while being served or entertained by theatrical types. Here’s a description of my mother’s role: “During the war, she was chairman of the Artist’s Committee of the American Theatre Wing. She helped plan the murals, which decorate the Stage Door Canteen and the Merchant Seaman’s Canteen. Miss Selz [she kept her own name professionally] remembers setting up her easel and turning out caricatures of servicemen. Some nights she did well over a hundred of these skillful, quick line drawings and many servicemen still treasure their ‘portraits’ by Selz.”

All of this is a reminder that the years of economic collapse in the 1930s and the global war that followed were genuinely tough times, but in ways that seem almost unimaginable today largely because they were also mobilizing moments. In my own life, I, too, experienced a mobilizing moment (which I’ve written about): the 1960s and early 1970s movement against the Vietnam War, which took to the streets of this country.

Sadly, this moment of crisis is a demobilizing one, involving as it most necessarily does both “social distancing” (something, judging by his daily press conferences, our president seems never to have heard of) and “self-isolation.” However, with the possible exception of the growing climate movement, it was largely that even before the coronavirus made its appearance.

Unfortunately, as retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, historian, and TomDispatch regular William Astore makes so vividly clear today, recalling a prophesy of his own dad, if demobilization remains our position in the tough times to come, we're going to be in deep, deep trouble. The question for the post-coronavirus world really is only: When will the rest of us mobilize to take this disintegrating planet of ours back from you-know-who and his corporate and “populist” cronies?

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch



y dad was born in 1917. Somehow, he survived the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919, but an outbreak of whooping cough in 1923 claimed his baby sister, Clementina. One of my dad’s first memories was seeing his sister’s tiny white casket. Another sister was permanently marked by scarlet fever. In 1923, my dad was hit by a car and spent two weeks in a hospital with a fractured skull as well as a lacerated thumb. His immigrant parents had no medical insurance, but the driver of the car gave his father $50 toward the medical bills. The only lasting effect was the scar my father carried for the rest of his life on his right thumb.

The year 1929 brought the Great Depression and lean times. My father’s father had left the family, so my dad, then 12, had to pitch in. He got a newspaper route, which he kept for four years, quitting high school after tenth grade so he could earn money for the family. In 1935, like millions of other young men of that era, he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a creation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal that offered work on environmental projects of many kinds. He battled forest fires in Oregon for two years before returning to his family and factory work. In 1942, he was drafted into the Army, going back to a factory job when World War II ended. Times grew a little less lean in 1951 when he became a firefighter, after which he felt he could afford to buy a house and start a family.

I’m offering all this personal history as the context for a prediction of my dad’s that, for obvious reasons, came to my mind again recently. When I was a teenager, he liked to tell me: “I had it tough in the beginning and easy in the end. You, Willy, have had it easy in the beginning, but will likely have it tough in the end.” His prophecy stayed with me, perhaps because even then, somewhere deep down, I already suspected that my dad was right.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now grabbing the headlines, all of them, and a global recession, if not a depression, seems like a near-certainty. The stock market has been tanking and people’s lives are being disrupted in fundamental and scary ways. My dad knew the experience of losing a loved one to disease, of working hard to make ends meet during times of great scarcity, of sacrificing for the good of one’s family. Compared to him, it’s true that, so far, I’ve had an easier life as an officer in the Air Force and then a college teacher and historian. But at age 57, am I finally ready for the hard times to come? Are any of us?

And keep in mind that this is just the beginning. Climate change (recall Australia’s recent and massive wildfires) promises yet more upheavals, more chaos, more diseases. America’s wanton militarism and lying politicians promise more wars. What’s to be done to avert or at least attenuate the tough times to come, assuming my dad’s prediction is indeed now coming true? What can we do?

It’s Time to Reimagine America

Here’s the one thing about major disruptions to normalcy: they can create opportunities for dramatic change. (Disaster capitalists know this, too, unfortunately.) President Franklin Roosevelt recognized this in the 1930s and orchestrated his New Deal to revive the economy and put Americans like my dad back to work.

In 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney capitalized on the shock-and-awe disruption of the 9/11 attacks to inflict on the world their vision of a Pax Americana, effectively a militarized imperium justified (falsely) as enabling greater freedom for all. The inherent contradiction in such a dreamscape was so absurd as to make future calamity inevitable. Recall what an aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld scribbled down, only hours after the attack on the Pentagon and the collapse of the Twin Towers, as his boss’s instructions (especially when it came to looking for evidence of Iraqi involvement): “Go massive -- sweep it all up, things related and not.” And indeed they would do just that, with an emphasis on the “not,” including, of course, the calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003.

To progressive-minded people thinking about this moment of crisis, what kind of opportunities might open to us when (or rather if) Donald Trump is gone from the White House? Perhaps this coronaviral moment is the perfect time to consider what it would mean for us to go truly big, but without the usual hubris or those disastrous invasions of foreign countries. To respond to COVID-19, climate change, and the staggering wealth inequities in this country that, when combined, will cause unbelievable levels of needless suffering, what’s needed is a drastic reordering of our national priorities.

Remember, the Fed’s first move was to inject $1.5 trillion into the stock market. (That would have been enough to forgive all current student debt.) The Trump administration has also promised to help airlines, hotels, and above all oil companies and the fracking industry, a perfect storm when it comes to trying to sustain and enrich those upholding a kleptocratic and amoral status quo.

This should be a time for a genuinely new approach, one fit for a world of rising disruption and disaster, one that would define a new, more democratic, less bellicose America. To that end, here are seven suggestions, focusing -- since I’m a retired military officer -- mainly on the U.S. military, a subject that continues to preoccupy me, especially since, at present, that military and the rest of the national security state swallow up roughly 60% of federal discretionary spending:

1. If ever there was a time to reduce our massive and wasteful military spending, this is it. There was never, for example, any sense in investing up to $1.7 trillion over the next 30 years to “modernize” America’s nuclear arsenal. (Why are new weapons needed to exterminate humanity when the “old” ones still work just fine?) Hundreds of stealth fighters and bombers -- it’s estimated that Lockheed Martin’s disappointing F-35 jet fighter alone will cost $1.5 trillion over its life span -- do nothing to secure us from pandemics, the devastating effects of climate change, or other all-too-pressing threats. Such weaponry only emboldens a militaristic and chauvinistic foreign policy that will facilitate yet more wars and blowback problems of every sort. And speaking of wars, isn’t it finally time to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? More than $6 trillion has already been wasted on those wars and, in this time of global peril, even more is being wasted on this country’s forever conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa. (Roughly $4 billion a month continues to be spent on Afghanistan alone, despite all the talk about “peace” there.)

2. Along with ending profligate weapons programs and quagmire wars, isn’t it time for the U.S. to begin dramatically reducing its military “footprint” on this planet? Roughly 800 U.S. military bases circle the globe in a historically unprecedented fashion at a yearly cost somewhere north of $100 billion. Cutting such numbers in half over the next decade would be a more than achievable goal. Permanently cutting provocative “war games” in South Korea, Europe, and elsewhere would be no less sensible. Are North Korea and Russia truly deterred by such dramatic displays of destructive military might?

3. Come to think of it, why does the U.S. need the immediate military capacity to fight two major foreign wars simultaneously, as the Pentagon continues to insist we do and plan for, in the name of “defending” our country? Here’s a radical proposal: if you add 70,000 Special Operations forces to 186,000 Marine Corps personnel, the U.S. already possesses a potent quick-strike force of roughly 250,000 troops. Now, add in the Army's 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions and the 10th Mountain Division. What you have is more than enough military power to provide for America’s actual national security. All other Army divisions could be reduced to cadres, expandable only if our borders are directly threatened by war. Similarly, restructure the Air Force and Navy to de-emphasize the present “global strike” vision of those services, while getting rid of Donald Trump’s newest service, the Space Force, and the absurdist idea of taking war into low earth orbit. Doesn’t America already have enough war here on this small planet of ours?

4. Bring back the draft, just not for military purposes. Make it part of a national service program for improving America. It’s time for a new Civilian Conservation Corps focused on fostering a Green New Deal. It’s time for a new Works Progress Administration to rebuild America’s infrastructure and reinvigorate our culture, as that organization did in the Great Depression years. It’s time to engage young people in service to this country. Tackling COVID-19 or future pandemics would be far easier if there were quickly trained medical aides who could help free doctors and nurses to focus on the more difficult cases. Tackling climate change will likely require more young men and women fighting forest fires on the west coast, as my dad did while in the CCC -- and in a climate-changing world there will be no shortage of other necessary projects to save our planet. Isn’t it time America’s youth answered a call to service? Better yet, isn’t it time we offered them the opportunity to truly put America, rather than themselves, first?

5. And speaking of “America First,” that eternal Trumpian catch-phrase, isn’t it time for all Americans to recognize that global pandemics and climate change make a mockery of walls and go-it-alone nationalism, not to speak of politics that divide, distract, and keep so many down? President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said that only Americans can truly hurt America, but there’s a corollary to that: only Americans can truly save America -- by uniting, focusing on our common problems, and uplifting one another. To do so, it’s vitally necessary to put an end to fear-mongering (and warmongering). As President Roosevelt famously said in his first inaugural address in the depths of the Great Depression, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Fear inhibits our ability to think clearly, to cooperate fully, to change things radically as a community.

6. To cite Yoda, the Jedi master, we must unlearn what we have learned. For example, America’s real heroes shouldn’t be “warriors” who kill or sports stars who throw footballs and dunk basketballs. We’re witnessing our true heroes in action right now: our doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, together with our first responders, and those workers who stay in grocery stores, pharmacies, and the like and continue to serve us all despite the danger of contracting the coronavirus from customers. They are all selflessly resisting a threat too many of us either didn’t foresee or refused to treat seriously, most notably, of course, President Donald Trump: a pandemic that transcends borders and boundaries. But can Americans transcend the increasingly harsh and divisive borders and boundaries of our own minds? Can we come to work selflessly to save and improve the lives of others? Can we become, in a sense, lovers of humanity?

7. Finally, we must extend our love to encompass nature, our planet. For if we keep treating our lands, our waters, and our skies like a set of trash cans and garbage bins, our children and their children will inherit far harder times than the present moment, hard as it may be.

What these seven suggestions really amount to is rejecting a militarized mindset of aggression and a corporate mindset of exploitation for one that sees humanity and this planet more holistically. Isn’t it time to regain that vision of the earth we shared collectively during the Apollo moon missions: a fragile blue sanctuary floating in the velvety darkness of space, an irreplaceable home to be cared for and respected since there’s no other place for us to go? Otherwise, I fear that my father’s prediction will come true not just for me, but for generations to come and in ways that even he couldn’t have imagined.



A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, William Astore is a TomDispatch regular. His personal blog is Bracing Views.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
"I'm Detained at Rikers Island and I'm Sick With Coronavirus" Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53860"><span class="small">Jojo Goldman, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 31 March 2020 08:21

Goldman writes: "Me and an officer I was working with was talking about the coronavirus - how it was like overrated and stuff because it's not deadly. She joked like, 'Yeah, that's true, because I've been around people that's positive, and I feel fine.'"

Incarcerated people and officers at Rikers Island in New York, Sept. 8, 2017. (photo: Michael Kirby Smith/NYT/Redux)
Incarcerated people and officers at Rikers Island in New York, Sept. 8, 2017. (photo: Michael Kirby Smith/NYT/Redux)


"I'm Detained at Rikers Island and I'm Sick With Coronavirus"

By Jojo Goldman, Jacobin

31 March 20


With around ten thousand people packed into its cells, New York’s Rikers Island prison is today a hotbed of contagion. There have been 103 inmates and eighty staff who have officially tested positive for COVID-19 in New York’s jails already — and, given the delays in test results, the real count is likely far higher. Given the risk to human life, recent days have seen mounting calls for prisoners to be released.

One of the people currently detained at Rikers Island is Jojo Goldman. He was convicted of manslaughter in 2016 but won an appeal to have the conviction overturned in April 2019. He is being held at Rikers until a new trial can be held, in what Goldman calls “limbo.” All New York State court proceedings are temporarily suspended due to the outbreak.

The following are Jojo’s words, as dictated via phone call on the evening of Friday, March 27.

y first symptoms was like a sore throat, sneezing, runny nose. I had fatigue and a bad headache, too.

Last week, before I felt sick, I was put on sanitation duty. They had us doing last-ditch efforts going around the whole jail, like spraying a chemical that kills coronavirus and also spraying bleach. We were spraying all the bars, the correction officers’ keys, the door handles. But it was a last-ditch effort.

Me and an officer I was working with was talking about the coronavirus — how it was like overrated and stuff because it’s not deadly. She joked like, “Yeah, that’s true, because I’ve been around people that’s positive, and I feel fine.”

On March 19, I started feeling sick, and I went to the Rikers clinic. I told the doctor, “I don’t feel regular. I would like to get tested for the coronavirus.”

They told me they don’t do testing. They gave me some medicine for nasal congestion and a sore throat, which didn’t help me at all. They sent me back to my housing unit. And because I think I was one of the first ones to get sick, and I think I got like two or three more people sick in the house. They was coughing, and one person started having muscle aches like me.

Two days later, on Saturday, March 21, I went down to the clinic again, and my temperature was 100.9. That’s when they took me more serious. The clinic gave me two ibuprofen, and my temperature went down to 100.

What happened next was some improvised, unconstitutional, and inhumane things. They quarantined me and two other men that night, March 21. They sent us down to quad 14 lower — a housing unit that was just recently closed. They opened it up just for us three.

When we got there, it was inadequate. It didn’t have none of our minimum standards: no hygiene products, no toothbrush, toothpaste, soap. We couldn’t get a shower. We couldn’t get our property. They didn’t allow us no phone call.

And we was quarantined, so obviously we don’t feel good. But they didn’t give us no medical attention, we didn’t see no nurses or doctors while we were down there. They wasn’t taking us seriously.

They finally moved me to quarantine by myself in another facility. But I feel like I’m not getting the proper medical treatment here either. They couldn’t check my vitals for the first few days: they didn’t even have a thermometer. Then they started checking my vitals two, three times a day — just my blood pressure and my heart rate. They started giving me Theraflu and ibuprofen, but that’s not working.

They finally tested me for the coronavirus on Monday night. They said the results take about seventy-two hours — so that was supposed to be Thursday. But it’s Friday night now, and I still didn’t hear nothing. And I won’t hear over the weekend because they says it only on business days.

“If I do have the coronavirus,” I asked the nurse, “will I be transferred to a hospital?” And he said no — I’m more than likely going to stay here.

The correction officers have been very kind and helpful, but some of them are not taking it serious. They’re not wearing their masks and gloves. They think it’s a joke, and I be telling them, “This is serious, man. I thought it was a game, too. I’m twenty-eight. I’m healthy, I exercise, and I feel bad. I never felt this bad in my life.”

It’s scary. This morning, I passed out for the first time in my life. I woke up around four this morning to use the bathroom. My feet and my ankles were tingling and numb. I got up, walked to the door, and I called the correction officer. As I started talking to him, I began feeling really light-headed. I regained my composure for a minute. But then I dropped and hit my back hard on the door. That was a really scary feeling right there.

Today, I told the doctors about me passing out, but they didn’t do nothing. It feels like nobody is taking it seriously. And I still have my little cough, I still have my fatigue. I’m really hot right now. I can feel I got a fever.

I want people to know that it’s impossible for us to take care of ourselves in prison. It’s too congested. And the Department of Corrections is not prepared to handle this crisis. And this is an inhumane crisis.

And I want people to know that they’re doing illegal things, like how they quarantined us in a housing unit with no hygiene products or soap or any of our property. That they didn’t let us make phone calls during that time.

I want people to know what’s happening in here: it’s not okay, and it’s not normal.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Bashed Immigrants, but Nearly 1/3 of US Doctors Are Foreign-Born, on Pandemic Front Lines Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51519"><span class="small">Juan Cole, Informed Comment</span></a>   
Monday, 30 March 2020 13:26

Cole writes: "It turns out we need those foreigners after all, despite what Trump thinks."

Medical professionals. (photo: CC0 Public Domain)
Medical professionals. (photo: CC0 Public Domain)


Trump Bashed Immigrants, but Nearly 1/3 of US Doctors Are Foreign-Born, on Pandemic Front Lines

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

30 March 20

 

t turns out we need those foreigners after all, despite what Trump thinks. 

On Sunday British investigative journalist Iain Overton tweeted,

The significance is that all those names are Muslim. After the boorish PM Boris Johnson spoke of Muslim women as “letterboxes” and broke Britain with Brexit to keep out immigrants, it is those immigrants who first gave their lives for the UK, on the front lines of fighting for the country’s health in the face of the coronavirus onslaught.

Overton’s point should chasten Trump’s America as well.

Trump has spent three and a half years dumping on immigrants to the United States, imagining them as rapists, gang members, and welfare moochers. He has even attempted to punish legal immigrants who ever fell on hard times and had to take public assistance by making it impossible for them to get citizenship.

Trump’s own complete uselessness has been revealed, as he frittered away January, February and early March being a coronavirus denialist. It is a hoax, he said. It is a nothing. We had 15 cases. It will just go away. It is like the ordinary flu. It shouldn’t interfered with the stock market or Trump’s reelection. All that time, he wasn’t warning the mayor of New Orleans to cancel the Mardi Gras festivities, wasn’t warning the mayor of New York of the coming disaster. He wasn’t ordering companies to make the masks and gloves and filters and ventilators that would be needed. Quite the contrary, he and his surrogates were telling people there was no problem here. He is worse than useless.

Now that the problem has hit, guess what? It is the physicians and nurses and other medical professionals who are on the front lines, struggling with a lack protective gear and key equipment because of Donald Johnny-come-lately Trump.

And guess what? Nearly nearly one third of American physicians are foreign-born. And about a quarter of nursing aides are first-generation immigrants. They are on the ramparts, our first line of defense, risking their lives every day during the pandemic.

Quite apart from immigration, the medical profession is not just Trump’s kind of white people. About 17 percent of US physicians are Asian-Americans. These are the same Asian-Americans against whom Trump fomented beatings and harassment by calling Covid-19 “Chinese.”

About 6 percent of our physicians are Hispanic. Fully one percent of them are Muslim, which is proportional to the Muslim-American population. Trump has been trying to keep Muslims from immigrating to the US, but we’d be lucky to have more devoted and courageous Muslim physicians right about now, from banned countries like Iran. 

In fact, some of us would gladly trade Trump in for them. Maybe Tehran needs a tacky ostentatious hotel. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Death by Deportation, With Help From the Human Rights Establishment Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53857"><span class="small">Joseph Nevins, NACLA</span></a>   
Monday, 30 March 2020 13:26

Excerpt: "By defining violence narrowly, the asylum system-and human rights organizations that uphold it-legitimates deporting people back to face everyday injustices."

ICE Special Agents (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) arresting suspects during a raid. (photo: ICE/Wikimedia)
ICE Special Agents (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) arresting suspects during a raid. (photo: ICE/Wikimedia)


Death by Deportation, With Help From the Human Rights Establishment

By Joseph Nevins, NACLA

30 March 20


By defining violence narrowly, the asylum system—and human rights organizations that uphold it—legitimates deporting people back to face everyday injustices. The pandemic only further illuminates this inhumanity.

eeks after the first reported case of coronavirus in the United States, on March 16, U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts) called upon the Department of Homeland Security to halt “needless deportations” and to release from detention all non-citizens “who pose no public safety threat” to prevent the spread of coronavirus. On March 22, John Sandweg, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Obama, echoed Markey’s plea, but only regarding immigrant detention. Despite the limitations of its qualifying language, Markey’s call to lessen deportation and detention is welcome. However, the reasons for such advocacy have to go way beyond the dangers embodied by COVID-19, a threat that is ultimately temporary.

This is because the myriad harms—not least premature death—caused by national apparatuses of non-citizen control and their “violent borders” are not time-delimited, nor are they the exception. They are the inevitable outcome of how the system works. Addressing this violence thus requires systemic change—in other words, an abolitionist politics aimed at eradicating deportation and its carceral waiting room, immigrant detention.

But given how deeply the logic of national boundary control and the larger regime of exclusion is embedded in the collective psyche, it is difficult to see the system for what it is. As such, many critics champion measures that address symptoms, not the disease. In the process, they help strengthen the apparatus of violence rather than dismantle it.

Among the apparatus-legitimating critics are major human rights groups.

Take, for example a recent report by Human Rights Watch. Released on February 5, “Deported to Danger: United States Deportation Policies Expose Salvadorans to Death and Abuse” explores the killings of 138 individuals in El Salvador after their deportation from the United States. (The organization considers the figure of 138 a “significant undercount” due to a lack of reporting by media outlets and insufficient government investigation and recording of such cases in El Salvador.)  Focusing on deportations between 2013 and 2019, the valuable report also reveals that more than 70 other deportees experienced sexual violence, torture, and other harms—most often at the hands of gang members—or disappeared after their banishment to El Salvador. These cases, the authors contend, demonstrate “the importance of US authorities giving [Salvadoran nationals] a meaningful opportunity to explain why they need protection before they are deported.”

For Human Rights Watch, primary responsibility for such persecution lies with individuals and entities in El Salvador. But the organization also blames U.S. authorities for putting “Salvadorans in harm’s way in circumstances where [they know] or should know that harm is likely.” It thus makes a compelling case that the U.S. government is in violation of international law, which prohibits returning or deporting people to countries where they risk persecution, torture, or related forms of violence. On this basis, the report makes numerous recommendations aimed at enhancing the U.S. asylum process by, as stated in a press release, “providing broad protection to anyone…who would face a real risk of serious harm upon return” to the Central American country.

There’s no doubt that, were U.S. authorities to implement the recommendations, many lives would be saved. However, the asylum system—one of many components of the border policing apparatus—would still fall far short in providing adequate refuge for those in need. This is true for a number of reasons.

First, an assessment of what constitutes “a real risk of serious harm” is inherently subjective. It is based on the notion that the person requesting asylum can persuasively demonstrate a “credible fear” of persecution, which presupposes that those judging the credibility can know with a high level of confidence what will happen to a deportee. Given such high bars, some individuals are surely going to fall through the proverbial cracks.

Second, the whole process assumes the best of intentions on the part of U.S. authorities charged with determining the veracity of the would-be asylee’s story. This is a highly dubious supposition in the case of individuals whose job is predicated on the policing of territorial boundaries, and thus on saying “no” to at least some of those who seek to enter or remain.

Third, it ignores that the inherently selective asylum process unfolds in the real world, one in which political considerations come into play. As such, asylum seekers are often deemed as more or less deserving based on their countries of origin—and the administration in power in Washington.

Fourth—and most importantly—the asylum regime excludes, by design, most of the world’s people who need to be able to migrate to access the resources required for a dignified life. A “risk of serious harm,” given its basis in international refugee law, is only concerned with brutality of the direct, physical variety. The “violence of everyday life” that many experience in countries like El Salvador—grinding poverty, for example, or diminishing supplies of drinking water caused by prolonged drought, poor infrastructure, growing contamination, and gross inequality coupled with rapacious forms of “development”—and that also leads to premature death are not the harms that international refugee law is concerned with. Nor apparently is Human Rights Watch. In other words, the asylum system, even were it to work at it should ideally, legitimates deportation as long as the would-be source of harm to the deportee is not an identifiable human being—such as, say, a gang member, an intimate partner, or a corrupt police official. The very real threat of violence by poverty, and resulting diminished life chances, is not grounds for stopping deportation. 

Human Rights Watch never asserts this in its 117-page report. It’s what the prestigious human rights organization doesn’t say that matters first and foremost. What it doesn’t say is anything that challenges the regime of exclusion, and its underlying logic.

Indeed, by merely calling upon the U.S. government to enact its apparatus of non-citizen control in a better fashion, Human Rights Watch ends up affirming the boundaries that help produce the human suffering it decries while confining those in need—but for whom asylum is not even a theoretical possibility—to an ugly status quo. By upholding both national and international law, and the related U.S. government obligations, the report reproduces a legal regime that at best provides protection for a small slice of those whose well-being is threatened. As the authors note, “There is no right to be granted asylum under international law, but there is a right to seek asylum.”

Demanding that the United States respect this right—and, effectively, calling upon Washington to put an end to deportations of Salvadorans at likely risk of physical violence—is a good thing. But it is far from adequate given the level of certainty of risk that it requires, the narrow ways it conceives of violence, and the fact that it puts asylum seekers at the mercy of countries with a self-interest in denying refuge.

By framing the problem as it does, Human Rights Watch replicates the division of global space that, in a world of great socioeconomic injustice, allocates life and death circumstances in a grossly unequal manner, key to which is the accident of country of birth. The organization thus enshrines unfairness. It also effectively exculpates the United States for its outsized role, via its imperialist depredations, in making life unviable for so many in countries like El Salvador. Moreover, it ignores how the huge CO2 emissions of the United States contribute to climate change, a major factor helping to drive outmigration from Central America.

Human Rights Watch is not alone in framing the issue so narrowly. Such conservatism is the norm among leading human rights organizations. It speaks to political scientist Samuel Moyn’s point that “human rights have become prisoners of the contemporary age of inequality.”

Breaking out of this prison of inequality necessitates many things. Key is a willingness to question what writer Todd Miller has called the “empire of borders.” So, too, is a demand for freedom of mobility and residence across international boundaries.

Of course, these would be small steps in a much larger struggle. However, by calling deportation and the principle of nation-state exclusion into question, organizations such as Human Rights Watch would help to delegitimize the practices and structures that contribute to violence of the sort exposed by its report. The organization would also enhance, rather than undermine, the struggle to transform the boundaries that underlie the unjust ties and divides between rich and poor, and places of privilege and disadvantage.

The need for such transformation is only made more apparent in a time of a global pandemic. Should not its achievement be a primary goal of any organization that purports to be dedicated to human rights for all?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Trump's Mass Negligent Homicide Doesn't Let Democratic Leaders Off the Hook Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 30 March 2020 12:02

Solomon writes: "The political strategy of reliance on emphasizing how bad Donald Trump is - without offering dynamic progressive leadership - was a catastrophic failure four years ago. Providing feeble alternatives, while reminiscing about real or imagined glory days of the Obama administration, is apt to prove woefully inadequate in 2020."

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker speaks at his daily coronavirus briefing from the Thompson Center in Chicago, on March 28, 2020. At right is Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Illinois Dept. of Public Health director. (photo: Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker speaks at his daily coronavirus briefing from the Thompson Center in Chicago, on March 28, 2020. At right is Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Illinois Dept. of Public Health director. (photo: Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)


Trump's Mass Negligent Homicide Doesn't Let Democratic Leaders Off the Hook

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

30 March 20

 

n the last few days, New York and Pennsylvania postponed voting in presidential primaries from April until June. A dozen other states have also rescheduled. Those wise decisions are in sharp contrast to a failure of leadership from Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee.

Just two weeks ago, the party establishment was vehemently pushing back against efforts to delay several mid-March primaries in response to the coronavirus emergency. DNC Chair Tom Perez issued a statement that The Hill newspaper summed up with the headline “DNC Calls on States Not to Postpone Primaries.” Perez put out the statement on the day that three states were holding primary elections.

Ohio was also scheduled to have a presidential primary that day, but at the eleventh hour it was postponed thanks to the state’s Republican governor. Incredibly, Perez quickly criticized the prudent delay of Ohio’s election, saying it “only bred more chaos and confusion.”

In Illinois, with the DNC’s encouragement, Governor J.B. Pritzker — a billionaire whose billionaire sister Penny Pritzker was Barack Obama’s 2008 national campaign finance chair and later became his Secretary of Commerce — refused to reschedule the March 17 primary. Just three days later, he announced a “stay-at-home” order for the whole state.

Think about it: On Tuesday, the governor enables an Illinois election that draws about a million voters and thousands of election workers to voting sites that day. On Friday, the same governor orders everyone in the state to stay home.

Perez — who became DNC chair three years ago as the candidate of the party’s Clintonite so-called “moderate” (corporate) wing — is clearly aligned with Biden, as Perez’s appointments to key committees for the party’s 2020 national convention have underscored. Postponing primary races in states where Biden was way ahead in opinion polls, as in Illinois, would risk slowing his momentum against Bernie Sanders.

Biden’s interest in going ahead with the March 17 primaries — public health be damned — was expressed by his campaign’s spokeswoman Symone Sanders during a March 15 interview on CNN. “I encourage people to get out there and vote on Tuesday,” she said. The spin included upbeat, patriotism-tinged rationales like: “In times of war, in times of strife, our country has always upheld our need to uphold our democracy. We have voted in war time; votes were held many times in this country after times of strife.”

In their zeal to boost the number of Biden delegates as fast as possible, the Biden campaign and the DNC chair ignored or distorted the guidelines that were in effect at the time from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Deeply disappointed that the DNC is willfully choosing not to listen to scientists during one of the most critical moments in recent history,” biologist Dr. Lucky Tran tweeted on March 17, when voters in three states were casting Democratic primary ballots.

By then, as CBS News noted, even the White House had “issued new guidelines designed to slow the rapid spread of coronavirus, asking nearly every American to stay home from work or school for the next 15 days.”

(An excellent account of this egregious saga is Katie Halper’s recent article for the national media watch group FAIR: “Media Silent as Poll Workers Contract Covid-19 at Primaries That DNC, Biden Campaign Claimed Were Safe.”)

Looking ahead, the postponements of primaries in some states may give enough time to implement widespread voting by mail. As Charles Chamberlain, the chair of Democracy for America, wrote over the weekend, “The public health risks from gathering in large numbers are real and volunteer poll workers, who are typically in the highest risk age group for getting the virus, should not be expected to spend hours on end helping neighbors vote. We must move immediately to establish automatic vote-by-mail procedures nationwide so elections can go forward safely with minimal risk to the general public.”

Trump bears the overwhelming responsibility for the deadly governmental negligence as the Covid-19 pandemic has spread in the United States. But that reality in no way made it okay for the Biden campaign and the DNC to forcefully advocate for retaining a primary schedule that was certain to expose people to the virus.

Even with the new heights of the coronavirus emergency in late March, mass emails from the Biden campaign and the DNC have been stale pitches for donations, often leaving the coronavirus unmentioned. At the same time, Biden’s TV interviews have ranged from uninspiringly passable to stumblingly embarrassing.

Meanwhile, along with raising millions of dollars for care-giving charities, the Sanders campaign has been energetic and creative online — with efforts such as championing health protection for Amazon workers, calling for comprehensive healthcare for everyone in the country during the pandemic, fighting huge corporate rip-offs of the public, and providing strong progressive populist messages during TV interviews.

The anemic response to the Covid-19 emergency from Biden and his allies is another ominous sign that he is ill-equipped to rid the country of the vile Trump presidency. Another straw in the wind is a new Washington Post / ABC News national poll that shows an enormous voter-motivation gap — with Trump supporters far more “enthusiastic” about their candidate than Biden supporters are.

The political strategy of reliance on emphasizing how bad Donald Trump is — without offering dynamic progressive leadership — was a catastrophic failure four years ago. Providing feeble alternatives, while reminiscing about real or imagined glory days of the Obama administration, is apt to prove woefully inadequate in 2020.



Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.

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 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 Next > End >>

Page 539 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