RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Dear Vice President Pence: Please Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Trump and Save Us From the Coronavirus Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44184"><span class="small">Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept</span></a>   
Monday, 23 March 2020 12:45

Hasan writes: "It's time. We can't wait any longer. You need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Getty Images)
Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Getty Images)


Dear Vice President Pence: Please Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Trump and Save Us From the Coronavirus

By Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept

23 March 20

 

ear Mr. Vice President,

It’s time. We can’t wait any longer. You need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

You know what it says: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

The truth of the matter is that President Donald Trump does not have the mental capability to “discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Amid an unprecedented political, economic, and public health crisis, the commander-in-chief is unwell — and unfit.

You know this. On Friday, you were standing next to the president in the White House briefing room when NBC correspondent Peter Alexander asked him what he had to say to Americans who “are scared right now” because of the coronavirus pandemic. Trump responded with inexplicable rage, denouncing Alexander as a “terrible reporter” for asking a “nasty” question, and then mocking the owners of NBC — telecom giant Comcast — as “Con-cast.”

It was an insane response to the simplest of simple questions, but don’t take my word for it. “These are psychiatric symptoms, not simply boorish behaviors,” tweeted John Talmadge, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. “Trump is mentally ill, cognitively compromised, brain impaired. He can’t even recognize a softball tossed his way.”

But you can, Mr. Vice President. You later went up to the podium and answered Alexander’s question: “I would say, ‘Do not be afraid to be vigilant.’” You seem to be able to do the job of president that Trump is manifestly unable to do. You have won praise for your handling of the crisis from senior Democrats like Washington Gov. Jay Inslee — in stark contrast to your boss, who lashed out at Inslee and called him a “snake.” As the New York Times has also reported, some of your former critics at the state level “have changed their mind about Mr. Pence, who has given near-daily briefings and, they said, has become a reassuring presence even as Mr. Trump has intermittently tried to retake the stage.”

Don’t get me wrong: I’m no fan of you or your far-right politics. I am well aware of your long history of challenging the science on everything from climate change to evolution to cancer. But, this time round, you recognize the scale of the problem, the scope of the crisis, the severity of the threat posed by Covid-19.

The president, bizarrely, inexcusably, outrageously, does not. He is off in his own demented, fact-free, navel-gazing, alternative universe. Again, don’t take my word for it. Listen to Bandy X. Lee, clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine. Trump “dangerously lacks mental capacity,” she told me, “which he exhibits through his inability to take in information and advice, to process critical information, or to consider consequences before making impulsive, unstable, and irrational decisions that are not based in reality but fight reality.” At press conferences, she added, he pushes “delusional-level distortion and misinformation” because he is “disconnected from reality.” His leadership, she concluded, is “more harmful than if we had no president.”

This is a president who rambles, rants, and raves; who spent weeks downplaying the spread of the novel coronavirus and ignoring warnings from his own intelligence agencies; who claimed to be unaware that Americans who need tests are unable to get them; who uses press briefings not to inform the public but to regularly attack the press; who went golfing while health professionals begged for resources and equipment; who has repeatedly contradicted his own top scientists by pushing unproven drugs as a treatment for Covid-19; who tried to buy a vaccine from Germany but only for “exclusive” use in the United States; who took a break from crisis management to go on Twitter and complain about Hillary Clinton’s emails and Benghazi.

How is this behavior not utterly unhinged? How does it not justify you invoking the 25th Amendment on behalf of the American people, who are being infected by Covid-19 in rapidly increasing numbers?

Look, I get it. You’re a sycophant. You’re a coward. You’re afraid of standing up to a vicious boss and his cultish supporters. But ask yourself this: Are you more afraid of Trump and his MAGA base, or for your own life and the lives of those you love and cherish? This past weekend, you and your wife had to get tested for Covid-19. It is only a matter of time until someone you care about tests positive or — God forbid — dies from the disease. In years to come, do you really want to look back on this historic moment and regret not having stepped in, with the clear authority granted to you under the Constitution, to do a better, saner, more stable job of fighting the pandemic than the current occupant of the Oval Office?

Perhaps you think the supermajority required in both chambers of Congress for you to stay in office if the president resists his removal and formally declares in writing “that no inability exists,” makes it impossible for you to successfully invoke the 25th Amendment.

But events are moving fast. Nothing is predictable anymore. And, as Adam Gustafson pointed out in the Yale Law & Policy Review in 2008, under the Section 4 process, “the Acting President can enjoy at least four days of presidential power — four days to advance his own policy goals, to prove himself a capable executive, and to acclimate Congress and the public to his presence in the Oval Office. By the time Congress is allowed to vote, the deck may already be stacked against the President.”

It is also worth noting that in 2016, when Trump picked you as his running mate, the New York Times reported that it was because of your “unimpeachable conservative credentials, warm relationships in Washington and a vast reservoir of good will with the Christian right.” If anyone can persuade Republicans in Congress that Trump has to go, that he is mentally unable to perform his presidential duties during this historic crisis, it’s you.

Remember: The framers of the 25th Amendment deliberately decided against providing a definition of the “unable to discharge” phrase. However, the late Birch Bayh, the senator from your state of Indiana who sponsored the 25th Amendment, made it clear that it related to mental, as well as physical, inability. “It is conceivable,” Bayh said, “that a President might be able to walk, for example, and thus, by the definition of some people, might be physically able, but at the same time he might not possess the mental capacity to make a decision and perform the powers and duties of his office.”

Do you really believe that Trump has the “mental capacity” to protect millions of Americans from this pandemic? A president who tried to prevent dozens of infected Americans on a cruise ship from returning to the United States because, he admitted, “I like the numbers being where they are”?

Remember also: This is a decision for you to make, based on your own insights and experiences, with or without the assistance of medical professionals. “What the framers of the 25th Amendment had in mind was a judgment call by the vice president and by the cabinet,” John D. Feerick, Fordham School of Law’s former dean, told me. Feerick, who assisted in the drafting of the amendment in 1965, pointed out that the framers picked the vice president and “principal officers of the executive departments” for this task because, as a result of their proximity to the president, they would have the greatest insight into the president’s mental health and stability. As high-level political appointees of the president, they would also have the greatest credibility in the eyes of Congress and the public, and could not be automatically dismissed as political opponents or partisans.

You must act now. Extreme times call for extreme measures. Yes, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never before been invoked by a vice president. But, then again, as you yourself probably realized long ago, no vice president has ever before had to deal with a president like Trump.

Last October, after your boss glibly suggested he might “destroy and obliterate” the Turkish economy, Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard University, suggested that the president should be detained and examined. “Am I the only psychologist who finds this claim and this threat truly alarming? Wouldn’t these normally trigger a mental health hold? Right and Left must set aside politics and agree that there is a serious problem here,” Gilbert tweeted.

A “serious problem” is an understatement. Millions of American lives are at stake. Yet the American president is out of control, out of touch with reality. You know it. I know it. Anyone with eyes and ears knows it.

Sincerely,

Mehdi Hasan

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What Americans Don't Know About Military Families Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52316"><span class="small">Andrea Mazzarino, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Monday, 23 March 2020 12:45

Mazzarino writes: "As each of my husband's Navy submarine deployments came to an end, local spouses would e-mail me about the ship's uncertain date of return."

A military family celebrates at a parade. (photo: U.S. Army Flickr)
A military family celebrates at a parade. (photo: U.S. Army Flickr)


What Americans Don't Know About Military Families

By Andrea Mazzarino, TomDispatch

23 March 20

 


Though my father served in World War II (an experience he would seldom talk about), I was never in a war myself, nor has the rest of my family been. Nothing strange there. It’s typical, in fact, of American life since the draft was abolished in 1973 and the all-volunteer military established. Though I had been deeply involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s and early 1970s, it’s still hard for me to explain the urge that led me to launch TomDispatch more than 17 years ago, based on a feeling that the Bush administration’s invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks was the start of truly bad times for us and for the planet. Still, here’s the reality so many years later: this website’s focus on what became Washington’s forever wars of this century and our regular publication of work by retired (or even active-duty) military figures critiquing our wars has proven an anomaly in these years. Of course, I always thought it was obvious that those who had come through the very system fighting those conflicts and emerged in a critical frame of mind would naturally have something crucial to say to the rest of us. 

As the polls show, however, the U.S. military remains the most admired institution in this country and yet, generally speaking, Americans have paid remarkably little attention to the disastrous wars it’s been fighting since 2001. The two, in fact, seem strangely disconnected -- the endless thank-yous and tributes to the troops and the remarkable lack of interest in what that all-volunteer military is actually doing in the world. Strange, to say the least, don’t you think? Today, military spouse, co-founder of the invaluable Costs of War Project, co-editor of War and Health: The Medical Consequences of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and TomDispatch regular Andrea Mazzarino offers a look at what it feels like to be, as she is, part of a military family in such a strange, embattled world.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch



s each of my husband’s Navy submarine deployments came to an end, local spouses would e-mail me about the ship’s uncertain date of return. They were attempting to sell tickets to a raffle in which the winner would be the first to kiss her returning sailor. When the time came, journalists would hover to capture the image as hundreds of families, many with young children like mine, waited for hours at an empty lot on base, sometimes exposed to rain, wind, or sun reflecting off the pavement.

As the crew disembarked, kids tried to catch sight of parents they hadn’t seen or spoken to for months, calling out to them from behind barbed wire fences. Amid the hubbub, a singular couple -- curiously, almost always a young, white, attractive heterosexual pair -- would enjoy the carefully manufactured privilege of having that first kiss.

Following one six-month deployment, I remember being told about the chatter aboard the sub when, through its periscope as the ship approached base, the long “ears” of the male partner of a male submariner were spotted. Being part of a community of “furries,” he was dressed in a giant rabbit costume. Other spouses and sailors wondered what it would have been like if that couple had gotten the coveted raffle ticket.

What message would the American public then get about military families? Would they even be allowed to appear? “It’d actually be kind of perfect,” a friend of mine and military spouse (about to enter a graduate program and live separately from her Navy husband for years) told me, wryly.

We agreed that such a moment would have offered a needed balance to the Stepford-wife-style images of military families to which Americans have grown accustomed.

Beyond the Cameras

I’m a Navy spouse. My husband has served two tours on a nuclear submarine and spent two shore duties at the Pentagon while we’ve been together. We’ve moved three times with our young children and that’s a modest number compared to so many hundreds of other military families I’ve met in our community and through my work as a therapist-in-training.

While I haven’t experienced the life-and-death costs of war like the families of so many U.S. troops who have served in this country’s twenty-first-century war zones, I’ve co-edited a book, War and Health: The Medical Consequences of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which documents the health costs of our endless post-9/11 conflicts. In 2011, I also co-founded Brown University’s Costs of War Project, which continues to document the human and financial tolls caused by those wars.

So I’m no stranger to the experience of war in its grim diversity. Which is why I cringed when, during President Trump’s recent State of the Union Address, he used a family reunion -- an Army sergeant first class brought back from seven months in Afghanistan, his fourth tour of duty in America’s forever wars -- to show his empathy for the strains such conflicts place on the U.S. military. In the process, he claimed a rare moment of bipartisan accord. An attractive young husband and wife embraced in the gallery of the House of Representatives while their two well-behaved children beamed. Everyone, Republicans and Democrats, clapped, and close-ups of figures like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence displayed solemn faces, respectful of this intimately staged public moment.

Stress Fractures

As I watched that scene, I wondered: What about the family members of the other 1.4 million active-duty service members today? What are they experiencing as they catch this scene and think about their families? What have their reunions felt like?

The family is probably the most significant form of support that American troops have today, so it’s obviously convenient to believe that such families are capable, stable, and instagrammable. Their capacity to withstand the repeated long deployments of the post-9/11 years, whether in war zones or not, says a great deal about this country, its unity, and its security.

I have some experience with this. I’ve spoken with hundreds of military families over the past nine years of my own marriage. The vast majority of them do not look like, act like, or fulfill the fantasies engendered by that couple Trump highlighted in his State of the Union moment; nor, in fact, do they resemble those who regularly seem to win that chance to reunite first with their loved ones during the end-of-deployment ceremonies I’ve witnessed.

Military families and marriages are anything but perfect or stereotypical. For starters, a surprising number of military couples are openly gay. Some are also headed by women -- and their partners are often much less able or willing than the wives of male troops to follow their spouses from post to post.

Many military families I’ve met have at least one member with developmental or physical disabilities or a chronic mental illness like bipolar disorder or severe depression. And the vast majority of couples I’ve run into have significant marital conflicts related to repeated deployments in this country’s war zones and other parts of the world. In the military universe I live in, for instance, no one bats an eye when an officer appears alone at his farewell party at the end of a tour of duty without the spouse who originally accompanied him to that post. In my experience, this is the rule, not the exception for such events.

Even in the best of circumstances, when families stay intact, spouses often engage in risky practices like heavy drinking, drug use, spending way beyond their means, or gambling, among other self-destructive activities. Add in stressors like caring for heartsick, mentally ill, or disabled children alone, or being bullied by commanding officers or the spouses of commanders who pressure spouses to work at volunteer events to prove their love for family members overseas.

Remember as well that, during deployments, spouses can’t communicate honestly with each other, given censorship by military commanders who scan communications for “sensitive” information that might distress those meant to fight -- like news that a family member is ill.

As anthropologists Jean Scandlyn and Sarah Hautzinger point out, the more months soldiers are deployed, the higher the risk of divorce, with 97% of such divorces taking place soon after a deployment ends. A recent National Institutes of Health study suggests that children of deployed parents display more aggressive behavior and greater symptoms of depression and anxiety than do civilian children (though the difference is modest).

As it happens, we know remarkably little about health indicators among military spouses. A recent review of health surveys from 2010 and 2012, however, suggests that one in five spouses of active-duty Army members were then overweight, a third were obese, and about 8% reported themselves as heavy drinkers. Many in this last group claimed to be stressed out by information (or the lack of it) regarding spousal deployments or other aspects of their spouses’ jobs.

In short, despite the image of that couple the president highlighted in that State of the Union moment, all evidence indicates that military service tends to erode the fabric of family life and that, in reality, the state of America’s most fundamental union is anything but strong.

Joining Forces

And yet, who do we military families have to rely on but one another, however imperfect we may be?

When the toddler of a spouse in my husband’s command was gravely ill, we other spouses helped her locate a civilian doctor agreeable to treating the child at a reduced cost outside the military hospital where doctors chalked up the toddler’s dwindling weight to poor parenting. When, during a different deployment, a partner grew depressed, another spouse gave her mental health counseling free of charge every day.

Other spouses and I have shared countless opportunities to workshop our resumes, introduce one another to prospective employers, share information about reliable childcare, or look after one another’s children when someone grew ill and we were far from family members who could help. In 2016, after a difficult move, I compiled some of our concerns into a letter to Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, founders of Joining Forces, documenting the lack of access to healthcare and childcare for military spouses, as well as the military bureaucracy’s grotesque lack of accountability for such things. With another spouse, I requested a meeting, but never received a response.

In recent years, however clumsily, the government has come to recognize how crucial loved ones are to caring for veterans, if not the troops themselves. In her essay “Afterwar Work for Life” in War and Health, anthropologist Zoe Wool describes the Veterans Affairs caregiver program that provides wives and other immediate family members of war-injured veterans with salary replacement, specialized training, and mental health services, among other kinds of support.

Strikingly, however, only about a third of the people actually taking care of post-9/11 veterans -- with or without government support -- are spouses. About 25% are parents and 23% are friends and neighbors. Yet the government will fund and assist only people who are either related to veterans or live with them and will support only one caregiver at a time per veteran, an immense burden for a single person. 

What Happens When the Soldiers From the Afghan War Finally Come Home?

The Trump administration is now preparing for an (already somewhat shaky) pull out of American troops from Afghanistan by 2021. Meanwhile, those of us in military communities are looking for reassurance that some of the 600,000 uniformed troops who have survived the longest war -- and the war with the largest number of troops serving multiple combat tours of duty -- in American history have lives to return to. About a million service members from those post-9/11 wars have some kind of officially recognized disability. Many more live with unrecognized injuries, often invisible and related to mental illnesses such as depression and PTSD, chronic pain, or traumatic brain injuries.

Raising American consciousness about the aftermath of this war is going to be tough, though. Fewer veterans have fought in Afghanistan than in any other recent American war and it’s been the veterans of foreign wars who have kept alive the issue of the health problems such military families face. It’s veterans who often help returning troops register for disability status, counsel them on how to navigate the court system, drive them to their medical appointments, and serve as peer health advocates and counselors.

All this leaves me wondering what will happen to Afghan veterans who endured longer and more frequent deployments than their counterparts from the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the first Gulf War. With the end of our draft system in 1973, it’s become so much easier to convince the public that military families are okay. According to a 2011 Pew Research Center Survey, more than three-quarters of adults aged 50 and older reported that they had an immediate family member who had served in the military. Only a third of adults ages 18 to 29 could say the same.

In short, most Americans no longer have first-hand or even second-hand knowledge of what it’s like to serve in the military during such wars. Bases, even in this country, are enclosed and heavily guarded. (They weren’t always this way.) And the unpaid volunteer work military spouses are expected to perform does not help them interact with civilian families.

In other words, Americans know remarkably little about the lives of the uniformed troops who fight wars in their names and largely live separated from them on islands in this country.

One alternative might be for every American to begin bearing witness to the disastrous forever wars of this century, to those Americans still fighting them, and to the many hundreds of thousands of people, including civilians in the war zones, whose lives have been uprooted and damaged by them or who have lost their lives in them.

Believe me, the beautiful family at Trump’s State of the Union address represents next to nothing when it comes to actual life in the military in 2020. Nor do I. Nor does the gay couple I mentioned at one of my husband’s submarine homecomings.

In fact, there is no category that can simply be labeled “military family.” There are only shared experiences among people who often disperse as quickly as each tour of duty ends, as each war fades from public consciousness.

Certainly, if you want to get a different impression of America’s wars and life in the military, you could sign up for the Costs of War Project’s mailing list or that of UCLA’s Palm Center, whose courageous research and advocacy for marginalized members of the military, including transgender and female service members, provides a much-needed countercurrent to clichéd images of husbands and wives embracing.

Afterword, Afterwar

Recently, my husband made the difficult decision to leave the submarine service so that our family might have a chance of spending our lives (or at least the next few years) in the same place together, whatever his service might be. He had grown tired of returning from trips to find that our children no longer really recognized him; nor, sometimes, he them. He used to blush and look at the ground when extended family and acquaintances commended him for the sacrifices he was making in serving our country.

After he announced that he would never again serve on a submarine, I noticed him using the word “sacrifice” for the first time; he would, the implication was, make the sacrifice of leaving that service. This felt odd to me. After all, he would spend the next several years working eight-hour days instead of 16- to 18-hour ones. He would be relatively immune from hazing by commanders with unrestrained bad tempers and untreated combat trauma. And of course, we would be together.

I soon learned that what he felt he was sacrificing was a sense of meaning and of belonging to something larger than himself.

At the same time, what we both knew but never stated outright to one another was that, had he continued on those submarines much longer, our family, even if together in name and law, would no longer have understood one another.

In the meantime, maybe it’s a moment for Americans not in the armed forces to stop thinking it’s enough to thank anyone in uniform for his or her service or place those yellow-ribbon bumper stickers on their cars -- and to focus instead on almost 19 years of disastrous and destructive American wars abroad and what they’ve done to those very troops and their families. If more people studied up on the lives of military personnel and their families, they might write and lobby members of Congress strongly advocating support for them and for stressed out military children and their parents who are forced to leave their friends, doctors, and relatives behind every few years. Because make no mistake: even if (and that’s a big “if”) the longest of wars is slowly ending and our troops are actually pulling out of Afghanistan, as the agreement with the Taliban claims, the struggle to support the staggering numbers of service members and their families wounded (in the broadest sense imaginable) by that war, no less our other still-unending conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa, has yet to come close to peaking. It won’t do so until those veterans (and their families) age perhaps another 30 years.

As a country, the real future war for us may be keeping their struggles alive in our consciousness so that more than just their aging spouses, wounded in their own ways, remain on deck to care for them.



Andrea Mazzarino, a TomDispatch regular, co-founded Brown University’s Costs of War Project. She is an activist and social worker interested in the health impacts of war. She has held various clinical, research, and advocacy positions, including at a Veterans Affairs PTSD Outpatient Clinic, with Human Rights Watch, and at a community mental health agency. She is the co-editor of the new book War and Health: The Medical Consequences of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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
 
For Some People, Social Distancing Means Being Trapped Indoors With an Abuser Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30317"><span class="small">Arwa Mahdawi, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 23 March 2020 12:45

Excerpt: "As more cities go under lockdown, activists are worried that attempts to curb coronavirus will inadvertently lead to an increase in domestic violence."

One in three women around the world experience physical or sexual violence, mostly from an intimate partner, according to the WHO. (photo: Dominic Lipinski/PA)
One in three women around the world experience physical or sexual violence, mostly from an intimate partner, according to the WHO. (photo: Dominic Lipinski/PA)


For Some People, Social Distancing Means Being Trapped Indoors With an Abuser

By Arwa Mahdawi, Guardian UK

23 March 20


As more cities go under lockdown, activists are worried that attempts to curb coronavirus will inadvertently lead to an increase in domestic violence

ome is supposed to be the safest place any of us could be right now. However, for people experiencing domestic violence, social distancing means being trapped inside with an abuser. As more cities go under lockdown, activists are worried that attempts to curb the coronavirus will inadvertently lead to an increase in domestic violence.

Domestic violence is already a deadly epidemic. One in three women around the world experience physical or sexual violence, mostly from an intimate partner, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). As the WHO notes: “This makes it the most widespread, but among the least reported human rights abuses.” Gender-based violence tends to increase during humanitarian emergencies and conflicts; “women’s bodies too often become battlefields”.

Reports from China suggest the coronavirus has already caused a significant spike in domestic violence. Local police stations saw a threefold increase in cases reported in February compared with the previous year, according to Wan Fei, the founder of an anti-domestic violence not-forprofit. “According to our statistics, 90% of the causes of violence are related to the Covid-19 epidemic,” Wan told Sixth Tone, an English-language magazine based in China.

A similar story is playing out in America. A domestic violence hotline in Portland, Oregon, says calls doubled last week. And the national domestic violence hotline is hearing from a growing number of callers whose abusers are using Covid-19 to further control and isolate them. “Perpetrators are threatening to throw their victims out on the street so they get sick,” the hotline’s CEO told Time. “We’ve heard of some withholding financial resources or medical assistance.”

With all attention focused on curbing a public health crisis, the problem of private violence risks being overlooked or deprioritized by authorities. In the UK, for example, schools are now closed to everyone except for the children of key workers performing essential services. Domestic violence professionals have been left off this list; apparently preventing abuse at home isn’t an essential service. Dawn Butler, Labour’s women and equalities spokeswoman, has asked the prime minister to “urgently reconsider” this classification and consider implementing emergency funding to help people in danger escape domestic abuse during the crisis. “[T]wo women are killed every week by a partner or former partner,” Butler tweeted. “If the Govt fails to prepare and plan more people will die.”

Now more than ever we need to look out for the most vulnerable in our society; activists are calling on neighbors to be extra aware and vigilant of possible cases of domestic violence. Retreating into our homes doesn’t mean cutting ourselves off from our communities. We’re all in this together.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Power in a Time of Coronavirus 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, 23 March 2020 12:01

Solomon writes: "Every day now, we're waking up into an extreme real-life nightmare, while responses are still routinely lagging far behind what's at stake."

Surgeon General Jerome Adams speaks during a news conference about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room at the White House. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Surgeon General Jerome Adams speaks during a news conference about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room at the White House. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Power in a Time of Coronavirus

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

23 March 20

 

very day now, we’re waking up into an extreme real-life nightmare, while responses are still routinely lagging far behind what’s at stake. Urgency is reality. The horrific momentum of the coronavirus is personal, social, and political. In those realms, a baseline formula is “passivity = death.” The imperative is to do vastly better.

Consistent individual actions — such as “social distancing” and extensive handwashing — are absolutely necessary. People should stay home if at all possible. Other steps include disinfecting potentially contaminated surfaces and following the admonition to not touch your face.

Meanwhile, a huge social burden has fallen onto charities and other nonprofit organizations with resources that are tiny in relation to the scale of this catastrophe. Even in normal times they can’t do much more than slightly ameliorate the shredding of government social safety nets, the shrinking of the public sector, and the profit-obsessed cruelties of corporate capitalism.

Under the weight of the coronavirus emergency, the crucial political challenges involve fighting the bastions of dominant political malfeasance, lies, and plunder at the top of the U.S. government.

“In order to save lives, protect working families, and boost our economy in sustainable and healthy ways,” Oxfam concludes, “we need to take actions that are swift, bold, and well beyond what Congress has thus far been willing to approve.” After partnering with Data for Progress to do national polling, Oxfam released a report that shows public opinion favors much more drastic legislation in response to the coronavirus rampage.

“Registered voters in the U.S. strongly support immediate, aggressive action in response to both the public-health and economic crises,” the March 20 report says. “Among the measures they endorse: paid sick leave for all workers, emergency funding for food supplies for those affected by the crisis, free testing for the virus, and moratoriums on evictions, foreclosures, and utility shutoffs.”

An immediate necessity is to galvanize political power from the grassroots to step up the pressure for an all-out government mobilization against this pandemic. That means continually pushing to generate maximum resources toward people who need them most — now and for a long time to come.

Rather than being a respite from political power struggles, the coronavirus emergency is greatly intensifying them. More aid for those immersed in greed will mean less for those in desperate need. The quest by corporate profiteers to mercilessly exploit dire situations has never flagged.

Showing the vital importance of his national voice as a presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders has outlined some of the gluttonous corporate maneuvers now underway.

“Just in the last few days,” he pointed out on Sunday, “we’ve seen numerous examples of lobbyists and their agents fighting for special favors: the airline industry is asking for $50 billion, the private space industry is asking for $5 billion, the hotel industry wants $150 billion, the National Association of Manufacturers wants $1.4 trillion, the International Council of Shopping Centers wants a guarantee of up to $1 trillion, Adidas wants to sneak in a long-sought provision allowing people to use pre-tax money to pay for gym memberships and fitness equipment — even when many gyms and retail stores are closed nationwide — and corporate pork producers are using the coronavirus to push Congress to expedite guest worker visas, even at a time when international travel and immigration is largely shut down.”

In this time of “unprecedented crisis,” Sanders said, “we need an unprecedented legislative response that focuses on the emergency health care needs of the American people and that puts working families and the poor ahead of CEOs and huge corporations.”

With this pandemic, fueled by the intentional neglect and greedy stupidity of Trump and Company, we have profuse reasons to heed words from legendary labor organizer Mary Harris, “Mother” Jones: “Mourn the dead and fight like hell for the living.”

To fight like hell for the living — to protect people from the ravages of the coronavirus and a harsh economic system — will require unrelenting work from progressive movements willing and able to organize effectively in every political arena.



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
 
FOCUS: It's Morally Repulsive How Corporations Are Exploiting This Crisis. Workers Will Suffer Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9643"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 23 March 2020 10:36

Reich writes: "Societies gripped by cataclysmic wars, depressions or pandemics can become acutely sensitive to power and privilege."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


It's Morally Repulsive How Corporations Are Exploiting This Crisis. Workers Will Suffer

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

23 March 20


Using power and privilege to exploit the weak and vulnerable in the face of a common threat is morally repugnant. Call it ‘Burring’ after Richard Burr’s stock sell-off

ocieties gripped by cataclysmic wars, depressions or pandemics can become acutely sensitive to power and privilege.

Weeks before the coronavirus virus crushed the US stock market, the Republican senator Richard Burr apparently used information he gleaned from his role as chairman of the Senate intelligence committee about the ferocity of the coming pandemic to unload 33 stocks held by him and his spouse. They were estimated at being worth between $628,033 and $1.72m , in some industries likely to be hardest hit by the global outbreak.

While publicly parroting Trump’s happy talk at the time, Burr confided to several of his political funders that the disease would be comparable to the deadly 1918 flu pandemic.

Then the market tanked, along with the retirement savings of millions of Americans.

Even some pundits on Fox News are now calling for Burr’s resignation.

When society faces a common threat, exploiting a special advantage is morally repugnant. Call it “Burring” However tolerable Burring may be in normal times, it isn’t now.

In normal times, corporations get special favors from Washington in exchange for generous campaign contributions, and no one bats an eye. Recall the Trump tax cut, which delivered $1.9tn to big corporations and the wealthy.

The coronavirus should have altered business as usual. But last week’s Senate Republican relief package, giving airlines $58bn and billions more to other industries, is pure Burring.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, tried lamely to distinguish it from the notorious bank bailouts of 2008. “We are not talking about a taxpayer-funded cushion for companies that made mistakes. We are talking about loans, which must be repaid, for American employers whom the government itself is temporarily crushing for the sake of public health.”

But the airlines are big enough to get their own loans from banks at rock-bottom interest rates. Their planes and landing slots are more than adequate collateral.

Why do airlines deserve to be bailed out? Over the last decade they spent 96%of their free cashflow, including billions in tax savings from the Trump tax cut, to buy back shares of their own stock. This boosted executive bonuses and pleased wealthy investors but did nothing to strengthen the airlines for the long term. Meanwhile, the four biggest carriers gained so much market power they jacked up prices on popular routes and slashed services (remember legroom and free bag checks?).

United’s CEO, Oscar Munoz, did his own Burring on Friday, warning that if Congress doesn’t bail out the airline by the end of March, United will start firing its employees. But even if bailed out, what are the odds United would keep paying all its workers if the pandemic forced it to stop flying? The bailout would be for shareholders and executives, not workers.

While generous toward airlines and other industries, the Republican bill is absurdly stingy toward people, stipulating a one-time payment of up to $1,200 for every adult and $500 per child. Some 64m households with incomes below $50,000 would get as little as $600. This will do almost nothing to help job-losers pay their mortgages, rents and other bills for the duration of the crisis, expected to be at least the next three months.

The Republican coronavirus bill is about as Burring as legislation can be – exposing the underlying structure of power in America as clearly as Burr’s stock trades. In this national crisis, it’s just as morally repulsive.

Take a look at how big corporations are treating their hourly workers in this pandemic and you see more Burring.

Walmart, the largest employer in America, doesn’t give its employees paid sick leave, and limits its 500,000 part-time workers to 48 hours paid time off per year. This Burring policy is now threatening countless lives. (On one survey, 88% of Walmart employees report sometimes coming to work when sick.)

None of the giants of the fast-food industry – McDonald’s, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Duncan Donuts, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Subway – gives their workers paid sick leave, either.

Amazon, one of the richest corporations in the world, which paid almost no taxes last year, is offering unpaid time off for workers who are sick and just two weeks paid leave for workers who test positive for the virus. Meanwhile, it demands its employees put in mandatory overtime.

Here’s the most Burring thing of all: these corporations have made sure they and other companies with more than 500 employees are exempt from the requirement in the House coronavirus bill that employers provide paid sick leave.

At a time when almost everyone feels burdened and fearful, the use of power and privilege to exploit the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of others is morally intolerable.

We are all in this together, or should be. Whatever form it takes, Burring must be stopped.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 Next > End >>

Page 546 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