|
How a 'Legislative Terrorist' Conquered the Republican Party |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52724"><span class="small">Brian Rosenwald, The Week</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 26 December 2019 09:29 |
|
Rosenwald writes: "In the wake of every House Republican voting against impeaching Donald Trump, it's reasonable to see the GOP as the president's party, remade in his image. But to truly understand the transformation of the Republican Party during the Trump years, we actually should focus on someone else: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)."
Jim Jordan. (image: Shawn Thew/Getty Images/Aerial3)
How a 'Legislative Terrorist' Conquered the Republican Party
By Brian Rosenwald, The Week
26 December 19
 n the wake of every House Republican voting against impeaching Donald Trump, it's reasonable to see the GOP as the president's party, remade in his image. But to truly understand the transformation of the Republican Party during the Trump years, we actually should focus on someone else: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Jordan's journey from gadfly loathed by party leadership to ranking committee member, presidential confidant, and party leader exemplifies how the GOP has changed in the Trump Era — and how Trumpism won't be easily undone after the 45th president leaves office.
The ideological transformation of the Republican Party has been ongoing for more than a half century. What was once the party of moderates like Dwight Eisenhower and liberals like Nelson Rockefeller, dominated by figures from the two coasts and stalwarts in the Midwest, slowly became a staunchly conservative party centered in the South.
By the time Jordan was first elected to Congress in 2006, the highly conservative Texan George W. Bush was president. But Bush had a pragmatic streak. He cut bipartisan deals on education and immigration reform (which failed thanks to a revolt led by conservative talk radio), added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and preached compassionate conservatism.
The story of the party's move towards total war politics and Trumpism is the story of how Jordan's breed of politics eclipsed Bush's brand of conservatism.
Jordan was one of the most conservative members of the House during his first two terms. But he was also insignificant with Republicans in the minority. Once the Tea Party wave swept his party to power, however, Jordan was flush with new hardline allies. He was elected to lead the Republican Study Committee, a large conservative group within the new Republican majority.
Within months, he had become a thorn in the side of House Speaker John Boehner, insisting that failing to raise the debt ceiling would not result in the United States defaulting, and opposing a leadership proposal for addressing the matter. His staff even conspired with outside groups to pressure Republicans to vote against Boehner's proposal. Two years later, Jordan was a key player in forcing a government shutdown because President Obama would not agree to delaying and defunding his signature health-care legislation for a year — a tactic Boehner had warned would leave leading Democrats grinning because they "can't believe we're this f---ing stupid." Though Republicans were widely perceived to have lost the shutdown battle, Jordan was unrepentant.
He believed that Democrats could be compelled to capitulate through the use of hardline tactics, brinkmanship, and a total unwillingness to compromise.
In 2015, Jordan became the founding chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, a smaller, even more hardline group that would come to fight against numerous leadership initiatives. By that fall, Freedom Caucus members — against Jordan's counsel — pushed Boehner into early retirement and helped scuttle the candidacy of Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to succeed him.
While 70 percent of Freedom Caucus endorsed Paul Ryan to succeed Boehner, it was only after he made them numerous promises to secure their support. Even so, Jordan and his allies would make Ryan's life difficult as they had Boehner's. So much did leadership worry about Jordan that when House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz announced he would resign from Congress in 2017, leadership helped recruit Rep. Trey Gowdy to run for the position to ensure that it wouldn't fall to Jordan.
In an interview after retiring, Boehner called Jordan a "legislative terrorist" and an "asshole."
In an earlier era, a figure like Jordan who constantly picked fights with his own party's leadership would have faced serious repercussions. Banishment to the most insignificant and unpleasant committees, an inability to get things done for his home district, perhaps even a primary challenge.
But in an era with a proliferation of conservative media — talk radio, cable news, and digital outlets — someone like Jordan could instead become a star by picking the same fights. Conservative media is a business and the best radio and television comes from black and white content — strongly voiced opinions, clear convictions, exhortations to principles, things that stir emotion and keep the audience tuned in. That meant that someone like Jordan preached what viewers and listeners — the Republican base — heard every day. Further, his style of politics made for far more compelling radio or television than a committee chairman or Republican leader explaining why divided government or Senate rules necessitated compromises.
This fit between the business interests of conservative media and his politics made Jordan one of the heroes on the conservative airwaves and a frequent guest. Stardom gave him too much of an independent power base by the mid-2010s for leadership to punish him meaningfully. He didn't need them for fundraising, and any attempt at discipline would've sent him scurrying to the airwaves to fight back. In the end, it might've been leadership who lost the fight because conservative media had the ear of exactly the sorts of voters who showed up in low turnout Republican primaries, the most critical elections in most Republican districts in an era of geographic polarization.
But while conservative media helped to make Jordan impervious to leadership criticism, it didn't make him part of that leadership. His elevation came thanks to Trump. Jordan caught the ear of Trump, and became a confidant and one of the president's fiercest defenders.
When Republicans lost control of the House in 2018 and Ryan and Gowdy retired, new House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and the Republican Steering Committee installed Jordan, with encouragement from Trump, as the ranking member of the Oversight Committee. This was a significant change from 2017, when there was doubt the Steering Committee would choose Jordan given the animosity from many Republicans towards him. And then as impeachment hearings were about to begin in front of the House Intelligence Committee, McCarthy made the unusual move of temporarily removing another Republican to add Jordan to the committee. McCarthy saw great benefit in Jordan's trademark aggressive questioning and vigorous defense of Trump.
During those hearings, Elise Stefanik, long seen as the anti-Jim Jordan, a leadership ally, one of the most moderate Republicans in the House, and someone previously focused on solutions and bipartisanship, became an instant sensation with Jordan-like questioning and charges against Democrats, and even joined him for press conferences. Reporting indicates that this was a savvy move for Stefanik both in her Republican-leaning district and within the House GOP.
While it's unquestionably easier for leadership to be aligned with Jordan in the minority, when they have no responsibility for governing, it's also true that the onetime leadership antagonist is now the top Republican on a key committee and a major spokesman for the House GOP. Stefanik's move exposes how Jordan's tactics are what Republican voters want from their elected officials. Far from an outsider, Jordan is now part of the Republican establishment — one that sees politics much more like he does than George W. Bush. And that's not likely to change even when Trump leaves office, be it in 2021 or 2025.
For better or worse, it's Jim Jordan's GOP now.
 |
|
We Need Broadband Internet for All |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52723"><span class="small">David Elliot Berman, Jacobin</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 26 December 2019 09:29 |
|
Berman writes: "Nearly half of Americans do not have an internet connection that meets minimum broadband speeds."
Broadband internet. (photo: smemon/Flickr)
We Need Broadband Internet for All
By David Elliot Berman, Jacobin
26 December 19
Without massive public investment, there would be no internet. Bernie Sanders's broadband plan would take the first steps towards returning the internet to its rightful owners, the public, so everyone can have reliable, high-speed broadband.
 early half of Americans do not have an internet connection that meets minimum broadband speeds. Moreover, a staggering number of poor people of color do not have home internet access of any kind. And, across the board, Americans are charged some of the highest prices for internet service in the developed world. These are all symptoms of a much larger, structural problem: the corporate capture of the pipes, wires, and other infrastructure that powers the internet.
Over the last two decades, progressive media reformers have often pursued an accommodationist agenda, attempting to reconcile the public’s interest in universal, high-quality broadband with the profit interests of large internet service providers (ISPs). They sought to rein in the malfeasance of corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T while leaving their ownership and control of the country’s internet infrastructure intact. Their animating question was how to tame the telecom giants, not how to slay them.
However, as the fog of neoliberalism begins to lift and the horizons of political possibility extend forward, we should not be satisfied with dithering at the edges of the vast empires of cable and telecom monopolies. This requires not just rearguard critique of the existing communications order, but an affirmative vision of what a more democratic communication system that operates outside of the market would like.
There are strong signs that we are at the beginning of such a reckoning: in recent months, the UK Labour Party, Elizabeth Warren, and, most recently, Bernie Sanders have all unveiled ambitious plans to create publicly-owned broadband internet networks. Taken together, this troika of plans represents a growing rejection of what was once seen as commonsense: that internet access can only be provided by large corporations such as Comcast and Verizon, unsavory as they may be.
Bernie Sanders’ High-Speed Internet for All plan proceeds along three broad dimensions of action: imposing strict public interest regulations on behemoths like Comcast, using antitrust legislation to break them up, and creating publicly-owned alternatives to corporate ISPs. The latter is the most transformative plank of Sanders’ Internet for All platform, and is also the one emphasized most heavily in the proposal.
Another Internet is Possible
Across the country, hundreds of cities and towns have taken it upon themselves to build their own publicly-owned broadband networks. In general, these networks are cheaper, faster, and operate with greater public accountability than the likes of Comcast, despite lacking their enormous economies of scale. The city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, for instance, quietly launched its own fiber-optic broadband network in 2010, which now offers at least a one gigabit-per-second (Gbps) connection to the 170,000 homes and businesses in their service area.
Unlike the Labour Party’s plan — which would have created a single state agency tasked with delivering free fiber-optic broadband to all individuals and businesses throughout the United Kingdom by 2030 — Sanders’s High-Speed Internet for All plan offers federal support for local broadband initiatives, citing municipal broadband networks like Chattanooga’s with approbation. At the center of Sanders’ Internet for All proposal is $150 billion in infrastructure grants — nearly twice the amount put forward in Warren’s proposal — that would be distributed to municipalities and states that want to build out “publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks.”
As a matter of policy, Sanders’ Internet for All proposal does not itself entail the build out of a single mile of broadband infrastructure. What it would do is make the political terrain more amenable to the expansion and multiplication of public broadband initiatives, not only by providing funding and technical assistance, but also by repealing laws in twenty-five states that currently either prohibit or significantly hinder municipalities from building their own networks.
The public broadband networks built under Sanders’ Internet for All initiative would be held to a much higher standard of conduct than their lightly-regulated private sector counterparts are today. Private ISPs notoriously underinvest in low-income neighborhoods that they deem insufficiently profitable, a practice often referred to as “digital redlining.” By contrast, in order to qualify for grants, publicly-owned ISPs would be required to abide by universal service requirements. While private ISPs still offer internet service over decades-old copper wires that were originally installed to transmit telephone signals, under Sanders’ Internet for All plan public broadband operators would be required to deploy technologies that meet minimum speed thresholds. And while corporations like Comcast have a long history of abusing the workers who build and maintain their networks, the Sanders plan conditions grants on adhering to strong labor, wage, and sourcing standards.
Critically, however, Sanders’ does not specify how he intends to fund the buildout of public broadband infrastructure. This is a missed opportunity. “But how will you pay for that?” is not only a cynical rhetorical device deployed by neoliberals to torture any call for new public expenditures. Deciding how to finance social programs can clarify the political battlefield: determining who should pay to remedy a social problem hints at who is responsible for the problem in the first place (Sanders’ proposal to hit Wall Street with a financial-transaction tax to eliminate student debt is a brilliant example of this). Indeed, Internet for All could be funded by taxing the titans of the new economy like Amazon, Facebook, and Google (as the Labour Party proposed to do). Or it could be funded by taxing corporate internet providers. They are responsible for the sorry state of broadband in this country: we should make them pay to fix it.
Holding Private Power Accountable
Sanders’s Internet for All agenda both nurtures the growth of a new communications order and sets firm constraints on the hegemons of the current one.
Because the creation of publicly-owned broadband networks is dependent on the voluntary participation of municipalities and states, the majority of Americans would still be dependent on for-profit internet providers — at least initially. Sanders’ call for public ownership is thus complemented by a multifaceted approach to regulate for-profit ISPs like a utility, much as we currently regulate the companies that manage electricity, gas, and other critical infrastructure in the United States.
Under Internet for All, the FCC would be empowered to regulate the rates that for-profit ISPs can charge their subscribers — a policy long anathema to telecom policymakers and regulators, who stubbornly insist that competition will lower internet rates for consumers, even as competition perpetually fails to materialize. Rate regulation would prevent large providers from leveraging their monopoly position in the broadband market to charge their customers monopoly prices, as they do now.
ISPs — both privately and publicly-owned — would also be required to offer a low-cost internet plan, which would be fully subsidized by the government for low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized internet access would be tied to eligibility for means-tested social programs like SNAP and Medicaid, effectively integrating internet access into the welfare state. This would put more money back in the hands of low-income families, and help close America’s cavernous digital divide.
Deliver Us From Comcast
Sanders’s Internet for All agenda is a transformative and comprehensive plan for democratizing internet access. It sheds neoliberal orthodoxies about the limits of government regulation and dismisses liberal anxieties about public ownership. Yet, it is ultimately uncertain whether his plan would actually deliver us from the reign of Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.
There are clear material incentives for local and state governments to use federal money to build public internet infrastructure: in addition to improving internet access, Internet for All would also provide a source of jobs in order to construct and maintain the network. Installing high-speed internet could also potentially attract greater capital investment, as has happened in Chattanooga.
There are, however, countervailing forces that could forestall the rollout of public broadband if pursued in piecemeal, city-by-city or state-by-state fashion. Ideological opposition to big government would make public broadband dead on arrival in many locales. Governments that do move forward with rolling out public broadband would be subjected to the full brunt of the telecom and cable lobbies, which spend big money to squelch municipal broadband initiatives wherever they are tried.
At least in the short-term, Internet for All would thus likely result in a patchwork of municipal, county, and state-owned broadband networks operating alongside the familiar cast of corporate ISPs. This uneven, fragmented environment would be a marked improvement upon the current state of affairs, but it is not capable of inspiring the broad, majoritarian coalition that is strong enough to defend public goods from private avarice.
We should ultimately at least have a “public option” for internet service that is available to everybody regardless of their city, state, or zip code. After all, the internet was invented thanks to massive public investment: it should be returned to its rightful owners.
|
|
|
Colombia's Longest Insurgency and the Last Chance for Peace? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52722"><span class="small">Mathew Charles, NACLA</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 26 December 2019 09:29 |
|
Charles writes: "It's been called Colombia's 'other war,' and it is certainly proving the most persistent."
Members of the Che Guevara bloc of the Western War Front of the ELN in Chocó, Colombia. (photo: Victor Raison)
Colombia's Longest Insurgency and the Last Chance for Peace?
By Mathew Charles, NACLA
26 December 19
Within the ELN, differing ideologies and visions for the end of conflict may set a time limit on the potential for peace.
t’s been called Colombia’s “other war,” and it is certainly proving the most persistent. On December 9, four trucks and two buses were detained at a makeshift roadblock on the road that connects the city of Medellín with the Caribbean coast. Men in camouflage began to set the vehicles alight as the drivers and passengers fled to safety. The army arrived and a gun battle ensued. Witnesses described the distinctive armbands of the assailants: red and black, marked with the letters “E-L-N” in white.
Attacks like these on transport and infrastructure are their bread and butter of the ELN, the Spanish acronym for the National Liberation Army. The ELN is Colombia’s largest remaining leftist guerrilla group after the demobilization of the FARC, and its insurgency constitutes one of the longest rebellions in history. After more than 55 years of belligerence, which has claimed more than 10,000 civilian victims of murder, kidnapping, and other crimes, the ELN does not represent a national insurgent threat, but it can and does wreak havoc on the vulnerable margins of Colombia.
This latest attack came just hours after the government had signalled it could be willing to return to the negotiating table with the ELN. The government suspended peace talks indefinitely in January 2019 after a car bomb attributed to the ELN killed 22 people and injured more than 60 at a school for police cadets in Bogotá. President Iván Duque has since made clear that the ELN must meet certain conditions before talks can resume, including releasing all hostages and ceasing violent acts.
So far, the ELN has refused to meet these demands, but the insurgents insist they are committed to peace and willing to return to negotiations. But this contradictory approach—defined best by former President Juan Manuel Santos as “words of peace and actions of war”—creates high levels of distrust. Indeed, for many Colombians, the ELN remains a mystery.
The ELN’s intricate structure is perplexing to outsiders, but understanding how the insurgency operates and the dominant currents within the guerrilla leadership can shed light on the potential for negotiations and ultimately on the chances for peace. Over the past two years, I have spent several weeks embedded with the guerrilla in both western and eastern Colombia and have interviewed over 100 combatants and ex-combatants, including founding members of the insurgency.
The ELN prides itself on being a unified force, but its unity is founded in diversity. The contemporary ELN can be characterized by three distinct perspectives. There are those who support a return to negotiations and for whom peace has become the ultimate goal of the insurgency (the pragmatists); those who see the government as an enemy to be defeated and for whom peace is seen through the prism of a victory over capitalism (the hardliners); and a small, but increasing number of commanders, for whom peace is neither profitable nor an ambition because they are only interested in the gains from their participation in illicit economies (the profiteers).
These diverse views create intense debate among the insurgents. The complex structure of the ELN and its even more complex and federalized decision-making processes allow for much disagreement and discussion. But there are increasing signs—despite their denial to the contrary—of fundamental divisions over both strategy and ideology that may be creating definitive factions as a result of these differences.
Importantly, the ELN insurgency is on the verge of a generational shift in its leadership. While veteran commanders exhibit a moderate, if cautious temperament, the younger generations generally embody a more rigid and uncompromising approach. This transition will undoubtedly bring tectonic change and is why the next decade could provide what might be the last significant opportunity for peace.
Origins, Structure, and Organization
Marxist intellectuals inspired by the Cuban Revolution founded the ELN in 1964. Radical Catholic priests subscribed to liberation theology later joined their cause.
The guerrilla’s logo is a hammer and machete crossed over South America; its motto, “Not one step back: Liberation or death.” In the last four years, as the revolution has become increasingly tainted by the lure of the international drugs trade and other illicit economies, they have certainly been moving forward with an exponential growth.
Since the 2017 demobilization of their guerrilla rivals, the FARC, the ELN has sought to move in on communities and economies once under FARC control. The ELN is now present in 156 municipalities, compared to 96 in 2016, and boasts a force of 2,402 insurgents, according to Colombian military intelligence.
The ELN has also expanded into Venezuela, which became a safe haven for the Colombian guerrilla when Hugo Chávez came to power in 2002. But today it is much more than a sanctuary. Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela provides access to fruitful trafficking networks in drugs, gold, and fuel. The insurgents have also begun to exert social control over many Venezuelan communities. According to Insight Crime, the ELN has a presence in 12 of Venezuela’s 24 states.
The ELN is ruled by a National Congress, which since 1987 has met roughly every 10 years. The congress is made up of the Central Command and the Directorate, which manage the day to day running of the insurgency. In 2014, at its fifth congress, the ELN voted in favour of discussions with the government, but it also voted to prepare for both war and peace to accommodate conflicting interests within the organization. These differences continue to cause rifts today.
The Central Command, known by its Spanish acronym COCE, historically has consisted of five members and leads the ELN most of the time. The Directorate is much larger with 20 commanders, comprising the Central Command and representatives from the various regional units. This allows local commanders to have direct influence over the future of the organization. On paper, both of these bodies are equal, but the larger size of the Directorate makes it challenging to convene regularly. The opportunities for it to exercise genuine control are therefore rare.
Since 1986, the ELN has been divided into six regional war fronts, which are themselves divided into 29 rural fronts and 22 companies. There is also one national urban front, which operates in the main towns and cities, and a network of militias, which act as intelligence and infiltrate state institutions and civil organizations. Each unit carries out decisions with a high degree of autonomy. There are regular votes on all levels of the structure to allow for collective leadership and what the rebels call “centralized democracy.”
Such sophisticated structures and processes mean achieving peace with the ELN is going to be difficult. Perhaps the insurgency’s biggest challenge is not signing a deal with the government, but rather striking agreement between themselves.
The Pragmatists
The pragmatists are led by 65-year-old Israel Ramírez Pineda, best known by his alias, Pablo Beltrán. He leads political strategy within the Central Command. In an interview last February, he told me the ELN’s primary objective was to end the conflict. “People are tired of war, including us,” he said.
Mild-mannered Beltrán wears a permanent grin, but it’s not sarcastic. He has a subtle, but genuine charisma. He admitted that the ELN’s ambitions are far less sweeping today than they have been historically. “We’re no longer asking for socialism. We’re no longer planning to overthrow the government. We want to lay down our arms and ensure social transformation for the poorest,” he told me from exile in Cuba.
Beltrán’s outlook is shared by the ELN’s military chief, 63-year-old Eliecer Erlinto Chamorro, alias Antonio Garcia. He’s known by many as “the Grey Man.” For more than 30 years, this pair have dominated the Central Command.
The pragmatists know they have a hard sell to the rank and file. For example, it is difficult to see what this “social transformation” Beltrán mentioned might constitute. Rebels on the ground, for example, say they continue to protect marginalized communities from resurgent drug gangs and multinational developers. But it is difficult to imagine that the government will be able to stem the illegal drug trade or refuse international investment in its economy in order to appease the ELN.
Combined with the failures of the peace process with the FARC, this puts the ELN leadership in a difficult position when it comes to convincing their comrades to abandon their weapons. This is why the leadership has already made clear that their troops will not demobilize until whatever peace agreement is achieved is fully implemented.
Despite the huge respect they command from their subordinates, there is no doubt that the pragmatists are increasingly isolated from the grassroots rebels. Although there is regular communication between the Central Command and the regional war fronts, there is a growing perception that the leadership—most of whom are firmly settled in Havana awaiting the resumption of peace talks—have become distanced from the reality on the ground. Since the 1980s, the Central Command had their own jungle base. They could rely on legions of loyal and dedicated followers with whom they would share the day’s struggles and battles. For the past three years, however, they have been remote figures, and other charismatic leaders have been able to galvanize the foot soldiers in their place.
The Hardliners
The hardliners have few incentives to negotiate. They enjoy significant local power, and they have begun to boost their income and expand their territorial reach. The Eastern War Front in Arauca, for example, co-governs with local authorities, obstructing or permitting public works projects, as long as politicians and wealthy locals pay the group “taxes.” In Arauquita, they mark out their turf by daubing their initials on local houses. This graffiti is more than vandalism: It symbolizes a form of social control that extends through Colombia’s eastern plains and into Venezuela’s borderlands.
The hardliners, led by Gustavo Aníbal Giraldo, alias Pablito, have long been critical of the peace process. For the hardliners, an end to the conflict can only be brought about through victory, and not what they perceive to be surrender.
51-year-old Pablito leads the Eastern War Front. He is known for his ruthlessness and is often referred to as “the Tiger.” Pablito ordered last January’s bombing in Bogotá. It was seen as a deliberate attempt to derail the peace process, even if many within the ELN denied it.
Pablito, who joined the ELN as a 15-year-old in the early 1980s, personifies the opposition to Pablo Beltrán and Antonio Garcia. Beltrán and Garcia attempted to bring him into the fold in 2014 by allowing him to join the Central Command, but it appears their tactics failed. This is perhaps in part because there is also an apparent bitter personal rivalry between Pablito and Garcia, who share responsibility for military strategy. Pablito has publicly accused Garcia of involvement in his 2007 arrest by the army. Pablito spent two years in prison before an elite ELN unit broke him out in very dramatic fashion. Authorities now believe he is hiding out in Venezuela, from where he directs extortion rackets, drug trafficking, and regular attacks on oil pipelines and the security forces.
The Profiteers
Drugs are a thorny issue inside the ELN. There is little doubt that the insurgents have increasingly progressed from charging taxes on traffickers moving drugs through their territory to directly participating in the production and trafficking of cocaine and heroin.
Despite an internal prohibition on involvement in the illegal drugs trade, demobilized rebels say producing and shipping drugs became a necessary evil to fund the guerrilla insurgency. They estimate 90 percent of the ELN’s earnings come from the production and supply of cocaine, while the rest reportedly comes from mining and extortion.
In the Nariño department in southern Colombia, the ELN’s efforts to expand are directly related to its attempt to gain control of drug trafficking routes, such as the Patía river and the towns of Llorente and La Guayacana. The group’s expansion in northeastern and western Colombia is also linked to its increased role in this illicit economy. Last year, the military said it had uncovered a cocaine laboratory belonging to the rebels in Catatumbo, near the Venezuelan border.
In 2017, authorities seized tons of cocaine apparently belonging to the ELN in Chocó, along the Pacific coast, where they also uncovered the first-ever electric semi-submersible, apparently also belonging to the ELN. It was a sophisticated vessel, built to ship tons of illegal merchandise underwater.
Two figures most associated with the ELN’s criminal activities are Oglí Ángel Padilla, alias Fabian, one of the commanders of the Western War Front, and Gabriel Yépez Mejía, alias HH, who operates in Nariño. Little is known about either man, but both have expressed criticism of the ELN’s pursuit of peace.
A Limited Window for Peace
The one man holding all this together is Nicolás Rodríguez Bautista, alias Gabino. Known as Colombia’s oldest insurgent, he joined the ELN in 1964 at the age of 14. He became the overall ELN commander just 10 years later after the majority of the ELN leadership was wiped out in an attack by government forces. Gabino has spent 55 of his 69 years in open rebellion. As a result, he is probably the ELN’s most revered commander and certainly the most unifying figure.
Although Gabino shares the view of the pragmatists, he is the calming influence of the Central Command and reportedly able to resolve tensions and discord. But Gabino is ill and apparently very weak.
Time is therefore running out for the pragmatists. Not only might they be losing ground with the rank and file, they are also growing older, and without the support of Gabino, they may quickly lose influence.
There is no doubt the current leadership wants to see an end to the conflict. But those coming up behind them are driven by a desire for victory—one that overturns capitalism—and by a criminal interest in power and profit. The danger, then, is that as the older moderates die, the chances for peace will pass with them.
The ELN is at an important crossroads. As the insurgents head towards their 11th congress in the next five years, they must decide on the course of action that will define them for the next decade. The moderates know this too, which is why they are desperate for a resumption of peace talks.
Sources tell me we may see some kind of gesture made by the ELN before Christmas—something that extends beyond their usual festive ceasefire. Even so, it would have to be something fundamental to persuade President Duque to return to the negotiating table in the new year. And whatever it is, it is certain to be seen as weakness and conciliatory by the hardliners, who will continue to wait patiently in the wings for their next move.
|
|
We Asked, You Answered: Here's How the Climate Changed Your Lives in 2019 |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52721"><span class="small">Annelise McGough, Grist</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 26 December 2019 09:29 |
|
McGough writes: "A year has passed since the publication of 'We broke down what climate change will do, region by region,' the best-performing Grist story of recent times."
Wildfires are burning out of control in California. (photo: NBC)
We Asked, You Answered: Here's How the Climate Changed Your Lives in 2019
By Annelise McGough, Grist
26 December 19
 year has passed since the publication of “We broke down what climate change will do, region by region,” the best-performing Grist story of recent times. In the piece, the Grist team laid out what the 4th National Climate Assessment warned was coming for each region of the country. The main takeaway? No matter where you live, climate change will find you.
The Pacific Northwest is looking at a rainy future, while the Southwest will experience blistering temperatures and drought unlike anything seen before. As we said last year, your backyard might suffer different climate consequences from my backyard.
So as this year drew to a close, we started wondering: What did happen in your backyard in 2019? How did that wild polar vortex derail your commute to work; how did wildfires in the West affect your health?
So, we asked you, the reader: How has climate change affected you in 2019? Here’s what you said.
Responses have been edited for length and clarity.
North
I work on climate change, and it has taken a toll on me mentally this year: I’ve felt both filled to the brim with hope and depleted with despair. — Caitlin
Furnace couldn’t keep up during February polar vortex, and we had 11” of snow before leaves finished falling in November. — Anonymous
Seasonal changes have been “off.” Very cold and wet in May, slowing planting in our short season. Then October brought early snow, forcing apple harvest before ripening. November, so far, has been our October. November is usually wet, but no precipitation in rain or snow to speak of. — Patsy
I live in a small city just north of Seattle, WA. When I moved into my house in early 1997, I began planting a large veggie garden. There was ample rainfall so I did not need to water the veggies and berries. About three years ago, we began having very hot, dry summers, which required heavy watering of my veg and berries and fruit trees. Because water rates are high and increasing for the past two years, I have not grown a veg garden, and have let my berry vines wither. Currently in the PNW we are now 4+ inches short of the historical rainfall, with no end in sight. I ration water, aim to drive no more than 150 miles/month, and caution everyone about the impending shortage of fresh water. I am alarmed. — Virginia
South
I have started taking the climate emergency more seriously. My wife and I sold a car and have decided to share one car. I have decided to bike to work every day. I linked up my employer with a local nonprofit that helps companies incentivize their employees to not commute alone in a car to work. I have started voting in every election I can, researching alternatives to flying, and embracing slow travel. I am considering changing jobs or even a career shift to work for a company that is either not participating in global warming or making efforts to limit their carbon footprint. I am also driving my wife insane. :) — Adam
East
I live in Jersey City, New Jersey. We got hit hard by Sandy in 2012, which was my BIG climate story. Lately it’s just been extreme temperatures. In the winter, we have the polar vortex. I usually walk to work, but when it’s that cold, I have to take a cab/Lyft for health reasons. My apartment building is very old, was retrofitted over 10 years ago, and simply doesn’t have the energy efficiency to keep in the heat. I have electric baseboards and my energy bill can be north of $300 in cold months.
Summers are noticeably hotter around here, too, and longer. Spring barely happens. Fall barely happens, we go from 50 degrees to 85 in the same week. (And vice versa.) I work at a restaurant, and the extreme heat is not only difficult to work in, it also keeps people at home. (The same goes for the extreme cold.) This affects my income. The temperature shifts also mess with the subway. That is the main connection to NYC, and train delays due to “track conditions” (read: weather issues) are a constant. All of these are little things, but together … it’s so clear we’ve fried the planet. (Additionally, the county I live in is one of the fastest warming in the US!) — Rebecca
The planet is dying and no one with a lot of power is doing anything adequate to stop it. I am not having children as a result. The world, it seems, will only get worse and worse with each passing year as climate change destroys civilization as we know it. When I said that in middle-school some 30 years ago, I was accused of hyperbole. When I saw it now, we all know it’s true. Who wants to live in the world that’s coming? Not me. — Emily
I’m collecting and sharing people’s climate stories and writing music based on them at climatestoriesproject.org. — Jason
West
I live in Sonoma County, California, and our region was struck yet again by fire. I am a California native and October has always been my favorite month (it’s my birth month!), but now the association is with brutal fires and power outages.
I have had several friends lose homes and places of work, too, these last few years of fire. When they hit this year, coupled with the power outages, the collective anxiety and trauma was palpable. And let’s not forget the smoke keeping us indoors under creepy smoke-filled skies. My friends with asthma and children suffered the worst. We were evacuated from our home at around 4 a.m. this October. My fiancé had prepared so we were able to quickly get out the door as we fled in the strong winds with branches and limbs landing on the road. My heart was beating so fast and my breath quickened. I kept thinking about the folks in Paradise who burned stuck in traffic as the fire raged. I shed many tears this October, and am afraid I will shed many more. — Amanda
Our summer was kind of cool and we had three good rains here in Southern Oregon. We had one or two 100 degree days this year. Normally, we have five to 10. Our rains normally stop in May and resume in October — rain during summer is quite uncommon up here. — Kathy
Right in front of my house in Hawaii, we used to go snorkeling, admiring the corals and marine life. Now the coral is bleached and sedimented and the sea life all but gone. Normally this time of year the ocean temperatures become chilly, but they are almost bath-temperature warm. We used to find cigarette butts and paper trash on the beach, which was bad enough, but now we see thousands of little plastic bits washed up. — Dan
I have worked on community climate change mitigation, energy efficiency, zero waste, and other projects in an effort to have a positive impact. Twenty years of hard work, only to see the very limited progress made by governments and corporations, has left me burnt out. I have no emotional energy left and am resigned to the fate of greed, corruption, ego, and animal instincts inherent in human beings. I am trying to let go for my own sanity. I hope others can find the energy and success where I have failed. — David
The California wildfires resulted in a spiral of climate anxiety for me. One of my friends had to evacuate and my boyfriend’s family was also under an evacuation warning. We didn’t get as much smoke as last year, instead we got huge power outages. This is after an oddly hot summer for our area. The heat makes my anxiety much worse by making it feel like it was hard to breath. After this year I’m so tired, and angry, and scared. — Aviel
We lost our home and nearly everything we possessed in the Camp Fire due to environmental changes that contributed to massive wildfire. — Christy
Around the world
CANADA
I get in a lot of arguments. Lived through thick wildfire smoke for about three of the last few summers — two or three months each summer. — Anonymous
INDIA
It rained for almost six months or so in Mumbai. We were flooded but the heat didn’t stop. The air quality index seems to be getting worse day-by-day. — Pujeet
|
|
ohn F. Harris is about as mainstream as the mainstream media gets. He spent 21 years at The Washington Post, including as its political editor. Then he became the founding editor of Politico, where he is now a columnist.
