RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: The Green New Deal Promises Peace and Progress. Will Nuclear Advocates Undermine It? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=25330"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, The Progressive</span></a>   
Sunday, 30 December 2018 12:47

Wasserman writes: "The environmental policy centerpiece of the incoming Democratic House of Representatives is what's now known as 'The Green New Deal.' But it's already hit deeply polarizing pushback from the old-line Democratic leadership. And it faces divisive jockeying over the future of nuclear power."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' would not include nuclear energy. Advocates for nuclear could stymie the new congresswoman's efforts. (photo: AP)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' would not include nuclear energy. Advocates for nuclear could stymie the new congresswoman's efforts. (photo: AP)


The Green New Deal Promises Peace and Progress. Will Nuclear Advocates Undermine It?

By Harvey Wasserman, The Progressive

30 December 18


The environmental policy centerpiece of the incoming Democratic House of Representatives has ignited tremendous grassroots enthusiasm.

he environmental policy centerpiece of the incoming Democratic House of Representatives is what’s now known as “The Green New Deal.” But it’s already hit deeply polarizing pushback from the old-line Democratic leadership. And it faces divisive jockeying over the future of nuclear power.

The Green New Deal’s most visible public advocate, newly elected twenty-nine-year-old U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, has laid out a preliminary blueprint advocating an energy economy meant to be based entirely on “renewable” and “clean” sources. According to a report in The Hill, fossil fuels and nuclear power are “completely out” of her plan.

The draft proposal has ignited tremendous grassroots enthusiasm, with massively favorable poll readings, even among some Republicans. Substantial grassroots pressure has grown on presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to form a Green New Deal Committee chaired by Ocasio-Cortez.

But on December 20, the Democratic leadership announced it will not support a separate House Committee on the deal. Instead, it will proceed with a panel on climate change, to be chaired by Florida Representative Kathy Castor, who has taken substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry. It remains unclear whether Ocasio-Cortez will even get a seat on the committee.

But the grassroots push for a Green New Deal is clearly not going to go away. The youthful Sunrise Movement has vowed to fight for it, along with a wide range of others, including Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, a likely 2020 presidential contender.

***

The Green New Deal idea conjures visions of the vast “alphabet agency” programs birthed by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt in the 1930s.

With unparalleled pageantry, New Deal Democrats put millions of Americans to work building roads, bridges, schools, libraries, museums, public swimming pools, local and national parks, and more. They proved that immense communal good could come from a solid government blueprint administered through a competent, well-orchestrated brain trust.

In contrast, the Trump Administration’s promise to deal with “infrastructure” has involved none of the above. While denying the disaster of climate change, its energy policies have focused purely on handing cheap fossil drilling leases on public land (and waters) to Trump cronies.

It’s also granted a $3.7 billion low-interest loan (added to $8.3 billion previously granted by President Obama) to private developers of the last two U.S. nuclear reactors under construction, at Vogtle, Georgia. Already years behind schedule and billions over budget, the project may soar beyond $20 billion and still never be finished.

The fate of the Vogtle plant underscores a nuclear war that will cut to the heart of the Green New Deal and the climate issue as it plays out in the new Congress.

Already, The New York Times, with its long history of reactor advocacy, has featured an op-ed by U.S. Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, advocating more nukes as a solution to the climate crisis. In an article running under a photo of a Chinese reactor under construction, Barrasso argues that “nuclear energy is produced with zero carbon emissions.”

In fact, nuclear reactors do emit trace quantities of radioactive Carbon-14. The fuel rods that power reactor are produced with significant carbon in mining, milling, and enrichment. They pump huge quantities of waste heat directly into the eco-sphere, operating far less efficiently even than coal burners. They yield large quantities of radioactive waste, directly related to nuke weapons production. And five of them (Chernobyl 4 and Fukushima 1-2-3-4) have blown up.

Reactor enthusiasts like Barrasso invariably conjure visions of a “new generation” of small, modular nukes, and other techno-variants like molten salt and thorium, alleged to be safe, cleaner and cheaper that the current fleet. But there are few tangible indications such alternative reactors can come on line anytime soon, or beat the price of wind and solar, which continue to plummet. The criticism that renewables are intermittent is also losing its sting as large-scale battery arrays are also dropping in price while rising in efficiency and capacity.

Barrasso also advocates the continued use of fossil fuels, with various pipeline-related schemes for storing and using the resultant CO2. “The United States and the world,” he says, “will continue to rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuels, including coal, to power our economies for decades to come.”

***

These pro-nuke arguments are echoed even by some self-proclaimed supporters of the Green New Deal. According to a report from DataforEnergy, principally written by Greg Carlock, at least part of the Green New Deal should be powered by “clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.”

Such rhetoric will be tested by advocates characterizing atomic energy as “clean.” Their fight for new reactor funding may quickly engulf much of the Green New Deal debate.

So will the struggle over the 98 U.S. reactors still licensed to operate. As they age, they continue to deteriorate and embrittle. Opponents of nuclear power want them shut down before they explode; advocates argue that without them, more fossil fuels will be burned.

But such choices are made in corporate boardrooms, not even by the free market. Pacific Gas & Electric, owner of two aging reactors near San Luis Obispo, has already admitted that it could replace both with renewable energy while burning no more coal, oil, or gas. If Green New Deal activists are to make a dent in our aging nuclear fleet, they’ll have to make sure the slew of reactors about to close is replaced by renewables, not the fossil fuels the utilities still own and love.

Finally, along with nuke power, the question of how to fund the deal will be center stage. Mainstream proposals will focus on a new range of taxes.

But outspoken peace groups like Code Pink are eager to move the money out of the military and into the social/infrastructure programs that can rebuild the nation. High-profile campaigns led by activists Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin were integral to the shocking defection of seven Republican Senators to deny the Trump Administration funding to support the Saudi war in Yemen.

Activists must now argue that the trillion-plus dollars we spend annually on arming the Empire should instead fund those wind turbines and solar panels at the heart of the Green New Deal.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Boy Plunder: The Many Crimes of Jared Kushner Print
Sunday, 30 December 2018 11:40

Olear writes: "The son-in-law and top adviser to the president, the de facto U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and would-be Middle East peacemaker, is no patriot. To the contrary, Kushner has shown nothing but contempt for the United States: violating its laws, lying to its law enforcement officials, and (possibly) selling its state policy for his own personal enrichment."

Jared Kushner. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Jared Kushner. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)


Boy Plunder: The Many Crimes of Jared Kushner

By Greg Olear, Medium

30 December 18


Despite being largely ignored by the press, the president’s son-in-law has a laundry list of crimes linked to his name

previously wrote in July 2017 about whether Jared Kushner was taking orders from Vladimir Putin, concluding: “For all we know, Jared Kushner is the greatest threat to national security since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Certainly he should be viewed as such until we know for sure.”

It’s now 18 months later, and it seems certain that Kushner is among the most corrupt and seditious figures ever to work in the White House. The son-in-law and top adviser to the president, the de facto U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and would-be Middle East peacemaker, is no patriot. To the contrary, Kushner has shown nothing but contempt for the United States: violating its laws, lying to its law enforcement officials, and (possibly) selling its state policy for his own personal enrichment.

Despite criminal activity breathtaking in both scope and audacity, Kushner tends to receive preferential treatment from the media, like he’s royalty or a popular celebrity and not one of the most dangerous criminals in American history. Can it be attributed to Kushner’s cozy relationship with David Pecker, publisher of National Enquirer, Star, Sun, Weekly World News, and others? Or is it simply that Kushner generally avoids the spotlight, so his crimes are overshadowed by those of his father-in-law?

As we eagerly await his looming indictments, let’s survey the many alleged crimes of Jared Kushner.

1. Weaponizing Data to Contaminate the Election

Kushner joined the Trump Campaign in November 2015, to head the social media team, but it was not until June 2016 that the social media campaign began to really take off.

That was when Kushner assumed control of “all data-driven efforts” with a data hub that worked closely with British outfit Cambridge Analytica, which essentially weaponized data obtained from Facebook and other sources. According to Forbes magazine:

As the election barreled toward its finale, Kushner’s system, with its high margins and up-to-the-minute voter data, provided both ample cash and the insight on where to spend it. When the campaign registered the fact that momentum in Michigan and Pennsylvania was turning Trump’s way, Kushner unleashed tailored TV ads, last-minute rallies and thousands of volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.

What Forbes called a “stealth data machine” appears to have been something more sinister. As Kushner himself readily admits, the social media team pursued “microtargeting,” which uses data-mining to obtain specific consumer data and demographics to make the most of their social media campaigns. But as became apparent, Cambridge Analytica was not exactly scrupulous in obtaining personal information about Facebook users.

And while it’s not clear the exact extent to which Cambridge Analytica’s illegal behavior was implemented by the Trump campaign, we do know that it was able to use “real-time information to determine which messages were resonating where and then shape Trump’s travel schedule around it” in key states. Although it may not be obvious now, Facebook is in enormous legal liability for allowing its data to be used in such a way. And it seems Jared Kushner was the “Boy Wonder” who made it all happen. Trump’s microtargeting was essentially Kushner’s system.

2. Meeting Illicitly With Russian Officials/Surrogates

It is against the law for American political campaigns to receive aid from foreign sources. It is likewise against the law for private American citizens to negotiate policy for the United States if they are not representatives of the current administration. So obviously arranging for campaign aid from a hostile foreign power in exchange for the promise of manipulation of U.S. policy would violate laws to the extreme. Kushner, however, appears to have done all these things.

At an April 2016 VIP-only foreign policy speech attended by most of his inner circle, Donald Trump promised a “good deal” for Russia. Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak attended, and Jared Kushner later claimed to have been the mastermind behind the event, which seems to have signaled to the Russians that the Trump campaign was willing to play ball.

In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met at Trump Tower with the Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskya, who’d promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Also in attendance were convicted felon Paul Manafort, representing the Trump campaign, and on the Russian side, Russian-American businessman Rinat Akhmetshin, alleged money launderer Ike Kaveladze, translator Anatoly Samochornov, and publicist Rob Goldstone, who helped arrange the meeting. Jared Kushner was there too, at least initially. He was also on the email chain concerning the meeting.

Kushner and convicted felon Mike Flynn met with Ambassador Kislyak at Trump Tower in the first week of December 2016. At the meeting, Kushner proposed a Russian embassy backchannel to avoid having to disclose communication between the camps going forward. Whatever went on at this sit-down, Kushner and Flynn went to great lengths to avoid discovery.

In mid-December that same year, Kushner ventured out to Newark Airport to meet Sergei Gorkov, the chairman of Vnesheconombank (VEB), the Russian state bank that was placed on the U.S. sanctions list in 2014. VEB later claimed that the meeting “was conducted with Kushner in his role as the head of his family’s real estate business,” according to the Washington Post. The White House, meanwhile, described it as a “diplomatic meeting,” whatever that means. Immediately after the rendezvous, Gorkov reportedly flew directly to see Putin, halfway around the world in Japan.

3. Meeting With the President of a Sanctioned Bank

That meeting with Gorkov? That was neither very legal nor very cool. Kushner is not allowed to do business with entities on the sanctions list. At the time of the meeting, Kushner’s company was in serious financial jeopardy. It needed a $1-billion loan to secure its white elephant of a property at 666 Fifth Avenue. If VEB’s suggestion is that the meeting was taken by Kushner “in his role as the head of his family’s real estate business,” that is highly illegal. What was Kushner offering in exchange for his family business’ loan?

4. Lying on His SF-86 Security Clearance Form

Kushner did not cite these meetings on his SF-86 security clearance form, which is itself a felony carrying a five-year prison term. Indeed, we only know about these clandestine Russia meetings because of great investigative journalism. Given Kushner’s penchant for secrecy, this suggests there might be other meetings we don’t yet know about.

5. Colluding With Tabloids to Attack Trump Critics

Trump’s longtime relationship with AMI’s David Pecker, publisher of the National Enquirer and other similar publications, led to AMI becoming a de facto slush fund, paying off Trump’s erstwhile paramours on Trump’s behalf to ensure stories of his infidelity would not break before the election. For years, the point man in this operation was Trump’s disgraced personal attorney Michael Cohen. After Trump took the White House, Jared Kushner assumed his role. As the Daily Beast reports:

Shortly after the Trump presidency began, Kushner and Pecker talked repeatedly, on subjects ranging from relations with the Saudi regime, to possible dirt that the Enquirer had on Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, according to the four sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
AMI, like Kushner, cozied up to the despotic Saudi government, which included the production of a glossy propaganda magazine boosting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The tactics of acquiring unseemly kompromat on rivals, it should be noted, is well known to Kushner, as this was ultimately one of the reasons his father, Charles Kushner, was sent to prison.

6. Lobbying for Qatari Blockade

In his role as White House adviser, Kushner (allegedly) pushed for the blockade of Qatar, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. (During the Gulf War, American military operations were headquartered in Qatar.) There’s nothing wrong with doing this, but Kushner appears to have lobbied for the blockade only after the Qatari government refused to provide his family business with a loan it needed.

7. Providing the Saudi Crown Prince With Classified Intelligence

Kushner has a well-established relationship with his fellow millennial of privilege Mohammad bin Salman, or MbS. Kushner allegedly provided MbS with classified information related to the members of the royal family who opposed him, leading to a purge of the disloyal in the Kingdom. While this has yet to be substantiated beyond one report, it squares with what we know of Kushner and MbS’s bromance.

8. Failure to Warn Jamal Khashoggi of the Plot Against Him

The CIA knew there was a plan in place to abduct Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. It seems likely this intelligence was relayed to Kushner, given his close relationship with MbS and the Saudis. If so, Kushner had a duty to warn Khashoggi, who was a U.S. resident at the time of his assassination. Per the Washington Post:

Intelligence agencies have a ‘duty to warn’ people who might be kidnapped, seriously injured or killed, according to a directive signed in 2015. The obligation applies regardless of whether the person is a U.S. citizen. Khashoggi was a U.S. resident.

9. Using Personal Email to Conduct Government Business

The man who helped run a social media campaign that centered on Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email accounts to conduct government business seems to have thought the same rules do not apply to him. As Politico reported in 2017:

The National Security Agency warned senior White House officials in classified briefings that improper use of personal cellphones and email could make them vulnerable to espionage by Russia, China, Iran and other adversaries, according to officials familiar with the briefings.
The briefings came soon after President Donald Trump was sworn into office on Jan. 20, and before some top aides, including senior adviser Jared Kushner, used their personal email and phones to conduct official White House business.
***

These nine alleged crimes are easily connected to Kushner and range in punishment from stiff fines to prison time to execution. And these are just what the press has openly reported about. It stands to reason that there might be even more yet to be revealed.

Perhaps one day in the not-too-distant future, the Office of the Special Counsel will indict Kushner on any number of these and other crimes. And if it happens that Kushner did in fact commit espionage and treason, I would shed no tears if he met the same fate as the Rosenbergs.

Sedition deserves no quarter.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 30 December 2018 09:37

Ash writes: "Chalk one up for Suffolk University and USA Today. They managed to come up with just the right poll at just the right time to set the mainstream media dashing off in the direction of validating the quintessential mainstream Democratic candidate for president, Joe Biden."

Progressive-democratic voters greet a candidate they are genuinely excited about. Note, that's not Joe Biden in the lower right hand corner. (photo: AP)
Progressive-democratic voters greet a candidate they are genuinely excited about. Note, that's not Joe Biden in the lower right hand corner. (photo: AP)


You're Really, Really Excited About Joe Biden – No, Really

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

30 December 18

 

halk one up for Suffolk University and USA Today. They managed to come up with just the right poll at just the right time to set the mainstream media dashing off in the direction of validating the quintessential mainstream Democratic candidate for president, Joe Biden.

Gone suddenly are all the polls that for two years found Bernie Sanders to be the most trusted and most popular politician in America. Gone are the opinions that Sanders was the de facto frontrunner. Suddenly and conveniently, the corporate media is in love with the safest candidate – for them: former Delaware senator Joe Biden.

The Electability Argument

“Establishment Democrats” love the electability argument. “Get behind the party pick if you want to win.” It's a mantle they are quick to claim for themselves. But the facts at this stage of the 2020 process don’t bode well for the long-range electability of Joe Biden.

Biden has a consistent track record as a presidential candidate: he doesn’t win, not even the Democratic nomination. Biden ran in 1988 and lost to Bill Clinton. That bid was complicated by an admission he was forced to make that he had plagiarized British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock in a 1988 campaign speech. However, the Washington Post cited a pattern of plagiarism on Biden’s part.

In 2008, he lost to a man he described as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." That’s not going away, folks.

Biden, who is staunchly defensive of the nation’s police, even in face of killings by police that continue at a pace of more than 1,000 a year, still can’t admit that a problem exists.

But Biden’s role as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman during the 1991 Senate confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas may prove the most problematic of all in the #MeToo era. His demeanor in shepherding Thomas’s nomination through the committee differed little in style or substance from that of the Republicans who validated Brett Kavanaugh. Biden was at once respectful of Hill and patronizing, considerate but unmoved. In the end, the Judiciary Committee was deadlocked 7-7 on the nomination. Biden voted against Thomas, but joined an almost unanimous vote to advance the nomination to the full Senate, where despite a solid Democratic majority Thomas was confirmed and is still with us today.

Sanders Is At the Epicenter of a Powerful and Productive Movement

Bernie Sanders makes a lot of people nervous. He wants change, fundamental change. Specifically, he wants the money out of American politics and more specifically, out of the healthcare policy process.

Clearly, Sanders’s message is resonating with voters in a way that the polls aren’t illustrating. The voters “want change,” said the Suffolk-USAT poll … but they like Biden better than Sanders. That just doesn’t jibe with the 2018 election results. Sanders’s message was at the core of the Progressive Congressional Revolution, which is in truth what it was. His signature issue, healthcare, defined the entire election cycle. Democrats and even Republicans were tripping all over themselves to embrace Medicare for all, some Republicans blatantly lying through their teeth to appeal to voters who demanded their attention to the issue.

Biden may be leading with the pollsters and the corporate media, but Sanders is leading on the issues, material change, and the direction of the debate with the voters.

Email This Page

Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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
 
The Halfway Point: What Have Two Years of Trump's Wrecking Ball Done to America? Print
Sunday, 30 December 2018 09:36

Smith writes: "It's nearly half-time and we’re still here. On 20 January it will be two years since the businessman and reality TV celebrity Donald Trump took the oath as president, spoke of 'American carnage' and boasted about his crowd size, leaving millions to wonder if the US, and the world, could survive him."

President Donald Trump's inauguration in Washington on Jan. 20, 2017. (photo: Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump's inauguration in Washington on Jan. 20, 2017. (photo: Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)


The Halfway Point: What Have Two Years of Trump's Wrecking Ball Done to America?

By David Smith, Guardian UK

30 December 18


The republic has undergone a wild stress test but despite new lows, Donald Trump’s presidency has also seen a democratic renaissance

t’s nearly half-time and we’re still here. On 20 January it will be two years since the businessman and reality TV celebrity Donald Trump took the oath as president, spoke of “American carnage” and boasted about his crowd size, leaving millions to wonder if the US, and the world, could survive him.

It will also be two years until the next inauguration in Washington. Has the 45th president kept his campaign promises and made America great again? Or has he proven an existential threat to the republic, stoking internal divisions, destroying its reputation abroad and assailing norms and values, the rule of law and reality itself?

For sure, Trump is testing his infamous January 2016 claim – “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters” – to destruction.

True, there has been no new war, no major terrorist attack, no economic crash – at least not yet – such is the soft bigotry of low expectations. There is also a school of thought that this presidency was necessary, that the rise of a narcissistic authoritarian has brought about a moment of reckoning, forcing white Americans to confront a racism many had dismissed as ambient noise and forcing everyone to confront a broken politics.

There’s no question that the institutions of our democracy are being tested every day in terms of the fundamental checks and balances built into our constitution,” said Leon Panetta, a former defence secretary and CIA director.There are some days when you wonder whether the system is going to work well, but I think generally we’ve been able to survive. But presidencies ought to be about a hell of a lot more than just survival.”

Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington and former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, agrees: “America is surviving; it isn’t thriving. Our institutions have undergone a stress test. They have bent; they haven’t broken.”

Most observers agree that Trump has remained true to himself and his candidacy, the anti-Barack Obama. Last month he awarded himself an A+, asking on Fox News: “Is that enough? Can I go higher than that?”

Trump presides over a strong economy with unemployment at its lowest rate for half a century, though Democrats argue that he is building on Obama’s foundations and warn of a spiralling national debt. He passed sweeping tax reform in what critics say was a giveaway to the super-rich at the expense of working families. He slashed regulations with little heed for the environment (he denies the science of climate change).

He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court, and many more conservative judges to the lower courts, delighting his base but infuriating millions of women and men after allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh were brushed aside. He has failed to build the wall he promised on the Mexican border but enforced an anti-immigration policy that separated children from their parents.

Overseas, Trump has praised authoritarians while alienating old allies and rattling the post-second world war liberal order. His relationship with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, remains a mystery, exemplified by a summit in Helsinki that led to cries of treason, but special counsel Robert Mueller has caught several criminals in Trump’s orbit and has cast a long shadow over the White House. Trump’s trade war with China could hurt the people who elected him the most.

Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, says: “Trump is squandering one of America’s greatest strengths, which is its allies. Stand back and say, is America more powerful than when he got elected in 2016? The answer has to be no. There has been only slippage.”

Along the way, the Republican party has done little to stop him, with most critical voices in the Senate – John McCain, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake – stilled by death or retirement. Even so, Jacobs retains faith in the country’s resilience. He said: “I’m not one of those people who think American democracy is ending. This is not a late-night horror movie. This is a country that had hundreds of years of democracy with a civil war, the McCarthy hearings and a lot more. The country has been through the wringer and democracy has held.

“When I look at the performance of institutions, I’d say it’s largely operational. The media has been described as the enemy of the people but the press looks more vibrant and aggressive in its reporting than at any time since Watergate. Trump is an aberration in his conduct but the operation of the American electoral system, judiciary and media continue.”

Trump also provokes questions of character, ethics and temperament. His White House has been a vortex of chaos with a record turnover of staff. He surrounded himself with ageing white men and members of his own family, inviting accusations of corruption. He drew moral equivalence between white nationalists and anti-fascist protesters after deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and appears to reserve particular venom for women and people of colour. He has attacked the media as “the enemy of the people” while chalking up thousands of false statements. His Twitter account brims with insults, lies, vulgarity and bad spelling.

Sidney Blumenthal, a biographer of Abraham Lincoln, says: “Trump is certainly the person with the worst character ever to be president. At two years and counting, the damage may equal the damage done by the worst presidents which brought on the civil war, and the damage done by Andrew Johnson who encouraged the Ku Klux Klan and white nationalist attacks on Reconstruction that brought about legalised segregation.”

Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to Clinton, warns that even if Trump – who lost the popular vote in 2016 and saw House Republicans routed in 2018 – is defeated in 2020, his legacy will endure. “The idea that there can be a simple restoration and the country can pick up where we left off the minute before Trump took the oath is a dangerous illusion. We’re going to have to deal with the damage. It is too profound that it is an unprecedented assault on our constitution.”

And yet there is a striking paradox. Over the past two years, Trump has also caused a democratic renaissance. The first Women’s March on Washington the day after his inauguration was probably the biggest single-day demonstration in recorded US history, with an estimated 725,000 people. In November 2018, 49% of the voter-eligible population showed up at the polls, the highest midterm turnout seen since 1914. Activists, authors, journalists and satirists have thrived in an age when politics suddenly matters again. The complacent myth of a post-racial country, which some espoused after Obama’s election, has been exploded, forcing some long-overdue conversations.

Asked if he considers Trump a white supremacist, Rashad Robinson, president of the advocacy group Color of Change, replies instantly: “Absolutely.” But he adds: “If Trump was the only one, he couldn’t survive. There is potential for us to be more honest and more clear and see what people do when things are hard. When you’re getting your tax breaks and your judges, are you willing to go along with racism?”

The president has shaken up norms once taken for granted, he adds. “Trump and the right have sort of called the bluff on those things where we thought the system was supposed to work: you can’t steal a supreme court seat, you can’t say racist things to a black female reporter, you can’t lie every day and get away with it. The bluff has been called and we can’t rely on the old structures and rules of cordiality.”

But the “resistance” to Trump has produced a surge of civic activism. Robinson says: “As much as the levers of power are being used, racial justice is winning as never before. People are working across silos as they haven’t in the past. There’s a new level of engagement.”

One example is Jjana Valentiner, an actor and makeup artist from Salt Lake City, Utah, now living in Washington, who stood outside the White House with candles on the night of Trump’s election. “I was in shock,” she recalls. “I was just numb. I heard a lot of people say it felt like a death.”

Valentiner’s response is to regularly hand-deliver boxes of cupcakes to members of Congress, the media and others she wants to thank for “saving democracy”, helped by a GoFundMe page that has raised more than $2,000 to date. She reflects: “We had stages of grief and, now that we’re two years in, I can look at it and go, right, it was necessary because I think it’s exposing a lot of what was under the surface already that needed to be exposed, especially for white folks.

“I actually think we’re going to get through this and I think we’re going to be stronger and better because of it.”

Neil Sroka, communications director of the progressive group Democracy for America, also finds consolation in the country’s response. “A giant Trump-shaped cloud sits over everything, but the silver lining is that the rise of this administration has led to a progressive awakening that had been thought of as possible but not guaranteed,” he says. “What many folks have realised is how fragile institutions are and in a lot of ways Trump himself hasn’t rotted the trust, but the wrecking ball Trump has been to our democratic norms has exposed the rot that lay beneath the surface.”

Race has been at the core of the Trump presidency, just as it is at the core of America. Sroka adds: “In January 2017, we had millions of white liberals running around saying this isn’t our country and what the last two years have shown is that, yes, this is our country and the only way we’re going to fix it is to fundamentally change our politics.”

Trump is as American as Obama. His presidency has laid bare America’s soul and shaken its oldest institutions, including the church. Michael Curry, presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal church, says: “I think in most folks there’s a sense that something’s out of kilter. We don’t know exactly what, and that’s not a liberal or conservative thing, but there’s something in the way we’re even engaging each other.”

Curry, 65, who shot to fame at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan, says he is now having more conversations with members of Congress and people in government about spiritual values. Despite it all, does he remain optimistic? He pauses and leans back, then replies: “I believe in hope. I believe in God. This isn’t the first time the human race has been in trouble and I expect it won’t be the last.

“We’re in the midst of some tough times right now but like the old slaves used to say, tough times don’t last always. As long as there’s a God.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Answer to Plastic Pollution Is to Not Create Waste in the First Place Print
Sunday, 30 December 2018 09:28

Wilson writes: "And while we wish a Christmas miracle would transform this old garbage into something new, the reality is the waste left over from the holiday shopping frenzy is more likely than ever to end up in a landfill or incinerator."

Plastic waste is more likely than ever to end up in a landfill or incinerator. (photo: S Meddle/ITV/REX/Shutterstock)
Plastic waste is more likely than ever to end up in a landfill or incinerator. (photo: S Meddle/ITV/REX/Shutterstock)


The Answer to Plastic Pollution Is to Not Create Waste in the First Place

By Monica Wilson, Guardian UK

30 December 18


With China refusing foreign waste under its new policy, countries are forced to handle their own plastic pollution

s holiday shopping ramps up, so do the dizzying varieties of plastic packaging tossed in recycling bins. And while we wish a Christmas miracle would transform this old garbage into something new, the reality is the waste left over from the holiday shopping frenzy is more likely than ever to end up in a landfill or incinerator. Until January of this year, the United States and other Western countries were foisting their low-value plastic waste on to China, with little concern for the environmental degradation this caused. To protect its citizens from the burden of foreign pollution, in the beginning of this year, China refused to be the world’s dumping ground and effectively closed its doors to plastic waste imports.

China’s new National Sword policy of refusing foreign waste has brought a long-overdue moment of reckoning for the recycling industry, and by proxy, for manufacturers. It’s clear recycling alone cannot come close to addressing the ballooning amounts of plastic waste piling up all over the country. Even before China’s waste ban took effect,only 9% of plastic in the US was actually recycled. No matter how diligently Americans sort their plastic waste, there is just too much of it for the US, or any other country, to handle.

On the bright side, the ban sparked a much needed conversation about improving domestic recycling infrastructure and recycling markets, and has forced both companies and the public to re-evaluate the products and packaging that were previously assumed to be recyclable. But the ban has also been used as a wrongful justification for burning trash in incinerators.

Waste incinerators became popular in the US in the late 80s, until harmful emissions of mercury and dioxins, toxic ash, technical failures, and prohibitive costs soured the public on the industry. However, there are still more than 70 relics left over from that failed experiment which continue to pollute surrounding communities and drain city coffers.

One of the most notorious cases is in Detroit. The city’s incinerator, perversely named Detroit Renewable Power, exceeded emissions limits more than 750 times over the last five years, contributing to one of the highest rates of asthma in the country. Not only is the incinerator criminally polluting, it cost the city nearly $1.2bn in debt. According to US Energy Information Administration data, incinerators are the most expensive way to produce energy – costing twice that of nuclear and solar and three times the cost of wind.

In some cases, recent incineration schemes are even disguised as recycling programs. For example, the city of Boise, Idaho, which was rocked by China’s waste ban, is directing residents to “recycle” their plastic by putting it in a special orange bag called the Hefty Energy Bag. The plastic is then melted to make fossil fuels to burn.

This method, called pyrolysis, or “plastic-to-fuel, is being pushed by the American Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical, Unilever, and others who are invested in continuing the status quo of churning out massive amounts of single-use plastic. Not only is this form of incineration the opposite of recycling, it gives people a false sense of security that single-use plastic is acceptable to continue making and using. Instead of coming up with increasingly complicated and expensive ways to deal with plastic waste, why not focus on preventing it from being made in such large quantities in the first place? We simply need less plastic in the world.

Notably, many North American cities are cracking down on nonsense single-use plastic and resisting short-sighted, false solutions like plastic-to-fuel. Plastic bag bans or fees are underway in cities such as Seattle, Boston, San Francisco (leading to a statewide ban), and Washington, DC. Some cities are going even further: Vancouver is introducing a city-wide ban on single-use straws, foam cups, and containers starting June 2019. In addition to bans and fees on problematic products and packaging, several cities are also pursuing legislation that would force companies to pay for managing the waste created by their products instead of foisting disposal costs onto the consumer, thereby motivating them to change their manufacturing and delivery systems to eliminate or drastically minimize waste.

This holiday season, the greatest gift manufacturers can give consumers is the option to buy their products without ending up with a recycling bin full of single-use plastic packaging destined for the burner or the dump. As the saying goes, “necessity is the mother of invention”. China’s National Sword policy gives us the opportunity to kick our society’s plastic habit once and for all and to put pressure on those most responsible for it: not consumers, not cities, but producers.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 Next > End >>

Page 1027 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