RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Allan Nairn: The US Is Facing Incipient Domestic Fascism, But Rightist Revolution Can Be Stopped Print
Saturday, 03 November 2018 13:27

Excerpt: "The 2018 U.S. midterm elections mark a critical point in the era of President Donald Trump, as the potential Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives has unleashed a torrent of white supremacist vitriol in the run-up to November 6."

A makeshift memorial stands outside the Tree of Life Synagogue on Oct. 29, 2018. (photo: Matt Rourke/AP)
A makeshift memorial stands outside the Tree of Life Synagogue on Oct. 29, 2018. (photo: Matt Rourke/AP)


Allan Nairn: The US Is Facing Incipient Domestic Fascism, But Rightist Revolution Can Be Stopped

By Allan Narin, Amy Goodman, Nermeen Shaikh, Democracy Now!

03 November 18

 

he 2018 U.S. midterm elections mark a critical point in the era of President Donald Trump, as the potential Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives has unleashed a torrent of white supremacist vitriol in the run-up to November 6. In the past week alone, a militant Trump supporter was accused of mailing three pipe bombs to CNN and 12 bombs to people Trump frequently criticizes; two African-Americans were murdered by a white supremacist outside Louisville, Kentucky; and 11 Jewish worshipers were massacred in a Pittsburgh synagogue by a white supremacist who railed on social media against Jews who help refugees. Both the gunman and Trump have called immigrants “invaders.” Meanwhile, Trump has sharply escalated his attacks on immigrants, threatening to send as many as 15,000 U.S. troops to the U.S.-Mexico border and to rewrite the Constitution to revoke birthright citizenship. We speak with investigative journalist Allan Nairn, who says that fascism is on the rise in the U.S. Nairn has been a fierce longtime critic of the Democratic Party and its support for war and neoliberal policies, but he is calling for the public to mobilize to elect Democrats in the midterm elections.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The 2018 U.S. midterm elections mark a critical point in the era of President Donald Trump. The potential Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives has unleashed a torrent of white supremacist vitriol that is without precedent in recent years. In the past week alone, a militant Trump supporter was accused of mailing three pipe bombs to CNN and 12 bombs to people Trump frequently criticizes, including the Obamas and the Clintons; two African Americans were murdered by a white supremacist outside Louisville, Kentucky, after he unsuccessfully tried to enter a predominantly African-American church; and 11 Jewish worshipers were massacred in a Pittsburgh synagogue by a white supremacist who railed on social media against Jews who help refugees, or “invaders,” as he and Trump call them.

AMY GOODMAN: This comes as President Trump has sharply escalated his attacks on immigrants. So far this week, Trump has threatened to send as many as 15,000 U.S. troops to the U.S.-Mexico border and to rewrite the Constitution to revoke birthright citizenship. He and the right-wing media are also continuing to fixate on a caravan of Central American migrants that’s more than a thousand miles from the U.S. border. On Wednesday, Trump posted an explicitly racist ad on his Twitter feed suggesting Democrats are letting immigrant murderers into the country.

And Trump also has escalated his attacks on the media, despite the recent Saudi murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Turkish Embassy—in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey and the recent bombs sent to CNN.

To talk about what’s at stake on Tuesday, we’re joined by longtime investigative journalist Allan Nairn. For decades, he has covered U.S. foreign policy across the globe, including in Indonesia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, past winner of the George Polk Award.

Allan Nairn, welcome back to Democracy Now!

ALLAN NAIRN: Thanks. Good to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the state of affairs in this country right now.

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, this midterm election, this is it. The U.S. is facing incipient domestic fascism. The rightist revolution that Trump dragged to power has a chance to consolidate itself. The way to stop it is to vote the Democrats into control of at least one, and preferably both, houses of Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting you say that, because you’ve been a fierce critic of Democrats.

ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah. I mean, for years, I’ve been documenting how many of the senior Democrats are complicit in war crimes, how they belong in prison. But we are now in an emergency situation in which there is a huge, fundamental difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at this moment. The Republicans would abolish democracy. They’re looking—because that’s the only way they can perpetuate their power. They have a minority of the votes. They have to rig the system so they can stay in power, as their minority of votes diminishes over time. The Democrats, their interest is in maintaining, even expanding, democracy, because that will help bring them to power. In addition, Trump personally—

AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about voter suppression there—

ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —and expanding the vote.

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, all sorts of things—voter suppression, gerrymandering—the tactics that the Republican rightist revolution is using to maintain its hold in power, even though they can’t win a straight-up vote.

Secondly, there is the element that Trump personally has brought to power. When he dragged the Koch brothers and the Paul Ryans and the American oligarchs to power, he did it with a two-pronged platform. One was punching the elites in the nose, as the banker Jamie Dimon put it. The other was racism. Without the element of punching the elites in the nose, the Republicans could never have won the election. Romney tried running on the elitist platform of giving tax breaks to the rich, getting rid of Social Security, Medicare. He lost. They can’t win with that. But Trump presented himself as someone who, A, will support social justice and who, B, had the capacity to unleash the beast within white America.

And so he dragged the American rich into power. They came with a preprogrammed plan to make an even more massive shift of government resources and taxpayers’ money to the richest people in the country. You know, there are just three individuals now whose wealth is equal to that of the bottom 50 percent of the American population. I mean, it’s already insane, but the Republican core value is to make it worse. And, secondly, he did it by unleashing these fascistic forces in the American population, in the American grassroots.

And there are many good Democratic candidates in this election, people who, in one way or another, will represent a breakthrough for social justice, who all have essentially pledged to support Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, when the Republicans would abolish it. But also, many of these, or a substantial number of these, Democrats are arguably war criminals—not as big as the war criminals on the Republican side, but still war criminals. And they belong in prison.

But we are facing such a crisis in this country at this moment that you have to use your head. You have to be tactical. You have to, at this moment, vote in the warmongers who will preserve democracy to block the warmongers who would abolish it—and then, the day after the election, go back to the deeper work of creating real, better, more constructive political alternatives and also helping the base of the Democratic Party take back the party from the consultants, from the rich donors. But that’s for the day after the election is completed, and maybe the runoffs in Georgia and Mississippi, if they happen, after those are completed. Right now, the task is to stop the incipient fascism that Trump and the rightist revolution represents. And you can’t really say that you were working toward an anti-fascist goal if you’re not mobilizing for the Democrats right now. That’s the urgent reality that we’re living.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I mean, you have even suggested, Allan, that depending on how things go next week in the midterms, that there could be a far more progressive left government in power in just a few years in the U.S. Could you explain why you think that is?

ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah. I think it—well, it’s because of the collapse of the American middle class. It was the collapse of that American middle class, heavily linked to neoliberal policies, that made Sanders and Trump the two most dynamic candidates in the 2016 election. They were the only two that recognized the reality, that the American middle class, the prosperous working class, had been gutted. Everyone else—Clinton, all the other Republican candidates—were talking fantasy, trying to believe that this hadn’t happened. So, those two emerged very strongly.

Now, their solutions were opposite. Sanders was talking about constructive solutions. Trump was posing as an enemy of the elites when he wasn’t. He was actually the embodiment of the worst, the most criminal aspects of the American oligarchs. And he was simultaneously saying, “We’ll help solve this with racism.”

Now, though, in this campaign, there’s an interesting change in the Trump-Republican strategy. They’ve dropped the punch-the-elites-in-the-nose part, and they’re running on the straight-up racism, the anti-immigrant hysteria. There’s really nothing else there.

It’s important to note that the immigration issue itself is phony. It’s a complete fake. If you’re actually looking at facts, there is no immigration issue. I cite as my source on this Sean Hannity. After Romney was defeated by Obama in the 2012 election, Hannity immediately went on his radio show saying he had re-evaluated his position on immigration.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Sean Hannity of Fox.

ALLAN NAIRN: This is Sean Hannity of Fox. He said he, Sean Hannity, now favored a path to citizenship, which is what the progressive immigration activists had been pushing. He said, “We’ve got to drop the immigration issue.” I mean, basically—

NERMEEN SHAIKH: How long ago was this?

ALLAN NAIRN: This was right after Obama defeated Romney in the 2012 election, because his diagnosis was—Hannity’s was, that, A, the immigration problem is not a national security threat to the United States. If Sean Hannity really believed the U.S. would be overrun by Mexican and Central American migrants, he would not be saying drop the issue, have a path to citizenship. He obviously believed it was a loser to the Republicans—for the Republicans. This was the same time that the Republicans, some of the Republicans, issued what was called their autopsy report, where they said, “We have to drop this anti-immigrant stuff. We have to move closer to the Latino population, if we want to have any chance of gaining a majority of the votes at some time in the future.”

But Trump came in and proved Hannity and the autopsy report to be incorrect. Trump had a deeper understanding of the American population, the American white population, and the resonance of racism and nativism in this country. Trump said, “No, screw that. We’re going to go straight-out attack against nonwhites, against Muslims, against Mexicans,” etc., etc. His party had already recognized that the whole thing was fake, but Trump saw something true about the way that there are elements within people, the worst, most vile, most bestial elements—they exist in every person. I mean, every major religion has noticed and talked endlessly about this fact since the beginning of human civilization. Everybody has bad, has evil within them. And Trump has a profound understanding of how to draw it out, how to mobilize it, how to weaponize it and how to use it for political purposes. And that is now a core element of the rightist revolution that has taken power in this country and that threatens to evolve from just an incipient fascism into a new unique American fascism.

And by the way, just on a mechanical level, you ain’t seen nothing yet. I mean, if the Republicans win this time, if they maintain control of both houses of Congress, and especially—and also if they maintain many of the major governorships that are up across the country, which will enable them to further rig House districts and do further, even more radical voter suppression, things will get much, much worse. Trump’s ability to incite, at the grassroots level, racist violence will go from just a few isolated incidents, which is what we have now, into the possibility of actual organized forces, paramilitaries. And up 'til now, the Supreme Court has been, in an ambiguous way, something of a check, because of the ambiguous position of Kennedy. Kennedy is gone now. He's replaced by Kavanaugh, who is part of the group of rightist Republicans on the court who are radical right and Bolshevik in their discipline. Anything that the Republican revolution wants to do, this Supreme Court will rubber-stamp it. And that’s new. That’s new as of just X number of weeks ago. So, we haven’t seen anything compared to what’s coming if the Republicans are able to win these elections.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Trump succeeded in doing something quite unbelievable. Last week in the middle of the night—I think it was one of his 3 a.m. tweets—he said, “Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this”—he put it in quote—’Bomb’ stuff.” This was in the midst of the letter bombs being sent—

ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —to the Obamas, to the Clintons, to George Soros, to Maxine Waters. It read like a Trump hit list. Again, Trump said, “now this 'Bomb' stuff happens and the momentum greatly slows–news not talking politics. Very unfortunate, what is going on. Republicans, go out and vote!” He understood he could not bring up the caravan in the midst of this letter bomb attack.

ALLAN NAIRN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: But then you had the killing of the African Americans in Kentucky. You had the worst anti-Semitic attack on U.S. soil in history, 11 Jews killed last Saturday. And President Trump then throws out everything he can—”I’m sending 15,000 troops to the border”—to get the terrorists outside coming in, right? He is going to overturn the Constitution with an executive order, with birthright citizenship. This question of the enemies outside—and he’s succeeding, because there’s so much outrageous that he has put forward—in taking away this extreme threat here at home.

ALLAN NAIRN: Right. Well, you know, Trump is a sharp guy. He’s an ignoramus and a fool, but he’s also a sharp guy. You know, the human mind is very complex. And that’s one reason why he’s so dangerous. He was essentially planning the American equivalent of a series of Nuremberg rallies to close out the campaign. And the Pittsburgh massacre, the Louisville massacre—although Pittsburgh got much more attention—the pipe bombs threw him off stride. If these atrocities had happened outside of election season, far from an election, it actually would have been a plus for the Trump forces and the rightist revolution, because these are the kinds of acts that traditionally give energy to fascistic movements. They serve as movement building. They push the envelope. They create conditions of fear and chaos that increase the demand for the strong leader. But in this case, it was an inconvenience, and it really annoyed Trump. In fact, he even was forced by public opinion and his aides to issue a statement where—I’m going to look for the exact quote that Trump gave. He said, “Acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America.” That was Trump after the pipe bombs.

Well, as any honest officer at the Pentagon will tell you, acts or threats of political violence are the core of the American-led world system. Anybody who knows politics knows that. And one of the things that Trump has done is he is starting to increase the role that those kinds of acts or threats of political violence play, and potentially play, in American domestic politics. I mean, we have a long history of domestic political violence, of course, against Native Americans, against African-American slaves, against the labor movement, etc., etc., and continuing today on an ad hoc basis, encouraged by the Trump-like forces, in the case of shootings of police officers and Border Patrol of unarmed civilians, especially African Americans and, on the border, occasional killings of immigrants. There was a young woman from Guatemala, from Quetzaltenango, who was shot in the head by the Border Patrol near Laredo, Texas, this past spring.

And by the way, the logical culmination of Trump’s current immigration push, as you noted earlier, which includes the idea of presidential fiat to amend the Constitution—which, by the way, could be accepted by the Kavanaugh court. It could not have been previously. But now that’s on the table. And if they accept that, that opens the door to a president knocking out any other part of the Constitution he doesn’t like. But the logical conclusion of this push is setting up Israeli-type snipers, like the Israelis have along the Gaza border, where they pick off civilians, even pick off people who are wearing press vests, pick off medical personnel, pick off unarmed people who are just standing there protesting. If you look at Fox News and their demand, their pressure, for actually opening fire on the border, that’s the logical next step, if the Republicans win. If the Democrats are able to get at least one house, that will be some significant constraint on Trump’s freedom of action.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to this discussion. Interesting, in President Trump’s series of eight states, 11 rallies, before the midterms, he’s been told not to come to Arizona or Nevada to help the Republican candidates. They are deeply concerned about what his message will mean, that it could sink them. Allan Nairn, award-winning investigative journalist. We’ll be back with him in 30 seconds.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Symbol” by Adrianne Lenker, here on Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. We talked about these horrible attacks on U.S. soil and President Trump continuing to attack the media, even as three letter bombs went to CNN, but also there is the attack by a close U.S. ally, deeply close, particularly to President Trump and his senior adviser, son-in-law Jared Kushner, Saudi Arabia—the Saudi murder of the Saudi journalist, The Washington Post columnist Khashoggi. Every day now, we’re getting out new information. Today, apparently, the Turkish authorities say they may have liquefied his body or turned it to ashes with acid, after he was, they said, strangled right after he walked into the Saudi Consulate in Turkey. Your thoughts, Allan?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, as a result of the public outrage at the torture and murder of Khashoggi, the U.S. is looking for ways to signal a pullback on its support for the Saudi regime, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. And just the other day, Pompeo came out and called for a ceasefire in Yemen. Now, in and of itself, that call is, in theory, a good thing, but just in September Pompeo certified to Congress, to prevent the freezing of a small amount of the arms that the U.S. was providing to attack the Yemeni civilian population—he certified that adequate steps were being taken by the Saudis and by the U.S. to protect civilians. This as they were bombing school buses, bombing funerals, bombing wedding parties, and doing it with U.S. refueling help, U.S. planes and U.S. munitions provided by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and others. So, Khashoggi certified, just weeks ago, that this was—I’m sorry, Pompeo certified that this was OK. And it’s—we’ll see what happens.

Right now, as he says this, Saudi forces are massing outside of Yemen’s main port—some there fear for another attack on the city—to try to cut off and starve the place. This as they have brought millions to the brink of famine and have already killed, by the best recent estimates, perhaps 50,000, perhaps 60,000 or 70,000 Yemenis, and created one of the most serious outbreaks of cholera in recent world history. And this is all directly chargeable against the U.S.

There’s some talk about cutting off U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Well, that’s not a matter of policy. That’s a criminal matter. These U.S. arms sales and this U.S. refueling and training for Saudi Arabia is a war crime, because the U.S. is facilitating attacks on civilian targets in Yemen. George Bush Jr. put it very well. He said, “If you arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist.” I agree with Bush Jr. And in this case, the U.S. government is a terrorist. That’s the way we should look at the Saudi arms sales.

In terms of the murder of Khashoggi itself, the thing that strikes me about it most is that the main reason this exploded into an issue was because there’s a tape, apparently. There’s a tape of the death room, the final seconds of the victim’s life. And there are so many people around the world who have been imagining what happened in that death room, when their own loved one was tortured to death by any one of three dozen U.S. client states over the years. I personally have wondered about two such death rooms, one in Guatemala, where a friend of mine—story was she had her hands cut off—another in Indonesia, where Jafar Siddiq Hamzah, my friend, had his face sliced off by the authorities who had kidnapped him. And when we found him, his hands were bound behind his back. Imagine if there were tapes of all of those events and they were on TV every day and we were all forced to watch them. This policy wouldn’t last a year. We’ve got to stop it.

But if you want that kind of change, if you want change on something that profound, you’ve got to stop the dismantling of what democracy we have in this country. You’ve got to stop the rise of incipient fascism. And to do that tactically, you’ve got to go out and mobilize for the Democrats.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there, but we’ll continue this conversation and post it online under web-exes at democracynow.org.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Consequences of Blowing the Whistle on State-Sanctioned Child Abuse Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 03 November 2018 11:05

Kiriakou writes: "A year or so ago, a reporter asked me for a comment on what I expected from the Trump administration vis-à-vis the treatment of whistleblowers. I was so down on the recently-departed Obama administration at the time that I said I expected Trump would see whistleblowers differently from Obama, who saw them as leakers and malcontents. I said nobody could be as bad as Obama was on whistleblowing and that I thought Trump and his administration might be easier to deal with."

John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)


The Consequences of Blowing the Whistle on State-Sanctioned Child Abuse

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

03 November 18

 

year or so ago, a reporter asked me for a comment on what I expected from the Trump administration vis-à-vis the treatment of whistleblowers. I was so down on the recently-departed Obama administration at the time that I said I expected Trump would see whistleblowers differently from Obama, who saw them as leakers and malcontents. I said nobody could be as bad as Obama was on whistleblowing and that I thought Trump and his administration might be easier to deal with.

That response was naïve and just plain wrong. So far, the Trump Justice Department has been even tougher on whistleblowers, sentencing NSA whistleblower Reality Winner to an unprecedented five years and three months in a federal prison for having contact with the media. And former FBI agent Terry Albury was sentenced to a harsh four years in prison for sending a document related to racial discrimination in the FBI to The Intercept. Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has told the press that it is his department’s “priority” to arrest and prosecute Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange.

It’s easy to focus on national security whistleblowers, because they are generally the ones who get the most media attention. But there’s another whistleblower who is being ignored by the press, one who blew the whistle for altruistic purposes, who may have saved a child’s life, and who is looking at a decade behind bars. That whistleblower is Marty Gottesfeld.

I’ll bet that you’ve never heard of Marty. He is a computer programmer and self-described member of Anonymous, the hacktivist group that tries to right wrongs the only way they know how – via the internet. Marty intervened to help a young child being abused, quite literally, by the medical establishment. And he has paid for that with his freedom.

The story is a long one, but here are the basic details. Justina Pelletier was a young teenager in West Hartford, Connecticut. At the age of 14, she developed searing stomach pain and inexplicable digestive problems. Her parents took her to a series of doctors until a metabolic geneticist at Tufts Medical Center diagnosed her with mitochondrial disease, a genetic malady that can lead to weakened muscles, neurological problems, and dementia. (Justina’s older sister was later diagnosed with the same disease.)

Her symptoms worsened over the course of the next 18 months until the pain was too much to bear. And to make matters worse, she caught the flu. That caused her to begin slurring her speech and made her unable to stand up. Finally, her parents took her to Boston Children’s Hospital, a leading institution affiliated with Harvard University. It was there that doctors said Justina didn’t have mitochondrial disease at all. They said she had mental illness and her symptoms were psychosomatic. They took her off her medications, but her parents refused to comply. When they went to take Justina home, they were blocked by hospital guards. The hospital took Justina into “state custody” and reported her parents to state officials for “medical child abuse.” It was then that the case went off the rails. (Justina’s parents complained that the doctors at Children’s were far junior to her doctor at Tufts and were not specialized in genetic diseases.)

Justina was immediately transferred to the hospital’s child psychiatric ward, where her condition worsened even more. She could no longer stand or walk and her hair fell out. Her toenails were actually ripped out when hospital staff dragged her, accusing her of refusing to walk. Justina was allowed one 20-minute call per week with her parents, but that call was monitored by staff, and they were forbidden from discussing her care. She resorted to making crafts out of paper in which she embedded messages and sent them to her parents. One said simply, “I’m being tortured.”

Justina’s parents sued Children’s Hospital with the full support of the original doctor from Tufts. But the doctors at Children’s argued that the only danger to Justina’s health was her parents. They said that Justina had been overmedicated and that her parents had ignored her mental illness. A judge agreed, at least for the time being. That was until the Boston Globe did a study saying that Children’s Hospital had done this before, to other parents. Indeed, in the previous 18 months, the hospital had removed at least five other children from their parents for “medical child abuse,” something that hospital staffers called a “parentectomy.”

When the Pelletiers failed to get Justina back, they turned to the same evangelical group that worked to keep Terry Schiavo alive during her controversial “right-to-die” case. Reverend Patrick Mahoney became the family spokesman, took to the internet, and attracted the attention of Marty Gottesfeld. (A federal court issued a gag order preventing Justina and her parents from speaking to the media.)

Marty was a computer security expert who was appalled at the treatment to which Justina and her family were subjected. He decided to act. Marty allegedly initiated a denial of service attack against the Children’s Hospital computer system and against the Wayside Youth and Family Support Network, where Justina was later moved. Children’s complained that the attack cost the institution $300,000 to mitigate and $300,000 in lost donations because it took place during the annual pledge drive. But that attack also served to raise public awareness of Justina’s plight and may have been the reason that Justina was finally moved to a facility nearer her family in Connecticut.

As I said, this story is a long one. Marty and others, particularly Justina’s parents, kept up the pressure on the hospital, the state, and the judge overseeing the case. Justina and her sister were able to smuggle out a 45-second video in which she implored the judge to let her go home to her family. It was clear that after 16 months in a psychiatric ward her problems were not “in her head.” They were in her genes. The original Tufts doctor was right. Justina had mitochondrial disease. The judge finally reversed his decision and sent her home, where she now lives with her family and is undergoing the proper medical treatment.

But in the meantime, a federal investigation zeroed in on Marty and he was arrested. To make matters worse, his case was assigned to Judge Nathaniel Gorton, the brother of longtime Republican senator Slade Gorton and the judge who presided over the case of privacy pioneer Aaron Schwartz who, when charged with felony theft for downloading scholarly journal articles and facing 35 years in prison, committed suicide. Gorton’s reputation as a hanging judge is well-deserved.

Marty decided to go to trial. His wife Dana complained (correctly and unsurprisingly) that the public defenders assigned to the case were overworked, under-informed, and not of much use. In August, Marty was found guilty on all counts of damaging protected computers and conspiring to damage protected computers. (The jury also found that nothing he did impacted any patients.) Marty is scheduled to be sentenced on November 14. Dana tells me that prosecutors are asking that he be incarcerated for 10-12 years.

These cases don’t happen in a vacuum. First of all, agree with him or not, Marty Gottesfeld is a whistleblower. He brought to light “evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety.” That’s the legal definition of whistleblowing. During the Obama administration, as bad as it was in its self-declared war on whistleblowers, Marty would likely have been offered a deal and he would have done a couple of years.

The Trump administration, though, is worse. It seeks to wreck lives and to make an example out of people with an iron fist. But you can make an example without forcing someone convicted of a first-time, nonviolent offense to spend the best years of his life in a cage with pedophiles, murderers, and drug kingpins. And that's exactly who Marty will share his cage with. That’s not justice.

Marty still has one long-shot chance. He is working to prove that Judge Gorton has a conflict of interest. That is a tough hill to climb, and it will have to be done largely post-sentencing. If you have any experience in background and legal research and want to help, please let me know. I’ll put you in touch with the right people. In the meantime, keep up the fight.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 03 November 2018 10:57

Boardman writes: "Perhaps enough Americans in enough numbers in enough places have woken up to the wildfires consuming our country. Perhaps these woke Americans will throw some water on the fires in the November 6 election."

Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: Getty Images)


The Fire This Time – It Will Keep Burning Long After November 6

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

03 November 18


The election will be a moment of truth for the country, and then what?

erhaps enough Americans in enough numbers in enough places have woken up to the wildfires consuming our country. Perhaps these woke Americans will throw some water on the fires in the November 6 election. Perhaps an emerging American majority will slow the Republican burn of American idealism, decency, and justice. Perhaps an emerging American majority will elect enough new Democrats to prod old Democrats out of their lazy collusion with burning the country down. Perhaps.

Whatever happens November 6, the fires of political fascism and capitalist authoritarianism will continue to rage out of control. The conniving right has been feeding these flames for decades and it’s likely to take more decades to extinguish them, if that’s even possible. The Long March of the right from the debacle of Goldwater in 1964 to the triumph of Trump in 2016 has been astonishingly Maoist in its determination, orthodoxy, and political correctness. One has to acknowledge them for their sheer ruthlessness and determination. Minority rule is no mean trick.

The Republican right had help from supine Democrats with no coherent alternative. They had more help from media quislings and collaborators (yes, that’s Fox) whose idea of analysis involved telling “both sides” regardless of what might be true. They had more help from an educational system producing increasing compliant, ignorant voters who could no longer reliably assess what was real or important or even in their self-interest. And they had still more help from elitist leaders who, rather than engaging the country as a potential unity, dismissed millions of people as deplorables in love with their guns and their religion (as if either of those were unquestionably evil).

Whatever happens November 6, we’ll still have a president who aspires to dictatorship, as illustrated by his assertion that he has the power to rewrite the Constitution all by himself. We’ll still have a ruling party that relies on racism to maintain power, that enables its bigots to spread hate by graffiti and murder. We’ll still have concentration camps full of migrants and migrant children separated from their parents, rounded up and held with no due process of law.

We’ll still live in a country where Twitter enables the president to release a shamelessly dishonest racist ad scapegoating immigrants and libeling Democrats. We’ll still live in a country where Facebook profits by selling lists of likely customers to white nationalist marketers promoting myths of “white genocide.” We’ll still live in a country where the dominant culture makes it unsafe and sometimes lethal to be different, where the president invites the military to kill innocent, unarmed people with impunity. This is not politically correct, but it is true: even as we mourn the synagogue murders in Pittsburgh we remain silent about Israeli executions of innocents in Gaza or Saudi genocide in Yemen.

We’ll still live in a country where the government no longer makes grants to organizations fighting US terrorism. We’ll still live in a country where the government deliberately pursues policies that threaten the global climate. We’ll still live in a country that abrogates nuclear weapons treaties and pursues new, “usable” nuclear warheads and the domination of space.

In a sense, November 6 is a moment of truth for the country. In a deeper sense, that’s fundamentally facile and false. Nothing magically changes on November 6, no matter the outcome. The election of a Democratic House looks like the most likely best outcome. But that Democratic majority wouldn’t be seated till January, leaving Republicans two months to feed the flames consuming us. The reality is that every moment is a moment of truth. Radical Republican reactionaries internalized that decades ago. Perhaps the realization that the moment of truth is now, always now, has finally generated a humane, tolerant, democratic majority in America – and maybe even an enlightened majority that can sustain itself. It’s worth dreaming.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Parkland Dad Fred Guttenberg: Voters Must Reject Racist, Anti-Semitic NRA on Election Day Print
Saturday, 03 November 2018 08:31

Excerpt: "In the wake of a series of hate-fueled gun attacks in the United States, we speak with Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed by a gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history this February."

Fred Guttenberg, father of 14-year-old student Jaime who was killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida. (photo: John Minchillo/AP)
Fred Guttenberg, father of 14-year-old student Jaime who was killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida. (photo: John Minchillo/AP)


ALSO SEE: Broad City’s Ilana Glazer: Why I Canceled My Event
at a NY Synagogue After Anti-Semitic Vandalism

Parkland Dad Fred Guttenberg: Voters Must Reject Racist, Anti-Semitic NRA on Election Day

By Fred Guttenberg, Nermeen Shaikh, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!

03 November 18

 

n the wake of a series of hate-fueled gun attacks in the United States, we speak with Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed by a gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history this February. As the nation reels from the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre and the Kentucky grocery store killing of two African Americans, Guttenberg is calling on voters to elect politicians who stand for gun control in next week’s midterm elections.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show looking at gun violence in the U.S., less than a week after a gunman entered Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue on Saturday, shooting and killing 11 Jewish worshipers. The massacre has been described as the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in American history. Funeral services were held Wednesday for three of the victims: Joyce Fienberg, Irving Younger and Melvin Wax. More funerals are planned in the coming days.

The Pennsylvania man accused of the mass killings was indicted Wednesday on 44 counts, including murder and hate crimes. Robert Bowers has a history of posting anti-Semitic and xenophobic content. Bowers used an AR-15 assault rifle and three Glocks to carry out the attack. He had purchased all four weapons legally.

AMY GOODMAN: Pittsburgh has seen major protests in light of the massacre. Thousands demonstrated to protest Donald Trump’s visit to the city. On Wednesday night, protesters gathered at the University of Pittsburgh to rally against hate and gun violence. Shortly after the Pittsburgh massacre Saturday, President Trump called for the arming of houses of worship.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If they had protection inside, the results would have been far better. This is a dispute that will always exist, I suspect, but if they had some kind of a protection inside the temple, maybe it could have been a very much different situation. But they didn’t.

AMY GOODMAN: But Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto challenged President Trump’s remarks.

MAYOR BILL PEDUTO: I think the approach that we need to be looking at is how we take the guns, which is the common denominator of every mass shooting in America, out of the hands of those that are looking to express hatred through murder.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Pittsburgh attack came three days after another act of gun violence, when a white gunman fatally shot two African Americans at a Kentucky grocery store, shortly after trying and failing to enter a black church. Gregory Bush opened fire and killed Maurice Stallard and Vickie Lee Jones at a Kroger supermarket near Louisville, in what many are calling a hate crime.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Davie, Florida, where we’re joined by Fred Guttenberg. His 14-year-old daughter Jaime died earlier this year in the mass school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Valentine’s Day. With the midterms just around the corner, he’s calling on voters to elect candidates who support gun safety.

Fred Guttenberg, welcome to Democracy Now!

FRED GUTTENBERG: Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: Again, our condolences on your daughter Jaime.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: You watched what unfolded in Pittsburgh on Saturday.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you describe your reaction? The gunman had an AR-15 and apparently three Glock pistols.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Sadness, anger, outrage. I actually was traveling—excuse me—back from Ohio, campaigning for candidates who support gun safety. And I was in the Atlanta airport when I started seeing these reports. I just—I almost broke down.

You know, my hope was that I would not be the dad that has to watch these events continue to unfold, that we would actually have a chance after this election to start making change. But it happened again, and 11 people dead, because somebody, again, who should never have had access to the weapon that he used, managed to walk—to buy it and then go into a temple with it. And when I hear the elected leaders talking the same nonsense that they did after Parkland, it says to me they still don’t get the underlying problem and what it takes to fix it.

And so, no, the answer isn’t that we start putting armed guards in every temple, every church, arming every teacher, putting armed guards on every street corner, in every mall and every movie theater and every shopping center. That’s not the answer. OK? That’s what the NRA wants, because it just leads to millions more in gun sales. But we must deal with the issue, which is, there are people who have hate in their heart. There are people who do want to kill. And there are people who we must identify and stop from being able to acquire these weapons, or remove the weapons that they have.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Fred, we’re now just days from the midterm elections, and you’re calling for an orange wave in November. Could you talk about what that means?

FRED GUTTENBERG: You know, to me, this election is not red or blue. It’s just not. It’s orange. Orange is the color of the gun safety movement. It was also my daughter’s favorite color. And I am a one-issue candidate in this election. I want candidates who not only will talk about gun safety as a political issue or as a voting issue, but will make it their mandate issue if they are elected to serve. So, I am supporting candidates who are the strongest possible candidates through this cycle on the issues of gun safety, because, to me, what must happen for us to truly get change is this must become a mandate issue in this election.

When the new Congress sits, I want returning members to the House and the Senate to know that they are sitting next to somebody new because the other person got fired for their stand on this issue and the new one got hired. And I want everyone to know, going forward, that if you don’t deal with this issue, you’ll be fired. Those who I’m helping to get elected, I’ll be holding them accountable when they sit and when they serve. And if they don’t do the job to act on this issue, I’ll keep going at it. People we love are dying every day.

AMY GOODMAN: You were just in California campaigning for Mike Levin.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: His opponent, Republican House candidate Diane Harkey, touting support from a group that promoted a conspiracy theory—

FRED GUTTENBERG: I know.

AMY GOODMAN: —about how people died in Parkland, including your daughter. What did she say?

FRED GUTTENBERG: Well, she’s promoting what’s called a false flag theory—basically, the idea that Parkland never actually happened. I guess we’re all a bunch of actors, according to her. And sometimes you’ve got to call out crazy. And that’s crazy. OK? You know, I don’t act. I truly went to visit my daughter at a cemetery yesterday. I truly cried as I was sitting there in the grass trying to get some kind of connection to her. That’s not acting. That’s reality. So when you call that acting, you’re crazy.

Someone who calls that a false flag, who says Parkland didn’t happen, is not only unfit to serve, they shouldn’t even have the ability to get close to running. In that district, Mike Levin deserves to win, and deserves to win big. You cannot have people like that getting close to the halls of our Congress. And so, I did campaign with Mike. I stood on a stage. I had a chance to talk about Mike, but I also had a chance to show them that I am as real as can be, and that this lady, who continues, by the way, to call out conspiracy theories, needs to be voted out and sent away. She should never be able to get close to another election again.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Fred, from the time of Parkland to now—we just had this horrific shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh—do you see a difference in the way that elected officials are now responding to gun violence of this kind, mass killing of this kind, as against what happened after Parkland?

FRED GUTTENBERG: Yeah, see a huge change. You now have elected officials who are running on their support of gun safety, who are proudly showing they have an F rating from the NRA. The elected officials who used to have the A ratings from the NRA, they’re now going quiet. OK? We have the winning message here. And the NRA, for the first time, is backing up. OK? And their chosen people in these races look like they’re going to lose.

The NRA message is a loser. And all they really care about is more killing and more chaos on our streets, where they can push the idea of more gun sales. They’re going to lose. We will get commonsense gun safety done. We will do it in a decent and civil way. But we are going to get something done when this new Congress sits.

AMY GOODMAN: You became well known in this country, after your daughter was murdered at Parkland, at that CNN town hall. You sparred with Republican Senator Marco Rubio. Here’s a clip of your exchange.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Your comments this week and those of our president have been pathetically weak. So, you and I are now eye to eye, because I want to like you. Look at me and tell me guns were the factor in the hunting of our kids in the school this week. And look at me and tell me you accept it and you will work with us to do something about guns.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Now, I think what you’re asking about is the assault weapons ban.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Yes, sir.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO: So let me be honest with you about that one. If I believed that that law would have prevented this from happening, I would support it. But I want to explain to you why it would not.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Senator Rubio, my daughter, running down the hallway at Marjory Stoneman Douglas—

SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Yes, sir.

FRED GUTTENBERG: —was shot in the back—

SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Yes, sir.

FRED GUTTENBERG: —with an assault weapon, the weapon of choice.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Yes, sir.

FRED GUTTENBERG: OK? It’s too easy to get. It is a weapon of war. The fact that you can’t stand with everybody in this building and say that, I’m sorry.

AMY GOODMAN: Fred Guttenberg, that was you challenging the Florida senator. What changed after that?

FRED GUTTENBERG: You know, I think the energy behind us parents who have stepped up and the kids who have stepped up and our continued push and our continually driving this message and our continually showing we’re not going away, Americans paid attention, and this election became the story. And this election became the way for us to show we’re going to get something done.

I want to say something about that exchange, because I see history repeating itself with Trump and some of the elected officials, where they want to talk about anything but the gun. My anger in that exchange was directed at the fact that running up to that night, Rubio and Trump talked about a lot of things with regards to what happened on February 14th, but they never once used the word “gun.” And these same elected officials right now want to talk about hatred and anti-Semitism, which, as a Jewish person, I’m horrified by, and it’s real, but they’re using that to avoid talking about the gun and what we need to do about the gun. And unfortunately, the people who are using this anti-Semitism are the same people who lit the flame, who lit the fuse over the past two years. So, I’m not going to let them get away with talking about that at the expense of talking about the gun, because it’s both things.

And we do have a problem in this country where access to those weapons is simply too easy. And we are allowing people who literally are going online and they’re telling us that they hate, and they’re telling us that they want to do this—and we’re not taking steps to prevent them from doing it. We’ve passed red flag laws here in Florida to keep—to be able to remove weapons from those who intend harm to themself or someone else, or domestic abusers. Listen, I think we ought to be extending that to those who use online platforms to verbalize hate to others, to verbalize violence to others. If they’re telling us they’re going to do it, we should take them seriously.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Fred, I want to go to what the NRA has been saying. Earlier this week, they tweeted, quote, “Another billionaire is pumping unlimited money into electing anti-gun lawmakers.”

FRED GUTTENBERG: Yeah.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: “Notorious anti-gunner George Soros joins anti-gun billionaires Steyer and Bloomberg. There is no end to how much they’ll pay to push their elitist agenda on Americans.” Fred, could you respond to that? What does the NRA mean? What are they trying to say when they say “elitist agenda”?

FRED GUTTENBERG: Well, I’ll say two things. Number one, any billionaire who wants to help with the safety of Americans, bring it. But regarding what the NRA is saying, it’s horribly anti-Semitic. And, you know, I was not a politically involved person before February 14. And I remember—and you can go back and look at my Twitter over the month, at how often people said to me I was a “Soros-funded tool.” And I didn’t really know at the—I didn’t know like know what to make of it. I wasn’t like—you know, George Soros, I’ve seen stuff about him before. But people kept on making that accusation against me. And even as recently as the Kavanaugh handshake, I was getting a lot of online venom saying I’m a “Soros-funded tool.” Like I had an idea that somebody wouldn’t return a handshake. I’ve never met George Soros. I don’t know George Soros. The only connection to George Soros that I have is he and I happen to both be Jewish.

And so, when the NRA does that, their anti-Semitism is showing. When the NRA makes other kinds of connections, or when you go to these gun shows and you see the sales of KKK merchandise, their racism is showing. The NRA is a racist and anti-Semitic organization. And they have made that clear time and time again. The problem is, we have elected Republican officials who parrot that message. So when people say, “You’re Soros-funded,” or “You’re Bloomberg-funded,” or “You’re Steyer-funded,” the only connection I have to them is my Judaism. Never met them in my life. Oh, I did meet Michael Bloomberg three weeks ago. He was here in Parkland. But it’s anti-Semitism. That’s what it is. And they need to be called out for it. And they need to lose, because they use that language.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, had tweeted something along those lines in the midst of the letter bombs—

FRED GUTTENBERG: Yes, he did.

AMY GOODMAN: —the first one being sent to Soros. And he was forced to retract that tweet. It ended with the hashtag #MAGA.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Right? “Make America Great Again.”

FRED GUTTENBERG: Listen, Kevin McCarthy, with that tweet—and he thought deleting it would get rid of it. No, it’s not, and it’s on my Twitter and many other people’s. Kevin McCarthy should not only never be serving in leadership, Kevin McCarthy should be voted out of office. When you go and you publicly say, “I am anti-Semitic, and I am racist,” you do not deserve to serve Americans, period.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you very much, Fred Guttenberg, for being with us, father of Parkland shooting victim Jaime. She was 14 years old when she was gunned down in Parkland at her high school on February 14th.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Can I say one more thing about another leader?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, Fred.

FRED GUTTENBERG: Because I think it’s—Mitch McConnell, he has been absolutely silent since last week with the bombings and with what happened in Pittsburgh. He has been silent. And he is, right now, the—he is the elected leader of the Senate. His silence should be ringing loud and clear for everybody who needs to vote in a Senate race. He needs to be fired from Senate leadership. And the only way to do that is to flip Senate seats. So, whether you’re in Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, any of these places that have seats where you can flip, Mitch McConnell must be fired. His silence is part of why we are in the place that we’re in today in this country, and he needs to go away.

AMY GOODMAN: Fred Guttenberg, thanks so much for being with us.

When we come back, award-winning journalist Allan Nairn talking about the state of the nation in these few days before the elections. As the threat from within is so strong, with one white supremacist attack after another, the president looks outward and tries to talk about terrorists threatening this country on the southern border. We’ll talk about all of this and more. Stay with us.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Nuclear Power Will Not Save Us From Climate Change Print
Saturday, 03 November 2018 08:31

Excerpt: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report released in October rightfully elicited much public commentary about global warming and its truly frightening impacts."

A nuclear power plant. (photo: blickwinkel/Alamy)
A nuclear power plant. (photo: blickwinkel/Alamy)


Nuclear Power Will Not Save Us From Climate Change

By M.V. Ramana and Robert Jensen, Yes! Magazine

03 November 18


How the IPCC’s solutions for reversing the Earth’s warming encourage business as usual.

he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report released in October rightfully elicited much public commentary about global warming and its truly frightening impacts. But in those initial reactions, less attention was paid to the unnerving implications of the report’s suggested solutions, which encourage us to roll the dice on unproven technologies and double down on nuclear power.

Underlying the IPCC report’s claims is the belief that technological solutions can fix the climate problem. Yet these fixes don’t address the root cause of climate change.

Let’s start by facing the frightening facts. The report shows that warming must be held to no more than 1.5°C above preindustrial levels to avoid truly catastrophic consequences. This requires emissions of CO2 to be limited to an amount that, at the current rate, will be breached in 10 to 15 years.

The report outlines four broad pathways to stay within that limit, all of which include large-scale deployment of various technological fixes to climate change. These include not just the sensible pursuit of solar energy and wind power but also of unproven technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, which has not been demonstrated to work at scale.

Why bioenergy with carbon capture and storage? Because, in the models that the panel’s report relies on, the projections of energy use show that the emissions limit will be crossed over the next few decades. Therefore, modelers assume large-scale CO2 removal to reduce the amount of gas in the atmosphere. The means of removal include familiar ideas—like increasing forest cover—to technical ideas like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and even more futuristic proposals like trying to capture CO2 directly from the air and adding limestone powder to the oceans.

The scariest of the four pathways outlined in the report is a “resource- and energy-intensive scenario in which economic growth and globalization lead to widespread adoption of greenhouse-gas-intensive lifestyles, including high demand for transportation fuels and livestock products.” In other words, business as usual in a world where the usual business leads to the edge of a cliff. What could justify such an approach? The belief that technology will save us.

These technologies would have to be deployed at massive scales. The amount of carbon dioxide that would have to be captured and stored (i.e., buried) is nearly 1,200 billion tons (gigatons). To put that in perspective, the report also states that “by the end of 2017, anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the preindustrial period are estimated to have reduced the total carbon budget for 1.5°C" by the rough equivalent of 2,200 gigatons of carbon dioxide—give or take 320 gigatons. So, within 80 years, an amount that is more than half of all the CO2 emitted over two and a half centuries will have to be captured and stored using a technology that has not been demonstrated.

Along with these futuristic technologies, a more familiar savior also comes to the rescue: nuclear power. In the report’s “energy-intensive scenario,” nuclear energy has to increase by a factor of around five. Wishful thinking about unproven technologies is easier to understand than the continued faith in the failed project of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has been generating electricity since the 1950s, with more than 400 nuclear power plants operating in the world today—long enough for us to evaluate its ecological and economic costs, risks, and benefits.

Nuclear energy has been declining, not growing, as a share of the electricity market during the period that climate change has become recognized as an important problem. In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was signed, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation was about 17 percent. Twenty years later, nuclear energy contributed barely 10 percent of global electricity production in 2017. This included a period when the nuclear industry was heralding a renaissance. The downward trend is expected to continue.

Despite governments subsidizing the technology in various ways over the decades, the economics of nuclear energy is a major problem: Nuclear reactors are expensive to construct, and prone to costing more than budgeted and taking longer to build than projected. The flagship projects in Europe—Olkiluoto (Finland) and Flamanville (France)—use the latest reactor design, the EPR (which stands for either European Pressurized Reactor or Evolutionary Power Reactor). In the United States, Vogtle (Georgia) and V. C. Summer (South Carolina) use the Advanced Passive (AP1000) reactor design. What they have in common is unexpected cost increases: Costs at V. C. Summer went up so high that the utility constructing the plant abandoned it after spending billions.

One would think that these trends would lead policymakers to abandon nuclear power, but faith that these failures can be resolved is fueling government and private investments in a new generation of reactor designs—advanced reactors, small modular reactors, and Generation IV reactors. On paper, these look great, just like the EPR and the AP1000. But there is no reason to believe these new designs will prove cheaper than current reactors—unless the designers, constructors, and regulators emphasize lowered costs over safety, which increases the risk of future Chernobyls and Fukushimas.

Back to the panel’s report. The models it uses do not deal with these problems of nuclear energy. They simply assume that nuclear reactors will be built. And because of the focus on CO2 emissions, they don’t highlight the accompanying problems such as increased quantities of radioactive waste that would have to be stored and isolated from human contact for hundreds of thousands of years.

The underlying cause here is “technological fundamentalism,” the belief that the increasing use of evermore sophisticated, high-energy, advanced technology can solve any problem, including those caused by the unintended consequences of earlier technologies. This Panglossian approach allows modelers to state the climate problem can be contained without giving up a social and political system that is founded on continued and endless economic growth.

This belief also allows for the idea that the business-as-usual approach can continue, and the solution is replacing coal, gas, and nuclear plants with solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries or other storage technologies. As supporters of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries like to point out, even these technologies have environmental and social impacts. To live sustainably on this planet—and despite what folks such as Elon Musk might promise, this is the only planet available for the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants—even these more benign technologies have to be limited in scale.

The alternative is obvious. The starting point of any serious discussion of climate change must be to recognize that it is not possible to limit global warming to either 1.5 or 2°C in any “resource- and energy-intensive scenario” where economic growth continues in the usual fashion. To put it more bluntly, one cannot resolve the climate problem under capitalism, which cannot survive without endless growth.

Arguments against capitalism are at least as old as capitalism itself. If one is honest about the implications of the latest report, climate change is providing another compelling argument for fundamental economic change.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 Next > End >>

Page 1087 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