RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Inside Leonardo DiCaprio's Crusade to Save the World Print
Saturday, 22 October 2016 10:57

Rodrick writes: "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio's parents hung a painting above his crib in the grotty 1970s East Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles when he was a baby. The painting wasn't an action shot of Peter Rabbit or Curious George. No, it was a reproduction of Dutch painter Hieronymus Bosch's three-paneled 'Garden of Earthly Delights,' a dystopian visual description of Eden being found and lost. It is one of DiCaprio's earliest memories."

Leonardo DiCaprio. (photo: Stephen de Ropp)
Leonardo DiCaprio. (photo: Stephen de Ropp)


Inside Leonardo DiCaprio's Crusade to Save the World

By Stephen Rodrick, Rolling Stone

22 October 16

 

This story originally ran on February 18, 2016. However it provides valuable insight as DiCaprio becomes increasingly engaged in environmental action.


'The Revenant' star is on the verge of winning an Oscar — but he really just wants to rescue the planet from eco-disaster

eonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio's parents hung a painting above his crib in the grotty 1970s East Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles when he was a baby. The painting wasn't an action shot of Peter Rabbit or Curious George. No, it was a reproduction of Dutch painter Hieronymus Bosch's three-paneled "Garden of Earthly Delights," a dystopian visual description of Eden being found and lost. It is one of DiCaprio's earliest memories.

"You literally see Adam and Eve being given paradise," says DiCaprio, his blue eyes peering above sunglasses in a Miami Beach restaurant that has somehow worked "SoHo" into its name. Underneath the table he fidgets his feet in and out of canvas loafers. He drifts away for a moment. DiCaprio just finished shooting an interview for a -climate-change film he's making. (Original working title: Are We Fucked?) He's already been to India flood plains and the Antarctica polar cap, and now he's not far from Miami playgrounds where he once reputedly left a nightclub with every woman from his VIP section. All, according to DiCaprio, could be washed away.

He snaps back to the painting. "Then you see in the middle this overpopulation and excess, people enjoying the fruits of what this environment's given us," he says. He laughs a sad laugh punctuated by the DiCaprio smile that can be mistaken for a sneer. "Then the last panel is just charred, black skies with a burnt-down apocalypse." He stops for a second before shrugging. "That was my favorite painting."

Halfway between mother and maker, Leonardo DiCaprio is not unhappily marooned between the bright light of his own life – a looming Oscar, a personal fossil collection, a chauffeured rental Tesla – and the bleakness of the overheated world he inhabits with denialist Republicans and a Bangladesh coastline that could be nearly a quarter underwater by 2050. He wants us to move off fossil fuels entirely and wonders where we would be if we had spent billions on finding renewable energy sources rather than on the Iraq War.

"He has an intellectual restlessness," says longtime collaborator Martin Scorsese. "He devours books and texts and information."

A friend might tell DiCaprio to lighten up, but that's not going to happen. "There are very few civilians who have the same understanding that this guy has of climate change. Leo's a wonk," says Mark Ruffalo, who has just combined forces with DiCaprio on the Solutions Project, a group of scientists and stars hoping to move America toward full-renewable-energy use. "He's putting his ass on the line."

DiCaprio's life-is-brutish-and-short worldview has permeated his post-Titanic film choices, especially his work with Scorsese, from Gangs of New York to The Wolf of Wall Street. He is now starring in The Revenant, the bleak tale of trapper Hugh Glass, whose body is demolished by a very angry grizzly, and who loses his family to the viciousness of the White Man. (Making matters worse, he must drag around Moses' neck beard.)

Here's the transitory question on the table: Is this the year Leonardo DiCaprio finally wins an Oscar, after four nominations?

"Sure, everyone likes to be recognized, but that's out of my hands – other people control those things," DiCaprio tells me as he preps for an interview with a hurricane expert. "I will say it would help the film, bring it to more people."

The Revenant is like free guacamole to hungry film critics, with Birdman director Iñárritu at the helm and best-living cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki shooting scenery that out-Malicks Terrence Malick. But it could be a tough sell to punters plopping down $10 at the West Des Moines multiplex on date night. There are only two female characters in the film. One is murdered; the other is gang-raped by French trappers. The film is 156 minutes long, and it becomes quickly evident that any white character not named Hugh Glass is going to make the worst possible moral choice imaginable. But DiCaprio's performance holds this cinematic hell-scape together. (When Iñárritu saw him with his long beard, he exulted, "This man is a fucking trapper!") DiCaprio is largely silent for the film, a feat harder than it sounds.

"He uses his body, which is wounded, and a pair of eyes to convey so many emotions in takes that are six or eight minutes long," says Iñárritu. "He has to make us believe that he is cold, that he is wounded, that he is devastated, that he is angry, that he is hopeless. Without one word, you have to understand what this guy is thinking and feeling." There's a scene where DiCaprio finds his dead son and is broken. But he hears a crow singing beyond the trees. You can see him taking in death and life simultaneously.

"He was interacting and listening to every piece of nature and wind, and reacting to that," remembers Iñárritu. "That's the most difficult thing to do, and in the moment that he did that, I said, 'This guy is really present. He has this rhythm, and he owns that rhythm.'?"

For DiCaprio, the roots of The Revenant and his environmental work all began with a meeting with then-Vice President Al Gore in 1998. DiCaprio had grown up with a melancholy for extinct creatures – he once impressed Dr. Kirk Johnson, the director of the National Museum of Natural History, with his knowledge of the long-gone great auk, a bird hunted to extinction in the 1800s.

"I remember the thing that I got the most sad about when I was little was the loss of species that have been as a result of mankind's intrusion on nature," says DiCaprio, whose Los Angeles home features a massive fossil collection. He then mentions three species, only one of which I'd ever heard of: "Like the quagga or the Tasmanian tiger or the dodo bird."

Titanic came out in 1997, and DiCaprio went from promising actor of his generation to one of the most famous faces on the planet. There was the requisite news of bawdy behavior and a slew of model girlfriends, some of which still trickles out in the tabloids, as he remains single. You can ask him about it, but he will wave it off, saying, "I liked it when you went to see a movie and you didn't know everything about the actor."

Like Warren Beatty, Robert Redford and Paul Newman before him, DiCaprio longed to be seen as something more than just a panty-dropper. A friend set up a meeting with Gore. The vice president sketched out the planet and the atmosphere on a chalkboard and told the actor, "You want to be involved in environmental issues? This is the most important thing facing all of humanity and the future."

At first, it was just appearances at Earth Day events and the occasional conference, and then there was the narration of his climate-change film The 11th Hour in 2007. But in the past decade, it has gone from passion to obsession. "I am consumed by this," says DiCaprio. "There isn't a couple of hours a day where I'm not thinking about it. It's this slow burn. It's not 'aliens invading our planet next week and we have to get up and fight to defend our country,' but it's this inevitable thing, and it's so terrifying."

A couple of years ago, DiCaprio met with a casual friend, the actor Fisher Stevens, once known as Michelle Pfeiffer's ex and the ethnically dubious star of Short Circuit 2, but now an accomplished documentary producer. The two had become reacquainted while filming the disappearing reefs in the Galapagos, an event made memorable for DiCaprio's scuba tank malfunctioning while shooting footage and DiCaprio desperately looking for someone to help him to the top. He (of course) found Ed Norton, who shared air with DiCaprio as they slowly ascended to avoid the bends.

Stevens and DiCaprio talked of shooting a climate-change film that would feature DiCaprio as a man on a global pursuit for the truth. The film would be equal parts gonzo, absurd and scare-the-shit-out-of-you testimonials from scientists and leaders. (There's a Joaquin Phoenix quality to some of it, with DiCaprio, in full Revenant shagginess, interviewing a pristine Bill Clinton with the New York skyline behind him.)

Just as preproduction was starting for the doc, funding came through for The Revenant. Rather than pass on either project, DiCaprio chose to see a symmetry between the two, with Hugh Glass representing a man on the front end of the West's destruction of the land and the extermination of other cultures, and DiCaprio's documentary set two centuries later as the world faces the bill for all the raping and pillaging. The links grew stronger as DiCaprio visited the hellish Alberta, Canada, tar-sand oil fields, several hours north of the breathless mountains and streams of the Revenant set. Meanwhile, filming was repeatedly hampered by a lack of snow as Alberta "enjoyed" the warmest winter on record. The connections left Iñárritu and DiCaprio shaking their heads as they suffered through multiple delays.

"It was a parallel universe," remembers Iñárritu. "We discussed it at length. It was scary to be depicting how it all started in this country, and now we're suffering 200 years of consequences for that. It was a mirror. It was funny and scary as hell."

"We went out there with the purpose of discovering something and seeing what nature was saying," says DiCaprio about the shoot. He flexes his hands open and shut in frustration. "That was never directly articulated, but it was like, 'OK, what happens if we put ourselves in the elements? What are we gonna discover?' The thing that I was left with was this crazy, insane message of nature fighting back and essentially stopping production." Later, he put it more bluntly. "The big question is, is it all too late?"

As the documentary crew travels from global bleak spot to bleak spot, Stevens has occasionally had to remind DiCaprio not to wallow too much in hopelessness. "I'm more the light and he's the dark," says Stevens with a grin. "I'm always saying, 'Don't be so fucking pessimistic, man. If we make a movie where it's already too late, what are we making the movie for?'?" Stevens smiles hopefully. "Leo gets that."

We'll see. DiCaprio has final cut.

It's the Sunday after Thanksgiving, and Miami Beach is in a sleepy interlude between turkey and the hordes arriving later in the week for Art Basel, which is Sundance for the art crowd. Stevens and his crew are setting up in the city hall offices of Mayor Philip Levine to ask him about how rising waters are threatening the city (a line of questioning partially inspired by a 2013 Rolling Stone article by Jeff Goodell). DiCaprio arrives looking tired in a short-sleeved polka-dot blue shirt and droopy jeans exposing powder-blue boxers. He stretches theatrically.

"I think I got too much sleep last night."

Stevens laughs. "That would be a first."

DiCaprio is two-tracking obligations as details of The Revenant have started seeping out and his camp has had to tamp down rumors that he was sexually assaulted by a grizzly in one of the film's gory passages ("That's not what's happening"). Then a veteran movie blogger said that he loved the film but there was no way women were going to sit through the gorefest. "I think it's silly, and I think that the women I've spoken to really enjoyed the movie," says DiCaprio.

But after a quick hairbrush session, DiCaprio shifts into environmental-warrior mode. Stevens gives him a list of questions, but he largely wings it. First, DiCaprio and Levine talk of mutual friends, including billionaire Russian construction magnate Vladislav Doronin.

"Our good mutual friend Vlad says hello," says Levine, before telling a story about Doronin offering to take him out for an ocean swim and Levine joking about his fear of not returning.

"Vlad is a lot of fun," admits DiCaprio, adding how much he enjoys Doronin's Aman Resorts, discrete seven-star accommodations scattered across the globe.

Then they begin to talk. DiCaprio asks Levine if he's worried about declining real-estate prices.

"I'm not going to preside over Miami Beach becoming Venice," says Levine. "I think property levels are just going to continue to rise."

DiCaprio doesn't agree, saying he'd already unloaded his beach house: "I wouldn't take that bet."

Levine wants to show DiCaprio some of the work the glitzy resort town is doing to lessen the impact of rising tides, so we pile into the Tesla while the mayor travels in a black SUV. DiCaprio understands no mayor is going to come out in public and say, "Sell your condo, we're screwed," but he doesn't share his optimism. "You know what they're doing now?" DiCaprio asks. "They're building high-rises where the lobby can flood and the rest of the building can just continue on. But he's right, prices are still going up. It's unbelievable."

We stop at a section of streets that the city has raised four feet to provide a bulwark against the sea. The two do a walk-and-talk while Sunday brunchers begin to gawk and stalk at a careful distance.

We eventually reach the water, and it's horrifying in an affluent kind of way. The water level has risen to nearly equal with boat docks, rendering ladders leading into the ocean irrelevant. DiCaprio and Levine walk out on a tenuous sea wall and look across the bay to where, coincidentally, their friend Vlad's yacht glitters in the morning light. The mayor admits that the city needs $400 million to build new sea walls and a system of pumps and to raise roads. And that number doesn't even include sand from the Bahamas.

DiCaprio nearly does a spit take.

"The Bahamas?"

The mayor nods and says Bahamas sand can be cheaper than American sand.

During a stop in the interview, DiCaprio points at a tan older gentleman combing his luxurious silver hair on a balcony in a nearby high-rise.

"Look at that guy," says DiCaprio. "He has no idea what is going on." DiCaprio watches him with fascination for a moment and then makes a joke. "He probably knows that he'll be dead soon and won't have to worry about it." He glumly says goodbye to the mayor, and tosses his swag of Miami Beach caps and cuff links into his trunk.

He settles into the back of the Tesla.

"The Bahamas, did you hear that?"

The conversation turns to places like Bangladesh that don't have the money to deal with the rising waters. "The story of climate change is gonna be places with the most military power to protect their own resources," says DiCaprio, hitting the vape pipe. "The billions of people that haven't contributed to this problem are gonna be the first to suffer."

Above, the sun tries to break through morning clouds and shine light through the Tesla's opaque roof. It is not successful.

The image of DiCaprio as an empty libertine gorging in his own garden of earthly delights – which has stuck since he rolled with a traveling pack of ruffians derisively labeled the Pussy Posse back in the 1990s – isn't any more true or false than it was with leading-man predecessors like Redford and George Clooney. (DiCaprio recently ended his relationship with model Kelly Rohrbach, according to reports; before that, the best rumor was of a casual liaison with Rihanna.) Has there been skeezy womanizing? Perhaps, but DiCaprio was and is single, and you can see skeezy womanizing at Buffalo Wild Wings on a Thursday night. There has been some twisted comeuppance; in 2005, DiCaprio had to get more than a dozen stitches to his billion-dollar face after a Hollywood Hills party when a former model slashed him with broken glass, a shot that may have been intended for someone else.

Beneath that reputation has been an actor devoted to his craft since his early tweens. DiCaprio was partially raised by an underground artist, his father, George DiCaprio, a comic-book author and distributor. Leo grew up in Los Angeles, but not the Los Angeles of Hollywoodland. As a kid, he saw junkies in the alleyways and prostitutes at the nearby hotel. After a halcyon stay at a progressive school near UCLA, he returned to his neighborhood school for junior high, where he was regularly beaten up.

"I was a bit of a loudmouth, and I was in an environment where the elements aligned to have kids smack the hell outta me once in a while," DiCaprio tells me with a smile.

DiCaprio found refuge in drama classes and started hitting auditions, driven by his mother, Irmelin, his most patient supporter and critic. (She's been known to critique the wardrobe authenticity in his films.) There were cattle calls, a Matchbox commercial and a year when he wasn't cast in anything. Instead, he took to his room and spent a year watching movies with his father's guidance, developing a taste for films like East of Eden and A Face in the Crowd.

He knew acting was what he wanted to do and started making friends at auditions with other dreamers, like Tobey Maguire. "I've got plenty of new friends through the years, too, but I've held on to some of them for 25 years now," says DiCaprio. "There's an inherent comfort level that can't be duplicated and can't be manufactured. You don't have to do catch-up interviews – they're up-to-date."

There was a part on the 1990s ABC sitcom Growing Pains, in the classic ratings-booster role of boy without a home. But it all changed when he beat out Maguire and others for the lead in an adaptation of Tobias Wolff's This Boy's Life, starring opposite Robert De Niro. DiCaprio's father had taken his boy to a screening of De Niro's Midnight Run a few years earlier and told him if he wanted to be an actor, De Niro was the one to watch. DiCaprio thought he blew the audition by screaming his lines, but De Niro liked his intensity.

De Niro recommended DiCaprio to Scorsese, and when the actor and director worked together for the first time, on 2002's Gangs of New York, it was a 26-year-old DiCaprio who was dispatched to Daniel Day-Lewis' New York brownstone to try to lure him out of retirement, sitting with him on a Central Park bench and silently waiting for him to make the first move.

DiCaprio is cagey about his next film, but he's been casting about for a project that speaks to his politics. He dreams of releasing his documentary in tandem with The Revenant's video release, and he has already optioned an unwritten book on the Volkswagen emissions scandal. There's a great narrative film to be made about the environment, insists DiCaprio – it's just a matter of finding the right project.

"I don't know how to crack this yet, but I would love to do something that isn't about waves crashing on the Empire State Building," he says.

We're eating at a posh Miami restaurant, and a stray little girl wanders by, with no clue that she is eyeing one of the world's most famous movie stars. DiCaprio takes off his sunglasses and offers a long aww. I ask him if he sees time in his life for a family. He responds abruptly, the only time in our two days together.

"Do you mean do I want to bring children into a world like this?" says DiCaprio. "If it happens, it happens. I'd prefer not to get into specifics about it, just because then it becomes something that is misquoted. But, yeah." He shifts uncomfortably in his chair. "I don't know. To articulate how I feel about it is just gonna be misunderstood."

One thing is clear: He's not going to retire and chain himself to the gate of a BP plant. There has to be a strategy.

"I had a friend say, 'Well, if you're really this passionate about environmentalism, quit acting,'" he says. "But you soon realize that one hand shakes the other, and being an artist gives you a platform." He pauses and offers his palms upward. "Not that necessarily people will take anything that I say seriously, but it gives you a voice."

One afternoon, DiCaprio is heading in the Tesla to another appointment, and he wants to make something very clear.

"This is not my life," says DiCaprio, dressed in the same outfit as the day before to maintain continuity in the shooting. He stares intently at me. "I'm not followed around by publicists, security guards, drivers and all that. That's not my day-to-day life – it's my professional life."

Talk moves to what he loves to do most: scuba dive in exotic locations. He's hit Australia, the Galapagos and multiple spots in the Caribbean. Even relying on the oxygen kindness of Edward Norton to survive hasn't dampened his love.

"It's a hypnotic, unbelievably beautiful ecosystem that's below the surface of the world we live in," says DiCaprio, his face relaxing noticeably. "It's a complete escape from absolutely everything."

Today is an escape of a different sort. DiCaprio is standing on a catwalk outside a giant glass tank simulating a hurricane at the University of Miami. As the waters pound a model house on a model beach, he makes a joke: "I spent a lot of time in a tank like this for Titanic." For 45 minutes, a scientist tells DiCaprio about the shredding Florida will take during the next hurricane. DiCaprio hits the vape pipe during a pause and exchanges a look with Stevens that suggests, "You try to put a happy ending on this."

DiCaprio says goodbye to the crew and says he'll see them in Paris for the climate-change conference. He knows that one of the first things conservatives will throw at him is the amount of fuel used by the thousands of attendees.

"There's no way we're not all hypocrites," says DiCaprio. "We've built this. Our entire society is oil-based. Everything that you see is because of fossil fuels. The day there is a sustainable way to travel, I'll be first in line."

For DiCaprio, the trip was worth it. After the Paris Agreement was signed, he declared, "[This] gives us a shot at saving the planet. There is no time to waste. This marks the end of the fossil-fuel era."

But that's a week away. For now, he has a few hours of downtime with his art gallery friends. On the way downtown, I mention that his intensity on global warming is, well, intense.

"You noticed that, huh?" he says. "This has got to be the largest human movement in history, and it takes every religion, every country, every individual contributing to it."

We arrive at a ritzy gallery that shows no sign of the coming apocalypse. Security guards swarm the car. I begin to say goodbye, but DiCaprio puts his hand on my arm. "Don't worry, I'm not jumping out of the car." He continues on for a couple more minutes about a new ally in the fight. "We finally have a pope for the first time that is speaking through his encyclical and has aligned himself with modern science."

Someone knocks on the window. It's time to go. DiCaprio opens the door, and the likely next winner of the Oscar for Best Actor is immediately engulfed in handlers. He turns back and shouts over his shoulder with a smile, "Nice talking to you, bro!"

For just a moment, Leonardo DiCaprio looks like a kid without a care in the world.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Documenting Trump's Abuse of Women Print
Saturday, 22 October 2016 08:35

Mayer writes: "When the news broke that Donald Trump had been caught on video in 2005 boasting that, as a celebrity, he feels free to 'grab' women 'by the pussy,' Harry Hurt III experienced a sense of vindication."

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)


Documenting Trump's Abuse of Women

By Jane Mayer, The New Yorker

22 October 16

 

For his 1993 book, “The Lost Tycoon,” Harry Hurt III acquired Ivana’s divorce deposition, in which she stated that Trump raped her.

hen the news broke that Donald Trump had been caught on video in 2005 boasting that, as a celebrity, he feels free to “grab” women “by the pussy,” Harry Hurt III experienced a sense of vindication. In 1993, Hurt published “Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump,” an unauthorized biography that has long been out of print. The day the tape surfaced, he was hitting golf balls at a driving range in Sagaponack, New York, when a text message arrived from a friend: “Donald is done!”

After Hurt watched the tape, he said, “I thought, Finally, this behavior is coming out.” But he doubted that the revelation would do any real damage to Trump’s campaign. Researching his book, in the early nineties, Hurt discovered and documented more serious instances of Trump’s mistreatment of women, yet most news outlets had declined to report on them. Even during the current campaign, Hurt said, “I’ve been a voice in the wilderness.”

When “Lost Tycoon” was published, Kirkus Reviews credited Hurt, a former contributing editor at Texas Monthly, with having written “a slick, informed account.” The Times ignored it. Trump denounced it, and last year, in a tweet, he called Hurt a “dummy dope” who “wrote a failed book.”

The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’?” Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana’s deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends.

Hurt held on to his copy of Ivana’s sealed deposition for years. “It was sworn testimony,” he said. But eventually, when he was cleaning house during his own divorce, he said, “I threw it all out.” He went on, “The larger tragedy is that Trump might be elected President of the United States. I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that it would come to this.”

Before Hurt’s book came out, Trump’s lawyers pressured the publisher, W. W. Norton, to paste a clarifying statement from Ivana into the flyleaf of every copy. In it, she confirmed that she had said in a deposition that her husband had “raped” her, but added that she did not want those words to be interpreted in “a literal or criminal sense.” She also said, “As a woman, I felt violated.” Hurt said that he considers the note a non-denial denial, and believes that Ivana agreed to amend her words in order to secure the divorce settlement, in which she reportedly received fourteen million dollars in cash.

When the rape story resurfaced last summer, Ivana issued a statement saying that it was “without merit.” “She and Donald have raised three kids together. They’re picking their bedrooms in the White House,” Hurt said. “But she’s not saying it’s untrue, or that she didn’t swear to it under oath.”

Trump was deposed during the divorce, too. According to a report by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, which examined the divorce records, Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination approximately a hundred times when Ivana’s lawyers asked him about adulterous relations with other women.

“Lost Tycoon” didn’t sell well. It came out at a time when Trump’s businesses were faltering, and interest in him had waned. But this spring, when Trump was one of three Republican Presidential candidates still in the race, Hurt asked Norton to reissue the book. Word came back that the publisher’s lawyers had deemed the book “too dangerous to publish.” (Norton said it had made “a business decision.”)

Hurt decided to scan the book and reissue it himself online. When a reporter for the Daily Beast began making calls about the rape allegation, Michael Cohen, a Trump lawyer, told him, “You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it and the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up . . . for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet.” After that, Hurt said, CNN booked him four times, but kept cancelling. The only TV host to have him on the air to talk about the rape allegation was Megyn Kelly, at Fox News.

Hurt finally made it onto CNN last week, after ten more women had come forward to accuse Trump of violating them. “I applaud their courage,” he said, “and thank them for telling the truth under what must be painful and embarrassing circumstances.” Recalling the second debate, in which Trump insisted that his “locker-room talk” was only talk and not action, Hurt said, “He was lying. I know full well he has done that. His own wife said so, under oath.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Here's Why You Should Care About Energy Poverty Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=42606"><span class="small">Grist</span></a>   
Saturday, 22 October 2016 08:24

Excerpt: "The most pervasive phenomenon you're not aware of affects half the people alive right now. It prevents them from fully taking advantage of whole fields of human activity and fuels the degradation of their livelihoods and the environment."

Boys use the light of a lantern to study in a house in Chowkipur, India. (photo: Simon de Trey-White/WP)
Boys use the light of a lantern to study in a house in Chowkipur, India. (photo: Simon de Trey-White/WP)


Here's Why You Should Care About Energy Poverty

By Grist

22 October 16

 

he most pervasive phenomenon you’re not aware of affects half the people alive right now. It prevents them from fully taking advantage of whole fields of human activity and fuels the degradation of their livelihoods and the environment.

We’re not talking about the iPhone.

Stumped? It’s energy poverty.

What’s that?

In its most basic form, energy poverty is a lack of access to modern energy sources and their uses. Whether this lack of access is physical or financial in nature, it means that someone experiencing energy poverty can’t tap into life-sustaining (and convenient!) energy services. About 80 percent of those experiencing energy poverty live in rural sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Energy poverty has a wide range of consequences. Take the act of cooking. A traditional wood-burning cookstove — often used indoors — releases particulate matter and carbon monoxide when it’s in use. This means that people hovering over these cookstoves (largely women) are prone to the adverse health effects of inhaling all these fumes. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves estimates that the use of traditional cookstoves accounts for up to 1.9 million premature deaths each year.

That’s awful. How do we change that?

Unfortunately, alleviating energy poverty is tricky business. In a perfect world, all electricity sources are clean, stable, resilient, and affordable. Some people who spend a lot of time thinking about energy poverty argue that some of the best solutions come in the form of low-cost, decentralized, renewable electricity sources lighting up energy-efficient light bulbs and powering microgrids, electric water pumps, and clean cookstoves. Obviously, we aren’t there yet.

And here’s where things start to get complicated: It’s not always cost-effective to focus wholly on renewables. Sometimes diesel generators or wiring up to the main grid (which might be powered by the burning of fossil fuels) is the cheapest, most efficient way for a country or company to provide access to electricity to far-flung, rural residents.

Access to electricity also isn’t always a priority to those residents. A clean cookstove, for example, might be met with resistance by cooks who would rather spend money on healthcare or education or clean water than a new stove. Aid and development can be tinged with a nasty shade of paternalism — which is why striving for culturally appropriate and community-driven solutions is so crucial in this kind of work.

The interwoven challenges here often have a flipside opportunity, though: There are a whole lot of angles through which one can effect change. Energy poverty alleviation efforts can sometimes look a lot like, say, climate justice or gender justice.

Take the cookstove example again. By definition, those bad boys burn through a lot of biomass — things like agricultural and animal waste. Often, though, that biomass is wood; wood comes from trees, and those trees need to be cut down before they’re popped into a stove. There’s also the minor detail of people needing to eat daily (#ThanksObama) — which is to say that we’re also talking about a lot of trees.

Trees are great at carbon sequestration (#ThanksTrees) — but they release that carbon into the atmosphere once they’re chopped down and begin to decay. Burning wood speeds up the carbon-release process.

All told, deforestation is responsible for something on the order of 10 percent of global greenhouse emissions. You can probably see where this is going:With further deforestation comes further climate change, which often harms people in areas already prone to energy poverty.

So something like clean cookstoves end up offering whole swathes of potential positive effects: Better health outcomes, less deforestation, fewer carbon emissions, and more opportunities to further gender equality goals as women don’t have to spend as much time gathering fuel — which, in addition to being time-consuming, can also pose physical danger. This makes alleviating energy poverty a fight that everyone can get behind.

Well go on; don’t let us keep you!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Now Is the Time to Stand Up to Big Pharma Print
Friday, 21 October 2016 15:45

Sanders writes: "Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world - by far. Californians on Nov. 8 have a chance to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry's greed and spark a national movement to end this price-gouging."

Senator Bernie Sanders speaks to a crowd at a rally in support of Proposition 61, held at the American Federation of Musicians Hall in Los Angeles, October 14. (photo: Los Angeles Times)
Senator Bernie Sanders speaks to a crowd at a rally in support of Proposition 61, held at the American Federation of Musicians Hall in Los Angeles, October 14. (photo: Los Angeles Times)


Now Is the Time to Stand Up to Big Pharma

By Bernie Sanders, Los Angeles Times

21 October 16

 

rescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world — by far. Californians on Nov. 8 have a chance to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry's greed and spark a national movement to end this price-gouging.

Today, no laws prevent drug companies from doubling or tripling prices. So they just do it. The most recent flagrant example is the emergency allergy injection, EpiPen. Its maker, Mylan, jacked up the price of this 40-year-old medication by 461% between 2007 and 2015. During that same period, compensation for Mylan's CEO rose 671%. And that's just one company and one drug.

Proposition 61, the California Drug Price Relief Act, would bar the state from paying more than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does for the same drugs. That would include medicine purchased for state employees and retirees, university students, prison inmates, uninsured people with HIV/AIDS and Californians covered by the public insurance program Medi-Cal.

The VA pays an estimated 24% less for drugs than most government agencies and about 40% less than Medicare Part D. Those are significant savings. In California, Proposition 61 would make drugs more affordable and accessible for about 6 million people.

The soaring cost of medicine is a major health crisis nationwide. One out of five Americans age 19 to 64 cannot afford their prescriptions. Hundreds of thousands of seniors cut their pills in half to stretch one month's prescription into two. Many of those patients will get sicker and some will die. Meanwhile, the five largest drug companies made more than $50 billion in profits last year. The top 10 CEOs in the industry received a total of more than $327 million in compensation.

How have pharma companies gotten away with such avarice? They currently have 1,266 lobbyists on their payrolls in Washington, D.C., and 118 fighting for their priorities in Sacramento. They've made hundreds of millions in campaign contributions to politicians. And just this year, massive pharma lobbying efforts killed two bills in the heavily Democratic California Legislature that would have made modest steps toward drug-pricing transparency.

Now, drugmakers are using their cash and clout to try to defeat Proposition 61. Incredibly, the measure's opponents are prepared to spend up to $100 million in California to make sure that Americans continue paying the highest drug prices in the world. Why? A major pharmaceutical industry publication has called Proposition 61 "ground zero" in the fight against high drug prices, and warned drug company executives that "adoption of VA pricing by the state of California would be a 'pricing disaster' for the entire U.S. drug industry."

Their TV ads have mostly featured veterans who lament that if Proposition 61 passes the drug industry will raise the prices it charges the VA. Not true.

As the former chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I would never support a measure that harms our veterans. Pharmaceutical companies cannot unilaterally raise the prices of drugs it sells to the VA. The most the VA pays for a drug is either the best commercial price minus discounts and rebates, or the average price paid by pharmacies minus a large discount, whichever is lower. Those price caps are set in law. The VA also receives additional discounts if drug prices rise faster than general inflation. In other words, drug companies cannot just jack up the cost of drugs it sells to the VA.

In addition, veterans' drug co-payments are fixed and do not rise even if drug prices go up. It is also important to note that veterans being treated for any condition related to their military service pay no out-of-pocket costs whatsoever for prescription drugs.

The drug industry also argues that less than 20% of Californians will benefit from Proposition 61. In fact, the measure will provide relief to all Californians whose tax dollars pay for the drugs used to treat many Medi-Cal recipients and state employees. Taxpayers would save an estimated $1 billion a year.

It's unacceptable that the exact drugs that we buy in our country are sold in Canada, Britain and other countries for a fraction of the price. My urgent message is to vote yes on Proposition 61 to make medicine more affordable in California and send a signal to Washington that the whole nation's prescription drug policies need an overhaul.

Bernie Sanders is the junior U.S. senator from Vermont.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Worst Place on Earth: Death and Life in the Lost Town of Leer Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7517"><span class="small">Nick Turse, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Friday, 21 October 2016 12:31

Turse writes: "Leer, truth be told, is no longer a town, not even a razed one. It's a killing field, a place where human remains lie unburied, whose residents have long since fled, while its few remaining inhabitants are mostly refugees from similarly ravaged villages."

A child in Leer, 2014. (photo: Jerome Tubiana/Foreign Affairs)
A child in Leer, 2014. (photo: Jerome Tubiana/Foreign Affairs)


The Worst Place on Earth: Death and Life in the Lost Town of Leer

By Nick Turse, TomDispatch

21 October 16

 


[Note for TomDispatch Readers: As you read Nick Turse’s stunning report on his recent visit to the killing fields of South Sudan today, remember that if you support this site with a donation of $100 or more ($125 if you live outside the U.S.), you can get a signed, personalized copy of Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan. It's Turse's dramatic, up-close-and-personal account of the tragedy of the American-“midwifed” newest nation on the planet. Check our donation page for the details. Tom]

Slaughter is all too human. Killing fields or mass burial grounds are in the archeological record from the Neolithic period (6,000 to 7,000 years ago) on. Nonetheless, with the advent of modern weaponry and industrial processes, the killing fields of the world have grown to levels that can stagger the imagination. During World War II, when significant parts of the planet, including many of the globe’s great cities, were effectively reduced to ash, an estimated 60 million people, combatants and civilians alike, died (including six million Jews in the killing fields and ovens of Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, and elsewhere).

America’s wars in our own time have been devastating: perhaps three to four million Koreans, half of them civilians (and 37,000 Americans), as well as possibly a million Chinese troops, died between 1950 and 1953 on a peninsula largely left in rubble. In the Indochina wars of the 1960s and 1970s, the toll was similarly mind-bending.  In Vietnam, 3.8 million civilians and combatants are estimated to have perished (along with 58,000 Americans); in Laos, perhaps one million people died; and in Cambodia, the U.S.-led part of that war resulted in an estimated 600,000-800,000 dead, while the rebel Khmer Rouge murdered another two to three million of their fellow countrymen in the autogenocide that followed. In all, we’re talking about perhaps, by the roughest of estimates, 12 million dead in Indochina in those years. 

And that’s just to begin to explore some of the numbers from World War II to the present. Nick Turse, who spent years retracing the slaughter that was the Vietnam War for his monumental, award-winning book on war crimes there, Kill Anything That Moves, has more recently turned to a set of killing fields that are anything but history. In the last three years, he’s paid three visits to South Sudan, the newest “country” on the planet, the one the U.S. midwifed into existence, producing a dramatic account of the ongoing internecine struggles there in his recent book Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan. It’s a land that has experienced Syrian-level death counts with almost no attention whatsoever from the rest of the world. Recently, he returned to its killing fields and offers a chilling account of a largely forgotten land in which slaughter is the essence of everyday life.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


The Worst Place on Earth
Death and Life in the Lost Town of Leer

here it is again. That sickening smell. I’m standing on the threshold of a ghost of a home. Its footprint is all that’s left. In the ruins sits a bulbous little silver teakettle -- metal, softly rounded, charred but otherwise perfect, save for two punctures. Something tore through it and ruined it, just as something tore through this home and ruined it, just as something tore through this town and left it a dusty, wasted ruin.

This, truth be told, is no longer a town, not even a razed one. It’s a killing field, a place where human remains lie unburied, whose residents have long since fled, while its few remaining inhabitants are mostly refugees from similarly ravaged villages.

The world is awash in killing fields, sites of slaughter where armed men have laid waste to the innocent, the defenseless, the unlucky; locales where women and children, old and young men have been suffocated, had their skulls shattered, been left gut-shot and gasping.  Or sometimes they’re just the unhallowed grounds where the battered and broken bodies of such unfortunates are dumped without ceremony or prayer or even a moment of solemn reflection.  Over the last century, these blood-soaked sites have sprouted across the globe: Cambodia, the Philippines, the Koreas, South Africa, Mexico, Lebanon, Rwanda, Bosnia, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria -- on and on, year after year, country after country. 

Chances are, you once heard something about the 1994 Rwandan genocide that saw up to one million men, women, and children murdered in just 100 days.  You may remember the 1968 massacre of Vietnamese civilians by U.S. troops at My Lai.  And maybe you recall the images of Saddam Hussein’s 1988 chemical weapons attack on Kurds in Halabja.  For years, Sudan contributed to this terrible tally.  You might, for instance, remember the attention paid to the slaughter of civilians in Darfur during the 2000s.  The killings there actually never ended, only the public outcry did.  In the 1980s and 1990s, there were also massacres farther south in or around towns you’ve probably never heard of like Malakal, Bor, and Leer. 

A 2005 peace deal between U.S.-supported rebels in the south of Sudan and the government in the north was supposed to put a stop to such slaughter, but it never quite did.  And in some quarters, worse was predicted for the future.  “Looking ahead over the next five years, a number of countries in Africa and Asia are at significant risk for a new outbreak of mass killing,” said U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in 2010.  “Among these countries, a new mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur in Southern Sudan.”

In late 2013 and 2014, Malakal, Bor, Leer, and other towns in the world’s newest nation, South Sudan, were indeed littered with bodies.  And the killing in this country -- the result of the third civil war since the 1950s -- has only continued. 

In 2014, I traveled to Malakal to learn what I could about the destruction of that town and the civilians who perished there.  In 2015, I walked among the mass graves of Bor where, a year earlier, a bulldozer had dug huge trenches for hundreds of bodies, some so badly decomposed or mutilated that it was impossible to identify whether they had been men, women, or children.  This spring, I find myself in Leer, another battered enclave, as aid groups struggled to reestablish their presence, as armed men still stalked the night, as human skulls gleamed beneath the blazing midday sun.

The nose-curling odor here told me that somewhere, something was burning.  The scent had been in my nostrils all day.  Sometimes, it was just a faint, if harsh, note carried on the hot breeze, but when the wind shifted it became an acrid, all-encompassing stench -- not the comforting smell of a cooking fire, but something far more malign.  I looked to the sky, searching for a plume of smoke, but there was only the same opaque glare, blinding and ashen.  Wiping my eyes, I muttered a quick curse for this place and moved on to the next ruined shell of a home, and the next, and the next.  The devastated wattle-and-daub tukuls and wrecked animal pens stretched on as far as I could see. 

This is Leer -- or at least what’s left of it.     

The Fire Last Time

If you want to learn more about this town, about what happened to it, Leer isn’t the best place to start.  You’d be better served by traveling down the road several miles to Thonyor, another town in southern Unity State where so much of Leer’s population fled. It was there that I found Mary Nyalony, a 31-year-old mother of five who, only days before, had given birth to a son.

Leer was her hometown and life there had never been easy.  War arrived shortly after fighting broke out in the capital, Juba, in December 2013, a rupture that most here call “the crisis.”  With civil war came men with guns and, in early 2014, Nyalony was forced to run for her life.  For three months, she and her family lived in the bush, before eventually returning to Leer.  The International Committee of the Red Cross was airdropping food there, she tells me.  In her mind, those were the halcyon days.  “There was enough to eat,” she explains.  “Now, we have nothing.”        

The road to nothing, like the road to Thonyor, began for her in the early morning hours of a day in May 2015.  Single gunshots and staccato bursts of gunfire began echoing across Leer, followed by screams and panic.  This has been the story of South Sudan’s civil war: few pitched battles between armies, many attacks on civilians by armed men.  Often, it’s unclear just who is attacking.  Civilians hear gunfire and they begin to run.  If they’re lucky they get away with their lives, and often little else. 

The war here has regularly been portrayed as a contest between the president, Salva Kiir, a member of the country’s largest tribe, the Dinka, and Riek Machar, a member of the second largest ethnic group, the Nuer.  Kiir and Machar do indeed have a long history as both allies and enemies and as president and vice president of their new nation.  Kiir went on to sack Machar.  Months later, the country plunged into civil war.  Kiir claimed the violence stemmed from an abortive coup by Machar, but an investigation by an African Union commission found no evidence of that. It did, however, find that “Dinka soldiers, members of Presidential Guard, and other security forces conducted house-to-house searches, killing Nuer soldiers and civilians in and near their homes” and that it was carried out “in furtherance of a State policy.”  The civil war that ensued “ended” with an August 2015 peace agreement that saw Machar rejoin the government.  But the violence never actually stopped and after a fresh round of killings in the capital in July, he fled the country and has since issued a new call for rebellion. 

In truth, though, the war in South Sudan is far more than a battle between two men, two tribes, two armies -- Kiir’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and Machar’s SPLA-In Opposition (SPLA-IO).  It’s a conflict of shifting alliances involving a plethora of armed actors and ad hoc militias led by a corrupt cast of characters fighting wars within wars.  The complexities are mind-boggling: longstanding bad blood, grievances, and feuds intertwined with ethnic enmities tangled, in turn, with internecine tribal and clan animosities, all aided and abetted by the power of modern weaponry and the way the ancient cultural practice of cattle-raiding has morphed into paramilitary raiding.  Add in a nation in financial free-fall; the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a tiny, riven elite; the mass availability of weaponry; and so many actors pursuing so many aims that it’s impossible to keep them all straight. 

Whatever the complexities of this war, however, the playbooks of its actors remain remarkably uniform. Men armed with AK-47s fall upon undefended communities.  They kill, pillage, loot.  Younger women and girls are singled-out for exceptional forms of violence: gang rapes and sexual slavery.  Some have been forced into so-called rape camps, where they become the “wives” of soldiers; others are sexually assaulted and killed in especially sadistic ways.  Along with women, the soldiers often take cattle -- the traditional rural currency, source of wealth, and means of sustenance in the region.  

In Leer and the surrounding villages of Unity State, last year’s government offensive to take back rebel territory followed exactly this pattern, but with a ferocity that was striking even for this war.  More than one expert told me that, at least for a time in 2015, Leer and its surroundings were one of the worst places in the entire world.

Armed youth from Nuer clans allied to the government offered no mercy.  Fighting alongside troops from the SPLA and forces loyal to local officials, they carried out a scorched-earth campaign against other ethnic Nuers from spring 2015 though the late fall.  Their pay was whatever they could steal and whomever they could rape. 

“People in southern Unity State have suffered through some of the most harrowing violence that Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has seen in South Sudan -- or in almost any other context where we work,” says Pete Buth, Deputy Director of Operations for the aid group.  “Over the course of the last two years, and particularly from May to November of 2015, women, men and children have been indiscriminately targeted with extreme and brutal violence. We’ve received reports and testimonies of rape, killings, abductions of women and children and the wholesale destruction of villages. The levels of violence have been absolutely staggering.” 

By late last year, almost 600,000 people like Nyalony had been displaced in Unity State alone.

“They came to raid the cattle.  They seemed to be allied to the government,” she tells me.  Given all she’s been through, given the newborn she’s gently palpitating, her eyes are surprisingly bright, her voice strong.  Her recollections, however, are exceptionally grim. Two younger male relatives of hers were shot but survived.  Her father-in-law wasn’t so fortunate.  He was killed in the attack, she tells me, his body consumed in the same flames that destroyed his home.

The Fire This Time

On the road from Leer to Thonyor I discovered the source of the harsh odor that had been assaulting my senses all day.  A large agricultural fire was raging along the winding dirt road between the two towns, the former now in the hands of Kiir’s SPLA, the latter still controlled by Machar’s rebels.  A plume of smoke poured skyward from orange flames that leapt maybe 15 feet high as they consumed palm trees, brush, and swampland. 

I watched the same inferno on my way back to Leer, thinking about the charred corpse of Nyalony’s father-in-law, about all the others who never made it out of homes that were now nothing but ankle-high rectangles of mud and wood or piles of shattered concrete.  On another day, in Leer’s triple digit heat, I walk through some of the charred remains with a young woman from the area.  Tall, with close-cropped hair and a relaxed, easy demeanor, she guides me through the ruins.  “This one was a very good building,” she says of one of the largest piles of rubble, a home whose exterior walls were a striking and atypical mint green.  “They killed the father at this house.  He had two wives.  One wife had, maybe, six babies.”  (I find out later that when she says “babies” she means children.)  Pointing to the wrecked shell next to it, what’s left of a more traditional decorated mud wall, she says, “The other wife had five babies.”

We thread our way through the ravaged tukuls, past support beams for thatched roofs that easily went up in flames.  In her honeyed voice, my guide narrates the contents of the wreckage.  “It’s a bed,” she explains of a scorched metal frame.  “Now, it’s no bed,” she adds with a laugh.

She points out another tukul, its mud walls mostly still standing, though its roof is gone and the interior walls scorched.  “I know the man who lived here,” she tells me.  His large family is gone now.  She doesn’t know where.  “Maybe Juba.  Maybe wherever.”

“They were shooting.  They destroyed the house.  If the people were inside the house, they shoot them.  Then they burn it,” she says.  Pointing toward another heavy metal bed frame, she explains the obvious just in case I don’t understand why the ruins are awash in these orphaned pieces of furniture.  “If they’re shooting, you don’t care about beds.  You run.”  She pauses and I watch as her face slackens and her demeanor goes dark. “You might even leave a baby.  You don’t want to, but there’s shooting.  They’ll shoot you.  You’re afraid and you run away.”  Then she falls silent.

The Survivors

“What civilians experienced in Leer County was terrible.  When the population was forced to flee from their homes, they had to flee with nothing into these swamps in the middle of the night,” says Jonathan Loeb, a human rights investigator who served as a consultant with Amnesty International’s crisis response team in Leer.  “And so you had these nightmarish scenarios where parents are abandoning their children, husbands are abandoning their wives, babies are drowning in swamps in the middle of the night.  And this is happening repeatedly."

Nataba, whom I meet in Leer, faces away from me, her legs folded beneath her on the concrete porch.  She carefully removes the straps of her dark blue dress from her left shoulder and then her right, letting it fall from the top half of her body so that she can work unimpeded.  “I came to Leer some weeks ago.  There was lots of shooting in Juong,” she says of her home village.  From there she fled with her children to Mayendit, then on to Leer, to this very compound, once evidently a church or religious center.  Nataba leans forward, using a rock to grind maize into meal.  I watch her back muscles shudder and ripple as she folds her body toward the ground like a supplicant, then pulls back, repeating the motion endlessly.  Though hard at work, her voice betrays no hint of exertion.  She just faces forward, nude to the waist, her voice clear and matter-of-fact.  Five people from her village, including her 15-year-old daughter, she tells me, were shot and killed by armed men from nearby Koch County.  “A lot of women were raped,” she adds. 

Deborah sits close by with Nataba’s four surviving children draped all over her.  I mistake her for a grandmother to the brood, but she’s no relation. She was driven out of Dok village last December, also by militia from Koch who -- by her count -- killed eight men and two women.  She fled into the forest where she had neither food nor protection from the elements.  At least here in Leer she’s sharing what meager provisions Nataba has, hoping that aid organizations will soon begin bringing in rations. 

Her face is a sun-weathered web of lines etched by adversity, hardship, and want.  Her wiry frame is all muscle and bone.  In the West, you’d have to live at the gym and be 30 years younger to have arms as defined as hers.  She hopes for peace, she tells me, and mentions that she’s a Catholic.  “There’s nothing here to eat” is, however, the line that she keeps repeating.  As I get up to leave, she grasps my hand.  “Shukran.  Thank you,” I tell her, not for the first time, and at that she melts to the ground, kneeling at my feet.  Taken aback, I freeze, then watch -- and feel -- as she takes her thumb and makes a sign of the cross on the toe of each of my shoes.  “God bless you,” she says.

It’s still early morning, but when I meet Theresa Nyayang Machok she already looks exhausted.  It could be that this widow is responsible for 10 children, six girls and four boys; or that she has no other family here; or that her home in the village of Loam was destroyed; or that, as she says, “there’s no work, there’s no food”; or all of it combined.  She turns away from time to time to try to persuade several of her children to stop tormenting a tiny puppy with an open wound on one ear. 

The youngest child, a boy with a distended belly, won’t leave the puppy alone and breaks into a wail when it snaps at him.  To quiet the toddler, an older brother hands him a torn foil package of Plumpy’Sup, a peanut-based nutrition supplement given out by international aid agencies.  The toddler licks up the last daubs of the high-protein, high-fat paste. 

Men from Koch attacked her village late last year, Machok tells me, taking all the cattle and killing six civilians.  When they came to her home, they demanded money that she didn’t have.  She gave them clothes instead, then ran with her children in tow.  Stranded here in Leer on the outskirts of the government camp, she brews up alcohol when she can get the ingredients and sells it to SPLA soldiers. If peace comes, she wants to go home.  Until then, she’ll be here.  “There’s nobody in my village.  It’s empty,” she explains. 

Sarah, a withered woman, lives in Giel, a devastated little hamlet on Leer’s outskirts. To call her home a “wattle hovel” would be generous, since it looks like it might collapse on her family at any moment. “There was fighting here,” she says.  “Whenever there’s fighting we run to the river.”  For months last year, she lived with her children in a nearby waterlogged swamp, hiding in the tall grass, hoping the armed men she refers to as SPLM -- the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, Kiir’s party -- wouldn’t find them.  At least five people in Giel were killed, she says, including her sister’s adult son. 

She returned home only to be confronted by more armed men who took most of what little she had left.  “They said ‘give us clothes or we’ll shoot you,’” she tells me.  Sarah’s children, mostly naked, crowd around.  A few wear scraps that are little more than rags.  Her own black dress is so threadbare that it leaves little to the imagination.  Worse yet are her stores of food.  She hid some sorghum, but that’s all gone. 

I ask what they're eating.  She gets up, walks over to a spot where a battered sheet of metal leans against an empty animal pen, and comes back with two small handfuls of dried water lily bulbs, which she places at my feet.  It’s far too little to feed this family.  I ask if food is their greatest need.  No, she says, gesturing toward her roof -- more gaps than thatch.  She needs plastic tarps to provide some protection for her children.  “The rainy season,” she says, “is coming.”

Nyanet is an elderly man, though he has no idea just how old.  His eyes are cloudy and haunted, his hearing poor, so my interpreter shouts my questions at him.  “The soldiers come at night,” he responds.  ”They have guns.  They take clothes; they take food; they take cows,” he says.  All the young men of the village are gone.  “They killed them.”  The armed men, he tells me, also took girls and young women away. 

Not far from Nyanet’s tiny home, I meet Nyango.  She’s also unsure of her age.  “If the SPLM comes, they take cattle.  They kill people,” she explains.  She also ran to the river and lived there for months.  Like the others in this tumbledown village, her family wears rags.  Her children fell ill living in the mud and muck and water for so long, and still haven’t recovered. 

“People have been hiding in the bush and swamps, terrified for their lives with little or no access to humanitarian assistance for months at a time. That’s been the status quo for much of the last year,” explains MSF’s Pete Buth.  “Now, as people gradually leave from their hiding places, we are seeing the aftermath. Children are suffering from fungal infections on their hands and feet, their skin painful and broken as they leave the swamps and then the dirt and heat dry out the wounds.”

I look down at the nude toddler clinging to Nyango’s leg.  The child’s eyes are covered in milky white mucus and flies are lining up to dine on it.  I’ve seen plenty of children, eyes crawling with flies -- the ultimate “African” cliché, the sight that launched a thousand funding appeals, but never have I seen so many tiny flies arranged in such an orderly fashion to sup at a child’s eyes.  Nyango keeps talking, my interpreter keeps translating, but I’m fixated on this tiny boy.  A pathetic mewing sound escapes his lips and Nyango reaches down, pulls him up, and settles him on her hip. 

I force my attention back to her as she explains that the men who devastated this place killed six people she knows of.  Another woman in Giel suggests that 50 people died in this small village.  The truth is that no one may ever know how many men, women, and children from Giel, Leer, and surrounding areas were slaughtered in the endless rounds of fighting since this war began. 

Where the Bodies Are Buried

Nobody seems to want to talk about where all the bodies went either.  It’s an awkward question to ask and all I get are noncommittal answers or sometimes blank stares.  People are much more willing to talk about killing than to comment on corpses.  But there is plenty of tangible proof of atrocities in Leer if you’re willing to look.

In the midday heat, I set out toward the edge of town following simple directions that turn out to be anything but.  I walk down a dirt path that quickly fades into an open expanse, while two new paths begin on either side.  No one said anything about this.  Up ahead, a group of boys are clustered near a broken-down structure.  I don’t want to attract attention so I take the path on the right, putting the building between them and me.

I’m in Leer with only quasi-approval from the representative of a government that openly threatens reporters with death, in a nation where the term “press freedom” is often a cruel joke, where journalists are arrested, disappeared, tortured, or even killed, and no one is held accountable.  As a white American, I’m probably immune to the treatment meted out to South Sudanese reporters, but I’m not eager to test the proposition.  At the very least, I can be detained, my reporting cut short. 

I try to maintain a low profile, but as a Caucasian in foreign clothes and a ridiculous boonie hat, it’s impossible for me to blend in here.  “Khawaja! [White man!],” the boys yell.  It’s what children often say on seeing me.  I offer up an embarrassed half wave and keep moving.  If they follow, I know this expedition’s over.  But they stay put.             

I’m worried now that I’ve gone too far, that I should have taken the other path.  I’m in an open expanse under the relentless midday sun.  In the distance, I see a group of women and decide to move toward a nearby stand of trees.  Suddenly, I think I see it, the area I’ve been looking for, the area that some around here have taken to calling “the killing field.”

Killing Fields: Then

The world is awash in “killing fields” and I’ve visited my fair share of them.  The term originally comes from the terrible autogenocide of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and was coined by Dith Pran, whose story was chronicled by his New York Times colleague Sydney Schanberg in a magazine article, a book, and finally an Academy-Award-winning film aptly titled The Killing Fields.

“I saw with my eyes that there are many, many killing fields... there’s all the skulls and the bones piled up, some in the wells,” Pran explained after traveling from town to town across Cambodia during his escape to Thailand in 1979.  Near Siem Reap, now a popular tourist haunt, Pran visited two sites littered with remains -- each holding around four to five thousand bodies covered with a thin layer of dirt.  Fertilized by death, the grass grew far taller and greener where the bodies were buried.

There’s a monument to the killing fields at Choeung Ek, a site of mass graves just outside of Phnom Penh, the country’s capital.  Although the Cambodian slaughter ended with the Vietnamese invasion of 1979, when I visited decades later, there were still bones jutting up from the bottom of a pit and shards of a long bone, maybe a femur, embedded in a path I took. 

Then there are the skulls.  A Buddhist stupa on the site is filled with thousands of them, piled high, attesting to the sheer scale of the slaughter.  Millions of Cambodians -- two million, three million, no one knows how many -- died at the hands of the murderous Khmer Rouge.  Similarly, no one knows how many South Sudanese have been slaughtered in the current round of fighting, let alone in the civil wars that preceded it.  The war between southern rebels and the Sudanese government, which raged from 1955 to 1972, reportedly cost more than 500,000 lives.  Reignited in 1983, it churned on for another 20-plus years, leaving around two million dead from violence, starvation, and disease.

A rigorous survey by the U.N.’s Office of the Deputy Humanitarian Coordinator for South Sudan, released earlier this year, estimated that last year in just one area of Unity State -- 24 communities, including Leer -- 7,165 persons were killed in violence and another 829 drowned while fleeing.  Add to those nearly 8,000 deaths another 1,243 people “lost” -- generally thought to have been killed but without confirmation -- while fleeing and 890 persons who were abducted, and you have a toll of suffering that exceeds 10,000. 

To put the figures in perspective, those 8,000 dead in and around Leer are more than double the number of civilians -- men, women, children -- killed in the war in Afghanistan in 2015, and more than double the number of all civilians killed in the conflict in Yemen last year.  Even a low-end estimate -- 50,000 South Sudanese civilian deaths in roughly two years of civil war from December 2013 through December 2015 -- exceeds the numbers of civilians estimated killed in Syria over the same span.  Some experts say the number of South Sudanese dead is closer to 300,000.

Killing Fields: Now

Leer’s “killing field” is an expanse of sun-desiccated dirt covered in a carpet of crunchy golden leaves and dried grasses.  Even the weeds have been scorched and strangled by the sun, though the area is also dotted with sturdy neem trees casting welcome shade.  From the branches above me, bird calls ring out, filling the air with chaotic, incongruous melodies.  

Riek Machar was born and bred in Leer.  This very spot was his family compound.  The big trees once cast shade on tukuls and fences.  It was a garden spot.  People used to picnic here.  But that was a long, long time ago. 

Today, a stripped and battered white four-wheel-drive SUV sits in the field.  Not so far away, without tires, seats, or a windshield is one of those three-wheeled vehicles known around the world as a Lambretta or a tuck-tuck.  And then there’s the clothes.  I find a desert camouflage shirt, its pattern typically called “chocolate chip.”  A short way off, there’s a rumpled pair of gray pants, beyond it a soiled blue tee-shirt sporting the words “Bird Game” and graphics resembling those of the video game “Angry Birds.”

And then there’s a spinal column. 

A human one.

And a pelvis.  And a rib cage.  A femur and another piece of a spinal column.  To my left, a gleaming white skull.  I turn slightly and glimpse another one.  A few paces on and there’s another.  And then another.

Human remains are scattered across this area.

Leer is, in fact, littered with bones.  I see them everywhere.  Most of the time, they’re the sun-bleached skeletal remains of animals.  A few times I stop to scrutinize an orphaned bone lying amid the wreckage.  But I’m no expert, so I chalk up those I can’t identify to cattle or goats.  But here, in this killing field, there’s no question.  The skulls, undoubtedly picked clean by vultures and hyenas, tell the story.  Or rather, these white orbs, staring blankly in the midday glare, tell part of it.

There’s a folk tale from South Sudan’s Murle tribe about a young man, tending cattle in a pasture, who comes across a strikingly handsome skull.  “Oh my god, but why are you killing such beautiful people?” he asks.  The next day he asks again and this time the skull responds. “Oh my dear,” it says, “I died because of lies!”  Frightened, he returns to his village and later tells the chief and his soldiers about what happened.  None of them believes him.  He implores them to witness it firsthand.  If you’re lying, the chief asks, what shall we do with you?  And the young man promptly replies, “You have to kill me.” 

He then leads the soldiers to the skull and poses his question.  This time, the skull stays silent.  For his lies, the soldiers insist, they must kill him and they do just that.  As they are about to return to the village, a voice calls out, “This is what I told you, young man, and now you have also died as I died.”  The soldiers agree not to tell the king about the exchange.  Returning to the village, they say only that the man had lied and so they killed him as ordered.

In South Sudan, soldiers murder and they get away with it, while skulls tell truths that the living are afraid to utter.

“There Might Be Some Mistakes”

No one knows for certain whose mortal remains litter Leer’s killing field.  The best guess: some of the more than 60 men and boys suspected of rebel sympathies who were locked in an unventilated shipping container by government forces last October and left to wither in Leer’s relentless heat.  According to a March report by Amnesty International, when the door was opened the next day, only one survivor, a 12-year-old boy, staggered out alive.  At least some of the crumpled corpses were dumped on the edge of town in two pits where animals began devouring them.  Government forces may eventually have burned some of the bodies to conceal evidence of the crime.

After visiting Leer, I took the findings of the report and my own observations to President Salva Kiir’s press secretary, Ateny Wek Ateny.  “They always copy and paste,” he said, implying that human rights organizations often just reproduced each other’s generally erroneous allegations.  It was, I respond, an exceptionally rigorous investigation, relying on more than 40 interviews, including 23 eyewitnesses, that left no doubt an atrocity had taken place.

Those witness statements, he assures me, are the fatal flaw of the Amnesty report.  South Sudanese can’t be trusted, since they will invariably lie to cast a pall over rival tribes.  In the case of Leer, the witnesses offered up a “concocted sequence of events” to disparage Kiir and his government.  “Americans and Europeans,” he protests, “don’t understand this.”

It’s impossible, he adds, that the government could be responsible for violence in Leer blamed in part on militias, because, as he put it, “We have no militia.  Militias are not part of the government.”  What about alleged involvement by uniformed SPLA?  Lots of armed men, he claims, wear SPLA uniforms without being part of the army.  “It is not a government policy to kill civilians,” he insists, then concedes: “There might be some mistakes.”

 “Bullets Aren’t Enough.  We’ll Use Rape” 

“They come at any time... They even take children and throw them into the burning homes,” says Sarah Nyanang.  Her house in Leer was destroyed last year and, more recently, armed men came in the night and took what little her family had left.  “We have no blanket, no mosquito net, no fishing hook, and even now they steal from us.” 

Michael lives close by.  His neighbors push him forward.  His eyes seem to swim with fear.  His voice is like wet gravel.  The armed men came one night earlier this year and beat him.  He shows me a nasty looking wound fast becoming a scar on his scalp, then turns his head to reveal another extending down his jaw line.  They took almost all his possessions and something far more precious, his wife.  Sarah Nyanang interjects that women abducted here may be raped by as many as 10 men.  She saw a neighbor being raped in the midst of an attack.  The implication is that this is what happened to Michael’s wife. 

She’s still alive, he says, and is living in Thonyor, but he hasn’t seen her since the night she was taken away.  He doesn’t tell me why.

When a team from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights investigated late last year, they found that rape and sexual slavery were one way members of youth militias who carried out attacks alongside the SPLA were paid.  Among others, they interviewed a mother of four who encountered a group of soldiers and armed civilians.  "The men," the report recounts, "proceeded to strip her naked and five soldiers raped her at the roadside in front of her children." She was then dragged into the bush by two other soldiers who raped her and left her there.  When she eventually returned to the roadside, her children, aged between two and seven, were missing.

A woman from a nearby village in Koch County told the investigators that, in October 2015, “after killing her husband, the SPLA soldiers tied her to a tree and forced her to watch as her fifteen year old daughter was raped by at least ten soldiers. The soldiers told her, ‘You are a rebel wife so we can kill you.’”  Another mother reported “that she witnessed her 11-year old daughter and the daughter’s 9-year old friend being gang-raped by three soldiers during an attack in Koch in May 2015.”

“The magnitude of the sexual violence was pretty startling even given the extraordinarily high level throughout the conflict in South Sudan,” Jonathan Loeb of Amnesty International’s crisis response team tells me.  “Many women were raped repeatedly often by multiple men, many of them were used as sex slaves, and in some cases are still missing.”

According to Edmund Yakani, the executive director of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization that promotes human rights in South Sudan, “rape has gone beyond a weapon of war.”  He tells me that it’s become part of military culture.  “Sexual violence has been used as a strategy to wipe out populations from areas where they may have given support to their opponents.  I think it’s the first time in the history of Africa that high-level directives have been put forth to use rape as a way to wipe out populations, the first time leaders said ‘bullets aren’t enough, we’ll use rape.’” 

Apocalypse Then, Now, Always

In the 1979 film Apocalypse Now, Captain Benjamin Willard is sent on a mission that takes him deep into the heart of darkness, a compound in Cambodia from which a rogue American general is waging a private war.  “I was going to the worst place in the world and I didn't even know it yet,” says Willard who finds his own killing field there.

I thought about that line as I flew into Leer, looking down on the marshes and malarial swamps where so many hid from killers and rapists.  Multiple people told me that Leer was one of the worst places in the world -- and that’s nothing new.    

In 1990, during the Sudanese civil war, Leer was bombed by the northern government's Soviet-made Antonov aircraft.  Nobody may know exactly how many died.  Eight years later, Nuer militias opposed to Riek Machar raided Leer three times, looting and burning homes, destroying crops, slaughtering and stealing tens of thousands of cattle.  “Over the past months thousands of people have fled without food or belongings. They've been forced to hide for days in the surrounding swamps and outlying villages, living in constant fear and surviving on just water lilies and fish. Their own villages have been burned down and their grain stores have been looted,” said a representative of the World Food Program at the time.  Leer was completely razed. 

In 2003, attacks on civilians by Sudanese forces and allied militia emptied Leer again.  In January 2014, during the opening weeks of the current civil war, the SPLA and partner militias attacked Leer and surrounding towns. Civilians were killed, survivors ran for the swamps, and the attackers burned to the ground some 1,556 residential structures according to satellite imagery.  And then, of course, came last year’s raids.

Since American soldiers departed Vietnam in the 1970s, there have been no further massacres at My Lai.  Nor have there been mass killings near Oradour-sur-Glane, France, where the Nazis slaughtered 642 civilians in June 1944.  Both ruined villages have, in fact, been preserved as memorials to the dead.  And although Iraq was turned into a charnel house following the 2003 U.S. invasion and neighboring Syria has seen chemical weapons attacks in recent years, there have been no new victims of poison gas in Halabja since Saddam Hussein’s 1988 attack.

Cambodia, too, has seen none of the wholesale bloodletting of the 1970s since the Khmer Rouge was driven from power.  And while periodic fears of impending genocide have lurked in the neighborhood, and Rwanda has experienced arbitrary arrests, torture, and killings of government opponents and critics, it has had nothing like a repeat of 1994. 

In Leer, however, those killed in the bombing of 1990, in the razing of the town of 1998, in the attacks of 2003, in the sack of the town in 2014, and in the waves of attacks of 2015, have been joined by still others unfortunate enough to call this town home.  Those in the area have been trapped by geography and circumstances beyond their control in what can only be called an inter-generational killing field.

The violence of 2015 never actually ended.  It’s just continued at a somewhat reduced level.  A couple of weeks before I arrived in Leer, an attack by armed men led locals to shelter at the Médecins Sans Frontières compound.  On the day I arrived in town, armed youths from the rebel-held territory surrounding Leer carried out a series of attacks on government forces, killing nine. 

In July, violence again flared in South Sudan’s capital, Juba.  With it came reports of renewed attacks around Leer.  In late August, an SPLA-IO spokesman reported a raid by government forces on a town 25 kilometers from Leer that ended with two killed, 15 women raped, and 50 cows stolen.  In September, around 700 families from Leer County fled to a U.N. camp due to fighting between the SPLA and the IO.  Earlier this October, civilians were killed and families again fled to the swamps around Leer due to gun battles and artillery fire between the two forces.

No one has ever been held accountable for any of this violence, any of the atrocities, any of the deaths.  And there’s little reason to believe they ever will -- or even that the violence will end.  Unlike My Lai or Oradour-sur-Glane, Leer seems destined to be a perpetually active killing field, a place where bodies pile up, massacre after massacre, generation after generation -- a town trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of violence.

Almost a year after fleeing Leer, Mary Nyalony is still living out in the open on water lilies and in a state of limbo.  “I’m worried because the government is still there,” she says of her ravaged hometown.  When I ask about the future, she tells me that she fears “the same thing is going to happen again.”

Peace pacts and the optimism they generate come and go, but decades of history suggest that Mary Nyalony will eventually be proved right.  Peace deals aren’t the same as peace.  Southern Sudan has seen plenty of the former, but little of the latter.  “We need peace,” she says more than once.  “If there’s no peace, all of this is just going to continue.”



Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch, a fellow at the Nation Institute, and a contributing writer for the Intercept.  His book Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa recently received an American Book Award. His latest book is Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan. His website is NickTurse.com. Reporting for this story was made possible through the generous support of Lannan Foundation.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Next > End >>

Page 1858 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