June 12, 2014, Issue
203
HUDSON VALLEY
ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
––––––––––––
CONTENTS
1A. Editorial: The Tragedy in Iraq and Syria
1. Quotes Of The
Month — Albert Einstein
2. Foreign Policy
Bait And Switch
3. The American Way
Of War
4. Abortion Doctors
Restrictions Take Root In South
5. New Global Focus
On Anti-Woman Violence
6. Ending Child
Marriage In Africa Cannot Wait
7. The People’s
Communes Of Venezuela
8. What Really
Happened In Tiananmen Square?
9. The Future
Visible In St. Petersburg
10. How The U.S. Started And Lost The Afghan War
11. Short Guide To
Capital In The 21st Century
12. Supreme Court:
Church Beats State
13. The Feds’ Push
For Big Data
14. Books: Water,
Peace, And War
15. Books: E.E. Cummings
16. The Facts About Climate Change
17. 13 Arrested Protesting Police Killings
18. Still Flying
After 34 Million Years
––––––––––––
EDITOR’S NOTES
1 . Summer Reading: There
are so many books out there to read this summer — but I’m only going to
recommend one of them. It’s long, 600 and some odd pages and another over 100
pages of notes and index, but you can finish it if you dip in from time to time
over the summer. It’s also a recorded book on disc in some libraries.
The title is “The Untold History of the United States” by
Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick (now in paperback). It came out two years ago
and is the text from which the Showtime TV documentary series was based. I’ve
read scores of U.S. political history books but this one — covering the entire
20th century and the next, up to the Obama years — is by far the
best. It covers every president from FDR, and tells some surprising tales. It’s
honest and dares to tell the real truth about U.S. foreign policy and domestic
politics. I wish every American would read this.
2. Vacation: Both editors are taking off for lean-tos in
Vermont and biking in Canada. The next Newsletter will be in later August. Have
a good summer.
––––––––––––
1A. EDITORIAL:
TRAGEDY IN IRAQ AND SYRIA
 |
| ISIS, on the road to Tikrit after taking Mosul. |
An Activist Newsletter Editorial
What’s happening to
the people of Iraq today is a crying shame — and much of it can be traced back
to nearly 25 years of U.S. of intervention in this ancient society.
On June 10, the
al-Qaeda affiliate Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) attacked and occupied
the city of Mosul. Reports indicate that so far up to 500,000 of its 2 million
residents are fleeing.
On June 11, ISIS
captured Tikrit, the home of late President Saddam Hussein who was executed
after the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation. The religious fanatics announced, "We
will march toward Baghdad because we have an account to settle there," but
the capital will be much harder to penetrate.
In both Mosul and
Tikrit, U.S.-trained Iraqi government forces fled at the approach of the rebel
forces. Each city — as was Fallujah and other parts of Anbar Province that
months earlier fell to the fundamentalist rebels — was overwhelmingly populated
by Sunnis.
It is estimated that
ISIS has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of mainly Shi’ites over
the last two years, primarily through bombings in the capital Baghdad, where
the democratically elected Shi’ite-led government is situated. Up to 65% of
Iraq is Shi’ite, most of the rest are Sunni, but Sunnis dominated the political
structure dating back throughthe Ottoman Empire until the American invasion.
We Americans have a
responsibility for the plight of Iraq and its people. In 1991 the U.S. bombed
the country for over a month, killing hundreds of thousands and destroying much
of the civilian infrastructure. A total of 118 American soldiers died from
“enemy” action. Washington followed up with over 12 years of killer sanctions
that resulted in at least a million deaths, half of them children. In 2003 the
U.S. launched an unjust, illegal and immoral invasion and occupation for over eight
years that caused another million lives and forced four million people to flee their
homes.
Jihadist forces
entered Iraq just after the U.S. invasion. There were none before that. The jihadist
uprising in Iraq today is connected to the jihadists who are the main
fighters against the Syrian government. They feed off each other. ISIS is
dedicated to constructing an Islamic emirate in Iraq and Syria, where it also
fights. Several other Syrian fundamentalist fighting forces, independent of
ISIS, seek gradations of a similar goal.
The U.S. government
has supported the effort to overthrow the Syrian government of President Bashar Hafez al-Assad during the three years since the fighting
started. In the last year the White House began to worry seriously about
the overwhelming presence of al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist fighters, and
only provides supplies to the much smaller mostly secular Free Syrian Army
(FSA).
Washington's closest Arab
ally, Saudi Arabia, has been financing the worst of the jihadists. This is
reminiscent of the first Afghan war (1978-1995) when the Saudis and Americans
paid and trained the jihadist forces in that country who were waging war
against the left wing revolutionary government and Russian forces sent to
protect the regime. This earlier event not only produced al-Qaeda and the
Taliban but also sparked many of the fundamentalist struggles in the Middle
East and Africa today.
Two weeks ago
President Obama reiterated his decision to continue supporting the FSA, which
is distinctly secondary to the fundamentalists as a fighting force.
Washington’s support is largely symbolic. The White House wants the war to
continue rather than the possibility of the jihadists taking power in Damascus,
and it won’t admit it was mistaken to demand the overthrow of Assad.
The people of Iraq
and Syria have suffered long enough. Of course, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Assad have both exhibited important shortcomings. But
given their possible replacement by ISIS and similar fanatical groups, at this
stage, the U.S. must end its support for the overthrow of Assad and help the
government get back on its feet. At the same time — without sending in
one member of the military — Washington should offer generous aid to Baghdad to
fight against the advances being made by ISIS.
1. QUOTES OF THE MONTH — Albert Einstein
(1879-1955)
 |
| Young Einstein. |
The Great German-born theoretical physicist developed the general
theory of relativity (E = mc²) among other
scientific achievements. Lesser known were his strong antiwar, antiracist, and
socialist views. He deeply regretted his
role in helping create the atomic bomb, as you will see in the first quote.
· "The release of atom power has changed
everything except our way of thinking.... The solution to this problem lies in
the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a
watchmaker."
· "The most aggravating thing about the
younger generation is that I no longer belong to it."
· "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
· The economic anarchy of capitalist society
as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil.... Private
capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of
competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development
and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of
production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is
an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be
effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.
· I am convinced there is only one way to
eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist
economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward
social goals.
·
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for
tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
· "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but
because of those who look on and do nothing."
—————————
2. FOREIGN POLICY BAIT AND SWITCH
 |
| The pivot to Asia includes a U.S. ring of firepower surrounding China on land, sea and air. |
By Jack A. Smith, editor, Activist Newsletter
President Obama chose to ignore the most important strategic
aspect of U.S. foreign policy in his major address May 28 at West Point
graduation ceremonies. It was perhaps thought politically wise to emphasize current
events rather than military preparations for a possible major future confrontation
with China.
Instead Obama mainly focused on defending his policies
against mounting criticism from warhawks in both parties variously demanding
that the U.S. attack Syria, or Iran or Venezuela, and adopt more provocative
measures toward Russia. He was even criticized for not being tougher toward
China, which is preposterous, as we shall discuss in this article when deeds,
not words, are examined.
Obama swings back and forth on toughness (he’ll bomb, not
bomb, Syria) but he was correct to spend time explaining why he opposed the
hawks this time around. Why get bogged down in Syria and Iran or into immediate
clashes with Beijing and Moscow when there is a far more important long-range
objective for the White House and those who rule America. At the same time, on
his trip to Poland in early June, Obama rattled sabers to the delight of European
allies, sending jets and military equipment and encouraging them to increase
defense spending against the nonexistent “threat” from Russia.
Oddly, the president identified “terrorism” as the main
direct threat to America “for the foreseeable future,” but just a year ago he
suggested the war on terrorism was ending. He also wants several African
countries to join the war on terrorism in place of the U.S. in most cases and is
spending $5 billion to pay them off. He further pledged to continue supplying
the non-jihadist sector of the war against the Syrian government when everyone
knows the jihadists, particularly al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria, are responsible for the large bulk of the fighting.
Entirely omitted from his speech was the “pivot” to Asia and
the principal thrust of foreign/military policy — maintaining unilateral (or
unipolar) U.S. global hegemony when time appears to be running out on this
endeavor. Washington attained solo world leadership, which it has transformed
into world domination, by default, when the Soviet Union unexpectedly imploded
more than 20 years ago, leaving but one superpower on top. That superpower has
no intention of abdicating the global throne.
During this same period, however, other nations — such as
China, Russia, India and Brazil, for example — have arisen to demand a more
representative and collegial multilateral world order in place of one-nation world
leadership. They think the U.S. throws its weight around more than it should;
that it is too violent toward other countries and peoples; and that its main
goal as leader is to further its own interests first, not those of the
world. These states are getting stronger
as America becomes weaker
economically and politically incapacitated in
internal affairs. Washington’s ability to order other nations around, which
goes back in some cases to the mid-1800s, is declining, but this probably will
continue for many years.
Much of Latin America, as an example of this change in world
affairs, has broken away from its former
overlord. And look how these other key
countries have changed: Russia from 1991 to 2001 was prostrate and subservient
to the United States. China until the mid-1990s was not considered a major
industrial society. India, until somewhat later was in the same category.
Brazil’s rise was even more recent. At the same time it appears that the U.S.
economy has become stagnant, boosted by periodic financial bubbles that
eventually burst in the face of the deteriorating working class, lower middle
and portions of the middle class.
It is worth stressing at this point that (1) elements of
multilateral leadership have already appeared on the world stage and that (2)
Beijing has not evidenced a scintilla of interest in itself becoming world
hegemon, replacing the U.S.
For these and other reasons the number one strategic foreign/military
objective of the present and future U.S. government is to block or greatly
delay the inevitable development of multilateral leadership, though it is never
acknowledged openly. (Should the U.S. ever consent to sharing leadership in
future, it probably would demand the status of first among equals.)
Obama hinted at his long-range goal in the West Point speech,
camouflaged in nationalist jingoism, hubris and braggadocio:
“The United States is and remains the one indispensable
nation. That has been true for the century past, and it will be true for the
century to come.... Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the
world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined
is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership.... I believe in
American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.”
In the first sentence substitute for the words
“indispensable nation” the words “global hegemon” and you get the point. And
while it is true that in time China may far exceed the U.S. economically and
develop several major allies in the process, the U.S. military will insure
American supremacy continues through this century — or so Obama slyly suggests.
Obama not only neglected to mention retaining hegemony, he
avoided touching on Washington’s program to preserve its exalted status — the
three-year-old reorientation of foreign policy primacy from the Middle East to
Asia.
 |
| A light moment at 2013 summit. |
The transition has been slower than expected because the White
House and State Department have been preoccupied by Iran, Syria, Yemen,
Somalia, Israel/Palestine, the Afghan war, drone wars in several other
countries, and the Ukrainian imbroglio — this latter an entanglement of White House creation
by supporting the ouster of the democratically elected president in Kiev.
Political paralysis at home is another reason. The budget crisis forced Obama
to cancel attending an important weeklong journey to four Asian countries in
October to attend two regional summit meetings. Also the resignation of prime pivot
advocate Hillary Clinton slowed the pivot process.
The delay in focusing on Asia provoked Richard N. Haass, who
heads the establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations, to write April 22:
“U.S. foreign policy is in troubling disarray.... The change [to Asia] is warranted by the fact that the United
States has enormous interests in the Asia-Pacific region, which is home to many
of the countries likely to dominate the current century.... A Secretary of
State [John Kerry] can only do so much; time spent in Jerusalem and Geneva is
time not spent in Tokyo and Beijing.”
The pivot has moved somewhat forward with Obama’s recent
(April 22-27) trip to Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines.
The Asia policy has two main goals: (1) To politically constrain the
international rise of China even within its own logical sphere of interest in
East Asia. (2) To interject Washington deeply into Asia’s economic milieu, and
for American corporations to become more profitably involved with the region’s
extraordinary economic growth, especially since it now is the most advantageous
location for direct investment, both to and from the United States.
Like the “Devil’s Pitchfork,” the pivot has three prongs:
1. Political: The best
way to undermine China regionally is to surround the country with U.S. allies,
a process that is nearly complete. Washington has been engaged in this effort
since the success of the Communist revolution in 1949. To quote from an article
in the May-June Foreign Affairs:
“The United States has five defense treaty allies in the region (Australia,
Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand), as well as strategically
important partnerships with Brunei, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand,
Singapore, and Taiwan and evolving ties with Myanmar” and Vietnam. In East/Southeast
Asia this leaves Beijing with friendly Russia, troubled North Korea, essentially
allied Cambodia, and Laos with one foot in China and the other in Vietnam.
Since the pivot was announced, Japan, South Korea, the
Philippines and Vietnam have become embroiled with China over territorial
claims in the vast East and South China Sea as never before. These are long standing
differences but were largely low-key disputes until the U.S. interjected itself
on behalf of its allies.
 |
Says China: Japan's Shinzo Abe brought a friend to meet
with Obama — the ghost of Japanese militarism. |
It was reported May 25 in Chinatopix that Washington is
constructing a new “security alliance [consisting] of the Philippines, Vietnam,
Australia and Japan, according to unnamed official sources in the Philippine
government. Press reports from Manila said Washington also wants to include
Singapore and Thailand in the alliance while encouraging Malaysia to become its
strategic partner.”
Last month, Obama announced the U.S. would abide by the
terms of its defense treaty with Japan if its dispute with China about dominion
over the Diaoyu islands (called Senkaku by Japan) became a serious
confrontation. The U.S. hasn’t said what it would do in that event. At worst is
the surreal possibility of a war over possession of several uninhabited mostly
barren islands that are little more than rocks, the largest being 1.7 miles
square. The irony is that the Obama Administration does not have a position on
which country actually has the right to possession —
Taiwan also claims the
islands — but it will defend Japan in event of a confrontation.
“In the Chinese perception,” according to J.M. Norton in The
Diplomat April 21: “Washington is the principal driver of Japan’s
transformation. Over time it has helped transform [‘pacifist’] Japan’s self-defense
force into a national military. And it has assisted the Japanese side in
acquiring and manufacturing through joint cooperation technologically advanced
weapon systems, some of which have offensive capabilities. Right now the
Chinese leadership sees the U.S. as the main driver of Japan’s resurgence and
as lacking the political will to restrain an increasingly assertive Japan.
Further, the current Japanese leadership’s increasing assertiveness takes place
in the context of growing nationalism with an imperial twist. In short, from
the Chinese viewpoint, U.S. leaderships have spurred the ‘revival and outward
expansion of Japanese militarism,’ which represents a violation of Chinese
concerns articulated in the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué establishing Sino-U.S.
relations.”
2. Economic:
Washington’s hoped for economic power in the Far East is the vast expansion of
the relatively small Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was formed by the Bush
Administration in 2006. The Obama Administration seeks to transform the TPP
into the most important free trade organization in the East Asia/Pacific region
with participating countries from the Americas, the main Pacific island
nations, and as many states on the Asian mainland as possible. Ideally, from
the White House perspective, such an entity would surpass all other East and
South Asian regional trade groupings. China, which has been excluded from the
TPP, supports development of an inter-Asian trade organization similar to a
2012 proposal by the Association of South East Asian Nations. According to a
June 9 article in Global Times by Lancaster University (UK) Professor Du Ming,
“Both ASEAN and China share concerns that the TPP may be a centrifugal force
arising to rip asunder the economic integration of East Asia.”
An important purpose of the TPP is to position the U.S. as a
major economic actor in Asia, reinforcing its global dominance and extending
its sphere of influence into China’s front and back yards. The trade deal,
however, has encountered many problems in the U.S. as well as Asia. Among some
countries, including many people and politicians in the U.S., there is a fear
that the still mostly secret deal allows capitalism to run riot against the
interests of the people. Congress has rejected Obama’s demand for fast-track
approval of TTP, indicating continued delay as changes are made. Supporters of
environmental sanity, labor rights and full disclosure are among the most
vociferous opponents.
Despite satisfying the U.S. by apparent willingness to
return toward militarism, Japan’s right wing nationalist Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe refused Obama his main reason for visiting Tokyo in April. He did not agree
to become a TPP member, despite the American president’s extreme entreaties.
Japan — the intended Asian keystone of the project — demands concessions on agricultural
tariffs and automobiles.
It must be
understood that the United States has no desire to weaken China economically,
just politically so that it cannot erode Washington’s unilateral world
leadership. Indeed, as Indian correspondent M. K. Bhadrakumar wrote in Asia
Times May 9: “China's growth is
integral to the recovery and rejuvenation of the American economy. China is
potentially the principal source of investment in the American economy. China's
proposed reforms in the direction of opening up the financial system and
domestic market are hugely attractive for the American business.”
 |
| Okinawans frequently protest U.S. military bases. |
3. Military: This is where all
Washington’s continual pledges that it isn’t out to “contain” China fall apart.
The U.S. has surrounded China with an ever-increasing ring of military fire,
from NSA surveillance and spy satellites, to Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force
bases; from nuclear-armed submarines and a majority of America’s 11 mammoth
aircraft carriers to warships, bombers and fighters in dozens of varieties;
from short-, medium- and long-range missiles to thousands of nuclear weapons
that can be fired from the U.S. and demolish hundreds of major Chinese cities.
This does not include firepower from America’s ally, Japan, which amazingly possesses
a larger and stronger navy and air force than China.
While it is true China is far behind the U.S. in military
technology, weapons development and a contemporary arsenal it is trying to
catch up. The U.S. continually complains about the size of Beijing’s war
budget, but it is at most a tenth that of the U.S. budget. Indeed, the 2012
combined military spending of China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Saudi
Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil are close but cannot match the
Pentagon’s yearly spending about $650 billion — and this doesn’t count an
almost equal sum for national security outlay, including Homeland Defense,
enormous interest payments on past war debts, building and maintaining nuclear
weapons, fielding 17 government spy agencies and costs related to security and
war by other government departments.
But isn’t the U.S. cutting defense spending while China is
increasing? In answer we’ll quote from President Obama’s November 2011 speech
to the Australian parliament when he announced the U.S. was expanding its role
in the Asia/Pacific region:
“I have directed my national security team to make our
presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority. As a result,
reductions in U.S. defense spending will not, I repeat, will not, come at the
expense of the Asia Pacific. Indeed, we are already modernizing America's
defense posture across the Asia Pacific. It will be more broadly distributed,
maintaining our strong presence in Japan and the Korean peninsula, while
enhancing our presence in South-East Asia.”
Two things must be kept in mind:
(1) Militarily, China is at least 20 years behind the U.S.,
but it is swiftly improving its weapons technology, development and
manufacturing. The U.S., however, is doing the same and it plans to retain a
huge lead well into the future. (2) Beijing has sought no military bases
abroad (compared to 800 for the
Pentagon) because its main interest by far is developing, enriching and
protecting its own territory. Don’t touch Tibet. Breakaway Taiwan does not deny
it is part of China, so its apostasy is accepted. Hong Kong is what the Chinese
Communist Party used to call a bourgeois democracy, but it remains part of
China so hands off. China has some sharp squabbles with its neighbors, which is
unfortunate, but it is about China Sea territories Beijing has long assumed
were part of China. The present system is too confrontational and it is not all
because of China by any means, despite contrary White House allegations.
Since the pivot was announced, the number of U.S. bases in
Asia/Pacific has been expanding rapidly, from Australia to the Philippines. According
to Agence France Presse April 28: “The Pentagon has been scouring the western
Pacific for alternative airfields for its aircraft, harbors for its ships and
bases for its troops.... The plan to spread the U.S. military’s presence across
the region accelerated in late April as President
Barack Obama visited the Philippines. Although Manila asked the U.S.
to vacate its longstanding bases in the country [in 1991 after mass protests],
Chinese assertiveness has generated a change of heart: the U.S. and the
Philippines signed a new agreement today that will allow more visits by U.S.
aircraft and ships and a rotating presence of marines....
“The U.S. military has been quietly putting in place
arrangements that will give it a much broader geographic presence in the
Asia-Pacific region to deal with the growing
challenge from China.... One part of that new approach has been to
boost [military] co-operation with longstanding allies.... The other approach
has been to revamp older facilities on the many small islands further out into
the Pacific, most of which are at the outer edge of China’s missile range.”
Incidentally, the U.S. and Japan have both agreed not to
respect China’s establishment of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over
the East China Sea that includes the Diaoyu islands. Beijing’s zone overlaps
that of Tokyo (which has existed since 1969), reflecting differences over
territorial rights. Beijing’s zone extends 81 miles from China, exactly the
length of Tokyo’s zone from Japan. The ADIZ, in accordance with international
rules, requires aircraft to be identified when entering the zone. The day after China’s move last November, a
U.S. plane entered the zone intentionally not identifying itself, a practice
that has continued without any Chinese retaliation. Should an airplane enter
the U.S. ADIZ refusing to identify itself, warplanes would force the offending
aircraft to the ground one way or another.
It could fill a book to list and describe all the military
preparations the U.S. is taking vis-à-vis China. If Beijing just took one similar
step, such as sending a surveillance ship into the Caribbean, as the U.S. does
routinely in the China Sea, there would be a threatening outcry from Washington
to desist or face military action.
The point is that while aspects of the pivot may have slowed
down somewhat, the military part is developing rapidly. Reports about the
buildup appear in the press from time to time, but the great majority of the
American people have no idea what’s happening, and many who do are misled.
It’s probably understandable why President Obama refused to
mention the pivot, much less the details, in his speech. But if he did it would
only be in superficial generalities about America’s good intentions. As yet
there has not been an honest national discussion of the purpose behind the
military buildup, the defense treaties, the TPP, the effort to contain China
and the dedication to continue American leadership (global hegemony) for the
rest of the century. To do so, in a nationwide speech no less, would make it
appear that a serious future confrontation may be on the horizon. And that, of
course, is impossible — isn’t it?
—————————
3. THE AMERICAN WAY OF WAR
By Tom Engelhardt
The United States has been at war — major
boots-on-the-ground conflicts and minor interventions, firefights, air strikes,
drone assassination campaigns, occupations, special ops raids, proxy conflicts,
and covert actions -- nearly nonstop since the Vietnam War began. That’s more
than half a century of experience with war, American-style, and yet few in our
world bother to draw the obvious conclusions.
Given the historical record, those conclusions should be
staring us in the face. They are, however, the
words that can’t be said
in a country committed to a military-first approach to the world, a continual
build-up of its forces, an emphasis on pioneering work in the development and
deployment of the latest destructive technology, and a repetitious cycling
through styles of war from full-scale invasions and occupations to
counterinsurgency, proxy wars, and back again.
So here are five straightforward lessons — none acceptable
in what passes for discussion and debate in this country — that could be drawn
from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:
1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals,
it doesn’t work. Ever.
2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it
doesn’t solve them. Never.
3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to
“stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a
destabilizing force.
4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of
war and its “warriors,” the U.S. military is incapable of winning its wars.
5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the
U.S. military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it
isn’t.
And here’s a bonus lesson: if as a polity we were to take
these five no-brainers to heart and stop fighting endless wars, which drain us
of national treasure, we would also have a long-term solution to the Veterans
Administration health-care crisis. It’s not the sort of thing said in our
world, but the VA is in a crisis of financing and caregiving that, in the
present context, cannot be solved, no matter whom you hire or fire. The
only long-term solution would be to stop fighting losing wars that the American
people will pay for decades into the future, as the cost in broken bodies and
broken lives is translated into medical care and dumped on the VA.
One caveat. Think whatever you want about war and
American war-making, but keep in mind that we are inside an enormous propaganda
machine of militarism, even if we barely acknowledge the space in our lives
that it fills. Inside it, only certain opinions, certain thoughts, are
acceptable, or even in some sense possible.
— Continued (from
TomDispatch June 10) at
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175854/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_a_record_of_unparalleled_failure/#more
—————————
4. ABORTION RESTRICTIONS TAKE ROOT IN
SOUTH
JACKSON, Miss. (AP, May 28) -- From Texas to Alabama, laws
are being enacted that would greatly restrict access to abortion, forcing many
women to travel hundreds of miles to find a clinic. The laws, requiring
abortion doctors to have privileges to admit patients to local hospitals, could
have a profound impact on women in poor and rural sections of the Bible Belt.
In many places in the South, clinic doctors come from out
of state to perform abortions and don't have ties to a local hospital. Critics
say the laws mean hospitals, leery of attracting anti-abortion protesters,
could get veto power over whether the already-scarce clinics remain in
business. They say the real aim is to outlaw abortions while supporters say
they are protecting women's health.
The laws are the latest among dozens of restrictions on
abortions that states have enacted in the past two decades, including 24-hour
waiting periods, parental consent and ultrasound requirements.
"You're looking at huge swaths of the country where
women's options are becoming severely limited," said Amanda Allen, state
legislative counsel for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.
The requirements are already in effect in Texas and
Tennessee. Laws in Mississippi and Alabama are on hold during court challenges.
Louisiana and Oklahoma are about to enact their laws, which would bring the
total to 10 states. If the law there is upheld, Mississippi's lone abortion
clinic would have to close, meaning women in some parts of the state would have
to travel at least three hours to an out-of-state clinic.
Republican Gov. Phil Bryant bluntly gave one reason for
signing that law in 2012: "...we're going to try to end abortion in
Mississippi."
The Center for Reproductive Rights says besides the South,
other states with the laws are in the Midwest or the West - Kansas, North
Dakota, Utah and in Wisconsin, where it is being challenged in court this week.
After judges allowed Texas' privileges law to take effect
earlier this year, 19 of 33 abortion clinics closed.
If Mississippi's lone clinic would shut its doors, one
option would be to drive about three hours from Jackson to Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
or about three and a half hours from Jackson to Bossier City, Louisiana. A less
likely option for a small number of women would be to find a Mississippi doctor
who performs 10 or fewer abortions a month. If the doctor performs more, the
practice is considered an abortion clinic under the law.
Supporters say admitting privileges protect women in case
they hemorrhage, have cervical injuries or infection or other problems during
an abortion.
Denise Burke is vice president of legal affairs for
Americans United for Life, one of the main anti-abortion groups lobbying state
legislatures to enact such laws.
"An admitting privileges requirement is an obvious
and medically appropriate regulation of the abortion providers," Burke
said.
Allen counters that the privileges are "absolutely
not medically necessary" and that they are aimed at shutting down clinics
and to severely restrict access to a legal medical procedure.
The Guttmacher Institute, which supports legal access to
abortion, in a February report said first-trimester abortions carry
"minimal risk," with less than 0.05 percent - 1 in every 2,000 cases
- involving "major complications that might need hospital care." The
report also said 89 percent of abortions in the U.S. are done within those
first 12 weeks of pregnancy. A full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks.
And if there were complications, hospitals would still
accept and treat a patient even if her doctor can't sign her in, opponents of
the law say.
In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the landmark 1973
Roe v. Wade decision that legalizes abortions nationwide. It gave states the
option to regulate abortions before fetuses are viable. But it came with the
caveat that states may not place undue burdens on or create substantial
obstacles to women seeking abortions.
Court challenges are arguing that admitting privileges
laws create just such burdens.
Religious-affiliated hospitals might ignore or reject
applications from abortion providers, and some won't grant privileges to
out-of-state physicians. Both obstacles were encountered by the traveling
doctors who work at Mississippi's clinic.
 |
| Right-on Sisters!. |
In Alabama, operators of three of five abortion clinics
testified last week during a trial challenging the law that they use
out-of-town doctors who wouldn't be able to admit patients to local hospitals.
They said they'd have to close. That would leave clinics in two cities,
Tuscaloosa and Huntsville, which use local doctors, according to the state
attorney general's office.
In Louisiana, opponents said the Louisiana law would close
three of the state's five abortion clinics, leaving two in the northwest corner
of the state - one in Shreveport and one in Bossier City. That creates a
five-hour, one-way drive for women who live in the southeastern end of the
state.
At Mississippi's clinic, Jackson Women's Health
Organization, protesters on several days a month stand outside to pray, sing
hymns and hold posters with photos of aborted fetuses. Escorts in fluorescent
yellow vests walk patients from the parking lot to the clinic, often as music
blares from a boom box to drown out the protesters' voices.
Laurie Bertram Roberts has volunteered as an escort and
said if facilities close, women would likely try to end their own pregnancies
in potentially dangerous ways.
"Desperate people do desperate things," said
Roberts, president of the Mississippi chapter of National Organization for
Women.
Ashley Sigrest is at the clinic every few weeks to
persuade women not to end their pregnancies because she regrets the abortion
she had in August 1998. Sigrest said she supports admitting privileges laws
because she believes they protect women's health.
"The abortion doctors are flying from out of state
and so they're not being held responsible for harming these women,"
Sigrest said.
—————————
5. NEW GLOBAL FOCUS ON ANTI-WOMAN VIOLENCE
By David Crary,
Associated Press
 |
| Pakistan: Aftermath of stoning of pregnant women. |
Nearly 300 schoolgirls abducted in Nigeria. A pregnant
Pakistani woman stoned to death by her family
for marrying the man she loved.
Widespread rape in many war zones. And in California, a murderous rampage by a
disturbed young man who had depicted sorority members as a prime target.
From across the world, startling reports of violence against
women surface week after week. The World Health Organization has declared the
problem an epidemic, calculating that one in three women worldwide will
experience sexual or physical violence — most often from their husband or male
partner.
Yet even as they decry the violence and the abundance of
misogynistic rhetoric, women's rights activists see reasons for hope.
"The violence has been happening forever. It's not
anything new," said Serra Sippel, president of the Washington-based Center
for Health and Gender Equity. "What's new is that people in the United
States and globally are coming around to say ‘enough is enough,’ and starting
to hold governments and institutional leaders accountable."
 |
| India: Cousins raped and hung. Crowd awaits police. |
In India in late May — where two teenage cousins were raped
and killed by attackers who hung their bodies from a mango tree — there are
signs of change. Public outrage over the 2012 gang rape and murder of a
23-year-old student led the government to expedite legislation increasing
prison terms for rapists. In April, a court sentenced three men to death for
raping a photojournalist in Mumbai.
In the United States, the military says it's stepping up
efforts to combat increasing sexual assault in the ranks and President Obama's administration
has recently begun a campaign against sexual violence at colleges and
universities. A month ago, for the first time, the Department of Education
revealed its list of schools under investigation for how they have responded to
the problem.
On May 8, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and several of her
colleagues introduced the International Violence Against Women Act, a bill
intended to make anti-women violence a higher diplomatic priority for the
United States. And in London June 10-13 British Foreign Secretary William Hague
and actress Angelina Jolie co-chaired the first-ever Global Summit to End
Sexual Violence in Conflict.
"It's absolutely essential that we shed a light on how
pervasive this problem is," said Julia Drost, policy advocate for Amnesty
International USA's women's human rights program. "From the top on down,
from world leaders to family members, people need to take responsibility."
In some important respects, the May 23 rampage in California
was different from the systemic violence against women that abounds in much of
the world. The assailant, Elliot Rodger, had been plagued by mental health
problems for years, and four men were among the six University of California,
Santa Barbara students that he killed.
Nonetheless, accounts of Rodger's hostility to women, and
his bitterness over sexual rejection, led to an outpouring of commentary and
online debate over the extent of misogyny and male entitlement. On Twitter,
using hashtags such as YesAllWomen, many women worldwide shared their
experiences with everyday harassment and sexism.
"People are beginning to make the connection between
the violence and how women are treated on a day-to-day basis," said Liesl
Gerntholtz, executive director of the Women's Rights Division of Human Rights
Watch.
She welcomed the ever-expanding ability of women around the
world — and their male allies — to show solidarity and voice anger via social
media. "It's an issue that's being taken seriously in a way that it wasn't
before," she said. "Governments are acknowledging there's a
responsibility of the state to prevent violence against women — even in the
home — and bring perpetrators to justice."
The next crucial step, according to Gerntholtz and other
activists, is to engage more men and boys in efforts to break down gender
stereotypes and condemn anti-women violence.
—————————
6. END CHILD MARRIAGE IN AFRICA
By Julitta
Onabanjo, Benoit
Kalasa, and Mohamed
Abdel-Ahad
JOHANNESBURG, May 28
2014 (IPS) - Just 17 years old, Clarisse is already a mother of two, who lives
with her husband and his four other wives in rural southern Chad. Three years
earlier, she had watched her mom and sisters preparing food for a party one
day. At first she celebrated along with everyone else, not realising it was her
own wedding ceremony. When she discovered this, she was frantic.
“I tried to escape but I was caught. I found myself with a
husband three times older than me… School was over, just like that. Ten months
later, I found myself with a baby in my arms,” she says.
The African continent has tolerated child marriage for too
long, based on a host of ill-conceived justifications and arguments... Child
marriage should not be allowed to continue. Not one day longer.
 |
Debritu, 14, seven months pregnant, escaped from her
husband after months of abuse. She is now homeless
and uncertain of the future. (UNFPA photo) |
Clarisse is one of millions of girls around the world, and
especially in Africa, who are married off each year. Many of them become wives
as early as eight years old, often to much older men.
Globally, one in three girls from low and middle income countries
is married before the age of 18, and one in nine by age 15. It is estimated
that every year, over 15.1 million girls will become brides, if this trend
continues.
Of the 41 countries worldwide with a child marriage
prevalence rate of 30 percent or more, 30 countries are located in Africa. The
practice is most severe in West Africa, where two women out of five are married
before age 18; and one woman out of six is married by the time she turns
15.
Several social, cultural, religious and traditional beliefs
and norms are known to fuel the continuation of child marriage in Africa.
In addition, the economic dimension is a driving force of
the practice. To many families living in poverty, child marriage is a source of
income and therefore an economic survival strategy.
Regardless of the contributing factors and justifications
cited for the practice, child marriage has a severe and harmful impact on our
girls, and on society at large. It compromises the girl child’s health,
education and opportunities to realise her potential.
Many ‘child wives’ are exposed to repeated pregnancies and
childbirth before they are physically and psychologically ready.
In Sudan, Awatif, now 24, was married off at age 14 while
still in school. Against her will, she dropped out of school in the fifth grade
and immediately became pregnant. “I went through days of obstructed labor
at home; it was painful and I thought I would die. My family took me to the
hospital for assistance. I survived but my son didn’t and I contracted obstetric
fistula,” she says. As a consequence, her husband abandoned and divorced her.
United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) executive director Dr.
Babatunde Osotimehin says that “no society can afford the lost opportunity,
waste of talent or personal exploitation that child marriage causes.”
Child marriage is a human rights and public health issue,
which cannot be left unchallenged. First and foremost, it is a violation
of human rights instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and
the African
Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
It is therefore an obligation of policy makers on the
continent to protect the rights of the girl child that their governments have
committed themselves to uphold. This includes putting an end to child marriage.
If the practice of child marriage is to be halted, action is
needed at all levels to change harmful social norms and to empower girls.
Specifically, governments, civil society, community leaders and families that
are serious about ending child marriage should consider promulgating, enforcing
and building community support for laws on the minimum age of marriage.
Ending child marriage would not only help protect girls’
rights but would go a long way towards reducing the prevalence of adolescent
pregnancy. Zero tolerance of child marriage should be our goal. Enacting laws
that ban child marriage is a good first step – but unless laws are enforced and
communities support these laws, there will be little impact.
Great efforts yielding promising results are being
undertaken across the continent to challenge the status quo of this harmful
practice. We have witnessed good practices such as the Schools of Husbands in
Niger and the Adolescent Girls Initiatives in many African countries.
In Mozambique, the initiative known as “Girls’ Forum” has
provided a platform for girls to improve their decision-making powers; to
increase their sense of empowerment; and to build their understanding regarding
questions of marriage and sexual and reproductive health.
Education is not only the key to unlocking girls’ potential;
but it also contributes to girls delaying marriage across the continent.
Studies have established that girls with low levels of education are more
likely to be married early, while those with secondary education are up to six
times less likely to marry as children.
Compulsory education for all, especially girls, is therefore
a key intervention for policy makers to put into practice.
The continent has witnessed renewed political commitment to
addressing the problem of child marriage by African Union Commission (AUC)
Chairperson Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. “We must do away with child marriage,”
she says. “Girls who end up as brides at a tender age are coerced into having
children while they are children themselves.” This commitment is being taken
into practice through the launch of a new campaign
to end child marriage in Africa. The overall aims of the campaign
are to:
1. End
child marriage by supporting policy and action in the protection and promotion
of human rights,
2. mobilize
continental awareness of child marriage, remove barriers to and bottlenecks in
law enforcement,
3. determine
the socio-economic impact of child marriage, and
4. increase
the capacity of non-state actors to undertake evidence-based policy
dialogue and advocacy.
UNFPA believes the AU campaign to end child marriage
represents a turning point in the fight to end child marriage in Africa. It is
time that we no longer tolerate children becoming brides. The time has come to
commit to ensuring our girls are able to achieve their full potential.
The African continent has tolerated child marriage for too
long, based on a host of ill-conceived justifications and arguments. But our
young girls, who have borne the brunt of this detrimental practice to date,
cannot wait to see it banished forever. Child marriage should not be allowed to
continue. Not one day longer.
— From Inter Press Service. Authors: Dr. Julitta Onabanjo is
regional director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) East and
Southern Africa Region. Benoit Kalasa is regional director of UNFPA West and
Central Africa, and Mohamed Abdel-Ahad is the regional director of UNFPA North
Africa and Arab States.
———————
7. THE PEOPLE’S COMMUNES OF VENEZUELA
 |
On May 24-25 May, over 600 commune activists representing
dozens on communes
in the state of Mérida in the Venezuelan Andes met to build
greater links between themselves
and to advance “people’s self government.”
|
[The story told in the following article is one reason among
others why Washington is intent upon disparaging and subverting the government
of Venezuela, and why the international left is a big supporter of the ongoing
communal project.]
By Ewan
Robertson
MÉRIDA, Venezuela, June 1 — The Venezuelan government and
the commune movement are taking steps to move towards the creation of what is
referred to as a “communal state,” which involves community groups assuming
collective control of local production and decision making.
Communes in Venezuela are formed out of groups of community
councils, which are small neighborhood groups representing 250 to 400 families.
In communal councils, local residents organize to develop their local community
and run community affairs. They can also receive public funds to undertake
social projects in their area.
Communes are created when an election of local residents is
held to select spokespeople from each community council to form a “communal
parliament”. These have different subcommittees and cover community affairs
over a larger territorial zone.
The commune can then take on larger tasks and
responsibilities than individual community councils. They can also register
with the Ministry of Communes, which makes them eligible to apply for public
funding for productive, educational, cultural, infrastructure or other
development projects.
There are now about 40,000 communal councils and 600
communes registered in the country, with more communes in the process of
formation.
Over the past year-and-a-half, the Bolivarian government has
stepped up efforts to encourage citizens to organize themselves into communes.
[Bolivarian refers to Simón Bolívar, the early 19th-century Venezuelan and Latin American
revolutionary leader.] This coincided with a speech that late former president
Hugo Chavez made in October 2012, when he criticized the lack of progress in establishing
communes. Reinaldo Iturriza was appointed minister of communes by President
Nicolas Maduro.
 |
|
Traditional
dances took place at the gathering.
|
Some of the main ideas behind the creation of communes are
for local communities to take on local decision-making and administration.
Last month, Maduro created the Presidential Council of
Communal Governance to act as a direct link between the government and
communes, and to receive proposals from communes on how government policy can
better support communal development.
Maduro said to 10,000 communards (commune members) in
Caracas: “You make the proposals, I’ll articulate them with policies, and you
send me the criticisms about the shortcomings of the Bolivarian government.... Long
live grassroots criticism, let’s learn to grow from criticism, let’s not fear
the truth, that’s Hugo Chavez’s method.”
Maduro announced that authorities would distribute 980 cargo
trucks to communes to support their productive and agricultural activities.
This will help local farmers transport their goods to markets without expensive
private sector intermediaries charging speculative rates for the service, which
drives up food prices and cuts farmers’ income.
Maduro agreed to a meeting with communards to examine
difficulties for communal enterprises in issues such as investments and sales,
and to resolve these issues with presidential law-making powers.
Meanwhile, communards have been meeting around the country
on an independent basis to better organize their movement and present the
government with their proposals for development.
[On May 28 Venezuelan authorities publicized correspondences
between opposition leaders and U.S. diplomats that they say constitute a plan
to assassinate President Maduro and overthrow his administration. Opposition
spokespersons deny the allegations.]
In the Andean town of Mesa Bolivar, Merida state, about 600
communards representing more than 50 communes in the region gathered in May to
discuss how communes can combat the ongoing “economic war” against the
country’s Bolivarian revolution.
Alonso Rua, a member of the Communard Council of Merida,
told Venezuelanalysis.com: “The aim of this meeting is to reflect, debate and
design actions against the economic war, in the areas of supply and
revolutionary auditing [of distribution and sales], and in the area of
production and socio economic projects.”
The activists, from a range of ages and backgrounds, many of
them rural workers, met for an open air assembly in the town center. They held
working groups on security, the economy, communication, and political
education. Youth activists met in a separate meeting to discuss issues specific
to them.
 |
A
representative from the India Caribay commune
in Mérida state, Neris Mendez,
holds up the commune’s
new land title awarded by the National Land Institute. |
The general aim of the meeting, the seventh of its kind over
the past year, was to tighten links between commune activists and strengthen
the organization of their movement toward goals of local self-management and
production.
Luis Pimental, a high school teacher and member of a commune
near Lake Maracaibo, told Venezuelanalysis.com: “What do we want with all this?
First, self-government, so that we are our own governors. That is to say, truly
realize what the constitution says, which is a true democracy.
“When talk began about communes, I was skeptical, and I
asked myself, 'Are we really prepared for this?' Yet with what I’ve seen, I’ve
realized that yes, there are a lot of people [in the commune movement] with a
lot of knowledge, who have been making a valuable contribution.”
However, some communards warn that beyond the presidency and
ministry of communes, many public institutions and figures have been resistant
to recognizing the growth and potential of the country’s commune movement.
Betty Vargas, from a commune in the city of Merida, said:
“We continue coming up against a bureaucracy that is present within state
institutions, that on many occasions doesn’t allow the community’s proposals to
be attended to.”
Her commune is currently planning to establish a new
community-run higher education center in a semi-rural zone near the city.
Nonetheless, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela
(PSUV) governor of Merida state, two local mayors, and representatives of the
national government and state institutions were present at the meeting in Mesa
Bolivar.
During the open air assembly, the National Land Institute
handed over to three communes new land titles as part of a policy of
transferring land to communal groups to develop productive and agricultural
projects.
One of the communes, India Caribay, plans to plant crops,
fruit, and build a fruit processing plant with public financing.
Liskeila Gonzalez, a youth member of the commune, told
Venezuelanalaysis.com of the importance of such projects for the community: “I
want the commune to achieve the creation of the farm and fruit processor. In
the commune we all take part in decision-making. There aren’t bosses, a
president, anything like that. We’re all equal and we all work the same.”
—————————
8. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN TIANANMEN SQUARE?
 |
Civilians hold rocks as they stand on a government
armored vehicle near Chang'an
Boulevard in Beijing, early June 4, 1989.
Violence escalated between pro-democracy
protesters and Chinese troops, leaving
hundreds dead overnight.
|
[Year after year Washington tells and retells the tale of
alleged Chinese government barbarism in breaking up mass protests in Tiananmen
Square a quarter century ago this month.
But is the tale entirely true? The author, a leading member of the Party for
Socialism and Liberation, suggests
that it is distorted. Near the end he
expresses his views on the Chinese Communist Party, noting
that it is “divided
into pro-U.S. and pro-socialist factions and tendencies.”]
By Brian Becker
Twenty-five years ago June 3-4, every U.S. media outlet,
along with then President George H.W. Bush and the U.S. Congress were whipping
up a full scale frenzied hysteria and attack against the Chinese government for
what was described as the cold-blooded massacre of many thousands of nonviolent
"pro-democracy" students who had occupied Tiananmen Square for seven
weeks.
The hysteria generated about the Tiananmen Square
"massacre" was based on a fictitious narrative about what actually
happened when the Chinese government finally cleared the square of protestors
on June 4, 1989.
The demonization of China was highly effective. Nearly all
sectors of U.S. society, including most of the "left," accepted the
imperialist presentation of what happened.
At the time the Chinese government's official account of the
events was immediately dismissed out of hand as false propaganda. China
reported that about 300 people had died in clashes on June 4 and that many of
the dead were soldiers of the Peoples Liberation Army. China insisted that
there was no massacre of students in Tiananmen Square and in fact the soldiers
cleared Tiananmen Square of demonstrators without any shooting.
The Chinese government also asserted that unarmed soldiers
who had entered Tiananmen Square in the two days prior to June 4 were set on
fire and lynched with their corpses hung from buses. Other soldiers were
incinerated when army vehicles were torched with soldiers unable to evacuate
and many other were badly beaten by violent mob attacks.
These accounts were true and well documented. It would not
be difficult to imagine how violently the Pentagon and U.S. law enforcement
agencies would have reacted if the Occupy movement, for instance, had similarly
set soldiers and police on fire, taken their weapons and lynched them when the
government was attempting to clear them from public spaces.
In an article on June 5, 1989, the Washington Post described
how anti-government fighters had been organized into formations of 100-150
people. They were armed with Molotov cocktails and iron clubs, to meet the PLA
who were still unarmed in the days prior to June 4.
 |
| Huge crowd in Tiananmen days before confrontation. |
What happened in China, what took the lives of government
opponents and of soldiers on June 4, was
not a massacre of peaceful students
but a battle between PLA soldiers and armed detachments from the so-called
pro-democracy movement.
"On one avenue in western Beijing, demonstrators
torched an entire military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles.
Aerial pictures of conflagration and columns of smoke have powerfully bolstered
the [Chinese] government's arguments that the troops were victims, not
executioners. Other scenes show soldiers' corpses and demonstrators stripping
automatic rifles off unresisting soldiers," admitted the Washington Post
in a story that was favorable to anti-government opposition on June 12, 1989.
The Wall Street Journal, the leading voice of
anti-communism, served as a vociferous cheerleader for the
"pro-democracy" movement. Yet, their coverage right after June 4
acknowledged that many "radicalized protesters, some now armed with guns
and vehicles commandeered in clashes with the military" were preparing for
larger armed struggles. The Wall Street Journal report on the events of June 4
portrays a vivid picture:
"As columns of tanks and tens of thousands soldiers
approached Tiananmen many troops were set on by angry mobs ... [D]ozens of
soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an
intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had beaten to
death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus. Another's soldier
corpse was strung at an intersection east of the square."
In the days immediately after June 4, 1989, the New York
Times headlines, articles and editorials used the figure that
"thousands" of peaceful activists had been massacred when the army
sent tanks and soldiers into the Square. The number that the Times was using as
an estimate of dead was 2,600. That figure was used as the go-to number of
student activists who were mowed down in Tiananmen. Almost every U.S. media
reported "many thousands" killed. Many media outlets said as many
8,000 had been slaughtered.
 |
| Injured tank driver taken away by students. |
Tim Russert, NBC's Washington Bureau Chief, appearing later
on Meet the Press said "tens of thousands" died in Tiananmen Square.
The fictionalized version of the "massacre" was
later corrected in some very small measure by Western reporters who had
participated in the fabrications and who were keen to touch up the record so
that they could say they made "corrections." But by then it was too
late and they knew that too. Public consciousness had been shaped. The false
narrative became the dominant narrative. They had successfully massacred the
facts to fit the political needs of the U.S. government.
"Most of the hundreds of foreign journalists that
night, including me, were in other parts of the city or were removed from the
square so that they could not witness the final chapter of the student story.
Those who tried to remain close filed dramatic accounts that, in some cases,
buttressed the myth of a student massacre," wrote Jay Mathews, the
Washington Post's first Bureau Chief in Beijing, in a 1998 article in the
Columbia Journalism Review.
Mathews' article, which includes his own admissions to using
the terminology of the Tiananmen Square massacre, came nine years after the
fact and he acknowledged that corrections later had little impact. "The
facts of Tiananmen have been known for a long time. When Clinton visited the
square this June, both The Washington Post and The New York Times explained
that no one died there [in Tiananmen Square] during the 1989 crackdown. But
these were short explanations at the end of long articles. I doubt that they
did much to kill the myth."
At the time all of the reports about the massacre of the
students said basically the same thing and thus it seemed that they must be
true. But these reports were not based on eyewitness testimony.
What really happened:
For seven weeks leading up to June 4, the Chinese government
was extraordinarily restrained in not confronting those who paralyzed the
center of China's central capital area. The Prime Minister met directly with
protest leaders and the meeting was broadcast on national television. This did
not defuse the situation but rather emboldened the protest leaders who knew
that they had the full backing of the United States.
The protest leaders erected a huge statue that resembled the
Statue of Liberty in the middle of Tiananmen Square. They were signaling to the
entire world that their political sympathies were with the capitalist countries
and the United States in particular. They proclaimed that they would continue
the protests until the government was ousted.
With no end in sight the Chinese leadership decided to end
the protests by clearing Tiananmen Square. Troops came into the Square without
weapons on June 2 and many soldiers were beaten, some were killed and army
vehicles were torched.
On June 4, the PLA re-entered the Square with weapons.
According to the U.S. media accounts of the time that is when machine gun
toting PLA soldiers mowed down peaceful student protests in a massacre of
thousands.
China said that reports of the "massacre" in
Tiananmen Square were a fabrication created both by Western media and by the
protest leaders who used a willing Western media as a platform for an
international propaganda campaign in their interests.
On June 12, 1989, eight days after the confrontation, the New
York Times published an "exhaustive" but in fact fully fabricated
eyewitness report of the Tiananmen Massacre by a student, Wen Wei Po. It was
full of detailed accounts of brutality, mass murder, and heroic street battles.
It recounted PLA machine gunners on the roof of Revolutionary Museum
overlooking the Square and students being mowed down in the Square. This report
was picked up by media throughout the U.S.
Although treated as gospel and irrefutable proof that China
was lying, the June 12 "eyewitness" report by Wen Wei Po was so over
the top and would so likely discredit the New York Times in China that the
Times correspondent in Beijing, Nicholas Kristoff, who had served as a
mouthpiece for the protestors, took exception to the main points in the article.
Kristoff wrote in a June 13 article, "The question of
where the shootings occurred has significance because of the Government's claim
that no one was shot on Tiananmen Square. State television has even shown film
of students marching peacefully away from the square shortly after dawn as
proof that they were not slaughtered." "The central scene in the
[eyewitness] article is of troops beating and machine-gunning unarmed students
clustered around the Monument to the People's Heroes in the middle of Tiananmen
Square. Several other witnesses, both Chinese and foreign, say this did not
happen," Kristoff wrote.
 |
Unarmed Soldiers
guarding Communist Party headquarters
in Tiananmen Square, June 1, 1989, days before strife. |
"There is also no evidence of machine-gun emplacements
on the roof of the history museum that were reported in the Wen Wei Po article.
This reporter was directly north of the museum and saw no machine guns there.
Other reporters and witnesses in the vicinity also failed to see them.
"The central theme of the Wen Wei Po article was that
troops subsequently beat and machine-gunned students in the area around the
monument and that a line of armored vehicles cut off their retreat. But the
witnesses say that armored vehicles did not surround the monument - they stayed
at the north end of the square - and that troops did not attack students
clustered around the monument. Several other foreign journalists were near the
monument that night as well and none are known to have reported that students
were attacked around the monument," Kristoff wrote in the June 13, 1989
article.
The Chinese government's account acknowledges that street
fighting and armed clashes occurred in nearby neighborhoods. They say that
approximately three hundred died that night including many soldiers who died
from gunfire, Molotov cocktails and beatings. But they have insisted that there
was no massacre.
Kristoff too says that there were clashes on several streets
but refutes the "eyewitness" report about a massacre of students in
Tiananmen Square, "... Instead, the students and a pop singer, Hou Dejian,
were negotiating with the troops and decided to leave at dawn, between 5 a.m.
and 6 a.m. The students all filed out together. Chinese television has shown
scenes of the students leaving and of the apparently empty square as troops
moved in as the students left."
In fact, the U.S. government was actively involved in
promoting the "pro-democracy" protests through an extensive,
well-funded, internationally coordinated propaganda machine that pumped out
rumors, half-truths and lies from the moment the protests started in mid-April
1989.
The goal of the U.S. government was to carry out regime
change in China and overthrow the Communist Party of China that had been the
ruling party since the 1949 revolution. Since many activists in today's
progressive movement were not alive or were young children at the time of the
Tiananmen incident in 1989, the best recent example of how such an imperialist
destabilization/regime change operation works is revealed in the recent
overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Peaceful protests in the downtown square
receive international backing, financing and media support from the United
States and Western powers; they eventually come under the leadership of armed
groups who are hailed as freedom fighters by the Wall Street Journal, FOX News
and other media; and finally the government targeted for overthrow by the CIA
is fully demonized if it uses police or military forces.
In the case of the "pro-democracy" protests in
China in 1989 the U.S. government was attempting to create a civil war. The
Voice of America increased its Chinese language broadcasts to 11 hours each day
and targeted the broadcast "directly to 2,000 satellite dishes in China
operated mostly by the Peoples Liberation Army." (New York Times June 9,
1989)
The Voice of America broadcasts to PLA units were filled
with reports that some PLA units were firing on others and different units were
loyal to the protestors and others with the government.
 |
The then Chinese leader
Deng Xiaoping. |
The Voice of America and U.S. media outlets tried to create
confusion and panic among government supporters. Just prior to June 4 they
reported that China's Prime Minister Li Peng had been shot and that Deng
Xiaoping was near death.
Most in the U.S. government and in the media expected the
Chinese government to be toppled by pro-Western political forces as was starting
to happening with the overthrow of socialist governments throughout Eastern and
Central Europe at the time (1988-1991) following the introduction of
pro-capitalist reforms by Gorbachev in the Soviet Union in 1991.
In China, the "pro-democracy" protest movement was
led by privileged, well-connected students from elite universities who were
explicitly calling for the replacement of socialism with capitalism. The
leaders were particularly connected to the United States. Of course, thousands
of other students who participated in the protests were in the Square because
they had grievances against the government.
But the imperialist-connected leadership of the movement had
an explicit plan to topple the government. Chai Ling, who was recognized as the
top leader of the students, gave an interview to Western reporters on the eve
of June 4 in which she acknowledged that the goal of the leadership was to lead
the population in a struggle to topple the Communist Party of China, which she
explained would only be possible if they could successfully provoke the
government into violently attacking the demonstrations. That interview was
aired in the film the "Gate of Heavenly Peace." Chai Ling also
explained why they couldn't tell the rank and file student protestors about the
leaders' real plans.
"The pursuit of wealth is part of the impetus for
democracy," explained another top student leader Wang Dan, in an interview
with the Washington Post in 1993, on the fourth anniversary of the incident.
Wang Dan was in all the U.S. media before and after the Tiananmen incident. He
was famous for explaining why the elitist student leaders didn't want Chinese
workers joining their movement. He stated "the movement is not ready for
worker participation because democracy must first be absorbed by the students
and intellectuals before they can spread it to others."
Twenty-five years later the U.S. still seeks regime
change and counter-revolution in China
The action by the Chinese government to disperse the
so-called pro-democracy movement in 1989 was met with bitter frustration within
the United States political establishment.
The U.S. imposed economic sanctions on China at first, but
their impact was minimal and both the Washington political establishment and
the Wall Street banks realized that U.S. corporations and banks would be
the big losers in the 1990s if they tried to completely isolate China when
China was further opening its vast domestic labor and commodities market to the
direct investment from Western corporations. The biggest banks and corporations
put their own profit margins first and the Washington politicians took their
cue from the billionaire class on this question.
But the issue of counter-revolution in China will rear its
head again. The economic reforms that were inaugurated after the death of
Communist Party leader Mao Zedong (1893-1976) opened the country to
foreign investment. This development strategy was designed to rapidly overcome
the legacy of poverty and under-development by the import of foreign technology.
In exchange the Western corporations received mega profits. The post-Mao
leadership in the Communist Party calculated that the strategy would benefit
China by virtue of a rapid technology transfer from the imperialist world to
China. And indeed China has made great economic strides. But in addition to
economic development there has also developed a larger capitalist class inside
of China and a significant portion of that class and their children are being
wooed by all types of institutions financed by the U.S. government, U.S.
financial institutions and U.S. academic centers.
The Communist Party of China is also divided into pro-U.S.
and pro-socialist factions and tendencies.
Today, the United States government is applying ever greater
military pressure on China. It is accelerating the struggle against China's
rise by cementing new military and strategic alliances with other Asian
countries. It is also hoping that with enough pressure some in the Chinese
leadership who favor abandoning North Korea will get the upper hand.
If counter-revolution were to succeed in China the
consequences would be catastrophic for the Chinese people and for China. China
would in all likelihood splinter as a nation as happened to the Soviet Union
when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was toppled. The same fate befell
the former Yugoslavia. Counter-revolution and dismemberment would hurtle China
backwards. It would put the brakes on China's spectacular peaceful rise out of
under-development. For decades there has been a serious discussion within the
U.S. foreign policy establishment about the dismemberment of China that would
weaken China as a nation and allow the United States and Western powers to
seize its most lucrative parts. This is precisely the scenario that cast China
into its century of humiliation when Western capitalist powers (joined later by
Japan) dominated the country from 1839 until 1949, when the Communist Party
took power after a 25-year struggle for national liberation and socialism.
The Chinese Revolution has gone through many stages,
victories, retreats and setbacks. Its contradictions are innumerable. But still
it stands. In the confrontation between world imperialism and the Peoples
Republic of China, progressive people should know where they stand. It is not
on the sidelines.
———————
9. THE FUTURE VISIBLE IN ST. PETERSBURG
By Pepe Escobar, May
29, 2014
“The unipolar model of
the world order has failed.”
— Vladimir Putin, St Petersburg, May 22
In more ways than one, last week heralded the birth of a Eurasian
century. Of course, the $400 billion
Russia-China gas deal was
clinched only at the last minute in Shanghai, on May 21 (in addition to the
June 2013, 25-year, $270 billion oil deal between Rosneft and China's CNPC.)
 |
| President Putin at forum with German's Angela Merkel. |
Then, on May 22, most of the main players were at the St
Petersburg International Economic Forum — the Russian answer to Davos. And on May
23, Russian President Vladimir Putin, fresh from his Shanghai triumph,
addressed the participants and brought the house down.
It will take time to appraise last week's whirlwind in all
its complex implications. Here are some of the St Petersburg highlights
in some detail. Were there fewer Western CEOs in town because the Obama
administration pressured them — as part of the "isolate Russia"
policy? Not many less; Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley may have snubbed it,
but Europeans who matter came, saw, talked and pledged to keep doing business.
And most of all, Asians were ubiquitous. Consider this as
yet another chapter of China's counterpunch to U.S. President Barack Obama's
Asian tour in April, which was widely described as the "China containment
tour."
On the first day at the St Petersburg forum I attended this crucial
session on Russia-China strategic economic partnership. Pay close
attention: the roadmap is all there. As Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao
describes it: "We plan to combine the program for the development of
Russia's Far East and the strategy for the development of Northeast China into
an integrated concept."
That was just one instance of the fast-emerging Eurasia
coalition bound to challenge the "indispensable" exceptionalists to
the core. Comparisons to the old Sino-Soviet pact are infantile. The putsch in
Ukraine — part of Washington's pivot to "contain" Russia — just
served to accelerate Russia's pivot to Asia, which sooner or late would become
inevitable.
In St Petersburg, from session to session and in selected
conversations, what I saw were some crucial building blocks of the Chinese New
Silk Road(s), whose ultimate aim is to unite, via trade and commerce, no less
than China, Russia and Germany.
For Washington, this is beyond anathema. The response has
been to peddle a couple of deals which, in thesis, would guarantee American
monopoly of two-thirds of global commerce; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) —
which was essentially rebuked by key Asians such as Japan and Malaysia during
Obama's trip — and the even more problematic Trans-Atlantic Partnership with
the EU, which average Europeans absolutely abhor. Both deals are being
negotiated in secret and are profitable essentially for U.S. multinational
corporations.
For Asia, China instead proposes a Free Trade Area of
Asia-Pacific; after all, it is already the largest trading partner of the
10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
And for Europe, Beijing proposes an extension of the railway
that in only 12 days links Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan, to Lodz in Poland,
crossing Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus. The total deal is the
Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe network, with a final stop in Duisburg, Germany. No
wonder this is bound to become the most important commercial route in the
world.
There's more. One day before the clinching of the
Russia-China gas deal, President Xi Jinping called for no less than a new Asian
security cooperation architecture, including of course Russia and Iran and
excluding the US. Somehow echoing Putin, Xi described NATO as a Cold War relic.
And guess who was at the announcement in Shanghai, apart
from the Central Asian "stans": Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and crucially, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
The facts on the ground speak for themselves. China is
buying at least half of Iraq's oil production — and is investing heavily in its
energy infrastructure. China has invested heavily in Afghanistan's mining
industry — especially lithium and
cobalt. And obviously both China and Russia keep doing business in Iran.
So this is what Washington gets for over a decade of wars,
incessant bullying, nasty sanctions and trillions of misspent dollars.
No wonder the most fascinating session I attended in St Petersburg
was on the commercial and economic possibilities around the expansion of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), whose guest of honor was none other
than Li Yuanchao. I was arguably the only Westerner in the room, surrounded by
a sea of Chinese and Central Asians.
The SCO is gearing up to become something way beyond a sort
of counterpart to NATO, focusing mostly on terrorism and fighting drug
trafficking. It wants to do major business. Iran, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan
and Mongolia are observers, and sooner rather than later will be accepted as
full members.
Once again that's Eurasian integration in action. The
branching out of the New Silk Road(s) is inevitable; and that spells out, in
practice, closer integration with Afghanistan (minerals) and Iran (energy).
St Petersburg also made it clear how China wants to finance
an array of projects in Crimea, whose waters, by the way, boasting untold,
still unexplored, energy wealth, are now Russian property. Projects include a
crucial bridge across the Kerch Strait to connect Crimea to mainland Russia;
expansion of Crimean ports; solar power plants; and even manufacturing special
economic zones (SEZs). Moscow could not but interpret it as Beijing's
endorsement of the annexation of Crimea [though China has not clearly said so].
As for Ukraine, it might as well, as Putin remarked in St
Petersburg, pay its bills. And as for the European Union, at least outgoing
president of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso understood the
obvious: antagonizing Russia is not exactly a winning strategy.
Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, has
been one of those informed few advising the West about it, to no avail:
"Russia and China are likely to cooperate even more closely.... Such an
outcome would certainly benefit China, but it will give Russia a chance to
withstand U.S. geopolitical pressure, compensate for the EU's coming energy
re-orientation, develop Siberia and the Far East, and link itself to the
Asia-Pacific region."
The now symbiotic China-Russia strategic alliance — with the
possibility of extending towards Iran — is the
fundamental fact on the ground in the young 21st century. It will extrapolate
across the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective
Security Treaty Organization and the Non-Aligned Movement.
Of course the usual shills will keep peddling that the only
possible future is one led by a "benign" empire [the U.S.]. As if
billions of people across the real world — even informed Atlanticists — would be
gullible enough to buy it. Still, unipolarity may be dead, but the world is
encumbered with its ghost — the new Obama doctrine, now "empowering
partners" to resurrect itself.
— From Asia Times, May 29. Pepe Escobar is the author of “Globalistan:
How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War” (Nimble
Books, 2007), “Red Zone
Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge” (Nimble Books, 2007),
and “Obama does
Globalistan.”
——————
10. HOW THE U.S. LOST THE AFGHAN WAR
 |
| Taliban troops: "Why did the battle against the Afghan Taliabn went so wrong for so long?" |
[Following is an article by the author of a stunning new
book on the Afghanistan war — “No Good Men Among the Living: America, the
Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes.” The New York Times says it “is
essential reading for anyone concerned about how America got Afghanistan so
wrong.”
By Anand Gopal
It was a typical Kabul morning. Malik Ashgar Square was
already bumper-to-bumper with Corolla taxis, green police jeeps, honking
minivans, and angry motorcyclists. There were boys selling phone cards and men
waving wads of cash for exchange, all weaving their way around the vehicles
amid exhaust fumes. At the gate of the Lycée Esteqial, one of the country’s
most prestigious schools, students were kicking around a soccer ball. At the
Ministry of Education, a weathered old Soviet-style building opposite the
school, a line of employees spilled out onto the street. I was crossing the
square, heading for the ministry, when I saw the suicide attacker.
He had Scandinavian features. Dressed in blue jeans and a white
t-shirt, and carrying a large backpack, he began firing indiscriminately at the
ministry. From my vantage point, about 50 meters away, I couldn’t quite see his
expression, but he did not seem hurried or panicked. I took cover behind a
parked taxi. It wasn’t long before the traffic police had fled and the square
had emptied of vehicles.
Twenty-eight people, mostly civilians, died in attacks at
the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, and elsewhere across the
city that day in 2009. Afterward, U.S. authorities implicated the Haqqani
Network, a shadowy outfit operating from Pakistan that had pioneered the use of
multiple suicide bombers in headline-grabbing urban assaults. Unlike other
Taliban groups, the Haqqanis’ approach to mayhem was worldly and sophisticated:
they recruited Arabs, Pakistanis, even Europeans, and they were influenced by
the latest in radical Islamist thought. Their leader, the septuagenarian
warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani, was something like Osama bin Laden and Al Capone
rolled into one, as fiercely ideological as he was ruthlessly pragmatic.
And so many years later, his followers are still
fighting. Even with the U.S. withdrawing the bulk of its troops this
year, up to 10,000 Special Operations forces, CIA paramilitaries, and their
proxies will likely stay behind to battle the Haqqanis, the Taliban, and
similar outfits in a war that seemingly has no end. With such entrenched
enemies, the conflict today has an air of inevitability -- but it could all
have gone so differently.
Though it’s now difficult to imagine, by mid-2002 there was
no insurgency in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda had fled the country and the Taliban had
ceased to exist as a military movement. Jalaluddin Haqqani and other top
Taliban figures were reaching out to the other side in an attempt to cut a deal
and lay down their arms. Tens of thousands of U.S. forces, however, had arrived
on Afghan soil, post-9/11, with one objective: to wage a war on terror.
As I report in my new book, “No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through
Afghan Eyes,” the U.S. would prosecute that war even though there was no
enemy to fight. To understand how America’s battle in Afghanistan went so wrong
for so long, a (hidden) history lesson is in order. In those early years after
2001, driven by the idée fixe that the world was rigidly divided into
terrorist and non-terrorist camps, Washington allied with Afghan warlords and
strongmen. Their enemies became ours, and through faulty intelligence, their
feuds became repackaged as “counterterrorism.” The story of Jalaluddin Haqqani,
who turned from America’s potential ally into its greatest foe, is the
paradigmatic case of how the war on terror created the very enemies it sought
to eradicate.
— Continued at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175837/tomgram%3A_anand_gopal%2C_how_to_lose_a_war_that_wasn%27t_there/#more
—————————
11. SHORT GUIDE TO CAPITAL IN THE
21ST CENTURY
By Matthew
Yglesias, April 8, 2014
Thomas Piketty's “Capital in the 21st Century” is the most
important economics book of the year, if not
the decade. It's also 696 pages
long, translated from French, filled with methodological asides and in-depth
looks at unique data, packed with allusions to 19th century novels, and
generally a bit of a slog.
The good news is that there's no advanced math, and anyone
who puts in the time can read the book. But if you just want the bottom line,
we have you covered.
Can you give me
Piketty's argument in four bullet points?
·
The ratio of wealth to income is rising in all
developed countries.
·
Absent extraordinary interventions, we should
expect that trend to continue.
·
If it continues, the future will look like the
19th century, where economic elites have predominantly inherited their wealth
rather than working for it.
·
The best solution would be a globally
coordinated effort to tax wealth.
Who is Thomas Piketty?
Thomas Piketty is a French economist who rose to prominence
over the past decade thanks to his collaborations with Emmanuel Saez on income
inequality. The duo was the first to carefully exploit American income tax data
to show how highly concentrated income was in the hands not just of the top 10
or 20 percent of households but the top 1, 0.1, or even 0.01 percent. The vast
majority of the contemporary debate on inequality is focused on the agenda set
by that work. In his new book, Piketty largely leaves that research agenda
behind in favor of an inquiry focused on wealth inequality.
What does Capital in
the 21st Century argue?
The provocative argument of Capital in the 21st Century is
that market capitalism, including the kind of welfare state capitalism
practiced in continental Europe, will eventually lead to an economy dominated
by those lucky enough to be born into a position of inherited wealth. Piketty
argues that this is how the economy of early 20th century Europe worked, that
the tyranny of inherited wealth was destroyed only by the devastation of two
world wars, and that in the 21st Century the United States and Canada will
suffer from the same affliction.
What is capital?
There are different concepts of capital floating around in
the economics literature. But Piketty uses an expansive definition of capital
so that it is the same as wealth. All the shares of stock and houses and cash
assets that people own constitute capital, or wealth. And wealth is
much more unequally distributed than income, so while a division of
society into those who own things and those who work for a living is overly
simplistic it's not totally off-base. In the United States, for example, 5 percent of
households own a majority of the wealth while the bottom 40 percent
have negative wealth due to debts.
Does this have
anything to do with Karl Marx's Das Kapital?
Quite a bit, actually. Piketty's analysis of the economy is
different from Karl Marx's,
During the Cold War years it appeared that Marx was simply
wrong to assert that market societies would be dominated by owners of capital.
Wages for ordinary workers were high and rising. Economic elites were largely
business executives or skilled tradespeople (lawyers and surgeons, say) rather
than owners of enterprises. And iconic "capitalist" figures were
entrepreneurs who built businesses rather than heirs to old fortunes. Political
debate focused largely on the question of a welfare state or social safety net
for the poor, not the fundamental architecture of capitalism.
Piketty says that this was essentially a happy coincidence
reflecting the unique circumstances of the post-war era. The fortunes of the
wealthy were destroyed by two world wars, the Great Depression, and extreme
wartime finance measures. Then a few decades of rapid economic growth created a
situation in which newly earned income was a much bigger deal than old wealth.
In the contemporary environment of slow economic growth, Piketty says this
process is over. Unless drastic measures are taken, the future belongs to
people who simply own stuff they inherited from their parents.
What are Piketty's
key concepts?
The main concepts Piketty introduces are the
wealth-to-income ratio and the comparison of the rate of return on capital (r
in his book) to the rate of nominal economic growth (g). A country's
wealth:income ratio is simply the value of all the financial assets owned by
its citizens against the country's gross domestic product. Piketty's big
empirical achievement is constructing time series data about wealth:income
ratios for different countries over the long term.
The rate of return on capital, r, is a more abstract idea.
If you invest $100 in some enterprise and it returns you $7 a year in income
then your rate of return is 7%. Piketty's r is the rate of return on all
outstanding investments. A key contention of the book is that r is about 5
percent on average at all times. The growth rate (g) that matters is the
overall rate of economic growth. That means that if g is less than 5 percent,
the wealth of the already-wealthy will grow faster than the economy as a whole.
In practice, g has been below 5 percent in recent decades and Piketty expects
that trend to continue. Because r > g, the rich will get richer
What is Piketty's
main finding?
The bulk of the book is dedicated to an exhaustive look at
wealth in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany with some
additional looks at other major economies including Italy, Canada, and Japan.
What Piketty finds is that in all developed countries the wealth:income ratio
is high and rising. He also finds that in the Old World countries, it exhibits
a very marked U-shaped pattern-extremely high in the late-19th and early 20th centuries,
very low at midcentury, then rising strongly since 1980. New World
wealth:income ratios were not as high as in the old world (slaves were so
valuable that how you treat this form of "capital" makes a difference
here), so it's a bit of an uneven U with the wealth:income ratio reaching an
unprecedented level in the contemporary United States.
But Piketty also finds that the increase in wealth:income
ratio is not unique to the inequality-friendly Anglo-Saxon economies of the
United States and Canada. In fact, the accumulation of wealth is most clearly
seen in places like France and especially Italy where economic growth has been
very slow. Piketty also finds that the rate of return on capital is about 5
percent on average across different countries. That's part of why he argues
that the dynamic towards wealth inequality is built into capitalism rather than
any one country's economic policies.
[On May 29, the New York Times reported: “Six days after The
Financial Times launched an attack on the data behind Thomas Piketty’s
much-debated tome on inequality, ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century,’ Mr.
Piketty has offered his first
detailed response to the newspaper’s criticism. The short version:
He doesn’t give an inch.”]
How does Piketty
explain this?
Piketty's theoretical contribution is to argue that we
should take these empirical findings at face value. The way capitalism works,
says Piketty, is that existing wealth earns a 5 percent rate of return, r. The
total pool of labor income, meanwhile, grows at the rate of overall GDP, g.
When r is larger than g the pool of wealth owned by wealth-owners grows faster
than the pool of labor income earned by workers.
Since r is usually larger than g, the wealthy get wealthier.
The poor don't necessarily get poorer, but the gap between the earnings power
of people who own lots of buildings and shares and the earnings power of people
working for a living will grow and grow.
If it's that simple, how come nobody noticed before? Piketty
makes two claims about this. One is that in Victorian and Edwardian times,
people certainly did notice. His many references to 19th century novels (in
Jane Austen books a man's "income" is the rent received by the estate
he inherited, not his salary) are designed to establish that something like his
account of the central importance of inherited wealth was conventional wisdom
in pre-war Europe, and not just among radicals. And of course there was a lot
of political radicalism in pre-war Europe.
His second point is is to concede that the life experience
of the non-Millenials alive today contradicted this narrative. World War I
directly destroyed some wealth, and also led to very high levels of taxation
and inflation as wartime finance measures. Then came the Great Depression in
which many fortunes were wiped out. Then came World War II which directly
destroyed even more wealth (as in cities were literally burned to the ground)
and was associated with even more extreme wartime finance measures. Then came a
fast period of postwar growth associated with European reconstruction and the
unleashing of long-suppressed consumption impulses. It's only over the past 20
or 30 years that the underlying dynamic has reasserted itself.
Why does this matter?
Capital in the 21st Century essentially takes the existing
debate on income inequality and supercharges it. It does so by asserting that
in the long run the economic inequality that matters won't be the gap between
people who earn high salaries and those who earn low ones, it will be the gap
between people who inherit large sums of money and those who don't.
Piketty's vision of a class-ridden, neo-Victorian society
dominated by the unearned wealth of a hereditary elite cuts sharply against
both liberal notions of a just society andconservative ideas about what a
dynamic market economy is supposed to look like. Market-oriented thinkers
valorize the idea of entrepreneurial capitalism, but Piketty says we are headed
for a world of patrimonial capitalism where the Forbes 400 list will be
dominated not by the founders of new companies but by the grandchildren of
today's super-elite.
What is to be done?
Piketty wants the major world economies to band together to
assess a modest global wealth tax. Global
cooperation is desirable to prevent
the wealthy from simply shifting assets into other jurisdictions. But short of
intense global cooperation, he thinks larger economic units-the United States,
say, or the European Union-should move ahead with wealth taxes, estate taxes,
and other efforts to curb the power of wealth.
The kind of international cooperation Piketty calls for is
difficult to imagine happening in practice. And his enthusiasm for wealth taxes
runs against decades of conventional wisdom in the economics profession holding
that people should be encouraged to save and invest. Many people who find
Piketty's positive analysis to be important and at least partially persuasive
are going to disagree with his prescription here.
What are the main
weaknesses of Piketty's book?
It's a big book containing a lot of ideas and there are many
nits one could pick. The biggest weak points, however, relate to Piketty's
theoretical analysis of r (the rate of return on capital) and g (the rate of
economic growth).
Piketty says that r = 5 percent regardless of the rate of
growth and provides fairly convincing empirical evidence that this has been the
case in the past. But the theoretical basis for this pattern is unclear so it
might not hold up. In principle, a permanent slowdown in growth could lead to a
concurrent slowdown in the rate of return on capital leading to a stabilization
in the wealth-income ratio. In that case, either everything would be fine or
else if things weren't fine it would be because the growth rate is too low not
because the wealth-income ratio is rising.
A related issue is Piketty's treatment of the growth rate.
Boosting economic growth is something politicians are always promising to do.
And according to Piketty, growth-boosting policies would forestall the growth
of patrimonial capitalism. Piketty believes that economic growth is driven by
deep structural factors related to demographics and technology rather than
policy changes. This isn't a unique view of his by any means (Northwestern
University Professor Robert Gordon has been
arguing something quite similar recently in a different context) but
it manages to be central to the book's conclusion without being extensively
defended in the text.
What are some other
possible solutions to the problem Piketty diagnoses?
The politically easiest way to avert Piketty's prophesy of
doom would be to increase the economic growth rate. Everyone has their favorite
ideas about how to do this, but the simplest ones involve mechanically
increasing the population growth rate. The pre-war United States was less
wealth-dominated than pre-war Europe largely because the population was growing
much faster. Pro-fertility measures or more liberal immigration rules might do
the trick.
We also might consider wealth-destruction methods that are a
little more narrowly tailored than a broad wealth tax (or a world war). For
example, much of modern-day wealth appears to take the form of urban land
(Silicon Valley houses are much more expensive than houses in the Houston
suburbs, not because the houses are bigger but because the land is more
expensive), control over oil and other fossil fuel resources, and the value
associated with various patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of
intellectual property. Land and resources differ from traditional capital in
that even a very high rate of taxation on them won't cause the land to go away
or the oil to vanish. Intellectual property is deliberately created by the
government. Stiff land taxes, and major intellectual property reform could
achieve many of Piketty's goals without disincentivizing saving and wealth
creation.
What else should I
read about this?
— From Vox Media, May 6, 2014
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/8/5592198/the-short-guide-to-capital-in-the-21st-century
————————
12. SUPREME COURT: CHURCH BEATS STATE
By the ACLU and the
Activist Newsletter
 |
Plaintiffs Susan Galloway (left) and Linda Stephens.
|
The Supreme Court on May 5 issued a disappointing and
troubling 5-4 decision upholding a New York
State town board's practice of
opening its meetings with Christian prayers.
For more than a decade, the five-member town board of
Greece, located in Monroe County near Rochester, has started meetings with
prayers delivered by local clergy, all of whom, with a few brief exceptions,
have been Christian.
The court's decision allows the town to continue these
official prayers despite the fact that they exclude local citizens of minority
faiths and divide the community along religious lines. [The non-religious, too,
are excluded. Since 37% of the state’s population does not declare a religion
this is probably reflected as well among the 96,095 citizens of Greece.]
“The Supreme Court just relegated millions of Americans –
both believers and nonbelievers – to second-class citizenship,” said the Rev.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State. “Government should not be in the business of forcing faith on
anyone, and now all who attend meetings of their local boards could be
subjected to the religion of the majority,” he said in a statement.
Among others who expressed disapproval of the Supreme Court
decision were: Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
president of Interfaith Alliance; The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Liberty; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism; and The Secular Coalition for America, and more.
The news is not all bad, however. While the outcome in this
case was disheartening, the court did make clear that there are limits on
legislative prayers. They may not "denigrate non-believers or religious
minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion," and they must
remain consistent with the purported purpose of such invocations — to solemnize
and lend gravity to the occasion.
Still, as Justice Kagan points out in her powerful dissent, which
was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, the ruling reflects
"two kinds of blindness," to wit:
1. First,
the court's opinion focuses heavily on prayers delivered in Congress and state
legislatures, but it fails to recognize that an intimate meeting of a town
board or county council is much different. Ordinary citizens regularly attend
these meetings for a variety of reasons — e.g., to keep abreast of local
affairs, to seek zoning permits, and to receive awards. In the town of Greece,
they were confronted directly and repeatedly with official, Christian prayers
and called on to join in those prayers.
2. Second,
the Court dismisses the content of the prayers as "ceremonial" in
nature, notes Kagan, disregarding the fact that Greece's predominantly
Christian invocations profess "profound belief and deep meaning,
subscribed to by many, denied by some." When the government forces such
prayer on its people in this manner, she explained, it violates the "norm
of religious equality" and the right of every citizen to "participate
in the business of government not as Christians, Jews, Muslims (and more), but
only as Americans."
And the decision reflects a third kind of blindness that
Justice Kagan did not identify: Historical practice should never be used to
justify violating core constitutional principles like the separation of church
and state, which reserves religious practice and worship for the individual and
faith communities, not the government.
Two residents of Greece, Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway
filed the suit opposing invocations in 2008. Stephens is an atheist and
objected to any prayer at the town meetings. Galloway also objected to the
prayers, but she also argued that if prayers were to be offered they should not
be overtly sectarian. A federal judge ruled in favor of the town, but a panel
of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the complaining town
residents.
At issue before the
court was whether the Establishment Clause prohibits legislative bodies from
opening their meetings with sectarian prayer. Thirty years ago the
Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening its
sessions with nonsectarian prayers delivered by a chaplain. The issue in this
case is whether a town board in upstate New York may open it’s meeting with
sectarian prayers that have been overwhelmingly Christian in practice.
In its amicus brief, the ACLU urged the Court to rule that
any official governmental prayer violates the separation of church and state.
If the Court is unwilling to go that far, the ACLU argued that official sectarian
prayers should be prohibited under the Establishment Clause to preserve the
core constitutional principle that the government cannot favor one religion
over another.
The Activist
Newsletter notes: All the existing Supreme Court justices consider themselves
religious. Six are Roman Catholic (five of whom constituted the majority
opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway). Three are Jewish. It’s odd that there are no Protestants on the
court at this time. There are twice as many adult Protestants in the U.S. than
adult Roman Catholics.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for an atheist to enter the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one has ever been named in the 235 years
since the high court was founded.
To this day, we learn from the Internet, “There have been no
declared atheists or non-theists on the U.S. Supreme Court, and only one —
Justice David Davis III, who served from 1862-1877 — claimed to be
non-denominational.
Some historians do make a case for Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,
one of 10 Unitarians who have served on the bench. Some justices have been
noted as declining to engage in any manner of religious activity. As an adult,
Benjamin Cardozo no longer practiced his faith and identified himself as an
agnostic, though he remained proud of his Jewish heritage.
The New Yorker blog’s regular satirical brief called “The
Borowitz Report” offered more truth than poetry May 5 in commenting upon the
decision:
“What legal experts are calling a landmark decision, on the
United States Supreme Court struck down what many believe to be the main reason
the country was started. By a five-to-four vote, the Court eliminated what
grade school children have traditionally been taught was one of the key
rationales for founding the United States in the first place.
“The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone
of American democracy for over 200 years,” said Justice Samuel Alito, writing
for the majority. “Getting rid of it was long overdue.” Calling the decision ‘historic,’
Justice Antonin Scalia was guarded in predicting what the Court might
accomplish next. ‘Last year, we gutted the Voting Rights Act, and today we did
the First Amendment,’ he said. ‘We’ll just have to see what’s left.’”
————————
13. THE FEDS’ PUSH
FOR BIG DATA
By Stephanie Simon, Politico, May 14
Far from cracking down on the monitoring of consumer
information, the Obama administration has often sought to leverage the power of
big data — sometimes running afoul of privacy advocates.
“Big data technology stands to improve nearly all the
services the public sector delivers,” the recent White House
report on big data concluded. Among the administration’s
initiatives:
 |
| Model of zones for facial recognition. |
• The FBI is building a huge facial
recognition database — which will also include palm prints and iris
it will hold as many as 52 million
facial images by the end of next year, including pictures of people who have
never been arrested. Electronic
Frontier Foundation reports
scans — to augment its fingerprint collection.
• The Treasury Department has launched a program to scan
several government databases — and, in the future, perhaps commercial databases
as well — for information about individuals due to receive federal payments.
The aim: To identify anyone who might be ineligible to receive the payment, or
might be suspected of committing fraud, before the check goes in the mail.
• The Defense Department is considering mining commercial
databases as well, to scan for worrisome information about employees and
contractors who hold classified clearance. Most are officially vetted only
every five to 10 years; the Pentagon is eager for more frequent checks that
could disclose drug arrests, domestic violence charges, financial troubles or
other red flags.
The Education Department has also been a major proponent of
big data. It has used policy and financial incentives, including more than $500
million in direct grants, to prod states to build longitudinal databases that
will track students’ progress from pre-K through high school and in some cases,
into college and the workforce. States will mine the data to spot patterns;
they might, for instance, be able to identify behaviors in 6-year-olds that
indicate the child has an elevated risk of dropping out of high school a decade
later.
The department has also relaxed
privacy rules to make it easier for school districts to share
student records with state and federal officials, as well as with private
companies, without parental consent. Privacy advocates sued to block some of
those changes, but lost in court.
However, privacy activists have won a few other tussles with
the administration.
In February, the Department of Homeland Security floated a
proposal to hire a private contractor to create a national database of license
plate photos to track vehicle movements. DHS officials hoped the database would
make it easier to arrest “absconders and criminal aliens,” but after the Washington
Post published details — and privacy advocates reacted with anger —
the plans were scrapped.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which regulates
securities brokers, also had to back off a big data
proposal it laid out late last year. The plan was to require brokers
to submit information on their customers’ transactions so FINRA could scan the
accounts for red flags. The ACLU objected,
saying the system would “leave Americans vulnerable to invasive and unwarranted
monitoring.” By March, FINRA had backed off, promising that brokers would not
need to identify account owners by name when submitting transaction records.
While the administration’s big data task force, led by White
House counselor John Podesta, noted the potential benefits of government data
mining, it also laid out a clear warning. “Once information about citizens is
compiled for a defined purpose, the temptation to use it for other purposes can
be considerable….” the report warned. “If unchecked, big data could be a tool
that substantially expands government power over citizens.”
——————
14. BOOKS: WATER, PEACE, AND WAR
Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water
Crisis, by
Brahma Chellaney, 424 page, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Chellaney sketches a bleak picture of water scarcity
in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, regions also struggling with unstable
governments and rapidly growing populations. What Chellaney calls “water
stressed conditions” are also appearing in developed countries, such as
Australia, Spain, and South Korea. Even the deep-water aquifers that support
modern agriculture in North America are dwindling.
But will the social and environmental stresses of
water shortage lead to conflict and armed violence? On that question,
Chellaney’s book is more speculative. Conflicts over water have already
embroiled states along the Nile basin, in Africa, and along the
Tigris-Euphrates basin, in the Middle East, and the war in Darfur has at least
partly been driven by clashes over access to water in Sudan’s far west.
Chellaney makes it clear that such conflicts will
become more common as water begins to be “used as a weapon,” as a recent U.S.
intelligence assessment predicted, at least in a metaphoric sense, as upstream
countries deny water to downstream ones. But water scarcity seems less likely
to spark resource wars than to more broadly contribute to the general
deterioration of social and environmental life on the planet.
— From Foreign Affairs, December 2013, reviewed by
G. John Ikenberry
—————————
15. BOOKS: E.E.
CUMMINGS
From the Economist
“e.e. cummings: A life,” by Susan Cheever. Pantheon, 240 pages, hardcover.
Most people were puzzled by E.E. Cummings. Having written
poetry from the age of eight, he was lauded after his death in 1962 at the age
of 68 as one of America’s great modernist writers. He was, after Robert Frost,
the most widely read poet in the United States.
 |
| The poet's own sef-portrait. |
Yet his poems were unlike any others seen before. Often
short and occasionally scurrilous, they used lower-case letters and lacked
punctuation. “may i feel said he/(i’ll squeal said she” is how one famous poem
begins. Many seemed more like nursery rhymes or nonsense verse than serious
work. “What is wrong with a man who writes like this?” asked one exasperated
critic.
Susan Cheever’s fine new biography of Cummings sheds some
light. The daughter of John Cheever, the American author, she is an astute
observer of the inner life of writers and how they work. The charge most often
laid against Cummings — that he was a “kid’s poet” who did not need to be taken
seriously — is countered by meticulous research showing the classical
influences on his writing.
Cummings was born in 1894, the son of an academic, and grew
up around Harvard University. His poetry was influenced by the men he
encountered: the chairman of the department of philosophy inspired his love of
the sonnet form, while William James, the philosopher and brother of novelist
Henry, spurred Cummings on to write.
Yet his verse also grew out of a rebellion against this world:
“the Cambridge ladies who live in furnished souls/are unbeautiful and have
comfortable minds,” he wrote dismissively in one popular early poem. It was
only in New York that he felt free. Surrounded by writers such as Marianne
Moore and Edmund Wilson, and photographers such as Walker Evans, he spent over
40 years in Greenwich Village, living in the same apartment.
Most of Cummings’s life was focused on his work. He wrote
nearly 3,000 poems, two novels and four plays, as well as painting portraits.
He was briefly married twice and spent the rest of his life with Marion
Morehouse, a photographer and model, travelling between Europe and America.
Certain events shaped his life: having enlisted during the first world war, he
was imprisoned in a French camp on suspicion of treason, and a visit to Russia
in the 1920s made him a staunch anti-communist. As he put it in one poem,
“every kumrad is a bit/of quite unmitigated hate.”
His life was mostly an inward-looking one, though, which
makes him a hard subject for a biographer. Cheever mostly gets round this
problem, even in such a short book. Alongside descriptions of Cummings’s life
she provides examples of his poetry, and she often combines her analysis of
events with literary criticism. External events are sketched in lightly whereas
personal encounters are given more depth. Cummings’s anti-Semitism is analyzed
extensively. Cheever also makes much of the reunion between Cummings and his
daughter Nancy, who did not know he was her father until she was in her 30s and
a poet herself. Such details ensure this biography succeeds where other works
have failed, by making this tricky poet understandable.
—————————
16. THE FACTS
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
 |
| Climate change probably contributed to a monster dust storm that hit Phoenix, Arizona. |
By the Environmental News Service, May 6,
2024
This information has been extracted from the third U.S. National Climate Assessment:
“Climate Trends in
America.”
• Temperature: “U.S. average temperature has
increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this
increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the Nation’s
warmest on record. Temperatures in the United States are expected to continue
to rise. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying
climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth
across the country or over time.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Extreme Weather: “There have been changes in some
types of extreme weather events over the last several decades. Heat waves have
become more frequent and intense, especially in the West. Cold waves have
become less frequent and intense across the Nation. There have been regional
trends in floods and droughts. Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves
everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense
everywhere.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Hurricanes: “The intensity, frequency, and duration
of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest
(Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative
contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still
uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are
projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.” (NCA Highlights:
Climate Trends)
 |
| Before and after photos of Joplin,Mo., after monster tornado. |
• Severe Storms: “Winter storms have increased in
frequency and intensity since the 1950s, and their
tracks have shifted
northward over the United States. Other trends in severe storms, including the
intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds,
are uncertain and are being studied intensively.” (NCA Highlights: Climate
Trends)
• Precipitation: “Average U.S. precipitation has
increased since 1900, but some areas have had
increases greater than the
national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring
precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the
Southwest, over this century.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Heavy Downpours: “Heavy downpours are increasing
nationally, especially over the last three to five decades. Largest increases
are in the Midwest and Northeast. Increases in the frequency and intensity of
extreme precipitation events are projected for all U.S. regions.” (NCA
Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Frost-free Season: “The length of the frost-free
season (and the corresponding growing season) has been increasing nationally
since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United
States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across the United States, the
growing season is projected to continue to lengthen.” (NCA Highlights: Climate
Trends)
• Ice Melt: “Rising temperatures are reducing ice
volume and surface extent on land, lakes, and sea. This loss of ice is expected
to continue. The Arctic Ocean is expected to become essentially ice free in
summer before mid-century.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Sea Level: “Global sea level has risen by about 8
inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise
another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Ocean Acidification: “The oceans are currently
absorbing about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere
annually and are becoming more acidic as a result, leading to concerns about
intensifying impacts on marine ecosystems.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
Climate-Change Impacts in Regions across America:
• Northeast – Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and District of Columbia: “Sixty-four million
people are concentrated in the Northeast. The high-density urban coastal
corridor from Washington, DC, north to Boston is one of the most developed
environments in the world, containing a massive, complex, and long-standing
network of supporting infrastructure. The Northeast also has a vital rural
component.” Communities in the Northeast “are affected by heat waves, more
extreme precipitation events, and coastal flooding due to sea level rise and
storm surge.”....
• Coasts: “More than 50% of Americans – 164 million
people – live in coastal counties, with 1.2 million added each year… Humans
have heavily altered the coastal environment through development, changes in
land use, and overexploitation of resources. Now, the changing climate is
imposing additional stresses…” “Coastal lifelines, such as water supply
infrastructure and evacuation routes are increasingly vulnerable to higher sea
levels and storm surges, inland flooding, and other climate-related changes.”....
Climate-Change Impacts on Key Sectors of Society and the
U.S. Economy
• Health: “Climate change threatens human health and
well-being in many ways, including through impacts from increased extreme
weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental health, and
illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as mosquitoes
and ticks. Some of these health impacts are already underway in the United
States. Climate change will, absent other changes, amplify some of the existing
health threats the Nation now faces. Certain people and communities are
especially vulnerable, including children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and
some communities of color. Public health actions, especially preparedness and
prevention, can do much to protect people from some of the impacts of climate
change. Early action provides the largest health benefits.” (NCA Highlights:
Human Health)
 |
| An American road to nowhere, due to flooding. |
• Transportation: “The impacts from sea level rise
and storm surge, extreme weather events, higher temperatures and heat waves,
precipitation changes, Arctic warming, and other climatic conditions are
affecting the reliability and capacity of the U.S. transportation system in
many ways. Sea level rise, coupled with storm surge, will continue to increase
the risk of major coastal impacts on transportation infrastructure, including
both temporary and permanent flooding of airports, ports and harbors, roads,
rail lines, tunnels, and bridges. Extreme weather events currently disrupt
transportation networks in all areas of the country; projections indicate that
such disruptions will increase. Climate change impacts will increase the total
costs to the Nation’s transportation systems and their users, but these impacts
can be reduced through rerouting, mode change, and a wide range of adaptive
actions.” (NCA Highlights: Transportation)
• Energy: “Extreme weather events are affecting
energy production and delivery facilities, causing supply disruptions of
varying lengths and magnitudes and affecting other infrastructure that depends
on energy supply. The frequency and intensity of certain types of extreme
weather events are expected to change. Higher summer temperatures will increase
electricity use, causing higher summer peak loads, while warmer winters will
decrease energy demands for heating. Net electricity use is projected to
increase. Changes in water availability, both episodic and long-lasting, will
constrain different forms of energy production. In the longer term, sea level
rise, extreme storm surge events, and high tides will affect coastal facilities
and infrastructure on which many energy systems, markets, and consumers depend.
As new investments in energy technologies occur, future energy systems will
differ from today’s in uncertain ways. Depending on the character of changes in
the energy mix, climate change will introduce new risks as well as new
opportunities.” (NCA Highlights: Energy Supply and Use)
• Water: “Climate change affects water demand and the
ways water is used within and across regions and economic sectors. The
Southwest, Great Plains, and Southeast are particularly vulnerable to changes
in water supply and demand. Changes in precipitation and runoff, combined with
changes in consumption and withdrawal, have reduced surface and groundwater
supplies in many areas. These trends are expected to continue, increasing the
likelihood of water shortages for many uses. Increasing flooding risk affects
human safety and health, property, infrastructure, economies, and ecology in
many basins across the United States… Increasing resilience and enhancing
adaptive capacity provide opportunities to strengthen water resources
management and plan for climate-change impacts.” (NCA Highlights: Water)
• Agriculture: “Climate disruptions to agriculture
have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century.
Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly
due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of
agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the
next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to
extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on,
climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and
livestock across the country – a trend that could diminish the security of our
food supply… Climate change effects on agriculture will have consequences for
food security, both in the U.S. and globally, through changes in crop yields
and food prices and effects on food processing, storage, transportation, and
retailing. Adaptation measures can help delay and reduce some of these
impacts.” ....
• Oceans: “Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more
acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine
life. More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral
reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance,
and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing
chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and
coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm
fishing communities… In response to observed and projected climate impacts,
some existing ocean policies, practices, and management efforts are
incorporating climate change impacts. These initiatives can serve as models for
other efforts and ultimately enable people and communities to adapt to changing
ocean conditions.”
———————
17. 13
ARRESTED PROTESTING POLICE KILLINGS
By the Answer Coalition, June 2
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Three weeks after the take-over of
Albuquerque’s City Council chambers to protest police violence, community
members and families of victims staged a near two hour sit-in at the Mayor’s
office to protest Mayor Barry’s failure to use the authority of his office to
take meaningful action against rampant several suspicious killings, violence
and abuse by police.
Around 20 people walked into the Mayor’s office, put up
yellow “crime scene” tape and sat on the floor chanting for officers involved
in killings and incidents of brutality to be fired, arrested and jailed.
Immediately after the sit-in began a press conference was called by the
organizers, which took place 30 minutes later outside the building.
 |
| Sit-in protest in the mayor's office in Albuquerque. |
Organizers and participants included several family members
of victims killed by APD, the ANSWER Coalition, the League of United Latin
American Citizens, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Center Task Force on
Public Safety and more.
The non-violent sit-in triggered an excessive, massive
martial response. City Hall was immediately locked down. Police swarmed a
perimeter that spanned several city blocks. The Albuquerque SWAT team then
stormed into the building carrying assault rifles.
The sit-in ended with thirteen arrests. Most were charged
with criminal trespassing, unlawful assembly and interfering with a public
official or staff. One protester, Professor David Correia, was unjustly charged
with felony battery of an officer after a plainclothes officer attempted to
shove him out of the Mayor’s suite.
The office of the
ANSWER Coalition, which played a central role in planning and carrying-out the
action, has been open all night providing support to those that were arrested,
and will be a collection point for those that are able to donate bail money.
The sit-in comes just four days after an autopsy report
confirmed what video evidence already proved; that Albuquerque police shot
James Boyd, a homeless man who struggled with mental illness, in the back.
Boyd’s killing sparked a tthree-month wave of action and organizing against the
epidemic of abuse by APD and refusal of the politicians and courts to take
action.
———————
18. STILL FLYING AFTER 34 MILLION YEARS
 |
| Sandhill Crane, part of the Great Migration to Nebraska. |
[There are about 10,000 species of birds on Earth, and
scientists suggest one-eighth of them will become extinct during this century,
largely due to human intervention. So far, the glorious sandhill crane seems to
be doing well, although a couple of subspecies in the U.S. are endangered.
Following is a brief excerpt from an article on sandhill cranes the March issue
of Smithsonian magazine written by Alex Shoumatoff with photos by Mellssa
Groo.]
Nature got it right with the cranes. They have been around
since the Eocene, which ended 34 million years ago. They are among the world’s
oldest living birds and one of the planet’s most successful life-forms, having
outlasted millions of species (99%of species that ever existed are now
extinct).
Every year 400,000 to 600,000 sandhill cranes — 80% of all
the cranes on the planet—congregate along an 80-mile stretch of the central
Platte River in Nebraska, to fatten up on waste grain in the empty cornfields
in preparation for the journey to their Arctic and subarctic nesting grounds.
This staging is one of the world’s great wildlife
spectacles, on a par with the epic migrations of the wildebeest and the
caribou. It takes place in three waves of four to five weeks each, beginning in
mid-February and ending in mid-April, during which birds that arrive emaciated
from wintering grounds in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Chihuahua, Mexico,
gain 20% of their body weight. Their numbers usually peak in the last week of
March.
The particularly successful sandhill crane of North America
has not changed appreciably in 10 million years. There are 15 Gruidae [crane] species,
and in all the human cultures that experience the birds, they are revered. [Sandhills
are about 3-4 feet tall. The wingspan can be over 5 feet wide. They
can live 20 years or more but in the wild they tend to die younger.]
The sandhill cranes are the most abundant crane species.
Migrating sandhills come in three basic sizes—greater, lesser and the mid-size
Canadian. The Eastern population has rebounded dramatically from near
extinction in the 1930s and is now up to more than 80,000.
— The full article is at
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/500000-cranes-are-headed-nebraska-one-earths-greatest-migrations-180949816/?all
