|
![]() |
|
Noam Chomsky returns with, "Populism and Terror."
Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis."
|
![]() ![]() ![]() Follow @Uncle_Ernie America, We Are So Screwed!!! By Ernest Stewart "He has made ill-considered comments about expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice related to international security, including the conclusions of intelligence experts. And his nominees to head the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency dispute the basics of climate science. In short, even though he has just now taken office, the president's intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice, and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse." ~~~ Thomas Pickering (about Trump) "...One of the most serious consequences of our actions is global warming brought about by rising levels of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. The danger is that the temperature increase may become self-sustaining, if it hasn't done so already. Drought and deforestation are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide recycled into the atmosphere and the warming of the seas may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide trapped on the ocean floor. In addition the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will reduce the amount of solar energy reflected back into space and so increase the temperature further. We don't know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C and rain sulphuric acid. The human race could not survive in those conditions." ~~~ Stephen Hawking "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in." ~~~ Michael Corleone I didn't vote for Hilary, as I'm a Green, but I have no doubt she fairly won the election and suddenly I was having a deja vu all over again, again, but this time it could easily be the end of all life on Earth. Had Hilary won the Presidency I wouldn't be here today but she, like the rest of us got screwed my a monster, so what could I do? I had foolishly assumed that after eight years of crony capitalism, America would have had enough of plutocracy to not elect Trump who is the worst case scenario of all that is wrong with America. My bad! But like Dubya, we have another disaster capitalist in power, but this time he's running amok and even scaring far right Rethuglicans who too can see the writing on the wall. On a good note a lot of people are getting pissed off and are taking it to the streets. Thats a good thing as I can attest from my days with the SDS. America had been sleeping on their couches when Barry was here and let him get away with literal murder, but Barry has a brain and he knew just how far he could go, Trump doesn't, and what's more, doesn't care. Trump's just a spoiled brat used to getting everything he wants, and he wants it NOW! He thinks he can do whatever he pleases and the hell with the law, like Dubya said of the U.S. Constitution, "...it's just a God damn piece of paper!" Ya'll remember when you liberals defended Obamas self-given right to kill anyone, any time, any where, including American kids, whenever he wanted to, without a trial, or charges, or a jury of their peers or any defense, etc. Well, guess what? Trump has that same right now, care to defend it again? Is it different now that a mad man has the power? As little Wednesday Addams said, "Be afraid! Be very afraid," America!!! In Other News I see where the atomic scientists moved the hands of the "A Doomsday Clock closer to midnight on Thursday amid increasing worries over nuclear weapons, climate change, and now Trump. Since 1947, every year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit that sets the clock, decides whether the events of the previous year pushed humanity closer or further from destruction. The symbolic clock is now two-and-a-half minutes from midnight, the closest it's been to midnight since 1953, when the hydrogen bomb was first tested. Scientists blamed a cocktail of threats ranging from dangerous political rhetoric to the potential of nuclear threat as the catalyst for moving the clock closer towards doomsday. "This year's Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual...as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used by a President-elect of the United States in cavalier and often reckless ways to address the twin threats of nuclear weapons and climate change," Rachel Bronson, the executive director and publisher of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in a statement. I can see their anxiety; if Global Warming dosen't get us, Trump's tiny finger on the button surely will. It's up to you, America, on whether we ride off into the sunset or go out with a big BANG! And Finally How hot was it Johnny? We'll it's the hotest year on record since at least 1880. Yeah, I get it, when the dinosaurs ruled the Earth it was just a tad warmer. I know, my bad, it's not funny but it is true! 2016 set a global heat record for the third year in a row. A record El Nino played a role in pushing the planet's temperatures higher but without man made pollution the El Nino would have had little effect. Not only was this the third consecutive year to rank hotter than all previous years, it also means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, according to NOAA. To put this in perspective, the last time we had a record cold year was 1911. Temperatures over the Earth's continents and oceans in 2016 were 1.1 degree Celsius (1.98 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average, according to the WMO. That means we are already a majority of the way to the 1.5-degree warming goal set at the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.
Climate scientists say greenhouse gas pollution, which humans are creating primarily by burning fossil fuels and chopping down rainforests, likely contributed to the 2016 record.
And the pollution certainly is behind the long-term trend toward warming, scientists say.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth Science Center at Pennsylvania State University said:
"The effect of human activity on our climate is no longer subtle. It's plain as day, as are the impacts -- in the form of record floods, droughts, superstorms and wildfires -- that it is having on us and our planet." ![]() 04-18-1922 ~ 01-26-2017 Thanks for the film! ![]() 01-22-1940 ~ 01-27-2017 Thanks for the film! ![]() 02-28-1948 ~ 01-28-2017 Thanks for the music! ![]() 06-12-1949 ~ 01-31-2017 Thanks for the music! ![]() 04-15-1944 ~ 01-31-2017 Thanks for the film! ***** We get by with a little help from our friends! So please help us if you can...? Donations ****** We've Moved The Forum Back ******* For late breaking news and views visit The Forum. Find all the news you'll otherwise miss. We publish 10 times the amount of material there than what is in the magazine. Look for the latest Activist Alerts. Updated constantly, please feel free to post an article we may have missed. ***** So how do you like Trump so far? And more importantly, what are you planning on doing about it? Until the next time, Peace! (c) 2017 Ernest Stewart a.k.a. Uncle Ernie is an unabashed radical, author, stand-up comic, DJ, actor, political pundit and managing editor and publisher of Issues & Alibis magazine. Visit me on Facebook. and like us when you do. Follow me on Twitter. |
![]() Populism and Terror: An Interview with Noam Chomsky By Noam Chomsky, Kenneth Palmer and Richard Yarrow
Chomsky spoke with HIR editors Kenneth Palmer and Richard Yarrow about his reflections on politics in the West, and what issues he thinks it has failed to properly address. |
![]() President Kong By Uri Avnery
I KNEW he reminded me of somebody, but I couldn't quite place it. Who was it who pounded his chest with such vigor? |
![]() Trump Will Probably Dump Police Department "Consent Decrees" By Glen Ford
Donald Trump is unlikely to approve of any more "consent decrees" to "reform" police departments. But this will be no great loss. As practiced, "the scheme very much resembles former Attorney General Holder's coddling of criminal banks, under which the offending institutions were fined, but not criminally charged or compelled to admit guilt." In most cities, police killings of Blacks actually increased or stayed the same after federal intervention. |
![]() Will Trump Hop On An American Silk Road? If it's a trade war with China he would rather have, the new president will find himself on the back foot from day one By Pepe Escobar
Hysteria reigns supreme at the dawn of the Trump era, with the President rebranded across the whole ideological spectrum as an American Mao or even an American Hitler. |
Uncle Sam wants you!
Not the Uncle Sam who's the symbolic caricature of our country, but Sam Johnson. Although he's been a member of Congress more than a quarter of a century, it's unlikely you've ever heard of him, for Sam's been what's known in legislative circles as "furniture." That's a lawmaker who holds a congressional seat, but just sits in it, achieving so little that he's unnoticeable.
But - look out! - Johnson has suddenly leapt into action. And we all need to take notice, because this Texas Republican has unveiled what he calls his "Plan to Permanently Save Social Security."!
To get you to support the plan, Uncle Sam wants you to believe that our nation's very popular retirement program is "going bankrupt." He knows that's a lie, but he hopes it's a big enough lie to panic you into doing anything to save the program. To make his plan easy to swallow, he coats it with another lie, claiming that he's merely "modernizing" and "updating" Social Security, which a big majority of Americans count on to avoid stark poverty in their golden years.
But on fact, old Uncle Sam is conniving to "save" Social Security by gutting it. The press release announcing his "Reform Act" doesn't even mention the key fact that it's based on making workers keep paying the same 12.4 percent tax on their wages, but getting drastically less paid back to them when they retire. How much less? Up to 69 percent less, cutting a total cut of $11.6 trillion in benefits promised to America's workers.
This is Jim Hightower saying... Meanwhile, Rep. Johnson has announced his own retirement after 28 years sitting sitting in Congress. And yes, he can draw a Social Security check, but he also gets a congressional pension that will pay him more than $70,000 a year. How about we cut that perk and leave the people's Social Security alone?
|
Imagine being such a consummate bullshit artist that you have an entire debate tactic named after you. Enter the late Duane Tolbert Gish, neuroscientist and hardcore creationist who, at the time of his death in 2013, held the position of senior vice president emeritus at the Institute for Creation Research. His favorite activity in the world involved squaring off in public debates against advocates of evolution within the scientific community.
Mr. Gish's chief tactic, known in debate terminology as "spreading," was to fire off as many points as possible in a short span of time. Nearly every point delivered is either partially or completely false, but the opponent faces a daunting task when confronted with so many issues to refute at once. Like as not, they are overwhelmed, and the spreader emerges victorious while seeming to be a master of voluminous data. Eugenie Scott, anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education, was a frequent debate opponent of Gish. Dr. Scott coined the term "Gish Gallop" after being on the receiving end of the tactic numerous times, and it stuck.
Examples of the Gish Gallop can be found all over the political and media landscape today. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney used it to great effect during his first debate against then-President Obama in October of 2012. Deploying a rapid-fire fusillade of half-truths and outright falsehoods, he left his overwhelmed opponent stammering through replies. Most observers said at the time that Mr. Obama lost that debate. He didn't lose; he got Gish Galloped off the stage. Notably, the tactic did not fare nearly so well in their second meeting. A prepared opponent can handle the barrage, often dismantling many points at once by undermining a single false premise. Woe be, however, to the unready.
Nowhere is the tactic more evidently used than within the confines of the corporate "news" media. Turn on your television right now, and odds are better than good that you'll be confronted with a screen full of commentators Galloping at each other with all their might. It is a marvelous way to fill precious air time with the nitrous oxide of nonsense that comes from a bunch of people shouting lies simultaneously at the top of their voices. The best Gish Gallopers are the ones who keep getting invited back onto the shows. Good television, you see.
Without doubt or question, the reigning world heavyweight champion of the Gish Gallop also happens to be the president of the United States. Donald Trump modeled his entire presidential campaign on the tactic -- outrageous tweets, bizarre proclamations, an ocean of lies deployed on the hour at all hours of day and night -- to such mighty effect that his opponents and the "news" media covering him were left sputtering in his wake. The Gallop did not skip a beat after he assumed the White House; indeed, it appears to have found a whole new gear.
Consider Trump's recent remarks at CIA headquarters:
Not everyone is bothered by Trump's use of the Gish Gallop. For instance, the far-right bunch over at The American Spectator sure seem pleased with the practice. "The hacks covering Trump are as lazy as they are partisan," wrote Scot McKay regarding the phenomenon, "so feeding them clickbait such as manufactured controversies over inaugural crowds is a guaranteed way of keeping them occupied while things of real substance are done. At this rate, he'll have the country well on its way to recovery from the Obama malaise, and the enemies in the newsrooms will have hardly noticed his actual work."
There is more to this than right-wing wishful thinking -- "Look how the president plays pan-dimensional chess! He's a genius!" -- when you pile up the aftermath of this first week of Trump's administration. Torture is back on the table. "The Wall" is one step closer to realization. The Environmental Protection Agency has essentially ceased to exist as a governmental entity. The strongest version of the global gag rule ever deployed is in place. The Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines have been advanced. Trump's horrible cabinet nominees are sailing through the confirmation process largely untouched. All of this is happening without the GOP-controlled House and Senate getting fully into the game yet; when they do, it is going to be a hard day's night for a very long time to come.
Consider the events of this past weekend. Amid a blizzard of hastily-prepared paperwork came an executive missive on immigration that turned the nation on its collective ear. According to The New York Times, "The order bars entry to refugees from anywhere in the world for 120 days and from Syria indefinitely. It blocks any visitors for 90 days from seven designated countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen." The order also affected people with green cards, but the administration had crabbed its way back from that stance by Sunday. All of this initially took place on Holocaust Remembrance Day, which the administration took note of in a formal proclamation that omitted any mention of Jews.
Here was the Muslim ban come to life. The order galvanized a national protest the likes of which have never been seen. When word got out that people were being detained at Kennedy Airport in New York and faced forced deportation due to Trump's order, hundreds and then thousands of protesters rushed to Kennedy. Airports all across the nation saw similar actions erupt, and the streets of cities from Washington DC to Los Angeles came alive as thousands more shouted down the administration for its cruelty and its cowardice.
The ACLU and other rights groups flew into action, and a temporary restraining order was obtained that blocked the administration from executing its order. A court will decide the constitutionality of the Trump order, but given the black-letter wording of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, it seems ultimately doomed. By Sunday night, some refugees and green-card travelers who had been detained were being released, and the administration found itself in a full crouch trying to defend its actions.
True to form, however, another game was afoot. On the same night that all Hell was breaking loose over immigration, Trump quietly released another executive order that gave White House strategist and white nationalist leader Steve Bannon a regular seat on the National Security Council (NSC). Simultaneously, the order barred both the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from joining Council meetings unless they are specifically invited. The unprecedented move was met with horror by virtually the entire intelligence community, and for good reason. Even George W. Bush had enough sense to bar Karl Rove from attending NSC meetings, keeping to the long-standing "No political hacks" rule pertaining to the Council. Amidst the din of the uproar over the immigration order, the astonishing Bannon-to-NSC order went largely unnoticed.
Immigration over here, but wait! Steve Bannon over there. The Gish Gallop government strikes again.
That's one week. If your metric for success is measured by what has been accomplished to date, Donald Trump is Abraham Lincoln in a Superman cape... after fooling everyone into thinking he's just a bumbling Clark Kent. For sure and certain, much of the "news" media bypassed any serious analysis of Trump's first week in favor of an ongoing and utterly meaningless rhubarb over the nose count at the inauguration. Why? Because if given the choice, the corporate media will always pursue the easiest story to cover. After all, it beats working.
Trump and his team are playing the media like so many fiddles. All I know for certain is that a million lies have led to one truth: Donald Trump is Gish Galloping at speed, he and his people are almost completely running the table -- the pushback on immigration being a profoundly noteworthy exception -- and much of the media are eating it up.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled," said Keyser Soze, "was convincing the world he didn't exist." Who is Trump, really? We're all going to find out soon enough.
|
We're a week into the Trump administration and it's pretty obvious what he's up to. First, Donald Trump is running a demolition derby: He wants to demolish everything he doesn't like, and he doesn't like a lot, especially when it comes to government.
Like one of those demolition drivers on a speedway, he keeps ramming his vehicle against all the others, especially government policies and programs and agencies that protect people who don't have his wealth, power or privilege. Affordable health care for working people? Smash it. Consumer protection against predatory banks and lenders? Run over it. Rules and regulations that rein in rapacious actors in the market? Knock'em down. Fair pay for working people? Crush it. And on and on.
Trump came to Washington to tear the government down for parts, and as far as we can tell, he doesn't seem to have anything at all in mind to replace it except turning back the clock to when business took what it wanted and left behind desperate workers, dirty water and polluted air.
In this demolition derby, Trump seems to have the wholehearted support of the Republican Party, which loathes government as much as it worships the market as god. Remember Thomas Frank's book, The Wrecking Crew? Published in 2008, it remains one of the best political books of the past quarter-century. Frank took the measure of an unholy alliance: the century-old business crusade against government, the conservative ideology that looks on government as evil (except when it's enriching its allies), and the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Karl Rove - the one that had just produced eight years of crony capitalism and private plunder.
The Wrecking Crew - and what an apt title it was - showed how federal agencies were doomed to failure by the incompetence and hostility of the Bush gang appointed to run them, the same model Trump is using now. Frank tracked how wholesale deregulation - on a scale Trump already is trying to reproduce - led to devastating results for everyday people, including the mortgage meltdown and the financial crash. Reading the book is like reading today's news, as kleptomaniacs spread across Washington to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of lobbyists and corporations.
That may include the pockets of Donald Trump's own family. As Jonathan Chait wrote after the election in New York magazine, "[Trump's] children have taken roles on the transition team. Ivanka attended official discussions with heads of state of Japan and Argentina. [As president-elect, Trump himself] met with Indian business partners to discuss business and lobbied a British politician to oppose offshore wind farms because one will block the view at one of his Scottish golf courses." Only a couple of days ago it was reported that the Trump organization would more than triple the number of Trump hotels in America. And why not? Its chief marketer works out of the Oval Office.
Jonathan Chait went on to say: "Trump's brazen use of his office for personal enrichment signals something even more worrisome than four or more years of kleptocratic government. It reveals how willing the new administration is to obliterate governing norms and how little stands in his way."
And oh yes, something else: David Sirota at International Business Times has just published a new report showing that the Trump administration appears to be quietly killing the federal government's major ethics rule designed to prevent White House officials from enriching their former clients. Experts say a review of government documents shows that regulators appear to have abruptly stopped enforcing the rule, even though it remains the law of the land.
We were warned. Donald Trump himself told The New York Times, "The law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can't have a conflict of interest." Shades of Richard Nixon, who said, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." And who also announced, "I am not a crook."
Which leads us to the second design now apparent in Trump's strategy of deliberate chaos. He may have run a populist campaign, but now it appears he aims to substitute plutocracy for democracy.
I know plutocracy is not a commonly used word in America. But it's a word that increasingly fits what's happening here. Plutocracy means government by the wealthy, a ruling class of the rich and their retainers. If you don't see plutocracy spreading across America, you haven't been paying attention. Both parties have nurtured, tolerated and bowed to it. Now we're reaching the pinnacle, as Trump's own Cabinet is rich (no pun intended) in millionaires and billionaires. He is stacking the agencies and boards of government with the wealthy and friends of wealth so that the whole of the federal enterprise can be directed to rewarding those with deep pockets, the ones who provide the bags and bags of money that are dumped into our political process today.
Yes, both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of groveling to the wealthy who fund them; it's a staggering bipartisan scandal that threatens the country and was no small part of Trump's success last November, even as ordinary people opened their windows and shouted, "We're as mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." So now we have in power a man who represents the very worst of the plutocrats - one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. I shudder to think where this nightmare will end. Even if you voted for Donald Trump for a reason that truly is from your heart, I cannot believe you voted for this.
Tell me if I'm wrong. Tell me whose side are you really on? The people of America or the cynics and predators at the very top who would climb atop the ruins of the republic for a better view of the sunset?
|
Democracy has taken very hard hits in the first days of the Trump interregnum, as Donald Trump and the mandarins of his "alternative-fact" administration have spun fantasies about "voter fraud" that clearly does not exist; obsessed about the dubious legitimacy of a president who lost the popular vote and drew a disappointing crowd for his inauguration; and attacked the free and skeptical press that provides and essential underpinning for the open discourse that sustains popular sovereignty.
But sometimes democracy wins out-in a way that could transform our politics and our governance.
Nothing has so sustained and advanced Republican dominance of the states (and of the US House of Representatives) as the gerrymandering of legislative and congressional district lines by Republican politicians who have used their overarching control of state-based redistricting processes to warp electoral competition in their favor. And few states have seen such radical gerrymandering as Scott Walker's Wisconsin, where the governor and his allies skewed district lines so seriously that clearly contested state legislative races have become a rarity in much of a state that national elections suggest is evenly divided.
Wisconsin's gerrymandering was so extreme that, two months ago, a federal-court panel struck down Wisconsin legislative maps as unconstitutional. Walker's Republican state attorney general appealed immediately, setting up a fight that will eventually be resolved by a US Supreme Court that legal experts say may finally be prepared to rule on behalf of competitive elections.
"In our democracy, people have the right to hold their government accountable in fair, competitive elections." ~~~ Senator Mark Miller
Walker and his Republican allies, desperate to maintain their unfair advantage, asked the three-judge federal panel to delay implementation of its ruling as the appeals process goes forward.
But on Friday the judges refused to delay democracy any longer.
In a decision that was hailed as a significant victory for democracy in Wisconsin and nationally, the federal panel enjoined Wisconsin officials from using existing maps in "all future elections." At the same time, the judges ordered Walker and the state legislature to draw new legislative-district maps by November 1, 2017.
The new maps are to be used in November 2018, when Walker, the entire state assembly, and half of the state senate will be up for election.
"The decision by the federal court to require new redistricting maps by November 1, 2017 is great news for Wisconsin. Voters should always pick their elected officials instead of elected officials picking them. I hope that legislative Republicans are more competent with their second chance," said Democratic State Senator Mark Miller, the former majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate. "In our democracy, people have the right to hold their government accountable in fair, competitive elections-I am pleased that power should finally be returned to the people of Wisconsin."
Miller is right. While there will still be plenty of wrangling over the drawing of district lines, and while Walker and his Republican allies will keep trying to delay that process, the notion that voters have a right to cast their ballots in genuinely competitive elections is gaining traction.
"This case is an actual game-changer when it comes to undoing GOP gerrymandering nationwide." ~~~ Carolyn Fiddler
That's a big deal for Wisconsin. But it is also a big deal for the rest of a country where numerous states face legal battles over gerrymandering of legislative and congressional district lines. Walker acknowledges that "lawmakers and governors around the country are interested in this case regardless of party," while Carolyn Fiddler of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee says that "this order presents a real chance for Wisconsin Democrats' voices to be fairly represented in their state government. Additionally, this case is an actual game-changer when it comes to undoing GOP gerrymandering nationwide and preventing Republicans from artificially inflating their majorities via redistricting for the decade to come."
Fiddler's point gets to the heart of the matter. Discussions about gerrymandering involve a lot more than maps. They are about electoral competition and the makeup of legislative chambers. Fair competition, in Wisconsin and nationally, could produce dramatic change in politics and governing. For instance: In 2012 voting for state assembly seats in Wisconsin, Democrats won 174,000 more votes than Republicans. Yet, because of the gerrymandering of the assembly maps by Walker and his allies, Republicans won a 60-39 majority in the chamber.
Bill Whitford, the veteran University of Wisconsin law professor who was the lead plaintiff in the gerrymandering case brought by the Fair Elections Project, hailed the court ruling as a victory in the struggle for a renewal of representative democracy.
"Today is a good day for Wisconsin voters, and another step in the journey of ensuring that our voices are heard," explained Whitford. "Now, we will be keeping a watchful eye on the state legislature as they draw the new maps and I ask them, for the sake of our democracy, to put partisan politics aside and the interests of all voters first."
If the Republicans fail to put aside partisanship, they are all but certain to face another intervention by the courts in what is by any measure a high-stakes struggle.
Republicans in Wisconsin and nationally know that if Democrats were to gain a stronger foothold in the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate following a fair fight in 2018, that could position them to draw more competitive congressional-district lines following the 2020 Census. And if the US Supreme Court were to accept the premise that voters have a right to cast ballots in competitive election-rather than to waste them in districts that are drawn to give one party a permanent advantage-the American political landscape could be radically altered.
As former president Barack Obama, who has pledged to make the battle against gerrymandering a focus of his post-presidential activism, has said: "If we want a better politics, it's not enough to just change a congressman or a senator or even a president. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves."
The way to get that better politics is by upending gerrymandering practices that allow politicians to pick their voters, and to give the voters the power that extends from genuinely competitive elections.
|
![]() American Psychosis By Chris Hedges Reality is under assault. Verbal confusion reigns. Truth and illusion have merged. Mental chaos makes it hard to fathom what is happening. We feel trapped in a hall of mirrors. Exposed lies are answered with other lies. The rational is countered with the irrational. Cognitive dissonance prevails. We endure a disquieting shame and even guilt. Tens of millions of Americans, especially women, undocumented workers, Muslims and African-Americans, suffer the acute anxiety of being pursued by a predator. All this is by design. Demagogues always infect the governed with their own psychosis.
"The comparison between totalitarianism and psychosis is not incidental," the psychiatrist Joost A.M. Meerloo wrote in his book "The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing." "Delusional thinking inevitably creeps into every form of tyranny and despotism. Unconscious backward forces come into action. Evil powers from the archaic past return. An automatic compulsion to go on to self-destruction develops, to justify one mistake with a new one; to enlarge and expand the vicious pathological circle becomes the dominating end of life. The frightened man, burdened by a culture he does not understand, retreats into the brute's fantasy of limitless power in order to cover up the vacuum inside himself. This fantasy starts with the leaders and is later taken over by the masses they oppress." The lies fly out of the White House like flocks of pigeons: Donald Trump's election victory was a landslide. He had the largest inauguration crowds in American history. Three million to 5 million undocumented immigrants voted illegally. Climate change is a hoax. Vaccines cause autism. Immigrants are carriers of "[t]remendous infectious disease." The election was rigged-until it wasn't. We don't know "who really knocked down" the World Trade Center. Torture works. Mexico will pay for the wall. Conspiracy theories are fact. Scientific facts are conspiracies. America will be great again. Our new president, a 70-year-old with orange-tinted skin and hair that Penn Jillette has likened to "cotton candy made of piss," is, as Trump often reminds us, "very good looking." He has almost no intellectual accomplishments-he knows little of history, politics, law, philosophy, art or governance-but insists "[m]y IQ is one of the highest-and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault." And the mediocrities and half-wits he has installed in his Cabinet have "by far the highest IQ of any Cabinet ever assembled." It is an avalanche of absurdities. This mendacity would be easier to repulse if the problem was solely embodied in Trump. But even in the face of a rising despotism, the Democratic Party refuses to denounce the corporate forces that eviscerated our democracy and impoverished the country. The neoliberal Trump demonizes Muslims, undocumented workers and the media. The neoliberal Democratic Party demonizes Vladimir Putin and FBI Director James Comey. No one speaks about the destructive force of corporate power. The warring elites pit alternative facts against alternative facts. All engage in demagoguery. We will, I expect, be condemned to despotism by the venality of Trump and the cowardice and dishonesty of the liberal class. Trump and those around him have a deep hatred for what they cannot understand. They silence anyone who thinks independently. They elevate pseudo-intellectuals who adhere to their bizarre script. They cannot cope with complexity, nuance or the unpredictable. Individual initiative is a mortal threat. The order for some employees of several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's research service, the National Park Service and the Department of Health and Human Services, to restrict or cease communication with the press or members of Congress, along with the attempt to impose 10-year felony convictions on six reporters who covered the inauguration protests, signals the beginning of a campaign to marginalize reality and promote fantasy. Facts depend solely on those who have the power to create them. The goal of the Trump administration is to create an artificial consistency that conforms to its warped perception of the world. "Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations," Hannah Arendt wrote in "The Origins of Totalitarianism." "The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda-before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world-lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world." Trump's blinding narcissism was captured in his bizarre talk to the CIA on Jan. 21. "[T]hey say, is Donald Trump an intellectual?" he said. "Trust me, I'm, like, a smart persona." "I have a running war with the media," he added. "They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth. And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you're the number one stop [in the new presidency] is exactly the opposite-exactly. And they understand that, too." He launched into an attack on the media for not reporting that "a million, million and a half people" showed up for his inauguration. "They showed a field where there was practically nobody standing there," he said about the media's depiction of the inauguration crowd. "And they said, Donald Trump did not draw well. I said, it was almost raining, the rain should have scared them away, but God looked down and he said, we're not going to let it rain on your speech." He has been on the cover of Time "like, 14 or 15 times," Trump said in speaking of his criticism of the magazine because one of its reporters incorrectly wrote that the president had removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. "I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine. Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it's one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right? I've been on it for 15 times this year. I don't think that's a record, Mike, that can ever be broken. Do you agree with that? What do you think?" [Editor's note: Photographs or drawings of Trump were on the cover of Time 10 times in the last year and a half and once in 1989.] Trump's theatricality works. He forces the press and the public to repeat his lies, inadvertently giving them credibility. He is always moving. He is always on display. He has no fixed belief system. Trump, as he consolidates power, will adopt the ideology of the Christian right to fill his own ideological vacuum. The Christian right's magical thinking will merge seamlessly with Trump's magical thinking. Idiocy, self-delusion, megalomania, fantasy and government repression will come wrapped in images of the Christian cross and the American flag. The corporate state, hostile or indifferent to the plight of the citizens, has no emotional pull among the public. It is often hated. Political candidates run not as politicians but as celebrities. Campaigns eschew issues to make people feel good about candidates and themselves. Ideas are irrelevant. Emotional euphoria is paramount. The voter is only a prop in the political theater. Politics is anti-politics. It is reality television. Trump proved better at this game than his opponents. It is a game in which fact and knowledge do not matter. Reality is what you create. We were conditioned for a Trump. Meerloo wrote, "The demagogue relies for his effectiveness on the fact that people will take seriously the fantastic accusations he makes, will discuss the phony issues he raises as if they had reality, or will be thrown into such a state of panic by his accusations and charges that they will simply abdicate their right to think and verify for themselves." The lies create a climate in which everyone is assumed to be lying. The truth becomes suspect and obscured. Narratives begin to be believed not because they are true, or even sound true, but because they are emotionally appealing. The aim of systematic lying, as Arendt wrote, is the "transformation of human nature itself." The lies eventually foster somnambulism among a population that surrenders to the magical thinking and ceases to care. It checks out. It becomes cynical. It only asks to be entertained and given a vent for its frustration and rage. Demagogues produce enemies the way a magician pulls rabbits out of a hat. They wage constant battles against nonexistent dangers, rapidly replacing one after the other to keep the rhetoric at a fever pitch. "Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler proceeds like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go out and kill him in self-defense," Arendt wrote. "This certainly is a little crude, but it works-as everybody will know who has ever watched how certain successful careerists eliminate competitors." We are entering a period of national psychological trauma. We are stalked by lunatics. We are, as Judith Herman writes about trauma victims in her book "Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence-From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror," being "rendered helpless by overwhelming force." This trauma, like all traumas, overwhelms "the ordinary systems of care that give people a sense of control, connection, and meaning."
To recover our mental balance we must respond to Trump the way victims of trauma respond to abuse. We must build communities where we can find understanding and solidarity. We must allow ourselves to mourn. We must name the psychosis that afflicts us. We must carry out acts of civil disobedience and steadfast defiance to re-empower others and ourselves. We must fend off the madness and engage in dialogues based on truth, literacy, empathy and reality. We must invest more time in activities such as finding solace in nature, or focusing on music, theater, literature, art and even worship-activities that hold the capacity for renewal and transcendence. This is the only way we will remain psychologically whole. Building an outer shell or attempting to hide will exacerbate our psychological distress and depression. We may not win, but we will have, if we create small, like-minded cells of defiance, the capacity not to go insane.
|
![]() Texas Governor Pelted with Used Menstrual Products After He Signs 'Fetal Burial' Order By Sarah K. Burris Vice President Mike Pence proclaimed his intentions to fight for the lives of the unborn but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has taken extreme steps to shut down choice by women. After Abbott made an order that all women who have abortions and miscarriages must pay to have the remains buried, women launched a protest. The Dallas Morning News reports that one woman, Ele Chupik, took to Facebook to urge women to send their used feminine hygiene products to Abbott. Chupik had no idea that women would actually do it, but they did. "Unsure about fertilized status of these panty liners," one anonymous sender wrote including her package. Through December at least 17 women mailed their bloodstained products to the Texas governor's office according to records the paper obtained. "Sending unprotected human bodily waste is a health hazard," said Michael Sullivan, a postal inspector in the capitol city. "We don't see a whole lot of that." The governor's office kept the incident quiet, not reporting it to the press or to the postal inspector. The staff simply threw them away, but made digital copies of the items, perhaps for an open records request. Most elected officials' offices keep mail on file. "I am enclosing my tampons and sanitary pads as long as the law stands," another woman wrote in. One woman that didn't even live in the state mailed her items encouraging the office: "Bury this!" "I hoped that it would be taken as an insult," Chupik said. "The same way we feel insulted." Sullivan explained that most people who send items don't include a return address, so it's difficult to prosecute postal violations. A federal judge has put the kibosh on enforcing the law, but it will likely be a while before the order is declared unconstitutional. That means several more cycles of menstrual products women can send. "They're seeing it for the shaming tactic that it is, and that's deeply offensive to people," said NARAL Pro-Choice Texas director Heather Busby. Chupik never did mail in her own products though she did think about dipping some tampons in red paint and sending them to the governor.
"Sending in the tampons felt like it was more for us," she said, "just a catharsis."
|
![]() Building affordable Housing -- Hobbit-style By Jane Stillwater You don't need to live in a five-bedroom big-box suburban McMansion in order to stay warm and dry in the winter. Just ask Bilbo Baggins. Recently I attended a vigil in memory of a homeless woman who had frozen to death on the mean streets of Berkeley, CA. You wouldn't expect something like that to happen here in Berkeley -- but it did. Homeless people brought candles to the steps of City Hall in order to honor this poor woman's memory. Someone also donated a portable space-heater to help keep the more fragile vigil-keepers warm. But in an ironic twist of fate, cops arrived and confiscated a space-heater at a vigil for a homeless person who had just frozen to death. But I digress. With our federal government now threatening to shut down HUD subsidized housing in order to have more money to give to banksters, big oil and "war" profiteers, this sudden shift in the distribution of our tax dollars, away from the rest of us and into the pockets of the disgustingly-wealthy, could mean that approximately ten million Americans would be kicked off of HUD subsidy programs. "Households that receive assistance comprise 9.8 million people, or roughly 3 percent of the U.S. population," sez HUD. Imagine what it would be like if housing subsidies all suddenly disappeared? Hey, it could happen -- and probably will. If three out of every one hundred Americans suddenly found themselves on the mean streets of our country, the whole face of America the Beautiful would change overnight. Suddenly there would be this swamp of homeless people around us. Cincinnati would look more like the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Seattle would look like some barrio in Mexico City. Atlanta would look like a scene out of "The Walking Dead". And parts of Berkeley would look like a Hooverville shanty town left over from the 1930s Great Depression. Hell, all of America would look like that. HUD subsidized housing serves as a disguise, a stage set, a prop -- so that the world won't know how poor so many Americans actually are. It's a small price to pay. But I digress again. What I really want to talk about is how Americans can solve this very-real housing crisis which has descended upon us like a giant black cloud, whether we have HUD subsidies or not. And I would then suggest that we solve this housing crisis by taking advice from the Hobbits. "Go small or go home!" Just sayin'.
Mike Lee, a member of the Berkeley Homeless Commission, suggests that we build lots of "tiny houses" -- for a price as low as $16,000 each. My friend Jennifer suggests that we bring back the good old-fashioned trailer court. And I suggest that we get Frodo Baggins on the job. Problem solved.
|
|
![]() Does Rachel Maddow Want Russia Bombed? By David Swanson Here's why I ask. Maddow devotes many minutes on MSNBC stirring up hatred of Russia in order to establish that there is a vague possibility that President Donald Trump might be corrupted by a foreign government. But that's already established beyond any doubt. China's state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower. It is also a major lender to Trump. Its rent payments and its loans put Trump in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Every building approval, extension of credit, tax break, subsidy, or waiver of normal rules that Trump's businesses get from numerous foreign governments, state governments, and the U.S. government define him as quintessentially impeachable. So, if the point is just to document corruption by Trump, why reach and stretch for a speculative possibility, when you've got a solid case sitting in your lap? Maddow opened her rant on Thursday by making clear that what was coming was baseless speculation that might conceivably turn out to be right. She then began by describing Mikhail Gorbachev as a man who "lost the Cold War" but got a Nobel Peace Prize as a "consolation." Then she praised a newspaper he started. But he himself wrote on Thursday in Time Magazine the polar opposite of what Maddow would go on to say. He proposed peace and disarmament. She launched into an attack on Putin as an "intense little man," whom she implied had a habit of murdering his critics. In Russia, she said, there's no notion of an aggressive accountable press. And yet, she said, the Russian press has reported on the dramatic arrest and charging with treason of a top cyber official. Leaving the question of what that proves about Maddow's ostensible topic (Trump) completely vague, Maddow turns to denouncing Trump's Mexican wall plans as vague and rejecting his "unsupported contention" regarding voter fraud. Then she leaps into a series of unsupported contentions:
1. the pee-pee story Worse than all those vague possibilities, Maddow says, is this: Rex Tillerson got a friendship award from Russia. Think about that. Here's a guy setting about rendering the earth's climate uninhabitable for his short-term greed, and Maddow wants to demonize him for getting a "friendship award." Then she attacks the idea of lifting sanctions on Russia and suggests the only possible explanation for that would have to be that Russia stole the election for Trump. As if lifting the sanctions were not needed in order for Tillerson's corporation to plunder Russia's oil and render the earth unlivable for our species and many others! The sanctions are needed, Maddow claims, because Russia "unilaterally annexed part of another country and took their land." As if Crimea didn't vote. As if a non-unilateral annexation would be one where the people do not get to vote?! Maddow goes on and on demonizing Russia and Putin. She airs for free and in its entirety a television ad that refers to as fact "Putin's attacks on our democracy." Then she credits the ad, which asked no questions, with raising legitimate questions. Then Maddow declares that there will be an investigation into "Russia's efforts to influence our election on Trump's behalf," which assumes as fact all the evidence-free claims and then piles on the claim to know Russia's motivation. Yet, later Maddow's theory devolves into just the possibility that some little fragment within all these evidence-free accusations could be true -- and it would be over that fragment that a Russian was arrested for treason. Maddow struggles at this point to make the chronology work, since the arrest was in early December. Yet she asserts as simple fact that the treason arrest was in fact a response to U.S. election tampering. Maddow, meanwhile, makes clear that she believes actual evidence of Russian hacking, supplying WikiLeaks, etc., exists somewhere in the U.S. government. Yet people are leaking torture prison plans and embarrassing accounts right out of the White House, and we're to believe that nobody in any of the sainted 17 "intelligence" agencies would leak evidence if it existed? What if by some bizarre series of coincidences Maddow were right? How, even then, would you justify stirring up a cold war with a nuclear government over that government revealing to your public that one of your political parties had rigged its primary? Wouldn't some of the blame go to that party? Wouldn't a little restraint in name-calling and demonizing be in order? Wouldn't the outrages that Trump openly commits deserve a bit of condemnation as well? We're facing open corruption, militarism, advocacy for torture, discrimination, xenophobic immigration bans, attacks on basic necessary services, actual attacks on voting rights and election integrity -- and rather than taking these problems on, Maddow prefers to find one problem that originates in an evil foreign land. I suppose that's a more comfortable place to lay blame. But even a country that would elect a fascist clown because another country had made public that an election was flawed would be a deeply deficient country in need of self-improvement in a major way. I asked observant media critic Norman Solomon (with whom I work at RootsAction.org) what he thought of Maddow's performance, and he replied: "Maddow's 25-minute soliloquy was a liberal version of Glenn Beck at the whiteboard. Her plot line was the current Democratic party line -- free-associating facts, possible facts, dubious assertions and pure speculation to arrive at conclusions that were based on little more than her zeal to portray Trump as a tool of the Kremlin. Even when sober, Joe McCarthy never did it better.(c) 2017 David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. |
![]() Meet Neil Gorsuch, The New Antonin Scalia By Bill Blum Just when we might have thought we'd seen Donald Trump at his zaniest (say, in the first presidential debate) and most dangerous (say, in his executive order on immigration last week), he outdid himself with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, 49, a judge from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (headquartered in Denver), to fill the late Antonin Scalia's empty chair on the Supreme Court. The zany part is the way our narcissist in chief introduced Gorsuch as his pick. The dangerous part is that Gorsuch is exactly the sort of Scalia-in-waiting we would expect from an extremist right-wing administration that aims to roll back constitutional rights in pursuit of a political agenda driven by the fantasies of racial nostalgia, misogyny and the passions of white nationalism. Let's deal with the zany part first: Instead of the usual news release followed by a public meet-and-greet in the Rose Garden to introduce his first high court selection, Trump went the route of "Celebrity Apprentice" (perhaps Miss Universe might be a better analogy), fanning rumors that he had summoned both Gorsuch and another Supreme Court contender, 3rd Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, to the White House in anticipation of the prime-time TV broadcast he had called to announce his choice-all for the purpose of building suspense and maximizing media interest. Fortunately for Hardiman, he was not on hand for the actual announcement, which Trump delivered in the East Room of the White House from what looked like the same lectern where President Obama stood to tell the world that Osama bin Laden had been killed. Once again, Trump put himself center stage. With Gorsuch and his wife, Louise, on hand, in addition to Scalia's widow, Maureen; Trump's sons Eric and Don Jr.; chief strategist Steve Bannon; House Speaker Paul Ryan; and several GOP senators in a hall of white faces, Trump reminded viewers across the nation and the globe that he had long promised to select a jurist "in the mold of Justice Scalia," as well as someone who "loves our Constitution." Touting his selection process as "the most transparent in history," he added that Gorsuch could serve on the high court for "50 years" and that his decisions could have an impact on American life for "a century or more." Sadly, and here's the dangerous part: In Gorsuch, Trump has probably found his man. During the presidential election campaign, Trump listed 21 federal and state court judges as possible replacements for Scalia. In a comprehensive study led by Mercer University law professor Jeremy Kidd, Gorsuch was ranked second among the 21 in judicial qualities most resembling Scalia's. Utah Supreme Court Justice Thomas Lee-the brother of Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah-garnered the top spot. Professor Kidd and his fellow researchers based their rankings of Trump's potential nominees according to their adherence to Scalia's legal philosophy of "originalism" (the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution according to its presumed original meaning) and their propensity to issue dissenting opinions, in the fashion of Scalia, when their benchmates were unwilling to go as far doctrinally as the potential nominees would have liked. Gorsuch was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2006. Since then, he has amassed a conservative judicial record that confirms Kidd's findings. His body of work has been summarized by both the liberal Alliance for Justice Action Campaign and the authoritative SCOTUS blog website. Their summaries encompass opinions, rulings, judicial votes and published articles on an array of vital constitutional issues, including: -Religious liberty In 2013, Gorsuch joined with five other members of a divided 10th Circuit panel to write a concurring opinion of his own in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. The decision, subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote, held that for-profit corporations are persons under the law and can legally exercise their own religious views, even if doing so contravenes the rights of their female employees under the Affordable Care Act to receive health insurance coverage for contraceptive care. -Abortion Rights In a decision issued in October, Gorsuch wrote a dissent in which he argued that the Circuit Court should reconsider whether Utah's governor had acted improperly when he attempted to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. -The Second Amendment and the death penalty In 2012, Gorsuch urged the 10th Circuit to re-examine and loosen its previous rulings on the right of felons to own firearms. The full court voted otherwise. Gorsuch has also been a consistent supporter of the death penalty. -Access to the courts and attacks on liberals As noted by the Alliance for Justice in a National Review Online op-ed published in 2005 before Gorsuch became a judge, he "attacked 'American liberals' for what he said was an over-reliance on constitutional litigation. He asserted that liberals' 'overweening addiction to the courtroom' negatively affects public policy by aggrandizing the courts and consequently dampening 'social experimentation' by the legislative branches." He has not been similarly critical of litigation initiated by right-wing organizations. In accepting Trump's nomination Tuesday night, Gorsuch praised Scalia as "a lion of the law." In the weeks and months ahead, the Senate will debate and ultimately determine whether Gorsuch will have the opportunity to further Scalia's legacy. Will the Democrats find the courage to oppose him? Will progressives come together as a movement to demand that they do so, as they did to derail Ronald Reagan's nomination of Scalia's mentor, Robert Bork, in 1987?
With the Supreme Court's remaining elderly justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83, Anthony Kennedy, 80, and Stephen Breyer, 78) nearing the inevitable end of their professional careers, the future of our most powerful judicial body-and with it, the future of the Constitution-literally hangs in the balance.
|
Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council - elevating his chief political strategist Steve Bannon, and demoting the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Bannon will join the NSC's principals committee, the top inter-agency group advising the President on national security.
Meanwhile, the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will now attend meetings only when "issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed," according to the presidential memorandum issued Saturday.
Political strategists have never before participated in National Security Council principals meetings because the NSC is supposed to give presidents nonpartisan, factual advice.
But forget facts. Forget analysis. This is the Trump administration.
And what does Bannon have to bring to the table?
In case you forgot, before joining Donald Trump's inner circle Bannon headed Breitbart News, a far-right media outlet that has promoted conspiracy theories and is a platform for the alt-right movement, which espouses white nationalism.
This is truly scary.
Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice calls the move "stone cold crazy." Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who also served under George W. Bush, says the demotions are a "big mistake."
Republican Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told CBS News, "I am worried about the National Security Council. ... The appointment of Mr. Bannon is a radical departure from any National Security Council in history." McCain added that the "one person who is indispensable would be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in my view."
Here's the big worry. Trump is unhinged and ignorant. Bannon is nuts and malicious. If not supervised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, their decisions could endanger the world.
In Trump's and Bannon's view, foreign relations is a zero-sum game. If another nation gains, we lose. As Trump declared at his inaugural: "From this day forward, it's going to be only America First."
Some of you are old enough to recall John F. Kennedy's inaugural, when the young president pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty.
But Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe, and no reference to liberty. As conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer observes, Trump's view is that all other nations are out to use, exploit and surpass us.
Not incidentally, "America First" was the name of the pro-Nazi group led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II to keep America neutral between Churchill's Britain and Hitler's Reich.
Trump's and Bannon's version of "America First" is no less dangerous. It is alienating America from the rest of the world, destroying our nation's moral authority abroad, and risking everything we love about our country.
Unsupervised by people who know what they're doing. Trump and Bannon could also bring the world closer to a nuclear holocaust.
|
Less restrictive immigration laws starting in the 1960s created a quantum leap In U.S. scientific talent. The pre-1960 number was boosted by "Jewish scientists who overcame significant restrictions against immigration in the 1930s."
In his first days in office, President Donald Trump has launched a full-scale war on immigration along with a war on science.
But both science and immigration are not only cornerstones of American prosperity and security, they are directly related. So we must all fight hard to preserve both as core American values.
That's a key reason Harvard Medical School post doc Dan Goodman - whose lab has three Iranian researchers - joined protests Sunday against Trump. "We'll be losing out on amazing talent," Goodman told The Verge. "It's going to really hurt America's primacy in the sciences."
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) issued a statement warning, "This Executive Order could undermine U.S. leadership in science and reduce our access to the best science to address pressing societal issues such as the need for fresh water and clean air."
Business leadership at Netflix, Facebook, and Apple say the ban will hurt their companies and won't make the U.S. safer...
America's leadership in innovation has been built around immigrants and government-backed science. Steve Jobs, the founder of the Apple, America's largest company, was the son of a Syrian immigrant who would have been banned under Trump's recent executive order.
The Trump administration's war on science and technology, is, as I've argued, a war on your children's future. But so is Trump's war on immigration.
The rapid growth in U.S. Nobel prizes from immigrants - and hence overall prizes, from the 1960s onward "illustrates the importance of changes in U.S. immigration law, particularly the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 ending the restrictive 'national origins' quotas that prevented people from most of the world, including Asia, from immigrating to the United States," as a 2016 report from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) concluded.
Every single one of the six U.S. Nobel laureates in 2016 were immigrants - and a remarkable 40 percent of all of U.S. winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine since 2000 were immigrants.
The link between immigrants and U.S. leadership in science and innovation dates back many decades. A 2014 Stanford study found that "U.S. patents increased by 31 percent in fields common among Jewish scientists who fled Nazi Germany for America." Significantly, "their innovative influence rippled outward for generations, as the emigres attracted new researchers who then trained other up-and-comers."
And these immigrants were key to the successful effort by the U.S. to beat Germany to build the first atomic bomb. Indeed, the Manhattan Project was launched because one European emigre, Leo Szilard, convinced another, Albert Einstein, to send Franklin D. Roosevelt a letter he had drafted urging the president to pursue action on an atomic bomb.
The open flow of people across borders was the sine qua non for creating U.S. leadership in innovation. As pointed out by Stuart Anderson, NFAP's executive director and a senior immigration official under President George W. Bush, "Nobel Prize winners represent great individual achievement but also reflect the state of research, openness and scientific advancement within a society."
Just compare Germany's sharp Nobel Prize decline after the Nazis made the country inhospitable for key minority groups, especially Jews, with the U.S. rise as we progressively opened the door to immigrants.
We must remember the historical lessons of both how to gain and how to lose in scientific and technological innovation. We don't know where the next Steve Jobs or Nobel prize-winning idea will come from. We only know that when countries declare war on any minority group, they lose.
~~~ Mike Luckovich ~~~ ![]() |
![]()
![]()
|
Parting Shots...
![]()
![]() Email:uncle-ernie@issuesandalibis.org
|