|
![]() |
|
In This Edition |
![]() ![]() Follow @Uncle -Ernie Visit me on Face Book The Drought Of 2022 Global warming strikes again! By Ernest Stewart
This summer's global warming-fueled drought resulted in significant economic and ecological impacts in the Northern Hemisphere, but these issues were especially acute in West-Central Europe, the researchers noted. Among these damaging effects was a decrease in crop yields, which has further accentuated the international food cost and security crisis that the world is experiencing due to the war in Ukraine. In order to establish links to climate change, the WWA scientists focused their research on the so-called agricultural and ecological drought, which is related to a lack of moisture in soils that has direct consequences on the growth and development of vegetation. In the report's findings, it was concluded the that variations in rainfall volume were not the determining factor in this case, but rather that "the strong increase in high temperatures" was to blame for the increased drought. The analysis focuses on two regions. In the case of the extratropical Northern Hemisphere, the researchers concluded that "human-induced climate change made the observed soil moisture drought much more likely, by a factor of at least 20 for the root zone soil moisture," which corresponds to the first meter of soil. In West-Central Europe specifically, global warming has made a drought like the one experienced this summer between three to four times more likely. The report, which was compiled by scientists from Switzerland, India, the Netherlands, France, the United States and the United Kingdom, states that "the dry conditions observed in 2022 over both regions would have been less likely to occur at the beginning of the 20th century," when greenhouse gas emissions generated by human industrial activity were far lower than they are now. Friederike Otto, a climatologist and senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at Imperial College London and a co-founder of the WWA, explains that the study attempts to answer a question posited in other reports of this type: "What role has climate change played in this extreme phenomenon?" To try and provide an answer, they calculate the probabilities of a specific event - such as a heatwave, floods or a drought like that of this summer - occuring before the current climate crisis was triggered due to the burning of fossil fuels. The scientific community is in broad agreement that the earth has warmed by about 1.2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. The WWA researchers calculate that in today's climate, a severe drought event like the one in 2022 now occurs once every 20 years. Scientists have issued multiple warnings that temperatures will continue to rise over the coming decades, leading to an increase in ecological and hydrological droughts, something the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasized in its most recent major report. The summer just ended was the hottest recorded in Europe since at least 1880 - when reliable temperature data began - as confirmed a few weeks ago by the European Commission's Copernicus Climate Change Service. In the WWA attribution study for the 2022 drought, the researchers say the extreme heat conditions were responsible for more than 24,000 deaths in Europe. High temperatures led to water shortages, massive forest fires and reduced harvests. "During the summer, fires in Europe were the worst on record, China issued its first national drought alert and more than half of the United States was in drought," the report concluded. The impact of the drought on food security is one of the issues that most concerns the authors of the report. "The drought in the Northern Hemisphere has had an impact on food prices, which had already been affected by the war," said Maarten van Aalst, director of the International Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and a professor at the Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observations at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. Compounding the food security crisis is the extreme heat experienced in India and Pakistan in March and April, which has also been attributed to climate change, or the recent floods in Pakistan. "All these extreme events combined add to the stress on international food markets," noted Otto.
"The impacts of climate change are coming faster than expected," said van Aalst, who is also an expert in disaster management. As such, he points to the need for countries to invest in adaptation so that populations can weather an increasing number of natural disasters, in addition to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to limit warming as much as possible.
![]() 10-16-1925 ~ 10-11-2022 Thanks for the entertainment!
![]() 10-22-1927 ~ 10-10-2022 Thanks for the music!
![]() 11-12-1935 ~ 10-10-2022 Thanks for the film!
![]() 10-16-1927 ~ 10-09-2022 Thanks for the film!
(c) 2022 Ernest Stewart a.k.a. Uncle Ernie is an unabashed radical, philosopher, 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. |
![]() National Archives Says It's Still Missing Docs Trump Removed From White House The U.S. government do everything in its power to lessen the chances of global nuclear annihilation. By Norman Solomon This is an emergency. Right now, we're closer to a cataclysmic nuclear war than at any other time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. One assessment after another has said the current situation is even more dangerous. Yet few members of Congress are advocating for any steps that the U.S. government could take to decrease the dangers of a nuclear conflagration. The silences and muted statements on Capitol Hill are evading the reality of what's hanging in the balance-the destruction of almost all human life on Earth. "The end of civilization." Constituent passivity is helping elected officials to sleepwalk toward unfathomable catastrophe for all of humanity. If senators and representatives are to be roused out of their timid refusal to urgently address-and work to reduce-the present high risks of nuclear war, they need to be confronted. Nonviolently and emphatically. Russian president Vladimir Putin has made thinly veiled, extremely reckless statements about possibly using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war. At the same time, some of the U.S. government's policies make nuclear war more likely. Changing them is imperative. For the last few months, I've been working with people in many states who aren't just worried about the spiking dangers of nuclear war-they're also determined to take action to help prevent it. That resolve has resulted in organizing more than 35 picket lines that will happen on Friday, October 14, at local offices of Senate and House members around the country. (If you want to organize such picketing in your area, go here.) What could the U.S. government do to lessen the chances of global nuclear annihilation? The Defuse Nuclear War campaign, which is coordinating those picket lines, has identified key needed actions. Such as: Rejoin nuclear-weapons treaties the U.S. has pulled out of President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002. Under Donald Trump, the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019. Both pacts significantly reduced the chances of nuclear war. Take U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Four hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are armed and ready for launch from underground silos in five states. Because they're land-based, those missiles are vulnerable to attack and thus are on hair-trigger alert-allowing only minutes to determine whether indications of an incoming attack are real or a false alarm. End the policy of "first use." Like Russia, the United States has refused to pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Support congressional action to avert nuclear war. In the House, H.Res. 1185 includes a call for the United States to "lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war." An overarching need is for senators and representatives to insist that U.S. participation in nuclear brinkmanship is unacceptable. As our Defuse Nuclear War team says, "Grassroots activism will be essential to pressure members of Congress to publicly acknowledge the dangers of nuclear war and strongly advocate specific steps for reducing them." Is that really too much to ask? Or even demand? (c) 2022 Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State."
|
![]() Democrats-Broaden Your Campaign Messages And Strategies! With their ample funds, the Democrats have to aggregate the case against the GOP's morbid opposition to humanity. By Ralph Nader With just over four weeks to Election Day, the Democratic Party still has time to realize its limitations, which have led to them losing winnable races, or barely squeaking by at the federal and state levels. Imagine the worst, most corrupt, lying, dictatorial GOP since its creation in 1854 having their most dangerous and extreme candidates win elections. To liberate the many policies, messages, strategies, rebuttals, and ground-level ways to get out more votes, Democrats need to escape the controls of their incarcerating political/media consultants, who are too often conflicted by their ongoing corporate clients and their 15% commissions received from placing repetitive, vacuous video ads. With their ample funds, the Democrats have to aggregate the case against the GOP's morbid opposition to humanity and contrast it with the Democratic Party's own lawmaking, votes, and positions. For example, the Dems need to compare all their pro-children work with the GOP's ugly record of cruelty to the little ones once they are born. (See my column: Big Campaign 2022 Issue: GOP's Cruelty to Children). Trump's GOP went out of its way to keep federal Medicaid funds from insuring children in GOP-dominated states, lunged to revoke an Obama rule to ban a pesticide, especially deadly to young children, and blocked all attempts to enact paid sick leave, family leave, and daycare. In 2017 the Republicans also slashed the already low tax rates for their Rich and Powerful paymasters. Dems should move fast with a winning "Protect and Nurture ALL Our Children" platform. The GOP is chronically antagonistic to freedom and equality for women. Republican opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay mandates, corporate marketplace discriminations and reproductive choice, and other serious biases can form the basis for a Democratic "Freedom for Women" platform plank. With lives and public infrastructure being regularly destroyed by floods, ocean surges, winds, and wildfires from global warming, GOP candidates respond with a curled lip: NO! Republicans voted against, or successfully blocked the public works bills backed by congressional Democrats, costing lives, jobs, community stability and using tax dollars not to benefit the people, but to the corporate greed hounds of Wall Street and its plutocrats. Most Democrats have been reluctant to take on the 800 lb. gorilla in the political arena-widely despised, by both liberal and conservative voters, Big Business controls coercions, bailouts, and exploitations over people's livelihoods. Over 70% of people, regardless of political labels, bear the brunt of abuses by corporate barons every day where they live, work, and raise their children. Plenty of press reports, pointed studies, and litigation data make the case that Democratic candidates who commit to All the parents, All the workers, and All the consumers to make giant companies our servants, not our masters, will garner large majority voter support. People are tired of double standards. They want corporate crooks to go to jail. They want runaway CEOs to be held accountable. Such stands would immediately contrast with the GOP's coverups of Wall Street, the big banks, insurance companies, and avaricious drug and health insurance companies. Many Democrats can point to their pending legislation holding these Goliaths to account that the Republicans have stifled. The central point of these proposals-among others available-is to energize Democratic candidates and enliven their repetitive daily campaign routines and rhetoric. It is time for the Dems to go on the offensive against the GOP's made-up fake accusations and give a hungry media compelling substance. Reporters are tired of covering campaigns as horse races, and mainly reporting on campaign contributions and polling results. Headlines could emerge by injecting fresh issues and slogans to grab more of the 120 million eligible voters who are expected to stay at home. Some examples follow. "Go vote for a raise to $15 per hour, you've earned it and it's long overdue." The GOP hates the very idea of a minimum wage and has frozen the federal minimum at $7.25 per hour, while letting the likes of Apple's CEO Tim Cook, make $833 per MINUTE with low tax rates! Raising the minimum wage will help over 25 million voters. "Go vote to extend the $300 a month child tax credit that reached 58 million children and cut the child poverty rates by a third, until the congressional GOP blocked its extension in January 2022." Democrats who show they mean what they say, stay on the offensive, and hone debating skills to provide memorable contrasts with the GOP can win a working majority in the legislatures to get things done. Moreover, exposing the GOP's Death Cult that can't help opposing the concrete existing and proposed health, safety, and economic rights of American families, will motivate voters. GOP Florida Senator Rick Scott, in charge of electing Republican Senators, wants to sunset laws, including Social Security and Medicare, as indicated in his "An 11 Point Plan to Rescue America." Run against this outrage daily. These contrasts can be summarized on a single-sheet Voter Self-Help Guides distributed in the tens of millions everywhere on paper (and online). One side can poll the voters on a dozen positions. The other side can show that the Democratic candidate is "On Their Side" and the GOP candidate is not (supported by the facts and their record). Together with civic leader Mark Green and two dozen experienced and accomplished civic advocates, we compiled a collection of such policies, strategies, and messaging to attract voters and retire GOP candidates who follow their leader, Herr Trump, in further wrecking our fragile climate, democratic institutions, voting procedures, and public health with their early denial of the Covid pandemic. The Winning America effort has been endorsed by Senator Edward Markey, Reps. Hakim Jeffries, John Larson, Jim McGovern, Peter DeFazio, Jamie Raskin, and Carolyn Maloney, among others. There is still time for candidates to listen, learn, and self-galvanize electoral energies. The question is: Will Democrats in the close House, Senate, and state legislative races be willing to break out of their managed cocoons and become Winning Monarch Butterflies on November 8, 2022? Will the Democratic Party stop the GOP Party of Anxiety, Dread, and Fear from anointing Trump lackey Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as Speaker of the House and the corporatist Mitch McConnell ("The Guardian of Gridlock" who says he "will tell you what we're going to do AFTER we win the Election") to resume his control of the Senate? Voter turnout will decide which future awaits America (c) 2022 Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His latest book is The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future. Other recent books include, The Seventeen Traditions: Lessons from an American Childhood, Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build It Together to Win, and "Only The Super -Rich Can Save Us" (a novel). |
![]() Money No Longer Fears LGBTQ People It's just that simple By Leonard Pitts Jr. More to the point, it understands that there is a market here. And if some LGBTQ folk are concerned by the commodification and merchandising of their identity, it's nevertheless important to understand what the very fact of those processes suggests: that the battle for hearts and minds is over, and LGBTQ won. You know what's really conservative? We're talking more conservative than Southern Baptists, Fox "News" and the GOP combined. You know what's that conservative? Money. Meaning big money - corporate money. It doesn't do quixotic or go out on limbs. Money likes safe harbors and sure things. Its risks are calculated and considered. It is not sentimental. Keep that in mind as we ponder the fate of the first gay major-studio romcom. The lavishly promoted movie, "Bros," opened last week and performed like the Hindenburg did on its final flight. Which is to say, it went boom, a big, flaming disaster that racked up a measly $4.8 million in ticket sales - about half what had been expected. It was a bitterly disappointing fate for a film with such a history-making pedigree. Billy Eichner, who starred in, co-wrote and produced the movie, complained on Twitter that "straight people, especially in certain parts of the country, just didn't show up." Some observers have taken to wondering what the failure portends for the future of LGBTQ cinema. One suspects it won't be quite the genre killer they fear. "Bros," for what it is worth, delivered pretty much everything you'd want from a romcom, i.e., tortured romance and razor-edged comedy. It was also raunchy as all get out, a frankly carnal cavalcade of lusty gay sex. Which was likely its downfall. As progressive as America has become on LGBTQ issues, many straight men still grapple with what was once dubbed in this space the "primeval ick factor" of seeing guys make out. Girls? That's entertainment. Guys? That makes some fellows squirm, even now. That's not to say it's right. It's not to say it's fair. It's just to say that it is. Which likely comforts Eichner not at all. It should, however, comfort the rest of us who support LGBTQ empowerment. It suggests that ultimately, the movie's failure will be little more than a speed bump en route to that goal. Because money is conservative, yet look what it's been supporting: Oreos put out special Pride Month-themed cookies this year. In 2019, Listerine marked Pride Month with a rainbow bottle. The new reboot of NBC's "Quantum Leap" features a character who seems clearly non-binary. They introduced a gay guy into Archie Comics - Archie Comics! - over a decade ago. And Janelle Monae. And Lil Nas X. And Ricky Martin. And so on and so forth. Obviously, money no longer fears LGBTQ people. More to the point, it understands that there is a market here. And if some LGBTQ folk are concerned by the commodification and merchandising of their identity, it's nevertheless important to understand what the very fact of those processes suggests: that the battle for hearts and minds is over, and LGBTQ won. Granted, the revanchists on the political right have yet to concede. They are still pushing anti-LGBTQ laws like Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill and ramping up anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, as in the Texas GOP dubbing gay people "abnormal." These are the folk who usually champion big money, but now, big money sees opportunity in inclusion, so they double down on homophobia instead. The irresistible force of commerce meets the immovable object of intolerance. In the long run, always bet on the former. Note that another LGBTQ love story - "Spoiler Alert," with Jim Parsons - is already set to premiere in December. Nor should anyone be surprised. This is America. Money always has the final word. (c) 2022 Leonard Pitts Jr. won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2004. He is the author of the novel, Before I Forget. His column runs every Sunday and Wednesday in the Miami Herald. Forward From This Moment, a collection of his columns, was published in 2009. |
![]() The Virginia Model By Jim Hightower Last year's gubernatorial race in Virginia was narrowly won by Republican Glenn Youngkin. An elite Wall Street multimillionaire, he was going to lose - until he discovered a right-wing racist bugaboo called Critical Race Theory. Glenn suddenly turned into an anti-CRT attack dog, fomenting parental fear and promising to sweep all teaching of the theory out of Virginia classrooms. But, golly, CRT was not actually taught in any of the state's public schools. To help Youngkin dodge this inconvenient fact, a partisan front group called Metric Media created 25 fake news sites in Virginia that ran nearly 5,000 articles during the election, spreading the CRT bugaboo. While these "papers" have no subscribers and no significant readership, they allow demagogues like Youngkin to use such lies in speeches, ads, etc. - laundering them as facts by simply saying: "As reported in the Such-and Such newspaper..." With success in Virginia, Metric Media and other fake sites are pumping out CRT sludge in Florida, Texas, and other states with gubernatorial races this year. Indeed, the lie has become its own political industry, with such billionaire extremists as the Koch brothers'pumping money into it. This is why America must have actual local newspapers (widely available and affordable, either in print or online) that have the community commitment and journalistic resources to do the job of nurturing truth and democracy. Otherwise, we're ceding "news" to the shams and scams that are inevitable under hedge fund profiteers and networks of partisan hacks that already dominate wide swaths of America's media landscape. Journalism is not a private commodity to be controlled by a few for their personal profit or political advancement - it is an essential public resource, key to democratic self-government. And America should start investing in it as such, providing adequate public funding for local, independent, watchdog reporting. (c) 2022 Jim Hightower's latest book, "If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates,"is available in a fully revised and updated paperback edition. Jim writes The Hightower Lowdown, a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America's ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at HightowerLowdown.org. |
In what was described as a harsh rebuke of Russia, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Ukrainian human rights organization Center for Civil Liberties, along with Belarusian human rights advocate Ales Bialiatski and the Russian human rights organization Memorial. While at first glance, the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties might sound like a group that is well deserving of this honor, Ukrainian peace leader Yurii Sheliazhenko wrote a stinging critique.
Sheliazhenko, who heads up the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement and is a board member of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, accused the Center for Civil Liberties of embracing the agendas of such problematic international donors as the U.S. Department of State and the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy supports NATO membership for Ukraine; insists that no negotiations with Russia are possible and shames those who seek compromise; wants the West to impose a dangerous no-fly zone; says that only Putin violates human rights in Ukraine; never criticizes the Ukrainian government for suppressing pro-Russian media, parties, and public figures; never criticizes the Ukrainian army for war crimes and human rights violations, and refuses to stand up for the human right, recognized under international law, to conscientious objection to military service.
Supporting conscientious objectors is the role of Sheliazhenko and his organization, the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement (UPM). While we hear a lot about Russian war resisters, as Sheliazhenko points out even inside Ukraine, which is portrayed in Western media as a country entirely united in its war with Russia, there are men who don't want to fight.
The Ukrainian Pacifist Movement was founded in 2019 when fighting in the separatist-ruled Donbas region was at a peak and Ukraine was forcing its citizens to participate in the civil war. According to Sheliazhenko, Ukrainian men were "being given military summonses off of the streets, out of night clubs and dormitories, or snatched for military service for minor infractions such as traffic violations, public drunkenness, or casual rudeness to police officers."
To make matters worse, when Russia invaded in February 2022, Ukraine suspended its citizens' right to conscientious objection and forbade men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country; nevertheless, since February, over 100,000 Ukrainian draft-eligible men managed to flee instead of fight. It's estimated that several thousand more have been detained while trying to escape.
International human rights law affirms peoples' right, due to principled conviction, to refuse to participate in military conflict and conscientious objection has a long and rich history. In 1914, a group of Christians in Europe, hoping to avert the impending war, formed the International Fellowship of Reconciliation to support conscientious objectors. When the U.S. joined WWI, social reformer and women's rights activist Jane Addams protested. She was harshly criticized at the time but, in 1931, she became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
In Russia, hundreds of thousands of young men are refusing to fight. According to a source inside Russia's Federal Security Service, within three days of Russia's announcement that it was drafting 300,000 more recruits, 261,000 men fled the country. Those who could booked flights; others drove, bicycled, and walked across the border.
Belarusians have also joined the exodus. According to estimates by Connection e.V., a European organization that supports conscientious objectors and deserters, an estimated 22,000 draft-eligible Belarusians have fled their country since the war began.
The Russian organization Kovcheg, or The Ark, helps Russians fleeing because of anti-war positions, condemnation of Russia's military aggression against Ukraine, and/or persecution they are experiencing in Russia. In Belarus, the organization Nash Dom runs a "NO means NO" campaign to encourage draft-eligible Belarusians not to fight. Despite refusing to fight being a noble and courageous act for peace-the penalty in Russia for refusing the draft is up to ten years in prison and in Ukraine, it is at least up to three years, and likely much higher, with hearings and verdicts closed to the public-neither Kovcheg, Nash Dom nor the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, were announced as Nobel Peace Prize winners yesterday.
The U.S. government nominally supports Russia's war resisters. On September 27, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declared that Russians fleeing Putin's draft were "welcome" in the U.S. and encouraged them to apply for asylum. But as far back as last October, before Russia invaded Ukraine, amid tit-for-tat U.S.-Russia tensions, Washington announced it would henceforth only issue visas to Russians through the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, 750 miles away from Moscow.
To put a further damper on Russian hopes of refuge in the U.S., on the same day as the White House held its press conference where it encouraged draft-eligible Russians to seek U.S. asylum, the Biden administration announced that it would be continuing into fiscal year 2023 its FY2022 global refugee cap of 125,000.
You would think that those resisting this war would be able to find refuge in European countries, as Americans fleeing the Vietnam war did in Canada. Indeed, when the Ukraine war was in its early stages, European Council President Charles Michel called on Russian soldiers to desert, promising them protection under EU refugee law. But in August, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked his Western allies to reject all Russian emigres. Currently, all non-visa travel from Russia to EU countries is suspended.
As Russian men fled after Putin's draft announcement, Latvia closed its border with Russia and Finland said it was likely going to be tightening its visa policy for Russians.
Had the Nobel Peace Prize awardees been the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian organizations that are supporting war resisters and peacemakers, it would have drawn global attention to the courageous young men taking this stand and perhaps opened more avenues for them to get asylum abroad. It could have also initiated a much-needed conversation about how the U.S. is supplying Ukraine with an endless flow of weapons but not pushing for negotiations to end a war so dangerous that President Biden is warning of "nuclear Armageddon." It certainly would have been more in line with Alfred Nobel's desire to bring global recognition to those who have "done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies."
(c) 2022 Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, is the author of the new book, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection. Her previous books include: Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control; Don't Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart, and (with Jodie Evans) Stop the Next War Now (Inner Ocean Action Guide). Follow her on Twitter: @medeabenjamin
|
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and his supporters are pouring tens of millions of dollars into the most intellectually dishonest campaign in Wisconsin history. They are desperately attacking Johnson's Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, because they don't want attention paid to the Republican incumbent's dismal record. Or to the threat that Johnson's reelection would pose to Social Security.
Ever since the Social Security program was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt 87 years ago, conservative Republicans have sought to undermine it with privatization schemes and a trick bag of threats to the guarantee established by FDR and his allies. Usually at election time Republicans try to cloak their intentions. But this year the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee - a prime source of funding for the attack ads being run on Johnson's behalf - openly proposed to sunset all federal programs every five years.
Under the plan advanced by Florida Sen. Rick Scott, every federal program would have to be reauthorized on a quinquennial schedule. That would put Social Security in jeopardy on a regular basis and - if Republican proponents of privatization are in charge at the time of a reauthorization review - potentially end the program as we know it.
How might they do that? By following Ron Johnson's proposal to eliminate Social Security and Medicare as federal entitlement programs and instead require that the funding for these programs be approved as discretionary spending by Congress. In other words, instead of a guarantee, under Johnson's plan Social Security would be replaced with a possibility, based on the whims of politicians such as the senior senator from Wisconsin.
That prospect unsettles longtime defenders of Social Security, such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who says: Johnson "wants to put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block. He has argued that the benefits which millions of Americans rely on every day shouldn't be guaranteed, but should be subject to partisan infighting here in Washington. He would like to revoke the guarantee of Medicare and Social Security and make them discretionary. Well, you know what happens when we make things discretionary around here? All too often they get cut, or even eliminated."
Republicans say even mentioning the prospect that conservatives could upend Social Security is a "scare tactic." They dodge questions by claiming that they really do support Social Security and just want to tinker with things to make improvements.
But the fact is that in August Johnson complained, "Social Security and Medicare, if you qualify for the entitlement, you just get it no matter what the cost." His proposed solution: "We ought to turn everything into discretionary spending so it's all evaluated."
Any Wisconsinite who thinks they could trust Johnson to do that evaluation should consider the words of James Roosevelt, the grandson of FDR who for many years led efforts to defend Social Security. "Like Roe v. Wade, many people have denied that the guarantee of Social Security could ever be overturned. But that is exactly what extremist U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson is proposing."
Stating the facts about Johnson's long record of threatening Social Security is not a "scare tactic." It's an acknowledgment of the scary reality that Ron Johnson, Rick Scott and Republicans like them are, indeed, scheming to wreck Social Security.
(c) 2022 John Nichols writes about politics for The Capitol Times. His book on protests and politics, Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street, is published by Nation Books. Follow John Nichols on Twitter @NicholsUprising.
|
There has been confusion concerning the differences between communism and socialism. For example, we heard television talking heads once declare that the late Hugo Chavez, the dynamic leader of Venezuela, was a communist. He was really a socialist and instrumental in leading a large block of neighboring South American countries into a collective socialist state.
From our perspective, that appeared to be a good political move for Chavez and his friends, and the people seemed to like it. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, declared Chavez as an enemy and might even have considered going to war against Venezuela if the military wasn't already so involved in improper actions in the Middle East. ![]() We believe much of the confusion lies in the fact that there are similarities between the two political ideologies. Even Karl Marx believed that socialism was a stage on the way to communism. Because of what he taught, many of the people who got interested in communism at beginning of the Twentieth Century were calling themselves socialists. And while Russia was under the harsh communist dictatorship of Joseph Stalin, the nation was known to the world as the Soviet Socialist Republic. It is important to understand that Marx did not invent communism or socialism. Both ideologies existed and were tried among communities and some countries before Marx. But Marx, who published his Communist Manifesto in 1848, became the single most-respected authority concerning the world movement toward communism in his day. Marx, a brilliant philosopher, political economist and revolutionary, believed that capitalism would eventually be replaced by socialism, which in turn would develop into communism. In his day, before the concept of communism was misused, Marx perceived this as a very good thing. A lot of people who read his book agreed with him. The general definition of communism is a social system in which all property is owned by the community. Under socialism, the collective ownership of management of only the material agencies of production becomes property of the whole community. Thus Chavez, whose government has seized the nation's oil wells and production facilities, but not the property of the people, was a socialist. Under Stalin-ism and under Maoism, the people of both Russia and China literally became the property of the state. Their homes, their jobs, and everything they were allowed to have and do, were decided by the state. It was easy to see that this was an extremely radical concept and one that people in the West could not accept. The concept of communism was to make everything the property of the whole community. But under Stalin and Mao, and Cuba under the rule of Fidel Castro, the community appeared to lose its voice under the force of dictatorial rule. Thus communism was perceived by the western world as an evil and "godless" form of government that must be stopped in its tracks. The United States got involved in two major wars, in Korea and Vietnam, in its attempt to do just this. These nations were called godless because both the Soviet Union and China were ruled by atheist regimes that insisted that religious institutions remain subordinate to the state. In China, all houses of worship were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use and religious worship was discouraged. This rigid rule has been relaxed in recent years and people are beginning to return to open religious worship. In fact, the 1978 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees "freedom of religion" although there remain a number of restrictions. Marx and Friedrich Engels, another author living at about the same time, collaborated in numerous publications promoting the concept of socialism and communism as a relief for the struggling working class of their day. Their vision for the future, however, was not the kind of politics that erupted following the Russian revolution that toppled the Tsar. Marx perceived everyone turning to a socialist state, where all people shared in the fruits of their labor. Then as they evolved through improved education and spiritual enlightenment, he believed the central government would disappear as economic cooperation improved. Marx, who actually believed the human could evolve and share this kind of utopian existence, taught that the principles of distribution were "from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her need." The whole idea was to come up with a political and economic system where all people were guaranteed equality and that all wealth was evenly shared. They saw that capitalism, which grew out of the old feudalistic concept, was driven by the need to constantly increase profits which created a "dog-eat-dog" mentality. As it has turned out, these brilliant thinkers were right. A socialist system may still be a good solution for the great problems of the world, but the stigma attached to the name, because of what happened under Stalin and Mao, may prevent this from ever happening. Capitalism is and always has been incapable of protecting or sustaining the Earth's ecology, which is now in great peril. Since the Western nations still insist on clinging to capitalism and the wealthy "kings" are back on their thrones of power, understanding the differences between communism and socialism may be moot. (c) 2022 James L. Donahue is a retired newspaper reporter, editor and columnist with more than 40 years of experience in professional writing. He is the published author of five books, all dealing with Michigan history, and several magazine articles. |
Do you want me to say "courage" or "goodness" or "freedom"? Or "standing up to Putin"? I won't do it. The obvious answer is the right one: nothing. Nothing is more important than preserving life. The dead have very little freedom and do practically no standing up to Putin.
If you want war criminals held accountable, ask the U.S. government to support the International Criminal Court and the rule of law for all, including Americans, exactly as Chief U.S. prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson promised at Nuremberg. But don't risk Armageddon.
If I have the miserable luck to find myself alone in the rubble and darkness of a world inhabited mainly by cockroaches, the thought "Well, at least we stood up to Putin," will not go over well in my internal monologue. It will be immediately followed by the thoughts: "Who decided to make that little jerk so powerful? There should have been additional millennia of life and love and joy and beauty. He should have been a footnote in obscure history texts."
But what, you may ask, is the alternative to risking nuclear war? Lying down and giving invading militaries anything they want? While that would indeed, yes, be a preferable alternative, there are much better ones available and always have been.
One alternative would be to pursue a ceasefire, negotiations, and disarmament, even if it means making compromises with Russia. Bear in mind that compromises are two-way enterprises; these would also involve Russia making compromises with Ukraine.
With dozens of nations supporting a ceasefire and negotiations for months now, and in recent remarks at the United Nations, shouldn't the U.S. government at least consider the idea?
Even if support for a ceasefire and negotiations are not majority views in the United States, don't they deserve to be considered in the public fora of a society supposedly supporting mass violence in the cause of defending democracy?
The Presidents of Ukraine and Russia have declared that they will not negotiate over the fate of any territories. Yet both sides are planning lengthy, if not endless, warfare. The longer that warfare continues, the greater the risk of the use of nuclear weapons.
Both sides have been willing to negotiate and can be again. Both sides have successfully negotiated on grain exports and prisoner exchanges - with outside help, but that help can be provided again, just as easily as can be more weapons.
As we approach the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, many questions arise. Why did we let it get so close? Why did we later imagine the danger had gone away? Why isn't Vasily Arkhipov honored on some form of U.S. currency? But also this: why did President Kennedy have to be secretive about pulling U.S. missiles out of Turkey while demanding that the Soviets publicly take them out of Cuba?
Are we sorry he did that? Would we rather not have had the past 60 years of existing, in order to have had Kennedy refuse to give an inch to Khrushchev? What percentage of Americans can even say what Khrushchev's first two names were or what his career looked like? Should we really have all died or not been born in order to stand up to that guy? Do we really imagine that choosing to preserve life on Earth while standing up to his generals and bureaucrats made Kennedy a coward?
(c) 2022 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.
![]() It's time for governments to provide better management and protection for moose populations and the habitat they depend on, including stricter hunting restrictions.
![]() Supporters of Julian Assange protest outside of a court hearing on April 20, 2022 in London.
![]()
![]() Protester holds up a placard against trickle down economics as they march through the streets during the 'Enough is Enough' Rally Against Energy Bills, on 1 October 2022 in Bristol, England.
![]()
![]()
|