I stand, mesmerized by the landscape. Distant mountains are cloaked in every shade of green, and a clear, still lake reflects the sky. The deep amber sunset lights the golden script carved into the wooden sign: Kaeng Krachan National Park.

Nearby, a young couple captures the moment in a selfie—a postcard from paradise, one of Thailand’s World Heritage Sites.

“Not there... there!” Kai, our guide, tugs my arm, and points to a spot by the river. “That’s where they found part of Billy’s body.” And, just like that, my reverie breaks.

For many Indigenous people, their lands declared as World Heritage Sites morph into alien territories, belonging not to them, but to “all the peoples of the world”—especially the fee-paying tourists.

Pholachi “Billy” Rakchongcharoen was an Indigenous Karen activist. He was collecting honey when he was arrested by park officials and vanished. Five years later, pieces of his skull surfaced in a drum under a bridge—right here in paradise. Billy was just 30, about the same age as those young selfie takers.

Later, we meet Menor, his widow. Her eyes heavy with sorrow, she says, “Why do we need a World Heritage Site on our ancestral land? It never gives the community any benefits. It just takes things away from us.”

This landscape, hailed by UNESCO for its “outstanding value to all humanity,” is home to a tragedy. And the Karen people, its true custodians, are its victims. The Karen practice rotational agriculture—where different plots of land are used over successive years and then left fallow for up to a decade. Essentially, they prepare a new area for planting by using controlled fires, which enrich the soil and enhance biodiversity. All of this is accompanied by rituals and ceremonies to honor the Earth, their food provider. Since colonial times, conservationists, blind to this harmony, branded it pejoratively as “slash and burn.”

In 1996, the Karen of Bang Kloi village were evicted by the government under the guise of protecting the park. They resisted. Billy was one of them—until his voice was silenced.

Inspired by Billy and his grandfather, the indomitable Ko-ee who died aged 107 after a lifetime of resistance, the Karen of Bang Kloi reclaimed their territory in 2020, only to be violently expelled again. Despite this grim history, despite the pleas of three United Nations special rapporteurs to address human rights concerns before the designation, UNESCO assigned the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC) World Heritage Site (WHS) status in 2021. The accolade was in the category “natural criteria,” defined as a “significant natural habitat for in-situ conservation of biological diversity.”

But despite the beliefs of UNESCO experts and tourists, the Kaeng Krachan habitat did not occur naturally. The landscape was sculpted and nurtured by Indigenous people for generations. As one Karen man pointed out, “The WHS staff only see the forest and animals; they don’t see the people. They don’t see us. It’s a kind of blindness.”

Another Karen voice added bluntly, “KKFC becoming a WHS is a serious violation of human rights.”

Since its designation as a World Heritage Site there’s been an increase in harassment and arrests, and a tightening of restrictions. Karen people said that the World Heritage status meant that attempts to force everyone out of the forest “have got worse”.

This isn’t just a Thai tragedy. It’s a global one. Human rights investigations have documented torture, rape, and killings of Indigenous people in “natural” World Heritage Sites—especially in Asia and Africa. These sites, celebrated for their beauty and ecological importance, become war zones for the locals. Governments and NGOs, armed with UNESCO’s blessing, push the Indigenous people out and blame them for the degradation of what they have long protected.

Countries crave UNESCO’s nod. It brings prestige, tourists, funding. But for those evicted, it’s a nightmare.

In my travels with Survival International, the global movement for Indigenous peoples’ rights, I’ve seen these “wonders of the world.” The Serengeti’s vast plains, Odzala’s shadowy Congo forests, India’s tiger reserves, Yosemite’s grandeur—all share a dark secret. The pristine wilderness tourists adore is soaked with Indigenous blood, sweat, and tears. These landscapes were their homes, sustained by their knowledge and practices until outsiders decided they were “wild nature,” needing protection from the very people who understood them best. It’s colonialism masquerading as conservation.

For many Indigenous people, their lands declared as World Heritage Sites morph into alien territories, belonging not to them, but to “all the peoples of the world”—especially the fee-paying tourists.

We need to put this conservation model on trial, just as we did with other unjust, outdated, and harmful ideas—racial segregation, gender inequality. The true protectors of our shared natural heritage are Indigenous peoples. Their ways of life are sustainable, rooted in providing for future generations. For them, nature is home, the foundation of life and survival. They are the best stewards of the natural world. As one group of Karen declared, defiant despite the years of oppression: “If we don’t fight today, there will be no future for our children.”

UNESCO must abandon its support for a conservation model that annihilates Indigenous peoples. It should begin by de-listing sites where human rights abuses occur. Only then can it begin to decolonize itself—and genuinely protect our planet.

Today, Marguerite Casey Foundation welcomes the 2024 Freedom Scholar cohort. This year we are celebrating visionary scholar-activists at the forefront of transformative social change as well as a total of $9.5 million in awards to 38 scholars over the last five years—a powerful investment in ideas that accompany movements for collective well-being and social change.

Our Freedom Scholar awards, launched in 2020, are a testament to the critical role scholarship plays in supporting social movements. By awarding $250,000 in unrestricted funds to each scholar, Marguerite Casey Foundation (MCF) is supporting research, writing, and teaching that bolsters our collective belief in a better, more just world.

Freedom Scholars: Bridging Scholarship and Social Movements

The Freedom Scholar awards are more than simply an acknowledgment of academic excellence—they are part of MCF’s mission to build a country where our government prioritizes the needs of excluded and underrepresented people. These scholars play a vital role in bridging the gap between academic theory and grassroots organizing.

Consider the recent surge in student-led protests on campuses across the U.S. From Princeton to UCLA, Freedom Scholars have been key supporters of student-led efforts to demand divestment and win a cease-fire, bringing with them years of research and strategic thinking to help activists push for transformative demands and envision systemic change. Their work is fundamental to contesting power and developing new models of governance that serve the many, rather than the few.

The 2024 Freedom Scholars continue this tradition. These are no ordinary academics—they are change-makers who understand that the work of liberation doesn’t begin and end in the classroom.

Meet the 2024 Cohort: Visionaries for Justice and Equity

This year’s Freedom Scholar cohort reflects extensive expertise across disciplines and is united by their collective commitment to a more just world.

Take Natalie Diaz, for example, a poet and professor at Arizona State University whose work examines the intersections of Indigeneity, language, and power. She invites us to rethink how language can either perpetuate violence or reclaim histories. In a time when Indigenous languages and cultures are under threat, Diaz’s scholarship is particularly urgent, illuminating the vital role language plays in advancing collective liberation.

Then there’s Dr. Daniel Martinez HoSang from Yale University, whose research unpacks the politics of multicultural right-wing extremism. Dr. HoSang’s work sharpens our understanding of how racist dynamics operate within seemingly inclusive frameworks, highlighting the deep-rooted systems of inequality that continue to shape society. His work is not just a critique but a call to action, urging movements to confront these structures wherever we see them.

The Freedom Scholars of 2024 are not just theorists—they are strategists, organizers, and visionaries.

Dr. Nadine Naber from the University of Illinois Chicago brings to the cohort a community-engaged scholarship that draws important connections between global struggles for liberation, with a particular focus on Palestinian freedom. Dr. Naber’s work in solidarity movements teaches us the power of linking our struggles—showing that the fight for justice is always interconnected, whether it’s in Chicago, Gaza, or beyond.

Finally, Dr. K. Sabeel Rahman, a legal scholar at Cornell Law School, has been instrumental in helping policymakers and organizers engage more critically with the concept of public goods. His research explores how we must rethink public goods—such as healthcare, education, and housing—not as commodities, but as essential components of a thriving, equitable society. By leveraging legal theory for practical policy solutions, Dr. Sabeel’s work helps movements craft a vision for governance that prioritizes the well-being of our communities over corporate profits.

A Commitment to Transformative Change

The Freedom Scholars of 2024 are not just theorists—they are strategists, organizers, and visionaries. Their work represents the bold ideas and imaginative thinking essential for any social movement to succeed. And it’s precisely this kind of visionary work that Marguerite Casey Foundation is committed to supporting.

What sets the Freedom Scholar awards apart is the financial freedom they afford recipients. The $250,000 prize comes with no strings attached, allowing scholars to invest in the work that matters most to them. Some have used MCF funding to launch nonprofit organizations, while others focus on building movement infrastructure by supporting existing nonprofits, publishing movement-oriented literature, or opening retreat houses where organizers can strategize and recharge. This flexibility ensures that the scholars can meet their needs and goals in real time, without the bureaucratic constraints that often accompany traditional funding models for academics.

Looking Ahead: Building a Future of Justice and Liberation

As we celebrate the contributions of the 2024 Freedom Scholars, it’s clear that their work will have a lasting impact not just in academia, but in the communities they serve. Their scholarship is grounded in real-world struggles and solutions, and their commitment to justice is unwavering. They are the thinkers and doers helping to fuel the next generation of liberation movements.

I look forward to seeing the ongoing impact of the 2024 cohort and am proud that MCF remains steadfast in its commitment to amplifying transformative scholarship for meaningful change.

Together, with these visionary scholars, we are building a future where equity, justice, and liberation are not just ideals but lived realities for all.

At least one thing is now obvious in the Middle East: The Biden administration has failed abjectly in its objectives there, leaving the region in dangerous disarray. Its primary stated foreign policy goal has been to rally its partners in the region to cooperate with the extremist Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu while upholding a “rules-based” international order and blocking Iran and its allies in their policies. Clearly, such goals have had all the coherence of a chimera and have failed for one obvious reason. President Biden’s Achilles heel has been his “bear hug” of Netanyahu, who allied himself with the Israeli equivalent of neo-Nazis, while launching a ruinous total war on the people of Gaza in the wake of the horrific October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel.

Biden also signed on to the Abraham Accords, a project initiated in 2020 by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law and special Middle East envoy of then-President Donald Trump. Through them the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco all agreed to recognize Israel in return for investment and trade opportunities there and access to American weaponry and a U.S. security umbrella. Not only did Washington, however, fail to incorporate Saudi Arabia into that framework, but it has also faced increasing difficulty keeping the accords themselves in place given increasing anger and revulsion in the region over the high (and still ongoing) civilian death toll in Gaza. Typically, just the docking of an Israeli ship at the Moroccan port of Tangier this summer set off popular protests that spread to dozens of cities in that country. And that was just a taste of what could be coming.

Breathtaking Hypocrisy

Washington’s efforts in the Middle East have been profoundly undermined by its breathtaking hypocrisy. After all, the Biden team has gone blue in the face decrying the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine and its violations of international humanitarian law in killing so many innocent civilians there. In contrast, the administration let the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu completely disregard international law when it comes to its treatment of the Palestinians. This summer, the International Court of Justice ruled that the entire Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal in international law and, in response, the U.S. and Israel both thumbed their noses at the finding. In part as a response to Washington’s Israeli policy, no country in the Middle East and very few nations in the Global South have joined in its attempt to ostracize Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Worse yet for the Biden administration, the most significant divide in the Arab world between secular nationalist governments and those that favor forms of political Islam has begun to heal in the face of the perceived Israeli threat. Turkey and Egypt, daggers long drawn over their differing views of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fundamentalist movement that briefly came to power in Cairo in 2012-2013, have begun repairing their relationship, specifically citing the menace posed by Israeli expansionism.

The persistence of Secretary of State Antony Blinken in pressing Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. security partner, to recognize Israel at a moment when the Arab public is boiling with anger over what they see as a campaign of genocide in Gaza, is the closest thing since the Trump administration to pure idiocracy. Washington’s pressure on Riyadh elicited from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman the pitiful plea that he fears being assassinated were he to normalize relations with Tel Aviv now. And consider that ironic given his own past role in ordering the assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In short, the ongoing inside-the-Beltway ambition to secure further Arab recognition of Israel amid the annihilation of Gaza has America’s security partners wondering if Washington is trying to get them killed—anything but a promising basis for a long-term alliance.

Global Delegitimization

The science-fiction-style nature of U.S. policy in the Middle East is starkly revealed when you consider the position of Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel. In early September, its foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, warned that any attempt by the Israeli military or its squatter-settlers to expel Indigenous West Bank Palestinians to Jordan would be considered an “act of war.” While such anxieties might once have seemed overblown, the recent stunning (and stunningly destructive) Israeli military campaign on the Palestinian West Bank, including bombings of populated areas by fighter jets, has already begun to resemble the campaign in Gaza in its tactics. And keep in mind that, as August ended, Foreign Minister Israel Katz even urged the Israeli army to compel Palestinians to engage in a “voluntary evacuation” of the northern West Bank.

Not only is the expulsion of Palestinians from there now the stated policy of cabinet members like Jewish Power extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir; it’s the preference of 65% of Israelis polled. And mind you, when Israel and Jordan begin talking war you know something serious is going on, since the last time those two countries actively fought was in the 1973 October War during the administration of President Richard Nixon.

In short, Netanyahu and his extremist companions are in the process of undoing all the diplomatic progress their country achieved in the past half-century. Ronen Bar, the head of Israel’s domestic Shin Bet intelligence agency, warned in August that the brutal policies the extremists in the government were pursuing are “a stain on Judaism” and will lead to “global delegitimization, even among our greatest allies.”

The ligaments of American influence in the Middle East are now dissolving before our very eyes.

Turkey, a NATO ally with which the U.S. has mutual defense obligations, has become vociferous in its discontent with President Biden’s Middle Eastern policy. Although Turkey recognized Israel in 1949, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the pro-Islam Justice and Development Party interactions had grown rocky even before the Gaza nightmare. Still, until then their trade and military ties had survived occasional shouting matches between their politicians. The Gaza genocide, however, has changed all that. Erdogan even compared Netanyahu to Hitler, and then went further still, claiming that, in the Rafah offensive in southern Gaza in May, “Netanyahu has reached a level with his genocidal methods that would make Hitler jealous.”

Worse yet, the Turkish president, referred to by friend and foe as the “sultan” because of his vast power, has now gone beyond angry words. Since last October, he’s used Turkey’s position in NATO to prohibit that organization from cooperating in any way with Israel on the grounds that it’s violating the NATO principle that harm to civilians in war must be carefully minimized. The Justice and Development Party leader also imposed an economic boycott on Israel, interrupting bilateral trade that had reached $7 billion a year and sending the price of fruits and vegetables in Israel soaring, while leading to a shortage of automobiles in the Israeli market.

Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party represents the country’s small towns and rural areas and its Muslim businesses and entrepreneurs, constituencies that care deeply about the fate of Muslim Palestinians in Gaza. And while Erdogan’s high dudgeon has undoubtedly been sincere, he’s also pleasing his party’s stalwarts in the face of an increasing domestic challenge from the secular Republican People’s Party. In addition, he’s long played to a larger Arab public, which is apoplectic over the unending carnage in Gaza.

The Alliance of Muslim Countries

Although it was undoubtedly mere bluster, Erdogan even threatened a direct intervention on behalf of the beleaguered Palestinians. In early August, he said, “Just as we intervened in Karabakh [disputed territory between Azerbaijan and Armenia], just as we intervened in Libya, we will do the same to them.” In early September, the Turkish president called for an Islamic alliance in the region to counter what he characterized as Israeli expansionism:

Yesterday, one of our own children, [Turkish-American human rights advocate] Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, was vilely slaughtered [on the West Bank]. Israel will not stop in Gaza. After occupying Ramallah [the de facto capital of that territory], they will look around elsewhere. They’ll fix their eyes on our homeland. They openly proclaim it with a map. We say Hamas is resisting for the Muslims. Standing against Israel’s state terror is an issue of importance to the nation and the country. Islamic countries must wake up as soon as possible and increase their cooperation. The only step that can be taken against Israel’s genocide is the alliance of Muslim countries.

In fact, the present nightmare in Gaza and the West Bank may indeed be changing political relationships in the region. After all, the Turkish president pointed to his rapprochement with Egypt as a building block in a new security edifice he envisions. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi made his first visit to Ankara on September 4 (following a February Erdogan trip to Cairo). And those visits represented the end of a more than decade-long cold war in the Sunni Muslim world over al-Sisi’s 2013 coup against elected Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, whom Erdogan had backed.

Despite its apparent embrace of democratic norms in 2012-2013, some Middle Eastern rulers charged the Brotherhood with having covert autocratic ambitions throughout the region and sought to crush it. For the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood and other forms of Sunni political Islam have been roundly defeated in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, and the Persian Gulf region. Erdogan, a pragmatist despite his support for the Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, had been in the process of getting his country the best possible deal, given such a regional defeat, even before the Israelis struck Gaza.

Netanyahu’s Forever War in Gaza

For his part, Egypt’s al-Sisi is eager for greater leverage against Netanyahu’s apparent plan for a forever war in Gaza. After all, the Gaza campaign has already inflicted substantial damage on Egypt’s economy, since Yemen’s Houthis have supported the Gazans with attacks on container ships and oil tankers in the Red Sea. That has, in turn, diverted traffic away from it and from the Suez Canal, whose tolls normally earn significant foreign exchange for Egypt. In the first half of 2024, however, it took in only half the canal receipts of the previous year. Although tourism has held up reasonably well, any widening of the war could devastate that industry, too.

Egyptians are also reportedly furious over Netanyahu’s occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor south of the city of Rafah in Gaza and his blithe disregard of Cairo’s prerogatives under the Camp David agreement to patrol that corridor. The al-Sisi government, which, along with Qatar’s rulers and the Biden administration, has been heavily involved in hosting (so far fruitless) peace negotiations between Hamas and Israel, seems at the end of its tether, increasingly angered at the way the Israeli prime minister has constantly tacked new conditions onto any agreements being discussed, causing the talks to fail.

That things have come to such a pass in the Middle East is distinctly the fault of the Biden administration and its position—or lack of one—on Israel’s nightmare in Gaza (and now the West Bank, too).

For months, Cairo has also been seething over Netanyahu’s charge that Egypt allowed tunnels to be built under that corridor to supply Hamas with weaponry, insisting that the Egyptian army had diligently destroyed 1,500 such tunnels. Egypt’s position was given support recently by Nadav Argaman, a former head of Shin Bet, who said, “There is no connection between the weaponry found in Gaza and the Philadelphi Corridor.” Of Netanyahu, he added, “He knows very well that no smuggling takes place over the Philadelphi Corridor. So, we are now relegated to living with this imaginary figment.”

In the Turkish capital, Ankara, Al-Sisi insisted that he wanted to work with Erdogan to address “the humanitarian tragedy that our Palestinian brothers in Gaza are facing in an unprecedented disaster that has been going on for nearly a year.” He underscored that there was no daylight between Egypt and Turkey “regarding the demand for an immediate cease-fire, the rejection of the current Israeli escalation in the West Bank, and the call to start down a path that achieves the aspirations of the Palestinian people to establish their independent state on the borders of June 4, 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital.” He also pointed out that such positions are in accord with U.N. Security Council resolutions and pledged to work with Turkey to ensure that humanitarian aid was delivered to Gaza despite “the ongoing obstacles imposed by Israel.”

To sum up, the ligaments of American influence in the Middle East are now dissolving before our very eyes. Washington’s closest allies, like the Jordanian and Saudi royal families, are terrified that Biden’s bear hug of Netanyahu’s war crimes and the fury of their own people could, in the end, destabilize their rule. Countries that, not so long ago, had correct, if not warm, relations with Israel like Egypt and Turkey are increasingly denouncing that country and its policies. And the alliance of U.S. partners in the region with Israel against Iran that Washington has long worked for seems to be coming apart at the seams. Countries like Egypt and Turkey are instead exploring the possibility of forming a regional Sunni Muslim alliance against Netanyahu’s geopolitics of Jewish power that might, in the end, actually reduce tensions with Tehran.

That things have come to such a pass in the Middle East is distinctly the fault of the Biden administration and its position—or lack of one—on Israel’s nightmare in Gaza (and now the West Bank, too). Today, all too sadly, that administration is wearing the same kind of blinkers regarding the war in Gaza that President Lyndon B. Johnson and his top officials once sported when it came to the Vietnam War.

With no actual solution to Americans’ most pressing problems on offer under the existing system, candidates for high office distract voters with cultural wedge issues.

The post Civics 2024 first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

On this edition of The Final Countdown, hosts Ted Rall and Steve Gill discussed several topics from around the world.  Boeing employees vote to go on strike which could have serious economic impacts throughout the American economy.  To add to the political chaos in the United States there has been a second assassination attempt on the United States at a time when tensions with Russia are  increasing.  In the final hour, The Final Countdown team will analyze the Yemeni missile attack inside Israel.  Is it a game changer?   In the opening segment, Ted and Steve discuss the turbulent American political scene. Political commentator Scotty Nell Hughes will speak to Ted Rall about the second assassination attempt on former President Trump in just under three months.   Then The Final Countdown team speaks to Mark Sleboda.  Sleboda is an international relations analyst who will walk the Countdown team through the escalating tensions between Russia and the West including the counteroffensive in Kursk.   At the top of the second hour The Final Countdown team then speaks to financial expert Aquiles Larrea about the effect that a prolonged strike by Boeing employees could have on the entire American economy.  The final guest of the Final Countdown is Michael Maloof.  Maloof is a retired senior Defense Department analyst with over 30 years of experience.  Mr. Maloof will walk us through the collapse of the Hamas Israel ceasefire negotiations, and explain how the Houthis in Yemen were able to strike Israel with a missile.  Has the balance of power shifted in the Near East?  Michael Maloof will answer this important question.       The post The Final Countdown – 9/17/24 – The Final Countdown Show Summery: Guest Rundown 9/16/2024 – Boeing in Hot Water as Latest Strike Causes Major Economic Implications first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Not perhaps a week for good news—not with former U.S. President Donald Trump trying to initiate a pogrom in Ohio (and the Secret Service protecting him from a crazy right-winger). Not with insane floods across Central Europe where the blue Danube is now a raging brown monster, or in the Lake Chad region where hundreds are dead.

But there’s something else going on behind the scenes—silently. And it’s happening in places where people need it most.

Solar panels have, over the last months, suddenly gotten so cheap that they’re now appearing in massive numbers across much of the developing world. Without waiting for what are often moribund utilities to do the job, business and home owners are getting on with electrifying their lives, and doing it cleanly.

This won’t just transform the climate, it will transform lives.

How do we know? Basically by good sleuthing. The first account I saw came from Azeem Azhar and Nathan Warren. They were looking at Pakistan, where power prices in the wake of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine invasion have soared so dramatically that sales of electricity have gone down 10% in the last two years. That should cripple a country—”yet somehow it’s economy grew by 2% anyway.” Again, that should have been impossible: if there’s a truism, especially in the developing world, it’s that growth in energy use is tied to growth in economies. So what was happening? Basically, Pakistanis were buying huge quantities of very cheap Chinese solar panels and putting them up themselves. Pakistan, they reported, “has become the third-largest importer of Chinese solar modules, acquiring a staggering 13 gigawatts in the first half of this year alone.” This is particularly astonishing because the country’s entire official electricity generating capacity is only 46 GW. In other words:

in just six months, Pakistan imported solar capacity equivalent to 30% of its total electricity generation capacity—an absolutely staggering amount.

Energy analyst Dave Jones has gone to great lengths to track this spread on Google maps, finding building after building across the country with big new solar arrays on the roof. For middle-class Pakistanis, they can pay off the investment in a few years selling back power to the grid; in poor areas, things like tube wells for irrigation are now increasingly run on solar. This means not just a decline in natural gas use for centralized generation; it also means many noisy, dirty, and expensive diesel generators that used to provide backup power are being turned off. The great solar analyst Jenny Chase at BNEF has found much the same thing. As Azhar and Warren point out:

by the end of the year, Pakistan’s distributed solar system could be nearing half the capacity of its entire grid! This isn’t just growth; it’s a silent revolution in energy production.

Were it just Pakistan, it would be a wonderful story but perhaps not definitive. But I had a long talk last week with Joel Nana, an analyst at Sustainable Energy Africa in Capetown who told a very similar story. He’s been leading a project to help countries across the continent deal with the increase in distributed generation, and he reports something similar happening in country after country—Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, on and on.

“In Namibia we uncovered they have about 70 megawatts of distributed generation—that’s rooftop solar pv that’s about 11% of Namibia’s installed capacity. Eswatini, it’s an old figure, but they’re already at 30 megawatts and it’s a very small country. That’s about 15% of Eswatini’s installed capacity. South Africa is the biggest market, and it has five gigawatts of distributed solar—about 9% of South Africa’s installed capacity.”

“You will not see these numbers anywhere,” he said. “They’re not reported in national plans, not anywhere in continental statistics. No one knows about them. It’s only when you speak to the utilities,” and even they know mostly about the larger installations—there are doubtless far more hut-scale systems across Africa. People are driven by the high cost of electricity, but also by its unreliability—in much of the continent “load-shedding” is endemic, with diesel generators roaring on to compensate, at least at businesses solvent enough to afford it. But diesel fuel is expensive, and generators are hard to maintain. PV is “a no-brainer for most businesses if not all,” he said. “The prices just make sense. The African market is a huge market for some of the Chinese manufacturers, so we have availability—huge availability. The market is flooded with panels from China.”

All this, he points out, is happening without any help from governments, and except for South Africa without financing from banks, who haven’t yet learned how to evaluate the credit risk. The continent needs more trained solar installers, and coordinated standards. On the other hand, many nations probably won’t need the big and expensive increases in bulk electric supply they’ve been predicting. And Nana and his colleagues are working hard to figure out how to make the most of this—how to turn solar pv into real economic assets for entire communities, through practices like net metering.

This is extraordinary news, in large part because it’s happening in places where people most need power—I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Africa looking at communities getting their very first power thanks to the sun. (And I’m headed back as soon as the election is over, so watch this space for more). This won’t just transform the climate, it will transform lives.

It comes on top of more visible good news—the IEA said this weak that oil demand around the world is softening because of “surging” sales of electric vehicles. In China, demand for gasoline will peak this year or next and then decline sharply. Britain, where the coal era was born, will close it’s last coal-fired power plant at the end of this month, while California—arguably Earth’s most modern economy—has managed to weather its worst heatwaves ever without blackouts this simmer thanks to ever-growing batteries of… batteries. (The state’s one big recent blackout came when a gas-fired plant went down in Pasadena). Hey, photovoltaics are getting so sensitive that they’re starting to be useful indoors, where they could replace small disposable batteries.

But nothing beats the idea that solar panels are suddenly sprouting, as if by magic, precisely where they’re needed most. If we can get there fast enough—before we’re overwhelmed by droughts and floods—then a sunny new world is entirely possible.

In the 1960s, social critic Paul Goodman offered a parable to describe what had gone wrong with American higher education.

He wrote:

Millennia ago, there were wise people who knew many things that they were eager to share. Young people came to them and asked, “Would you teach us?” And they did. Over time more students came to learn. And after learning, there were many more wise ones able and willing to teach. The enterprise grew with more students, more teachers, and more subjects to teach. It became so complicated that the wise ones hired clerks to keep track of who was teaching, what they were teaching, and which students were with which teachers. The problem today is that the clerks are running the show deciding who will teach, what they will teach, and who is qualified to learn.

The lesson conveyed by this parable is relevant to understanding worrisome developments unfolding on U.S. college campuses. Israel’s assault on Gaza, following Hamas’ attack of October 7, spawned a nationwide revolt of the young. While organised groups helped mobilize demonstrations demanding a cease-fire and Palestinian rights, the breadth and depth of the effort was more akin to a spontaneous eruption.

In this regard, it was not unlike earlier spontaneous protest movements that sprang up over the past decade: the Women’s March, the “Welcome immigrants” demonstrations that filled U.S. airports in response to the “Muslim ban,” the student-led “March for our Lives” after repeated mass shootings, and the Black Lives Matter movement that erupted after the murder of George Floyd.

The cease-fire/pro-Palestinian movement had much in common with these earlier efforts. Its politics skewed left, it was youth-led, and it was racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse. The difference was that a main locus of its activities was college campuses.

While many have expressed concern that these polices are similar to McCarthy-era repression and intimidation, equally worrisome is what all of this means for the future of the university.

It began with demonstrations, teach-ins, and vigils. But as the war continued into the spring and the world became aware of the mass killings and devastation inflicted by Israel—and the Joe Biden administration’s unconditional support in the face of the enormity of human loss and suffering—the intensity of the student response grew as well. This gave birth to the “encampment movement” that rapidly spread to hundreds of campuses across the country.

From the early stages, the campus anti-war protests were confronted by a number of malign actors who sought to silence or discredit the dissent. Charging that administrations weren’t acting to quash the protests, a number of pro-Israel donors and trustees at some elite universities withdrew their financial support.

While most of the early protests were self-policed, there were often instances where students on both sides of this emotionally charged conflict engaged in hurtful or threatening behaviors. At this point, a second group of malign actors entered the fray.

A few prominent pro-Israel Jewish organisations drummed up an exaggerated campaign charging that the entire protest effort was at its core antisemitic and should be stopped to protect Jewish students who felt threatened or excluded. They published reports, conducted a huge media campaign, and testified before Congress making their case. While some examples they used were clearly hurtful, the bulk of the instances they cited were not, by any reasonable standard, antisemitic.

This effort was enough to provide the impetus for a third group of malign actors: Republican members of Congress. For the GOP, this was “a perfect storm.” The cast of villains were “elite” universities with their spoiled upper-class students, those who oppose Israel, and Democrats who tolerate, or even encourage, disruptive behaviors.

Ivy League university presidents were summoned to testify before congressional committees, where they were badgered and confronted by deceptive and misleading questions designed more for media hits than information. The pressures placed on these presidents after they bungled their confrontations before different committees resulted in many feeling compelled to resign.

Republicans sensing victory and smelling blood in the water went further in their campaigns of harassment—threatening funding for colleges that didn’t act as the GOP saw fit and demanding more oversight. They also moved from maligning the movement as antisemitic to also supporting “terrorist ideology.”

Confronted by these multi-layered challenges and fearful of the pressures from donors and congressional meddling, many universities reacted by inviting in police to dismantle the protests—often using brutal force. In a few weeks, police arrested more than 3,000 students nationwide, with universities suspending many and banning several student groups from operating on campus.

When students and faculty returned to their campuses this month, they discovered that college administrators had been hard at work during the summer revamping policies with regard to both allowable protest activity and acceptable speech. While there were some differences from campus to campus, the new regulations had enough in common to lead researchers to uncover an industry of “security consultants” who had been brought in to advise on changing campus policies and practices.

The new procedures place limits on time, place, and duration of protests and require that sponsoring groups secure permission for protest activity and, in some instances, the content of signs to be used. Some faculty have been required to submit their curriculum for review (not only by administrators but by requesting members of Congress). More problematic has been the fact that all of these changes have been made without involvement of the schools’ faculty or student senates or the established faculty/student judicial committees. Instead of dealing with infractions internally, they involve external police enforcement.

While many have expressed concern that these polices are similar to McCarthy-era repression and intimidation, equally worrisome is what all of this means for the future of the university. And this is where Goodman’s parable is relevant, because what we have is a situation where the clerks, driven by fear, political pressure, and donors have engineered a power grab bypassing the established structures of governance and have securitized campuses, restricting both academic freedom and freedom of expression.

And all of this was done to silence a new awakening in support of Palestinian human rights.

The United Nations is hosting world leaders on September 22 and 23 for a “Summit of the Future.” Unfortunately, the draft action plan for the summit, while full of lofty language and some good intentions, does not challenge the neoliberal model or corporate control of the global economy.

On the contrary, it proposes, for example, to “facilitate access of developing countries to the WTO and promote trade and investment liberalization.”

It’s astounding that this plan, which is supposed to serve as the basis for an inter-governmental agreement, is so stuck in the past. For decades now, social movements and elected officials in many countries have become increasingly opposed to trade and investment rules that grant enormous privileges and power to transnational corporations.

The increase in demand for minerals for euphemistically named “green” energy transitions means that governments will be at greater risk of facing multi-million dollar lawsuits, as these processes are generating social reactions worldwide.

In many ways, these old rules directly contradict the U.N. summit’s overall goal of creating “a world that is safe, sustainable, peaceful, inclusive, just, equal, orderly, and resilient.”

They also make a mockery of the summit’s stated commitment to the U.N. Charter principle of “full respect for the sovereign equality of all Member States” and the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”

Just take a look at how the natural resource extractive industries have used the existing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system to undercut national sovereignty and sustainability and to foment conflict. The mining sector, in particular, has used this system, enforced through almost 3,000 treaties, to sue governments in supranational tribunals, bypassing national legal systems.

The vast majority of ISDS claims are directed against countries in the so-called “Global South,” and most suits are targeted at Latin American countries. ISDS allow corporations to suppress the opposition of local and Indigenous communities fighting for their territorial and environmental rights. When governments respond in favor of communities resisting mining projects, companies often use these lawsuits to blackmail governments into backing down and granting permits for environmentally destructive projects or pay “compensation” for the loss of expected corporate profits.

Investment treaties even include “full protection and security” clauses that give companies the right to demand that governments repress communities that oppose their mining projects. In Guatemala, for instance, the Nevada-based mining company KCA claims that the government failed to provide access to a mining site blocked by Indigenous protesters, and is suing the country for more than $400 million.

The increase in demand for minerals for euphemistically named “green” energy transitions means that governments will be at greater risk of facing multi-million dollar lawsuits, as these processes are generating social reactions worldwide. The Transnational Institute, the Institute for Policy Studies, and other organizations recently published extensive information on mining (and other) company lawsuits against governments in an “ISDS-Tracker” site.

Panama is facing a particularly scandalous example of these ISDS lawsuits. The people of this country have risen up against the Canadian mining company First Quantum and in November 2023 succeeded in having Panama’s Supreme Court declare the renewal of the company’s copper mine license unconstitutional. This led the Panamanian National Assembly to approve a mining moratorium law.

According to reports, First Quantum has sued Panama for the unpayable sum of $30 billion at the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, and has threatened another $20 billion arbitration under the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement.

Other transnational mining companies affected by the cancellation of licenses have followed First Quantum’s example and, in total, Panama faces ISDS claims for at least $57 billion, equivalent to more than half of its GDP.

As we demonstrate in our recent report “ISDS: A portrait of transnational power in Mexico, the investment protection regime, and its consequences,” Mexico is facing lawsuits totaling at least $13 billion, with more than half of them related to mining. This figure is partial, as it corresponds only to claims at the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which publishes information about them. On the other hand, the International Chamber of Commerce, where Panama has been sued, and other supranational tribunals do not publish information on cases.

The ISDS system has been dismantled among some rich countries. For instance, the United States and Canada eliminated it among themselves in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The European Union eliminated it among its member states and is exiting the Energy Charter Treaty, which also allowed these investor-state suits.

If world leaders who are coming to the U.N. Summit on September 22 and 23 are serious about protecting the future of humanity and the planet, they should dismantle this anti-democratic investment system (ISDS) for all countries.

The most pressing environmental crisis of these times, our heating of the Earth through carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution, is closely connected to our excessive energy consumption. And with many of the ways we use that energy, we’re also producing another less widely discussed pollutant: industrial noise. Like greenhouse-gas pollution, noise pollution is degrading our world—and it’s not just affecting our bodily and mental health but also the health of ecosystems on which we depend utterly.

Noise pollution, a longstanding menace, is often ignored. It has, however, been making headlines in recent years, thanks to the booming development of massive, boxy, windowless buildings filled with computer servers that process data and handle internet traffic. Those servers generate extreme amounts of heat, the removal of which requires powerful water-chilling equipment. That includes arrays of large fans that, in turn, generate a thunderous wall of noise. Such installations, known by the innocuous term “data centers,” are making growing numbers of people miserable.

Residents of Loudoun County, Virginia, the nation’s data-center epicenter, have filed dozens of complaints about an especially loud facility located in the town of Leesburg. People living as much as three miles from the center compared the noise from its giant cooling fans to the sounds of an airplane engine, a freight train, a huge leaf blower, or a helicopter hovering overhead, day and night.

The data center’s ear-splitting noise was so bad that it drove Mr. Zhang to seek refuge at… O’Hare Airport.

Attorneys representing a group of Williston, North Dakota, homeowners argued last December that noise pollution from the nearby Atlas Power Data Center “is a continual invasion of their homes, their health, and their North Dakota way of life. They are now virtually shut-ins in the slice of North Dakota they once called their own.” In April, Gladys Anderson of Bono, Arkansas, told reporters that a nearby cryptocurrency-mining data center was “like torture, like a form of military-grade torture.” Her neighbor complained, “It’s caused problems for me with my hearing, my blood pressure, with the sweetheart where she gets migraine headaches.”

Chicago-based airline pilot Joshua Zhang—someone who (I’m betting) knows a thing or two about loud noise—told CBS News in 2021 that a new data center in his Printers’ Row neighborhood whined like a gigantic vacuum cleaner that never shuts off. “I try to fly as much as I can to stay away from here,” he said. “I can’t really sleep well… and I have to operate a flight.” In other words, the data center’s ear-splitting noise was so bad that it drove Mr. Zhang to seek refuge at… O’Hare Airport.

Noise Makes Us Sick and We’re Sick of Noise

The recent, rapid proliferation of data centers has been due, at least in part, to the similarly rapid growth of two types of enterprises: cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence (AI). Those voracious wasters of electricity were unasked-for inventions that filled largely nonexistent human needs. And they’re amplifying the very real problem of noise pollution.

Crypto and AI illustrate a larger issue. An all-out effort to curb climate change will require deep reductions in the use of fossil fuels, which will, in turn, require more frugal use of all forms of energy. And if that happens (as it should), it will have profound repercussions throughout society. As one of the more welcome consequences, our now-cacophonous world is likely to become easier on the ears.

With every AI project abandoned, every bitcoin not mined, every pickup truck not sold, every jet fighter not flown, people somewhere will get relief. With every bicycle that replaces a motorcycle, every garden hose that supplants a power-washer, every rake that displaces a leaf blower, our world will both warm a little more slowly and become a little less noisy.

The severe impact of noise pollution on both mental and physical health is well documented. Hearing impairment is the most obvious malady it causes. The World Health Organization (WHO) finds that noise pollution severely disrupts our quality of life in other ways, too, raising the risk of heart disease, childhood cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, and general annoyance. WHO notes that while

...annoyance is not normally classified as a health effect, it certainly affects well-being and therefore is considered to fall within the WHO definition of health as being “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.” More importantly, however, it is the effect of noise that most lay people are aware of and concerned about.

And annoyance can be a gateway to much worse, to “feelings of disturbance, aggravation, dissatisfaction, concern, bother, displeasure, harassment, irritation, nuisance, vexation, exasperation, discomfort, uneasiness, distress, hate, etc.” You might think I got that quote from a thesaurus, but, no, it’s from a study published in the journal Noise and Health. Any person living near a data center or other source of loud, continuous noise can, I expect, attest to having experienced most (or all) of those feelings. And it’s well known that such stresses can lead to physiological health problems.

When it comes to making people miserable, keep in mind that not all noises are created equal. The roar from data centers, vehicle traffic, commercial lawn-care operations, and other notorious disturbers of the peace is rich in low-pitched audible frequencies that travel much further than others and can even pass through walls. Such low tones also irritate us more, even when they aren’t all that loud. Consequently, and unfortunately, people complaining about their exposure to noise from data centers or other sources of low-frequency noise are all too often dismissed as hypochondriacs. In a recent, comprehensive article on noise pollution in The Atlantic magazine, Bianca Bosker told a gripping tale of how people in Chandler, Arizona, suffered for years as their complaints about data center noise were casually dismissed by local authorities.

The Cruelty Is the Point

For those of us not living near a data center, road traffic may be the most pervasive, day-to-day source of unhealthful low-frequency noise. In the European Union, for example, 113 million people, or 20% percent of the population, live with noise pollution from road traffic that’s loud enough to raise risks of heart disease and heart failure. The risk of developing diabetes, obesity, anxiety, depression, and of course, sleep disturbance also increases as traffic noise gets louder.

Of course, we produce traffic noise collectively and most, but not all, of us hate it. In an April essay entitled “What is Noise?,” New Yorker music critic Alex Ross observed that “if you elect to hear something, it is not noise, even if most people might deem it unspeakably horrible. If you are forced to hear something, it is noise, even if most people might deem it ineffably gorgeous.” Extra-loud vehicles, particularly en masse, richly illustrate Ross’s observation.

In recent decades, American pickup trucks and SUVs have grown steadily larger and heavier, with towering front ends and armoring that create a road-ruling mystique. Increasingly, to further satisfy consumer demand for big, intimidating vehicles, automakers equip many of them with high-decibel engines, turbochargers, and thunderous exhaust systems. Drivers all too regularly dial the volume up several more notches with muffler modifications that are often illegal. The automakers’ economic motivation for offering big, loud vehicles is clear ($), but why exactly do their customers want them? The deafening din emanating from those trucks has distinct political undertones, but there may also be something deeper going on.

A 2023 study published in the journal Current Issues in Personality Psychology sheds some light on this. The researcher interviewed 529 people, split almost equally between the sexes, about their attitudes toward noisy vehicles. Then, using questionnaires, she evaluated the subjects for four “dark” personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. It turned out (surprise!) that men liked loud vehicles significantly more than women did. Across both sexes, those who expressed greater fondness for such vehicles also tended to score higher for two dark personality traits: psychopathy and sadism. The researcher drily observed that the results made perfect sense:

Psychopathy reflects an up-close cruelty, whereas sadism includes viewing the harm to others from a distance… Modifying a muffler to make a car louder is disturbing to pedestrians, other drivers, and animals at a distance, meeting the sadism component, as well as startling when [the victim is] up close at intersections, meeting the psychopathy component.

The author of that study is not a medical professional (nor am I); still, it’s not exactly illogical to consider guys who alter their trucks to produce brain-rattling noise psychopaths. I’m not a lawyer either, but it still seems to me that labeling such practices a form of reckless indifference to human well-being is anything but unreasonable.

Quietness Should Be a Right, Not a Privilege

For decades, the environmental justice movement has been fighting a longstanding American tradition of locating dirty, dangerous industries and activities in low-income, racialized communities. This is a problem that arises with every environmental issue, and noise is no exception. Alex Ross recognized that in his “What Is Noise?” essay when he observed, “Silence is a luxury of the rich… For the rest of society, noise is an index of struggle.”

In neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status and/or large Indigenous, Asian, Black, or Latino populations, residents endure greater exposure to noise pollution, especially in areas where informal racial segregation is more severe. Not surprisingly, a separate study found that the same demographic groups experience highly disproportionate levels of annoyance from noise caused by road traffic or aircraft.

Consider it a certain irony then that, despite being exposed to less noise pollution, white Americans are subject to significantly higher rates of hearing loss than Black Americans—and it’s unclear why. Andrew Van Dam of The Washington Post complicated matters further when he noted that there’s also a political disparity: The higher the share of Republicans in a state or county, the greater the rate of hearing loss. He couldn’t fully explain this as a result of populations in redder states being generally whiter and older. There had to be some other factor. When Van Dam looked further, he found one that made a big difference in the prevalence of hearing loss: Politically redder areas have higher rates of recreational firearm ownership than bluer areas, with lots more hunting and gun-range target practice—another kind of noise pollution entirely.

No Peace, No Quiet

The U.S. military also has lots of guns, as well as an enormous climate footprint. A dramatic downsizing of our war-making capacity (and the staggering Pentagon budgets that go with it)—badly needed for both humanitarian and ecological reasons—would have the salutary side-effect of shrinking one of our major sources of noise pollution and hearing loss.

It should come as no surprise that researchers in a wide range of countries have found that hearing loss is more common among military personnel than in the general population. Among American service members, almost 15% suffer hearing impairment. Hearing loss is one of the most common health problems of veterans, especially those who served in special forces units (where it’s twice as prevalent as elsewhere in the armed forces). The exposure of those in such units to large-caliber weapon fire, urban combat training, and the like clearly has a lot to do with that.

In military operations, jet aircraft are the most intense source of both greenhouse-gas emissions and noise pollution. Jets account for almost 80% of the military’s fuel consumption. Their noise output is not as precisely quantified, but recent research in a study on civilian impacts around Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Washington State found that, in the county where the base is located, two-thirds of the resident population were exposed to noise levels that could have negative health effects. One-fifth suffered high levels of annoyance and 9% were “highly sleep disturbed.” Worse yet, according to that study, “the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community of the Swinomish Reservation [located northeast of the airfield] was extremely vulnerable to health risks, with nearly 85% of residents being exposed.”

In Salina, Kansas, where Priti Gulati Cox and I live, we have less frequent but highly immersive experiences with military noise pollution every time the curiously named “Jaded Thunder joint exercise” comes to town. In part of that “exercise,” pilots from the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy take off from a nearby airfield in fighter jets and fly low over our city of 50,000. The noise hits you suddenly, like a roundhouse punch. It’s like nothing I’ve heard or felt elsewhere. My own reaction to such overwhelming noise levels is similar to those found in survey responses from several residents of Madison, Wisconsin, who hear fighter jet noise much more routinely than we Salinans do. As one of them put it: “Everything I’m doing comes to a halt… my entire body tenses up and my heart starts racing… utterly jarring… impossible to make out dialogue… impossible to just continue any activity… reminds me of every innocent soul killed in a bombing by my home country.” Finally, there was simply this: “Annoyed.”

Cooler Means Quieter

America was getting louder before the rise of data centers, but now it’s getting louder faster. Unfortunately, the research on that is sparse, but it’s still a reasonable conclusion to draw. In her article, Bianca Bosker pointed out another intriguing indicator of our rising noise problem. Fire-engine sirens today are designed to be more than twice as loud as those of the 1970s, just so they’ll be audible above the rising din of our cities and suburbs. And keep in mind that they’re eight times as loud as the sirens of 1912.

Climate mitigation is also noise mitigation. To avoid baking the Earth, governments must quickly phase out the use of oil, gas, and coal. With a slimmed-down energy supply, economies will need to direct fuels and electricity toward uses that meet more essential needs. Crypto and AI are not among such uses, nor can we afford to keep streets and highways crammed with gas- and diesel-guzzling private vehicles. For those and many other reasons, count on one thing: Strong efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also have striking beneficial side effects, including more peace and quiet. And that should be music to our ears.

Today I want to talk with you about what U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris could do to win over more Americans on the issue that remains her biggest challenge: the economy.

Harris’ family-centered policies—$6,000 for newborns, a tax credit that will help people with children decide for themselves whether to work or stay at home, and universal affordable childcare—are useful and important.

But here’s the rub: Many young men and women simply can’t afford to form families in the first place. As Harold Meyerson notes in The American Prospect, Harris’ family policies won’t have much impact on many young working-class men and women employed in the private sector, where the rate of unionization is barely 6%, where gig employment is often a necessity just to get by (as is a second or even third job), and where the absence of job stability or an adequate income or both deters marriage.

Freedom—including reproductive freedom—means the chance to raise a family without soul-crushing economic stress.

The disappearance of good jobs for those without a college degree has led to declining marriage rates across all of the American working class, according to studies by MIT economist David Autor and his colleagues—a far steeper rate of decline than in the middle and upper classes.

The issue boils down to how to get good jobs to people without four-year college degrees.

On Friday, Harris made the important promise to dispense with unnecessary college degree requirements for federal jobs. She could go further and tell private employers to use skills-based hiring instead of requiring college degrees.

Harris might also call for the construction of 10 million new homes over the next four years. This would help funnel non-college workers into building trades and community college apprenticeship programs, leading to high-wage jobs that don’t require college degrees.

She could build on the impetus of the CHIPs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act to get good new jobs to places around the country that have been abandoned by most industry. The most important family policy for young people growing up in rural Georgia or North Carolina is to be able to find good jobs where they are, rather than have to leave their communities to find adequate-paying work.

She should also build on the significant work of Biden’s FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department in attacking monopolies and mergers, and promise that as president she’ll fight for competitive markets where big corporations can’t keep prices high (she’s already said she’ll attack corporate price gouging).

Monopolies don’t just hurt consumers. They also hurt workers, and make it harder for them to have families. When there’s only one game in town, you don’t dare push back against arbitrary schedules and hours that keep you from your family.

Harris should attack housing developers that collude to drive up prices. She should fight against mandatory arbitration, which locks workers and consumers into private courts funded by the same companies they want to challenge. And she should commit to strengthening unions by preventing big corporations from firing workers who want them and pushing for sector-by-sector bargaining.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed exempting overtime earnings from federal tax. But remember: It was Trump whose labor department made about 8 million workers ineligible for overtime. Harris should pledge to reverse that ruling.

She should package all of this, as Jedediah Britton-Purdy suggests, as part of a push for economic freedom.

Many Americans feel powerless, ripped off by monopolies in everything from phone service to concert tickets, locked into dead-end jobs because there are no alternatives, unable even to contemplate raising a family because they can’t possibly afford the costs.

Freedom—including reproductive freedom—means the chance to raise a family without soul-crushing economic stress.

I’ve already discussed how Trump’s economic agenda (to the extent he’s provided one) is just another variant on trickle-down economics, where wealth and power go to the top and nothing trickles down. Trump’s version would result in an even more brutal imbalance between the people and the powerful.

But that’s not how many Americans see it. As Purdy says:

Although Democrats see Trump as a chaotic bad boss in chief, many supporters see him as the real defender of economic security, decent jobs, and a safe and orderly world. His call for tariffs on all imported goods and his promise to beat up on companies until they lower prices may be unrealistic, but they are concrete promises to shake up the system on behalf of ordinary people. That’s the kind of dramatic change so many people seem to want.

Fundamentally, economic freedom requires reversing and remedying the brutal imbalance between the people and the powerful. It necessitates taking power back from the ruling economic class—from the ultra-wealthy who have been bribing politicians to lower their taxes, allow them monopolize markets, and crush labor unions.

This must be at the heart of the Harris-Walz economic agenda.

Almost four months after high-pressure water testing blew a gaping hole in an elbow pipe fitting section of the Mountain Valley Pipeline on Bent Mountain in Virginia, the pipeline operator filed a report with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 29 addressing the cause of the pipe failure.

The incident, which occurred on May 1, roughly six weeks before MVP went into operation, was first noted by local land owners, who observed sediment in a nearby stream, reported it to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and then photographed the burst pipe as it was hauled away a day later.

MVP sent the 43-page report to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on August 28, a day before the report was filed with FERC. In June, PHMSA and MVP entered into a consent agreement to resolve a 2023 notice of proposed safety order, which had alleged that conditions existed along MVP’s route through West Virginia and Virginia that posed “an integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment.”

This fight will continue until MVP is held accountable and this ruinous disaster is stopped before the unthinkable happens.

MVP’s report—and the company’s reaction to it—leave more questions unanswered than answered.

But one thing is clear: MVP tried to mislead PHMSA and FERC, as well as the press and the public at large, by including with the report filing a two-page cover letter that downplayed the incident and omitted crucial information contained in the report.

Also troubling—and unexplained—the report went through three drafts, dated July 23, August 1, and August 21. It was prepared by risk management firm DNV GL USA, which described MVP as its “customer.”

MVP provided DNV with a 12.5-foot section of pipe that contained the burst elbow fitting as well as two smaller sections (1.5 feet and one foot) from a “sister fitting” from the same test section.

MVP claimed in its cover letter that the sister elbow fitting was the only piece of pipe along the 303-mile long pipeline that had a “matching pedigree.” It gave no supporting evidence, nor did it even describe what it meant by “matching pedigree,” and DNV did not address the claim, much less verify it.

DNV did tensile tests on the blown pipe and “duplicate tensile tests” on the two samples from the sister fitting. The purpose of the analysis was “to determine the metallurgical cause of the failure and identify any contributing factors.”

DNV concluded that “the elbow fitting failed at the longitudinal seam weld as a result of ductile overload.” Ductile overload is “the failure mode that occurs when a material is simply loaded to beyond its ultimate tensile strength.” That seems simple enough. Indeed, it is almost self-evident. Obviously, the pipe burst because pressure was put on it that was beyond its capacity to bear. But that does not tell you why there was ductile overload.

A Tale of Two Pipes—and Two Defects

DNV reported that “a majority of the failure was at or near the fusion boundary of the seam weld metal and base metal, indicating a lower tensile strength at or near the fusion boundary compared to the base metal and weld metal.”

That brings us to the second goal of the testing: to determine contributing factors. And that’s where the report gets very interesting—and very scary:

Contributing factors to the lower tensile strength at or near the fusion boundary was (sic) softening of the base metal mid-thickness... and possibly a yield strength lower than the requirement as the base metal yield strength of the sister elbow fitting did not meet the yield strength requirement.

Here, DNV is talking about two different defects in the pipe that burst, and a different defect in the sister pipe.

First, there was inadequate tensile strength , which is the maximum stress that can be applied before an object breaks, in the pipe that burst.

Second, there was possibly also inadequate yield strength, which refers to the maximum stress before an object’s shape permanently changes, in the pipe that burst. The evidence for this is that “the base metal yield strength of the sister elbow fitting”—which MVP admitted had a “matching pedigree”—“did not meet the yield strength requirement.”

Of note, the inadequate yield strength of the sister fitting was not in a welded seam, but rather in the base metal of the pipe itself.

Two pipes tested.

Two pipes defective.

Two different defects.

MVP Pipe Fails to Meet Industry Standards

Taking things further, DNV concluded that “the tensile properties of the sister elbow fitting (base metal) do not meet the tensile requirements for MSS SP75 Grade WPHY70 steel at the time of construction as the yield strength is lower than the required value of 70 ksi; the values are also lower than the MTR value of 70.9 ksi.”

As DNV noted, MSS SP-75 requires a minimum yield strength of 70 kilopounds per square inch (ksi). The two sister elbow samples had a yield strength of 63.5 and 66.8 ksi.

In plain English, the sister elbow would be expected to permanently deform at a level of stress below what was required by industry standards, and the elbow that burst would be expected to break at a level of stress below what is required by industry standards.

Presumably, it is not good for any section of MVP to be either susceptible to permanent alteration or, worse, a straight blow out, when subjected to high pressure. The tested pipes were subject to both. It is terrifying, when one considers that MVP carries explosive methane gas—which is pressurized at up to 1,480 psig—that people live well within the pipeline’s blast zone.

Yet Another Defect in MVP Pipes

And it gets worse.

DNV reported that there was a separate problem altogether: The sister elbow pipe’s fracture appearance transition temperature (FATT) value, which is the temperature at which the steel’s fracture appearance goes from being mostly flexible to mostly brittle, was “higher (poorer) than typical when compared to 2018 vintage line pipe steel.” Simply put, this means that the sister elbow DNV tested was more susceptible to cracking as compared to other pipe steel made in the same time period.

MVP Misleads and Buries the Truth

Mountain Valley Pipeline’s cover letter did not mention any of these problems.

Instead, MVP simply said that its pipeline burst on May 1 “due to a manufacturer’s defective weld,” on one pipe elbow. MVP bragged that a sister fitting “was proactively removed… to provide material for a portion of the mechanical testing aspect of the failure analysis,” but conveniently omitted the fact that the second fitting suffered from multiple manufacturing defects. Incredibly, MVP then misleadingly stated that “a single failure,” when there actually were two defective pipes (out of only two tested), was “a negligible fitting failure rate.”

That’s not even accounting for the fact that this was not the only “failure” that MVP experienced during hydrostatic testing. On June 4, a “jumper pipe” burst, sending a geyser of water hundreds of feet into the nighttime sky and then into a stream that feeds into the Roanoke River. Local residents caught the incident on video. MVP has yet to provide a full explanation of exactly what occurred.

— (@)

As to the May 1 pipe burst, MVP no doubt was betting that reporters would not dig through 43 pages of highly technical material and instead would rely on MVP’s two-page “summary.” And indeed, with one notable exception, virtually all media outlets did exactly that. Many simply reprinted a story circulated by The Associated Press, which parroted a separate blogpost from MVP that noted that the report found that “there was no evidence of external or internal corrosion.”

By highlighting that DNV found no evidence of corrosion, MVP was cleverly suggesting that widespread concern about corrosion of MVP’s pipes is unfounded. However, concerns about corrosion do not focus on pipes, like the ones at issue here, that were installed and buried in 2018. Rather, the danger of corrosion focuses on the fact that most of the pipeline was installed in 2023 and 2024 using pipes that had been baking in the sun for many years after construction was halted in 2018 and thereafter by federal courts and, in one brief instance, by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. In fact, according to federal court testimony from an MVP executive in 2018, the pipe needed to be installed within one year to avoid having the sun degrade its protective coating, which is designed to prevent corrosion.

MVP Wants Everyone to Take Their Word for It

All of this is very troubling. MVP has a long history of flouting the law, as evidenced by the fact that it has been fined millions of dollars and cited for hundreds of environmental violations as far back as 2018 and as recently as last month.

Now MVP wants those who live along the route and others concerned to accept their claim that the sister elbow fitting it gave to DNV for testing was the only pipe among the 2,500 fittings and thousands of other pipes along the route that had a “matching pedigree” with the pipe that burst, whatever that means, despite the fact that no one—not even DNV—has verified or even evaluated that claim.

MVP likewise does not want anyone to wonder why DNV produced three drafts of the report for its “customer,” MVP. Who knows what MVP asked to be added, deleted, or changed between July 23, when the first draft was completed, and August 21, when the final report was done? Nor is there any explanation as to why MVP waited until August 28 to provide the report to PHMSA.

In short, the people who live next to this polluting and dangerous nightmare, as well as the public at large, are left with many questions and very few answers. And regulatory agencies, whose job it is to protect the public, are simply asleep at the wheel.

As Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights Coalition (POWHR), a local advocacy group, commented:

After four months of waiting, communities near the pipe rupture finally have details from MVP on what caused the pipe explosion during testing. The lab hired by MVP blames the rupture on weak steel and a defective weld. This is a pathetically predictable outcome; we know the MVP has used shoddy materials for their rushed construction job on this massive methane pipeline project. This is yet more evidence of the threat MVP poses to everyone along the route, and why the government never should have greenlit this corrupt project. Appalachia Is Not a Sacrifice Zone

MVP continues to assault Appalachia. Week after week after week, MVP files environmental “compliance reports” that instead reveal environmental noncompliance, as sediment is deposited in once pristine and protected streams. This damage would be illegal but for the fact that Congress and the White House exempted this project from environmental laws by legislative fiat in June 2023. And just recently, MVP revealed that it is working to remedy an untold number of “slips,” a euphemism for landslides, that could rupture a pipeline that crosses 75 miles with slopes greater than 30%.

Being treated as a sacrifice zone, the people of Appalachia are left to protect themselves and each other.

It is the latest chapter in a centuries-old story.

But the people of Appalachia are strong—and they are not alone. This fight will continue until MVP is held accountable and this ruinous disaster is stopped before the unthinkable happens.

Because it is not just about tensile strength and hydrostatic testing.

It is about the people who live there. And the land they love.

And in the end, the people will win.

Chicago’s school year kicked off amid a looming budget crisis that jeopardizes stability for both students and teachers. At the heart of the issue is a silent killer of public education: predatory bank loans, particularly from JPMorgan Chase.

During a bargaining session with the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), I urged Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to stop allowing big banks to hold Chicago students hostage. Instead of delaying contract negotiations with teachers and risking program cuts that harm students, CPS and state officials should take legal action to recover the funds lost due to these toxic bank deals.

CPS has a deficit projection of over half a billion dollars, perpetuated by the several hundred million dollars in predatory loans from banks like JPMorgan Chase taken out nearly a decade ago. These loans have strangled CPS finances and prevented the district from providing the high-quality education Chicago's children deserve.

Predatory loans are a familiar problem for families in Chicago and around the country. These risky loans are hawked as a short-term solution to fill a gap in finances–with a steep interest rate buried in the fine print that balloons over time.

Chicago Public Schools should hold banks like Chase accountable for the harm they’ve caused Chicago’s schoolchildren.

Chase has repeatedly targeted communities, taxpayers, and even our schools with predatory debt. Chase and its predecessor banks pushed Black and brown Chicagoans into the predatory subprime mortgages that caused the 2008 financial crisis, leading to a tsunami of foreclosures that resulted in a massive loss of household wealth in communities of color.

And nearly 10 years ago, Chase closed a predatory deal with CPS that has haunted our finances ever since.

CPS was already reeling from drastic cuts to special education services in 2016, prompted by the immediate payment of $234 million in termination fees for bad deals they entered into a decade prior. An unfair school funding formula forced 50 schools to shutter three years earlier and continued to destabilize the same South and West side neighborhoods.

A twin set of threats were on the horizon: a potential takeover of schools by Governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican who was hellbent on making Illinois more like Texas, and a threat by Mayor Rahm Emanuel to lay off 6,000 teachers to close a budget gap caused by structural underfunding.

The school district desperately needed funds to pay for projects like lead abatement. Rather than face a takeover or mass layoffs, they decided to issue bonds in order to pay the termination fee. But because CPS’s credit rating had been downgraded to “junk” just a few months prior, financial giants like Chase and Nuveen exploited the opportunity.

Banks purchased the bonds from CPS at a lowball price but then sold them to other investors just months later for a much higher payoff. Over a span of two months, Chase bank made a 9.5% profit on $150 million in bonds through this arbitrage scheme, an annualized profit of 82%. This calls into question whether Chase met its legal obligation to give CPS a fair price for the bonds. Our schools are still impacted by these bad deals, paying $200 million annually for loans taken out during this moment of crisis.

CPS was also the victim of toxic interest rate swaps deals that cost the district, Chicago, and the state of Illinois hundreds of millions of dollars in the early 2000s. Banks had marketed swaps as a way for cash-strapped governments to save money, but they were laden with hidden risks that materialized as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, causing payments to skyrocket and costing taxpayers a fortune.

As with Chicago’s parking meter and Skyway deals, future generations of taxpayers were stuck holding the bag. From 2012 to 2016, the City of Chicago handed over $145 million to Chase Bank alone to terminate these toxic swaps.

CPS should hold banks like Chase accountable for the harm they’ve caused Chicago’s schoolchildren. There is strong reason to believe the banks that trapped CPS into these predatory deals violated their legal responsibilities to the district. While the district has improved its financial health since 2016, recovering the millions lost to predatory lending would help build on their progress.

Decades of underfunding and predatory banking have swallowed the district’s reserves. Now, faced with a federal reduction that could slash funding by $800 per student, the district has reached an inflection point: Will CPS hold banks accountable and fund the programs, resources, and staff that students deserve—or will they make cuts that set kids back?

On September 18th, the UN General Assembly is scheduled to debate and vote on a resolution calling on Israel to end “its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" within six months. Given that the General Assembly, unlike the exclusive 15-member UN Security Council, allows all UN members to vote and there is no veto in the General Assembly, this is an opportunity for the world community to clearly express its opposition to Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine.

If Israel predictably fails to heed a General Assembly resolution calling on it to withdraw its occupation forces and settlers from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the United States then vetoes or threatens to veto a Security Council resolution to enforce the ICJ ruling, then the General Assembly could go a step further.

It could convene an Emergency Session to take up what is called a Uniting For Peace resolution, which could call for an arms embargo, an economic boycott or other UN sanctions against Israel - or even call for actions against the United States. Uniting for Peace resolutions have only been passed by the General Assembly five times since the procedure was first adopted in 1950.

It would certainly be unprecedented for the world to unite, in opposition to Israel and the United States, to save Palestine and enforce the ICJ ruling that Israel must withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

The September 18 resolution comes in response to an historic ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 19, which found that “Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law.”

The court ruled that Israel’s obligations under international law include “the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements" and the payment of restitution to all who have been harmed by its illegal occupation. The passage of the General Assembly resolution by a large majority of members would demonstrate that countries all over the world support the ICJ ruling, and would be a small but important first step toward ensuring that Israel must live up to those obligations.

Israel’s President Netanyahu cavalierly dismissed the court ruling with a claim that, “The Jewish nation cannot be an occupier in its own land.” This is exactly the position that the court had rejected, ruling that Israel’s 1967 military invasion and occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories did not give it the right to settle its own people there, annex those territories, or make them part of Israel.

While Israel used its hotly disputed account of the October 7th events as a pretext to declare open season for the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli forces in the West Bank and East Jerusalem used it as a pretext to distribute assault rifles and other military-grade weapons to illegal Israeli settlers and unleash a new wave of violence there, too.

Armed settlers immediately started seizing more Palestinian land and shooting Palestinians. Israeli occupation forces either stood by and watched or joined in the violence, but did not intervene to defend Palestinians or hold their Israeli attackers accountable.

Since last October, occupation forces and armed settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have now killed at least 700 people, including 159 children.

The escalation of violence and land seizures has been so flagrant that even the U.S. and European governments have felt obligated to impose sanctions on a small number of violent settlers and their organizations.

In Gaza, the Israeli military has been murdering Palestinians day after day for the past 11 months. The Palestinian Health Ministry has counted over 41,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, but with the destruction of the hospitals that it relies on to identify and count the dead, this is now only a partial death toll. Medical researchers estimate that the total number of deaths in Gaza from the direct and indirect results of Israeli actions will be in the hundreds of thousands, even if the massacre were to end soon.

Israel and the United States are undoubtedly more and more isolated as a result of their roles in this genocide. Whether the United States can still coerce or browbeat a few of its traditional allies into rejecting or abstaining from the General Assembly resolution on September 18 will be a test of its residual “soft power.”

President Biden can claim to be exercising a certain kind of international leadership, but it is not the kind of leadership that any American can be proud of. The United States has muscled its way into a pivotal role in the ceasefire negotiations begun by Qatar and Egypt, and it has used that position to skillfully and repeatedly undermine any chance of a ceasefire, the release of hostages or an end to the genocide.

By failing to use any of its substantial leverage to pressure Israel, and disingenuously blaming Hamas for every failure in the negotiations, U.S. officials are ensuring that the genocide will continue for as long as they and and their Israeli allies want, while many Americans remain confused about their own government’s responsibility for the continuing bloodshed.

This is a continuation of the strategy by which the United States has stymied and prevented peace since 1967, falsely posing as an honest broker, while in fact remaining Israel’s staunchest ally and the critical diplomatic obstacle to a free Palestine.

In addition to cynically undermining any chance of a ceasefire, the United States has injected itself into debates over the future of Gaza, promoting the idea that a post-war government could be led by the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians view as hopelessly corrupt and compromised by subservience to Israel and the United States.

By failing to use any of its substantial leverage to pressure Israel, and disingenuously blaming Hamas for every failure in the negotiations, U.S. officials are ensuring that the genocide will continue for as long as they and and their Israeli allies want

China has taken a more constructive approach to resolving differences between Palestinian political groupings. It invited Hamas, Fatah and 12 other Palestinian groups to a three-day meeting in Beijing in July, where they all agreed to a “national unity” plan to form a post-war “interim national reconciliation government,” which would oversee relief and rebuilding in Gaza and organize a national Palestinian election to seat a new elected government.

Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the political movement called the Palestinian National Initiative, hailed the Beijing Declaration as going “much further” than previous reconciliation efforts, and said that the plan for a unity government “blocks Israeli efforts to create some kind of collaborative structure against Palestinian interests.” China has also called for an international peace conference to try to end the war.

As the world comes together in the General Assembly on September 18, it faces both a serious challenge and an unprecedented opportunity. Each time the General Assembly has met in recent years, a succession of leaders from the Global South has risen to lament the breakdown of the peaceful and just international order that the UN is supposed to represent, from the failure to end the war in Ukraine to inaction against the climate crisis to the persistence of neocolonialism in Africa.

Perhaps no crisis more clearly embodies the failure of the UN and the international system than the 57-year-old Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories it invaded in 1967. At the same time that the United States has armed Israel to the teeth, it has vetoed 46 UN Security Council resolutions that either required Israel to comply with international law, called for an end to the occupation or for Palestinian statehood, or held Israel accountable for war crimes or illegal settlement building.

The ability of one Permanent Member of the Security Council to use its veto to block the rule of international law and the will of the rest of the world has always been widely recognized as the fatal flaw in the existing structure of the UN system.

When this structure was first announced in 1945, French writer Albert Camus wrote in Combat, the French Resistance newspaper he edited, that the veto would “effectively put an end to any idea of international democracy… The Five would thus retain forever the freedom of maneuver that would be forever denied the others.”

The General Assembly and the Security Council have debated a series of resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, and each debate has pitted the United States, Israel, and occasionally the United Kingdom or another U.S. ally, against the voices of the rest of the world calling in unison for peace in Gaza.

Of the UN’s 193 nations, 145 have now recognized Palestine as a sovereign nation comprising Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and even more countries have voted for resolutions to end the occupation, prohibit Israeli settlements and support Palestinian self-determination and human rights.

For many decades, the United States’ unique position of unconditional support for Israel has been a critical factor in enabling Israeli war crimes and prolonging the intolerable plight of the Palestinian people.

In the crisis in Gaza, the U.S. military alliance with Israel involves the U.S. directly in the crime of genocide, as the United States provides the warplanes and bombs that are killing the largest numbers of Palestinians and literally destroying Gaza. The United States also deploys military liaison officers to assist Israel in planning its operations, special operations forces to provide intelligence and satellite communications, and trainers and technicians to teach Israeli forces to use and maintain new American weapons, such as F-35 warplanes.

The supply chain for the U.S. arsenal of genocide criss-crosses America, from weapons factories to military bases to procurement offices at the Pentagon and Central Command in Tampa. It feeds plane loads of weapons flying to military bases in Israel, from where these endless tons of steel and high explosives rain down on Gaza to shatter buildings, flesh and bones.

The U.S. role is greater than complicity - it is essential, active participation, without which the Israelis could not conduct this genocide in its present form, any more than the Germans could have run Auschwitz without gas chambers and poison gas.

And it is precisely because of the essential U.S. role in this genocide that the United States has the power to end it, not by pretending to plead with the Israelis to be more “careful” about civilian casualties, but by ending its own instrumental role in the genocide.

Every American of conscience should keep applying all kinds of pressure on our own government, but as long as it keeps ignoring the will of its own people, sending more weapons, vetoing Security Council resolutions and undermining peace negotiations, it is by default up to our neighbors around the world to muster the unity and political will to end the genocide.

It would certainly be unprecedented for the world to unite, in opposition to Israel and the United States, to save Palestine and enforce the ICJ ruling that Israel must withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The world has rarely come together so unanimously since the founding of the United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War in 1945. Even the catastrophic U.S.-British invasion and destruction of Iraq failed to provoke such united action.

But the lesson of that crisis, indeed the lesson of our time, is that this kind of unity is essential if we are ever to bring sanity, humanity and peace to our world. That can start with a decisive vote in the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.

"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." —Oliver Cromwell, 1650, imploring his executioners to reconsider

This is a missive directed to Republican voters, wherever it finds them. And here is the message: the Democratic Party is not your enemy.

No, your enemy is former U.S. President Donald Trump. He and the Republican Party care a great deal about your votes, but they don’t give a damn about you. They rely on your fierce loyalty to get elected and then betray you, serving instead the interests of great American corporations and a tiny stratum of immensely wealthy citizens. (The towering achievement of Trump’s presidency was a massive tax cut for precisely these clients.) The betrayal is not readily apparent, of course: It is disguised brilliantly and successfully with distortion, fabrication, and lies.

Donald Trump tells you the Democratic Party is a radical, far left, socialist enterprise and it must be defeated to protect the America we know and love. At his rallies you roar in approval, shouting USA! USA! USA!

Your patriotism is genuine and praiseworthy, but please heed Mr. Cromwell’s plea for open minds: Think it possible—just possible—you may be mistaken about the integrity of Mr. Trump, the Republican Party, and the messaging. Think it possible you are not being protected but victimized.

Let’s look at the evidence.

Mr. Trump is the spokesman and the Republican Party is the front group for corporate oligarchy, a tyrannical form of federal governance put in place decades ago, when corporate money overpowered American democracy. The well-being of the American people no longer takes priority in crafting public policy. Foremost now is the assurance of financial security for powerful corporations: creating new profit streams or enhancing and protecting those in place. This is what the Republican Party hides from view.

We must rid the corrupted Republican Party of its greedy corporate captors, and that means, first, Donald Trump and Republican Senators and Representatives must suffer a smashing defeat in November.

Corporate oligarchy is comprised of the corporations, yes, who contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns eliciting the candidates’ favor and spend billions more in lobbying for quid pro quos. But it also includes individual corporate owners and managers, and conservative billionaires with similar interests who pour personal funds into friendly campaigns. (Think about Elon Musk, say, offering Trump $45 million per month to win this campaign.)

The core ideology of corporate oligarchy is neoliberalism: “Free market capitalism” best provides for society’s needs, and “government regulation” only degrades the process. It is legitimized by conservative think tanks—notably the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C.—and disseminated by sympathetic media—think the Fox News empire and conservative talk radio which blankets the nation with right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The consequences of corporate oligarchy are not trivial.

American people are suffering today the largest increases in food prices in 50 years, while the corporations marketing food products are reaping unprecedented profits. In two years from 2020 to 2022 the Cargill corporation (grains and meat products) doubled its profits, from $3.3 billion to $6.7 billion. In just a single year, from 2021 to 2022, the profits of the Kraft-Heinz company (cheese products, condiments, frozen meals, snacks) rose 448%, from $225 million to $887 million; Cal-Maine Foods (the country’s largest egg producer) grew 718%, to $323 million.

Extortionate consumer prices are not the only outrage imposed by corporate oligarchy. The rampant social and economic injustices in our country today are not the consequences of a functioning democracy: They certainly do not reflect the wishes of the people. Unprecedented inequalities in wealth and income are producing a two-tiered society of opulence and hardship. Homeless colonies blossom coast to coast. A full 31.1 million Americans, almost 10% of our citizens, lack access to healthcare, suffering unnecessary illness and preventable death. A total of 13.5% of American households are “food insecure:” They don't have enough to eat. ChatGPT will tell you it costs up to $60,000 per year to live modestly in America; a minimum-wage worker earns $15,080. Do the math.

Fifty years ago America was flourishing. The middle class constituted almost two-thirds of the population, and it was thriving. A single income was sufficient to raise a family, buy a home, cover healthcare costs, send the kids to college, and retire in comfort. Today, with both parents working full time, this good life is out of reach.

The ravaging of the American people was driven by corporate oligarchy—nothing else, not “socialism,” not the Democratic Party.

Republican friends and neighbors, who is your enemy?

The Republican Party is, because it has been the driving force for the emergence of corporate oligarchy. The process began in 1971 with a lawyer who specialized in corporate mergers, who defended the tobacco industry in the smoking-and-cancer litigation, who advocated segregation in public schools, and who as a Supreme Court justice wrote the majority opinion that corporate political spending was an exercise in free speech.

His name was Lewis Powell, the progenitor of corporate oligarchy.

In 1971 the nation’s campuses were ablaze with protest, against the Vietnam War, against racism, against the savagery of capitalism. Ralph Nader was firing broadsides at American corporate corruption.

The United States Chamber of Commerce was alarmed. It commissioned Lewis Powell to propose a strategy for a corporate counterattack, and he did. On August 23, 1971 the Chamber published what came to be known as the “Powell Manifesto.” The Chamber carpet-bombed the business community with the Manifesto’s message: Corporate America needs to become politically active, quickly and massively. Especially vital was educating the American people about the virtue and vulnerability of “free market capitalism”: it can optimize society’s welfare only if it is uninhibited by “government regulation.” Neoliberalism had to become widely known and appreciated.

Corporate money rose quickly to the challenge, literally creating two of the most influential think-tanks in Washington today and funding a massive redevelopment of the third. The Adolph Coors Foundation and Koch Foundation provided the seed money that created the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, respectively, in 1973 and 1977. The American Enterprise Institute, pre-dating the Manifesto, was greatly enriched by the subsequent flood of corporate money flowing through a dozen conservative philanthropies.

Today these three powerhouses are virtual subsidiaries of the Republican Party, writing policy agendas for Republican presidents (cf. the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 written for Donald Trump) and providing revolving-door services: their members move seamlessly into staff positions in Republican administration, and when the party is defeated they return to the think tanks.

The pattern was established early. Soon after Ronald Reagan’s election, the Heritage Foundation submitted to the new Administration a list of 2,000 specific policy proposals aimed, among other objectives, at “reducing the size of the federal government.” By the end of Reagan’s first year in office 60% of them were implemented or initiated. Ronald Reagan said in later years the Heritage Foundation was a “vital force” in the achievements of his presidency.

The most vital achievement was Reagan’s suspension of the long-standing anti-trust laws. A staunch neoliberal, he reduced government regulation to allow free market capitalism to work its wonders. In doing so Reagan exposed the absurd contradiction in the neoliberal creed.

“Free market capitalism” will optimize a country’s economy only if intense competition for customers is present among many, many sellers. That’s Econ 101. Good for society, yes, but bad for the sellers who, historically, connive and conspire to minimize that competition—in the Golden Age of the late 1800’s, say, by the formation of “combines” and “trusts.” The sellers consolidated, becoming fewer and fewer but with greater and greater power to raise prices and reduce wages.

The counteroffensive was political, in the passage of the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts—government regulations—prohibiting “the restraint of trade.” Consolidation was made illegal, keeping free markets competitive for society’s benefit.

This we know: “free market capitalism” will benefit society only in the presence—not the absence—of “government regulation.” But neoliberalism gets it entirely backwards.

But Ronald Reagan bought in, virtually halting the enforcement of the anti-trust legislation, sparking a 50-year frenzy of mergers and acquisitions across the spectrum of the American economy.

Virtually every industry was consolidated into far fewer but immensely larger corporations. A quick ChatGPT query shows five grocery chains—Walmart, Kroger, Costco, Albertsons, and Ahold Delhaize—today control more than 60% of the market. (And Kroger and Albertson's are in the process of merging.)

The number of American corporations was cut in half concentrating American industries into literal oligopolies, with pricing power to match. Compared to European countries—where anti-trust laws remain in force—American families pay on average $5,000 more per year for living expenses.

Ronald Reagan’s neoliberalism did this. Republican friends your enemy is not the Democratic Party.

As the dwindling number of corporations expanded their economic clout they chafed at other government regulations—clean air and water, safe workplaces, fair labor practices—but had no means to do much about them. They lacked a corollary political clout.

Wittingly or otherwise the Republican Party provided this, too.

Since 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court has displayed without interruption a conservative majority—justices appointed by Republican presidents. And in that time the Court lit the fuse for corporate oligarchy to explode. It offered corporations the legal means of bribing Congressional candidates and tilting presidential elections as well—with corporate campaign contributions.

In the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, the Court declared spending money is the equivalent of free speech. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court declared corporate contributions to political campaigns were an exercise of free speech, too. Finally in the 2010 case Citizens United v. the FEC, the Court declared as unconstitutional any limits on those corporate campaign contributions.

It did so with this preposterous reasoning:

...this Court now concludes that independent [campaign] expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That [corporations] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

The Court with 100% predictability was dead wrong. In 1964—before the genesis of corporate oligarchy—77 percent of the American people trusted the federal government. Today—14 years after Citizens United—only 22 percent retain their “faith in democracy.”

But corporate campaign funding of public officials—some say the corporate purchase—is only one element of corporate oligarchy’s success. The other is the dominance of corporate lobbying, where obligated public officials get their marching orders to favor corporate interests over the public’s. Does corporate lobbying prevail? Corporations outspend citizens’ organizations in hiring lobbyists by a factor of 34:1.

Before the triumph of corporate oligarchy partisan conflict was congenial and productive. Republicans were conservatives, anxious to maintain the status quo which at a given point in time was quite satisfactory. Democrats were liberals, impatient with the status quo which at a given point in time could always be changed for the better. The two points of view were imperative in a functioning democracy and the tension between them produced public policy compromises that served the nation well, avoiding stasis on the one hand and turmoil on the other.

We can regain that form of governance.

Those of us in the rank and file of the political parties have far more in common than today’s bitter divisiveness suggests. We all love our country, cherishing its past and hopeful for its future; we treasure our families, honoring our predecessors and nurturing our children; and we find gratification in productive work and comfort in spiritual practice. We are ordinary Americans and conscientious citizens, millions and millions of us. We are the People, all of us victimized by corporate oligarchy and its patron, the Republican Party. If we put aside the partisan invective and focus on the imperative of restoring democracy, we can do it.

We must rid the corrupted Republican Party of its greedy corporate captors, and that means, first, Donald Trump and Republican Senators and Representatives must suffer a smashing defeat in November. Then, perhaps, the GOP can be rebuilt as the necessary and responsible voice of true conservatism—the indispensable countervailing force it was in the past. Democracy can flourish again.

Republican friends and neighbors, listen up.

In an unsurprising yet telling development, Republican former Vice President Dick Cheney has thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, over his party’s candidate, framing former President Donald Trump as an unprecedented threat to the United States. On its face, this endorsement might appear as a principled defence of democracy from a longstanding Republican stalwart. But beneath the surface lies a troubling irony.

Cheney, the architect of some of the most disastrous foreign and domestic policies of the early 21st century, now seeks to claim the moral high ground. The legacy of his policies – particularly the havoc unleashed during the Iraq War and the broader “war on terror” – continues to reverberate globally, causing suffering and instability that far surpass anything Trump has wrought to date.

During Tuesday’s presidential debate, Harris proudly touted Dick Cheney’s endorsement as a badge of honour – a moment as baffling as it was revealing.

Embracing a man whose policies left a trail of death and destabilization in their wake as a champion of American values lacks any semblance of moral clarity. Cheney, whose hands are stained with the blood of countless innocents from Iraq to Guantanamo, who undermined American democracy and terrorized countless innocent Americans under the “war on terror,” should not be celebrated, especially by someone seeking the mantle of progressive leadership.

While Trump has undeniably stoked internal divisions and undermined democratic norms, Cheney’s actions as vice president set the stage for some of the most catastrophic conflicts of the 21st century.

Cheney’s tenure as vice president under George W Bush is synonymous with neoconservative ambition, a vision of American dominance built on military intervention and disregard for international law. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is perhaps the most glaring example of this approach. Alongside President Bush, Cheney pushed for a war based on false premises, most notably the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, and a supposed link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Both claims were categorically debunked in the years that followed, yet the human and financial costs of the war are staggering.

Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from hundreds of thousands to well over a million, depending on the source. This war destabilized an entire region, paving the way for the rise of extremist groups like ISIL (ISIS) and contributing to ongoing cycles of violence and displacement. The political vacuum created by the toppling of Hussein remains unfilled, as Iraq continues to grapple with internal conflicts and external influences.632184874

Domestically, the costs were equally profound. The war drained trillions from the United States economy, money that could have been directed toward infrastructure, education or healthcare. Thousands of US troops lost their lives, and many more returned with life-altering physical and psychological wounds. Veterans of the Iraq conflict have some of the highest rates of PTSD and suicide among recent generations of American soldiers, underscoring the toll of this misadventure.

And yet, those celebrating Cheney’s endorsement of Harris over Trump are now portraying him as a defender of democracy, as if the destabilizing effects of his policies were somehow a lesser evil. The truth is that while Trump’s brand of populist nationalism has damaged the social fabric of the United States, the neoconservative project Cheney helped lead caused immense human suffering on a global scale – far beyond anything Trump has so far accomplished.

Cheney’s endorsement of Harris, framed as a repudiation of Trump’s divisiveness, conveniently ignores his own role in eroding civil liberties in the US and across the world.

One of Cheney’s signature policies, the “war on terror”, brought with it the expansion of executive power and a profound shift in the relationship between the American government and its citizens – especially Muslim Americans.

The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, granted the US government sweeping surveillance powers, many of which were abused in the name of national security. Cheney was one of the most ardent advocates of these measures, arguing that extraordinary threats required extraordinary responses. In practice, these measures disproportionately targeted minorities, particularly Muslim Americans.

Programs like the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) singled out men from predominantly Muslim countries, leading to widespread racial profiling and unconstitutional detentions. Muslim communities in the US were left to bear the brunt of Cheney’s overreach, living under a cloud of suspicion that persists to this day.

Internationally, the “war on terror” led to even graver abuses. Cheney oversaw the use of torture in US military operations. “Enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding, were deployed at facilities like Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites across the globe. These practices violated basic human rights and international law, leaving a stain on America’s global reputation. Many of the individuals detained and tortured were never formally charged with any crime. To this day, Guantanamo Bay remains a symbol of injustice, where detainees languish without trial or meaningful recourse.

The erosion of civil liberties Cheney helped to engineer not only devastated communities but also created a culture of fear that Trump later capitalized on during his rise to power. Anti-Muslim rhetoric, which played a key role in Trump’s 2016 campaign, has its roots in the fear-mongering that Cheney and his neoconservative allies perpetuated during the Bush administration. In this sense, the groundwork for Trump’s policies on immigration and national security was laid by Cheney himself.

When examining Cheney’s legacy, no issue looms larger than the invasion of Iraq. The war, waged on false pretenses, remains one of the costliest misadventures in modern American history. Under Cheney’s influence, the Bush administration sidelined diplomacy, dismissing warnings from the international community and bypassing the United Nations Security Council. The war not only violated international law but also undermined the very principles of sovereignty and self-determination that the US purported to champion.

The ripple effects of the Iraq War are still being felt today. The instability it created in the Middle East has made it fertile ground for extremist groups, leading to a proliferation of violence that has engulfed nations far beyond Iraq’s borders. The rise of ISIL, the ongoing Syrian civil war, and the refugee crisis that has strained Europe can all be traced back, at least in part, to the power vacuum created by the toppling of Hussein.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of the war’s catastrophic consequences, Cheney has never fully reckoned with his role in bringing about this disaster. By endorsing Harris, he is attempting to paint himself as a responsible elder statesman, but his track record tells a different story – one of hubris, miscalculation and indifference to human suffering.

One of the reasons Cheney’s endorsement may resonate with some Democrats and centrists is the perception that Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. Trump’s brand of populism, his encouragement of far-right extremism, and his open disregard for democratic norms have indeed damaged the political fabric of the US. However, Cheney’s legacy of violence and imperialism abroad, coupled with his domestic assault on civil liberties, presents a far more troubling picture of the threats to democracy.

The Democratic Party and some of its liberal and progressive backers’ apparent decision to absolve Cheney of any responsibility for the havoc he unleashed on the world simply because he now opposes Trump is devoid of morality.

Trump’s most egregious actions have played out on American soil, targeting immigrants, people of colour, and marginalised groups. His rhetoric has fueled political violence and stoked deep divisions within American society. But the scope of Cheney’s policies, especially those that played out on the world stage, exceeds Trump’s in terms of sheer human suffering. The wars Cheney championed, particularly the Iraq War, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions. The torture and surveillance programs he helped oversee have left a lasting legacy of fear and suspicion, both at home and abroad.

What makes Cheney’s endorsement, and the Democratic Party’s embrace of it, particularly galling is the way in which they gloss over these past sins in order to paint him as a guardian of American values. While Trump’s rhetoric and policies may have caused harm within the US, Cheney’s decisions inflicted untold suffering on far more people all across the globe. The selective moral outrage they direct at Trump while embracing Cheney as a savior of democracy, is a testament to the hypocrisy of the liberal political establishment in the country.

Both men have caused irreparable harm, and neither should be celebrated for their actions.

As we navigate American politics, we must be careful not to view figures like Cheney solely through a partisan lens. His critique of Trump, while valid in some respects, cannot erase the devastating impact of his own policies. Cheney’s endorsement of Harris should not be interpreted as an act of moral courage, but rather as a cynical attempt to rehabilitate his public image in the face of a deeply divided country.

Ultimately, both Trump and Cheney represent different forms of danger to American democracy and global stability. While Trump has undeniably stoked internal divisions and undermined democratic norms, Cheney’s actions as vice president set the stage for some of the most catastrophic conflicts of the 21st century. His policies eroded civil liberties, violated human rights, and destabilized entire regions, leaving a legacy of fear and instability that continues to haunt the world today.

The Democratic Party and some of its liberal and progressive backers’ apparent decision to absolve Cheney of any responsibility for the havoc he unleashed on the world simply because he now opposes Trump is devoid of morality. Both men have caused irreparable harm, and neither should be celebrated for their actions. Instead, we should take this moment to reflect on the broader failures of the political system that allowed both Cheney and Trump to rise to power in the first place. Only then can we begin to chart a course towards a more just and equitable future.

Despite the drubbing Trump took during the debate, he still holds a commanding 20 percent lead (55 to 35 percent) over Harris on the economy, according to the CNN post-debate poll. Democrats should be very concerned about this because economic issues are extremely salient in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

But really, after watching Trump’s debate meltdown, how is it possible for any sane human to believe he has the capability to improve anything at all?

The problem isn’t Trump’s crumbling abilities, nor is it a sure thing that abortion will ‘trump’ the economy this cycle, as many Democratic strategists are counting on.

The problem is that a significant segment of the electorate views the Democrats as part of the corporate elite that has grabbed unfair advantages. About 70 percent of Americans say that our economy “unfairly favors the powerful interests.” That’s also what we hear from workers in our political economy classes. They consistently tell us that “corporate greed” is the culprit.

As professor Jedediah Britton-Purdy wrote in The New York Times, “Compared to Mr. Trump’s Republicans, the Democrats remain the party of protecting the system and making it work — the small-c conservative party of the liberal but comfortable coasts and other economic hubs.”

The problem is that a significant segment of the electorate views the Democrats as part of the corporate elite that has grabbed unfair advantages.

In a twisted, demented way, Trump looked every bit the mega-disrupter during the debate last Tuesday, as he flailed away at everyone and everything. He was the picture of disorder and decidedly not part of the established order.

However, shaking up the established order is what many voters want. About 15 percent of registered voters believe that the political and economic “system needs to be torn down entirely.” Another 55 percent believe “the system needs major changes.”

Harris and the Democrats try to address this anger through a myriad of reforms that do not come across as “major changes.” Investing in new jobs for the future is certainly admirable, but the billions in subsidies for the greedy corporations involved in every “public-private” infrastructure investment look like the same-old, same-old. Tax breaks for childcare and new business startups are important, but they aren’t major challenges to the established order. Going after oligopolistic price gouging is a start, but corporate mass layoffs and job insecurity are not mentioned.

Harris/Walz should be paying much closer attention to this: 70 percent of workers, right now, are preparing for job cuts, according to a MarketWatch survey.

There is a material basis for this fear. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that “from January 2021 through December 2023, there were 2.6 million workers displaced from jobs they held for at least three years.” And an additional 3.7 million with fewer than three years tenure lost their jobs “because their plant closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished.” The research for my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, found that more than 30 million workers have suffered through mass layoffs since 1996.

If the Democrats want to take back the economy from Trump, they must speak directly to the 70 percent who are worried about losing their jobs.

The economy for working people has fundamentally changed since the deregulation of Wall Street starting in the 1980s. Now, in good times and in bad, mass layoffs are common as corporations pour more and more money into their outrageous pay packages and stock buybacks for their Wall Street investors. (A stock buyback is when a corporation uses its money or borrowed funds to repurchase its own shares in the stock market. This raises its share price without adding any value at all to the company. Stock buybacks were considered illegal stock manipulation until their deregulation in1982. Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers for all the sordid details.)

In their 2024 platform, the Democrats waved at this problem by promising to raise the tax on stock buybacks from one percent to four percent. But that won’t put a dent in the more than $1 trillion in stock buybacks projected for 2025. Time and again those buybacks are funded by mass layoffs.

So why aren’t the Democrats attacking mass layoffs?

The problem is that most elected officials, including virtually all Republicans, really believe that layoffs are a natural law, like gravity, the result of market fluctuations, global trade, and new technologies. It’s all about unstoppable technological forces like A.I. and there’s nothing much that can be done except help create new jobs in the future. Those left behind will have to scramble. That’s the way of the world. That’s the basis for free enterprise, and that’s what freedom is all about. (Janis Joplin, thanks to Kris Kristofferson, cut through this BS: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” she sang.)

Why aren’t the Democrats attacking mass layoffs?

But that fatalism reflects how much politicians fear Wall Street. Already, we can see Harris back-peddle a bit on corporate taxes, and she’s facing pressure to tone down her proposed wealth tax. I’m sure the Democrats worry that if they attack stock buybacks and mass layoffs, Wall Street will cry Marxism! Socialism!

But if the Democrats want to take back the economy from Trump, they must speak directly to the 70 percent who are worried about losing their jobs.

For starters, they should re-read their 2020 Democratic Party platform, which said: “Taxpayer money should not be used to pay out dividends, fund stock buybacks, or give raises to executives.” Unfortunately, that plank only applied to Covid relief funds.

But, as I wrote here, it could easily be expanded to read: “No taxpayer money should be awarded to corporations that lay off taxpayers and conduct stock buybacks.”

Harris/Walz could pledge to add that one line to the $700 billion the federal government awards each year to corporations for goods and services. (It can probably be done without an act of Congress.)

When corporations scream that it will kill free enterprise if they can’t lay off workers, the response is simple. 1) If you don’t like the rule, don’t take the federal money. 2) If you still want to lay off workers, you can do so but those layoffs have to be voluntary, not compulsory. Use some of your lavish stock buyback funds to offer workers ample severance so that they voluntarily leave your firm, something that is often done for management employees.

Would corporations be willing to play by these rules?

Trump’s 2016 intervention in a Carrier air conditioning plant closing suggests they would. At that time, Carrier, under pressure from Trump, reversed its decision to move about 800 jobs to Mexico. Polling showed the intervention was wildly popular with the American people.

Why did the CEO give in? Why didn’t he scream about socialism and the collapse of the free enterprise system? Here’s what he said. “I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night. I also know that about 10 percent of our revenue comes from the U.S. government.” He was not about to bite the hand that feeds him.

Nor will Corporate America. They will not walk away from $700 billion in tax-payer money even if they have to abandon compulsory layoffs.

Calling for this rule would show that the Democrats are willing to disrupt the established corporate order and attack the unconscionable greed that is costing working people their livelihoods.

As Bernie Sanders put it back in 1996, “No Payoffs for Layoffs.”

Save the Whales. Perhaps the first famous conservation slogan. The end of pelagic commercial whaling was one of the original successes of the conservation movement in international diplomacy. The movement started in the USA, yet now, the two species of whale that are critically endangered are both found in U.S. waters. And we’re about to see the resumption of Antarctic commercial whaling, supported by the U.S. military-industrial-security complex. Crunch time is the meeting of the International Whaling Commission, or IWC later this month. “Lose the whales” is looking more realistic.

To understand how we’ve arrived here, we need to go back to 2010. The year Apple unveiled the first iPad. Taylor Swift released Speak Now. Wikileaks put out the “Collateral Murder” video. U.S. President Barack Obama declared the end of combat operations in Iraq, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the beginning of the USA’s re-engagement with East Asia. In November 2010, President Obama attended the meeting in Japan of APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

While there he had individual meetings with the (then) Prime Ministers of Japan, Naoto Kan, and Australia, Julia Gillard, the USA’s most important allies in the region. At the time, Japan and Australia were at loggerheads over whaling. A few months earlier Australia had started proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice that it was, with its “scientific whaling,” in breach of its obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the treaty underpinning the IWC. Australia won the case a few years later.

The return of pelagic commercial whaling is imminent.

As part of the movement against whaling, on November 5 2010, conservationists organized the “World Wide Anti-Whaling Day.” In Sydney, Australia, a protest was held at the Japanese Consulate. For the media coverage it received, it may as well not have happened. Concerns about Japanese whaling in Australia’s Antarctic whale sanctuary were running high, so this lack of media interest was unusual. However, the press had just covered another whaling “protest.”

On the evening before, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) organized a different action. The video remains available. They set up a fake whale in Sydney Harbor with a generic “stop whaling” message. As the video celebrates, this garnered huge coverage in the Australian media, so the action at the consulate the following day got none. Evidence of the conflict over whaling, between these two major U.S. alliesevaporated just in time for the presidential trip to Asia. Instead, the generic, unfocused “stop whaling” message occupied the airwaves. Organizers of the action at the consulate were livid.

Founded in 1969, IFAW was originally a small and effective NGO. It helped establish non-lethal studies as the way to do science on whales. In 1997 IFAW’s founder passed the organization on to a couple of former government officials, ex-senior managers of Peace Corps programs in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Under their direction, IFAW grew rapidly, including by taking over smaller NGOs internationally. Most conservation NGOs are short of money, and IFAW, suddenly rich, absorbed them.

The person who was heading IFAW’s whale program at the time of the stunt in Sydney Harbor has an unusual background for an employee of a conservation NGO. He was originally a German and Russian linguist with U.S. Army intelligence, enlisting in the early 1980s. After the army he moved to Mongoven, Biscoe, and Duchin (MBD), a company that specialized at infiltrating environmental NGOs for corporate clients, as detailed in an academic paper on their work for the tobacco industry. The title—“[MBD]: Destroying Tobacco Control Activism From the Inside”—tells the story. In a move that was the most radical conversion since Paul on the road to Damascus, he then immediately got the job as head of GLOBE USA, a collaborative of global politicians working on environmental issues. He moved to IFAW in 1996, immediately prior to the leadership changeover there. In 2007, coinciding with a U.S. government decision to come up with a process to “solve” issues in the IWC, he was appointed to IFAW’s new position of Global Whale Program Manager. Unlike other IFAW staff, he had little prior experience with the IWC.

The Sydney stunt is just one example, demonstrating how easy it is to direct media stories. IFAW remains the go-to organization for much of the mainstream media on whaling, and other whale conservation issues. IFAW’s messaging controls the anti-whaling narrative.

The anti-whaling movement has been operating under a set of assumptions over the past couple of decades. These include: whaling is a dying industry running on subsidies; acting forcefully against whaling will encourage a backlash in whaling nations; whaling can be replaced with whale-watching as an economic use of whales; and recently, that the Japanese withdrawal from the IWC was an “elegantly Japanese solution” that meant Japanese whalers would never again engage in pelagic whaling. Note that all but one of these links quote IFAW.

Given the new Japanese quotas for killing fin whales, the new ice-strengthened Japanese whaling factory ship, and the call to shut down the IWC, these assumptions are mistaken. Whaling is just one part of much bigger geopolitical machinations that revolve around the U.S. military maintaining its Japanese bases in the face of pubic anger there at the appalling behavior of some service personnel. And then the Japanese government uses access to bases as leverage to winning on whaling, in order to maintain their control over management of other, more important, pelagic fisheries.

Further, the anti-whaling movement has failed to heed warnings of problems in their midst. These were clear after Wikileaks released documents revealing the dealings between the U.S. IWC commissioner, and the Japanese government in 2009. Also clear from the Wikileaks cables is the way in which Australia and Japan’s relationships were impacted by whaling, and how this was a concern for the U.S. government. The NGO community treat this as irrelevant.

That U.S. IWC commissioner? Prior to her return to government, Monica Medina, also ex-military, also worked at IFAW.

On the Wikileaks documents, IFAW’s whale program leader wrote a blog post back in 2011. It includes: “...as I stare back at his face on the WikiLeaks homepage, that Julian Assange—who doesn’t look so well—is on a one-man mission, that the job he is tryin’ to do on us is about something other than saving whales or even promoting transparency in government, and that he really doesn’t much like us—as in U.S.”

The return of pelagic commercial whaling is imminent. The anti-whaling movement has failed to address the issues underpinning international negotiations over whaling, and now faces its greatest defeat. A major NGO focusing on whaling—one to whom many media outlets turn to for comment—has a track record of employing former U.S. military, and military intelligence, staffers. (And not just for whaling). Have these intelligence professionals failed to comprehend the geopolitical issues driving negotiations over whaling?

Kamala Harris says, in an echo of Joe Biden, that nothing will fundamentally change when it comes to U.S. funding and arming of Israel in its war against Gaza should she be elected president. But hey, at least the genocide will be carried out with an abundance of “joy.”

The post Joy-nicide! first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

I recently complained that public narratives about climate—those promoted on so called mainstream platforms, and featured in cryptic one-liners from Democratic Party hopefuls—boil down to evasive bullshit.

We are rather stuck with a climate narrative that offers two wrong answers, and, in its bifurcated and reductionist limitations, rather mirrors our two party system that offers two, and only two bad choices. The Republicans loudly tell us that climate overheating is an outright hoax, or some minor and wholly natural fluctuation of geological cycles. The Democrats counter this with a fetishized future of wind and solar power. Meanwhile corporate arsonists burn coal, oil and gas with ever more maniacal fervor.

I don't need to debunk Republican climate orthodoxy—it thrives on drooling acolytes who have capitulated to facile explanations. The popular Democratic Party fairytale on climate, however, may need to be examined here—many of us mindlessly accept that a future of limitless indulgence will inevitably come to pass. Wind and sunlight shine, and blow upon the faces of the rich and poor alike. Once we harvest these free gifts from creation, the collective wealth of our species will be "decoupled" from the alleged finite resources of the planet. We can all have everything we want. It will be as if we each had our own private Amazon/Walmart nirvana. The climate apocalypse has raged against a population morally and cognitively broken by false hopes.

Even if we pretend that human society will lurch into a utopian phase with no war, no overproduction and no burning of fossil fuels, it may be too late to prevent wholesale species extinction and further environmental collapse.

Many of us have been so disabled by impossible promises that we miss four enormous points: 1) Nations cannot create energy systems to harvest the unlimited wind and sunlight without exhausting planetary resources. 2) The required extracted materials to manufacture solar panels and renewable storage batteries must be stolen from the Global South. 3) Renewable energy under capitalism does not replace fossil fuels—it creates additional growth thereby expanding the need to burn even more fossil fuels. 4) The collapse of our ecosystems from greenhouse gasses and industrial poisons is so far along that massive sea level rise, heating and degradation of oceans (coral reef bleaching, anoxic waters, fish die offs) and inland desertification will inevitably continue well into the future by the sheer momentum already launched. Even if we pretend that human society will lurch into a utopian phase with no war, no overproduction and no burning of fossil fuels, it may be too late to prevent wholesale species extinction and further environmental collapse.

The climate/environmental momentum toward hell, however, is but one component that drives inevitable pessimism. Far worse is the suicidal intentions of corporations, governments, and our concomitant air of mass indifference. Most of us are not resigned from a sense of hopelessness, but disabled by unwarranted optimism, or buoyed by a delusional faith in technology and reason. Even on the left there is little narrative climate clarity—our confusion likely inspires triumphant chuckles in the private board meetings of the oil industry. One truly bizarre story told in progressive circles is that mass resistance to environmental destruction has been eroded by "doomerism."

Here, for example, is Nathan Robinson's take on climate from a piece in Current Affairs:

Writing about climate change in a way that makes people feel scared and hopeless, like they are going to die in a wildfire whether they like it or not, is, in my opinion, part of why climate coverage is such a “ratings killer.” My suspicion is not that nobody wants to confront the subject of climate change—Don’t Look Up faces the matter head-on, and is hugely popular—but that if discussion of it just feels disempowering and depressing, there is no reason for anyone to read about it. Here at Current Affairs, two of our most popular recent articles have been on climate change, but the underlying message has been about taking action rather than merely forecasting the inevitable apocalypse.) I do not think it is helpful to tell anyone to “settle into the trans-apocalypse.” No! Join the Sunrise Movement and throw political leaders who refuse to act on climate out of office.

Robinson's warnings about the dangers of large-scale pessimism echo those of Michael Mann who asserted that "Doomerism is the new denial." As an aside, I must mention that I am an admirer of both Robinson and Mann. The former is one of our most important progressive writers (and the first editor to post one of my pieces on a large platform!) while Mann has been a critically important scientist in detailing the trajectory of our climate. His "Hockey Stick" climate graphs inspired the term and popularized the concept.

But the entire construct of doomerism (as Robinson and Mann understand it) rests on a shibboleth—is inaction really founded on collective despair—or is fear of doomerism another distracting trope? Do masses of people go from understanding that corporate goons burn our world to a crisp, to tossing up their hands and saying, “Fuck it, it’s hopeless?” At some sudden moment in time do they simply come (so the story of doomerism goes) to accept that there is no point to civil disobedience? Are we truly disabled due to a vision of unstoppable, irredeemable collapse? To the contrary, perhaps pessimism inevitably accompanies an honest appraisal of our precarious environmental future.

The oil industry understands with pristine clarity that hopeless people are as likely to respond with violent rage as with passivity.

If doomerism is really the "new denial," if a brigade of fatalistic and resigned people eagerly reject hope and let the oil industry off the hook, we would expect to see screeds by Guy McPherson and Eliot Jacobson posted prominently at The Heartland Institute.

However, we see no such thing. The last thing that oil companies and fascist think tanks want to convey to the public is that corporate crimes have ruined the planet and nothing can be done to change it. The oil industry understands with pristine clarity that hopeless people are as likely to respond with violent rage as with passivity. Doomerism is not the new denial. In fact, you will never see a word of pessimism on an oil industry funded propaganda platform. The industry honchos want your brain to be infused with optimism—hope, upbeat faith in human schemes to find new and better ways serves the cause of energy profits. Here is a Chevron happy ad to prove my point.

- YouTube youtu.be

Recent Pew research shows that some 63% of US citizens feel that climate is not the most critical issue facing the country. Less than a third of U.S. adults favor phasing out fossil fuels. We are clearly not a nation beset by fatalistic resignation, and collective environmental surrender, but, rather, a country collectively neutered by Chevron-style ad campaigns.

Even our best climate narratives stumble at the point where capitalism enters the story. Many writers insert a ghostly entity known as "we," as in a superbly written piece by Priya Satia entitled, "The Way We Talk About Climate Change is Wrong."

We will not be ushered past the grim reaper by optimists.

Satia argues quite originally that the notion of time that is indispensable to the capitalist mindset—the prioritizing of the future as it exists in the concept of delayed gratification—drives the system of imperial plunder and overconsumption. But who is the "we" in Satia's narrative that talks about climate in the wrong way?

There is no we—no public that owns a unique climate narrative. "We" are all tools of industry and politicians. Our climate narratives have been injected into our heads by means of well practiced repetition. Satia argues that indigenous people have historically lived according to natural rhythms. They have, from their intimacy with the earth, developed the capacity to take pleasure in the moment (a perspective embraced by some western writers as well, such as Thoreau). The political force needed to initiate a mass movement willing to abandon capitalist addictions for a deeper happiness can only take place under the leadership and passion of people with little to lose.

Even a writer with the depth of Priya Satia reduces climate mitigation to an act of mental transformation. She understands that capitalist mindsets comprise an obstacle, but does not explicitly discuss the critical preliminary task—the overthrowing of capitalism. The leadership in such an improbable effort—if we can even imagine it—will have to come from people who conceive of their choices in the darkest terms. If we are to survive another century, doomers will be the key to an eleventh hour reprieve. We will not be ushered past the grim reaper by optimists.

Extinction Rebellion insists that governments tell the truth about climate. If this were to happen, doomerism would flood our collective mindset—most of us would be doomers. Governments know that they can only retain power by sugar coating the climate story with fantasies about solar powered utopias.

A few years ago both Jonathan Franzen and Roy Scranton wrote, in effect, that it is highly unlikely that a massive climate catastrophe can be averted. Both were attacked in intellectual circles despite the fact that neither discouraged climate activism, and neither had access to platforms affecting mass opinion. Nor were their positions illogical considering what we know about capitalist history. I believe that the real threats to climate centered civil disobedience are not pessimists from the literary world, but optimists from corporate propaganda platforms, party politicians and mainstream media. Barack Obama stated at the 2024 DNC Convention that the U.S. will "lead the way on climate." If only those espousing Pollyannaish bullshit were attacked the way that Franzen was, the climate future might be less dire.

The fiercest fighters might well be those who have no chance to succeed.

In short, we need doomers—people encouraged to use their platform to scream that we are fucked. There might be a few people who will drink from the doomer cup and curl into fetal surrender. There will be far more who will take this message and fight back.

Anyone familiar with the Nazi Holocaust recalls that prisoners confined to the Warsaw Ghetto only rebelled when all hope was lost. Hopelessness has historically been the driver of action. Perhaps Nat Turner was a doomer, John Brown as well. The fiercest fighters might well be those who have no chance to succeed. I am not saying that we have no hope to survive and maybe even flourish, but anyone who does not consider that hopelessness may be a rational response to current reality is living in a fantasy world.

Hope is a tranquilizer. The first step to mass civil disobedience involves a shared pessimism, a deep understanding that we are truly and inescapably fucked. Only then can we form a movement that has a chance. Nathan Robinson and Michael Mann are two brilliant figures but dead wrong about doomers. We need more of them—there can never be enough.

Outside the window, a storm gathers over Lake Atitlan. Inside, more than 50 women activists, including Guatemalan indigenous land defenders, international feminist leaders and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, listen attentively. Mayan ancestral authorities are telling the deep story of how a recent popular uprising mobilized by indigenous organizations held on for 106 days, defying one of the world’s most corrupt and tyrannic elites who were attempting to override the election results.

The triumph of the Guatemalan people’s movement in defense of democracy is all the more extraordinary because it was led by Indigenous peoples, youth, women, workers, urban poor—those who’ve been ignored and oppressed for centuries by the neocolonialist powers they now defeated at the polls.

Luz Emilia Ulario, ancestral leader of Santa Lucía Utatlán, summed up the moment: “We grew up in this racist, discriminatory system. It hasn’t just been 106 days--it’s been more than 532 years that we’ve been resisting. Those 106 days are when we all rose up together, we all spoke out to say what we think. We shed our fear. It was really the culmination of the 532 years.”

Ulario is one of many women ancestral authorities and indigenous community leaders who traveled to the lakeside village of Panajachel to meet with the international delegation “Women for Peace and Democracy,” organized by the Nobel Women’s Initiative of Peace Prize laureates; JASS, an international feminist movement building organization that supports women’s organizing and movements; and the Rigoberta Menchú Tum Foundation.

Defending representative democracy was not the obvious battle for Guatemalan indigenous peoples, and especially indigenous women, in a system rigged to exclude them.

The mobilization began after Bernardo Arevalo, the son of a former president and candidate of a relatively new and small party called Semilla, unexpectedly beat the candidate of the ruling elite, Sandra Torres. The Pact of the Corrupt, as these elite interests are known, controls most courts, and had twisted the laws and regulations to eliminate candidates it considered a threat, but Arevalo flew in under their radar. His surprising first-round win, confirmed in the second round, sent the elites into a panic.

Led by Attorney General Consuelo Porras--sanctioned for corruption, obstruction of rule of law and anti-democratic acts by the United States, Canada and the European Union—corrupt judges and conservative members of Congress attempted to annul the elections, criminalize Arevalo and other party leaders, and block the transition of power. For years, this group of politicians and justice officials had been coopting democratic institutions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches and persecuting land and rights defenders. The historic grassroots mobilization stopped them from consolidating authoritarian rule in what could have spelled the demise of democracy in Guatemala.

Defense of democracy

In many ways, neither the electoral upset nor the mobilization was surprising. For decades Guatemalans had watched the slow strangulation of their fledgling democracy while the world paid little attention. There were moments of breakthrough hope, like the historic recognition of genocide against the Mayan people in the Rios Montt trial in 2013 (despite being later overturned by the court on procedural issues), the resignation and imprisonment on corruption charges of former president Otto Perez Molina following widespread protests, and charges leveled against corrupt officials by the UN International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala together with a small group of honest judges.

But mostly the hope resided in the people themselves, in the local acts of resistance—against attacks on basic freedoms, against extractivist projects that take their land and resources, against violence, and in defense of human rights and democracy.

Isabel Matzir, a leader of the community-based defense of the Cahabón River in Alta Verapaz against a hydroelectric project and partner of Bernardo Caal, Cahabón leader imprisoned for four years for defending the river, described this longstanding resistance:

In spite of the repression, corruption and impunity of part of the Guatemalan State, the Mayan people have resisted forever. Our values and principles motivate us to defender our mother earth, our territory, our collective rights, our natural goods and especially our life. We’ve developed a form of activism with deep conviction, even with the risk that we’ll be criminalized or killed.

Matzir addressed the Vice President, ministers and the international delegation. Perhaps for the first time in the nation’s history, the words of an indigenous woman activist were within the walls of the National Palace.

The 2023 protests united these daily acts and catalyzed broader resistance. The crack in the system that opened up when the Pact of the Corrupt lost the presidential election became a floodgate. Traditional forms of indigenous organization that evolved despite centuries of neocolonial rule provided the strategic and logistical backbone--and the moral authority--to convoke broad swaths of society sick of elite pilfering and repression. Alongside the demand to defend the vote, a deeper movement emerged that goes beyond party politics and challenges the pillars of colonialism and neoliberalism. Within this deeper movement, women shown as leaders and support systems, for sustaining the protests and the spark of hope for a better future.

This hope, at a time when authoritarian forces are gaining strength in other parts of the world, was what drew the international feminist delegation to Guatemala. Shereen Essof, executive director of Just Associates--an international organization that supports women’s organizations--placed it in a global context. “Democracy is under threat around the world. There has been a real erosion of democratic institutions by electoral processes, by cooptation of state mechanisms over the last years, so here today the defense of democracy led by indigenous peoples in Guatemala gives us hope. There are great opportunities, but we also know there are great threats in relation to the democratic transition.”

A centuries-old resistance

It’s impossible to understand Guatemala’s 106 days of resistance without taking into account the Indigenous power structures that have existed since before the Conquest and erupted into view during the mobilization. Forty-five percent of the Guatemalan population is Mayan according to official figures, probably more. The 1996 Peace Accords recognize four peoples—Maya, Xinca, Garifuna and Mestizo—in the country the largest being the Mayan. The Mayan population has won recognition of numerous “indigenous mayorships” made up of ancestral authorities throughout the country. These leaders issued the national call to action, organized on the local level and in regional associations, such as the 48 cantons of Totonicapán, which played a key role in the mobilization.

Without this organizational frame, the cross-sector protests could not have come together as quickly and as powerfully as they did. Patricia Ardon, Guatemalan activist who works in feminist popular education with JASS, attributes the ability to break through the racist context and organize a nationwide movement to the long history of indigenous resistance and organizing.

She writes, “Indigenous authorities—Guatemala’s formally recognized Indigenous Mayorships and those whose legitimacy stems from their history of service to their communities and ancestral practices—said ‘Enough is enough!’ and called on the people to mobilize. They marched to the capital city to stand in front of the office of the Public Ministry and demand the resignation of the Attorney General and respect for democracy, symbolized at this juncture by respect for the citizens’ vote.”

Mayan organizations were able to catalyze the movement because of the power and cohesion derived from centuries of conscious effort to preserve culture, historical memory, and territorial rootedness. The mobilization came to be called “the uprising of the ruling staffs.” Feliciana Herrera, Ixil leader and ancestral authority of Nebaj, explained: “The Ixil people have maintained our resistance, our identity, against the constant efforts to undermine us. We’ve maintained our language, our culture and our practices… There is power in the ruling staff—this staff is not just a stick, it is sacred to us because it’s a symbol, the insignia that listens to our problems, that listens to everything we seek to resolve.”

Whose Democracy?

The inauguration of the new president and vice president caused jubilation among the indigenous and citizen groups that mobilized, but they didn’t stop questioning the system itself or lose focus on ongoing issues of access to land and territory and basic human rights. Defending representative democracy was not the obvious battle for Guatemalan indigenous peoples, and especially indigenous women, in a system rigged to exclude them.

Luz Emilia explained, “Many people ask: Why do you defend democracy if everyone knows we don’t live in a democracy, we’re never taken into account? Because democracy is broad. For the government, it’s asking people to go out and vote, that’s democracy for them, then they forget about us in governing… and we’re back to being obedient and receiving what they say. We mounted this defense and we organized because the people have given this government a vote of confidence, we’re defending ourselves from going back to being a country run by a dictatorship.”

In a joint statement delivered to the new government during the delegation, 24 Guatemalan women’s organizations wrote: “In Guatemala, the recently elected progressive government presents a historic opportunity to deal with problems that women face and the impact these have on our communities… We celebrate our victories and the resistance of innumerable women who have struggled for profound change. As opportunities come up, we also prepare to face the challenges and ensure that our voices are heard.”

“Now we succeeded in defending our country, but we’re going to continue to organize to show that we are capable of defending our rights."

The women water and land defenders, persecuted judges and journalists, indigenous authorities, students, representatives of LGBTQ+ and Garifuna Afro-descendent communities told the delegation that the electoral victory is a window. They have no illusions regarding the challenges ahead. Arevalo’s party does not have a majority in the legislature, the party is inexperienced, and his government faces a justice system captured and controlled by the ruling elite. Luz Emilia stated, “Now we have a president who understands the peoples, and is willing to work with the peoples, but if the legislation and judicial branches don’t contribute, we’re still living in a nation of impunity.”

Abigail Monroy, Maya Kaqchikel and ancestral authority of Chuarrancho, also noted that this is only a turning point on a long road. “The Guatemalan people initiated this resistance to defend democracy in the country. But we women say we still a lot of work to do. We don’t know how this government will do, so the struggle continues… we want a free democracy for our peoples, with us-- the women who have been part of this fight for national justice, for local justice, who seek the right to the common good. The state says ‘Here come the women, they don’t know how to read or write, they don’t even know what the State is.’ Of course we know what the State is, but who chooses it, who runs it? They do.

“Now we succeeded in defending our country, but we’re going to continue to organize to show that we are capable of defending our rights,” she concluded.

The power of women working together

The delegation promised to carry the words of Guatemalan activists into international forums. The last day, Nobel Prize winner Jody Williams told a prominent group of Ambassadors and heads of multilateral organizations,

The women we talked to are extremely interested in seeing the law changed. They worry about the megaprojects. They want studies of ecological impacts and consultations. They don’t want promises without results, words without actions, they want the state to provide resources for women… and a world where women do not have to worry every time they walk out of their houses that they might be raped or killed.

Guatemalan organizations note that they played the leading role, but that the international community played a supporting role in the defense of democracy. Countries, including the United States, which has historically supported coups and upheld genocidal dictatorships in Guatemala, immediately congratulated the president-elect and denounced the pseudo-judicial moves to prevent him from taking office. The OAS and European Union called for respect for the vote and many nations issued stern declarations and imposed sanctions against Attorney General Porras and her cohorts. When it became clear that the ruling regime was isolated in both the national and international sphere, it could not block the transition of power. Civil society organizations around the world also mobilized to pressure their governments to firmly reject all efforts to undermine democracy in Guatemala, and to support the nonviolent resistance.

More than solidarity, women are building a relationship of mutual benefit in difficult times.

International vigilance and solidarity continue to play a role. “This isn’t struggle for foreigners, it´s a struggle for here—to open the doors for dignifying our lives, for the defense of human rights by our own means, but the upholding the legitimate role of the women leaders, of the social organizations, must be on everyone’s agenda,” Nobel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu said at the delegation’s closing press conference.

More than solidarity, women are building a relationship of mutual benefit in difficult times. While Guatemalan indigenous leaders seek global alliances to face down the economic and political forces against them that are more threatening than ever, the international feminist activists know that Guatemalan women have set an example for the world that holds important lessons for confronting rising authoritarianism and patriarchal violence everywhere.

Months after the historic inauguration, the conservative forces of the Pact of the Corrupt have launched a series of actions that directly threaten the new government’s hold on power. The people continue to hold high expectations for real change, but that demands round-the-clock vigilance to hold back the offensive from the right, and to strengthen the ties and commitments forged in the 106 days of resistance.