If Israel is serious about ceasefire/hostage negotiations, it’s hard to tell from their decision to assassinate one of the chief negotiators for Hamas.

The post Welcome Ceasefire Negotiators first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

When U.S. Vice President Harris addresses the Democratic National Convention today, it will mark a historic moment for our nation, emblematic of what the future of representation can look like. As the first Black and Asian woman to earn a major party’s nomination, communities of color, much like my own, see in her the opportunity for a new direction in our country.

But for a majority of Americans, that new direction must include charting a different path than that of President Joe Biden and his predecessors when it comes to the war in Gaza and Palestinian rights.

As a Palestinian American who is an elected Democrat to the Colorado State House, it has been disheartening to witness Biden facilitate and abet Israel’s brutal war on Gaza with billions of dollars in U.S. weapons. While Israel has traditionally been the top recipient of U.S. foreign military aid (now surpassed by Ukraine since Russia’s invasion), the U.S. has, on average, sent Israel a weapons shipment every four days over the last 10 months, appropriating over $18 billion in weapons transfers during that period—and the administration just approved another $20 billion worth of military funding.

Harris can set a precedent in defending human rights without prejudice. Not only is this the right thing to do, it will also bolster her chances in November.

When I speak with my constituents, they are keenly aware of the billions in economic and military aid sent to Israel each year. Imagine if those funds were invested in education, housing, and healthcare right here at home.

Over the past 10 months, Israel has killed over 40,000 Palestinians, including upwards of 15,000 children. It has used starvation as a weapon against the population and violated every “red line” set by Biden. The International Court of Justice and a U.S. federal court have even ruled that Israel may be guilty of genocide and opened up an investigation.

In May, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister for war crimes. In July, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s military rule over Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza violates international law and constitutes apartheid.

Shortly after the court’s ruling, Israel’s parliament overwhelmingly voted to reject the creation of a Palestinian State, officially declaring what has been unofficial Israeli policy for decades. This rejectionist Israeli position is problematic for the U.S. at best.

For decades, the two-state solution has been the default talking point the U.S. uses to deflect from acknowledging the reality of Israel’s apartheid system, but Israel is making it harder and harder to maintain this fiction.

Biden has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, providing, in essence, unconditional support to Israel despite its violations of international law and U.S. policy. This has fostered a sense of impunity among Israeli leaders, paving the way for and worsening the current crisis.

Earlier this year, however, more than 750,000 voters chose “uncommitted” on their ballots in the Democratic primaries, signaling a demand for a new direction.

Harris has expressed concern and empathy for Palestinian suffering in ways Biden has not, but she hasn’t shown any openness toward a fundamental policy change—at least not yet. Her notable absence during Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and her choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate—seen as more favorable to progressive and Palestinian rights supporters—are encouraging signs.

However, these symbolic gestures need to be matched with concrete policy changes.

Harris has said that an arms embargo—which human rights organizations have been calling for—is off the table, but that she supports a cease-fire. To truly reach a cease-fire and prevent a regional conflict, the U.S. must halt the arms shipments that fuel the conflict.

As a former attorney general and as current vice president, Harris has taken an oath to defend the Constitution. She is no stranger to the responsibility to enforce existing laws and policies that prevent weapons transfers to foreign military units that commit gross human rights violations. Meanwhile, U.S. made bombs continue to kill Palestinians seeking safety in schools, tents, and hospitals.

Harris can set a precedent in defending human rights without prejudice. Not only is this the right thing to do, it will also bolster her chances in November.

Polls and recent protests show that a majority of Democrats want an immediate cease-fire and a change in U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine, including sanctions imposed on Israel over settlement construction, and sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis. Indeed, most Americans of all political stripes want a cease-fire, a halt in weapons transfers to Israel until it ends its assault on Gaza, and for the U.S. to be neutral between the two parties. By committing to policy changes, Harris can regain the support of communities that have distanced themselves from the Democratic Party in recent months—Arab and Muslim voters, young people, people of color, progressives, anti-war advocates, and the uncommitted movement.

The national Democratic party platform states, “We will speak and act with clarity and purpose on behalf of human rights wherever they are under threat.” This week, the Democratic Party has a chance to correct course on the war in Gaza and revive our democratic principles. We must adhere to the values that define us as Democrats.

The Democratic National Convention on Wednesday evening introduce Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, to the American public. It was a touching scene, with the enthusiasm of Walz’s family on full display, and his own folksy demeanor and common sense, along with a wry sense of humor, clearly wowed the audience.

I hate to get wonky in the midst of this feel-good moment, but elections are about policy. Here I want to examine a specific policy, green energy and climate. Although Walz was not thought particularly good on green energy when he was in Congress, his record as governor of Minnesota has shown real successes in these regards. I went through Uni Nexis and distilled these items from Targeted New Service on his record, which seems to me impressive.

On September 16, 2019, Gov. Tim Walz announced clean car standards in Minnesota, according to Targeted News Service. He instructed his administration to enforce a pair of clean vehicle regulations aimed at cutting down automobile emissions in the state. The low-emission vehicle (LEV) regulation mandated that car manufacturers offer passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs with reduced greenhouse gas emissions for the Minnesota market. Meanwhile, the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) regulation compelled automakers to provide a greater number of vehicles with minimal or no tailpipe emissions for sale in the state, such as electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids. Initial forecasts suggested that together, these two initiatives likely will have decreased yearly greenhouse gas emissions by 2 million tons by 2030.

In just the past year, Minnesota’s emissions fell 10%. EV registrations, still limited, grew by 55% since last year.

Walz remarked on this connection, slamming the pro-carbon then-President Donald Trump: “Climate change threatens the very things that make Minnesota a great place to live, from our magnificent 10,000 lakes to our farmable land and clean air. If Washington won’t lead on climate, Minnesota will. That is why we are taking bold action to reduce carbon emissions in a way that increases car options, protects public health, creates jobs, and saves Minnesotans money at the pump.”

On January 22, 2021, when Joe Biden had just come into the White House, Gov. Tim Walz and Lieutenant Gov. Peggy Flanagan unveiled a series of policy proposals aimed at achieving 100% clean electricity in Minnesota by 2040. These proposals expanded on Minnesota’s previous accomplishments in lowering reliance on fossil fuels and greater use of renewable energy to supply the state’s power needs.

Walz said: “The time to fight climate change is now. Not only is clean energy the right and responsible choice for future generations, clean energy maximizes job creation and grows our economy, which is especially important as we work to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. I am proud to announce a set of policy proposals that will lead Minnesota to 100% clean energy in the state’s electricity sector by 2040. Minnesotans have the ingenuity and innovation needed to power this future, and we are ready to pioneer the green energy economy.” (Targeted News Service)

Note that 2040 is 10 years before the Paris climate treaty’s deadline of 2050, so this was an ambitious climate plan.

On July 28, 2021 Targeted News Service reported that Walz and Flanagan ceremonially affixed their signatures to the historic Energy Conservation and Optimization Act of 2021 (ECO Act). This legislation enhanced Minnesota’s energy savings, diminished greenhouse gas emissions, and generated employment throughout the state. These jobs involved projects related to electricity, heating and cooling, ventilation, and insulation in residences and commercial establishments in Minnesota. Walz praised the bill for keeping Minnesota in the forefront of energy policy. The act helped families improve the energy efficiency of their homes and expanded eligibility of low-income families for such aid. It created jobs in housing insulation, electrical wiring, ventilation, and heating and cooling.

On Aug 12, 2021, a study was released by E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs) and nonprofits Clean Energy Trust and Clean Energy Economy MN (CEEM) showing that in excess of 55,300 Minnesotans worked in “energy efficiency and clean energy” by the end of 2020. Walz observed of the bipartisan report: “By supporting the growth of clean energy jobs, we are not only boosting our economy, but also protecting our environment and Minnesota’s future. This report proves that we can have a clean future while creating jobs at the same time. Minnesota workers have the ingenuity and dedication needed to pioneer the green energy economy and bring us into the future.” (Targeted News Service)

On August 18, 2022, Walz and Flanagan hailed the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which is actually green energy and climate legislation. Walz called it a “big win for Minnesota.” (Targeted News Service)

As of 2024, a third of Minnesota’s electricity now comes from wind, water, solar, and biomass. The state added 600 megawatts of wind and solar this year.

Another 21% came from nuclear power, which is low carbon, so 54%, a majority, of Minnesota’s electricity is now low carbon. Coal-fired electricity has fallen dramatically to only 19%, with somewhat cleaner natural gas at 27%.

In just the past year, Minnesota’s emissions fell 10%. EV registrations, still limited, grew by 55% since last year.

These numbers are across the board better than those of the United States as a whole, which speaks well of Gov. Walz. It is to be hoped that he can bring his climate and green energy commitments to the national stage as vice president.

On this episode of The Final Countdown hosts Ted Rall and Steve Gill cover top news from around the world, including the Obamas’ endorsement of Kamala Harris.    The show begins with political scientist Dr. Wilmer Leon sharing the latest developments out of the DNC amid the Obamas’ endorsement of Kamala Harris.    Then, journalist and political analyst Angie Wong breaks down the latest results of Florida’s and Alaska’s primaries.    The second hour starts with journalist and YouTuber Peter Coffin weighing in on RFK Jr. potentially considering dropping out.   

The show closes with the Managing Editor at Covert Action Magazine Jeremy Kuzmarov sharing his perspective on the elusive Gaza ceasefire talks. 

   The post The Final Countdown – 8/22/24 – Obamas Endorse Kamala Harris at DNC as Democrats Rally Around Her first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

In her impassioned speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama struck a chord with many progressives when she urged Democratic voters to overcome their "Goldilocks complex" regarding Kamala Harris's electability. "We cannot indulge our anxieties about whether this country will elect someone like Kamala, instead of doing everything we can to get someone like Kamala elected," she declared, addressing concerns about Harris's racial background and gender.

While Obama's call to action was inspiring for many, it inadvertently highlighted a much deeper and more problematic Goldilocks complex within progressive circles—perpetually searching for the "just right" Democratic politician who can somehow thread the needle between radical change and mainstream acceptability. This futile quest, exemplified by the enthusiasm for figures like Kamala Harris or even more avowedly left wing politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, leads to a cycle of hope and disappointment as each new "progressive" candidate inevitably compromises their ideals upon gaining power.

The fundamental flaw in this approach is the misguided belief that true systemic change can come through electoral politics alone, particularly within a party fundamentally wedded to capitalist interests. By fixating on finding the perfect candidate to address issues like authoritarianism, inequality, imperialism, war, discrimination, and climate change, progressives block themselves from recognizing that elections should be just one tactical part of a broader strategy for social and economic transformation. This myopic focus prevents the development of alternative structures and intersectional movements necessary for genuine socialist change. While strategic engagement with centrist parties may sometimes be necessary as a defensive measure against far-right authoritarianism, progressives must abandon the delusion that internal reform of capitalist parties can ever be sufficient.

True opposition to authoritarianism requires, thus, more than just rhetorical condemnation or appeals to defend existing democratic institutions. It demands a positive vision of a more just and equitable society, coupled with concrete actions to address the material conditions that make authoritarianism attractive to many.

Real progress demands building grassroots organizations, reinvigorating labor movements, creating mutual aid networks, and fostering broad coalitions that address the interconnected nature of various forms of oppression. Only by letting go of the Goldilocks complex and embracing the challenging work of building socialist alternatives can progressives move beyond the cycle of electoral disappointment and begin to address the true scale of the challenges we face, working towards a future of genuine freedom, equality, and sustainability for all.

The Democratic Goldilocks Complex: Searing for the "Just Right" Capitalist Politician

The Democratic Party, despite its occasional progressive rhetoric, remains fundamentally wedded to the capitalist system that perpetuates many of the issues progressives seek to address. While figures like Kamala Harris may represent important symbolic victories in terms of representation, their policies often fall far short of the radical changes needed to tackle the root causes of our societal problems. Democratic administrations have consistently failed to deliver meaningful change in areas such as economic inequality, climate change, healthcare, foreign policy, and criminal justice reform. These failures stem not from a lack of good intentions, but from the inherent limitations of working within a system designed to prioritize profit and maintain existing power structures.

The progressive Goldilocks complex manifests in the perpetual search for the perfect capitalist politician who can somehow thread the needle between radical change and mainstream acceptability. This quest has led to a cycle of hope and disappointment, as each new "progressive" candidate inevitably compromises their ideals upon gaining power. From Bill Clinton's "Third Way" to Barack Obama's "Hope and Change" to the more recent progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party, each iteration has promised transformative change while ultimately reinforcing the status quo. This pattern persists because the fundamental contradictions of capitalism cannot be resolved through electoral politics alone.

The allure of finding the "just right" capitalist politician is understandable. It offers the promise of change without the messy and challenging work of building alternative structures and movements. However, this approach ultimately serves to co-opt progressive energy and redirect it into supporting a system that is inherently opposed to true economic and social justice.

Beyond Ballots: Building Real Progressive Power

To break free from the Goldilocks complex, progressives must recognize that the solutions to our most pressing problems lie outside the confines of capitalist politics. This doesn't mean abandoning electoral engagement entirely, but rather understanding its limitations and focusing on building alternative structures and movements.

Key areas where progressives should focus their efforts include grassroots organizing, reinvigorating labor movements, creating mutual aid networks, developing educational initiatives, establishing cooperative enterprises, and building intersectional coalitions. By focusing on these areas, progressives can begin to build the infrastructure and popular support necessary for genuine systemic change.

Recognizing the limitations of centrist capitalist parties does not mean completely disengaging from electoral politics. In fact, socialists and progressives must often make strategic decisions to support centrist candidates as a bulwark against far-right authoritarianism. The rise of fascist and authoritarian movements around the world presents a clear and present danger that cannot be ignored. In this context, supporting centrist parties can be a necessary defensive measure to preserve democratic spaces and prevent the implementation of even more repressive policies.

However, this support must be tactical and conditional, never losing sight of the ultimate goal of systemic transformation. Progressives should view engagement with centrist parties as a means of buying time and space to build alternative structures and movements, not as an end in itself.

One of the most persistent manifestations of the Goldilocks complex is the belief that centrist capitalist parties can be internally reformed to enact the type of change needed to address our most pressing challenges. This belief has led many progressives to invest enormous energy in trying to "push the party left" through primary challenges, platform fights, and grassroots pressure. While these efforts can sometimes yield modest policy gains, they ultimately fail to address the structural limitations of parties beholden to corporate interests and wedded to capitalist ideology.

Building Intersectional Movements for Socialist Change

The rise of authoritarian populism that centrist parties so vocally deplore is itself a symptom of the failures of neoliberal capitalism. The economic insecurity, social atomization, and loss of faith in institutions that fuel right-wing movements are direct consequences of policies championed by both center-left and center-right parties over the past several decades.

The path forward for progressives lies not in finding the perfect capitalist politician or party, but in building broad, intersectional movements for socialist change. These movements must recognize the interconnected nature of various forms of oppression and exploitation, and work to address them collectively.

Crucial elements of such movements include centering a critique of capitalism and class exploitation while recognizing how it intersects with other forms of oppression, actively combating racial oppression, incorporating feminist perspectives, fighting for environmental justice, advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, incorporating disability justice, and opposing imperialism. By building movements that address these intersecting issues, progressives can create a powerful force for systemic change that goes beyond the limitations of capitalist electoral politics.

Building strong progressive movements serves a dual purpose: it enhances our ability to pressure mainstream political parties while simultaneously creating a bulwark against the rise of far-right extremism. By focusing on grassroots organizing, labor mobilization, and community-based initiatives, progressives can cultivate a power base that exists independently of electoral cycles.

This independent power allows progressives to approach political engagement from a position of strength. Rather than relying solely on internal party mechanisms or the charisma of individual candidates, a well-organized movement can exert external pressure on parties to adopt more progressive policies. The threat of withholding votes or mounting primary challenges becomes more credible when backed by a mobilized base.

Moreover, these movements create alternative spaces for political engagement and community building. By addressing immediate needs through mutual aid networks and fostering solidarity through shared struggle, progressive movements can offer a compelling counter-narrative to the alienation and resentment that often fuel far-right recruitment.

This grassroots approach is crucial in challenging the far-right at its source. By being present and active in communities, progressive movements can directly confront the economic anxieties and social dislocations that right-wing populists exploit. They can offer concrete solutions and a sense of collective agency that undermines the appeal of authoritarian demagogues.

True opposition to authoritarianism requires, thus, more than just rhetorical condemnation or appeals to defend existing democratic institutions. It demands a positive vision of a more just and equitable society, coupled with concrete actions to address the material conditions that make authoritarianism attractive to many.

As we confront the enormous challenges of our time—from climate change to rising authoritarianism to deepening inequality—progressives must abandon the Goldilocks complex that leads us to seek salvation in slightly better versions of the status quo. This doesn't mean completely disengaging from electoral politics or ignoring the real dangers posed by far-right movements. Strategic engagement with centrist parties can sometimes be necessary as a defensive measure. However, progressives must never lose sight of the fact that these parties are structurally incapable of addressing the root causes of our current crises. Their solutions not in finding the perfect capitalist savior, but in our collective power to imagine and create a fundamentally different kind of society.

Neither politicians (across the continuum) nor corporate media pundits engage in meaningful public discourse on climate and the environment. They choose not to acknowledge the scope of the threat or to sincerely analyze real means of addressing the gathering onslaught. The bogus dialogue on climate is all smoke and mirrors, feeding the masses fatuous illusions—promising future technological triumphs—and wielding uncertainty as a means to disarm public ire. Our popular discussions about the environment are almost never about capitalism precisely because (in the real world, as opposed to the world of mass fantasy) it is always and obviously about capitalism.

The wealth of information on climate available at the click of a computer may be staggering, but only a few stilted, corporate approved narratives leak into the popular climate conversations featured in political debates or commercial media. Our climate stories have been mutilated, distorted or subtly degraded by the money and influence of those whose profits come from environmental destruction.

The major political parties avoid an honest evaluation of our environmental crises in the manner of a vampire cringing before a clove of garlic. Don't hold your breath waiting for Kohei Saito or Jason Hickel to be interviewed on CNN or Fox News. Extinction Rebellion (XR) has demanded that governments tell the truth about climate overheating, but XR might as well insist that the cow jump over the moon. If the U.S. government were to voice even a timidly honest approximation of our environmental realities it would open the floodgates of its own complicity. Here are some truths that governments will never tell:

1) There is no adequate climate mitigation currently in practice anywhere on earth, and no plan to initiate any. Fossil fuels are being extracted and burned at all-time highs with no adequate regulation.

2) The sixth extinction is well underway, with species die offs now proceeding at a velocity unprecedented in geological history. (The Chicxulub meteor (Alvarez Impact Theory) would have created an even more abrupt mass extinction, however, Gerta Keller's rebuttal to Alvarez, compellingly argues that Deccan Traps volcanism (and not a meteor) did in the dinosaurs. Until the Alvarez/Keller dispute resolves into a clear verdict, our sixth extinction ought to be awarded the interim title for murdering life on earth swiftly.)

3) CO2 concentrations are increasing at least ten times faster than during the greatest mass extinction in earth's history—the "End Permian." In 2023, atmospheric CO2 increased by an astonishing 4.7 parts per million.

4) Climate ruin in the Global South will create more than a billion climate refugees in the next few decades, driving fascist movements and increasing the risk of famine, genocide, and war.

5) Temperature increases as high as 5 degrees Celsius are very possible by the end of the century if governments do not cooperate and radically change course globally. It must be said, they show no signs of even considering this. A 5°C rise in temperatures transpiring over the course of a mere two centuries would make our planet uninhabitable for human civilization as we know it. Bear in mind that the volcanism driving all five mass extinctions of deep time (I am giving the nod to Gerta Keller here) transpired across hundreds of thousands of years in each instance. Capitalism can obliterate millions of species in a geological nanosecond.

6) Sea level rise could be as much as seven feet by the end of the century, displacing billions of people in coastal areas.

7) The immediate future will feature anoxic oceans, slowing of ocean currents, massive dead zones, bleached coral reefs, and the cataclysmic die-off of fish. Inland, 120,000 square kilometers turn into desert annually.

A piece by Clayton Page Aldern just published in Aeon magazine details the ways that heat impinges on neurological functioning. We have just been sent reeling by the Covid-19 pandemic that, uniquely among pathogens, has a propensity to diminish cognition. Lead, the mother of all neurotoxins, is still ubiquitous in U.S. cities thanks to austerity that prioritizes military spending and government handouts to fossil fuel companies while gutting infrastructure spending.

Leaded gasoline, banned several decades ago, caused tens of millions of global deaths and created a worldwide epidemic of brain damage simply because General Motors held the patent on tetraethyl lead and blocked the use of cheap alternatives. Many survivors of leaded gasoline, including myself, now have the task of using our injured brains to come up with a solution to our environmental crises. Increasingly brain damaged people now must tackle increasingly unsolvable environmental assaults.

Factor in pesticides, plastics, mercury and a host of agricultural contaminants that make it difficult to think straight. The bruised remnants of our minds gravitate toward the immediate relief of addictive substances. The biggest of all addictions in a capitalist universe is spending and material consumption. We can't think about complex issues, but we can buy stuff created by fossil fuels.

With capitalism driving humanity toward a warp speed plunge into planetary ruin, our democratic systems have distilled the climate narrative into a bifurcated choice between Republican psychosis and Democratic hopium.

The Republican Party environmental narrative holds that climate change is either a complete hoax or an over-hyped inconvenience spurred by alarmists looking for academic funding. The Democratic Party narrative optimistically assumes that we merely need to defer to the free market and allow green industries to build the windmills and solar panels needed to make oil, coal, and gas obsolete. In other words, we face a certain apocalypse armed only with surrealistic fantasies.

Out of some sort of atavistic hope, I watched the Democratic Party convention searching for some glimmer of rational wisdom. How stupid of me! Conventions promote empty oratory as a matter of tradition. I ought to know by now that the soul of democracy is made out of marshmallow fluff.

There were no speeches suggesting that our politicians have been in touch with our scientists. No one mentioned the trajectory of atmospheric carbon, the future certainty of catastrophic weather or the looming extinction of myriads of species, including humanity. Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama did not mention climate—even in passing.

A couple of millennia ago, Nero allegedly "fiddled while Rome burned," and we still do not forgive him. Thousands of years in the future no one will be alive to hold our orchestra members accountable. For the record, Bernie Sanders did state that nothing in the Democratic Party platform is radical but "allowing polluters to destroy the planet" (he was talking about Republicans) is radical. Alexandra Ocasio - Cortez offered that Americans need "the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water." Barack Obama mentioned something about "America protecting the world from climate change," but with no elaboration. None of these one-liners counts as climate policy. Real climate policy for either party is greenwash and burn it down.

There was no talk about nationalizing fossil fuels, mobilizing all of the nation's resources for an all-out struggle against mass extinction. None of the feel-good slogans and platitudes had been aimed at climate. I will leave the readers with an important quote:

"From this angle, it becomes clear that capitalism is highly inefficient when it comes to meeting human needs; it produces so much, and yet leaves 60% of the human population without access to even the most basic goods. Why? Because a huge portion of commodity production (and all the energy and materials it requires) is irrelevant to human well-being. Consider this thought experiment: Portugal has significantly better social outcomes than the United States, with 65% less GDP per capita. This means that $38,000 of US per capita income is effectively ‘wasted’. That adds up to $13 trillion per year for the US economy as a whole; $13 trillion worth of extraction and production and consumption each year, and $13 trillion worth of ecological pressure, that adds nothing, in and of itself, to human well-being. It is damage without gain."

This quote is not from Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Tim Walz. No, it is from Jason Hickel, perhaps the most lucid and charismatic voice in the movement for degrowth. He was not invited to speak at the DNC convention, and I have no reason to quote him. Forgive me.

Many of the folks who began pouring into this city’s Union Park ahead of Monday’s major protest against U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza traveled great distances, like the bus convoy that left Minneapolis and drove all night straight to the park, or a man I met who’d come from California … by train. Some were protest veterans like the Code Pink posse, on the march since George W. Bush’s Iraq War, and some were even boomers who’d marched against the Vietnam War.

But Nick Lopez, 23, who graduated from college a year ago and still hasn’t found a job, and who lives here in Chicago, decided to pop on down to the March on the DNC, on the first day of the Democratic National Convention, all by himself. Before he left, he penned his protest message on both sides of a large sign, complaining about both his sizable student debt and the continued backing of leading Democrats for sending weapons to Israel, arguing in his scrawl that the “DNC is unfair.”

“I want to show my solidarity with the Palestinians, and call on the Democratic Party, who say they’re fighting for democracy, to enact an arms embargo,” he told me, expressing moral outrage over the killing in Gaza, but also questioning America’s priorities.

“We could just house the homeless with that much money; that could go to people who are here who need it, instead of bombing children.”

“Bro, I’ve been unemployed since graduation, I have $21,000 in unpaid student loans, and the Democratic Party thinks it can maneuver the money to Israel to buy bombs, but I can’t get a student loan bailout? We can’t get a public works project like before?… They want to put on this grand show, but there’s going to be a vast majority of constituents telling you to do this.”

I spent most of Monday in Union Park, soaking up the August sun and breathing the windswept dirt from the softball infield at a rally with a cheerful vibe that felt more like a Lollapalooza concert than an angry mob, except for the lack of a beach ball to bat around and the Palestinian music that warmed up the crowd.

I listened to speeches and walked with marchers past the endless thin blue line of bike cops. But mainly, I came to meet some of the estimated 5,000 to 6,000 marchers—a good crowd, but far short of the 20,000 some organizers hoped for—and to listen. That’s because ever since this war began with the unconscionable Hamas assault of October 7, demonstrators on college campuses and elsewhere have been portrayed by TV pundits mostly as cartoon characters, mysteriously propelled by nothing more than their alleged antisemitism.

Here’s the deal. The harsh views of many marchers toward Israel and its current leaders as well as the concept of Zionism that led to Israel’s origin in 1948, and the Democrats and their nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris—dubbed “Killer Kamala” on Monday by some chanting protesters—would offend and trouble many voters who don’t agree with them. At the same time, I never saw or heard anything offensive toward Jewish people, or even the words Jew or Jewish mentioned over five hours. Except when several of the attendees told me they were Jewish.

“I’m a Jewish person, and have been anti-Zionist my whole life—as soon as I found out what it was,” said Ly Baumgardt, a 23-year-old activist from Minneapolis who is active in the Democratic Socialists of America. Like nearly every protester I spoke to, Baumgardt has a very specific grievance: that Israel’s months of assaults on Gaza have killed thousands of women and children, that the U.S. is paying for a lot of this with foreign aid and arms deals, including a new $20 billion multiyear sale supported by President Joe Biden, and that Biden and Harris need to listen to the millions of Americans morally outraged by this. “We could just house the homeless with that much money; that could go to people who are here who need it, instead of bombing children,” they said.

Officials in Gaza say that more than 40,000 have been killed there since October, the majority of them civilians. Most of those who marched on the DNC Monday believe that is a genocide, and said that belief morally obligates them to speak out.

It felt like the healthy red blood cells of dissent were trying to force their way through a clogged artery, crimped by the fatty tissue of a decadent republic.

Carol Walker saw the infamous anti-Vietnam War protests at 1968’s Chicago DNC on TV, and in November 1969 she joined the roughly 250,000 people who descended on Washington, D.C., for the massive moratorium protest. Now 73, she belongs to a group called Women Against Military Madness. “I think we need to put pressure on our politicians” for a cease-fire and a weapons embargo.

Most political experts question whether protests will have any influence on Harris, who has met with some pro-Palestinian activists but has given no indication she would change the current U.S. policies of bomb shipments and other aid to Israel. And many rank-and-file Democrats are angered by the tenacity of these protests, which they argue only aid the potential second coming of Donald Trump, who would not only curb democracy but also offer an even more militaristic Middle East policy than Biden.

Indeed, the only major political figure who joined the nearly two-hour procession of pre-march speakers was independent presidential candidate Cornel West, the leftist academic who Democrats fear will siphon votes away from Harris in any state he qualifies for the ballot. West gave a passionate and eloquent defense of the Gaza movement. “This is about not some Machiavellian politics or utilitarian calculation about an election,” he said. “This is about morality! This is about spirituality.”

Gaza protesters have a story to tell that you rarely hear on cable TV or elsewhere in the mainstream media. The folks who marched on Monday truly believe their opposition to U.S. support for Israel in Gaza is why Biden dropped out of the presidential race last month—because his lack of support from young people and Black and brown voters who oppose the war was the reason he hopelessly trailed Trump.There is something to that idea, although I think it’s far from the only reason Harris has surged past the GOP ex-president in the polls. But I do think the marchers are 100% right about this: When first Biden and then Harris reject a position that, according to one recent poll, is held by 77% of everyday Democrats who want the U.S. to stop sending weapons to Israel, then something is broken with American democracy.

On Monday night, DNC delegates voted, without any serious debate, for a platform that was hashed out before most of them had even arrived in Chicago, that doesn’t address any of the protesters’ concerns. Such a debate might spoil the reality show of preapproved TV speechifying, which has become the only function of what used to be conventions. That’s not democracy. What is democracy is what 6,000 angry citizens did here Monday afternoon: exercising their First Amendment rights to speak freely, to assemble, and to air their grievances with a government that isn’t listening.

Over the course of the 21st century, those rights have been reduced to a size where they could be drowned in a bathtub zone. Free speech on the things that matter has been squeezed into narrow zones, kettled and occasionally tear-gassed, and surrounded by massive displays of militarized police force backed by concrete barriers that make downtowns look like a Grand Prix course. On Monday, police arrested at least four marchers who tried to bust loose.

That didn’t happen with the group I marched alongside, who went off midafternoon squeezed onto cramped streets several significant blocks away from the United Center delegates they so desperately wanted to hear them. That seemingly endless phalanx of hundreds of bicycle cops walled off the entire route. It felt like the healthy red blood cells of dissent were trying to force their way through a clogged artery, crimped by the fatty tissue of a decadent republic. Show me what democracy looks like? This is what today’s democracy looks like.

In one of the more memorable scenes from the Scorcese mob classic Goodfellas, Jimmy scolds his co-conspirators for flaunting the spoils of their infamous Lufthansa Heist—the 1978 theft of $6 million in cash and jewels from New York’s JFK Airport.

“Didn’t I tell you not to get anything?” Jimmy snaps at Johnny, who had arrived at the Christmas party in a new pink Cadillac. Moments later, Frank walks in alongside a date donning a new mink coat, and Jimmy is incensed. “In two days, one guy gets a Caddy and one guy gets a $20,000 mink!”

The mob logic portrayed here—that when you hit a major lick, it’s best to lay low and not attract attention—seems innocent by the standards of the Trump administration’s signature heist: the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). That law paved the way for corporate America’s “mink coats and Cadillacs” moment by slashing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%—robbing the public of roughly $1.3 trillion and further enriching billionaires and top executives. In Goodfellas terms, that’s equal to 46,428 inflation-adjusted Lufthansa heists. And like Johnny and Frank, the corporations who scored the biggest windfalls have since done the opposite of lay low. They have instead gone on a years-long profiteering binge, rolling out some of the most egregious tactics to cash in even further.

In typical trickle-down fashion, the corporate rate cut was sold as a boon to workers and ordinary families. The Trump administration said the TCJA’s most expensive provision would boost wages to the tune of $4,000 per year. That promise, it turns out, was a fraud. According to a recent study, 90% of American workers received zero dollars from the TCJA’s corporate rate cut. Meanwhile, executive pay soared, and stock buybacks hit a record high $1 trillion in the year after it passed.

So what did the typical American family get if not a major boost in income? Junk fees, deceptive scams at the grocery store, price gouging, and major collusion scandals in everything from meatpacking to rentals to oil and gas. It can be said that the TCJA unleashed a greatest hits of predatory tactics by rewarding otherwise too-risky pricing schemes that push consumer loyalty to the brink. Lower taxes and record profits also mean more money to buy lobbying power in Washington to push for more tax cuts. In that way, our dangerously low-tax environment exposes all of us to the worst and riskiest corporate behavior.

Higher corporate taxation means fewer opportunities to hoard profits and rip off consumers, and more opportunities to invest in healthcare, child care, education, and jobs—the things proven to improve quality of life and democratize economic opportunity.

According to a February study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), 342 profitable corporations paid an effective tax rate of 14.1% from 2018 to 2022, well below the 21% signed into law by the Trump administration. Layered onto decades of corporate tax cuts, the TCJA pushed the U.S. to the very bottom of the OECD in terms of revenue raised from corporations as a share of the economy. And Republicans are poised to go even further if former U.S. President Donald Trump retakes the White House.

A recent analysis from CAP Action found that Trump’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate even further to 15% would provide the top 100 U.S. companies with an additional $48 billion gift every year. This means even more breathing room to test out the next wave of ripoff schemes needed to satisfy investors. Whether it’s major credit card companies jacking up APRs even further, Amazon running more casino-style pricing experiments, or Tyson Foods deploying more algorithms to allegedly collude on meat prices, lower taxation offers a sweet incentive to profiteer at the expense of consumers.

Raising the corporate tax rate won’t fix everything that’s broken with corporate America or our economy. But it will fundamentally change the economic rules. Higher corporate taxation means fewer opportunities to hoard profits and rip off consumers, and more opportunities to invest in healthcare, child care, education, and jobs—the things proven to improve quality of life and democratize economic opportunity.

Since the Trump tax cuts, the largest corporations have flaunted their record profits like caddies and minks, bragging on earnings calls about the new tricks they’re using to raise prices on consumers. The era of tax heists must end if we are to stop them. The time to end it is now.

Here’s Why Prices Are Still High

Americans feel like they’re still being price-gouged, even as inflation has come down. In many ways they’re right.

If we take a closer look at a few of the biggest drivers of inflation, we’ll see that some corporations are still using their power and shady techniques to keep prices high while they rake in record profits.

Let’s start with rent. In another video, I’ve told you how Wall Street investors are infiltrating the housing market by buying up hundreds of thousands of homes and rental properties.These corporate landlords then jack up rents on their units by hundreds of dollars every year.

In the first quarter of 2024, the six largest corporate landlords in America saw their collective profits climb by nearly $300 million thanks to rent increases. They’re raking it in while spending nearly a third of those profits on stock buybacks to enrich wealthy shareholders.

Each of these corporations is using a software company called RealPage, which allegedly allows them to collude with each other to fix rental prices. RealPage’s technology is used to price 16 million apartments nationwide.

What about gas prices?

In 2022, the top five Big Oil companies collectively made nearly $200 billion in profits, double the prior year. Then they spent $100 billion on stock buybacks and dividends. 2023 was another banner year for Big Oil. While you continued to pay through the nose at the pump, corporations like Chevron “returned more cash to shareholders and produced more oil and natural gas than any year in the company’s history,” according to its CEO.

According to recent findings from the Federal Trade Commission, a major Big Oil executive allegedly colluded with OPEC in recent years to artificially cut supply and drive up prices across the industry. By one estimate, that price-fixing scheme resulted in a windfall of $205 billion in excess profits — which cost each American consumer an average of more than $2,000 a year.

That’s more than $2,000 Americans could have spent on groceries. But of course groceries are another burden on our pocket books.

Americans have been paying an arm and a leg in particular for beef, pork, and poultry. Meat producers don’t need to worry about competitors with lower prices because four companies control the bulk of all meat processing in America. This has helped each of those companies siphon more money from you while raking in record profits over the past few years.

And the biggest meat producers use a high-tech pricing tool from a data company called Agri Stats that allegedly allowed them to share information and coordinate price hikes.

None of these price increases has anything to do with government spending or pandemic relief checks from four years ago, despite what you might hear. And workers aren’t to blame, either. After decades of stagnant wages, workers have finally seen modest pay bumps. But this pales in comparison to corporate profits, which are at record highs.

The problem is too much corporate power. And the solution is to crack down on corporations profiteering at your expense.

The Department of Justice under President Biden is investigating RealPage’s facilitation of rental price-fixing and launched a massive antitrust lawsuit against Agri Stats. And Biden’s Federal Trade Commission is suing to block the megamerger of Kroger and Albertsons that would send food prices through the roof.

House Democrats are investigating Big Oil for price fixing, based on the FTC’s damning report. Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to crack down on price-gouging.

Of course much more needs to be done.

Americans are struggling to get by while corporations are raking it in.

We need to keep tackling corporate power.

An Orwellian disconnect haunts the 2024 Democratic National Convention. In the isolation of the convention hall, shielded from the outside world behind thousands of armed police, few of the delegates seem to realize that their country is on the brink of direct involvement in major wars with Russia and Iran, either of which could escalate into World War III.

Inside the hall, the mass slaughter in the Middle East and Ukraine are treated only as troublesome “issues,” which “the greatest military in the history of the world” can surely deal with. Delegates who unfurled a banner that read “Stop Arming Israel” during U.S. President Joe Biden’s speech on Monday night were quickly accosted by DNC officials, who instructed other delegates to use “We ❤️ Joe” signs to hide the banner from view.

In the real world, the most explosive flash point right now is the Middle East, where U.S. weapons and Israeli troops are slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians, mostly children and families, at the bidding of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And yet, in July, Democrats and Republicans leapt to their feet in 23 standing ovations to applaud Netanyahu’s warmongering speech to a joint session of Congress.

The people inside the convention hall should shake themselves out of their complacency and start listening to the people in the streets.

In the week before the DNC started, the Biden administration announced its approval for the sale of $20 billion in weapons to Israel, which would lock the U.S. into a relationship with the Israeli military for years to come.

Netanyahu’s determination to keep killing without restraint in Gaza, and Biden and Congress’ willingness to keep supplying him with weapons to do so, always risked exploding into a wider war, but the crisis has reached a new climax. Since Israel has failed to kill or expel the Palestinians from Gaza, it is now trying to draw the United States into a war with Iran, a war to degrade Israel’s enemies and restore the illusion of military superiority that it has squandered in Gaza.

To achieve its goal of triggering a wider war, Israel assassinated Fuad Shukr, a Hezbollah commander, in Beirut, and Hamas’ political leader and chief cease-fire negotiator, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran. Iran has vowed to respond militarily to the assassinations, but Iran’s leaders are in a difficult position. They do not want a war with Israel and the United States, and they have acted with restraint throughout the massacre in Gaza. But failing to respond strongly to these assassinations would encourage Israel to conduct further attacks on Iran and its allies.

The assassinations in Beirut and Tehran were clearly designed to elicit a response from Iran and Hezbollah that would draw the U.S. into the war. Could Iran find a way to strike Israel that would not provoke a U.S. response? Or, if Iran’s leaders believe that is impossible, will they decide that this is the moment to actually fight a seemingly unavoidable war with the U.S. and Israel?

This is an incredibly dangerous moment, but a cease-fire in Gaza would resolve the crisis. The U.S. has dispatched CIA Director William Burns, the only professional diplomat in Biden’s cabinet, to the Middle East for renewed cease-fire talks, and Iran is waiting to see the result of the talks before responding to the assassinations.

Burns is working with Qatari and Egyptian officials to come up with a revised cease-fire proposal that Israel and Hamas can both agree to. But Israel has always rejected any proposal for more than a temporary pause in its assault on Gaza, while Hamas will only agree to a real, permanent cease-fire. Could Biden have sent Burns just to stall, so that a new war wouldn’t spoil the Dems’ party in Chicago?

The United States has always had the option of halting weapons shipments to Israel to force it to agree to a permanent cease-fire. But it has refused to use that leverage, except for the suspension of a single shipment of 2,000-pound bombs in May, after it had already sent Israel 14,000 of those horrific weapons, which it uses to systematically smash living children and families into unidentifiable pieces of flesh and bone.

Meanwhile the war with Russia has also taken a new and dangerous turn, with Ukraine invading Russia’s Kursk region. Some analysts believe this is only a diversion before an even riskier Ukrainian assault on the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Ukraine’s leaders see the writing on the wall, and are increasingly ready to take any risk to improve their negotiating position before they are forced to sue for peace.

But Ukraine’s recent incursion into Russia, while applauded by much of the West, has actually made negotiations less likely. In fact, talks between Russia and Ukraine on energy issues were supposed to start in the coming weeks. The idea was that each side would agree not to target the other’s energy infrastructure, with the hope that this could lead to more comprehensive talks. But after Ukraine’s invasion toward Kursk, the Russians pulled out of what would have been the first direct talks since the early weeks of the Russian invasion.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remains in power three months after his term of office expired, and he is a great admirer of Israel. Will he take a page from Netanyahu’s playbook and do something so provocative that it will draw U.S. and NATO forces into the potentially nuclear war with Russia that Biden has promised to avoid?

A 2023 U.S. Army War College study found that even a non-nuclear war with Russia could result in as many U.S. casualties every two weeks as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did in two decades, and it concluded that such a war would require a return to conscription in the United States.

While Gaza and Eastern Ukraine burn in firestorms of American and Russian bombs and missiles, and the war in Sudan rages on unchecked, the whole planet is rocketing toward catastrophic temperature increases, ecosystem breakdown, and mass extinctions. But the delegates in Chicago are in la-la land about U.S. responsibility for that crisis too.

Under the slick climate plan former President Barack Obama sold to the world in Copenhagen and Paris, Americans’ per capita CO2 emissions are still around double those of our Chinese, British, and European neighbors, while U.S. oil and gas production have soared to all-time record highs.

The combined dangers of nuclear war and climate catastrophe have pushed the hands of the Doomsday Clock all the way to 90 seconds to midnight. But the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial complex. Behind the election-year focus on what the two parties disagree about, the corrupt policies they both agree on are the most dangerous of all.

President Biden recently claimed that he is “running the world.” No oligarchic American politician will confess to “running the world” to the brink of nuclear war and mass extinction, but tens of thousands of Americans marching in the streets of Chicago and millions more Americans who support them understand that that is what Biden, former President Donald Trump, and their cronies are doing.

The people inside the convention hall should shake themselves out of their complacency and start listening to the people in the streets. Therein lies the real hope, maybe the only hope, for America’s future.

The following is the English translation of an essay that first appeared in the Swedish publication Dagens ETC and appears at Common Dreams with permission from the author.

Elon Musk is perhaps one of the purest examples in recent years of the conversion of raw economic power into informational, social, and political power. What makes Musk such a dangerous figure is those various forms of power combined with his willingness to openly lie about his personal and corporate relationships to issues of free speech and democracy.

The level of power and influence he has amassed is a danger to all citizens, whether they like Musk or not. It is also, without a shadow of a doubt, a threat to democracy.

After the riots that broke out in the UK following the murder of three young children in the town of Southport, a number of social media users were arrested and charged in relation to those riots. Musk amplified tweets that claimed the use of the law in this manner was “Orwellian.” In other words, a repressive state was cracking down on citizens for little more than expressing their opinions or thinking in the wrong way. But that argument hid the fact that many of those arrested were charged under UK law with inciting both violence and racial hatred: forms of speech rightly illegal in many countries.

Nevertheless, in “1984” terms Musk pitched himself as standing alongside the Winston Smiths of this world in battle against the Big Brothers. As the defender of the rights of the “ordinary person” in the face of a violent, elite, repressive machine.

You could cut the irony with a knife.

Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, bought a communication platform that enables him to control information and messaging across the globe. With that platform he also gathers huge amounts of data on users. He uses his position to advocate for political candidates and political agendas he supports and cooperates with various authoritarian regimes to shut down messages and accounts critical of their power. His company literally pays individuals whose accounts spread and amplify proven disinformation, and has himself spread and amplified proven disinformation. He throttled access to news outlets he disagreed with. He threatened to sue individuals and organizations that have been nothing more than critical of his own communication platform and other business dealings. When advertisers decide that they no longer wish to spend money on his platform because of increasing levels of disinformation and hate speech, he threatened to sue them as well.

There is something Orwellian going on here, but not in the way Musk claims.

In “1984” Orwell came up with the term “doublethink” to refer to how the exercise of pure authoritarian power includes getting people to believe two things at the same time, even if those two things are in direct contradiction. The most classic examples from the book being the expressions War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.

Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”

With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run.

Musk is the defender of free speech and democracy who censors opponents of authoritarian regimes. Musk is the advocate of free and open debate who sues people who criticize his platform. Musk is the lover of the free market who threatens to take advertisers who won’t give him money to court. Musk is the defender of workers who actively fights organized labor.

As an academic, I realize that my criticism of Musk will likely be dismissed along ideological grounds. But I can tell you that academics have been warning about the dangers of excessive concentration of private and corporate mainstream media ownership for decades, and that criticism was in relation to all media, including mainstream outlets people call “left-wing.” We warned that power would continue to concentrate and that the damage to democracy could be severe. Yet, when we made those warnings, mainstream journalists, editors and owners largely dismissed them as out of touch and irrelevant. What do academics know of the real world?

Well, here we are now with Musk.

With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run. By his actions Musk has shown no indication that he has no real interest in freedom of speech or ordinary working people. This should be of grave concern to all citizens regardless of their political inclination.

Orwell, a social democrat, was ahead of his time in anticipating the use of technology in surveillance and disinformation in the service of power. Musk is right that Orwell is relevant to today’s society. He’s just wrong about what side of the fight he is on.

A group of former fighters from Palestine and Israel plus active duty U.S. GIs announced last week why they decided to stop participating in war and urged U.S. military members to tell Congress to stop funding Israel's genocide in Gaza via the " Appeal for Redress v2."

The online news conference was organized by Veterans For Peace and featured a former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) special forces member, a young Israeli who just finished 85 days in jail for refusing to join the military, a former Hamas youth activist, and three active-duty U.S. military members who are awaiting discharge as conscientious objectors.

Elik Elhanan is a former special forces soldier in the IDF who, from 1995-98, served in south Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. In 1997, his 14-year old sister was killed by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. He joined Courage to Refuse in 2002, co-founded the Israeli-Palestinian group Combatants for Peace in 2005, and now serves on the board of American Friends of Combatants for Peace.

He said: "My service made it clear that violence became an end rather than a means. In nonviolence I found a language for community building that allows for self-expression and exchange, while engaging in fierce resistance against the hegemonic discourse." Elik received his PhD in Middle East studies from Columbia University and is currently teaching at City College, New York.

"All we want is to live together without fear."

Sofia Orr, 19, spent 85 days in an Israeli military jail for refusing to join the Israeli Defense Force. Granted conscientious objector status and released in June, she wrote in her statement of refusal: "I refuse to enlist in order to show that change is needed and that change is possible, for the security and safety of all of us in Israel-Palestine, and in the name of empathy that is not restricted by national identity... I want to create a reality in which all children between the Jordan River and the [Mediterranean] Sea can dream without cages."

Ahmed Helou, now 52, lives in the West Bank and is a member of Combatants for Peace. He said: "I was born to a refugee family that was forced to flee from their home in 1948. Most went to Gaza while my parents fled to Jericho. They told me how Palestinians were killed right in front of them and how they passed by many bodies as they ran for safety."

"At 15, I was invited to join a group called Hamas, to fight for the freedom of my people. It was 1987, the First Intifada. I threw rocks and made Palestinian flags. In 1992, I was sentenced to seven months in an Israeli military prison as a political detainee. When my parents visited, they told me about the Oslo process and I couldn't stop thinking about how we could have another life."

"In 2004, a friend invited me to participate in a workshop with Israelis. I was shocked and angry. How could you ask me to meet my enemy who killed my people, took my land, and made me a refugee? By the fourth day, I found myself asking them, 'Are you really Israelis?' I had never met any who were not in uniform or carrying out violence–until then, I could not see their humanity. After the seminar, I wanted to know more about the 'other side,' to hear their stories, and understand them. Then I found Combatants for Peace."

"My wife and I have lost over 80 members of our extended family, including parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins in this war. My one remaining sister, Eman, and her five children are still alive. We are desperate to save them. Every day we awake in fear of what news will come. I hope I will be able to reunite with my sister and her family and be able to live together in peace, safety, and security. All we want is to live together without fear. We are scared for our children's lives and are doing all we can to protect them from the violence."

USAF Senior Airman Larry Hebert said: "As an active duty servicemember who joined believing our military was a force for good in the world, I'm horrified by the position of the United States government to fully support the genocide and occupation of civilians in Palestine. I'm also horrified by the true nature of war and its motives. The men and women who recognize their morals and beliefs and act on them are sometimes mistakenly taken as emotional. The truth is that having morals and standing firm on them is a sign of moral intelligence that many people seem to lack. Our complacency toward human suffering while seeing who profits from it is intolerable. I extend my heart to Palestine and those suffering from the country I used to have pride in. These are my views, not those of the Department of Defense."

"These military members today are following in the footsteps of courageous soldiers before them who are countering the failed narrative that we can bomb our way to peace."

USAF Senior Airman Juan Bettancourt said: "After 311 days, the death toll is appalling: nearly 41,000 innocent lives brutally taken, the majority women and children. Excruciating reports estimate a devastating total of 186,000 deaths, with almost 93,000 more suffering from severe injuries. Stories of widespread sexual violence, merciless executions, torture, and an endless list of war crimes flood the news, and yet our government remains apathetic to the suffering of Palestinians and the cries of millions calling for a lasting cease-fire and justice. As conscientious objectors, as advocates for peace and human rights, as service members with a shred of moral decency left in us, we adamantly refuse to be accomplices in this genocide. We demand an immediate, unilateral cease-fire and the cessation of all weapons transfers to the reprehensible state of Israel. These are my views, not those of the Dept. of Defense."

USAF Second Lt. Joy Metzler said: "As an active duty service member, I have been told repeatedly that military strength is the only way to counteract the threats we face in the world. But once again we see that violence, this time perpetrated by the Israeli government, only leads to death and destruction in an ever growing conflict. Hate begets hate, so I am calling for a cease-fire and an end to the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. These are my views, not those of the Dept. of Defense."

Mike Ferner, special projects coordinator for Veterans For Peace, said: "It is highly significant that former fighters from Israel and Palestine have joined American GIs to say, 'War is not the answer.' A growing number of GIs tell us they are disturbed about being in the military while our government funds the bombing of innocent people in Gaza. Now we can see that soldiers from all sides of this conflict are sickened by a war run by tyrants benefitting only weapons makers, that is both morally repugnant and violates U.S. laws with every weapons transfer to Israel."

Tiffany Goodwin-Van Camp, executive director of American Friends of Combatants for Peace, shared a message from the Combatants for Peace movement: "We refuse to be pitted against each other as enemies. We support peace, freedom, and dignity for all peoples between the river and the sea and an end to the occupation harming both Palestinians and Israelis. Our ultimate goal is collective liberation because we know that the fate of Israelis, Palestinians, and all of us is intertwined. Every day, CfP activists live out the values of nonviolence, empathy, and mutual recognition, holding each other's grief and pain. The trauma is endless and ongoing, but our community provides hope. It shows that another way is possible; that violence is not inevitable but a human choice that we can change. The only real solution is a hostage/prisoner deal now and a political agreement based on our shared humanity."

Civilian defense attorney James M. Branum said: "Too many service members are wrongly told by their commanders that they 'have no right' to speak out about what is happening in Gaza. This is not true as communications to Congress, such as the Appeal for Redress v2, are 'protected communications' under military regulations."

Bill Galvin, counseling coordinator at the Center on Conscience and War, said: "Our office has received calls from six new conscientious objectors in the past week. Some of them have said they feel complicit in the violence happening in Gaza. All of them have clearly said that participating in that conflict is morally wrong. That's why the Center on Conscience and War is supporting this Appeal for Redress."

Ariel Gold, executive director of Fellowship of Reconciliation, said: "Despite the pro-war hysteria that countries use to justify their military endeavors, conscientious objection remains a courageous option for those committed to peace. The Fellowship of Reconciliation supports resistance to war as we know that war is an abomination in the eyes of God and inherently unable to birth peace."

Diana Oestreich, a former Army combat medic in the Iraq War, was a conscientious objector and is development coordinator for Red Letter Christians. She said: "As soldiers we gave an oath to serve our country. Seeing the destruction in Iraq firsthand showed many of us our duty to be a conscience to our country. To stand up, instead of stand down, when lives and our country and faith's integrity is on the line. We are serving our country by refusing war. These military members today are following in the footsteps of courageous soldiers before them who are countering the failed narrative that we can bomb our way to peace."

To increase the awareness of this campaign among members of the military, civilian supporters of the appeal are encouraged to share it on social media and to ask peace and justice organizations to share it with their membership.

Initiated by active-duty military members, veterans, and G.I. rights groups, "Appeal for Redress v2" is modeled after the 2006 Appeal for Redress conducted during the highly unpopular occupation of Iraq, to allow GIs to tell their representatives they are opposed to U.S. policy.

The recent wildfires in Greece started on Sunday 11 August in Varnavas, 35 kilometres (22 miles) north of Athens. By the time they were brought under control three days later, they had reached the capital’s suburbs, having burnt through 25,000 acres of forest.

Though the fires fortunately did not get fully into Athens, it was a close call. Similar extreme weather events—whether wildfire, drought, storm, flood, or heat dome—are now seen on a near-daily basis somewhere around the world, and are often more intense than even a couple of decades ago. They are the most visible elements of climate change’s shift into climate breakdown.

We are also seeing clear worldwide changes. Last year was exceptionally hot—the hottest year since accurate weather records were first kept in the 1880s—but this year is perhaps more worrying. 2023 was an El Niňo year; one in which the sea surface temperature warms by 0.5°C above the long-term average. It’s a climate phenomenon that occurs every two to seven years and leads to temporary air temperature increases across much of the world in those years.

The future really does look grim. A world of devastating weather events, unliveable cities, gross food shortages, mass migration, and global marginalization beckons.

The problem is that El Niňo has been fading since February, yet the global pattern does not show the anticipated easing of temperatures. Instead, we are seeing the opposite; 15 national heat records have been broken so far this year, as have 130 monthly national temperature records. As Costa Rican climate historian Maximiliano Herrera told The Guardian: “Far from dwindling with the end of El Niňo, records are falling at even much faster pace compared to late 2023.”

In fact, June this year was the 13th month in a row to set a monthly global temperature record, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, whose ERA5 satellite suggested that 22 July was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth. The World Meteorological Organisation, meanwhile, has reported that at least 10 countries have already recorded temperatures above 50°C this year.

The implications are clear enough. We are heading for a global disaster at a level frequently warned of but even more frequently ignored—whether by politicians, business leaders, or others—while the fossil fuel industries and countries that exploit oil, gas, and coal continue to argue that the problem is grossly exaggerated.

More than 50 years ago, economic geographer Edwin Brooks, in a much-quoted remark, warned of “a crowded glowering planet of massive inequalities of wealth buttressed by stark force yet endlessly threatened by desperate men in the global ghettoes.” His warning focused on economic inequalities and was made before the full impact of climate change was apparent, yet it is more timely than ever.

The future really does look grim. A world of devastating weather events, unliveable cities, gross food shortages, mass migration, and global marginalization beckons.

The task of avoiding this dystopic future is huge. Four years ago, a U.N. report identified the need to decrease carbon emissions by 7% a year until 2030 to avoid the worst impacts of climate breakdown. They are still rising, and the need now is for an annual reduction of at least 10%.

It is a predicament that will require a third societal transition. The first was the farming revolution over several thousand years and the second was the industrial revolution, which started close to four centuries ago and is still under way. The third will be learning to live within the limits set by the capacity of the world’s ecosystem to handle human activity, initially by preventing climate breakdown, which must be achieved in mere decades.

But there are some signs of hope.

The first is that climate science has come on by leaps and bounds in the past 40 years and there is much greater confidence in its predictions. This means intergovernmental panels—which have tended to be overly cautious about not exaggerating the impact of the climate crisis, due to a need to work in consensus—will able to be far blunter in their statements.

Then there is the evidence just about everywhere that climate breakdown is happening. The third reason is that the first two will combine to inspire more activists, both young and old, to act. Many are willing to engage in nonviolent direct action despite elite determination to maintain the status quo through harsh legal measures.

There is a fourth reason for hope: the extraordinary way that rapidly improving technologies mean it is so often (and increasingly) much cheaper to use renewable energy than relying on fossil carbon energy sources.

Rapid and radical decarbonization is possible and is starting to happen on a near-global scale. But it must proceed very much faster. Global net zero needs to be achieved by 2040, not 2050, and that means that richer states must aim for net zero by 2035 while providing funding to speed up the process right across the Global South. It is a huge task, but that is the way to prevent climate breakdown.

To put it in a wider context, three tasks face us all. The first is the most urgent: coming to terms with environmental limitations. The second is an evolution of the world economy to ensure a far more equal sharing of what we have, and the third is responding to security challenges without depending on the early use of military force.

It is a transformational task but thanks to the immediacy of climate breakdown there isn’t really any alternative. Luckily, for now, there is time to do it, just.

One thing our government doesn’t like doing is challenging the greed of health insurance companies. I can speak with some authority about holes in the ever-fraying safety net of our healthcare system, including Tricare, the military health insurance plan used by most troops, veterans, and their families; other employer-sponsored health insurance; state-sponsored care like Medicare and Medicaid; and individually purchased plans. After all, I’m the spouse of a veteran who uses military healthcare and a clinical social worker. I serve military families that rely on a variety of health insurance plans to pay for their care and believe me, it’s only getting harder.

To take one example: At least in my state, Maryland, Tricare, if it pays at all, compensates clinicians like me far less for mental healthcare than Medicaid (government medical assistance for low-income Americans). It also misleads military patients by referring them to me even after Tricare has acknowledged that I’m unable to take more of them. Other healthcare plans serving Americans go months without reimbursing me for services they authorized.

For me, as a therapist, wife, and mother, nowhere is the relationship between corporations and everyday life more impactful than in the ways our government allows health insurance companies of every kind to avoid truly paying for the care Americans need

Over the years, I’ve written for TomDispatch about many things that military families go through—most similar to what other Americans experience, although almost invariably a little more so. That includes the struggle to feed their families and stay out of debt, the search for childcare, a growing sense of loneliness and pain, and, of course (to mention something so many other Americans haven’t experienced) exposure to the violence of war and its weaponry.

Private companies—and not just medical ones—shape the contours of American life in so many ways, even if we don’t know those companies’ names. Take arms contractors who have contributed so much to the spillover of military-grade weaponry into the hands of civilian killers. Just as all too many Americans, including schoolchildren, have found themselves forced to stare into the barrel of an AR-15 rifle, so have distressed soldiers stared into the “barrels” of companies few of us have heard of that can decide whether they’ll ever get the opportunity for therapy.

Sadly, in my world, greed all too often shapes how we live, just as it’s shaped the world of… yes, the Supreme Court. And for that you can thank the magnates who so generously gifted lavish trips and perks to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito while they handed down morally devastating decisions on so many issues, gun control and abortion among them, that will determine the nature of life and death in this country.

In a moment, I’ll tell you a bit about my own experiences as a clinician. But let me start by saying that, for me, as a therapist, wife, and mother, nowhere is the relationship between corporations and everyday life more impactful than in the ways our government allows health insurance companies of every kind to avoid truly paying for the care Americans need. (Ask me, for instance, whether Tricare paid for my family to get flu shots this year. I’ll bet you can guess the answer to that one.)

Americans, who are getting sicker, sadder, and ever more anxious, are so often unable to access necessities like healthcare because all too many legislators, judges, and administration officials refuse to hold large companies accountable to the rule of la—when, that is, significant laws related to such corporations even exist.

An Uphill Battle to Provide Affordable Mental Healthcare

As a therapist, I accept most major insurance plans in the Washington, D.C. area, where I operate a small private practice out of my rural home. I set out to make care accessible to middle- and lower-income Americans, particularly those who fought in America’s wars, were impacted by them, or grew up in a military family—groups where suicide rates are significantly higher than in the general population and where depression, anxiety, and violence are rampant.

I have a social science PhD that has helped me figure out how complicated systems work, yet our insurance system (if it can even be called that) confounds me. I find myself turning away dozens of people every month because I can’t afford to lose more time and income dealing with the complications of their insurance.

A country of wealthy healthcare corporations enabled by the government, who let clinicians choose between volunteer work or turning sick people away, is its own kind of banana republic.

My standard line for those who come to me seeking care is too often: “I’m so sorry, I wish I could help, but I’m unable to take any new patients with [insert here major healthcare plan, most of them state-sponsored or, in the case of Carefirst, D.C.’s version of Blue Cross Blue Shield, contracted by the federal government for its employees].” I then wonder what will happen to that suicidal three-times-deployed Afghanistan and Iraq veteran with young kids at home, who’s been referred to me by this country’s downsized, on-base healthcare system; or the single mother whose State Department job is supposed to offer her an insurance plan to help her manage the stress of aid work in combat zones; or unnerved asylum seekers from Russia, Ukraine, and so on (and on and on and on).

Meanwhile, in a separate area of my mind, I’m starting to try to lay the groundwork for a time when my own ability to support my family won’t suddenly be thwarted because one link in some part of our country’s fragile chain of companies that finance healthcare breaks for months on end.

The Change Healthcare Outage

Most people I talk to around my affluent town aren’t aware that, in late February of this year, the U.S. healthcare system suffered a major setback: BlackCat, a ransomware group, hacked into Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of the corporate behemoth UnitedHealth Corporation, which (until recently at least) processed about 40% of the nation’s healthcare claims annually, including from therapists. For months after that, some major insurance companies lacked a clear route to receive medical claims from providers like me. They also lacked a way to transfer money from their own banks to doctors. Other claims payment systems take weeks or months to establish, because you have to make sure they’re in sync with the chain of companies you work with in healthcare (if you accept insurance). There’s your encrypted patient data system, your payment-processing system, the insurance company itself, and maybe a company you hire to help you with your billing. In short, the Change outage left many providers like me without a way to get paid for what we do.

Nationally, over these months, more than 90% of hospitals and many group practices (especially smaller ones) lost money—to the tune of somewhere between hundreds of millions of dollars and $1 billion daily. Tens of millions of dollars in insurance payments to providers were delayed indefinitely. Doctors, nurses, and therapists were forced to close their doors, cut staff, forego needed supplies such as chemotherapy drugs, for example, or stop seeing patients. A survey by the American Medical Association of 1,400 medical practices found that 80% had lost revenue, 55% had to use their own personal funds to cover practice expenses, and about a third were unable to pay staff. Eighty-five percent of those practices had to commit extra time to the revenue cycle. The only reason I was able to see patients is because I have a spouse with a job that covers some of our bills (as well as our mounting credit card debt).

UnitedHealth went months without paying me for therapy I did with several of its members because I wrote the number “11,” not “10,” on claim forms to indicate that I saw patients online.

I had a particularly difficult time getting the insurance companies that are supposed to cover the healthcare of our troops to cough up funds. Tricare took three months to begin paying me because the requirements of its subcontractor, Humana, Inc., to enroll with a new payment system were opaque even for my professional biller. Then, it took weeks more after they figured it out for Tricare to formally approve the new arrangement.

Johns Hopkins Family Health Plan, another insurance plan for military families sponsored by the Department of Defense, didn’t start paying me the thousands of dollars it owed me in backpay until late June. Maryland Medicaid went weeks or even months without covering services for three of my patients. (Lest anyone think this is unrelated to the way we treat our military families, note that Medicaid serves millions of troops, in addition to many other populations.) The only reason those patients of mine continued to receive care was because I volunteered to do it, a choice that a medical professional living in the largest economy on Earth shouldn’t have to make. A country of wealthy healthcare corporations enabled by the government, who let clinicians choose between volunteer work or turning sick people away, is its own kind of banana republic.

Should we be surprised? Not in a for-profit healthcare system, where companies stand to gain by hoarding premiums long enough to garner yet more interest on them. Why would any of them feel compelled to fix such an outage in a timely fashion unless someone made them do it?—and no one did.

The Devil’s in the Details (and There Are So Many Details)

After the Change Healthcare outage, UnitedHealth’s CEO Andrew Witty testified before Congress for the first time in 15 years—a noteworthy (if insufficient) first step in raising public awareness and pressuring companies to improve their data security and prevent disruptions to healthcare. What I didn’t see was any significant discussion of why Americans need little-known companies like Change to begin with.

Change’s role is essentially to take the notes saying what we did that therapists and doctors like me write after we see patients and pass them on to insurance companies like Tricare/Humana, Medicaid/Optum, or D.C. Medicare (administered by the Pennsylvania-based Novitas, Inc.) in a format those payers are most likely to accept. If you ask me, were Change the character in the 1990s parody Office Space asked by downsizing consultants, “What would you say you do here?,” instead of responding, “I deal with the customers so the engineers don’t have to,” it might say, “I deal with the insurance companies so the providers don’t have to.” Essentially, Change takes my notes and sends them to the computer systems of insurers, which then (maybe) pay me. For a company that electronically dispatches healthcare claims from providers to payers, it’s done remarkably well. It was the most profitable of UnitedHealth’s thousands of subsidiaries, and UnitedHealth was itself one of the Fortune 500’s top 25 companies in 2023.

Maybe before something akin to another January 6 happens in America, more people should begin to question the assumption that private is better, that billionaires are the embodiment of the American dream, and that government, on principle, is not to be trusted

So many cooks in the kitchen amount to confusion and lack of accountability for providers like me.

Prior to the Change outage, the reasons companies didn’t pay out to medical workers were often as arbitrary and unrelated to healthcare as you could imagine. UnitedHealth went months without paying me for therapy I did with several of its members because I wrote the number “11,” not “10,” on claim forms to indicate that I saw patients online. No matter that both numbers stood for the same thing. Worse yet, its representatives refused to tell me that this was the problem until government officials intervened on my behalf. Honestly, I don’t think we live in a “deep state” as much as in (and yes, I would capitalize it!) Deep Corporate America.

Deep Corporations

Much is said these days by folks on the far right about the “deep state” and Donald Trump’s plans to gut it should he return to the White House in 2025. Speaking from the bowels of the healthcare industry, I’d say that what we have on our hands are many layers of companies (like those beneath Tricare, Medicaid, and Medicare) that decide whether and how to administer funds in ways too complicated and inhuman to truly explain. Consider it an irony then that, in 2022, the healthcare version of all of that was deepened by—yes!—a Trump-appointed judge who struck down a Justice Department lawsuit attempting to prevent UnitedHealth from acquiring Change.

Many failed states rot from the inside before they collapse, when people get so fed up with not having their basic needs met that they take to the streets. Maybe before something akin to another January 6 happens in America, more people should begin to question the assumption that private is better, that billionaires are the embodiment of the American dream, and that government, on principle, is not to be trusted. Instead, isn’t it time to hold the feet of government officials to the fire and begin a genuine crackdown on corporate greed in this country?

If that doesn’t happen, our healthcare system will prove to be just one disastrous layer in a genuine American house of cards. Unless our public officials begin to place our human rights and the rule of law first, count on one thing: Somewhere along the line that house of cards, medical or otherwise, is headed for collapse.

There’s a lot to choose from in the race to define Minnesota Gov. and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, and it seems like the Walz well will never run dry. He’s an additional jolt of energy for Democrats who felt hopeless about U.S. President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign. He’s a former small-town high school football coach with the potential to be a champion for forgotten small-town Americans. He’s folksy with a ton of Midwestern dad energy, and seems to charm nearly everyone he meets.

For us, the bigger picture isn’t about who Walz is, but about how he will govern. Because while he was governor in 2018, it was organizers and advocates for working families who pulled off the “Minnesota Miracle,” also called the “Minnesota Model.” Apply that model to the country as a whole, and you get a road map for winning popular progressive policies under tough conditions—and that’s exactly what Democrats need to defeat former President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and to keep winning beyond November.

On paper, the Minnesota Miracle is a slew of major progressive policies that improved the lives of all types of people in the state. It came together from decades of organizing by community and labor groups who in turn organized Walz, paving the way for these wins and forming an inside-outside coalition of governance to make sure that the legislature followed through on their promises. As leaders of the Working Families Party, a political party that does just that, we know how well it works.

By following the leadership of communities and organized labor, Democrats can rebuild the coalition needed to win power—and hold power.

The Miracle’s agenda included popular policies like paid family and medical leave, a child tax credit, making breakfast and lunch free for all students, allowing undocumented immigrants to access driver’s licenses, and making record investments in public schools..

That’s a strong platform to run a presidential ticket on. Not only are these policies immensely popular, they’re popular among the coalition that Vice President Kamala Harris and Walz need to win in November. Every policy in the Minnesota Model has been the subject of a major poll—if not dozens or hundreds. Time and time again, they poll well across race, place, and class.

Much of our work focuses on electing leaders who fight for these popular policies, and there’s a growing contingent. But the majority of Democrats tend to balk at these issues, especially when trying to placate powerful corporate interests. But Walz could help break that trend. Many Democratic leaders balk at bold policies under the best conditions, but Walz and the organizers who won the Miracle did it despite the odds, turning a tight Democratic majority into concrete policy wins. Instead of going small, they seized the moment. As Tim Walz himself said, “You don’t win elections to bank politics capital. You win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.”

Imagine that approach on the federal level. Democrats can go big, opening the door to bold policies that meet the needs of this moment. By running on a proven popular agenda like the Minnesota Miracle, Democrats can win by big margins. And, perhaps most importantly, by following the leadership of communities and organized labor, Democrats can rebuild the coalition needed to win power—and hold power.

There are big lessons to be learned here, if we choose to. The Minnesota coalition did it six years ago, and we can do it again, on the federal level. But only if we organize like our future depends on it to beat Trump and flip the house.

We’re far from starting from scratch. The Working Families Party, Center for Popular Democracy Action, People’s Action, and countless other allied groups have spent decades paving the way for Democrats to run on these issues, just like organizers in Minnesota did. And while electoral wins are just the beginning of the fight, real change happens when our communities have governing power.

If we can build a multiracial working-class coalition to defeat Trump and his MAGA movement at every level of government, that same coalition can fight for and win more together than we ever have.

During the last six months of his presidency after he dropped out of the presidential campaign, Joe Biden will not have that much to do. But don’t worry, White House officials will find some way to make him useful.

The post Lame Duck Biden’s New Responsibilities first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

  On this episode of The Final Countdown hosts Ted Rall and Steve Gill discuss the latest developments from around the globe, including the latest out of the DNC.    The show begins with former Barack Obama Campaign Director Robin Biro weighing in on the latest out of the DNC in Chicago amid protests.    Then, counselor-at-law Tyler Nixon shares his perspective on the latest out of the Trump campaign and his performance in the polls.    The second hour starts with human rights and labor rights lawyer Dan Kovalik discussing the latest developments from the Gaza ceasefire deal.    The show closes with international relations and security analyst Mark Sleboda discussing the latest news about the Kursk incursion amid Putin’s visit to Azerbaijan.   The post The Final Countdown – 8/20/24 – Biden Speech Underwhelms as DNC is Briefly Disrupted by Gaza Protestors  first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

As we approach the 2024 presidential election, we are constantly told that this election is pivotal for the future of democracy. This may be so because a second Trump presidency would most likely be far more dangerous than the first. It would be foolish indeed not to take seriously when Trump says things like “We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” And we already know what he plans to do with the administrative state: demolish it and replace it with MAGA loyalists. As for his energy policies, ways to cut grocery and mortgage costs, and his strategy to deal with the climate crisis, they can all be summarized with one simple slogan: “Drill, baby, drill.” Consequently, it is imperative that we defeat Trump in November. But as Bernie Sanders said just last week, “it is not the only task for our progressive movement.”

Indeed, there are so many things that need to be done in the hope that we can end predatory plutocracy, lessen the inequities of 21st century capitalism, counter militarism, and reinvent U.S. democracy. On the first day of the National Democratic Convention, all the speakers highlighted with passion the need to defeat Trump in order to protect democracy and the interests of average people. Joe Biden himself told the crowd that democracy prevailed under his watch and now must be preserved.

The only way we can sidestep the power of special interests is through solidarity mobilization and citizen participation.

However, as one would expect from a mainstream political party, the Harris-Walz campaign is not offering an alternative vision for the future, one that would recapture the true essence of democracy. There is a lot of rhetoric about “joy,” “freedom,” and “a better future,” but Harris’s economic plan mirrors many of Biden’s economic initiatives though in an expanded format, such as her ideas for addressing the housing crisis.

Still, this is a step forward as Bidenomics undoubtedly represented “some of the most progressive domestic policies to have come out of the White House.” But let’s focus here on the big subject itself, which is democracy. Indeed, this may be the most propitious time to ask ourselves this: Is the U.S. even an actual democracy? There is plenty of evidence to contend that it is not; in fact, the U.S. was never designed to be democratic, so the obsession of the country’s political leaders, past and present, to portray the nation as the “world’s greatest democracy” should provoke laughter instead of elicit pride. For many years now, the U.S. has been rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit as a “flawed democracy,” while in 2022 the international democracy watchdog Freedom House ranked the U.S. 62nd in the world, “below every major Western European nation… and about even with Panama, Romania and South Korea.”

And how could it be otherwise? First, the U.S. president is not even elected by the popular vote. According to the Constitution—now more than 235 years old and terribly out of touch with contemporary society—members of the electoral college elect the president. Leaving aside the question of the history and evolution of the electoral college, the fundamental truth about the method used to elect the president is that it subverts the will of the people by allowing presidential candidates to win an election without securing more popular votes. In other words, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of votes nationally but still lose the election because he/she lost the electoral vote.

We saw such outcomes in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016 respectively. In 2000, Al Gore won the most votes, a half million more than George W. Bush, but lost the presidency in the electoral vote. Likewise, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote comfortably, receiving nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but lost the election because Trump clinched more electoral votes. These outcomes should not be seen as paradoxes in a perverse political system, but rather as outright scandals. They speak volumes of the anti-democratic nature of the electoral college and, surely enough, of the undemocratic nature of the sacred text itself, i.e., the Constitution.

The United States has an even bigger democracy problem with the Senate, “an irredeemable institution” that disproportionately benefits small states, which are overwhelmingly rural, white and conservative, and is thus “racist by proxy.” The one state, two-Senators rule is nothing short of a recipe for minority domination.

Moreover, in U.S. elections, the political currency that carries greater weight is not votes, but money. The candidate who spends more money usually wins, and running for president is a terribly expansive undertaking. It costs billions of dollars. The 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion. The 2024 election is on track to be the most expensive of all time, expected to reach nearly $16 billion. What’s more, a handful of wealthy special interests dominate political funding, especially since rulings like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down spending limits as unconstitutional violations of free speech. Of course, the public is not happy with this state of affairs, as polls have repeatedly shown that the overwhelming majority of citizens believe that there should be spending limits for political campaigns. But what the public thinks and wants matters very little in U.S. politics. Scores of empirical studies have shown that U.S. politics is heavily tilted in favor of the rich and that political decisions systematically ignore the preferences of the poor and the working and middle classes.

So, what is to be done? How do we move forward towards ending plutocracy and unleashing the transformative potential of economic democracy? Is the undemocratic nature of the U.S. political system an unalterable state of affairs?

We need to recognize that the two-party system isn’t about to change anytime soon. But this doesn’t mean that all is lost when it comes to making progress on the social and economic fronts.

Real change is possible and so is a future with alternative possibilities. But change doesn’t happen overnight, and, in politics, it takes winning many different battles for a war to be won. Hence, we shouldn’t reject reform on account of ideological purity or avoid making some compromises because of deep moral convictions if, doing so, means that we fail to take any step forward. “Two steps forward, one step back” is a tactic that often pays dividends in the politics of radical social change.

We need to recognize that the two-party system isn’t about to change anytime soon. But this doesn’t mean that all is lost when it comes to making progress on the social and economic fronts. As experience has shown, serious and committed work at the community level can result in making a real impact on the national stage. The real fight for progressive power starts in local communities, one neighborhood at a time. This is because the only way we can sidestep the power of special interests is through solidarity mobilization and citizen participation.

There is a rich history of claiming citizenship not only in the U.S. but across the globe. We should study closely this history while also seeking ways to deepen democracy through citizen action that unites rather than divides progressives and moderates. As progressives, we need alliances. Reaching out to people with different political views from ours should be encouraged rather than discouraged. And we should all be united in combating the surge of neo-fascism or proto-fascism manifested in the MAGA movement. We must not allow anger over specific issues and concerns to derail us from the immediate goal, which is to keep the reactionary forces at bay. Sometimes we can only win one battle at a time. We should oppose U.S. imperialism and war at every turn while realizing that we can’t dismantle the imperial state with one shot.

In the moral and political struggle to create a future with alternative possibilities, we need to build a united front. Radicalism can co-exist with pragmatic progressivism. We have a world to win, to be sure, but we must first defeat today’s neofascists.

Across the country, families rely on utility companies to provide the power we need to heat and cool our homes, cook, bathe, and charge the devices we rely on. But instead of focusing on delivering clean, affordable, reliable power to ratepayers, for-profit utility companies are hiking rates on working families while doubling down on fossil fuels. As temperatures rise and utility bills soar, working families have had enough.

This month, ratepayers launched a nationwide escalation for utility justice. From the Sun Belt to New England, over two dozen coordinated actions were held in 17 states to fight back against utility rate hikes and greenwashing. This is a powerful beginning to a locally led, national movement to demand clean, renewable energy from for-profit utility companies, and stop rate hikes for dirty power.

In New Hampshire, climate activists are opposing a 16% rate hike that has been proposed by Eversource, which serves over 70% of the state. The increase is currently under review by the public utilities commission (PUC). The governor-appointed public utilities commission approved the rate hike, as they have with every cost increase that the utility companies have proposed in the last three years. After grassroots organizers stopped Liberty Utilities, another New Hampshire utility company, from building the Granite Bridge fracked gas pipeline in 2020, Liberty attempted to recoup more than $7 million they spent toward the proposal by raising electricity rates. The public utilities commission denied Liberty’s outrageous request, but this is not the first time a utility company has tried to put their expensive failed fossil fuel projects in ratepayers’ utility bills.

There is a long precedent of publicly-owned, democratically-controlled utility companies in the United States and around the world, and no reason why we should assume dirty, corporate-controlled utility companies relying on energy sources of the 1900s have to be our future.

The fights happening in New Hampshire with utility companies are familiar across the country. From Buffalo, New York to the Bay Area of California, ratepayers are protesting and organizing to hold for-profit utility corporations accountable for squeezing ratepayers to pad their pockets while burning the planet.

In Nevada, working families, ratepayers, and climate activists are fighting to stop NV Energy from nearly tripling its monthly fixed service charge on electric bills from $16.50 to $44.40 while lowering the volumetric charge. This regressive policy means ratepayers who use less energy will be charged more, while heavy energy users, like wealthy corporations, will be charged less—it’s wrong. Nevada is one of the fastest-heating states in the nation, and relies on electricity to keep communities comfortable. With NV Energy’s monopoly power and rising temperatures, Nevadans feel like the odds are stacked against them.

Like many for-profit utility companies, NV Energy is raising rates and burning the planet, instead of capitalizing on the plentiful solar capacity of the Sun Belt state it serves. Nevadans are pushing the Public Utilities Commission to stand up for clean, affordable, reliable energy. With an unprecedented $369 billion in federal investments unlocked in the two-year-old Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to support the transition to clean energy, utility corporations have no excuse, besides greed, to keep charging ratepayers for dirty, expensive, unreliable power.

While companies have raised electricity prices nearly 31% since 2021, and over of a quarter of Americans struggle to pay their utility bills, activists are fighting to stop rate hikes, stop expansions of dirty power, and pressure lawmakers to stop taking political contributions from the utility corporations they are responsible for regulating.

Local communities are right to hold utility corporations accountable for raising costs on families and stalling action on clean energy. But the underlying structure of monopoly utility companies is not sustainable. When given a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transition to a sustainable energy future through the IRA, they opt to expand gas lines and invest in dirty power. Utility Corporations are failing to reimagine how growing electricity needs could be met with wind, solar, geothermal, energy efficiency, and energy conservation efforts.They have no incentive to lower costs for families, and every incentive to use their massive lobbying power to influence policy and raise rates.

Despite the money we pay each month, for-profit utility companies are not accountable to us, and their monopoly power leaves us with no alternatives. The system is rigged, but it does not have to be this way.

Together, we can change the rules. There is a long precedent of publicly-owned, democratically-controlled utility companies in the United States and around the world, and no reason why we should assume dirty, corporate-controlled utility companies relying on energy sources of the 1900s have to be our future. Now is the time to demand utility justice, to ensure clean, affordable, and reliable energy for all in a way that puts people and the planet first.

The following speech was given at the “Bodies Outside of Unjust Laws” demonstration on August 18, 2024 in Chicago.

Chicago, we all know why we are here.

We are drowning, and our hearts are broken.

We are drowning in debt. In medical bills. In rising rents. In inflation.

We are under attack in this country. The right has declared war on people of color, on trans people, on women. They are trying to dismantle our systems of education, trying to criminalize teaching Black history and the realities of racism, oppression, and exploitation in this country.

They openly call for mass deportations and want to strip Black people of voter rights.

Every year, the climate crisis kills more people [because] of heat, of floods, of fires. Every year, the number of climate refugees at home and abroad climbs and climbs.

And in this moment of absolute disaster, of absolute crisis, the American ruling class—the people descending on this city for the Democratic National Convention—have seen fit to spend our money on killing children in Gaza.

You, Vice President Harris, get to run for office because we ousted your predecessor right here in these streets. But it was never just about him. It was about the 40,000 Palestinians he helped kill.

They have provided an infinite supply of bombs to destroy Gaza’s homes, its schools, its hospitals, its playgrounds, its mosques, its churches, its croplands, its infrastructure.

As the most powerful country on Earth, they have bullied the rest of the world in the name of protecting a far-right government openly committing a genocide.

And now…

Now they want our votes.

They say they have earned them by showing a little more empathy toward those poor Palestinians they happened to kill.

Vice President Kama Harris, we hear your shift in tone.

But…

Your tone will not resurrect the dead.

Your tone will not shelter the living.

Your tone will not pull bombs out of the sky.

Your tone is not enough.

Genocide Joe would still be on the ticket if it were not for this movement, for all of us. Our movement is one of the main reasons that you are now the Democratic candidate for president in the most powerful country on the planet.

You, Vice President Harris, get to run for office because we ousted your predecessor right here in these streets. But it was never just about him. It was about the 40,000 Palestinians he helped kill.

And now we are telling you that “Not the other guy” is not a platform.

Vice President Harris, why are you risking the end of democracy, the rise of fascism, the return of Trump to protect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu’s war on children?

We are telling you that you actually have to earn our votes.

And we are telling you exactly how to earn them.

We are telling you we want a weapons embargo.

We are telling you we want a permanent cease-fire.

And we are telling you that we want them NOW.

You keep telling us that democracy itself is on the line.

You keep telling us that fascism is knocking at the door.

You keep telling us that Trump would be worse.

But the majority of Americans, in poll after poll, say they disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Study after study shows that a weapons embargo would earn you more votes, would secure you this election.

Vice President Harris, why are you risking the end of democracy, the rise of fascism, the return of Trump to protect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu’s war on children?

You are not the protector of democracy.

We are the protectors of democracy.

If you want to see democracy, look to Chicago’s streets this week. We are democracy speaking back to power, saying we will not be ignored.

We want to house our unhoused.

We want to feed our hungry.

We want to heal our sick.

We want to guard our planet.

We want to build our future, not rob Gaza’s children of theirs.

You may think that the people who make it into the United Center today are the ones who get to shape the future of this country.

That’s not true.

We make the future of this country. We make it where we’ve always made it, right here on the streets.

Vice President Harris, you have a choice. You could join a movement for justice. You could make a place for yourself in history. You could be a leader who chose to listen to her people rather than the interests of the war manufacturers. Or you could aid and abet a war criminal.

Vice President Harris, if you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, WE ARE SPEAKING.

Hear us. We will not be placated by tone.

We need you to act—and we will not leave the streets until you do.