When the environmental history of the Biden administration is written, the Inflation Reduction Act will have pride of place—for all its compromises and flaws, it finally set serious federal money flowing toward the task of an energy transition, and defending it from Trumpian attack will be job one for green lobbyists for the next for years. (And not an impossible job in every case—the new factories built with IRA money have turned a lot of legislators, including in red states, into reluctant supporters).

But the second most useful thing the Biden administration did came less than a year ago—its January decision to pause new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. This doesn’t sound to the untrained ear like such a big deal, but as readers of this newsletter know, it was: Had the industry continued to build at the pace it wanted, the climate damage from American LNG exports would soon have topped every single thing that happens in Europe. This is the biggest greenhouse gas bomb on planet Earth.

You could tell what a big deal it was by the way it angered Big Oil (and big banking and big shipping)—every story about the industry’s unprecedented support for Donald Trump’s election made it clear that this was the number one casus belli. That’s because—as American demand for natural gas begins to sag in the face of the renewables buildout—their main hope was to emulate the cigarette industry and seek new markets in Asia. But a combination of on-the-ground groups in the Gulf of Mexico and climate activists across the country stuck a potato in the tailpipe. The Biden administration promised a full report before the year was out about whether or not the exports were still in the public interest.

The rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.

And yesterday, somewhat surprisingly, even before that report was released, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, slowed down the process some more. They issued a finding that the next terminal up for consideration, a mammoth facility called CP 2 destined for the Louisiana coast, needed to go through a new round of environmental review because of its potential effect on local air quality. As the experts at the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) explained:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order setting aside its approval for Venture Global’s massive CP2 export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The order modifies and, in part, sets aside the commission’s previous authorization order to conduct a supplemental environmental impact analysis on the project’s cumulative air quality and emissions impacts. The order states that FERC will not authorize construction until the commission completes this process.

The vote for the new review is 4-0, and bipartisan. It could slow down approvals for the project till, perhaps, the third quarter of next year. And that’s good news, because the rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.

The Biden administration should and could deny the permits outright, and here’s a petition urging them to do just that, and plans from Climate Defiance for demonstrations at the DOE next week. Most observers seem to think the denial is unlikely, especially after the FERC ruling gave them a plausible out on the most controversial of the projects. (And if they do deny them, the Trump administration might well be able to un-deny them, though at some point this all enters a valley of legal complication too thick for me to hack my way through.) Still—finish what you started. A year of investigation should have made clear that more LNG exports are not in the public interest, which means saying no.

At the very least what the Biden administration can and must do is tell the truth.

The detailed report on the economics and science of LNG exports is apparently all written and just waiting for the DOE to release, but in some ways almost as important as the report itself will be the cover letter that comes with it. The report will be dense; the language that introduces it should be clear. Though it won’t necessarily stop the new guys from doing what they want, it’s time for President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to declare forthrightly that

1. There are too many of these projects in too small a space along the Gulf, and it is intolerable for the people who live there. As James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, said this morning: “Through the lenses of optical gas imaging, we’ve seen massive plumes of toxic emissions, undeniable proof that these projects poison the air we breathe. Modeling must use the latest data from the most local sources to fully capture the harm these facilities inflict on Cameron Parish. Anything less is a betrayal of our community. FERC must choose justice over profit and stop sacrificing people for polluters.” People like Hiatt—and especially the indefatigable Roishetta Ozane—have fought as if their lives were on the line, because they are. What heroes!
2. The U.S.—the leading LNG exporter in the world—is producing far more gas already than the world needs. The industry’s rhetorical defense has focused on the need to bolster European supplies after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—but Europe is now awash in gas, and has used the war to dramatically convert to renewable energy. Every long-term indication is that the continent needs more, not less. Which is why new contracts for LNG exports are designed for Asia—where they will undercut a similar conversion to sun and wind.
3. In climate terms, exporting natural gas is at least as bad as exporting coal. Robert Howarth’s ground-breaking paper laying out the numerical proof was one of the keys in the battle to get the Biden pause; it’s since been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It documents the amount of heat-trapping methane that pours into the air at every point in this process. There is no possible way to square the expansion of LNG with reducing climate pollution. That won’t matter to Trump, of course, since he doesn’t believe in climate change, but it is a robust truth that needs to be stated clearly and publicly.
4. In economic terms, this harms the American consumers who haven’t yet managed to install a heat pump and who are still dependent on natural gas. If shipload after shipload is sent overseas, every analysis has found, the price will go up for those Americans.

It took me far too long to figure out the danger these exports posed. I started writing about it for The New Yorker and on this newsletter in late summer of 2023, and once I understood the situation I stopped writing and started organizing, helping people like Jamie Henn and Jeremy Symons and Maura Cowley build an ad hoc climate wing of the coalition that won the pause. I’m very proud of the role Third Act played in mobilizing public opinion and I’m very proud of the role this small newsletter played too. The New York Times didn’t write a single story until the day before Biden’s decision when it was already a fait accompli; it took independent journalism and independent activism to make it happen.

One reason Vice President Kamala Harris’ defeat broke my heart is because I think she would have quashed this expansion for good. But I’m hopeful that we delayed them long enough (especially given this new FERC ruling) to seriously screw up the prospects for endless expansion. Every month counts (and every month adds to financing costs); the great movement that arose to defeat these projects has taken more than a dozen months out of the calendar for their promoters, and that may well spell the difference for many projects.

The always-rational gas industry has treated its opponents with the usual respect—as one official of the Canadian producers explained recently, we are all part of a “cult-like” movement seeking “a kind of promised land where everything will operate in perfect balance.” Actually, we’re just a bunch of folks hoping for a planet that doesn’t burn right up—but to Big Oil that must look like pretty much the same thing. At any rate, if it’s a cult led by folks like Roishetta Ozane and James Hiatt, then this Methodist is happy to play his part.

Scarcely noticed by most of the world, the Civil War in Syria has been grinding on for more than a decade. A proxy war, with the central government of Bashar al-Assad, supported by its traditional ally Russia (along with Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon) against an assortment of radical jihadi militias, including remnants of Al Qaeda supported by the United States under cover of going after the terrorist group ISIS, the balance of power had remained relatively stable at the front lines despite the threat of total fragmentation as Syria’s Kurds seized their own autonomous zone—until a couple of weeks ago.

Now an Al Qaeda affiliate called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies have launched an offensive that shocked the world by capturing the second largest city in Syria, Aleppo.

The TMI Show brings you an EXCLUSIVE look from directly inside HTS-occupied Syria with Steven Sahiounie, a Syrian national and journalist in Aleppo.

What is it like to live under HTS control? How likely are they to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus? What would be the regional and global implications of a radical jihadi state on the border with Israel? The United States has been trying to persuade al-Assad to abandon his allies Russia and Iran, but has so far failed. Is that likely to change? Can Russia, trying to close the deal in Ukraine, divert resources to save the Syrian government?

The post TMI Show Ep 31: Can Putin Save Syria? An Exclusive from Inside Aleppo first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 31: Can Putin Save Syria? An Exclusive from Inside Aleppo appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Does Trump’s re-election mean that the U.S. labor resurgence is over? Not necessarily.

It’s true that the new administration is preparing major attacks against workers and the labor movement. And many union leaders will assume that the most we can hope for over the next four years is to survive through purely defensive struggles.

But unions are actually still well-positioned to continue their organizing and bargaining momentum. Here are eight positive factors that should ward off despair — and that should encourage unions to invest more, not less, into organizing the unorganized:

1. The economic forces fueling Trumpism also favor labor’s continued resurgence. After the pandemic laid bare the fundamental unfairness of our economic system, workers responded with a burst of union organizing and the most significant strike activity in decades. The same underlying economic forces — chronic economic insecurity and inequality — helped propel Trumpism to a narrow victory in the 2024 elections. But Trump’s actual policies will inevitably exacerbate economic inequality, undermining the Republican Party’s hollow populist rhetoric.

The strongest case for labor to scale up ambitious organizing efforts and disruptive strike action is not just that it’s possible, but that it’s necessary.

Stepping into the breach of Trump’s fake populism, unions remain workers’ best tool to provide a real solution to economic insecurity. And projected low unemployment will continue to provide a fertile economic environment for new organizing. As long as we remain in a tight labor market, employers will have less power to threaten employees who dare to unionize their workplaces and workers will have more bargaining leverage against employers, increasing the chances of successful — and headline-grabbing — strikes.

2. Unions can still grow under Republican administrations. It’s certainly true that the organizing terrain will be significantly harder under Trump and a hostile National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). But it’s still possible to fight and win even in these conditions.

It’s worth remembering that US labor’s current uptick began with the statewide teachers’ strikes that swept across red states in 2018 during Trump’s first term. And NLRB data shows that putting major resources towards new organizing can go a long way towards counter-balancing the negative impact of an adverse political context.

Unions organized significantly more workers under George W. Bush’s administration than under Barack Obama. Why? The main reason is that the labor movement in the early 2000s was still in the midst of a relatively well-resourced push to organize the unorganized, whereas by the time Obama took office labor had mostly thrown in the towel on external organizing, hoping instead to be saved from above by lobbying establishment Democrats to pass national labor law reform. Labor can grow over the coming years if it starts putting serious resources towards this goal.

3. Labor has huge financial assets at its disposal. According to the latest data from the Department of Labor, unions hold $42 billion in financial assets and only $6.4 billion in debt. These assets—the vast majority of which are liquid assets—can help defend against the coming political attack and be deployed in aggressive organizing drives and strikes. Unions have the financial cushion to go on the offensive while simultaneously defending themselves from regulatory and legislative attacks.

4. Unions remain popular and trusted. According to a September 2024 Gallup poll, 70% of Americans approve of labor unions, the highest support since the 1950s — even 49% of Republicans these days support unions. Overall, Americans trust organized labor far more than the President, Congress, Big Business, and the media.

When workers have the opportunity to vote for a union at their workplace, unions win 77% of those elections. The American public also supports strikes. According to a poll by YouGov in August, 55% of Americans believe that going on strike is an effective strategy for workers to get what they want from management, compared to 23% who say no. Similarly, 50% of Americans believe it is unacceptable to scab, while only 26% say it is acceptable. Strong public support for labor continues to provide fertile ground for a union advance.

5. Organized labor is reforming. The bad news: most union officials remain risk-averse and their failure to seriously pivot towards organizing new members — despite exceptionally favorable conditions since 2020 — helped pave the way for Trump’s inroads among working people. The good news: the “troublemakers” wing of the labor movement is larger than ever, as seen in the dramatic growth of Labor Notes, the election of militants to head a growing number of local and national unions, and the emergence of much-needed rank-and-file reform movements in unions like the UFCW.

Most notably, a reformed United Auto Workers led by Shawn Fain is going full steam ahead with its push to organize the auto industry across South — an effort that will soon get a big boost when unionized Volkswagen workers finalize their first contract. Rank-and-file activists across the country can continue to point to the UAW, as well as other fighting unions, as an example that their unions should be emulating.

6. Young worker activism is not going away. Most of the labor upsurge since 2020 has been driven forward by Gen Z and Millennial workers radicalized by economic inequality, Bernie Sanders, and racial justice struggles. And contrary to what some have suggested, the 2024 election did not register a major shift to the right among young people, but rather a sharp drop in young Democratic turnout.

The recent proliferation of union campaigns across Amazon drivers is just the latest instance of a generational-driven uptick that continues to spread across Starbucks, higher ed, journalism, and beyond. These “labor-pilled” young activists are unlikely to throw in the towel just because Trump is again in office — if anything, the dramatic failure of establishment Democratic politics (combined with the power deficits of ephemeral street protests) will likely grow the ranks of young people convinced that workplace organizing is the central axis for winning progressive change. And their efforts will continue to be boosted by projects like the Inside Organizer School, which trains salts to unionize targeted workplaces, and the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee, which helps any worker organize their job.

7. The (latent) power of unions to disrupt the political and economic system is high. Despite declines in union membership and density (the percentage of the workforce in a union), union members still have significant representation in critical sectors of the economy.

Labor’s existing power provides a base for beating back the worst of Trump’s attacks and expanding union representation to non-union workers in the semi-organized sectors. In addition, coordinated strikes or labor unrest in any of these sectors would significantly disrupt the functioning of the economy or public services, providing a potent tool for workers and unions. While logistically and legally difficult, workers and their unions have the power to shut down critical sectors of the economy if they so choose — an approach that could reporalize the country around class lines instead of Republican-fueled scapegoating.

8. Republicans may overplay their hand, creating new openings for labor. A scorched earth legislative, regulatory, and judicial attack on labor law may create unintended opportunities. For example, if the Supreme Court follows Elon Musk’s bidding by throwing out the National Labor Relations Act —the primary law governing private sector organizing—states would have the power to enact union-friendly labor laws and legal restrictions on strikes and boycotts could be loosened. As Jennifer Abruzzo — the NLRB’s general counsel – told Bloomberg, if the federal government steps away from protecting the right to organize, “I think workers are going to take matters into their own hands.”

Conclusion

Labor’s decades-long tendency to defensively hunker down is one of the major factors that has led our movement — and the country — into crisis. Turning things around will depend on pivoting to a new approach.

The strongest case for labor to scale up ambitious organizing efforts and disruptive strike action is not just that it’s possible, but that it’s necessary. Without increased initiatives to expand our base and to polarize the country around our issues, union density is sure to keep dropping. Organized labor’s last islands of strength — from K-12 public education and the federal government to UPS and Midwest auto — will become extremely vulnerable to attack. And unions will be forced to fight entirely on the political terrain chosen by Republicans, who will paint them as a narrow interest group of privileged employees beholden to “union bosses,” Democratic leaders, and “woke” ideology.

Sometimes going on the offense is also the best form of defense. The best way to expose Trump’s faux populism is by waging large-scale workplace battles that force all politicians to show which side they’re on.

Nobody has a crystal ball about what lays ahead, nor should anybody underestimate the importance of defending our movement — and all working people — against Trump’s looming attacks. But it’s not factually or tactically justified to dismiss the potential for labor advance over the next four years.

Conditions overall remain favorable for labor growth, despite Trump’s re-election. Political contexts matter, but so do factors like the economy, high public support for unions, labor’s deep financial pockets, the growth of union reform efforts, labor’s continued disruptive capacity, and the spread of young worker activism. Rebuilding a powerful labor movement remains our best bet to defeat Trumpism, reverse rampant inequalities, and transform American politics. Now is not the time for retreat.

This article originally appeared in Radish Research, Bohner’s free newsletter on the labor movement.

President-elect Donald Trump has selected an unprecedented total of seven reported billionaires for senior positions in his administration. Including himself, that makes eight.

This figure could continue to grow as Trump fully staffs up. After all, he has nearly 800 additional U.S. billionaires to choose from.

Here’s a quick rundown of the “original seven” members of the nine-figure club on Trump’s employee wish list:

Elon Musk

Position: Co-leader of a new Department of Government Efficiency, a presidential advisory commission tasked with slashing spending and regulations
Estimated net worth: $330 billion
Source of wealth: SpaceX, Tesla, and other businesses
2024 campaign donations: $200 million

Warren Stephens

Position: Ambassador to the UK
Estimated net worth: $3.4 billion
Source of wealth: CEO of private Arkansas-based investment bank Stephens Inc.
2024 campaign donations: $22.7 million (includes $2 million-plus for Nikki Haley’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination)

Linda McMahon

Position: Education Secretary
Estimated net worth: $2.5 billion (with her husband, Vince McMahon)
Source of wealth: World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)
2024 campaign donations: $24 million

Howard Lutnick

Position: Commerce Secretary
Estimated net worth: $2 billion
Source of wealth: majority ownership of investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald
2024 campaign donations: $13.1 million in PAC donations and also hosted a $15 million fundraising event at his home in the Hamptons

Vivek Ramaswamy

Position: Co-leader of the planned Department of Government Efficiency
Estimated net worth: $1.1 billion
Source of wealth: founder of pharmaceutical firm Roivant Sciences
2024 campaign donations: $25,000 (He’d just blown $30.7 million of his own funds on his failed presidential bid)

Doug Burgum

Position: Secretary of the Interior
Estimated net worth: undisclosed. Several media have identified him as a billionaire, while Forbes analysts say he’s worth “at least” $100 million and likely much more if you consider trusts for his adult children
Source of wealth: sold Great Plains Software, which creates accounting packages for small and medium-size businesses, for $1.1 billion in Microsoft stock in 2001
2024 campaign donations: $8,000 (He’d spent $13.9 million of his own funds on his failed presidential bid. This includes the cost of giving $20 gift cards to more than 40,000 donors who gave his campaign at least $1. That expensive but crafty maneuver succeeded in drumming up enough donors to qualify for participation in the presidential debate)

Scott Bessent

Position: Treasury Secretary
Estimated net worth: undisclosed
Source of wealth: Wall Street investments, including as founder of hedge fund Key Square Group
2024 campaign donations: $3.2 million

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel's war on Gaza will continue until achieving what he terms “total victory.” Instead of critically examining Netanyahu’s vague and open-ended objectives, much of the Western media and many governments frame the onslaught as self-defense, and some even normalize the genocide as a "humane" attempt to “free” Israeli captives.

At the same time, the same pundits decontextualized the Palestinian right to self-defense by ignoring that the October 7 revolt was a direct response to over two decades of Israel’s imposed “starvation diet” blockade on Gaza. Exactly, as the West turns a blind eye, and continues to enable Israel's theft of Palestinian-occupied land in the West Bank to benefit Jewish-only colonies.

Meanwhile, these media outlets downplay or dismiss Israel’s treacherous undeclared war objectives, even to the detriment of Israeli captives and the immense civilian suffering in Gaza.

For over a year, Netanyahu has prioritized an agenda to reoccupy and to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza rather than engage in negotiations for prisoner’s swap. Especially since the release of Israeli captives would undermine one of Netanyahu’s primary pretexts for pursuing his sinister objectives.

This is only possible in the wake of Western leaders embracing Netanyahu’s racist perspective, focusing only on the well-being of Israeli captives, while ignoring the over 10,000 Palestinian hostages held in Israeli jails, and the welfare of the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza. For instance, Joe Biden has expressed recently his concern over Netanyahu potentially delaying action to secure the release of Israeli captives until January 20, 2025, while expressing no sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians in 2024 and beyond.

With the conspicuous silence or impotence of world bodies, the Israeli captives became a convenient fig leaf under which Netanyahu saw as an opportunity to reoccupy Gaza. It is worth recalling that in 2005, Netanyahu resigned from the Israeli government in protest against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to “disengage” and remove the Jewish-only colonies from the Gaza strip.

Immediately following October 7, Netanyahu launched a genocidal war, disregarding the Palestinian Resistance’s proposal for prisoner’s exchange. His decision to pursue war instead of negotiations was motivated by several factors:

a) Deflect responsibility for the intelligence failure under his watch.
b) Evade scrutiny of his role in facilitating external funding to Hamas.
c) Execute a campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing to reoccupy Gaza.

The strategy to ethnically cleanse Gaza was openly advocated by Israel’s racist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who three months following October 7 called for Palestinians to leave Gaza. The scion of an Ukrainian immigrant repeated the century-old European Zionist myth of blooming the desert⎯a narrative that not only ignores historical and geographical realities but also contradicts his own Old Testament that once described Canaan, the land of the Filastin (Palestine), as the "land of milk and honey," before the ancient Hebrews migrated from their original homes to Palestine.

Further, and on January 1, 2024, Smotrich’s fellow racist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir declared in a Knesset speech that Israel should never withdraw from any territory it occupies and explained that the establishment of new Jewish-only colonies in Gaza as “an important thing.” The following day, on January 2, Ben Gvir doubled down, stating that displacing “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinians from Gaza would help pave the way for the creation of the new Jewish-only colonies.

More recently, on Monday, November 25, Smotrich declared to the Yesha Council, an umbrella group representing the Jewish-only colonies in the occupied West Bank, “We can and must conquer the Gaza Strip.” He claimed there is “a unique opportunity” with Donald Trump’s election to halve Gaza’s population—a veiled euphemism for ethnic cleansing. Last Thursday, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir echoed similar calls to "reoccupy the Gaza Strip."

On the ground inside Gaza, the tools of occupation were more explicit in defining the meaning of Netanyahu’s ostensible mantra: “total victory.” Israeli soldiers posed before an orange banner that read, “Only (Jewish-only) settlement (in Gaza) would be considered victory!” Notably, the orange color harkens back to the banners used by the settler movement in 2005 to protest Sharon’s decision to evacuate the Jewish-only colonies from Gaza.

To this end, and starting October 1st, Israel initiated a new phase of targeted genocide by starvation, blocking food aid trucks from entering northern Gaza, particularly the towns of Beit Lahia, Beit Hanoun, Jabalia and camp Jabalia. And where trucks were allowed in, food aid was swapped with sand bags. Starvation has become so widespread in these areas, women and children are forced to scavenge through mounds of trash for food.

On November 29, Ajith Sunghay, head of the U.N. Human Rights Office for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, stated after visiting Gaza that the “U.N. had been unable to deliver any aid to northern Gaza” due to “repeated impediments or outright rejections of humanitarian convoys by the Israeli authorities.”

Regarding the genocide by terror, U.N. Human Rights Chief Volker Türk reported that residents of northern Gaza are subjected to “non-stop” bombing. Simultaneously, hundreds of thousands have been ordered to evacuate, likely to make way for new Jewish-only settlements.

As part of the forced depopulation of Gaza's northern region—the most fertile land in the strip—Israel is constructing a topographic barrier to isolate this area from the rest of Gaza. Beginning in early October, Israel carried out extensive controlled explosions, demolishing multi-story buildings to clear a path for a 5.6-mile road cutting across the strip. This road divides Gaza City from the northern towns of Jabalia, Beit Hanoun, and Beit Lahia. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has characterized this widespread forced displacement as part of an official government policy amounting to "crimes against humanity."

On November 30, former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon confirmed HRW findings, stating that Netanyahu and "far-right" (racist) elements are waging a war of "occupation, annexation, and ethnic cleansing." He added, "There is no Beit Lahia, there is no Beit Hanoun."

The live-documented ethnic cleansing in Gaza, much like in 1948, alongside the expansion of Jewish-only colonies in the West Bank, underscores the true undeclared objectives in Israel’s ostensible “total victory.” In this contest, Netanyahu’s deliberate undermining of U.S.-led negotiations for prisoner’s swap exemplifies his quintessential diabolical persona: exploiting the predicament of his own Israeli captives to further his cynical undeclared agenda of slaughtering the “Amalek,” and ethnically cleansing Gaza to pave the way for new Jewish-only colonies.

On November 26th, Israel and Lebanon signed an agreement for a 60-day truce, during which Israel and Hezbollah are both supposed to withdraw from the area of Lebanon south of the Litani River.

The agreement is based on the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the previous Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006. The truce will be enforced by 5,000 to 10,000 Lebanese troops and the UN’s 10,000-strong UNIFIL peacekeeping force, which has operated in that area since 1978 and includes troops from 46 countries.

The truce has broad international support, including from Iran and Hamas. Israel and Hezbollah were apparently glad to take a break from a war that had become counterproductive for them both. Effective resistance prevented Israeli forces from advancing far into Lebanon, and they were inflicting mostly senseless death and destruction on civilians, as in Gaza, but without the genocidal motivation of that campaign.

People all over Lebanon have welcomed the relief from Israeli bombing, the destruction of their towns and neighborhoods, and thousands of casualties. In Beirut, people have started returning to their homes.

In the south, the Israeli military has warned residents on both sides of the border not to return yet. It has declared a new buffer zone (which was not part of the truce agreement) that includes 60 villages north of the border, and has warned that it will attack Lebanese civilians who return to that area. Despite these warnings, thousands of displaced people have been returning to south Lebanon, often to find their homes and villages in ruins.

Many people returning to the south still proudly display the yellow flags of Hezbollah. A flag flying over the ruins of Tyre has the words “Made in the USA” written across it, a reminder that the Lebanese people know very well who made the bombs that have killed and maimed so many thousands of them.

There are already many reports of cease-fire violations. Israel shot and wounded two journalists soon after the truce went into effect, and then, two days after the cease-fire, Israel attacked five towns near the border with tanks, fired artillery across the border and conducted airstrikes on southern Lebanon. On December 2nd, Hezbollah finally retaliated with mortar fire in the disputed Shebaa Farms area, and Israel responded with heavier strikes on two villages, killing eleven people.

An addendum to the truce agreement granted Israel the right to strike at will whenever it believes Hezbollah is violating the truce, giving it what Netanyahu called “complete military freedom of action,” which makes this a precarious and one-sided peace at best.

The prospect for a full withdrawal of both Israeli and Hezbollah forces in 60 days seems slim, since Hezbollah has built large weapons stockpiles in the south that it will not want to abandon, and Netanyahu himself has warned that the truce “can be short.”

Then there is the danger of confrontation between Hezbollah and the Lebanese military, raising the specter of Lebanon’s bloody civil war, which killed an estimated 150,000 people between 1975 and 1990.

So violence could flare up into full-scale war again at any time, making it unlikely that many Israelis will return to homes near the border with Lebanon, Israel’s original publicly stated purpose for the war.

The truce agreement was brokered by the United States and France, and signed by the European Union, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. France was a colonial power in Lebanon and plays a leading role in UNIFIL, but Israel initially rejected France as a negotiating partner. It seems to have accepted France’s role only when the Macron government agreed not to enforce the ICC arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu if he comes to France.

The U.K. also signed the original truce proposal on November 25th, but doesn’t appear to have signed the final truce agreement. The U.K. seems to have withdrawn from the negotiations under U.S. and Israeli pressure because, unlike France, its new Labour government has publicly stated that it will comply with the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant - although it has not explicitly said it would arrest them.

Netanyahu justified the truce to his own people by saying that it will allow Israeli forces to focus on Gaza and Iran, and only die-hard “security” minister Ben-Gvir voted against the truce in the Israeli cabinet.

While there were hopes that the truce in Lebanon might set the stage for a cease-fire in Gaza, Israel’s actions on the ground tell a different story. Satellite images show Israel carrying out new mass demolitions of hundreds of buildings in northern Gaza to build a new road or boundary between Gaza City and North Gaza. This may be a new border to separate the northernmost 17% of Gaza from the rest of the Gaza Strip, so that Israel can expel its people and prevent them from returning, hand North Gaza over to Israeli settlers and squeeze the desperate, starving survivors in Gaza into an even smaller area than before.

And for all who had hopes that the cease-fire in Lebanon might lead to a regional de-escalation, those hopes were dashed in Syria, when, on the very day of the truce, the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a surprise offensive. HTS was formerly the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. It rebranded itself and severed its formal link to al-Qaeda in 2016 to avoid becoming a prime target in the U.S. war in Syria, but the U.S. still brands it as a terrorist group.

By December 1st, HTS managed to seize control of Syria’s second largest city, Aleppo, forcing the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian allies onto the defensive. With Russian and Syrian jets bombing rebel-held territory, the surge in fighting has raised the prospect of another violent, destabilizing front reopening in the Middle East.

This may also be a prelude to an escalation of attacks on Syria by Israel, which has already attacked Syria more than 220 times since October 2023, with Israeli airstrikes and artillery bombardments killing at least 296 people.

The new HTS offensive most likely has covert U.S. support, and may impact Trump’s reported intention to withdraw the 900 U.S. troops still based in Syria. It may also impact his nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard is a long-time critic of U.S. support for al-Qaeda-linked factions in Syria, so the new HTS offensive sets the stage for an explosive confirmation hearing, which may backfire on Syria hawks in Washington if Gabbard is allowed to make her case.

Elsewhere in the region, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and war on its neighbors have led to widespread anti-Israel and anti-U.S. resistance.

Where the United States was once able to buy off Arab rulers with weapons deals and military alliances, the Arab and Muslim world is coalescing around a position that sees Israel’s behavior as unacceptable and Iran as a threatened neighbor rather than an enemy. Unconditional U.S. support for Israel risks permanently downgrading U.S. relations with former allies, from Iraq, Jordan and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Yemen’s Ansar Allah (or Houthi) government has maintained a blockade of the Red Sea, using missiles and drones against Israeli-linked ships heading for the Israeli port of Eilat or the Suez Canal. The Yemenis have defeated a U.S.-led naval task force sent to break the blockade and have reduced shipping through the Suez Canal by at least two-thirds, forcing shipping companies to reroute most ships all the way around Africa. The port of Eilat filed for bankruptcy in July, after only one ship docked there in several months.

Other resistance forces have conducted attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and U.S. forces have retaliated in a low-grade tit-for-tat war. The Iraqi government has strongly condemned U.S. and Israeli attacks in Iraq as violations of its sovereignty. Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria have flared up again in recent months, while Iraqi resistance forces have also launched drone attacks on Israel.

An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo on November 26th voted unanimously to support Iraq and condemn Israeli threats. U.S.-Iraqi talks in September drew up a plan for hundreds of U.S. troops to leave Iraq in 2025 and for all 2,500 to be gone within two years. The U.S. has outmaneuvered previous withdrawal plans, but the days of these very unwelcome U.S. bases must surely be numbered.

Recent meetings of Arab and Muslim states have forged a growing sense of unity around a rejection of U.S. proposals for normalization of relations with Israel and a new solidarity with Palestine and Iran. At a meeting of Islamic nations in Riyadh on November 11th, Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin-Salman publicly called the Israeli massacre in Gaza a genocide for the first time.

Arab and Muslim countries know that Trump may act unpredictably and that they need a stable common position to avoid becoming pawns to Trump or Netanyahu. They recognize that previous divisions left them vulnerable to exploitation by the United States and Israel, which contributed to the current crisis in Palestine and the risk of a major regional war that now looms over them.

On November 29th, Saudi and Western officials told Reuters that Saudi Arabia has given up on a new military alliance with the U.S., which would include normalizing relations with Israel, and is opting for a more limited U.S. weapons deal.

The Saudis had hoped for a treaty that included a U.S. commitment to defend them, like U.S. treaties with Japan and South Korea. That would require confirmation by the U.S. Senate, which would demand Saudi recognition of Israel in return. But the Saudis can no longer consider recognizing Israel without a viable plan for Palestinian statehood, which Israel rejects.

On the other hand, Saudi relations with Iran are steadily improving since they restored relations 18 months ago with diplomatic help from China and Iraq. At a meeting with new Iranian prime minister Pezeshkian in Qatar on October 3rd, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal Bin Farhan declared, "We seek to close the page of differences between the two countries forever and work towards the resolution of our issues and expansion of our relations like two friendly and brotherly states.”

Prince Faisal highlighted the "very sensitive and critical" situation in the region due to Israel's "aggressions" against Gaza and Lebanon and its attempts to expand the conflict. He said Saudi Arabia trusted Iran's “wisdom and discernment” in managing the situation to restore calm and peace.

If Saudi Arabia and its neighbors can make peace with Iran, what will the consequences be for Israel’s illegal, genocidal occupation of Palestine, which has been enabled and encouraged by decades of unconditional U.S. military and diplomatic support?

On December 2, Trump wrote on Truth Social that if the hostages were not released by the time of his inauguration, there would be “ ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” “Those responsible,” he warned, “will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America.”

Trump and many of his acolytes exemplify the Western arrogance and lust for imperial power that lies at the root of this crisis. More threats and more destruction are not the answer. Trump has had good relations with the dictatorial rulers of the Gulf states, with whom he shares much in common. If he is willing to listen, he will realize, like they do, that there is no solution to this crisis without freedom, self-determination, and sovereignty in their own land for the people of Palestine. That is the path to peace, if he will take it.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case with broad potential implications for transgender people in the United States. US v. Skrmetti, brought by the Biden administration for trans youth, seeks to overturn Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender children and slaps doctors who provide that care with civil penalties. The government argues that transgender people are covered under the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

A win for the Volunteer State defendant would likely set a precedent that would support restrictions on transgender people in health care whether they can use restrooms or play sports on teams corresponding to their gender identity.Meanwhile, transgender politics have been prominent in the recent election. Missoulans returned transgender Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, who was blocked from speaking on the floor of the state legislature, to her office.

And in January, Delaware Rep.-elect Sarah McBride will make history in congressional representation, becoming the first openly transgender individual to serve in Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson subsequently issued a ban on transgender women like McBride from using women’s bathrooms in the Capitol.

As America heads into conservative-dominated government, what will the clash between the MAGA movement and an increasingly assertive transgender movement look like?

The post The TMI Show Ep 30: “Meet the Lawmakers” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post The TMI Show Ep 30: “Meet the Lawmakers” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Give him credit. As a start, for that first surprise victory in 2016.

No, I didn’t fully get it at the time, but I kind of get it now (since, like the rest of us, I’ve lived through it all, including his close loss in 2020). Still, twice? Him? A convicted felon, no less! And yes, I do think italics are all too appropriate under the circumstances.

Two times as the president of these increasingly disunited states of America? Holy cowpie!

Perspecting (No, That’s Not a Typo) Donald Trump

This country actually did it — elected him (again!) — and so we deserve whatever we get, at least a little less than 50% of us do: Fox News… oops, sorry, Pete Hegseth to run the largest, best-funded, and least adept military on planet Earth? Robert Kennedy, Jr., to keep our health in check(mate?) or do I mean checkerboard red shape? Tulsi Gabbard overseeing what still passes for American “intelligence,” though in some sense it couldn’t have been dumber for endless years? Or Chris Wright, who denies that there’s any kind of a climate crisis on Planet Earth, to lead — yes, of course! — the Department of Energy. And that’s just to start down an endlessly expanding, mind-blowingly unnerving list.

Yikes! You really couldn’t make this stuff up, could you? And I haven’t even mentioned Kristi Noem as secretary of Homeland Security. Nor did I have time to put in Matt Gaetz at the Department of (In)Justice before he went down in an instant cloud of smoke and scandal. (The question is: Before we’re done with the madness of it all, will everything be, in some fashion, enveloped in that same cloudy firmament?)

I suppose there’s no reason to be shocked, not really. After all, it’s a matter of history. Sooner or later, all great imperial powers go down the tubes — or do I mean the drain? — in some fashion, even if Donald Trump, the second time around, gives tubes and drains a new meaning. Just ask any of the emperors of imperial China or Winston Churchill or, for that matter, Mikhail Gorbachev about imperial decline. But to have almost 50% of the population vote to send this country directly (no stops along the way) whooshing down those tubes into the basement of history, well, that’s no small thing, is it? Or maybe, on a planet already going to hell in a climate-changed handbasket, it actually is a small thing. (And, yes, I just can’t seem to help myself when it comes to italics and him, though he’s all too literally not a small thing, not The Donald!)

Who knows anymore? Who can make any real sense out of it when you’re not comfortably outside looking in, or in the present peering into the long-gone past, but right here, right now (and nowhere else), distinctly experiencing everything from the inside out — or do I mean, the outside in or even the inside in? That, in truth, may be the lesson Donald Trump(ed us all) has to offer when it comes to our ever stranger world. And perspective isn’t exactly available to us, is it? After all, when The Donald fills the screen 24/7, how can anyone perspect — if you don’t mind my making up a word to fit our ever-stranger world — anything?

And yet, let’s face it, if you try to take a step or two back, even if it’s into the deep doo-doo of the rest of this planet of ours — check out Benjamin Netanyahu’s nightmarish version of Israel, for instance — Donald Trump isn’t just a strange (all-)American happenstance. Under the circumstances, however happenstantial, of a country in which there was already an increasingly greater (and still growing) space between the wildly wealthy (especially the rising number of all-American billionaires who have more money than half of the rest of the population combined) and the ever more pressed working and middle classes, what populace, already distinctly in trouble (or he never would have made a political appearance in the first place), wouldn’t have elected a “businessman” (and I’m only being socially truthful by putting that word in quotes) who claimed to be all in for them on his third presidential run (though, of course, you won’t actually see 78-year-old Donald Trump, the man who reputedly once urged soldiers on our southern border to shoot migrants in the legs, running anywhere). Whew, that was one long sentence! And no wonder, since he’s distinctly wound us up in an endlessly convoluted world.

And this time around, the richest man on Planet Earth, Elon Musk, was ready to pay out millions of promotional dollars to potential voters to increase Trump’s vote totals in swing states — and don’t for a second think that was bribery! After all, in a country where keeping yourself afloat amid still rising prices is no small trick, why wouldn’t you find appealing a man who swore he spoke for you and whose claim to fame, in a sense, was his remarkable ability to keep himself (and no one else) on the (more or less) flat and level, or even the uphill incline, as he sent his own businesses distinctly downstream into failed or bankrupt states? Whew, again!

And don’t be surprised, given his record, if, in his second term in office, he sends this country into his own version of, if not bankruptcy, at least ruptcy. After all, Donald Trump is — if you don’t mind my inventing another word — a distinctly remarkable (or do I mean smashing?) rupturist. His story (or do I mean history?) — since Kamala Harris lost, it certainly isn’t herstory — suggests that he’s likely to repeat his business “success” with this whole country the second time around, keeping himself on the flat and level or even the uphill incline as so much around him goes down, down, down. And don’t be surprised if he somehow manages to outlast that disaster, too. (Or do I mean two?) Oh, and since he’s already quipping about a third term in office, however jokingly — no joke there for the rest of us, of course — you should feel distinctly nervous (if, that is, the fate of this country means anything to you).

You can undoubtedly understand his position when it comes to a third possible round in the Oval Office, right? I mean, to hell with that old amendment! (“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”) If it were of any importance, it would obviously be the first, second, or third amendment, not the 22nd one, right?

The Dis-United States of Trumperica

Of course, none of this should truly surprise us. After all, historically speaking — and no, I don’t mean his story here, I mean the long, long story of humanity on this planet — great powers never seem to end up in particularly great shape toward the end of their ride. (And what a ride it’s been lately! Just ask… well, yes, Donald J. Trump!) As I like to remind TomDispatch readers, the country whose officials, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, touted it as the last superpower (or perhaps that should be in caps, The Last Superpower, or maybe even THE LAST SUPERPOWER) on Planet Earth, now seems to be in the process of transforming itself into the last super-basket-case on a planet that itself is becoming a basket case and heading downhill all too rapidly.

And I write that as someone living in a city — New York — that until recently was in the midst of a historic drought, the worst since records began to be kept here in 1869, in a state in drought in a region in drought. My city, in other words, was anything but alone in a country 40% of which recently was considered to be experiencing drought conditions. Even New York City’s parks were burning — more than 230 brushfires in just two recent weeks — and smoke was regularly been in the air here. All of this on a planet where weather extremes — from devastating heat waves to devastating floods to devastating storms — are distinctly on the rise. It’s in that context, of course, that Donald Trump, the proud “drill, baby, drill” guy, who has long insisted that climate change is a “hoax,” plans to do anything he can to promote fossil fuels in the coming years. He’s also intent on reversing the Inflation Reduction Act of the Biden years, which has been “providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks for clean energy” in a country that, in 2023, set a global record for the production of oil.

In short, Donald Trump’s second (and third?) term(s) is (are) guaranteed to turn much in this country (though not its wealth disparities) upside down. In fact, as a preview of what’s coming, perhaps it’s time to think of this land as the Dis-United States of Trumperica.

Imagine that, in the years to come, he will once again be inhabiting the place built during George Washington’s presidency and occupied by Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, among so many others. Need I say more when it comes to matters of decline and fall?

In truth, it’s a rather straightforward fact that this country is now visibly going down in a potentially big-time fashion and that, domestically speaking, there’s far worse to come. Of course, sooner or later, great powers do go down in various ways and Donald Trump’s version of that (just like his version of going up) could mean a distinctly failed state for the rest of us, no matter what happens to him.

Gaining Perspective on Donald Trump?

Imagine this: I was born when FDR was still president. (I was eight months old when he died.) And 80 years later, “my” president is Donald Trump (again!). If that doesn’t count as a political lifetime, what does? Whether the 78-year-old Donald or the 80-year-old me will live to see the end of “his” presidency is, of course, beyond my knowing.

But count on one thing: whatever we do see, it’s not likely to be pretty. In some sense, whatever chaotic version of guardrails were imposed on him in his first term will be largely removed this time around. From Pete Hegseth to Robert Kennedy, Jr., he’s already trying to appoint a crew of men (and yes, they are largely men) who would once have seemed inconceivable in this country — and not just because so many of them are rumored to have mistreated women.

Imagine that, starting in January, Trump and Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth, will be occupying the White House with “cat ladies” Vice-President J.D. Vance waiting in the wings. Fox News will be in the saddle (all too literally, given Trump’s appointments) and, this time around, President Tariff could essentially take the planet down with him. Yes, Matt Gaetz recently came up short (the earliest failed cabinet pick in modern history), but so many other nightmarish Trumpian figures won’t. They’ll be there doing their damnedest as “agents of his contempt, rage, and vengeance.”

Gaining perspective on Donald Trump? In some ways, his greatest skill in life has been in making such perspective inconceivable. No matter what you think, you can never quite fully take him in or know what he’s likely to do.

So, here we are, about to be Trumped once again. In fact, in the years to come, if things go as they now look like they might, with Elon Musk, Fox News, and him inhabiting the White House, it might be possible to think of this country (and even this planet) as Donald Trump’s last bankruptcy.

Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine.

The United States remains the world’s dominant arms producing nation, with $318 billion in revenues flowing to American firms in the world’s top 100 for 2023, more than half of the global total. And the five highest revenue earners globally were all based in the United States — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics.

The United States remains the world’s dominant arms producing nation, with $318 billion in revenues flowing to American firms in the world’s top 100 for 2023, more than half of the global total.

China ranked second to the United States in arms industry revenues, with nine firms accounting for 16% of the revenue received by companies in the global top 100. Two of the fastest growing countries in terms of revenue growth for top companies were also in Asia, South Korea (plus 39%) and Japan (plus 35%). South Korea’s increase was tied to major export deals with Poland and Australia, while Japan’s was driven by its largest military buildup since World War II.

SIPRI’s analysis takes a “just the facts” approach, tracking sales numbers and correlating them with increases in domestic and export spending tied to specific events. It does not address the dire humanitarian circumstances that underlie the growing revenues of top arms companies, most notably Israel’s unconscionable attacks on Gaza, which have killed over 44,000 people directly and many more through indirect causes, including over 62,000 who have died from starvation. The companies and countries fueling this mass slaughter — including U.S. firms that have supplied a substantial share of the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used in Gaza — should be held to account for their actions, even as they halt the supply of weapons and services that the Israeli government is using to commit ongoing war crimes.

Another major impact of the revenue surge for top arms makers is the diversion of funding and talent from addressing urgent global problems, from climate change to poverty to outbreaks of disease. And the more companies and countries become dependent on the profits of war, the harder it will be to shift funding towards other urgent priorities. The continuing militarization of the global economy has a double cost — lives lost in conflict and devastating problems left unsolved. The situation needs to be treated as far more than a grim parade of statistics about who benefits from a world at war. It should be treated as an urgent call to action for a change in global priorities.

This past week, Israeli, Lebanese, and U.S. leaders were busy patting themselves on the back announcing the completion of an Israeli/Lebanese cease-fire agreement. The Israeli prime minister crowed about Israel victorious and now the unquestioned dominant force throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah declared a “divine victory” greater than the one they achieved in 2006. Meanwhile, U.S. leaders were congratulating themselves for their leadership in a settlement they hoped would “advance broader peace and prosperity in the region.”

To say I’m skeptical about all of this is an understatement. At least for now, the Lebanese will have some respite from Israel’s relentless bombings. And Israeli forces will begin to withdraw from the south of the country. Nevertheless, I’m not uncorking the champagne to celebrate. Too many have died, too much bitterness has been sown, no lessons have been learned, and too many issues remain unresolved. There will be, as there always is, a reckoning for the consequences of this war.

The extensive physical damage to Lebanon and its people is staggering. Almost 4,000 dead and many thousands more were wounded. International agencies report that 1.3 million were forced to flee from their homes—some forced to do so more than once—and upward of 100,000 homes have been destroyed either by bombings or bulldozing of entire areas by Israeli forces in their “cleansing” operations in the border villages.

As of now, Netanyahu and the majority of Israelis have learned no lessons at all. Their blind self-righteousness emboldened by U.S. support has metastasized into a cancerous sense of impunity.

In his announcement of the cease-fire, U.S. President Joe Biden said that now Israelis and Lebanese can return to their homes—except that, for hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, their homes no longer exist. And it’s important to acknowledge that the cease-fire is tentative, and its terms are decidedly lopsided.

Once again, as they did in 2006, Hezbollah miscalculated. It may have seemed honorable to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. But they were kicking the hornets’ nest of a foe whose ruthlessness knows no limits and faces no restraints. Israel responded with complete impunity, violating all of the norms of international law and civilized behavior.

At this point, Hezbollah has no doubt been weakened. They will be forced to relocate north of the Litani River and have lost their claim to be a feared deterrent against Israeli dominance. It remains to be seen to what extent they will be able to use their armed presence as the pretorian guard protecting the ancien regime in Lebanon.

Cease-fire or no cease-fire, Lebanon has internal problems that must be addressed, but which now, in the aftermath of this war, are less likely to be.

It’s true that Hezbollah plays a role in Iran’s regional strategy. But it is wrong to see it only in that light. What gave birth to this movement were problems internal to Lebanon. Hezbollah represents an aggrieved Shi’a community that had long felt that it had been dealt the short end of the stick in Lebanese affairs. They suffered the consequences of Israel’s war with the PLO at the end of which their villages were occupied by the Israeli military for more than two decades. With Israel being forced to end its occupation in 2000, Hezbollah’s stature grew.

While no precise demographic figures exist, most estimates place the Shi’a community as Lebanon’s largest sectarian grouping. They harbor a deep sense of disenfranchisement and are unwilling, especially after what they have recently endured, to accept a subordinate status.

So while it’s important, as some say, for Lebanon to “get its act together” and elect a new president and establish a government, that’s not nearly enough. There must be reform and an end to the corrupt, outmoded sectarian system. Whether one blames Hezbollah for this war or not, if real reform isn’t implemented, the inequities of Lebanon’s sectarian divisions will cause tensions and disruptions that will continue to place the country’s recovery at risk.

It was both frightening and disturbing to listen to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu crowing about his great successes in defying world opinion and winning, as he described it, against all of Israel’s foes. He went further with the threat of continuing to use Israel’s unmatched military might to ensure Israel’s security and dominance. But here too there is a reckoning that must be addressed.

As we have learned from past wars, there are wounds that do not heal. Israel may be feared, but it is hated more than ever. Palestinians and many Lebanese, and Arabs in general, are now more hostile to Israel than before these wars took their tolls.

As of now, Netanyahu and the majority of Israelis have learned no lessons at all. Their blind self-righteousness emboldened by U.S. support has metastasized into a cancerous sense of impunity. They continue their genocidal campaign in Gaza hell-bent on the destruction of Hamas. But it is increasingly clear that isn’t their only goal—which is to liquidate the Palestinian presence in most of Gaza and establish a permanent regime there. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Israelis are also determined to subdue and annex and expand their settlement presence.

Israel’s military might seem dominant, but Israelis aren’t safer. Even now they daily fall victim to resistance born of anger at their brutal occupation policies. They will not be secure or achieve broader regional acceptance until they change. And given the hold the far-right has over Israeli politics, change isn’t coming any time soon.

As distressing as these failures of the Lebanese and Israeli leaderships may be, those of U.S. policymakers are worse as they bear significant responsibility for what has transpired not just over the past year. For decades, the U.S. turned a blind eye to Israeli settlement expansion, their policies that sabotaged the peace process, contributed to the collapse of Palestinian governance and the rise of Hamas, the subjugation of the Palestinian people, and the empowerment of Israel’s extremist right wing. Instead of accepting paternity for this mess that we helped birth, we have now armed Israel to the teeth and covered for its crimes in international fora.

The “deal” we negotiated between Israel and Lebanon addresses none of the root causes of conflict and only gives Israel a freer hand to pursue its goal of a “pax Israelica”—which is sure to produce greater conflict, not the hoped broader regional peace.

When shopping for the holidays, most people reasonably assume that products sold in major American retail stores are free of toxic chemicals. After all, harmful substances like lead and mercury have no place in the shopping cart, and regulations must prevent this kind of dangerous exposure, right?

Unfortunately, this is not the case. A recent study revealed that over half of the items tested on dollar stores’ shelves contained toxic chemicals. This includes lead found in tablecloths, jewelry, and baby toys with known links to brain development harm; phthalates in school supplies, silly straws, and bath toys with links to early puberty in girls, birth defects in the male reproductive system, obesity, and diabetes; BPA in receipts, cookware, and can linings that can affect the brain and prostate gland of fetuses, infants, and children; and PFAS—long-lasting synthetic chemicals—found in popcorn bags that can affect the immune system and liver function.

Just last month Toxic Free Future released their latest Retailer Report Card, which graded Dollar General with a D+ and Dollar Tree/Family Dollar with a D for safety, based on hazardous chemicals in their products, company commitment to transparency, a willingness to change, and how easily customers can tell what substances are on store items.

With the incoming presidential administration promising to slash health and safety rules, customers and communities will have even fewer protections.

But for many families, shopping elsewhere isn’t an option. Dollar stores are often the only retailers selling essential household goods, including food, in many rural towns and urban neighborhoods, leaving customers with nowhere else to go. Dollar stores are frequently located in communities that already face multiple health and environmental risk factors, such as industrial pollution from factories or deteriorated drinking water. This means a family’s exposure to chemicals via items purchased at dollar stores is part of accumulated exposures.

Dollar stores’ leadership has been aware for over a decade that their products contain lead, BPA, phthalates, and PFAS, jeopardizing customer health. During this time, environmental justice and public health groups nationwide have advocated for safer products. Investors in these companies have raised concerns directly with management and through shareholder resolutions. Yet, the problem persists. Even this year Dollar Tree knowingly kept lead-contaminated apple sauce on its shelves, putting children in harm’s way. The stores have taken only minimal actions to address a handful of chemicals in some product categories.

To say federal agencies tasked with regulating these products fall short would be an understatement. Many take a “graveyard approach,” acting only after someone has suffered a physical toll. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act is so weak that only a handful of chemicals have ever been restricted, while tens of thousands have been exempted or fast-tracked for approval. With the incoming presidential administration promising to slash health and safety rules, customers and communities will have even fewer protections.

With this lack of protective action on the part of state and federal regulators, we urge dollar stores to do the right thing. In 2023, Dollar General's net sales were over $38 billion, and Dollar Tree’s revenues were over $30 billion. They can afford to stop buying products from suppliers that use toxic chemicals and switch to readily available safer alternatives. Mike Creedon, interim chief executive officer for Dollar Tree, claims, “Safety First, Safety Always is the guiding mantra for our store.” But these are only words when there is no action.

Instead, the nation’s largest dollar stores continually fail to meaningfully strengthen their chemical policies and intervene in their supply chains to keep their shoppers safe. Dollar General failed to expand its list of 19 restricted substances. The list does not include PFAS, most phthalates, and many other chemicals known to cause harm. It also applies only to private-label products. Similarly, Dollar Tree has not publicly documented progress on reducing chemicals or plastics of high concern in the last four years and has made no indication of support for the development or sale of safer products.

Competitors, including Walmart, have already made this change. In 2022, the company disclosed that it removed 37 million pounds of phthalates from products in response to consumer demand, with publicly available corporate policies. Similarly, Apple recently received praise for removing harmful chemicals and plastics from its products and even committed to a Full Material Disclosure program which promises manufacturers full transparency on products’ material compositions. These transitions are increasingly mainstream, and dollar stores are falling further and further behind.

Every family has the right to feel safe while shopping, and with the holidays around the corner, this issue is even more important. Dollar stores should transparently report on their progress and work with their suppliers to prevent all known dangerous chemicals from being used to make products sold in stores. Until this happens, dollar stores are putting already vulnerable communities at risk. Safe alternatives exist, and the transition to non-toxic products is both feasible and cost-effective in the long run. Dollar stores must stop prioritizing profit over families. We refuse to be sacrificed for the bottom line.

The Supreme Court in Trump v. United States has enabled Fascism in America.

We can see why if we examine the best book I know about Nazi Germany, Ernst Fraenkel’s The Dual State. Fraenkel was a German-Jewish attorney in Weimar Germany. He continued to practice after the Nazis came to power, emigrating to the United Kingdom in 1938 and to the United States in 1939. In The Dual State, published shortly after he arrived in the United States, Fraenkel characterizes the nature of the Nazi state, showing how Adolf Hitler ruled using prerogative powers. Fraenkel draws an analogy between Hitler’s rule and the king’s use of prerogative powers prior to the English Revolution in the 17th century.

Fraenkel shows, well before the events, how, after the court’s decision, as Sonia Sotomayor stated in her dissent, “the President is now a king above the law,” a king with the ability to act arbitrarily, without fear of sanction, in violation of the constitutional restraints the English Revolution sought to impose on the King in the 17th century, and the restraints that prior to the court’s decision, the U.S. Constitution was understood to impose on the president.

The clearest indication, so far, that Trump intends to rule using prerogative powers is his desire to infringe on the Senate’s authority to confirm or reject his appointments.

In patrimonialism, agents in the state function as “personal servants” of the leader. They are the vehicle for the expansion of the scope of the leader’s power, which is enhanced to control areas previously understood as outside the executive’s purview, including many that were previously legislative or judicial.

Charles I was king within an institutionalized state. He was able to claim that his misuse of prerogative powers, substituting them for actions that fell within the scope of parliamentary powers, was legitimate. When Hitler was named chancellor, he quickly moved from an illegal expansion of his powers to a coup d’état, governing using arbitrary prerogative powers. Like Charles I, he cloaked his usurpations in legal terms, but, in fact, as Fraenkel put it, characterizing the Nazi “constitutional” state, “There are no legal rules governing the political sphere. It is regulated by arbitrary measures (Massnahmen), in which the dominant officials exercise their discretionary prerogatives. Hence the expression ‘Prerogative State’ (Massnahmenstaat),” a patrimonial state.

In Nazi Germany, “Absolute dictatorial power is exercised by the leader and chancellor either personally or through his subordinate authorities. His sole decision determines how this power shall be wielded.” In his attempt to legalize his absolute power, the support given to Hitler by traditional conservative forces, including those within a fundamentally conservative legal order, was crucial. While there were sporadic attempts to curtail Hitler’s prerogative, they failed, because of institutional deficiencies and because of the timidity of those who were in a position to defend the Weimar political and legal order. Likewise, in the USA, where the constitutional-judicial safeguards are stronger, the conservatives within the legal and political order have followed their leader like lemmings walking off a cliff. Now the Supreme Court has enabled future presidents to claim, without fear of sanction, sovereign, patrimonial power, immunity for all “official” actions undertaken as president.

Crucially, the determination of what falls under the prerogative is made by the leader himself. As Fraenkel puts it, “The decisions of the state are free from normative restrictions. The state becomes absolute in the literal sense of the word.” The Nazi state suggested that “politics” was independent of the law, “and that the definition of the boundary lines between the two rests in the hands of the political authorities themselves.” If the majority on the Supreme Court thinks that the leader they have enabled will allow them to regulate his actions, it can only be because of their ignorance of history.

While the leader’s prerogative powers may derive from an emergency, it is often the fascist movement that creates the emergency it claims the power to resolve. In Nazi Germany, Fraenkel tells us, “Normal life is ruled by legal norms. But since martial law has become permanent in Germany, exceptions to the normal law are continually made... Whether the decision in an individual case is made in accordance with the law or with ‘expediency’ is entirely in the hands of those in whom the sovereign power is vested. Their sovereignty consists in the very fact that they determine the permanent emergency...”

“From this follows the principle that the presumption of jurisdiction rests with the Normative State,” he continues. “The jurisdiction over jurisdiction rests with the Prerogative state. The limits of the Prerogative State are not imposed upon it; there is not a single issue in which the Prerogative State cannot claim jurisdiction.”

As Fraenkel contends, “the legal situation of the 17th century has been reincarnated. The tendency defeated in England in the 17th century gradually attained success in [Nazi] Germany” (my italics). Now, with the aid of the Supreme Court, we in the United States are at peril of repeating this history, of witnessing President-elect Donald Trump, or one of his successors, acting with absolute immunity in what he chooses to define as his constitutional authority, and the Supreme Court will find that they have authorized him to do so.

The clearest indication, so far, that Trump intends to rule using prerogative powers is his desire to infringe on the Senate’s authority to confirm or reject his appointments. He wants the Senate to let him make recess appointments without their consent, and he has chosen a set of candidates who are among the most unqualified and dangerous in American history. The question now is whether the Senate will guard its constitutional authority to both vet and reject Trump’s candidates. If they do not do so, they, along with SCOTUS, will chart a path to fascism.

The Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation has long functioned as an apologist for America’s deepest pockets. Analysts at the foundation have spent years assuring us that our wealthiest are paying far more than their fair tax share—in the face of a reality that has our richest aggressively growing their share of the wealth all Americans are creating.

This past August, the Biden administration’s Treasury Department commissioned a new study that documented just how little of their wealth America’s richest are actually paying in taxes. Last month, the Tax Foundation responded with a predictable critique. Our super rich, insists this new Tax Foundation analysis, are still today paying “super amounts of taxes.”

But tax data, as the study Treasury officials released last summer shows, tell a far different story.

If Congress does not at some point soon raise what our ultra-rich pay in taxes as a percentage of their wealth, our grandchildren could well be living in a nation where our richest 0.01% hold half our nation’s wealth, quintuple their current share.

This Treasury study—led by an academic team that included the widely respected economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman—spotlighted a wide variety of stats on the incomes America’s 183.7 million taxpayer units reported and the taxes they paid in 2019.

The report devoted special attention to how much in taxes the nation’s most affluent that year paid, breaking these taxpayers down into wealth categories ranging from our richest 10% to our richest 0.001%. To drill down even deeper, the report tapped annual Forbes 400 data to calculate comparable stats for those households that sit at our nation’s even higher wealth summit.

And what did the Treasury report show? At that summit, the nation’s richest 0.0002%—a group that roughly corresponds in size to the Forbes 400—paid in 2019 federal and state taxes the equivalent of less than 1% of their wealth. The richest of America’s rich, the top 0.00005% of taxpayers, paid in federal and state taxes an amount that equaled just 0.75%.

All these rich did, to be sure, pay some foreign taxes as well. But the richest of America’s rich, even after taking these foreign taxes into account, still paid in taxes less than 1% of their wealth, as this charting of the Treasury Department stats shows.

The Tax Foundation’s just-published response to the Treasury data doesn’t dispute the accuracy of any of these figures. The Tax Foundation claims instead that the Treasury report confirms that America’s rich “pay more than one-third of their annual income in federal taxes and more than 45% when state and local taxes are included.”

Indeed, the Tax Foundation adds, the total tax burden on the nation’s super wealthy can, with foreign taxes paid taken into account, run “upwards of 60% of their annual income.”

The key word here: income. The Treasury study, the Tax Foundation charges, “classifies taxpayers according to an estimate of their wealth rather than their income, with the intention of showing that the rich pay very little in taxes.” The rich, the foundation concludes, “are not undertaxed relative to their annual income.”

This Tax Foundation’s claim begs some obvious questions: What yardstick should we use to consider whether our wealthiest are paying an appropriate amount of tax? If our wealthiest, after paying their taxes, are still watching their personal wealth grow at a higher growth rate than the nation’s total wealth, are these wealthy paying their “fair tax share”?

The annual Forbes 400 may be the best place to start our answer to that question. Between 2014 and 2024, the wealth of the Forbes 400 increased from $2.29 trillion to $5.4 trillion. That translates to an annual growth rate of 8.96%, net of taxes and living expenses. Over the same period, America’s total household wealth grew 6.8% annually, increasing from $79.94 trillion to $154.39 trillion.

At those 2014-2024 rates of growth, the share of the nation’s wealth the Forbes 400 holds would double every 35 years. Over the past 42 years, the Forbes 400 share of the nation’s wealth has actually grown at an even faster rate, nearly quadrupling over that four-decade-plus span.

The wealth of our wealthiest has no natural limit. If Congress does not at some point soon raise what our ultra-rich pay in taxes as a percentage of their wealth, our grandchildren could well be living in a nation where our richest 0.01% hold half our nation’s wealth, quintuple their current share.

What level of taxation would be required to stop America’s wealth from concentrating so furiously? To close the gap between the growth rate for the wealth of the richest Americans and our nation’s overall growth in total wealth, current combined federal and state taxes on those at the top would have to rise substantially, at least tripling.

None of these figures should come as a surprise. We’ve known for decades now about the under-taxation of America’s billionaires, a reality that rests on what may be the single most glaring flaw in America’s tax system: “adjusted gross income.” The Internal Revenue Code uses this “AGI” as the starting point for calculating federal income tax due. But “adjusted gross income”—for America’s richest taxpayers—has become and continues to be an entirely meaningless figure.

Consider 2019, the year the Treasury study this past August most closely highlighted. The S&P 500 stock index that year rose 30% between the opening of trading in January and the last trading day in December. For Americans at our nation’s economic summit, that made for a wonderful year. These wealthy derive nearly all their income from their investments.

As we move up the economic scale, the wealth growth of the ultra-rich follows a clear pattern: The economic income—that is, the rate of wealth growth—of the topmost group increases as the size of the group shrinks.

Between 2014 and 2024, for example, the wealth of the 92 richest Americans increased from $1.4 trillion to $3.4 trillion, a jump that translates to an annual growth rate just over 9%. Over that same period, the wealth of remaining 308 in the Forbes 400 grew at a rate of 8.82%. By contrast, in 2019, the average adjusted gross incomes of the top 92 taxpayers and the next 275 taxpayers stood at 1.66% and 3.11% of their average wealth.

In other words, the higher up we go on the wealth ladder, the higher the rate of wealth growth, as we would expect. But adjusted gross income, expressed as a percentage of wealth, decreases. For America’s wealthiest, adjusted gross income bears no relationship to actual economic income. Any estimate of income that places, as the AGI does, the income of the 92 richest Americans at only 1.66% of their wealth rates as essentially useless.

To sharpen this picture even more, consider the increase in tax on America’s wealthiest 367 that would be needed to freeze the increase in their share of our nation’s wealth. Avoiding a further increase in the concentration of the nation’s wealth would require an overall increase in the rate of taxes our top 367 pay to more than 150% of their adjusted gross income. If we limited their overall tax rate to a mere 100% of their adjusted gross income, their share of the country’s wealth would continue to increase.

Where does that leave us? For taxing the rich, we currently rely on an income tax based on adjusted gross income as our primary vehicle. That isn’t working. If we’re going to achieve fair share taxation of the rich, we need to scrap AGI and develop a measure of income that accurately reflects their true economic income. Otherwise, we need to tax wealth directly.

President-elect Donald Trump is threatening to impose big tariffs on imported goods, especially from countries like China. Might be a good idea to hoard cheap imported crap now.

The post Tis the Season to Hoard Cheap Crap first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post Tis the Season to Hoard Cheap Crap appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

October 14, 2024 Jo Ann Jenkins CEO AARP 601 E Street NW Washington, DC 20049 Dear CEO Jo Ann Jenkins, It is long overdue for AARP to take an introspective look at itself. I suggest this institutional self-appraisal as a long-time observer and user of AARP offerings. Years ago, I was invited to speak twice…

The DMZ America Podcast’s Ted Rall (on the Left) and Scott Stantis (on the Right) are joined by syndicated columnist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune to discuss the despondent state of the Democratic Party in the wake of their defeat. Progressives like Bernie Sanders say the party erred in neglecting the working class, moderates think the party appears too “woke” for mainstream Americans and it’s hard to reconcile Biden and the Democrats’ criticism of Donald Trump as dishonest with his decision to pardon Hunter Biden despite numerous categorical denials that he would do so. Where does the Democratic Party go from here? Is “resistance” possible and, if so, what will it look like?

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 181: Democrats Take Stock; Hunter Biden Pardoned first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 181: Democrats Take Stock; Hunter Biden Pardoned appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Shortly before midnight on December 2, 1984, a terrible cloud, consisting of tons of the deadly gas methyl isocyanate (MIC), along with other chemicals, began to leak into the atmosphere from the storage tank of the U.S. multinational corporation Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)’s pesticide plant on the outskirts of Bhopal in central India.

The immediate consequences of the mass poisoning were catastrophic. As many as 10,000 people are believed to have died within three days of the leak.

As the world marks the 40th anniversary of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, what lessons should we take from what happened on that awful night? I think perhaps there are at least three important ones. Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, is that a single tragic event can have consequences that last generations.

As well as those who succumbed to the gas in the first few hours, many thousands more people were exposed to it, and they continue to suffer from a range of chronic and debilitating illnesses. It is now estimated that more than 22,000 people have died as a direct result of exposure to the leak, while more than half a million people continue to suffer some degree of permanent injury.

Shockingly, it is not only people exposed to the gas directly who have been affected. Over the years that followed, a large number of children born to gas-exposed parents have been affected by growth retardation, birth defects and other medical conditions.

As well as those who succumbed to the gas in the first few hours, many thousands more people were exposed to it, and they continue to suffer from a range of chronic and debilitating illnesses.

Meanwhile, to this day, thousands of tons of toxic waste remain buried in and around the abandoned plant. This has contaminated residents’ water supplies and harmed their health, adding to the already dismal health status of gas-exposed residents.

As well as the health impacts, the tragedy has pushed already impoverished communities into further destitution. In many families, the main wage earner died or became too ill to work. Women and children suffered disproportionately.

An unfortunate second lesson of the Bhopal tragedy is how easy it has been for UCC to escape accountability. Pitted against the largely poor victims of the gas disaster was the hugely powerful and enormously rich multinational corporation, which escaped providing the survivors, their children and grandchildren with adequate compensation and medical care.

The catastrophic gas leak was the foreseeable result of innumerable operational failures at the plant, but from the start, UCC’s response to the disaster was inadequate and callous. For example, although thousands of people were dying from gas exposure, or suffering agonizing injuries, UCC withheld critical information regarding MIC’s toxicological properties, undermining the effectiveness of the medical response. To this day, UCC has failed to name any of the chemicals and reaction products that leaked along with MIC on that fateful night.

In 1989, without consulting Bhopal Gas Tragedy survivors, the Indian government and UCC reached an out-of-court compensation settlement for $470 million. This amount was less than 15 percent of the initial amount sought by the government, and far less than most estimates of the damage at the time. Thousands of claims were not registered at all, including those of gas-exposed children under the age of 18, and children born to gas-affected parents who, time later showed, were also severely affected.

There have been numerous attempts to hold UCC and individuals to account, either through criminal or civil claim proceedings launched in India and the U.S. But these have had no or very limited results.

One challenge has been created by the restructuring of the business entities involved in the tragedy. UCC sold off the India-registered subsidiary that operated the plant. It was then, in turn, bought by another giant U.S. corporation, the Dow Chemical Company (Dow). To this day, Dow shamefully claims it bears no responsibility since it “never owned or operated the plant” and that UCC only became a subsidiary of Dow 16 years after the accident.

In 2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Bhopal found seven Indian nationals, as well as UCC’s India-based subsidiary guilty of causing death by negligence. By contrast, U.S. individuals and companies have escaped punishment, and there is significant evidence that the U.S. authorities have helped protect them.

Companies have a responsibility to respect human rights wherever they operate. Dow may not have caused the gas leak, but it became directly linked to the tragedy after it bought UCC. The company boasts of following the highest human rights standards, but its continued failure to respond to the urgent needs of the survivors is utterly disgraceful.

But there is a third lesson to draw from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and its aftermath. It can be found in the inspiring story of the survivor groups and their supporters, who over 40 years have refused to give up their fight for justice. They have initiated or intervened in many legal actions; conducted scientific research into the contamination and health impacts; and they have launched practical initiatives in the absence of sufficient state and corporate support. For example, in 1994, survivor groups fundraised for the Sambhavna Trust Clinic and they later opened the Chingari Rehabilitation Centre. Thousands of gas- and contamination-affected adults and children have benefitted from the highly specialized and professional medical care and rehabilitation provided by these institutions – unparalleled by any of the government-run facilities.

Their campaigning has also meant that Dow has never been able to disassociate itself from the Bhopal disaster. Until it finally addresses the needs of the survivors, their campaign will continue.

President Joe Biden and his press secretary and other surrogates have repeatedly told the media that he would not pardon his son Hunter Biden on federal tax evasion and gun charges under any circumstance whatsoever. Nothing has substantially changed, yet the president has gone ahead and issued the most controversial presidential pardon since Gerald Ford let Richard Nixon off the hook. Moreover, he has used language familiar to those who follow President-elect Donald Trump to excuse his brazen self dealing and lying, justifying his actions by accusing the Department of Justice of having been politicized.

What does it mean when the standard bearer of the Democrats, who claim that they differ from Trump because they are truth tellers, is so willing to make a mockery of the truth? What message are we to take from the fact that both political parties say that the DOJ is politically compromised? What if anything does this do to the Democratic Party brand? What should go Biden have done differently?

Attorney and historian Tyler Nixon joins the TMI Show’s Ted Rall and Manila Chan to discuss the political and cultural implications of the Hunter Biden pardon.

The post The TMI Show Ep 29: “Hunter Biden Pardoned Despite President’s Repeated Promises” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post The TMI Show Ep 29: “Hunter Biden Pardoned Despite President’s Repeated Promises” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Sixty-two years ago President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had the wisdom to peacefully resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Kennedy understood that Soviet missiles in Cuba were a response, in part, to US missiles near the USSR, in Türkiye. Kennedy wisely removed the missiles from Türkiye in a secret negotiated settlement, in exchange for the Soviets removing their missiles from Cuba. Kennedy and Khrushchev thereby stepped away from the brink of nuclear war.

Kennedy had to keep the peace settlement secret, because he knew that anti-Communist crusaders in Congress and the security state would regard his actions as treasonous. He was in open conflict with the CIA, whose head, Allen Dulles, he had fired over the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Today the U.S. and Russia are, again, dangerously close to being at total war. In many ways, the crisis in Ukraine is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, given that Russia, rightly or wrongly, views NATO expansion up to its borders as an unacceptable infringement on its sphere of influence.

NATO and Russia continue to climb the escalatory ladder over the war in Ukraine.The recent launching of ATACM and Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory crosses a red line for President Putin, whose expected reprisal (e.g., with Oreshnik ballistic missiles) may provoke NATO to climb another rung up the ladder.

These tit-for-tat escalations can all too easily spiral out of control, resulting in open warfare between NATO and Russia, as well as the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.

These tit-for-tat escalations can all too easily spiral out of control, resulting in open warfare between NATO and Russia, as well as the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. It is doubtful that a limited nuclear exchange can occur without it escalating to all-out nuclear warfare and the end of human civilization.

Even a one percent chance of such an outcome is an unacceptable risk.

Kennedy and Khrushchev had the wisdom, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, to pull back from the brink. Will American, British and Russian leaders have the wisdom now to peacefully resolve the war in Ukraine? The question is urgent.

For perspective and inspiration, we highly recommend that everyone read President Kennedy’s commencement address (also known as Kennnedy’s “peace speech”), delivered at American University on June 10, 1963. In that speech, Kennedy urged that we “conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interests to agree to a genuine peace. And above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective death-wish for the world."

Today it is vital that people understand the relevance and urgency of Kennedy’s point about making sure that our actions do not provoke a nuclear war.

It is also vital that lines of communication between the U.S. and Russia be kept open. In the speech, Kennedy announced the establishment of a hotline with Moscow to prevent future misunderstandings and the accidental launching of a nuclear exchange. Kennedy proposed to start negotiations towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. And he announced an end to above ground nuclear weapons testing. Lastly, Kennedy wrote in the speech, “We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded.”

The speech was given at a critical point in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. At the time, the speech so impressed Khrushchev that he had it reprinted in newspapers throughout the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately nothing like those things is happening now. Rather, in recent years, nearly all high-level contacts between Moscow and D.C. have been shunned, based on the notion that we must not negotiate with a Hitler. Furthermore, the U.S. withdrew from multiple arms deals with Russia: the ABM treaty during the second Bush Administration, and the INF Treaty and Open Skies Treaty during the Trump Administration. The New Start Treaty is now at risk, too, of being abrogated. Lastly, the U.S. government has, effectively, blocked Americans from viewing Russian media outlets such as RT.com.

Kennedy called for Americans to see the Soviet point of view. He warned “the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.”

Likewise, today Americans need to see the Russian point of view with respect to NATO expansion towards their borders. However, this is not the place to go into detail about the history of NATO expansion (e.g., U.S. involvement in the 2014 Maidan coup and the arming by the CIA of far-right militias) or about the hypocrisy of the U.S. position, given its many interventions far from U.S. borders (e.g., the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Syria, where the U.S. currently occupies one third of the territory, the parts with oil). The details are voluminous, and we would be accused of repeating Putin’s talking points. When the house is on fire, the urgent need is to save lives.

Therefore, even if you naively believe that the United States is innocent in the crisis in Ukraine, you should still strongly support negotiations, to save Ukraine and Russia from further destruction, and to prevent the very real risk of World War III.

We need Kennedy’s wisdom now, because of the looming threat of nuclear war. Kennedy regarded world peace as "the most important topic on earth.... What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war -- not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace -- the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living."

We believe it is urgent that a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine be reached immediately.

I never realized before that men hate us so much.” That was the lesson drawn by one of my fellow organizers in Reno, Nevada, the morning after the 2024 general election. She’d turned 21 during the campaign, a three-month marathon she approached as a daily opportunity to learn as much as she could about everything she encountered. “Of course, they hate immigrants, too,” she added, “and I’m both.”

That morning of November 6th, I sat down with her and four other women to face the election results. The six of us had spent almost every day together over the previous three months, recruiting, training, and deploying volunteers in northern Nevada in the campaign to elect Kamala Harris president and return Jacky Rosen to the Senate. We didn’t yet know that we had indeed managed the latter, but it was already clear that the next president would not be Kamala Harris but Donald Trump. This was my fourth electoral outing with UNITE-HERE, the hospitality industry union. It was, however, my first time working directly with the union’s partner in Reno, Seed the Vote (STV), a campaign organization whose mission is to “win elections and build our movements.”

I’d initially been skeptical that STV, a progressive nonprofit outfit based in the San Francisco Bay Area, would be able to adapt to the union’s model: waging effective electoral campaigns while simultaneously training cooks, bartenders, hotel room attendants, and casino staff in the skills they need to build and sustain a fighting union. Would short-term volunteers show the same discipline and dedication I’d admired in union canvassers over the years? Would they go out again the day after they’d rung a doorbell and a voter carrying a shotgun had screamed at them, or sicced dogs on them, or called the police, or shouted racist curses at them, or even later followed them slowly in a pickup truck? As it turned out, most of them would.

Nor, by the way, was it lost on us that morning that all six of us were women. So are most of UNITE-HERE’s members and its two top officials, as was the director of the union’s campaign in Reno, along with the folks running the data department (something I had done in 2022). A wide variety of concerns brought us to this battle, but all of us knew that as women, along with struggles for a living wage, affordable housing, and access to health care, we were fighting for our lives.

Welcome to Gilead. Enjoy Your Stay.

In Donald Trump we confronted a candidate who’d promised to “protect” women — “whether the women like it or not.” He’d bragged about appointing the Supreme Court justices who’d overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending bodily autonomy for millions of women. He’d claimed that handing control of women’s bodies over to 50-odd state and territorial governments was what “everybody wanted.” I doubt it was the kind of “protection” Jessica Barnica wanted when Texas doctors refused her abortion care in the midst of a miscarriage, causing her to die of sepsis three days later. And it probably wasn’t what any of the other women wanted whose horror stories about suffering — and death — after the end of Roe were recently recounted in a New York magazine article, “Life after Roe.” No, we did not “like” the kind of protection that Donald Trump was offering us at all.

Here was a man whose earlier boasts about sexual assault hadn’t kept him out of the White House in 2016. Here was one who claimed that his female opponent in 2024 was born “mentally disabled.… There’s something wrong with Kamala and I just don’t know what it is, but there’s something missing and you know what? Everybody knows it.” It’s hard not to conclude that, to Trump, the “something missing” was a penis.

Penises were certainly on Trump’s mind when he reposted a photo of Harris with Hillary Clinton over the caption: “Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently…” That was, in part, an allusion to the right-wing trope that Harris had slept her way to the top, getting her start in politics through a brief relationship with California powerbroker Willie Brown. And Trump was a candidate whose sprint to the electoral finish line was fueled by attacks on some of the most vulnerable women of all — transgender teenagers.

He’d chosen as his running mate one J.D. Vance, a man who had complained that the country was being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” In his view, women exist, indeed were created by God, to be little more than vessels and caregivers for children. He cloaked his disdain for women’s actual desires or aspirations in a supposed concern for our happiness, warning that pursuing fulfilling work outside the home, “instead of starting a family and having children” was “actually a path to misery.” He added that the misery of the woman who is not a mother is a danger to the rest of us, because such women “get in positions of power and then they project that misery and [un]happiness on the rest of society.”

Welcome to the Republic of Gilead, where they really do hate us that much and they’re not afraid to say so.

Your Body, My Choice, Forever

Before readers go all “#notallmen” on me, let me stipulate that my brother doesn’t hate me. Nor does his son, my much-loved nephew. Nor did my father, nor my high school or college boyfriends for that matter. None of them hated me then or hate me now. A few of them have, however, held — largely unexamined — beliefs about women’s essential inferiority in one realm or another. And curled within such beliefs like a secret infection lurks a bacillus of contempt.

When that contempt festers, it can poison the blood of a nation, provoking a fever of women hatred like the one that has emerged in this country since Donald Trump’s recent election. Perhaps the first drop of sweat appeared in white supremacist (and erstwhile Trump dinner guest) Nick Fuentes’s election-night post on X: “Your body, my choice. Forever.” Although even the liberal press has treated this dictum as if it referred primarily to reproductive rights, it’s clear that Fuentes and men like him are celebrating Trump’s victory as a referendum on rape.

Within a day, that post had 90 million views. Between Thursday and Friday of that week, as the Institute for Strategic Dialogue reported, online repetitions rose by 4,600%. Nor was Fuentes’s post unique. The Institute also observed that “Manosphere” influencer Andrew Tate, in a post on X on November 7th, stated: “I saw a woman crossing the road today but I just kept my foot down. Right of way? You no longer have rights.”

It seems as if it’s just a short step from thoughts of rape to thoughts of murder in Gilead. And a popular step, too. Tate’s post garnered almost 700,000 views within a couple of hours. A day earlier another Xer, Jon Miller, wrote, “Women threatening sex strikes like LMAO as if you have a say.” (And in case you don’t know, LMAO is “laughing my ass off” in text-speak.) Like Fuentes’s post, this one has received almost 90 million views.

Nor does what happens in the Manosphere stay in the Manosphere. As Vox reports, “Girls and young women are also hearing the line in schools, according to family members, with one mom posting on Facebook that her daughter had heard it three times on campus, and that boys told her to ‘sleep with one eye open tonight.’”

#yesmostmen

Exit polls show that 55% of male voters went for Donald Trump. That figure includes 49% of men aged 18 to 29 and over half of all other men, including 60% of men aged 45 to 64. Had only women voted in this election, Kamala Harris would have won handily. Is it any wonder then that, in addition to invitations to rape, calls for the repeal of the 19th amendment (which in 1920 gave people like me the right to vote) are also trending on social media?

One such call came from John McEntee, who served as Trump’s personal aide and later as the White House director of personnel during his first term. He also worked in personnel in the 2024 Trump campaign and, according to Newsweek, is “reportedly a senior adviser for the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project, a political initiative more commonly known as Project 2025.” In late October he posted a video on X, in which he explained, “So I guess they misunderstood. When we said we wanted mail-only voting, we meant male — ‘M-A-L-E.’” In the video’s caption, McEntee wrote, “The 19th might have to go.”

Yes, a majority of men voted for the candidate who has bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, who has been found liable in a civil suit for the rape and defamation of E. Jean Carroll, who happily allowed vendors at his rallies to sell “Say No to the Hoe” tee shirts, implying — in case you didn’t catch the “joke” — that Kamala Harris is a prostitute. A Google search on the phrase brings up pages of offers for that item, including this one from Etsy.com: “Just Say No to the Ho Campaign Style Shirt [from] Etsy. Magical, Meaningful Items You Can’t Find Anywhere Else. Handmade, Handpicked, and Designed By Humans.” Humans indeed.

The Four Bs

Like my young co-campaigner (for whom it took a second Trump electoral victory to fully grasp the depths of misogyny in this country), I was also in my early twenties when I first allowed myself to face just how much some men hate women. Until then I think I believed that men’s contempt for us was at least partly deserved. I did believe that we really were weaker, less intelligent, less courageous — in general, lesser. Perhaps history recorded the acts of a few exceptional women who excelled in some field or other, but the point was that they were indeed exceptions. The classic British writer Samuel Johnson had expressed this pithily some centuries earlier, when he told his biographer James Boswell, “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

I attended a small liberal arts college that employed only two female professors. I had a friend whose history professor failed her because, as he explained to her, a woman shouldn’t be occupying a place in college that could have gone to one of her intellectual superiors (i.e., a man). Another friend succumbed to a professor’s sexual demands in return for a passing grade in his course. Others reluctantly slept with the male student gatekeeper at the college library — the price of snagging one of the most coveted work-study jobs on campus. I accepted these as unfortunate, but unremarkable realities. Such things might not be right, but neither could they be changed.

Then came the international explosion of thought and action that was the second wave of feminism. Suddenly, the world flew apart. As Muriel Rukeyser asked in her poem about the German lithographer Käthe Kollwitz,

“What would happen if one woman told the truth about
her life?
The world would split open”

The answer to Rukeyser’s question came in the form of a global movement for women’s liberation and a world — this one — did split open. For me, that movement was as unexpected as a flash flood filling a dry arroyo. Suddenly, so much seemed possible that not long before had been unimaginable. Perhaps most of the world’s women were not, after all, made just to be the bearers of burdens, or indeed of children, but also of hope.

Recognizing women’s full humanity came at a cost, however. It meant also recognizing who wanted to deny us that very humanity.

About a year ago, the Washington Post’s editorial board published an essay lamenting “the collapse of American marriage.”

“A growing number of young women,” its authors wrote, “are discovering that they can’t find suitable male partners.” Why not? They continued:

“As a whole, men are increasingly struggling with, or suffering from, higher unemployment, lower rates of educational attainment, more drug addiction and deaths of despair, and generally less purpose and direction in their lives. But it’s not just that. There’s a growing ideological divide, too. Since Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, the percentage of single women ages 18-30 who identify as liberal has shot up from slightly over 20 percent to 32 percent. Young men have not followed suit. If anything, they have grown more conservative.”

The Post’s prescription: “This mismatch means that someone will need to compromise.” And that “someone” was, of course, young women. I could, in fact, imagine young women compromising if it were differences of taste in music or in food that were dividing them from the men they might otherwise want to marry. However, the problem, according to the Post, is that politics is “becoming more central to people’s identity.” Well yes, when “conservative” views include explicit misogyny, then opposition to those views is indeed central to my identity. What the Post blithely referred to as “ideological” differences are, in fact, differences over the fundamental question of women’s humanity.

So, tell me this: Why should women be asked to compromise over that?

I’ve written elsewhere about the situation of young American men, including the ones missing from the college classrooms where I taught for almost 20 years. I don’t doubt that half a century or more of neoliberal economic policies (embraced by both major parties) have greatly reduced the life chances of many young men. And I don’t doubt that, in blaming women for their misery, men are deceived into looking away from the actual powers that constrain their lives. But that doesn’t make it okay to mistreat, rape, or kill us.

So, in November 2024, I’m not surprised to read that many young, heterosexual American women are embracing a movement that started in South Korea: they are rejecting the 4Bs, four actions which, in the Korean language, begin with the letter B: marrying, having children, dating, and having sex with men. “In the hours and days since it became clear that Donald Trump would be re-elected president of the United States, there’s been a surge of interest in the U.S. for 4B,” according to a CNN report. Ashli Pollard, a 36-year-old in St. Louis, sums it up this way:

“We have pandered and begged for men’s safety and done all the things that we were supposed to, and they still hate us. So if you’re going to hate us, then we’re going to do what we want.”

Reading this reminded me of a saying popular in the heady days of the early women’s liberation movement: “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”

Just as fish don’t need bicycles, there are some things women don’t need. And men who hate women are one.