Pundits, a day later, ruminate about who won the September 10th "presidential debate," but that is the wrong question. The most important revelation from Tuesday night's clusterfuck of bad theater ought to be this: the patient won't survive. The bedridden train-wreck sprawled across the gurney in the hospice unit is the United States of America—and the debate wasn't destined to be revelatory. We already knew that the corpse, writhing and contorting in agony, will need life-support first and a skilled embalmer soon enough. The debate proved for the billionth time that the greatest country on earth has less hope than a popsicle on the surface of the sun.

The debate wasn't about Kamala Harris—she is the default mode, the automatic pilot, a celebration of generic items, a slinky on a long stair case, a golf course watering system in a terminal draught, a row of telephone poles on an endless train ride. Forget about her. She does not exist. AI created her.

This debate was about Donald Trump. If an alien spacecraft lands on your street and parks next to a Honda Fit, the make of the car becomes irrelevant. If you are waking in the morning with a blister on your little toe and notice a tumor growing out of your side as big as the bathroom sink, you no longer attend to the foot discomfort.

Trump is our measuring stick, our gauge of disease, our face of national distress. If Trump had a debate with Jesus himself you wouldn't see it as the bantering back and forth between good and evil—you'd look at Trump and ask, "What the fuck is that?" In any context, Trump does not belong. He is a walking double take. You look at Trump as if your arm falls off and blood streams from your empty shoulder. He is bad shit that should not be there—but there he is.

If Trump had a debate with Jesus himself you wouldn't see it as the bantering back and forth between good and evil—you'd look at Trump and ask, "What the fuck is that?"

For Trump is not the typical American occupant of our national throne—a guy who merely dispenses weapons to right-wing dictators in the name of freedom and the memory of the founding fathers. No, Trump's vileness resembles, but supersedes a bad mushroom trip. A close up screenshot of Trump's face makes you long for a hang gliding mishap and a seat in the waiting room adjacent to the furnaces of hell.

But, if you are on your toes, you note that it is not Trump at all. It is about us. What forces us, the raw mass of humanity born into the worst of all times, to give this vile, florid, and stupid monster a seat at the head of the table?

What terrible rot eats us alive and, in the process causes us to see Trump as an answer to life's most difficult question? In the final, and darkest hour in all human history, what must we do to redeem ourselves? Trump!

And what did Trump tell us in this thigh-smacking comedy called the "Sixth Extinction Slapstick Special"?

For starters Trump told us that all the murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and gangsters dispersed across the entirety of creation have been systematically funneled to the U.S. southern border. All the jails and mental institutions from the stellar nurseries of the Orion Nebula to the Barbary coast have been drained of their residents. The universe, thus, suddenly has no crime, save for "migrant crime" in the land of stars and stripes.

We have all the crime from everywhere and everywhere has no crime at all.

Can you imagine that maybe a couple billion years hence, a team of alien explorers lands on the burnt remnants of our planet and discovers the video of Tuesday's debate?

Trump also told us that these alien thugs have been eating our dogs and cats. For a man who almost chose canine executioner, Kristi Noem, to be his vice president, and who fathered two of the world's most cruel trophy hunters, this sudden passion for animal welfare caught many of us off guard.

He argued back and forth with Kamala Harris about which one fracked the hardest. Picture two arsonists bickering over which one owns the largest gas can, and you get the idea.

He informed us that Harris is a radical Marxist, coming for your guns, Hummers, and bacon.

He let us know that the "Democrat Party" executes babies after birth and that every legal scholar from D.C. to the Big Bang had been clamoring to send abortion back to the states. 100% of our legal minds from Clarence Thomas to Perry Mason had, according to Trump, opposed Rowe v Wade since the universe began as expanding hot plasma. Not a single legal scholar had even one kind word for Rowe, and everyone knows it.

He also said stuff like this:

We did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. We handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. We made ventilators for the entire world. We got gowns. We got masks. We did things that nobody thought possible. And people give me credit for rebuilding the military. They give me credit for a lot of things. But not enough credit for the great job we did with the pandemic. But the only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs. These were jobs, bounce back. And it bounced back and it went to their benefit. But I was the one that created them. They know it and so does everybody else.

And, if you crave more, here you go:

And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase: Make America Great Again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.

Can you imagine that maybe a couple billion years hence, a team of alien explorers lands on the burnt remnants of our planet and discovers the video of Tuesday's debate? What will our alien visitors say to one another? Perhaps they'll say, "Those dumb fucks where watching this and chewing on popcorn while their planet roasted."

Perhaps the cruelest aliens will talk shit about our long imploded civilization: “Thank the god, Aghjestymunbo, that these crazy motherfuckers killed themselves before they learned how easy intergalactic technology is!”

I am not certain that billions of years from now our aliens will know what popcorn is. I also have no idea if intergalactic wanderers will have the requisite sense of humor to appreciate Donald Trump. If they do, all will not be lost.

If you tune into CNBC on any given morning, you will hear various economists proclaim with confidence wildly different interpretations of economic events. The same goes for what market indicators will mean for the 2024 election.

Many an investor has lost a fortune following the advice of "expert" economists. Despite its lofty claims, economics is not a “science”; it is a social science which relies on interpretations of human behavior with a subjective component. It is about as reliable as seismology: Have you noticed that most earthquakes occur on faults previously unknown?

Economists have a lousy track record at predicting recessions, which should be a source of humility. How many economists warned us of the Great Recession? Almost none.

Sure, economists are smart people, and their academic work can help to steer the ship of state and industry. However, they have no business wading into the political realm to influence voters based on their "expert" opinions.

If a lack of precision wasn't enough to expect economists to act with caution, there is the matter of corruption. Economists are paid by corporate interests to bless their profit motives. There is an inherent conflict of interest in being paid by an industry to provide the best opinion and supposed objectivity that only big money can buy. Economists are routinely paid vast sums by the highest bidder to render opinions in anti-trust lawsuits.

When the pre-purchased masters of dismal science tell you that helping renters put food on the table will destroy affordable housing, look closely at who is footing the bill for the "scientific" research.

Unlike writing for a major medical journal that rigorously investigates potential conflicts of interest, economics is an accountability-free zone. You seldom hear disclaimers that a particular economist is paid to have an opinion that supports a selfish motive. The public is rightly cynical or just flat-out ignores economists. Case in point: Tens of millions of people didn't get the memo that the U.S. economy is thriving because it isn't thriving for them. Economic terms like "pricing power" mask that the true meaning is price gouging.

A basic flaw in most economic thinking is that it begins with this premise: Maximizing profits benefits everyone. This is glaringly false when it comes to housing. In recent years, a massive wealth transfer has taken place, squeezing money from the poor and the working class and transferring it to billionaires. Some of these very same well-heeled economists are telling us that rent control is inherently disastrous economically. Yet some of the greatest cities in the world, such as New York, regulate rents.

In reality, there are many economists who believe that rent control helps keep people in their homes. Rent control is much like the minimum wage—the sky doesn't fall when the minimum wage goes up. And the real estate market won't tank because of rent control. When workers or tenants have more money in their pockets, it keeps them afloat and generates more economic activity.

In fact, a group of 32 top economists wrote a letter to the Biden administration last year, supporting rent control. They wrote that rent control will “protect tenants, stabilize neighborhoods, promote income diversity in regional economies, and improve the long-term outlook for housing affordability.” They also added, referring to predatory landlords, that “we have seen the devastating impact of a poorly regulated housing market on people’s livelihoods, as already unaffordable rental prices outpace wage growth.” They understand that only rent control will rein in the greed of corporate landlords.

That’s important. We’ve seen that corporate landlords will do anything to generate more billions by charging excessive rents year after year, and the RealPage scandal is the perfect example. Using a RealPage software program, a cartel of corporate landlords—many of whom are the largest landlords in the country—wildly inflated rents in cities across America. Now, the Department of Justice—along with numerous state attorneys general—has sued RealPage, while dozens of tenants have filed anti-trust lawsuits against RealPage and corporate landlords. It’s yet another reminder that rent regulations are glaringly needed.

So, when the pre-purchased masters of dismal science tell you that helping renters put food on the table will destroy affordable housing, look closely at who is footing the bill for the "scientific" research. Use your horse sense to determine what you know to be best for helping people in need: Rent control.

Our electric system is intentionally complicated. We are expected to receive our bills from the electric companies every month, pay without question, and have little say in what that money is used for.

In the New England, New York, and PJM regions, a portion of our electric bills every month goes to a mysterious “auction” in the “capacity markets” that promise power plants funding into the future even if they never operate. We are told this is the system we have to work within to ensure reliable energy. But that is not true.

Just because a system is in place does not mean it is the best way to operate. When I was in elementary school I learned how to use the lattice method for multiplication. My Mom taught me long multiplication. Both methods got me to the solution to the equation. So why can’t our electric grid think like this?

The time is now—for energy efficiency, community conservation, and clean energy in New England and beyond.

Our regional electric grid operators here in New England, ISO New England (ISO-NE), oversee a process called the “Forward Capacity Auction,” which enables fossil fuel power plants across the region to stay in operation. They claim that this market approach will ensure certain energy sources can stay on our grid for backup energy. Instead of being a mechanism for reliable energy supplies though, this auction has become a huge waste of money and an enabler of climate chaos. Right now this system keeps fossil fuel peaker plants online. Peaker plants are those oil, methane gas, and coal burning plants that are only called on during peak energy usage—like during a cold snap or heatwave—and thus only get turned on a handful of days a year. These plants currently get hundreds of thousands of dollars to mostly sit idle.

This doesn’t have to be the way we handle our electric grid. We can do better—we just have to imagine better.

The No Coal No Gas campaign showed up at the fossil fuel peaker plants in New Hampshire this August to demand a transition to clean energy, community conservation, and a better grid system. There are three peaker plants in New Hampshire without closing dates that are really harming our communities: Newington Station on the Piscataqua River, Lost Nation in Groveton, and White Lake in Tamworth. Our electric bills gave each of these plants hundreds of thousands of dollars last year despite the fact that they ran just a handful of times (10-15% of our bills fund the system this money came from). These three plants burn oil, methane gas, or jet fuel on the occasion that they do get turned on, resulting in all sorts of pollution impacting the communities they inhabit.

The thing is, if we changed the way we managed our energy grid, we wouldn’t need these peaker plants. They could easily be replaced with solar and battery storage. The regional electric grid operators could prioritize more immediate energy conservation resources both from the public and from large energy users to reduce the peaker energy load so that we don’t need as much backup on the grid. We could improve energy efficiency across the board to reduce the amount of energy we need as a region, even with an increase in electric vehicles. We could decrease electricity bills for people across the region if we didn’t need to promise all this money to peaker plants.

We can have clean energy and reliable energy—this isn’t a compromising situation. Transitioning off of fossil fuels does not make our energy less reliable—especially when those fossil fuels cause the devastating storms we’ve seen lately that cost a whole lot of money to recover from. On top of that, most of the failures on our grid, including huge price spikes like what the grid saw on December 24, 2022, were caused by fossil fuel plants. This situation is reflective of the problems other regional grids across the country are facing as climate change gets worse.

So what’s the hold up? ISO-NE board and staff members who say, “This is the way it’s been.” Elected officials and Granite Shore Power (who owns the New Hampshire peaker plants) who want to protect the profits of fossil fuel corporations. Grid operators who claim that electric grid management needs to be “fuel neutral” in their policies. The fact is, we need to stop thinking inside these tiny boxes we’ve given ourselves. If new ideas are not working in the system we have, it means it’s time to change the system.

When I watched friends drop a massive banner down the side of Newington’s smokestack just a few weeks ago, I thought about how they were not stuck in what doesn’t seem possible. Instead, they acted. They didn’t think a 175-foot banner would be impossible to make. They just made it. They showed the owners of that peaker plant that we can do difficult things, including transitioning off of oil and gas. They showed all of us that we can imagine a better future together.

I walk into energy regulatory meetings with experts even though the people there made those spaces inaccessible to the general public and community organizers. I have been working to understand the complexities of the energy system even though the people I’m challenging to think outside the system don’t want me there. I know a transition to clean energy and justice-focused solutions to the climate crisis won’t happen overnight, but I also know that people in positions of power are dragging their feet in the fossil-fueled past.

We don’t need fossil fuel peaker plants when much simpler solutions to energy reliability exist. The time is now—for energy efficiency, community conservation, and clean energy in New England and beyond. I know we can build an energy system that works for the everyday people who this grid is meant to serve.

With the nation’s attention now riveted on U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris vs. former President Donald Trump, it might surprise some people to learn that Joe Biden is still the president of the United States until January 20, 2025. And, while he has arguably accomplished a lot already, he still has a lot of power and time to accomplish a lot more before his one term in the Oval Office comes to an end. We need him to focus on criminal justice reform and the promises he made when he was a candidate running for president in 2019.

When we look back on the past eight years, it is hard not to be struck by the glaring fact that, in his one term as president, Donald Trump’s passage of the First Step Act so far is outshining anything President Biden has done in his four years in office for criminal justice reform at the federal level.

This isn’t to say Trump’s record on reform is stellar. In fact, it leaves much to be desired. But Biden’s record has so far not measured up to even the low bar that Trump set while in office. The good news for Biden is that he still has five months to make good on some of his promises.

We want you to finish strong! If you want your legacy on criminal justice reform to surpass and be far better than your predecessor, you have some work to do before January 20, 2025.

When Trump passed the First Step Act, our organization, JustLeadershipUSA (JLUSA), was one of the few justice organizations that opposed the legislation for a variety of reasons, but primarily because we knew that the risk assessment tool would have adverse effects, particularly on many Black and brown people—which is exactly what we have seen happen over the past six years, and was magnified during the Covid-19 pandemic.

But the fact remains that more than 33,500 people have been released from prison so far due to the implementation of the First Step Act. This, combined with Trump’s 237 pardons and commutations, currently overshadows Biden’s meager 25 pardons and 132 commutations. Even when you consider Biden’s over 6,500 federal marijuana pardons, his record still pales in comparison with the tens of thousands who have been set free by Trump’s First Step.

Freedom and liberty is one thing. Life and the pursuit of happiness are another. Because without a life to go home to, where a person’s basic human needs are met, freedom isn’t worth much—and it sometimes doesn’t last for very long.

Despite the creation of freedom for some through the First Step Act, overall, Trump’s economic and domestic policies have been a disaster for formerly incarcerated and justice-impacted individuals and harmful to our communities. They may have their freedom, but many did not have housing to go back to, let alone jobs, healthcare, and the resources needed to provide for their bare necessities.

In less than four years, however, President Biden’s legislative accomplishments have been significant. From the American Rescue Plan to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the CHIPs and Science Act, the PACT Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and most recently the signing into law of the Federal Prison Oversight Act—Biden’s policies have unquestionably been far better for the everyday life and well-being of returning citizens and directly impacted people in this country.

While the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act has stalled in Congress, President Biden did sign an executive order “to promote safe and accountable policing, ban chokeholds, restrict no-knock entries by police, create a national police accountability database, and prohibit the transfer of military equipment to local police departments.”

But as a candidate, Biden promised to lower the national incarceration rate by “more than half.” Instead, the prison population has actually gone up—after years of decline, including under Trump.

With five months left to serve, President Biden now has an unprecedented opportunity to make good on some of his promises and add to his legacy as one of the most important and consequential presidents in U.S. history. The 70+ million Americans who have direct experience of the criminal legal system in this country will be watching and waiting, hoping for Biden to come through on a laundry list of demands, many of which he can do with the stroke of a pen.

Here’s what we’re calling on President Biden to do: Deschedule and decriminalize marijuana, instead of just rescheduling it. Abolish the federal death penalty. Eliminate all federal student loans. Direct federal agencies to use person-first language. Sign all of the 20,000+ clemency petitions sitting on his desk right now.

Finally, and these steps would certainly be more difficult but still worth doing: Fight for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Fight for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to protect democracy and the right to vote for all Americans. And do everything left in his power, with the time he has left in the Oval Office, to repeal and reverse the impact of the 1994 Crime Bill in order to heal the harms that have been caused by this legislation that he championed as a senator. It’s not too late to try and undo some of what has been done by his previous actions.

Mr. President, we are grateful for your 52 years of public service and for the leadership you have demonstrated in leading this nation over the past four years. We want you to finish strong! If you want your legacy on criminal justice reform to surpass and be far better than your predecessor, you have some work to do before January 20, 2025. This is what we, as citizens, need you to accomplish before you pass the torch to the next administration. May God grant you the courage and strength to do what needs to be done!

           Responding to polls that show that voters are worried and angry about the high cost of housing, both major parties are floating plans to make buying a home more affordable. Harris and the Democrats want to encourage new housing construction and subsidize first-time home buyers by $25,000, which economists worry would have an inflationary effect. Trump thinks that deporting illegal immigrants would reduce demand and lower prices—a logical stretch to say the least.

            As important as it is to allow middle-class and working-class people to build wealth by investing in a house or condo, however, the real need is not those who would prefer to own than to rent their residence. The real need is those who have no housing at all.

            Roughly half a million Americans are chronically homeless and nearly four million more “hidden homeless” are imposing on friends and family for a place to stay that may or may not remain available in the future. Cities are blighted, families are shattered, children are traumatized. Homelessness is both a moral and economic crisis as well as a failure of leadership.

            Homelessness impacts us all. Every person who must be treated at the emergency room as a consequence of going unhoused not only burdens the healthcare system, they live outside the workforce who contribute to productivity, fuel consumer spending and remit payroll taxes. Their deprived physical persons, their meager possessions and their vehicles are eyesores that negatively impact property values and thus reduces municipal revenues. People experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity get arrested more often than the average citizen, only for survival offenses like stealing food and clothing. Many are or become mentally ill, especially from schizophrenia, as a result of fending off hot and freezing weather; homeless people commit about thirty times more violent crimes than average.

            According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, it would cost about $55 billion, most of it spent once rather than recurring, to house both the visible and hidden homeless, who total about 4.5 million people. But where would we put all these people?

            Incredibly, that answer is easy. There’s no need to build a single new unit. We have plenty lying around completely unused.

More than 15 million homes, over 10% of the nation’s housing stock, was vacant in 2022—a record low. Three out of four are investment properties, many owned by venture-capital companies that are converting neighborhoods once comprised of local homeowners into transient rental units with algorithmically-inflated rents, particularly in middle-class areas with many people of color. Most of these are vacation homes, timeshares and hunting cabins that sit empty well over 95% of the year.

Property rights matter, but a national emergency like a war prompts the government to requisition private property in service to an important cause. During World War II, for example, the United Kingdom commandeered personal cars and paid their former owners what they determined to be fair market value, while the United States requisitioned merchant ships. U.S. occupation forces appropriated German land for military use in the late 1940s.
            Homelessness is a national emergency on par with World War II. Actually, it’s much bigger. Had the isolationists prevailed and the U.S. not joined the Allies against Japan and Germany, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. itself would ever have been invaded. For America, World War II was optional. Fighting homelessness is about saving the lives of millions of American citizens right here at home. It’s as essential as it gets.

            Florida and Hawaii, both popular vacation destinations, have more vacant second homes than other states. But the vacation-house mentality also afflicts cities with high densities—or that used to have them. In the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 102,000 of the 845,000 apartments and houses in Manhattan were identified as vacant. One out of 25 units in the nation’s cultural, media and financial capital were occupied less than two months out of the year. “In a large swath of the East Side [of Manhattan] bounded by Fifth and Park Avenues and East 49th and 70th Streets, about 30% of the more than 5,000 apartments are routinely vacant more than ten months a year because their owners or renters have permanent homes elsewhere,” The New York Times reported in 2011. It’s worse now.

            The number of vacant units in New York City lines up almost exactly with the estimated number of homeless men, women and children: 100,000.

            Every single person who shivers on the sidewalks of the Big Apple does so within a few dozen feet of a heated, insulated, empty apartment with running water, a place that no one uses. It’s obscene. It’s piggish. And it needs to be fixed. A real estate speculator’s right to invest in a housing market is not half as important as a homeless person’s need to sleep inside. A bourgeois family’s desire to winter in Florida and summer in New York must take a back seat to the human right of a homeless person not to die.

            City and state housing authorities should be granted the right and the funding appropriations necessary to seize vacant housing units under eminent domain for conversion to housing for the homeless, with fair market compensation to be paid to those deprived of their properties.

            The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes housing as a basic human right, in 1948. The UDHR was codified into a treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1966. Because the U.S. signed the ICESCR, it is obligated to uphold its “object and purpose.” Nearly eighty years after our nation committed to ensuring that everyone has a decent and secure place to live where he or she need not fear eviction, it should make good on its commitment to international law.

            Condemn vacant investment properties and vacation homes and seize them under eminent domain.

            Until the last American citizen moves from the outdoors to the indoors, no one should be legally permitted to own more than one home.

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis. His latest book, brand-new right now, is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)

The post Millions Have No Home. You Don’t Need Two. first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Political cartoonist Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) conduct an extensive postmortem on the first (and only?) Harris/Trump debate. From giving their final grades to a deep dive into what was, and wasn’t, said during the most consequential debate in our lifetimes, here’s your objective guide to this important political event.

The post DMZ America Podcast #164: The post-debate debate first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The stage was set for a clash of titans at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Tuesday night. In what could be the only face-off of the 2024 U.S. presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump squared off in a debate that was as much about America's future as it was about its past. For nearly two hours, the candidates traded barbs, outlined policies, and made their case to the American people in a high-stakes political showdown.

On the surface, Harris and Trump presented dramatically different visions for the country's path forward. Yet, as the dust settled and analysts began to parse through the debate's key moments, a surprising commonality emerged. Both candidates, despite their contrasting styles and policy positions, revealed a shared reliance on nostalgia and a yearning for idealized versions of the past. This backward-looking approach, masked by rhetoric of change and progress, could have profound implications for the upcoming election and the future trajectory of American politics.

Trump's Explicit Nostalgia: Make America Great Again, Again

Donald Trump's appeal to voters was, characteristically, rooted in an explicit call to return to what he portrayed as the golden era of his first term. Throughout the debate, Trump painted a picture of pre-Covid-19 America under his leadership as a time of unparalleled economic strength, global peace, and national greatness.

"We had no problems when Trump was president," he declared, attributing the quote to the autocratic leader of Hungary Viktor Orbán. This statement epitomizes Trump's campaign strategy: presenting his potential second term as a restoration of a supposedly idyllic recent past.

His promise to return to the recent past offers no solutions for issues like climate change, healthcare access, or racial injustice that have only become more pressing.

Trump's vision, however, is largely disconnected from the realities of his presidency. His claims of economic prosperity ignore the growing income inequality and the impact of his trade wars on American farmers and manufacturers. His assertion of global peace overlooks escalating tensions with Iran, North Korea, and China during his tenure.

The former president's rhetoric doesn't promise a better future so much as it pledges a triumphant return to a mythologized past. This approach resonates with a segment of the electorate that is fueled by fear, offering them a comforting, if illusory, promise of turning back the clock.

Trump's nostalgia is more overt, promising a return to a time just before the Covid-19 pandemic upended American life. It's a powerful message for those who feel that recent years have brought unwelcome changes to their communities and way of life. However, this vision ignores the ways in which long-standing economic and social policies have contributed to current inequalities and challenges. His promise to return to the recent past offers no solutions for issues like climate change, healthcare access, or racial injustice that have only become more pressing.

Harris' Implicit Nostalgia: A Return to 'Normal' Politics

Vice President Kamala Harris, in contrast, explicitly framed her candidacy as forward-looking. She repeatedly emphasized the need to "turn the page" and "move forward," positioning herself as a representative of a "new generation of leadership."

Harris' debate performance was widely regarded as stronger than Trump's. She appeared more composed, better prepared, and more focused on substantive policy discussions. Her rhetoric emphasized unity, hope, and the possibility of progress, echoing themes that have been successful for Democratic candidates in recent elections.

While acknowledging pressing issues like climate change and social inequality, Harris stops short of proposing the kind of structural changes that many progressives argue are necessary.

However, a closer examination of Harris' policy proposals and overall message reveals a vision that is less about charting a new course than it is about returning to a centrist, pre-Trump status quo. Her economic policies, for instance, rely heavily on market-based solutions and tax incentives reminiscent of the Clinton era. Her emphasis on "unity" and bipartisanship harks back to the Obama administration's early optimism about bridging partisan divides.

In essence, Harris is offering a return to a romanticized version of recent Democratic governance—a time before the disruptions of the Trump era, when political norms were more stable and progress seemed more achievable through incremental change within existing systems.

Harris' nostalgia is subtler but no less present. Her rhetoric evokes the perceived stability and respectability of pre-Trump politics, appealing to voters who are exhausted by the former president's confrontational style and norm-breaking behavior. While acknowledging pressing issues like climate change and social inequality, Harris stops short of proposing the kind of structural changes that many progressives argue are necessary. Her vision, anchored in centrist Democratic policies reminiscent of earlier administrations, may not be sufficient to address the scale of challenges facing the nation, from wealth inequality to the climate crisis.

Rear-View Mirror Politics: Charting a Course to the Past

The reliance on nostalgia by both candidates reflects a broader trend in American politics. It speaks to a widespread sense of dissatisfaction with the present and anxiety about the future. Both Trump and Harris are tapping into a collective yearning for a time when things seemed simpler, more stable, or more aligned with voters' values and expectations.

However, this reliance on nostalgic visions reveals a significant limitation in both candidates' approaches. By looking backward for solutions, they fail to fully address the root causes of current problems or offer truly innovative visions for the future.

The 2024 election thus presents a critical juncture for American democracy. Will voters embrace the comfort of familiar, backward-looking visions, or will they demand a more innovative, forward-thinking approach to governance?

The debate highlighted a paradox in American politics: While there's a broad consensus that significant change is needed, both major party candidates are essentially offering variations on past approaches. This reflects the inherent conservatism of established political parties and the challenges of proposing radical change within existing power structures. It also speaks to the difficulty of articulating a truly new vision that can appeal to a broad electoral coalition.

What's notably missing from both candidates' messages is a truly progressive vision that acknowledges the failures of past policies and proposes fundamental changes to address systemic issues. As climate change accelerates, technological disruption reshapes the economy, and social tensions persist, the limitations of backward-looking solutions become increasingly apparent.

The debate between Harris and Trump revealed not just the differences between the candidates, but also the shared constraints of American political discourse. It highlighted the need for a more forward-looking, innovative approach to governance—one that learns from the past without being bound by it, and that isn't afraid to reimagine systems and institutions to meet the demands of the future.

The 2024 election thus presents a critical juncture for American democracy. Will voters embrace the comfort of familiar, backward-looking visions, or will they demand a more innovative, forward-thinking approach to governance? It is precisely this question that progressives must begin organising around to challenge the threat of rearview politics from both parties. Only in doing so can we truly begin charting a genuinely hopeful course to the future.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris won the debate. People being bombed in Gaza did not.

The banner headline across the top of The New York Times home page—“Harris Puts Trump on Defensive in Fierce Debate”—was accurate enough. But despite the good news for people understandably eager for former President Donald Trump to be defeated, the Harris debate performance was a moral and political tragedy.

In Gaza “now an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead,” an ABC News moderator said. “Nearly 100 hostages remain... President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. How would you do it?”

Silence is a blanket that smothers genuine democratic discourse and the outcries of moral voices

Vice President Harris replied with her standard wording: “Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children, mothers. What we know is that this war must end. It must when, end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out.”

“End immediately”? Anyone who isn’t in fantasyland knows that the only way to soon end the slaughter of Palestinian civilians would be for the U.S. government—the overwhelmingly biggest supplier of Israel’s armaments—to stop sending weapons to Israel.

Meanwhile, a pivot to advocating for a cutoff of weapons to Israel would help Harris win the presidency. After the debate, the Institute for Middle East Understanding pointed out that the need to halt the weapons is not only moral and legal—it’s also smart politics. Polls are clear that most Americans want to stop arming Israel. In swing states, polling has found that a large number of voters say they’d be more likely to cast a ballot for Harris if she would support a halt.

What Kamala Harris and Donald Trump said about Israel and Gaza in their debate was predictable. Even more certain was what they absolutely would not say—with silences speaking loudest of all. “Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth,” Aldous Huxley wrote, describing “the greatest triumphs of propaganda.”

By coincidence, the debate happened on the same date as publication of a new afterword about the Gaza war in the paperback edition of my book War Made Invisible. To fill in for the debate’s abysmal silences, here are a few quotes from the afterword about the ongoing carnage:

“After the atrocities that Hamas committed on October 7, the U.S. government quickly stepped up military aid to Israel as it implemented atrocities on a much larger scale. In truth, as time went on, the entire Israeli war in Gaza amounted to one gigantic atrocity with uncountable aspects.”

As with the steady massacres with bombs and bullets in Gaza since early October, “the Israeli-U.S. alliance treated the increasing onset of starvation, dehydration, and fatal disease as a public-relations problem.”

“In the war zone, eyewitness reporting and photojournalism were severely hindered if not thwarted by the Israeli military, which has a long record of killing journalists.”

“Although the credibility of Israel’s government tumbled as the Gaza war dragged on, the brawny arms of the Israel lobby—and the overall atmospheric pressure of media and politics—pushed legislators to approve new military aid... Official pronouncements—and the policies they tried to justify—were deeply anchored in the unspoken premise that some lives really matter and some really don’t.”

The United States persisted in “violating not only the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy but also numerous other legal requirements including the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Leahy Law, the Genocide Convention Implementation Act, and several treaties. For U.S. power politics, the inconvenient precepts in those measures were as insignificant and invisible as the Palestinian people being slaughtered.”

“What was sinister about proclaiming ‘Israel’s 9/11’ was what happened after America’s 9/11. Wearing the cloak of victim, the United States proceeded to use the horrible tragedy that occurred inside its borders as an open-ended reason to kill in the name of retaliation, self- protection, and, of course, the ‘war on terror.’ It was a playbook that the Israeli government adapted and implemented with vengeance.”

Israel’s war on 2.2 million people in Gaza has been “a supercharged escalation of what Israel had been doing for 75 years, treating human beings as suitable for removal and even destruction.” As Israel’s war on Gaza has persisted, “the explanations often echoed the post-9/11 rationales for the ‘war on terror’ from the U.S. government: authorizing future crimes against humanity as necessary in the light of certain prior events.”

That and so much more—left unsaid from the debate stage, dodged in U.S. mass media, and evaded from the podiums of power in Washington—indict not only the Israeli government but also the U.S. government as an accomplice to mass murder that has escalated into genocide.

Silence is a blanket that smothers genuine democratic discourse and the outcries of moral voices. Making those voices inaudible is a key goal for the functioning of the warfare state.

Victoria Nuland, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and one of the principal architects of the Biden administration’s Russia policy, has now opined on what is perhaps the foggiest episode in a war distinguished by a nearly impenetrable kind of diplomatic opacity: the April 2022 Istanbul peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Furthermore she acknowledges that there was a deal on the table and that Western powers didn’t like conditions that would have limited Ukraine's military arsenal, lending credence to the theory that Ukraine’s supporters had a hand in ultimately scuttling it.

To be sure, neither the topic nor the content of Nuland’s comments is new. She is but the latest in a cavalcade of high-profile insiders, including former Israeli Prime Minister Nafatli Bennett and Ukrainian politician Davyd Arakhamia, whose testimony has shed light on the external pressures possibly informing the Zelenskyy government’s fateful decision to pull the plug on Turkish-brokered talks surrounding a draft treaty that would have ended the Ukraine war.

But, if we are to arrive at something approximating a full and unprejudiced post-mortem, it remains a necessary even if ungrateful task to carefully catalog all of these accounts — especially one from as influential a Russia policy figure as Nuland.

“Relatively late in the game the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going and it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's main condition was buried in an annex to this document that they were working on,” she said, referencing Russia’s stipulation for hard caps and other limits on military personnel and types of weaponry that Ukraine can possess.

— (@)

Such concessions, she argued, should be rejected by Kyiv because they would leave Ukraine “basically neutered as a military force.” She intimated, unsurprisingly without indulging specifics, that these anxieties were expressed by Western officials: “People inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it fell apart,” Nuland said.

Just who “outside Ukraine” posed these questions and precisely what effect did these pointed queries exercise on Ukrainian officials? The full story of that short-lived diplomatic interlude is unlikely to be unraveled until after the war, in no small part due to the obvious political sensitivities at play. But there is now what appears to be, even in the most conservative estimation, a large body of circumstantial evidence that Western actors, quite possibly hailing from the UK and other countries which were designated as “guarantors” of Ukraine’s security under the Istanbul draft treaty, expressed reservations about the Istanbul format.

The extent to which these Western reservations were decisive insofar as they constituted a hard veto over the peace talks is a trickier question. One can reasonably surmise that Ukraine would have found it difficult to ink a deal that did not command at least tacit support from the Western countries on which it overwhelmingly relies, but it is no less true that the talks were fraught and, though there were positive signs of a slow convergence between the Moscow and Kyiv on key issues, the two sides were a considerable ways off from fully harmonizing their positions when the deal was terminated.

Victoria Nuland's comments lend further credence to the proposition that a settlement between Russia and Ukraine was on the table in Istanbul, that the West played a role in shaping Ukrainian thinking on the desirability of pursuing negotiations, and that Western leaders apparently conveyed the view that it was a bad deal.

Relitigating these details two years later cannot be dismissed as an exercise in political archeology; the facts of what transpired in Istanbul are as relevant as ever in informing our thinking about endgame scenarios as the war roils into its third year.

The Washington Post headline reads: “A big problem for young workers: 70- and 80-year-olds who won’t retire.” For the first time in history, reports Aden Barton, five generations are competing in the same workforce. His article laments a “demographic traffic jam” at the apexes of various employment pyramids, making it ever harder for young people “to launch their careers and get promoted” in their chosen professions. In fact, actual professors (full-time and tenure-track ones, presumably, rather than part-timers like me) are Exhibit A in his analysis. “In academia, for instance,” as he puts it, “young professionals now spend years in fellowships and postdoctoral programs waiting for professor jobs to open.”

I’ve written before about how this works in the academic world, describing college and graduate school education as a classic pyramid scheme. Those who got in early got the big payoff—job security, a book-lined office, summers off, and a “sabbatical” every seven years (a concept rooted in the Jewish understanding of the sabbath as a holy time of rest). Those who came late to the party, however, have ended up in seemingly endless post-doctoral programs, if they’re lucky, and if not, as members of the part-time teaching corps.

Too Broke to Retire

For the most part, I’m sympathetic to Barton’s argument. There are too many people who are old and in the way at the top of various professional institutions—including our government (where an 81-year-old, under immense pressure, just reluctantly decided not to try for a second term as president, while a 77-year-old is still stubbornly running for that same office). But I think Barton misses an important point when he claims that “older workers are postponing retirement… because they simply don’t want to quit.” That may be true for high earners in white-collar jobs, but many other people continue working because they simply can’t afford to stop. Research described in Forbes magazine a few years ago showed that more than one-fifth of workers over age 55 were then among the working poor. The figure rose to 26% for women of that age, and 30% for women 65 and older. In other words, if you’re still working in your old age, the older you are, the more likely it is that you’re poor.

Older workers also tend to be over-represented in certain low-paying employment arenas like housecleaning and home and personal healthcare. As Teresa Ghilarducci reported in that Forbes article:

Nearly one-third of home health and personal care workers are 55 or older. Another large category of workers employing a disproportionate share of older workers is maids and housekeeping cleaners, 29% of whom are 55 or older and 54% of whom are working poor. And older workers make up 34% of another hard job: janitorial services, about half of whom are working poor. (For a benchmark, 23% of all workers are 55 and up.)

We used to worry about “children having children.” Maybe now we should be more concerned about old people taking care of old people.

Why are so many older workers struggling with poverty? It doesn’t take a doctorate in sociology to figure this one out. People who can afford to retire have that option for a couple of reasons. Either they’ve worked in high-salary, non-physical jobs that come with benefits like 401(k) accounts and gold-plated health insurance. Or they’ve been lucky enough to be represented by unions that fight for their members’ retirement benefits.

However, according to the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit organization working to expand financial security for retirees, just under half of those working in the private (non-governmental) sector have no employment-based retirement plan at all. They have only Social Security to depend on, which provides the average retiree with a measly $17,634 per year, or not much more than you’d earn working full-time at the current federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. Worse yet, if you’ve worked at such low-paying jobs your entire life, you face multiple obstacles to a comfortable old age: pay too meager to allow you to save for retirement; lower Social Security benefits, because they’re based on your lifetime earnings; and, most likely, a body battered by decades of hard work.

Many millions of Americans in such situations work well past the retirement age, not because they “simply don’t want to quit,” but because they just can’t afford to do so.

On the Road Again

It’s autumn in an even-numbered year, which means I’m once again in Reno, Nevada, working on an electoral campaign, alongside canvassers from UNITE-HERE, the hospitality industry union. This is my fourth stint in Washoe County, this time as the training coordinator for folks from Seed the Vote, the volunteer wing of this year’s political campaign. It’s no exaggeration to say that, in 2022, UNITE-HERE and Seed the Vote saved the Senate for the Democrats, reelecting Catherine Cortez Masto by fewer than 8,000 votes—all of them here in Washoe County.

This is a presidential year, so we’re door-knocking for Vice President Kamala Harris, along with Jacky Rosen, who’s running for reelection to Nevada’s other Senate seat.

Government, especially at the federal level, is clearly an arena where (to invert the pyramid metaphor) too many old people are clogging up the bottom of the funnel.

When I agreed to return to Reno, it was with a heavy heart. In my household, we’d taken to calling the effort to reelect Joe Biden “the death march.” The prospect of a contest between two elderly white men, the oldest ever to run for president, both of whom would be well over 80 by the time they finished a four-year term, was deeply depressing. While defeating Donald Trump was—and remains—an existential fight, a Biden-Trump contest was going to be hard for me to face.

Despite his age, Joe Biden has been an effective president in the domestic arena. (His refusal to take any meaningful action to restrain the Israeli military in Gaza is another story.) He made good use of Democratic strength in Congress to pass important legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act. That kitchen-sink law achieved many things, including potentially reducing this country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies (while putting a $2,000 annual cap on Medicare recipients’ outlays for drugs), and lowering the price of “Obamacare” premiums for many people.

Still, Biden’s advanced age made him a “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad” candidate for president. Admittedly, a win for 59-year-old Kamala Harris in Nevada won’t be a walk in the park, but neither will it be the death march I’d envisioned.

Old and In the Way?

Government, especially at the federal level, is clearly an arena where (to invert the pyramid metaphor) too many old people are clogging up the bottom of the funnel. Some of them, like House Speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), remain in full possession of their considerable faculties. She’s also had the grace to pass the torch of Democratic leadership in the House to the very able (and much younger) Hakeem Jeffries, representing the 8th district of New York. Others, like former California Senator Dianne Feinstein, held on, to paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, long after they were gone. Had my own great heroine Ruth Bader Ginsberg had the grace to retire while Barack Obama was still president, we wouldn’t today be living under a Supreme Court with a six-to-three right-wing majority.

What about the situation closer to home? Have I also wedged myself into the bottom of the funnel, preventing the free flow of younger, more vigorous people? Or, to put the question differently, when is it my turn to retire?

I haven’t lived out the past three stints in Reno alone. My partner and I have always done them together, spending several months here working 18 hours a day, seven days a week. That’s what a campaign is, and it takes a lot out of you. I’m now 72 years old, while my partner is five years older. She was prepared to come to Reno again when we thought the contest would be Trump versus Biden. Once we knew that Harris would replace him, however, my partner felt enormous relief. Harris’ chances of beating Trump are—thank God—significantly better than Biden’s were. “I would have done it when it was the death march,” she told me, “but now I can be retired.”

Even when people’s material needs are met, as is the case for the luckiest retirees in this country, they can suffer profound loneliness and an unsettling disconnection from the social structures in which meaningful human activity takes place.

Until Harris stepped up, neither of us could imagine avoiding the battle to keep Trump and his woman-hating, hard-right vice presidential pick out of office. We couldn’t face a Trump victory knowing we’d done nothing to prevent it. But now my 77-year-old partner feels differently. She’s at peace with retirement in a way that, I must admit, I still find hard to imagine for myself.

I haven’t taught a college class since the spring semester of 2021. For the last few years, I’ve been telling people, “I’m sort of retired.” The truth is that while you’re part of the vast army of contingent, part-time faculty who teach the majority of college courses, it’s hard to know when you’re retired. There’s no retirement party and no “emerita” status for part-timers. Your name simply disappears from the year’s teaching roster, while your employment status remains in a strange kind of limbo.

Admittedly, I’ve already passed a few landmarks on the road to retirement. At 65, I went on Medicare (thank you, LBJ!), though I held out until I reached 70 before maximizing my Social Security benefits. But I find it very hard to admit to anyone (even possibly myself) that I’m actually retired, at least when it comes to working for pay.

For almost two decades I could explain who I am this way: “I teach ethics at the University of San Francisco.” But now I have to tell people, “I’m not teaching anymore,” before rushing to add, “but I’m still working with my union.” And it’s true. I’m part of a “kitchen cabinet” that offers advice to the younger people leading my part-time faculty union. I also serve on our contract negotiations team and have a small gig with my statewide union, the California Federation of Teachers. But this year I chose not to run for the policy board (our local’s decision-making body), because I think those positions should go to people who are still actually teaching.

Those small pieces of work are almost enough to banish the shame I’d feel acknowledging that I’m already in some sense retired. I suspect my aversion to admitting that I don’t work for pay anymore has two sources: a family that prized professional work as a key to life satisfaction and—despite my well-developed critique of capitalism—a continuing infection with the productivity virus: the belief that a person’s value can only be measured in hours of “productive” labor.

Under capitalism, a person who has no work—compensated or otherwise—can easily end up marginalized and excluded from meaningful participation in society. The political philosopher Iris Marion Young considered marginalization one of the most ominous forms of oppression in a liberal society. “Marginals,” she wrote, “are people the system of labor cannot or will not use,” a dangerous condition under which a “whole category of people is expelled from useful participation in social life and thus potentially subjected to severe material deprivation and even extermination.”

Even when people’s material needs are met, as is the case for the luckiest retirees in this country, they can suffer profound loneliness and an unsettling disconnection from the social structures in which meaningful human activity takes place. I suspect it’s the fear of this kind of disconnection that keeps me from acknowledging that I might one day actually retire.

Jubilation and Passing the Torch

The other fear that keeps me working with my union, joining political campaigns, and writing articles like this one is the fear of the larger threats we humans face. We live in an age of catastrophes, present or potential. These include the possible annihilation of democratic systems in this country, the potential annihilation of whole peoples (Palestinians, for example, or Sudanese), or indeed, the annihilation of our species, whether quickly in a nuclear war or more slowly through the agonizing effects of climate change.

But even in such an age, I suspect that it’s time for many of my generation to trust those coming up behind us and pass the torch. They may not be ready, but neither were most of us when someone shoved that cone of flame into our hands.

Still, if I can bring myself to let go and trust those coming after me, then maybe I’ll be ready to embrace the idea behind one of my favorite Spanish words. In that language, you can say, “I’m retired” (“retirada”), and it literally means “pulled back” from life. But in Spanish, I can also joyfully call myself “jubilada,” a usage that (like “sabbatical”) also draws on a practice found in the Hebrew scriptures, the tradition of the jubilee, the sabbath of sabbaths, the time of emancipation of the enslaved, of debt relief, and the return of the land to those who work it.

Maybe it’s time to proudly accept not my retirement, but my future jubilation. But not quite yet. We still have an election to win.

It is hard to forget the burning stares of people in the airport that look at you with suspicion and disdain, to the point that your eyes close in shame. I remember feeling deeply embarrassed as a teenager when the Transportation Security Administration officers took my family and I aside to do a secondary screening at the airport. It wasn’t until many years later I realized that this was just a small cost of being Muslim in America after 9/11.

It has been 23 years since September 11, 2001. The phrase “Never Forget” is echoed nationally to memorialize the nearly 3,000 lives lost that day. Instead of building a safer world after 9/11, the United States government responded with misplaced vengeance on multiple civilian populations, the consequences of which continue to be felt at home and globally.

Following the attacks on 9/11, the U.S. government launched an international military campaign, called the “Global War on Terror,” under then President George W. Bush’s leadership. It was a campaign with no end date that included “large-scale surveillance measures in the U.S., torture, global drone strikes, blacksites, and the Guantánamo Bay military prison.”

If investing money in militarism and incarceration was meant to serve as a measure of justice for a post 9/11 world, then our communities would be safe and thriving.

The U.S. government’s response included wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan that killed 940,000 people directly, while 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones. The names of the people killed may never be known and memorialized. At the same time, 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria were forcibly displaced. Over 7,000 U.S. service members also lost their lives due to our government’s foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks.

Since 2002, 780 Muslim men and boys have been detained at Guantánamo Bay, which claims to hold terrorist suspects. However, most were released without being convicted of a crime, and many are survivors of torture at the hands of U.S. officials. Thirty individuals still remain there.

Due to decades of dehumanization and propaganda, the American people have become conditioned to believe that death and violence among Black, African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian (BAMEMSA) communities is inevitable. These Islamophobic and anti-Muslim tropes continue today, as we witness the genocide of Palestinians with increasing normalization.

The U.S. government also spent $8 trillion on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries. Over $21 trillion has been spent on militarism since 9/11; militarism expenditure includes funding for the Pentagon, detentions and deportations, and policing and prisons. Our priorities become clear too when we see that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate and largest immigrant detention system in the world.

If investing money in militarism and incarceration was meant to serve as a measure of justice for a post 9/11 world, then our communities would be safe and thriving. Instead, Americans feel less safe than 30 years ago, while 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

Oftentimes the U.S.’ global war on terror and intervention in other countries is seen as “an over there problem.” However, the general American public must also pay attention to how the military-industrial complex influences how we are governed, and firmly reject it. The military-industrial complex is a term used to describe the influence of those who profit from war such as contractors who produce weapons, our policymakers, and armed forces. Defense contractors have spent over $60 million in donations to politicians in the 2024 and 2022 election cycles.

During the Democratic National Convention (DNC), we saw a clear example of how Vice President Kamala Harris would continue this pattern of brute American force and militarism. She said, “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

Lethal is defined as: deadly, mortal, fatal, causing or capable of causing death. Criticisms of the Democratic Presidential candidate or party are often accompanied by “Trump would not be any better.” No politician is exempt from accountability when embracing death and destruction as values to lead with. Other realities are possible. How else have oppressed communities fought for their freedoms in the U.S.? Visionaries challenged the choices given to them by fighting for new ones. Power does not only lie in the hands of defense contractors and lobbyists, but among all of us too.

In a moment when our politicians are paying close attention to the issues voters care about, we cannot separate the genocide in Palestine from police brutality, or issues like access to abortion from the economy. Each issue is inextricably linked because of how our government chooses to prioritize its budget, and the domestic or foreign policies we employ always have a domino effect. During the DNC, Prism interviewed Cherrene Horazuk, the former president of a union at the University of Minnesota. Cherrene shares, “Palestine is a workers’ issue first because money that goes for war is not available for jobs.”

Pro-Palestine advocates understand the interconnectedness of struggles for all people. Their moral compass exemplifies that if we don’t reject this cycle of violence now, we are signaling to those in power that we condone and are willing to continue the U.S.’ culture of forceful domination that has existed since its inception.

The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding examined 3,100 bills in 50 U.S. state legislatures across several years and issue areas including abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant rights, and more. Eighty-five percent of legislators that supported anti-Shariah or anti-“foreign law” bills also supported restrictive bills against other marginalized communities. When we understand that any form of injustice threatens all of us, we can act to advance our collective needs.

What does real justice look like for all those who have been harmed by the legacy of the U.S.’ war on terror since 9/11? Reparations for the lives lost that day some may argue could be revenge, but families advocating for a peaceful response to end the cycle of harm and violence are also showing us another way. True justice must include demanding our government to:

• Invest our taxpayer dollars in programs and services that actually lead to safety and healing;
• Repay our debt to the Afghan people who suffered immensely due to U.S. intervention and policy;
• Shut down and free the men detained at Guantánamo Bay;
• Ensure a cease-fire and enact an arms embargo on Israel; and
• Enact campaign finance reforms to end the influence of special corporate interests in our elections, such as lobbying by weapons manufacturing companies.

Islamophobia is not just a threat to Muslims—it’s a threat to all marginalized communities in the U.S. and globally. We must end the war on terror, and the violence U.S. government has inflicted on its people and elsewhere. Through our collective power and action, we can create a world that prioritizes and benefits from life, not death.

The Food and Drug Administration has entered the plastic pollution fray. This summer the agency published a web page ostensibly meant to calm consumers’ nerves about the recent spate of reporting on microplastic contamination. Despite the FDA’s clout, the publication relies on hand-waving and empty reassurances, which do nothing to instill trust in the agency charged with keeping our food supply safe.

Microplastics seem to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue these days. Sadly, tongues aren’t the only place researchers find microplastics in our bodies. The minuscule plastic particles have now been found in our blood, testes, and placentas. This came after researchers first established microplastics are present in every place they’ve looked, from the soil to Mount Everest. What’s next, tiny plastic particles passing through our blood-brain barriers?

It’s worth taking stock of how we got to this point of such widespread contamination. Every single thing made of plastic eventually breaks down. This happens due to environmental conditions such as friction, heat, and exposure to light. In the process, tiny plastic particles enter the environment and then degrade into smaller and smaller particles, with no end to the process. Plastic objects become microplastics, which eventually become nanoplastics. Each degradation stage makes it easier for the contaminants to enter our bodies, where they may release the chemicals used to make them. Nearly all plastic is made from oil and gas and then processed with myriad other chemicals—many dangerous toxicants or undisclosed. Research and testing have shown that some chemical additives and processing aids are likely leaching out of plastic food packaging.

Currently, the FDA should be using its full regulatory authority to combat the crisis of microplastics and nanoplastics in our food supply.

Plastic is a ubiquitous food packaging material, so it would seem logical to think that plastic packaging releases microplastics into the foods and beverages packaged within and into the outside environment. And some researchers have documented just that. However, the FDA makes the astounding claim that the microplastics and nanoplastics found in food are most likely from “environmental contamination where foods are grown or raised,” but not from food packaging. The agency claims to make this leap from logic due to insufficient evidence that microplastics and nanoplastics are migrating from plastic food packaging into food. Yet, evidence is beginning to surface, so why is the FDA confusing consumers about microplastics? Researchers tested bottled water for microplastics and found that their data shows contamination is likely coming in part “from the packaging and/or bottling process.” Others found a relationship between plastic bottle density and the pH of packaged mineral water with the amount of microplastic contamination found in the packaged waters.

Discounting plastic food packaging as a source of microplastic contamination is a stretch when we know that everything made of plastic degrades. It’s far more likely that the microplastics found in food came from various sources, including packaging, the food itself, the soil in which it was grown, and food processing equipment. The bigger remaining question is precisely what contamination is doing to our bodies. Researchers are beginning to scratch the surface of that question, and the results are problematic. Recent publications show that breathing microplastics into our lungs may be affecting respiratory systems, and microplastics that cross the blood-brain barrier could impact our behavior. We can expect many more headlines about microplastics and our health in the next few years.

By sounding so certain that food packaging is not a source of microplastics and nanoplastics, the FDA may be misleading and confusing consumers just because the number of studies showing evidence of microplastic migration is thin. A lack of evidence due to the developing nature of this research does not assure us there is no evidence waiting to be found. Unfortunately, this see-no-evil approach is precisely how chemical management happens in the U.S.; new chemicals are created and sold without safety testing.

We are witnessing the early stages of a widespread contamination moment, where communities begin to recognize what is happening, and decision-makers are expected to address concerns meaningfully. Currently, the FDA should be using its full regulatory authority to combat the crisis of microplastics and nanoplastics in our food supply. This problem will get bigger before it gets better due to the massive volume of plastics already in the world and because plastic is currently being made in greater and greater quantities. All the more reason for us to turn off the petrochemical plastics tap as much as we can, for instance, by stemming the widespread manufacture and use of single-use plastics that we lived without just a decade or two ago.

Confronted with her move from progressive to corporatist right-wing positions following her aborted 2020 primary campaign, Kamala Harris repeatedly countered that, though her policies had changed, her values had not. But she didn’t tell us what her values were.

The post The Value of Values first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

With a military budget greater than the next 10 countries combined, the U.S. naturally remains an international hegemon.

But it’s not the benevolent empire it once sold itself as to the globe. Now, as it transitions from post-9/11 forever wars, yet continues to engage in, finance and manufacture the weapons of a genocide, America’s decades-long spiritual decline has hit rock bottom.

Recently, a man approached me after a lecture, asking: “What makes Gaza different?” He was referring to the simultaneous international attention and inaction on the occupation’s barbarity in Gaza.

Of course, there are religious implications—Muslims naturally revere Palestine as a holy land, as do Jews and Christians.

There are historical implications, too, including an extensive history of over seven decades of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, the continuous building of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as well as an ever-growing list of Israeli human rights abuses.

But the biggest difference that came to mind was that every detail of this genocide is being broadcast. It’s a “live-streamed genocide”, as Blinne Ni Ghralaigh, an adviser to the South Africa team at the International Court of Justice, put it.

It’s televised on your phone, your computer screen, your social media. A healthy conscience can’t simply ignore the mutilated bodies of tens of thousands of dead Palestinian children.

“It’s the first genocide in history where its victims are broadcasting their own destruction in real time,” she said.

It’s televised on your phone, your computer screen, your social media. A healthy conscience can’t simply ignore the mutilated bodies of tens of thousands of dead Palestinian children.

Arrogance and hypocrisy

But this isn’t the first time the U.S. has been complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent civilians.

What if the victims of the American military machine in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq were able to livestream their own death and destruction?

How many massacres has the U.S. been proxy to or carried out itself? How many victims will never be mentioned?

In 2020, under the Freedom of Information Act, the The New Yorker sued the Navy, the Marine Corps and the U.S. Central Command in an effort to obtain images from the Haditha massacre of 2005, a civilian slaughter in which US Marines killed 24 Iraqi men, women and children.

The Haditha massacre is a microcosm of not just the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the West’s brutal attempt to engineer artificial change, secure national security interests at the expense of local populations and impose its will in the Muslim world.

The youngest victims included a three-year-old girl and a four-year-old boy named Abdullah, shot in the head from six feet away.

After a long fight lasting four years, in March, the US military apparatus released the images of the bloodbath. The perpetrators remain unpunished.

The Haditha massacre is a microcosm of not just the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the West’s brutal attempt to engineer artificial change, secure national security interests at the expense of local populations and impose its will in the Muslim world.

In an interview with Al Jazeera’s Centre Stage last week, Middle East Eye's editor-in-chief, David Hearst, blasted the western world order amidst its complicity in Gaza.

“Nothing that the western [liberal] alliance has done in the last three decades has worked, and yet it’s still going on,” he said.

The Gaza genocide is an American one, and it is high time Americans came to terms with their government’s complicity.

From forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to Barack Obama’s "no boots on the ground" that fuelled a drone-strike heavy policy in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, the US’s spiritual death has been a long time coming.

And it’s not just the murder and destruction—it’s the arrogance and hypocrisy of it all.

Sinister defence

“They’re using extremely illiberal means to protect their liberalism, and they’re using it against Muslims," Hearst added in his interview with Al Jazeera. "They wouldn’t dare to use that against Jews or synagogues.”

It is largely American bombs that have been dropped on the hospitals, mosques, churches and over 500 schools of Gaza.

It is an American backing of Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses that allows the occupation to continue its ongoing genocide, and it is this sinister defense of Israeli terror—often at the expense of its own citizens—that is putting the final nail in the coffin of America’s spiritual death.

For decades, Washington has remained silent and dismissive of Israel’s murder of American citizens, going to bat at State Department and White House briefings for the occupation against their own citizens.

It is an American backing of Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses that allows the occupation to continue its ongoing genocide...

In 2003, Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American activist, was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza. The bulldozer was an American one, sold to Israel through a Defense Department program.

In 2022, Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American Al Jazeera journalist, was killed by Israeli snipers in the West Bank in 2022.

Just this week, Israeli forces shot dead 26-year-old Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a Turkish-American taking part in protests against illegal Israeli settlements south of Nablus. Israeli officials stated they “would look into it,” a dismal response echoed for decades.

And the U.S. response will remain the same: a shoulder shrug, a disapproval devoid of consequence.

The U.S. is not a negotiator, arbitrator or by any means an objective voice vis-a-vis the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It is the raison d'etre.

The Gaza genocide is an American one, and it is high time Americans came to terms with their government’s complicity in the type of war crimes they so often associate with historical hegemonic rivals.

A listener called into my program recently and asked, “Is Donald Trump the Antichrist and, if so, will he reveal himself at the debate?”

I passed on drawing a conclusion, but then the lines lit up with a steady stream of people over the next few hours offering their “proofs” that Trump was, in fact, the Evil One come to ravage the Earth. That he’s a literal and iniquitous thaumaturge. My first caller clearly hit a nerve.

It’s a fascinating question, though, whether put literally or metaphorically.

Asking the question literally requires a belief in the actual reality of a Son-of-God Christ figure and of an Antichrist opponent of nearly equal but opposite power. This sort of thing fills the Bible, and I’ll get to that in a moment.

But first consider the question from the secular perspective, which argues these two terms represent, at their core, metaphors for the embodiment of good and evil.

In this context, then, a more accurate question is: “Is Donald Trump evil, and thus an antichrist?”

In The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke in the plural when he predicted “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.”

After warning that grifters and con artists (in secular terms) would try to exploit His followers, He said, “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Trump’s “fruits” are pretty obvious:

• More than twenty women have accused him of rape and sexual assault.
• Hundreds of contractors, customers and employees have accused him of stealing from them or refusing to pay them (or both), as have members of his own family
• Throughout his presidency, he lied over 30,000 times and continues to lie daily
• He pits Americans against each other by race, religion, and region in an effort to tear our country apart and thus weaken opposition to his authoritarian rule
• He openly encouraged violence against unarmed people at multiple rallies and encouraged state violence at a speech to chiefs of police; most recently he encouraged an assault on members of the press
• He tried to overthrow and end our democracy
• He embraced depraved, ungodly murderers, kleptocrats, and “strongman” rulers while ridiculing western democracies and their elected leaders
• He tried to damage or dismantle political and military systems designed to keep peace in the world, including the UN, NATO, and the Iran JCPOA
• He reaches out to Jesus’s followers and then directs them toward bigotry, violence, and hatred
• As an object of admiration and a role model, he’s replaced Jesus in many white evangelical congregations
• He delighted in tearing children from their parents and putting them in cages
• He tried to end Americans’ access to lifesaving medical care by killing Obamacare and privatizing Medicare
• He watched on TV, like a delighted child, as his followers killed three police officers, sent 140 others to the hospital, and tried to murder the Vice President and Speaker of the House
• He lied about Covid (after disclosing the truth to Bob Woodward), causing more disease and deaths in America than any other nation in the world except Peru

The main reason many Christians freak out about an antichrist is that following him will get you banned from heaven or even cast into hell.

But what did Jesus — the guy Trump’s white evangelical followers claim as their savior — say was necessary to get into heaven?

Back in 1998 I had a private audience with Pope John Paul II at his invitation; one of his personal secretaries had read one of my books. He gave Louise and me a private tour of many non-public parts of the Vatican and, the next day, we sat through an open-air concert with Pope John Paul II and about 30 VIPs, including the leader of Germany’s Bundestag, for more than an hour, surrounded by the splendor of Castel Gandolfo, the Pope’s summer palace on the rim of an extinct volcano overlooking lake Albano.

When we spoke privately after the concert, His Holiness’s forceful comments about the work we all must do reminded me of Jesus’ words in Matthew 25. It’s an amazing 2,000 year-old story that tells us everything we need to know about today’s “Christian” politics:

Jesus’ disciples had gathered around him in a private and intimate setting.

Finally, they thought, they could ask him, straight up, the question that had been haunting them, particularly now that the Roman authorities were starting to talk about punishing or even executing them: How they could be sure to hang out with Him in the afterlife?

Jesus told them that at the end of days He’d be sitting on His throne separating the sheep from the goats “as a shepherd divideth.”

The nations of “sheep” would go with Him to heaven, the “goats” to hell.

“For I was an hungred, and ye gave me food,” he told his disciples he would say to the sheep. “I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”

At this point, His disciples — who had never, ever seen Jesus hungry, thirsty, homeless, sick, or naked — freaked out. Whoa! they shouted. We’re screwed!

“When saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee?” they asked, panicked. “Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?”

“Verily I say unto you,” Jesus replied, reassuring them, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

This is the only place in the Bible where Jesus explicitly tells His disciples what acts they must perform, in their entirety, to get into heaven.

Feed the hungry, care for refugees, house and clothe the homeless, heal the sick, have compassion on those in prison.

That’s it.

And it’s a list that is quite literally the opposite of everything that Donald Trump advocates, stands for, and has done in his careers, both business and political.

While biblical scholars are split about who the actual “Beast” was that John referenced in his Revelation, many consider it to have been a then-politically-necessary cloaking of the identity of Roman Emperor Nero.

It was clearly a political figure, who represented the antithesis of the values and works Jesus laid out in the Sermon on the Mount and in Matthew 25.

A leader whose actions unleashed “a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.”

Caller after caller to my program offered their own proofs of Trump being the Beast or the Antichrist:

• “MAGA” means “magic” or “sorcerer” in Latin and multiple other languages
• His grandfather’s name when he emigrated to America to start a whorehouse in the Pacific Northwest was “Drumpf,” which he changed to Trump. John in German is “Johann.” Therefore, his “actual” name is Donald Johann Drumpf — each name having six letters. (Weirdly, the same is true of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the guy who laid the foundation for MAGA.)
• He illegally armed the Saudis for their merciless bombing war against Yemen which had five million people facing famine as the Saudi military blocked food arrivals.
• His family owns 666 Fifth Avenue.
• He fooled millions of evangelical followers of Jesus, just as the Beast is supposed to do.
• He put his own red-hat MAGA mark on their foreheads.
• He consorts with “whores” and “criminals.”

It was an interesting exercise and conversation, and I was surprised by how many people are actually religiously freaked out about Trump.

But for me, all the proof I need that Trump, if not the biblical Antichrist, is at least a political one, is what he says and does. And I’ll bet that tonight he will reveal himself, both as a disciple of the “Father of Lies,” and through his anti-Christ-type policies.

As Pope Francis today tells us, a man’s “fruits” show us all we need to know about who he really is.

Donald Trump loves to spew misinformation and outright lies about Social Security. If he is left unchallenged, he’ll do just that at this week’s debate. Fortunately, Vice President Kamala Harris can counter those lies with the truth about our Social Security system — and the Democratic Party’s commitment to protecting and expanding benefits.

Harris is a longtime Social Security champion. As a Senator, she co-sponsored the Social Security Expansion Act. This legislation would raise benefits by $200 a month and keep Social Security strong for the next 75 years and beyond. It is fully paid for by requiring the wealthiest Americans, who currently stop paying into Social Security after their first $168,600 of earnings, to contribute their fair share.

Harris has not wavered from this commitment. This August, on Social Security’s 89th birthday, she tweeted “For 89 years, Social Security has made the difference between poverty or peace of mind for millions of seniors, people with disabilities, and other beneficiaries. Donald Trump is a threat to these bedrock programs. As President, I will protect and expand them.”

Accordingly, the 2024 Democratic platform states that “We reject any effort to privatize Social Security or to cut any of the benefits that the American people have earned. Middle-class Americans pay 6.2 percent of their income to support Social Security, and the self-employed pay twice that. But people with multi-million dollar incomes pay a fraction of 1 percent. We'll strengthen the program and expand benefits by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”

Earlier this week, the Harris campaign released their official policy agenda, A New Way Forward, which states that “Vice President Harris will protect Social Security and Medicare against relentless attacks from Donald Trump and his extreme allies. She will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. She will always fight to ensure that Americans can count on getting the benefits they earned.”

Those who support Social Security must vote for Democrats who want to expand, not cut, it. But they must know where the two parties stand.

The Harris plan for Social Security is extremely popular across party lines. Eighty-three percent of Democrats, 73% of independents, and 73% of Republicans want to expand Social Security and pay for it by making the wealthy contribute their fair share. But for Harris to benefit from this popularity, voters need to know about her plan.

The upcoming debate is the perfect opportunity for Harris to counter Trump’s lies on Social Security, and seize control of the narrative. Trump has long understood the political potency of Social Security. In 2015, he claimed that “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican.” This was a lie. As President, every single one of his budgets proposed cuts to Social Security, as well as Medicare.

Now, Trump is doubling down on the misinformation by demagoguing about immigrants. His campaign is blanketing the airwaves in Pennsylvania and other swing states with ads and mailings saying that undocumented immigrants, aided by Kamala Harris, are getting Social Security benefits. That is a lie.

The truth is exactly the opposite: Undocumented immigrants don’t receive even a penny of Social Security benefits, even though they contribute billions into the system every year. Even if they later become documented and can prove that those are their contributions, they are barred from receiving even a penny of those earned benefits. And like all American workers, documented workers only receive benefits if they have contributed for the requisite number of quarters – forty quarters for retirement benefits.

Immigration makes Social Security more affordable, adding millions of workers who contribute to Social Security with every paycheck. As the Chief Actuary of Social Security has explained, “Because immigrants into the U.S. are generally young, they increase the ratio of working age population to retirement age population in much the same way as do births.” And unlike the JD Vance plan for growing the workforce, it doesn’t involve forcing women to carry unwanted and life-threatening pregnancies to term.

Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the man who proposed and signed Social Security into law, famously said, when Republicans sought political support to repeal this landmark achievement, that “It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.” That’s exactly what Trump is trying to do with his lies about immigrants. He wants to divide and distract the American people so that they aren’t focused on the real threat to Social Security: Billionaires who will do anything to avoid paying their fair share into the system.

Trump also has another talking point on Social Security: He claims he will eliminate taxation of benefits. This is politically astute, but when you scratch the surface, it is not what it seems. Those taxes are part of Social Security’s dedicated revenue. The proceeds go into the Social Security trust funds, and Trump has no plan to replace them. The problem is that Social Security needs more dedicated revenue, not less. Social Security’s trustees are projecting that, if Congress does not act, Social Security’s modest but vital benefits will be cut automatically by a staggering 17 percent in about a decade.

Trump and his fellow Republicans have made clear that not only do they not want to raise taxes on the super-rich, they want to throw more tax breaks at them. Consequently, Trump’s proposal to cut taxes on Social Security benefits is a cynical mirage. It would simply bring about the projected automatic cuts sooner. Like his other lies, it would not provide what he claims. It would lead to lower benefits, when the smoke cleared, not higher benefits.

Importantly, Democrats are also proposing relief from the taxation of benefits, along with a number of other expansions. In sharp contrast to Trump’s plan, the Democratic plan is fully funded — by requiring those with annual incomes over $400,000 to pay their fair share.

The difference between the Democratic and Republican positions couldn’t be clearer. Democrats want to eliminate Social Security’s projected shortfall and expand benefits, all paid for by requiring the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share. Republicans want to cut Social Security, either through a closed-door process or automatic cuts, both of which avoid political accountability, and they want to give even more tax handouts to their uber-wealthy donors.

Those who support Social Security must vote for Democrats who want to expand, not cut, it. But they must know where the two parties stand. The upcoming debate provides Vice President Harris the perfect opportunity to draw the distinction. Whether specifically asked a question about Social Security or not, she should make sure those watching know the truth.

One of the most bewildering reactions on the part of certain segments of the U.S. left (whatever that means these days) is that every time there is a crucial election, and the voice of reason dictates casting a ballot in a direction which will help the most to keep out of public office the most extreme, and often enough the positively nuts, candidate in the race, is to scream that this is a case of “the lesser of two evils” thinking and to imply in turn that the one making such an argument is, somehow, a sellout.

Noam Chomsky, of all people, has been the recipient of such brainless reactions for much of his life as he has repeatedly made the argument that voting for a third-party or independent candidate in a swing state would accomplish nothing but increase the possibility of the most extreme and positively nuts candidate winning the election.

Why people, and radicals in particular, fail to grasp the reasoning behind such an argument is truly mind-boggling. Either they don’t understand the nature of U.S. politics, with its winner-take-all election system, or they are simply wrapped up in the “feel-good” factor in politics to even notice such subtleties. But since even a fairly bright elementary student would most likely be able to understand the difference between a winner-take-all election system and proportional representation, it would be logical to conclude that what we have here is nothing less than a display of the politics of feeling good, which basically translates to acting in whatever manner makes one feel good, politically speaking, regardless of the consequences of those actions.

Now, one might say that when the Comintern adopted Stalin’s thinking in the 1920s that “social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism” and proceeded later to lump together Hitler’s Nazi party and the German Social Democratic Party that it was doing so out of conviction that the capitalist world was teetering on the brink of collapse and that the communists would inevitably emerge as the victorious party.

But what is the excuse of the tiny segment of U.S. self-professed radicals who fail to see that in order to advance the program of socialism we must first defeat Trump at the ballot box? Incidentally, this also happens to be the official stance of the Communist Party USA. Yet, one can already hear the argument that U.S. communists must have also fallen victims of the picking a lesser of two evils mental attitude. However, in numerous conversations I've had with radicals (leftists, anarchists, and communists) across Europe, their own thinking was also in line with the reasoning of the Communist Party USA—namely, that priority number one of U.S. progressive voters should be to defeat wannabe dictator Donald Trump in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Can this be done by voting in a swing state for someone like Cornel West or Jill Stein when these candidates have zero chance of winning? My chances of being attacked and killed by a shark, which are estimated to be one in 3.75 million, are far greater than either of these two candidates making it to the White House in November 2024.

Oh, but I forgot! Such realizations hardly matter in comparison to how good it might make one feel by voting for a candidate outside of the two existing parties. Who cares if the candidate who would love to turn the U.S. into an autocracy wins the election? The other candidate is simply the lesser of two evils, which is like saying that it makes no difference to live under a political regime that is inadequate in realizing the ideals of a decent society and one that is bent on a process of societal fasticization.

Still, there is something even more bewildering with the lesser-of-two evils dictum that is thrown around by small segments of the left. Generally speaking, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, there have been two doctrines about voting: the official doctrine, “which holds that politics consists of showing up every few years, pushing a lever, then going back to one’s private pursuits,” and the “left doctrine.” For the latter, “politics consists in constant direct popular engagement in public affairs, including a wide variety of activism on many fronts. Occasionally an event comes up in the formal political arena called an ‘election….’ It’s at most a brief departure from political engagement.”

The third doctrine about voting, which is the “lesser of two evils” principle, has appeared on the political scene rather recently and, as Chomsky highlighted, is “now consuming much debate on the left.” The debate, he went to say, “also falls within the official doctrine, with its laser-like focus on elections.”

Most leftists, radicals and communists know fully well what the Democratic Party represents. Moreover, the recently held Democratic National Convention, with its pathetic effort to reclaim the mantle of "freedom” in a simultaneous display of militaristic jingoism, gave us ample warnings of what lies ahead. It takes no political genius to see that Kamala Harris is yet another centrist and wholly opportunistic Democrat who will change her tune as the circumstances dictate. Or, as the British political philosopher John Gray aptly put it, to recognize that she has “been abruptly transformed by compliant media from a vice-president commonly acknowledged to be barely competent into an uplifting national leader.”

Leftists, radicals and communists living in capitalist societies know that elections are hardly the stuff of political participation that will turn things around. Only grassroots activism can bring about meaningful change. But whenever elections come up, and proportional representation is not in the picture, we hold our nose and vote for the lesser-known threat to what is left of the democracy we have. And then we go back to real activism in order to change society and the world for the better.

It's not complicated.

In 2019, a group of homeless folks were living on a deserted piece of land along the Chehalis River, a drainage basin that empties into Grays Harbor, an estuary of the Pacific Ocean, on the coast of the state of Washington. When the city of Aberdeen ordered the homeless encampment cleared out, some of those unhoused residents took the city to court, because they had nowhere else to go. Aberdeen finally settled the case by agreeing to provide alternative shelter for the residents since, the year before, a U.S. court of appeals had ruled in the case of Martin v. Boise that a city without sufficient shelter beds to accommodate homeless people encamped in their area couldn’t close the encampment.

Indeed, for years, homeless people on the West Coast have had one defense set by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In Martin v. Boise, it ruled that criminalizing people who had nowhere else to sleep was indeed “cruel and unusual punishment.” However, a group of homeless folks in Grants Pass, Oregon, who had been fined and moved from place to place because they lacked shelter, took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. And in June, it ruled against them, overturning Martin v. Boise and finding that punishing homeless people with fines and short stints in jail was neither cruel, nor unusual, because cities across the country had done it so often that it had become commonplace.

Dozens of amicus briefs were filed around Grants Pass v. Johnson, including more than 40 friends of the court briefs against the city’s case. The Kairos Center for Religions, Rights & Social Justice (to which the authors of this piece are connected) submitted one such brief together with more than a dozen other religious denominations, historic houses of worship, and interfaith networks. The core assertion of that brief and the belief of hundreds of faith institutions and untold thousands of their adherents was that the Grants Pass ordinance violated our interfaith tradition’s directives on the moral treatment of the poor and unhoused.

One notable amicus brief on the other side came from — be surprised, very surprised — supposedly liberal California Governor Gavin Newsom who argued that, rather than considering the poverty and homelessness, which reportedly kills 800 people every day in the United States, immoral and dangerous, “Encampments are dangerous.” Wasting no time after the Supreme Court ruling, Newsom directed local politicians to start demolishing the dwellings and communities of the unhoused.

Since then, dozens of cities across California have been evicting the homeless from encampments. In Palm Springs, for instance, the city council chose to demolish homeless encampments and arrest the unhoused in bus shelters and on sidewalks, giving them just 72 hours’ notice before throwing out all their possessions. In the state capital of Sacramento, an encampment of mostly disabled residents had their lease with the city terminated and are now being forced into shelters that don’t even have the power to connect life-saving devices (leaving all too many homeless residents fearing death). The Sacramento Homeless Union filed a restraining order on behalf of such residents, but since Governor Newsom signed an executive order to clear homeless encampments statewide, the court refused to hear the case and other cities are following suit.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, such acts of demolition have spread from California across the country. In August alone, we at the Kairos Center have heard of such evictions being underway in places ranging from Aberdeen, Washington, to Elmira, New York, Lexington, Kentucky, to Lancaster, Pennsylvania — to name just a few of the communities where homeless residents are desperately organizing against the erasure of their lives.

Cruel but Not Unusual

However unintentionally, the six conservative Supreme Court justices who voted for that ruling called up the ghosts of seventeenth-century English law by arguing that the Constitution’s mention of “cruel and unusual punishment” was solely a reference to particularly grisly methods of execution. As it happens, though, that ruling unearthed more ghosts from early English law than anyone might have realized. After all, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, peasants in England lost their rights to land they had lived on and farmed for generations. During a process called “enclosure,” major landholders began fencing off fields for large-scale farming and wool and textile production, forcing many of those peasants to leave their lands. That mass displacement led to mass homelessness, which, in turn, led the crown to pass vagrancy laws, penalizing people for begging or simply drifting. It also gave rise to the English workhouse, forcing displaced peasants to labor in shelters, often under the supervision of the church.

To anyone who has been or is homeless in the United States today, the choice between criminalization and mandated shelters (often with religious requirements) should sound very familiar. In fact, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who delivered the majority opinion in the Grants Pass case, seemed incredulous that the lower court ruling they were overturning had not considered the Gospel Rescue Mission in that city sufficient shelter because of its religious requirements. In the process, he ignored the way so many private shelters like it demand that people commit to a particular religious practice, have curfews that make work inconceivable, exclude trans or gay people, and sometimes even require payment. He wrote that cities indeed needed criminalization as “a tool” to force homeless people to accept the services already offered. In addition to such insensitivity and undemocratic values, Gorsuch never addressed how clearly insufficient what Grants Pass had to offer actually was, since 600 people were listed as homeless there, while that city’s mission only had 138 beds.

Instead, the Supreme Court Justice sided with dozens of amicus briefs submitted by police and sheriff’s associations, cities and mayors across the West Coast (in addition to Governor Newsom), asking for a review of Martin v. Boise. In that majority opinion, Gorsuch also left out what his colleague, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, revealed in her fiery dissent: the stated goal of Grants Pass, according to its city council (and many towns and cities across the West), is to do everything possible to force homeless people to leave city limits. The reason is simple enough: most cities and towns just don’t have the resources to address the crisis of housing on their own. Their response: rather than deal better with the homelessness crisis, they punch down, attempting to label the unhoused a threat to public safety and simply drive them out. In Grants Pass, the council president said, in words typical of city officials across the country: “The point is to make it uncomfortable enough for [homeless people] in our city, so they will want to move on down the road.”

The United States of Dispossession

This country, of course, has a long history of forcing people to go from one place to another, ranging from the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade to widespread vagrancy laws. From the very founding of the United States, as the government encountered Indigenous people who had held land in common since time immemorial, they forced them off those very lands. They also subjected generations of their children to Indian boarding schools patterned after English workhouses. In just a few hundred years, the government attempted to destroy a series of societies that provided for all their people and shared the land. Now, Indigenous people have the highest rates of homelessness in this country. And in the modern version of such homelessness, the West has become a region of stark inequality, where Bill Gates owns a quarter of a million acres of land, while millions of people struggle to find housing. Put another way, 1% of the American population now owns two thirds of the private land in the nation. Such inequality is virtually unfathomable!

In Trash: A Poor White Journey (a memoir by Monroe with a foreword by Theoharis), we argue that the homelessness crisis in this country reveals the chasm between those relative few of us who possess land and resources and those of us who have been dispossessed and are landless or homeless. There were indeed periods in our recent history — the New Deal of the 1930s and the War on Poverty of the 1960s — when government agencies built public housing and invested more in social welfare, greatly reducing the number of homeless people in America. However, this country largely stopped building public housing more than 40 years ago. Housing services have been reduced to the few Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) apartments still left and a tiny bit of money funding housing vouchers for landlords. Our cities are now full of people like Debra Black, who said in her statement in the Grants Pass case, “I am afraid at all times in Grants Pass that I could be arrested, ticketed, and prosecuted for sleeping outside or for covering myself with a blanket to stay warm.” She died while the case was being litigated, owing the city $5,000 in unpaid fines for the crime of sleeping outdoors.

The Supreme Court ruled that ordinances against sleeping or camping outdoors or in a car applied equally “whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.” As Anatole France, the French poet and novelist, said so eloquently long ago, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” In this country, of course, everyone is forbidden from occupying space they don’t own.

After all, while the Bill of Rights offers civil rights, it offers no economic ones. And while the United States might indeed be the richest country in history, it hasn’t proven particularly rich in generosity. Even though there are far more empty homes than homeless people (28 for each homeless person HUD has counted on a single January night annually), they’re in the hands of the private market and developers looking to make fast cash. In short, privatizing land seems to have been bad for all too many of us.

In the end, the Supreme Court’s ruling proved short-sighted indeed. While it gave the cities of the West Coast what they thought they wanted, neither the court nor those cities are really planning for the repercussions of millions of people being forced from place to place. The magical thinking exhibited by Grants Pass officials — that people will just go down the road and essentially disappear — ignores the reality that the next city in line would prefer the same.

The Supreme Court opinion cited HUD’s Point in Time (PIT) counts (required for county funding for homeless services) that identified more than 650,000 homeless people in the United States in January 2023. That number is, however, a gross underestimate. Fourteen years ago, Washington State’s Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) issued a study suggesting that, while only 22,619 people had been found in the annual PIT count in that state, the total count using DSHS data proved to be 184,865, or eight times the number used for funding services.

A conservative estimate of actual post-pandemic homelessness in this country is closer to 8 to 11 million nationally. Worse yet, the effects of the pandemic on jobs, the subsequent loss of Covid era benefits, and crippling inflation and housing costs ensure that the number will continue to rise substantially. But even as homelessness surges, providing decent and affordable housing for everyone remains a perfectly reasonable possibility.

Consider, for instance, Brazil where, even today, 45% of the land is owned by 1% of the population. However, after authoritarian rule in that country ended in 1985, a new constitution was introduced that significantly changed the nature of land ownership. Afro-Brazilians were given the right to own land for the first time, although many barriers remain. Indigenous people’s rights as “the first and natural owners of the land” were affirmed, although they continue to find themselves in legal battles to retain or enforce those rights. And the country’s constitution now “requires rural property to fulfill a social function, be productive, and respect labor and environmental rights. The state has the right to expropriate landholdings that do not meet these criteria, though it must compensate the owner,” according to a report by the progressive think tank TriContinental: Institute for Social Research.

That change to the constitution gave a tremendous boost to movements of landless peasants that had formed an organization called Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), or the Landless Workers Movement. The MST created a popular land reform platform, organizing small groups of homeless people to occupy and settle unused vacant land. Because the constitution declared that land public, they could even sue for legal tenure. To date, 450,000 families have gained legal tenure of land using such tactics.

If Not Here, Where?

Today, untold thousands of people in the United States are asking: “Where do we go?” In Aberdeen, Washington, people camping along the Chehalis River were given just 30 days to leave or face fines and arrests.

Eventually, Americans will undoubtedly be forced to grapple with the unequal distribution of land in this country and its dire consequences for so many millions of us. Sooner or later, as Indigenous people and tribal nations fight for their sovereignty and as poor people struggle to survive a growing housing crisis, the tides are likely to shift. In the West, we would do well to consider places like Brazil in developing a strategy to start down the path to ending homelessness here and we would do well to consider the power of the 8 to 11 million unhoused people who know what they need and are finally beginning to organize for their future. They may have lost this time around, but if history teaches us anything, they will find justice sooner or later.

As a clinical psychologist turned climate activist and now a funder of disruptive climate protests, I have witnessed the profound disconnect between the urgency of our climate crisis and the tepid, cautious response of the philanthropic sector. It brings me close to despair, as I know that incrementalism or philanthropy-as-usual can’t possibly be effective at protecting humanity.

The public is in a mass delusion of normalcy — sleepwalking off a cliff — and philanthropy is complicit. Philanthropy has treated the climate as one problem among many that should be dealt with in a “business as usual” way, including all of the philanthropic sector’s incrementalism and caution.

This is entirely the wrong approach. What’s needed is for philanthropy to treat the climate emergency like the crisis it is. There’s a recent precedent for this: In 2020, as COVID ravaged populations worldwide and governments seemed unable to attack the problem, the largest foundations marshaled their resources and quickly poured an estimated $10 billion into the development, testing and deployment of new vaccines. Their efforts saved millions of lives.

Unfortunately for all of us, the climate is an order of magnitude more dangerous than COVID. It’s time to spend aggressively. What good is an endowment if Copenhagen, New York City and Seattle are under water and Silicon Valley is burned to a cinder by perpetual wildfires? Foundations need to recognize that their missions — whether in medical research, education, or social justice — are all threatened by the climate emergency. There will be no hospitals, schools or social services on a dead planet.

There will be no hospitals, schools, or social services on a dead planet.

In order to meet the moment, foundations must engage in organization-wide reckonings, learning together about the scale and urgency of the climate emergency — and the fact that traditional philanthropy has thus far not been able to reduce emissions globally. Foundations should ask, given the acute nature of the crisis, what are the ways they should depart from their usual “philanthropy as normal” mode, and get out of our comfort zone.

Philanthropies must reassess their grantmaking strategies and priorities in light of the apocalyptic nature of the climate emergency. Particularly, they should re-evaluate their approaches to risk, efficacy and conflict. The greatest risk, by far, is for philanthropy to move too slowly and too timidly. Continuing down our current path will lead to horrific outcomes. To be prudent, we must be bold. That means making big bets on new groups and new people.

Philanthropies must also not be afraid of conflict — and be explicit about the need to fight and end the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians who support it. The Carmack Collective and Equation Campaign have both done this, shaping their missions to fight fossil fuels.

Foundations should interrogate and explore with an open mind what is the highest leverage, fastest, most effective way that they can use their resources to respond to the climate emergency. One way I advise funders to think about this is by asking: Who, ultimately, will cover the cost of the transition to zero emissions, which will need to be on the scale of World War II? Is it philanthropy? Of course not. Only governments have the kind of spending power — and legislative power — that we need. Philanthropy, with its significant resources and influence, has the potential to shake the public awake and spur the government to this necessary mobilization, but not to execute such a mobilization itself.

Philanthropy has a unique and critical role to play in addressing the climate emergency. By acknowledging the calamity we face and adjusting their operations, philanthropies can lead society into the “emergency mode” necessary to avert disaster.

How can philanthropy help create a society-wide mobilization? There is only one way: Funding social movements.

Throughout history, transformative change has come about through movements and social revolutions. From the civil rights movement to the women’s movement to ACT UP and the gay rights movement, authentic people-led movements drew attention to the cause, drastically moved public opinion, and forced governments to change, adapt and respond.

Philanthropies should shift from funding large legacy, incremental environmental organizations that have demonstrated an inability to act on the speed and scale necessary, to younger, dynamic groups that leverage effective tactics, crisis communications efforts and disruptive activism.

Supporting disruptive protests may be one of the most cost-effective strategies for addressing the climate crisis. A 2021 analysis by Giving Green revealed that each dollar invested in protest activities could reduce emissions by six metric tons of carbon, due to its influence on legislative outcomes. Additionally, a study published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review found that donations to organizations like Extinction Rebellion or the Sunrise Movement are six to 12 times more impactful than contributions to top-rated climate charities.

One reason is that nonviolent disruptive actions achieve media coverage at a rate no other initiatives can match. Climate Emergency Fund’s disruptive grantees were featured in over 75,000 articles in 2022 and 2023 worldwide. The disruptive activists we support are forcing a reluctant media to cover their actions, whether halting national sporting events, shutting down private airports or disrupting political speeches. These activists embody the emergency mentality. With their actions, they demonstrate the degree of their alarm and the seriousness of the crisis.

And yet these approaches are seriously underfunded. Philanthropic funding for climate change represents only about 1.5 percent of total philanthropic contributions. Within this small portion, the amount allocated to grassroots climate activism is so minimal that it isn’t even recognized as a distinct grant-making category in the ClimateWorks Foundation’s 2022 report on climate philanthropy.

The Carmack Collective, Equation Campaign and the Climate Emergency Fund, where I am the executive director, are three groups supporting people-led organizations fighting the fossil fuel industry. The larger JPB Foundation and the Sequoia Foundation have also demonstrated commendable efforts in funding people-powered movements and aggressive climate action. These organizations exemplify the kind of leadership needed.

Philanthropy has a unique and critical role to play in addressing the climate emergency. By acknowledging the calamity we face and adjusting their operations, philanthropies can lead society into the “emergency mode” necessary to avert disaster. The time for half-measures, white papers and panel discussions is over. Philanthropy must act now, boldly and decisively, to help save our planet for future generations.

Political cartoonists Ted Rall (Left) and Scott Stantis (Right) preview the big September 10th presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. What does each candidate need to do to win?

Watch the Video Version: here.

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 163: Presidential Debate Preview first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.