As Jimmy Carter is laid to rest this week, I think it’s worth paying attention to just exactly how out front he was on solar energy.

Driven by both the upheaval of the OPEC embargoes and the lingering echoes of Earth Day at the start of the 1970s, and with “Limits to Growth” and “Small is Beautiful” as two of the decade’s big bestsellers (Carter had a reception for E.F. Schumacher at the White House!), the administration decided that solar was the way out. (The idea of the greenhouse effect was beginning to be talked about in these circles too, but it wasn’t yet a public idea, and it wasn’t driving policy).

Everyone knows about the solar panels on the White House roof, but that was the least of it. Jimmy Carter, in his 1980 budget, pledged truly serious cash for solar research, and for building out panels on roofs across America. “Nobody can embargo sunlight,” he said in his most important speech, from the government’s mountaintop solar energy lab in Golden, Colorado. “No cartel controls the sun. Its energy will not run out. It will not pollute the air; it will not poison our waters.” Carter—with characteristic bad luck—was giving this speech outside in a driving rainstorm, not the backdrop his handlers had hoped for. But he was resolute. “The question is no longer whether solar energy works,” he said. “We know it works. The only question is how to cut costs.”

Reagan took the solar panels off the White House, but again that was the least of it.

His goal, he said, was to have America getting a quarter of its power from the sun by the year 2000. And that was almost certainly an achievable goal—the history of it is that when you pour money on panels, they get better and cheaper fast. The money finally came from Germany, with its feed-in tariffs, which subsidized the development of low-cost Chinese panel manufacturing beginning around 2005. But that was a quarter century after what might have been, had we listened to Carter.

Just for kicks, here’s John Hall and Carly Simon singing about the “warm power of the sun” outside the Capitol in 1979. (If you look really closely, you can’t see me, but I was there). I think the movement probably made a mistake spending as much time opposing nuclear as backing solar—but opposing is easier, it must be said.

"Power-No Nukes" concert with Carly Simon

Anyway, of course, we listened to Reagan, with his siren song about ‘morning in America,’ and his version of ‘drill baby drill,’ and we went ever deeper down into the hydrocarbon hell we now inhabit. Reagan took the solar panels off the White House, but again that was the least of it. The real problem was that he slashed federal research funding to the bone. Tens of thousands of people in the nascent solar industry lost their jobs; a generation disappeared.

In fact, it’s only now that we’re getting back to where we were. The Inflation Reduction Act will forever be Biden’s signal achievement, even if he and Harris never figured out how to talk about it (and didn’t even really try during the fall campaign). But it’s done what Carter envisioned—jumpstarted the future. And if you want a musical tribute (not quite John Hall and Carly Simon, but pretty good anyway), check out this video about the DOE’s Loan Program Office, which—under the inspired leadership of Jigar Shah—has been at the absolute center of the IRA rollout:

LPO song on IRA rollout

Now, of course, the Trump administration is going to try and do what the Reagan administration did in the 1980s—slow down the transition to clean energy, at the behest of their friends in Big Oil. Trump’s a true believer—he told the British government last week that they should take down the wind turbines in the North Sea and drill for more oil instead. Biden got the final word here, though—in one of his last acts, he put an awful lot of the U.S. coast off-limits to drilling and in ways that won’t be easy for the next guys to undo.

The administration will still do serious damage, of course, but it’s possible that it won’t be as fatal as the last time around. For one, the energy revolution is now global, and so even if the U.S. lags, China will drive the planet forward. For another, the IRA has two years under its belt already, and so there’s lots of money already out there, lots of it in unusual places. (The biggest solar panel factory in the western hemisphere is in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s district). The GOP has announced they’d like to cut $700 billion in clean energy funding to help pay for a $5 trillion tax cut—we’ll see how the politics shakes out.

The GOP has announced they’d like to cut $700 billion in clean energy funding to help pay for a $5 trillion tax cut—we’ll see how the politics shakes out.

But the biggest reason is that the movement of people who care about the future know what happened last time, and we will do our best. Some of that will mean trying to keep IRA money funding through the Republican Congress; much of it will mean figuring out how to celebrate sun and windpower, and make them ever easier to install at the state, local, and street level. That’s much of what we’ll be working on at this newsletter in the year ahead—for now, I’ll just tell you to keep the weekend of the autumnal equinox (Sept 21) free on your calendar.

And also just a reminder, as the press reports on the funeral of the pious and extremely good Baptist peanut farmer (all of which is true) that the 70s were also kind of cool. I mean, Carly Simon! And that White House roof, where the solar panels were? That’s where Willie Nelson smoked a large joint after an Oval Office visit. Jimmy, we will miss you—you were a great ex-president, but a great president too. If only we’d listened.

By virtue of luck or just being in the right place at the right time, I was the first journalist to report on the advent of the public internet.

In the early 1990s, I was editor-in-chief of a trade magazine called Telecommunications. Vinton Cerf, widely considered to be “father of the internet,” was on our editorial advisory board. Once Sunday afternoon, Vint contacted me to let me know that the federal government was going to make its military communication system, ARPANET, available to the general public. After reading his email, I more or less shrugged it off. I didn’t think much of it until I started investigating what that would really mean. After weeks of research and further discussions, I finally realized the import of what Vint had told me with its deeper implications for politics, society, culture, and commerce.

As the internet grew in size and scope, I started having some serious concerns. And there was a cadre of other researchers and writers who, like myself, wrote books and articles offering warnings about how this powerful and incredible new tool for human communications might go off the rails. These included Sven Birkerts, Clifford Stoll, and others. My own book Digital Mythologies was dedicated to such explorations.

By default, and without due process of democratic participation or consent, these services are rapidly becoming a de facto necessity for participation in modern life.

While we all saw the tremendous potential that this new communications breakthrough had for academia, science, culture, and many other fields of endeavor, many of us were concerned about its future direction. One concern was how the internet could conceivably be used as a mechanism of social control—an issue closely tied to the possibility that corporate entities might actually come to “own” the internet, unable to resist the temptation to shape it for their own advantage.

The beginning of the “free service” model augured a long slow downward slide in personal privacy—a kind of Faustian bargain that involved yielding personal control and autonomy to Big Tech in exchange for these services. Over time, this model also opened the door to Big Tech sharing information with the NSA and many businesses mining and selling our very personal data. The temptation to use free services became the flypaper that would trap unsuspecting end users into a kind of lifelong dependency. But as the old adage goes: “There is no free lunch.”

Since that time, the internet and the related technology it spawned such as search engines, texting, and social media, have become all-pervasive, creeping into every corner of our lives. By default, and without due process of democratic participation or consent, these services are rapidly becoming a de facto necessity for participation in modern life. Smartphones have become essential tools that mediate these amazing capabilities and are now often essential tools for navigating both government services and commercial transactions.

Besides the giveaway of our personal privacy, the problems with technology dependence are now becoming all too apparent. Placing our financial assets and deeply personal information online creates significant stress and insecurity about being hacked or tricked. Tech-based problems then require more tech-based solutions in a kind of endless cycle. Clever scams are increasing and becoming more sophisticated. Further, given the global CrowdStrike outage, it sometimes seems like we’re building this new world of AI-driven digital-first infrastructure on a foundation of sand. And then there’s the internet’s role in aggravating income and social inequality. Unfortunately, this technology is inherently discriminatory, leaving seniors and many middle- and lower-income citizens in the dust. To offer a minor example, in some of the wealthier towns in Massachusetts, you can’t park your car in public lots without a smartphone.

Will AI Wreck the Internet?

Ironically, the Big Tech companies working on AI seem oblivious to the notion that this technology has the potential to be a wrecking ball. Conceivably, it could diminish everything that’s been good and useful about the internet while creating unprecedented levels of geopolitical chaos and destabilization. Recent trends with search engines offer a good example. Not terribly long ago, search results yielded a variety of opinions and useful content on any given topic. The searcher could then decide for her or himself what was true or not true by making an informed judgment.

With the advent of AI, this has now changed dramatically. Some widely used search engines are herding us toward specific “truths” as if every complex question had a simple multiple-choice answer. Google, for example, now offers an AI-assisted summary when a search is made. This becomes tempting to use because manual search now yields an annoying truckload of sponsored ad results. These items then need to be systematically ploughed through rendering the search process difficult and unpleasant.

We need to radically reassess the role of the internet and associated technologies going forward and not abandon this responsibility to the corporations that provide these services.

This shift in the search process appears to be by design in order to steer users towards habitually using AI for search. The implicit assumption that AI will provide the “correct” answer however nullifies the whole point of a having a user-empowered search experience. It also radically reverses the original proposition of the internet i.e. to become a freewheeling tool for inquiry and personal empowerment, threatening to turn the internet into little more than a high-level interactive online encyclopedia.

Ordinary citizens and users of the internet will be powerless to resist the AI onslaught. The four largest internet and software companies Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google are projected to invest well over $200 billion this year on AI development. Then there’s the possibility that AI might become a kind of “chaos agent” mucking around with our sense of what’s true and what’s not true—an inherently dangerous situation for any society to be in. Hannah Arendt, who wrote extensively about the dangers of authoritarian thinking, gave us this warning: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

Summing up, we need to radically reassess the role of the internet and associated technologies going forward and not abandon this responsibility to the corporations that provide these services. If not, we risk ending up with a world we won’t recognize—a landscape of dehumanizing interaction, even more isolated human relationships, and jobs that have been blithely handed over to AI and robotics with no democratic or regulatory oversight.

In 1961, then FCC Chairman Newton Minow spoke at a meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters. He observed that television had a lot of work to do to better uphold public interest and famously described it as a “vast wasteland.” While that description is hardly apt for the current status of the internet and social media, its future status may come to resemble a “black forest” of chaos, confusion, misinformation, and disinformation with AI only aggravating, not solving, this problem.

What then are some possible solutions? And what can our legislators do to ameliorate these problems and take control of the runaway freight train of technological dependence? One of the more obvious actions would be to reinstate funding for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. This agency was established in 1974 to provide Congress with reasonably objective analysis of complex technological trends. Inexplicably, the office was defunded in 1995 just as the internet was gaining strong momentum. Providing this kind of high-level research to educate and inform members of Congress about key technology issues has never been more important than it is now.

Over the past 14 months, I have received hundreds of messages from family members throughout the Gaza Strip. The nature of the messages often conveyed a sense of urgency and panic but, at times, contentment in God's will.

Some of those who wrote these notes have been killed in Israeli strikes, like my sister, Dr. Soma Baroud; others lost children, siblings, cousins, neighbors, and friends. It may seem strange that none of those who communicated with me throughout the war have ever questioned their faith, and have often, if not always, begun their messages by checking on me, and my children.

The samples of the messages below have been edited for length and clarity.

Ibrahim:

"How are you? We are all fine. We had to leave Shati [refugee camp]. The Israelis arrived at the camp yesterday. Our whole neighborhood has been destroyed. Our home, too, was destroyed. Alhamdulillah—praise be to God."

Soma:

"How are you? And how are the kids? Times like these make me realize that no material wealth matters. Only the love of one's family and community matters most. We had to flee Qarara [east of Khan Younis, in southern Gaza]; the boys fled further south, and I am in Deir Al-Balah with my daughter and grandson. I don't know what happened to H [her husband]. The army bulldozers began destroying the neighborhood while we were still inside. We ran away in the middle of the night."

I wanted to help, but I could do nothing. I kept walking from one body to the next, holding hands and looking into dying eyes.

A'esha:

"E [her husband] was killed on the first day of the invasion. A [her son] disappeared after he learned that his father was killed. He said he wanted to avenge his father. I am worried. I don't know what to do."

Salwa:

"Cousin, A'esha's son, A, was killed [he was 19]. He was fighting in Jabaliya. She is somewhere in Rafah with her surviving kids. Her newborn has a congenital heart defect. Do you know of any charity that can help her? She lives in a tent without food or water."

Ibrahim:

"We escaped to al-Shifa [hospital in Gaza City]. Then, the Israelis invaded. They took all the men outside and had us stand in line. They spared me. I don't know why. All the men were executed. Nasser's son [his nephew] was killed in front of me. We are still trapped at al-Shifa."

Soma:

"My husband was killed, brother. That poor soul had no chance. His illness had prevented him from running away on time. Someone says he saw his body after he was shot by a drone. He was hit in the head. But when we went back to the place, we couldn't find him. There was a massive heap of rubble and garbage. We dug and dug day and night, to no avail. I just want to give him a proper burial."

A'esha:

"Did Salwa message you about the charity? My baby is dying. I named her Wafa' after her auntie [26, who was killed in the first few weeks of the war along with her son Zaid, five, and husband, Mohammed, in Gaza City]. She can barely breathe. Some people are allowed to leave Gaza through Rafah. They say the UAE accepts some of the wounded and sick. Please help me."

Walid:

"Have you heard anything about the cease-fire? We ran away back to the center of Gaza, after we were forced to flee south. They [the Israeli army] said 'Go to the safe zones.' Then, they killed the displaced inside their tents. I saw my neighbors burning alive. I am too old [he is 75]. Please tell me that the war is about to end."

Ibrahim:

"How are you, cousin? I just wanted to tell you that Nasser [his brother] was killed. He was standing in line waiting for a loaf of bread in Zeitoun. After the martyrdom of his sons, he became responsible for the grandchildren as well. They [the Israelis] bombed the crowd as they waited for the aid trucks. The explosion severed his arm. He bled to death."

Soma:

"I was in Nuseirat when the massacre happened [278 people were killed and over 800 wounded on June 8]. I walked through the area not knowing the extent of the bloodbath. I was on my way back to Qarara to check on the kids. Bodies were strewn everywhere. They were mostly mutilated, though some were still groaning, desperately grasping onto life. I wanted to help, but I could do nothing. I kept walking from one body to the next, holding hands and looking into dying eyes. I worked in the emergency room for many years. But at that moment I felt helpless. I felt that I, too, had died on that day."

[Dr. Soma was killed in an Israeli strike targeting her car on October 9. She had just left the hospital, where she worked, to check on her sons.]

Ibrahim:

"My condolences, cousin, for the martyrdom of your sister. She will always remain the pride of our family."

A'esha:

"Wafa' died this morning in our tent in Al-Musawi. There was no medicine. No food. No milk. My only solace is that she is now an angel in Paradise."

Walid:

"How are you, cousin? We are okay. We lost everything, but we are still standing. Alhamdulillah. Do you know when the war will be over? Maybe another week, or two? I am just too old, and so, so tired."

When Katharine Tito approached the vintage typewriter at Monmouth University in West Long Branch, New Jersey, skepticism was written across her face. Though she'd spotted typewriters in thrift stores, she'd never actually used one. As a graphic design student immersed in digital tools, the mechanical contraption before her seemed like a relic. But as she began typing people's messages to the President of the United States for my "I Wish to Say" project, something shifted. Her fingers found their rhythm on the keys, and her expression transformed.

"It's different from anything I've experienced," she told me. "Each keystroke feels weighty, permanent. You can't just delete and start over. You have to think about every word. Sometimes people would talk too fast, and I'd have to tell them, 'You've got to slow down because I can only go so quickly.'" As I watched students gather around her desk, drawn by the hypnotic clacking of keys, I witnessed a revelation I've seen countless times: the moment people discover the power of slowing down to truly engage with their thoughts and words.

This transformation isn't happening in isolation. On the eve of World Typing Day tomorrow, we're witnessing a typewriter renaissance. Taylor Swift captures the romance and allure of typewriters in her songs and videos. Retro typewriter fonts dominate Instagram. Tom Hanks is showcasing vintage typewriters from his personal collection at a New York exhibition, while customers flock to specialty shops like Philly Typewriter, craving something more real than pixels.

The 2024 presidential election laid bare what my typewriter has shown me all along—beneath the predictions of seismic political shifts, we remain a nation divided by the thinnest of margins.

This resurgence reflects a more profound cultural shift. In an era of rapid-fire texts and tweets, hot takes on social media, and barking demands at Siri and Alexa, people are yearning for more deliberate forms of communication and connection. I've seen this hunger grow over two decades of "I Wish to Say," as I set up my pop-up desk in libraries, schools, and town squares across America. From the presidency of George W. Bush through Joe Biden's term, I've invited people to dictate their hopes and fears, their dreams and demands. The experience transforms both me and the speaker. As words are deliberately pressed into paper, I watch people pause, reconsider their phrasing, and weigh the permanence of their message. The steady rhythm of metal striking paper—that distinctive clack-clack-ding—seems to create a space for reflection that our digital devices rarely allow.

This practice of what I call "radical listening"—deeply engaging with another person's words as you type them—offers a powerful antidote to our current political polarization. When someone participates in "I Wish to Say," I absorb everything: their words, their body language, the way they prepare themselves before beginning to dictate. The typewriter creates a unique space of trust—as they watch and hear their words being struck into paper, one letter at a time, they know they're truly being heard. Some have likened it to therapy, this experience of having someone listen with such complete attention.

I've seen its particular relevance on college campuses. One week after the 2024 election, I set up my typewriter at Scripps College in Southern California. The campus was tense, emotions raw. Student after student approached my desk, their concerns for the future were palpable. But something transformed as they watched their words appear on paper. One student reflected on the catharsis of the experience."I feel something," she said. "I can't quite tell you what it is, but I feel good."

What I've learned through thousands of these exchanges is acute: You never really know what someone thinks until you sit down and truly listen. In our era of instant reactions and digital silos, this kind of deep listening has become increasingly rare—and increasingly vital.

The typewriter renaissance isn't an isolated phenomenon—it's part of a broader return to real-world connections. Across the country, young people are seeking alternatives to the exhausting cycle of social media discourse and genuine bonding. Running groups are replacing swipe-right romance. Reading parties in public spaces are drawing crowds. Gen Z players are flocking to old-school chess, mahjong, and backgammon clubs, drawn to the thrill of face-to-face competition. Screen-free cafes are becoming sanctuaries of uninterrupted conversation and deep thought. These shifts speak to something we all know deep down: IRL moments beat scrolling every time.

Two decades of typing other people's words have revealed a fundamental truth about communication—and democracy. The 2024 presidential election laid bare what my typewriter has shown me all along—beneath the predictions of seismic political shifts, we remain a nation divided by the thinnest of margins. The historically narrow House majority and razor-thin popular vote aren't just statistics. They reflect a nation that desperately needs new ways to bridge its differences. The typewriter, with its demanding presence and unforgiving permanence, shows us a new way forward: Slow down before you speak, choose your words with care, and embrace the transformative power of truly listening to another person's perspective.

These lessons extend far beyond the typewriter itself. In our civic discourse, our professional lives, and our personal relationships, we're all searching for ways to break free from the reactive and often toxic impulses of communication through our screens. Sometimes the most radical act is simply to pause, to consider our words carefully, and to create space for genuine dialogue—one metaphorical keystroke at a time.

The new year has begun with old news: The world is continuing to become colossally more unequal — with the United States leading the way.

In 2024, wealth trackers at Bloomberg have just reported in a year-end review, “the world’s 500 richest people got vastly richer.”

Of the world’s 15 richest individuals, the Bloomberg data show, 14 call the United States home. The richest of these rich: Elon Musk. He started 2024 with a personal fortune worth a mere $229 billion. He ended it with a net worth of $442 billion, the largest personal fortune the world has ever seen.

Overall, the world’s 500 richest ended 2024 worth a combined $9.8 trillion. Some 34 percent of the $1.5 trillion they gained over the course of the year came in the five weeks after Donald Trump’s election.

Trump himself enjoyed quite a rewarding 2024. His personal net worth last year nearly doubled, to a bit over $7 billion. The president-elect now holds a fortune over 137,000 times greater than the average household wealth of a family in America’s poorest 50 percent.

A little humbling context for Trump: His new $7-billion fortune amounts to less than 2 percent of the personal wealth his new good pal Elon is now holding.

Musk does, to be sure, have ample American company in the exclusive 12-digit personal wealth club. Fifteen American deep pockets now boast fortunes worth over $100 billion.

More context: Back in 1982, the year Forbes magazine began publishing its annual list of America’s richest, only 13 of the nation’s 400 wealthiest held as much as a single billion in net worth. To rate inclusion in the latest annual Forbes 400 list, the Institute for Policy Studies analyst Chuck Collins points out, an American of means needed a fortune of at least $3.2 billion.

The enormous global surge in the wealth of the wealthy — a surge that Americans of means have now been driving for nearly a half-century — has wealth industry professionals rethinking just who really rates as truly super rich. These investment pros, for many years now, have been defining an “ultra-high-net worth individual” as anyone worth at least $30 million.

That $30 million, the Gulf Analytica consultancy president David Gibson-Moore recently related, used to be comfortably enough to allow for “significant investments across multiple asset classes” — everything from stocks and bonds to real estate and private equity — and still have plenty left over for luxuries like private-jet travel.

These days, says Gibson-Moore, many analysts have upped the “ultra” ante. They’re now considering $100 million as “the new yardstick for anyone who wants to keep their head held high at private equity parties.”

That makes some luxury sense. Simply maintaining a 100-foot-long private yacht today, for instance, can now run as much as $2 million a year.

But relief for the rich feeling this yacht-maintenance squeeze appears to be on the way. Leaders in the new Republican-majority Congress, Politico reports, are already busily debating just how they can most expeditiously lower the already low taxes the richest among us need to pay. Their goal: to at least extend the expiring Trump tax cut originally enacted in 2017.

In 2025, households in America’s top 1 percent will save an average $61,090 thanks to that 2017 tax cut. Households in the top 0.1 percent will pocket even more, with an average savings of $252,300. And households in the bottom 60 percent? They’ll on average save less than $500 each.

“Extending the Trump tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025 — namely, the law’s individual income and estate tax provisions — would provide further windfall benefits to high-income households,” conclude Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysts Chuck Marr, Samantha Jacoby, and George Fenton.

To make matters worse, Marr and his colleagues add, those windfall benefits “would come on top of the large benefits they would continue to receive from the 2017 tax law’s permanent provisions.”

“Tax cuts for people making over $400,000,” the Center analysts conclude, “should end on schedule.”

Keeping to that schedule — given the new Republican control over the House, the Senate, and the White House — will be exceedingly difficult. Welcome to Trump II.

The passing of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has been duly noted in ubiquitous remembrances and commentaries on his four-year presidency from 1977-1981. Carter is lauded more for his post-presidential humanitarian projects, while his presidency is deemed a mixed bag by left and right alike. For many Vietnam War resisters—myself included, it is more personal. Jimmy Carter’s first act as president was to pardon draft resisters. He then established a program for military deserters like me, who were able to return from exile or up from “underground” without going to prison.

President Carter’s pardon took a certain amount of courage and compassion, and for that we remember him fondly. To say that “Jimmy Carter pardoned war resisters,” however, is a bit like saying that “Abe Lincoln freed the slaves.” Both presidential decrees were the culmination of years of determined resistance and organizing—by the war resisters and the slaves—and by their many valuable allies. Grassroots people’s movements laid the table.

Over 1 Million People Needed Amnesty

Resistance to the U.S. War on Vietnam was widespread throughout the late 60s and early 70s. Over 1 million young men found themselves in legal jeopardy—an estimated 300,000 draft resisters, as many as 500,000 deserters, and another 500,000 veterans who were discharged from the military with “less-than-honorable” discharges—life sentences of discrimination, particularly by employers. There were also thousands of women and men who had been prosecuted for their antiwar protests.

Somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 Vietnam War resisters emigrated to Canada—the majority being draft resisters, often accompanied by girlfriends and spouses. Thirty thousand became Canadian citizens. Another 800 U.S. war resisters—mostly deserters—fled to Sweden, the only country to officially grant asylum to Vietnam War resisters. (Canada’s immigration policy was wide open at the time, unlike today, and did not care about the military obligations of other countries).

In 1972, AMEX-Canada, a Toronto-based collective of U.S. deserters and draft resisters, of which I was part, took the lead in calling for unconditional amnesty for all war resisters and veterans with less-than-honorable discharges. (AMEX = American Exile.) We fought hard for this position within the broad-based National Council for Universal, Unconditional Amnesty (NCUUA), which included the National Council of Churches, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), War Resisters League (WRL), Women Strike for Peace, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and many local peace groups. The initial instinct of some of the church groups was to call for amnesty only for draft resisters, who were mostly white and middle-class, and not for deserters, who were largely working class, and were wanted by the military.

It was a bigger struggle yet to include veterans with less-than-honorable discharges, who were often people-of-color who had resisted racism within the military. But AMEX-Canada, the only organized group of war resisters within the amnesty coalition, along with WRL and VVAW, prevailed, as evidenced by the awkward but specific name, National Council for Universal, Unconditional Amnesty.

AMEX-Canada always called for the U.S. to end its “illegal, immoral” war in Vietnam, which killed over 3 million Vietnamese, mostly civilians. AMEX’s Jack Colhoun, an Army deserter and historian, chronicled the progress of the Vietnam War in the pages of AMEX-Canada magazine. By demanding amnesty, war resisters had opened an antiwar front that outlasted the antiwar movement, which waned after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam in 1972-73.

In September 1974, AMEX-Canada hosted an international conference in Toronto, with exiled U.S. war resisters from Canada, Sweden, France, and the U.K., who were joined by Vietnam Veterans Against the War and other U.S. peace activists. Several days before the long-planned conference, President Gerald Ford announced that he was granting an unconditional pardon to his disgraced predecessor, Richard Nixon, along with a very limited and conditional “earned re-entry” program for Vietnam War resisters. Returning resisters would have to sign loyalty oaths, to perform alternative service, and—if they were deserters—accept a new kind of “less-than-honorable” discharge that would mark them for life.

Resisters Demanded Total Amnesty, Not “Shamnesty”

The U.S. media flocked to Toronto to hear U.S. war resisters’ response. We totally rejected Ford’s so-called “clemency” program and unanimously demanded an unconditional amnesty for all Vietnam War resisters. “It is right to resist an unjust war,” we exclaimed. We called on our fellow war resisters to boycott Ford’s punitive program, and we vowed to continue our struggle for total amnesty

In order to raise the temperature, we sent a draft resister, Steve Grossman, back to the U.S. to challenge the program. And then a deserter, yours truly. Grossman’s draft charges were dropped, as was my jail sentence, after a 50-city speaking tour that put the government on the defensive. Although some war resisters were able to take advantage of Ford’s “earned re-entry” program, relatively few did. The program was scheduled to end on January 31, 1975. The White House extended it twice—for a total of two months—in the hopes of gaining greater numbers. But to no avail. The media declared Ford’s program a resounding failure. We kept pushing for real amnesty, not “shamnesty.”

The Democratic National Convention in New York City in July 1976 provided us with a great stage. That was the convention that nominated Jimmy Carter for president. Carter had campaigned on a pledge to pardon draft resisters. Little did he know that a draft resister and a Vietnam veteran would steal the show at his convention. Fritz Efaw, who was living in England after refusing draft orders, managed to get himself elected as an Alternate Delegate from Democrats Abroad, and flew into New York’s Kennedy Airport. Lawyers for the amnesty coalition (NCUUA) negotiated a deal with authorities that delayed Efaw’s arrest to allow him to participate in the convention.

By 1976, the mood of the country had changed. Most people agreed that the Vietnam War had been—at the very least—a terrible mistake. A majority of grassroots Democrats supported an amnesty for Vietnam War resisters. That probably included a majority of the 2,100 or so delegates to the Democratic National Convention. But it took only 300 of their signatures to nominate Fritz Efaw to be the next vice president of the United States.

Draft Resister and Paralyzed Vietnam Veteran Take the Podium at Democratic Convention

And so it was that a wanted draft resister grabbed a precious 15 minutes of prime time TV before a very large audience. First, Efaw had to literally draw straws with the other three VP candidates to determine the order of their nominating speeches. The other three were progressive African American Rep. Ron Dellums (with whom the amnesty activists had coordinated), an anti-abortion advocate whose name has long been forgotten, and the “other Fritz”—Fritz Mondale, who would become Carter’s running mate. Fritz Efaw won the most desirable primetime spot.

Next came the battle with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over who could speak on Efaw’s behalf. The established format was for a nominating speech, a seconding speech, and an acceptance speech. NCUUA had chosen Gold Star mother Louise Ransom, a leading advocate for amnesty, to make the nominating speech. Her son had been killed in Vietnam. But it was the seconding speaker, paraplegic Vietnam veteran and fiery antiwar activist Ron Kovic, who ran into resistance.

The DNC did everything in their power to keep Ron Kovic off the podium. They even claimed that the Democratic Party—the party of Roosevelt—did not have insurance to cover a wheelchair on the podium. The diverse team of amnesty advocates, including former exiled war resisters Dee Knight, Steve Grossman, and Gerry Condon (that’s me), would not take no for an answer. Eventually Ron Kovic was allowed to make what many observers agreed was the most powerful speech of the convention. He began with these words:

I am the living death
the memorial day on wheels
I am your yankee doodle dandy
your john wayne come home
your fourth of july firecracker
exploding in the grave

These words are also how Ron Kovic begins his remarkable autobiography, Born on the Fourth of July (his birthday), later memorialized in Oliver Stone’s marvelous 1989 film by the same name. Tom Cruise did an amazing job portraying Ron Kovic, and was nominated for Best Actor at the 62nd Academy Awards. The last scene in the film dramatizes Ron Kovic’s triumphant appearance at the 1976 Democratic Convention.

The team of amnesty organizers at the convention was exuberant after the powerful presentations by Louise Ransom, Ron Kovic, and Fritz Efaw. And rightly so. We had won 15 minutes of primetime TV proclaiming that Vietnam War resisters were heroes for resisting an unjust war, and should not be punished. What a triumph!

True to his word, once elected and inaugurated, Jimmy Carter wasted no time—his very first act as president was to pardon draft resisters. He also ordered the military to establish a case-by-case program for returning deserters. In a nod to the amnesty movement’s demand for a Single Type Discharge, Carter even set up a program for case-by-case review of less-than-honorable discharges.

This was not quite the “universal, unconditional” amnesty that we had fought so hard for. But it was quite an achievement. Many war resisters were able to resume normal lives without fear of arrest and imprisonment. Even those who chose to remain in Canada, Sweden, and other havens were able to legalize their status so they could return to the U.S. for family visits—a welcome departure from the days when the FBI would haunt their parents’ funerals looking to make arrests.

President Nixon had ended the draft in 1973, in part to defuse the antiwar movement, but six years later in 1979, during the Iran hostage crisis and increasing tensions with the Soviet Union, President Carter resumed draft registration, sparking another era of draft resistance. Young men are legally required to register for the draft when they turn 18, but millions have failed to do so. Fast forward to 2025: The Congress is haltingly considering several bills that would extend draft registration to women, and the debate about resuming the draft continues.

U.S. Is Immersed in War and Genocide Today

The terrain for GI resisters is arguably more difficult today. Soldiers who refused to deploy—or re-deploy—to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had a really hard time fighting for refuge in Canada, whose immigration policy has tightened considerably since the Vietnam era. Some were able to remain in Canada while others were forced to return to the U.S. and face military court martial. Sweden offered no refuge to Iraq and Afghanistan war resisters, and recently abandoned its neutrality in favor of joining U.S.-dominated NATO.

A 14-month-long Israeli campaign of daily horror and genocide against the Palestinian people—especially children—is being actively facilitated by the United States. U.S. troops remain in Syria, after helping to overthrow the Syrian government and replace it with an al Qaeda offshoot. The U.S. is escalating the war in Ukraine by facilitating the firing of U.S. missiles into nuclear-armed Russia. And the notorious Neocons who inhabit both Democratic and Republican administrations are pushing for wars against Iran and China. People across the political spectrum worry aloud about the looming threat of a civilization-ending nuclear war, while war planners insist they can fight and win a nuclear war. When will they ever learn?

It Is Right To Resist an Unjust War

Veterans For Peace (VFP), which includes Vietnam combat veterans as well as former GI resisters, has issued a statement applauding those Israeli soldiers who are refusing to fight in Gaza. Aaron Bushnell, an active-duty U.S. Airman, self-immolated in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington to protest the U.S.-Israeli genocide. Another active-duty Airman, Larry Hebert, then fasted against genocide in front of the White House and Congress. Many active duty personnel are expressing concern that they will be ordered to fight or facilitate illegal wars and genocide.

Veterans For Peace has joined with About Face—Veterans Against the War, the Center for Conscience and War, and the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild to promote the Appeal for Redress (v.2), an opportunity for active-duty GI’s to legally present their concerns about war and genocide to their congressional representatives. The veterans also refer GI’s who are thinking about becoming Conscientious Objectors to the Center on Conscience and War, and to the GI Rights Hotline, 1-877-447-4487. If needed, the 40-year-old veterans’ organization can put people in touch with lawyers experienced in military law.

Harkening back to the Vietnam era amnesty movement, the VFP statement concludes with: “Remember, it is right to resist unjust wars and illegal orders.” These words will become all the more important in the dangerous days ahead, as will increasing support for military personnel who refuse to be part of unjust wars of empire and genocide.

America’s ultra-rich today love to play tax-avoidance games. One of their favorites goes by the tag “buy-borrow-die,” a neat set of tricks that lets billionaire households avoid any taxes on the gains they make from their investments.

The simple rules of the buy-borrow-die game: buy an asset—with your millions or billions—and watch it grow. If you have a hankering to pocket some of that gain, don’t sell the asset. Any sale would trigger a capital gains tax. Just borrow against that asset instead, a simple move that lets you avoid capital gains levies so long as you live.

And what happens when you die? Nothing! Your asset’s untaxed gains vanish for income tax purposes under a tax code provision known as “stepped-up basis.”

Thanks to this buy-hold for decades-sell, the effective tax rate on the multi-billion dollar gains of America’s Bezoses, Gateses, and Buffetts, even when they do sell assets before they die, approaches zero.

This buy-borrow-die, progressive lawmakers like U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden from Oregon believe, amounts to a game plan for creating dynastic fortunes. Wyden has proposed an antidote, dubbed the “Billionaires Income Tax,” which would require billionaires to pay tax annually on the gains they make from tradable assets like the corporate shares that list on stock exchanges.

Gains from non-tradable assets would go untaxed, under Wyden’s proposal, but only until the assets get sold, at which point the tax rate would be increased to account for the tax-free compounding of annual gains. And those who inherit millions and billions from billionaires would no longer, under Wyden’s bill, be able to benefit from our current tax code’s magical stepped-up basis.

Closing the buy-borrow-die loophole would, all by itself, be reason enough for passing Wyden’s Billionaires Income Tax bill. But buy-borrow-die may only be the second leakiest loophole Wyden’s proposal would close. His Billionaires Income Tax proposal would also shut down a far less well-known loophole I like to call “Buy-Hold for Decades-Sell.”

How does this loophole work? Consider two rich taxpayers, Jack and Jill. Each invests $10 million in a stock they hope will grow at a 10% annual long-term rate, a good but not great return for a rich investor. Investors in Berkshire Hathaway, for example, have seen average annual returns of about 20%.

Our Jack goes on to hold his stock for 30 years and realizes exactly the 10% annual return he hoped to achieve.

Jill opts for a more aggressive investment strategy. After holding her stock for just over one-year, long enough to qualify her profits for the preferential tax rate available to long-term capital gains, Jill then sells at an 11% gain, pays tax on the gain, and invests the remaining proceeds in a stock she believes has more potential going forward. She successfully repeats this strategy each year for 30 years.

You might guess that Jill’s eventual nest egg at the end of 30 years, after paying federal income tax at the current long-term gains rate of 23.8%, would be larger than Jack’s. But, despite Jill’s superior investment acumen, Jack’s $135 million nest egg turns out to be 20% larger than Jill’s $112 million nest egg.

How could that be? Jack, to be sure, does pay the same 23.8% tax on his capital gain as Jill. But Jack’s money has had the benefit of 30 years of compounding before Jack has to pay that tax. That benefit far outweighs Jack’s lower annual investment return.

Jack’s whopping tax benefit from holding an appreciating asset for several decades should give us pause. After all, we want investors to seek the highest yielding investments, not the ones that get the best tax treatment. We don’t want developers of promising new technologies, for example, struggling to raise capital because our tax law confers higher returns on investors who just keep on holding old, under-performing investments.

In our example, Jill’s annual tax of 23.8% on her gains reduces Jill’s 11% pre-tax rate of return to an after-tax return of 8.38%. But Jack, because he gets to defer the tax on his 10% annual gains for 30 years, sees the after-tax return on his investment reduced by only 0.93 percentage points, to 9.07%.

As a result, Jack, a poorer investor than Jill, has millions more wealth on hand at the end of 30 years.

What tax rate would Jack have to pay annually on the growth in his stock value to place him in the same position at the end of 30 years as a one-time tax of 23.8% upon the sale of that stock? He’d only have to pay tax at a 9.3% annual rate. That 9.3% would actually run lower than the 10% income tax rate that our federal tax code currently expects Americans with incomes barely above the poverty level to pay.

In some extreme cases today, our super rich can enjoy an effective annual tax rate on their investments far lower than Jack’s.

Consider a lucky Berkshire Hathaway investor who bought 100 shares back in 1979 at $260 per share, a $26,000 investment. That investor’s shares would be worth about $70 million today. The annual pre-tax return on those shares would be 19.19%. If the investor sold the shares and paid tax at 23.8% on the long-term gain, the investor would be left with about $53.35 million.

The investor’s annual rate of return after-tax would be 18.47%, a trifling 0.72 percentage point reduction from this investor’s pre-tax rate of return. The effective annual rate of tax on the growth in the investor’s stock value would be 3.75%, less than one-sixth the 23.8% one-time rate on the investor’s compounded gains.

That about sums up perfectly the magic of buy-hold for decades-sell, the loophole that causes the effective annual tax rate on the growth in the value of investments to decline as the rate of return and length of holding period increase. Thanks to this buy-hold for decades-sell, the effective tax rate on the multi-billion dollar gains of America’s Bezoses, Gateses, and Buffetts, even when they do sell assets before they die, approaches zero.

We don’t need to just close the buy-borrow-die loophole. We desperately need to shut the buy-hold for decades-sell loophole just as firmly.

For more than 44 hours Koreans have braved freezing snowstorms to demand the arrest of the elusive Yoon Suk Yeol, who has barricaded himself inside his official residence in defiance of constitutional and legal authority. Yoon, extolled by Washington as a “champion of democracy,” has vanished from public view behind hastily erected barricades manned by security and military personnel while ignoring repeated summons from both the anti-corruption and prosecution services.

Capping a monthlong standoff with the National Assembly and the Korean public over his brazen attempted coup, Washington’s “perfect partner” has spent the past week deploying the armed military and security services at his disposal to physically prevent police from serving him with an arrest warrant for insurrectionism and abuse of authority. Investigators from the Corruption Investigation Office attempting to execute the warrant—the first against a sitting president—were forced to withdraw from the presidential compound after a five-hour standoff with the over 200 armed men deployed by Yoon.

This unprecedented drama began unfolding on the night of December 3, 2024. Amid over 250 days of intentionally destabilizing U.S.-led war games and months of massive citizen protests demanding his resignation, the deeply unpopular president put his nation under martial law for the first time since 1979, dispatching armed troops with the orders to “shoot to kill” if necessary to surround the National Assembly and prevent lawmakers from convening to rescind the order.

How can the world support Korea’s quest for democracy, peace, and true sovereignty?

By the following night, some 2 million Koreans bearing light sticks, candles, and beacons formed a luminous sea around the National Assembly to demand the impeachment of Yoon Suk Yeol, while lawmakers clambered over fences and security barriers to gain access to the chambers. With a vote of 204 to 85, which included 12 lawmakers from the ruling People’s Power Party (PPP), the National Assembly impeached Yoon, with Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung declaring, “The people have proved that they are the owners of this country.”

While the Constitutional Court has 180 days to render a judgment on whether the impeachment motion is constitutional, Yoon’s rogue insurrectionism and contemptuous defiance of the rule of law is continuing, escalating tensions and instability.

Yoon’s motivation for his failed insurrection lies in the ongoing crisis of legitimacy facing his puppet government, which has eagerly acquiesced to every demand made by its American and Japanese “allies” while making a hollow mockery of Korean self-determination and ignoring the interests of the nation he swore to defend. Since assuming power in 2022 after winning the presidency by a razor-thin margin of 0.7%, Yoon has actively worked to undermine the very basis of Korean independence and democracy back to its roots during the brutal period of Japanese colonization in WWII.

Moreover, Washington’s unquenchable geopolitical ambitions, couched behind its so-called “ironclad commitment to Korea,” mandates the continuation of its policy of preferring right-wing governments at the expense of Korea’s sovereignty. This has overtly empowered and legitimized Yoon’s autocratic pursuit of power against the interests of the Korean people.

Thus, Yoon—who represented his country by sycophantically singing “American Pie” during a state dinner at the White House—has dutifully promoted the U.S.-led trilateral “Axis of War”, facilitating non-stop U.S.-led war games, and escalating tensions with Pyongyang while persecuting his domestic critics as “communists” and “anti-state forces.” His ongoing rogue behavior of defiance of the rule of law is directly related to the strong support he has received from Washington as “Biden’s man” in Seoul.

With the president suspended from power, what’s next for Korea’s “Revolution of Lights”? How can the world support Korea’s quest for democracy, peace, and true sovereignty? Demand accountability for Yoon’s legacy of authoritarianism, his continuing assault on democracy and the rule of law, and his betrayal of Korean sovereignty in service of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions. Call for a final end to Washington’s shameful history of subverting South Korean politics by abetting dangerous far-right forces that take Korea’s democracy and sovereignty hostage.

There’s no two ways about it, the Arab East is a mess. It is weak, divided, directionless, locked in multiple conflicts, and not in control of its own destiny. This isn’t new. It’s been this way for a century, with non-Arab powers preying off the region in pursuit of their own aspirations. This has been playing out in four major periods that define the Arab East’s plight during the last century. While the players dominating Arab history have changed over time, the constant is that Arabs have been the victims of manipulation by others.

One century ago, the Arab East was caught between the colonial designs and greed of the British and French. At stake was control of oil, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Suez Canal. These colonial powers carved up the region creating states out of whole cloth with imposed forms of governance, planting the seeds of conflict that have born bitter fruit since that time. Palestinians were dispossessed and dispersed to make way for a Western client-state in Israel. The Kurds were cut off from one another under the control of four rival states. The French ushered in a sectarian state in Lebanon with their favored sects in control, while Syria and Iraq had imposed monarchies which ultimately gave way to ideological military coups that masked sectarianism.

During the Cold War, the Arab East became one of many platforms worldwide for competition between the US and the Soviet Union. While the Soviets were the patron of the region’s “revolution movements” and “anti-imperialist” military regimes, the US cultivated its client-state Israel, allies among the monarchies wanting stability, and sectarian groups seeking to preserve their positions of influence.

At the Cold War’s end, and especially after 9/11, the US seriously overplayed its hand with its invasion and occupation of Iraq, ideology-driven advocacy of democratization, and total embrace and empowerment of Israeli ambitions. The result was two-fold: the diminished role of the US, which lost treasure, troops, and prestige while on this fool’s errand to create a client-state in Iraq; and the emboldening of non-Arab regional powers who saw an opportunity to expand their influence over this region.

And so here we are today in the wake of wars in Gaza and Lebanon and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. While the Russians and the US still have their hands in the pot, it’s clear that the region’s newly emergent overseers are now, to different degrees, the non-Arab states of Israel, Iran, and Turkey.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sounds megalomaniacal in describing his country’s dominant regional role, while ignoring the reality that Israel is only in its position because of massive supplies of US weapons, back-up military assets, and political support. He claims to be fighting and winning on seven fronts, saving the West from the scourge of Islamic extremism. He is operating without restraint, genocidally transforming much of Gaza into a no-man’s land, with permanent bases as signs of permanent conquest. Israeli forces are doing much the same in Syria and, despite an internationally accepted ceasefire with Lebanon, Israel has already made clear that it will violate the terms of the agreement by retaining a presence in the south of Lebanon.

Iran, undoubtedly weakened by its losses, especially in Lebanon and Syria, may be down, but it’s not out. It retains the support of significant groups in Lebanon and some in Syria, not to mention its deep penetration into Iraq and Yemen.

Iran may have lost its lynchpin, Syria, and with that a weakening of its axis of resistance, but Turkey and its support for the region’s Islamic movements has emerged as the new factor in that country’s and the Arab East’s political equation. The impact of this development on empowering or emboldening ideological Muslim affiliates in neighboring states is not yet clear. Nor do we know how religious or ethnic minority communities will be impacted by or react. But it’s not unreasonable for them to be wary of what some fear are Turkey’s Ottoman Empire-like ambitions.

At the same time, the fate of the two major victims of the British/French machinations, the Palestinians and the Kurds, remain both unresolved and impossible to ignore.

The Kurdish nation was forcibly separated into four portions and incorporated into Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Today’s major flashpoint is between the Kurdish region of Syria, backed by the US, facing resistance by Turkey who sees its independence as threatening their continued control of the Kurdish community in Turkey. It’s a flare-up waiting to happen.

Meanwhile, Israel’s projection of regional power remains challenged by their continuing genocide in Gaza and intensified oppression of Palestinians in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. This situation not only fuels greater Palestinian resistance, but also contributes to Israel’s isolation among Arabs and much of the rest of the world.

Some continue to blame the Arabs of the East for this sorry state of affairs, finding fault with their sectarianism or absence of leadership. This, however, is akin to blaming the victims. The divisions that exist are the result of external manipulation. And in the past, when movements emerged to create broadly-based unity based on a non-sectarian identity, external forces moved to crush or exploit them.

It's high time for the Arabs to take control of their destiny. The Arab East must no longer be a playground for non-Arabs to compete for their own ends. One place to start would be for the Gulf Arab states, the apparent locus of Arab strength these days, to convene a summit and lay out a vision for the future coupled with demands:

- a hands off policy for non-Arab states, with the threat that future relations will depend on adherence to this goal;

- a vision of non-sectarian Arab unity within each of the Mashreq’s states;

- an end to Israeli occupation, expansionism, and aggression against multiple Arab states;

- full self-determination for the Palestinian people and an end of the regional countries’ denial of the rights of the Kurdish people; and

- the creation of working groups to study the steps necessary to make these goals possible.

Some may dismiss this as a pipe dream. It won’t happen overnight because much accrued damage must be undone. But if a new vision isn’t developed, backed up by steps to translate it into reality, the region will continue to hobble along crippled by division and external manipulation.

We’ve been talking about the H1B visa controversy and how it may be affecting tech workers in the US, where the H1B program has prompted a 5% decline in computer science majors. Today we’re flipping the script to consider the issue from the other side: India, which supplies the vast majority of H1B visa workers to the US. Indian tech sector leaders are concerned that the program is poaching some of their best coders and developers, creating a neo-imperialist brain drain from India and other tech centers.

“The TMI Show” explores the other side of the H1B visa issue from the other side of the world with co-hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan and guest V K Samhith, independent game developer and the founder of BornMonkie.

The post TMI Show Ep 50: “How H1Bs Are Screwing India Too” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 50: “How H1Bs Are Screwing India Too” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Honestly, as 2025 begins, isn’t it finally time to reimagine American history? So, what do you think of this: George Trump, Abraham Trump, Ulysses S. Trump, Franklin D. Trump, Dwight D. Trump, John F. Trump, Lyndon B. Trump, and even Richard M. and George W. Trump. And yes, of course, on January 20th, Donald J. Trump (of all people) will once again be president of these distinctly (dis-)United States of America.

As Joe Biden hobbles into… well, if not the future, then some unknown past, HE looms over us, the political equivalent of a giant armed drone about to be back in the skies of our lives. Of all the Americans whom, once upon a time, I couldn’t have dreamed of being in the White House, Donald J. Trump would have been at the top of my list. No longer, of course. Sometimes I even imagine calling my parents back from the dead and trying to explain President Trump (twice!) to them. They would be… well, flabbergasted is far too modest a word for it, even if, to put him in a context they would have understood, I had compared him to a nightmarish figure of their own time: Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.

My mother was a political and theatrical caricaturist in the 1950s. Of all the drawings of hers I still have, the one that, grimly enough, I keep propped up near my desk in the room where I work — call me a masochist, if you will — is a caricature she did for the New York Post (in the pre-Murdoch days when it was still a liberal publication) of that grimmest of senators of her era, Joe McCarthy. He was the fellow who claimed that the State Department contained hundreds — yes, hundreds! — of communists. She drew that eerily smiling portrait in the spring of 1954 at the time of the Army-McCarthy hearings when he insisted that the U.S. military, too, was filled with commies and, in the process, essentially took himself down.

I was then nine years old and Senator McCarthy’s face was quite literally the first one I ever saw on a black-and-white TV in my house after the Post hired my mom to draw those televised congressional hearings. On opening our front door and walking in from school on whatever spring day that was, the face on that new TV screen was… well, the political precursor to D.J.T., although McCarthy looked far more like the evil monster he was than The Donald does. (No yellow hair and burnished red face for him.)

And yes, he was indeed a monster (and not just an anti-communist maniac, but an antisemitic one, too). Here’s the difference, though: he could indeed wound officials in Washington, as well as figures in the entertainment industry and elsewhere, destroying careers, but he was a senator and no more than that. In other words, he never truly entered the ultimate realms of American, not to speak of global, power.

Unlike Donald Trump, he was never chosen to be president, no less reelected to that powerful position in an era when, thanks in part to this country’s Global War on Terror, whoever holds that office has become a far more powerful figure in the American political landscape. Senator McCarthy never had a significant hand in creating the national budget. He undoubtedly couldn’t have imagined taking stances like insisting that this country should possess Greenland or repossess the Panama Canal, no less referring to Canada as “the 51st state” and its leader as “Governor Justin Trudeau,” as You Know Who did only recently. He could never have ordered the U.S. military to do anything, no less potentially round up and deport masses of immigrants (though, had he been alive in 2017, he might at least have agreed with Donald Trump that a group of neo-Nazi and white nationalist protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia, included some “very fine people”).

Strangely enough, however, they had more in common than just a certain grim similarity in style, belligerence, and subject matter. The two of them were also linked by a single adviser, one Roy Cohn, who helped them both find their all-too-aggressive footing in this ever stranger world of ours.

A New “Golden” Age

Now, of course, we’re about to face the modern Joe McCarthy the third time around (counting, of course, his loss in 2020 that he’s never stopped disputing). He will return to the White House on a planet that, in more than one sense, is all too literally going to hell in a handbasket. I mean, just imagine this: in the last election, 49.7% of American voters and a striking number of energy industry funders decided to send back to the Oval Office a man whose tagline was, above all else, “drill, baby, drill” — a phrase that, in reality, should have been “heat, baby, heat,” or “destroy, baby, destroy,” in a world that’s already been warming to the boiling point, with year after year of unprecedented high temperatures even when he wasn’t in office. We’re talking about a candidate who has openly sworn that, on Day One back in the White House, he will direct his government to do everything in its power to turn this planet into an all-too-literal hothouse.

So, expect a presidency focused — to the extent that Donald Trump can truly focus on anything (except, of course, himself) — on drilling, drilling, drilling for oil and natural gas, and so adding significantly more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (and waters) of Planet Earth. Which means more wildfires, droughts, unprecedented storms, you name it. And that, of course, is just to begin to lay out the nightmare to come. And don’t forget that, at least until (as predictably will happen) Trump turns on him, it looks like we’ll have as co-president the richest person on earth, that potential future first trillionaire Elon Musk. We’re talking, of course, about the fellow who only recently and all too symbolically gave his support to Germany’s rising anti-immigrant neo-Nazi party, the Alternative für Deutschland. (“Only the AfD can save Germany.”)

Yes, Donald Trump is guaranteed to make this not only the hottest planet around but a planet of billionaires living in a new golden age (both of their wealth and of a world in flames).

When you think about it (as so many American voters obviously didn’t) on this ever hotter, more arid, more wildly stormy planet of ours, we (and I think under the circumstances I should put that in quotes) — “we” voted back into office someone who will leave Senator Joe McCarthy in the dust of history when it comes to utter malevolence and destructiveness. Consider it guaranteed that he will go a long way toward tearing both this country and this world apart. Indeed, he truly does give the all-American decline of the United States and this planet wild new meaning.

Unlike Senator McCarthy, he won’t just malignantly take out a few imagined bad guys, but potentially all of us. In such a context, four years of (or do I mean in?) hell will have a new, anything but metaphorical meaning in the wake (not an inappropriate word under the circumstances) of the year that will undoubtedly prove to have been the hottest ever and which, in the years to come, will undoubtedly be left in — once again! — the dustbin of history. Oh, and with the help of Elon Musk (or as Bernie Sanders calls him “President Elon Musk”), he only recently tried (and failed) to ensure that Americans who were recently clobbered by two horrific hurricanes that had been fed mightily by the ever more severely overheated waters of the Gulf of Mexico would not get any further government help in the recovery process.

Consider it no small thing that, 70 years after Senator Joe McCarthy went down in flames (and then essentially drank himself to death), an all-too-fierce update of him (and what an update he is!) will once again be in the White House, backed — imagine this, Joe! — by the richest man on Planet Earth, a possible future speaker of the House of Representatives, Trump’s ultimate attack dog — or do I mean (thanks to Space X) the commander in chief of outer space? — Elon R. Musk, who controls a world of commentary, communication, and entertainment that would have been inconceivable on the planet where black-and-white TVs were a wonder to behold.

Make America Gross Again

Imagining the future has never been among humanity’s greatest skills. With that in mind let me nonetheless suggest that Donald Trump’s return to the all-too-grimly Grayer House is a sign of how this country and this planet are preparing to go down big time. The second time around, consider him the functional definition of decline — even if the U.S. does get Greenland and the Panama Canal in the bargain. (Okay, I’m just joking or do I mean Donalding?) In fact, think of MAGA the second time around as Make America Gross Again.

There have, of course, been distinctly bad times in this country before. Consider, for instance, 1968, the year of the assassinations of both Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy, of rioting and destruction in American cities, and of the horror of the ongoing war in Vietnam and the election of — god save us! — Richard M. Nixon as president. Still, it remains hard to face the second round (or is it the 102nd round?) of Donald J. Trump.

Yes, starting on January 20th, you can plan on watching the country that, in the years after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, American officials came to think of as “the sole superpower” on planet Earth, begin to come apart at the seams on a planet that, unfortunately, is now doing the same. After all, a Europe increasingly threatened by rightist regimes seems itself at the edge of a similar reality (while, of course, Donald Trump functionally dismisses the NATO alliance), even as the nightmarish war in Ukraine spins on (and on and on), while the Middle East seems to be in a stunning process of disintegration.

It’s important, in fact, to put Donald Trump in a global context since he was anything but solely responsible for either the climate or war chaos that’s been increasing for all too long with or without him. What he represents, however, is the coming apart at the seams of that once-upon-a-time sole superpower and that’s no small thing in what still passes for human (or perhaps I mean inhuman) history.

And don’t expect any better when he takes on what passes (even if not very well these days) for the rising superpower on Planet Earth, China, tariff by tariff. Believe me, it won’t be pretty, economically, politically, or even potentially militarily to see who trumps whom in that global showdown between the two powers now putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than any other countries on this planet.

In short, we’re living in a world of increasingly human-made chaos (with a distinct helping hand from nature) that’s about to experience an occupant of the White House who should be considered President Chaos. You know, the man who won the 2024 election by “a landslide” (or so he claims) and is, as Senator Bernie Sanders has suggested, moving us ever closer to oligarchy and authoritarianism. Under the circumstances, don’t be surprised if, in our future, lurks an even more devastating set of landslides due to… yes, among other things, climate change.

So, thank you, President Chaos (and, for the time being, Elon) for offering such a helping hand in putting us on the path to an all too literal hell on Earth.

When news broke over the weekend that President Biden just approved an $8 billion deal for shipping weapons to Israel, a nameless official vowed that “we will continue to provide the capabilities necessary for Israel's defense.” Following the reports last month from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch concluding that Israeli actions in Gaza are genocide, Biden’s decision was a new low for his presidency.

It’s logical to focus on Biden as an individual. His choices to keep sending huge quantities of weaponry to Israel have been pivotal and calamitous. But the presidential genocide and the active acquiescence of the vast majority of Congress are matched by the dominant media and overall politics of the United States.

Forty days after the Gaza war began, Anne Boyer announced her resignation as poetry editor of the New York Times Magazine. More than a year later, her statement illuminates why the moral credibility of so many liberal institutions has collapsed in the wake of Gaza’s destruction.

While Boyer denounced “the Israeli state’s U.S.-backed war against the people of Gaza,” she emphatically chose to disassociate herself from the nation’s leading liberal news organization: “I can’t write about poetry amidst the ‘reasonable’ tones of those who aim to acclimatize us to this unreasonable suffering. No more ghoulish euphemisms. No more verbally sanitized hellscapes. No more warmongering lies.”

The conformist media climate smoothed the way for Biden and his prominent rationalizers to slide off the hook and shape the narrative, disguising complicity as evenhanded policy.

The acclimatizing process soon became routine. It was most crucially abetted by President Biden and his loyalists, who were especially motivated to pretend that he wasn’t really doing what he was really doing.

For mainline journalists, the process required the willing suspension of belief in a consistent standard of language and humanity. When Boyer acutely grasped the dire significance of its Gaza coverage, she withdrew from “the newspaper of record.”

Content analysis of the war’s first six weeks found that coverage by the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times had a steeply dehumanizing slant toward Palestinians. The three papers “disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict” and “used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians,” a study by The Intercept showed. “The term ‘slaughter’ was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and ‘massacre’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. ‘Horrific’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.”

After a year of the Gaza war, Arab-American historian Rashid Khalidi said: “My objection to organs of opinion like the New York Times is that they see absolutely everything from an Israeli perspective. ‘How does it affect Israel, how do the Israelis see it?’ Israel is at the center of their worldview, and that’s true of our elites generally, all over the West. The Israelis have very shrewdly, by preventing direct reportage from Gaza, further enabled that Israelocentric perspective.”

Khalidi summed up: “The mainstream media is as blind as it ever was, as willing to shill for any monstrous Israeli lie, to act as stenographers for power, repeating what is said in Washington.”

The conformist media climate smoothed the way for Biden and his prominent rationalizers to slide off the hook and shape the narrative, disguising complicity as evenhanded policy. Meanwhile, mighty boosts of Israel’s weapons and ammunition were coming from the United States. Nearly half of the Palestinians they killed were children.

For those children and their families, the road to hell was paved with good doublethink. So, for instance, while the Gaza horrors went on, no journalist would confront Biden with what he’d said at the time of the widely decried school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, when the president had quickly gone on live television. “There are parents who will never see their child again,” he said, adding: “To lose a child is like having a piece of your soul ripped away. . . . It’s a feeling shared by the siblings, and the grandparents, and their family members, and the community that’s left behind.” And he asked plaintively, “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?”

The massacre in Uvalde killed 19 children. The daily massacre in Gaza has taken the lives of that many Palestinian kids in a matter of hours.

While Biden refused to acknowledge the ethnic cleansing and mass murder that he kept making possible, Democrats in his orbit cooperated with silence or other types of evasion. A longstanding maneuver amounts to checking the box for a requisite platitude by affirming support for a “two-state solution.”

Dominating Capitol Hill, an unspoken precept has held that Palestinian people are expendable as a practical political matter. Party leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Hakeem Jeffries did virtually nothing to indicate otherwise. Nor did they exert themselves to defend incumbent House Democrats Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, defeated in summer primaries with an unprecedented deluge of multimillion-dollar ad campaigns funded by AIPAC and Republican donors.

The overall media environment was a bit more varied but no less lethal for Palestinian civilians. During its first several months, the Gaza war received huge quantities of mainstream media coverage, which thinned over time; the effects were largely to normalize the continual slaughter. Some exceptional reporting existed about the suffering, but the journalism gradually took on a media ambience akin to background noise, while credulously hyping Biden’s weak ceasefire efforts as determined quests.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came in for increasing amounts of criticism. But the prevalent U.S. media coverage and political rhetoric—unwilling to expose the Israeli mission to destroy Palestinians en masse—rarely went beyond portraying Israel’s leaders as insufficiently concerned with protecting Palestinian civilians.

Instead of candor about horrific truths, the usual tales of U.S. media and politics have offered euphemisms and evasions.

When she resigned as the New York Times Magazine poetry editor in mid-November 2023, Anne Boyer condemned what she called “an ongoing war against the people of Palestine, people who have resisted through decades of occupation, forced dislocation, deprivation, surveillance, siege, imprisonment, and torture.” Another poet, William Stafford, wrote decades ago:

I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.

A self-radicalized member of the Islamic State drove into a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, killing at least 15 people on New Year’s Day. Once again, we’re pondering how to deploy counterterrorism against opponents of US policy in the Middle East.

The post You Can’t Kill an Idea. Can You Spy On It? first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post You Can’t Kill an Idea. Can You Spy On It? appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The late President Jimmy Carter was not a particularly progressive president, but his exemplary service as a peacemaker and humanitarian since leaving office has resulted in an outpouring of heartfelt tributes following his death at the age of 100 on December 28. During his final years, however, the Nobel Peace Laureate was met with intense criticism for insisting that standards of peace, human rights, and international law should apply not just to countries hostile to U.S. interests, but to U.S. allies like Israel as well.

Particularly controversial was Carter’s 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which went on to be a New York Times bestseller, in which he argued against Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank, the Palestinian territory seized in 1967 during a war that the international community had hoped would form the basis for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Carter was a liberal Christian Zionist who believed passionately in Israel’s right to exist as a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Like many left and liberal Jewish Zionists, however, he argued that the continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank would make a viable two-state solution impossible, and that Israel would be forced to choose between allowing for democratic governance in all the areas they controlled—meaning Jews would thereby be a minority, and Israel would no longer be a Jewish state—or imposing an apartheid system akin to the one instituted in South Africa prior to its democratic transition in 1994.

Carter was falsely accused of referring to Israel as an apartheid state, when he had explicitly stated otherwise. He was referring only to the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where the establishment of Jewish-only roads, Jewish-only settlements, and other strict segregation policies do resemble the old South African system.

Since Carter wrote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid 18 years ago, the number of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories has more than doubled, most of them surrounding Palestinian cities and towns in a manner that would make the establishment of a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

In reality, the main objection of Carter’s critics was that he dared criticize the Israeli government, a recipient of tens of billions of dollars’ worth of unconditional taxpayer-funded military equipment from U.S. arms manufacturers.

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid received overwhelmingly negative media coverage following its release. The Washington Post accused Carter of harboring a “hostility to Israel” in part for allegedly failing to note, according to reviewer Jeffrey Goldberg, that the Israeli government “dearly wants to give up the bulk of its West Bank settlements.” In reality, the illegal settlements have continued to expand since 2006, and the Israeli government has reiterated that they are there to stay.

An article in The New York Times about the reaction to the book included a number of quotes from pro-Israel organizations attacking it, while failing to quote a single Palestinian or Palestinian-American source.

The Democratic Party leadership was also hostile to the book. In a rare rebuke by another former president of the same party, Bill Clinton, ignoring Carter’s frequent trips to and extensive knowledge of Israel and Palestine, wrote, “I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) came from” and insisted, “It’s not factually correct, and it’s not fair.”

Howard Dean, then chair of the Democratic National Committee, also voiced his disagreement with Carter’s analysis. Representative Nancy Pelosi, who was about to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, declared, “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.” She added, “We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever.”

Former presidents have almost always been granted an opportunity to speak at their party’s subsequent conventions, but in apparent reaction to the book, Carter’s appearance at the 2008 Democratic National Convention was limited to a video clip speaking in praise of nominee Barack Obama and interviewing survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Carter also only appeared in short video clips at the 2012 and 2016 conventions.

In 2022, Joe Biden named Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt to be the U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism. Lipstadt had previously accused Carter of engaging in “traditional antisemitic canards” and compared him to the notorious antisemite and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

But while the Democratic Party has mostly maintained its pro-Israel stance since the publication of the book, Carter’s words now appear quite prescient and reflect a growing international consensus. In 2022, Amnesty International published a 281-page report making a compelling case that Israel practices a form of apartheid toward the Palestinians. Human Rights Watch published a similarly detailed study the previous year reaching the same conclusion. B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, also released an extensive report documenting the Israeli government’s imposition of apartheid. Similar conclusions have been reached by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories. This past July, the International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion, also found that Israel’s ongoing and multiple violations of international humanitarian law constitute apartheid.

A number of Carter’s former critics, including a board member of the Carter Center who resigned in protest following the publication of the book, have since apologized and acknowledged that the former president was correct. No one in the Democratic Party leadership has yet done so.

Indeed, very few of Carter’s critics have been willing to demand an end to Israel’s settlements and segregation policies in the West Bank or acknowledge that these colonial outposts in the occupied territories constitute a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a series of unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Since Carter wrote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid 18 years ago, the number of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories has more than doubled, most of them surrounding Palestinian cities and towns in a manner that would make the establishment of a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

As a result, many Palestinians and others who once supported a two-state solution have concluded it is too late and are now demanding a single democratic state with equal rights for both peoples between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Similarly, increasing numbers of Jewish people in the United States and elsewhere now believe that the Zionist movement has become hopelessly dominated by overt racists, and have renounced Zionism altogether.

Carter warned that the choice before Israel was “peace or apartheid.” The Israeli government and its backers in Washington have chosen apartheid—but people across the world have not given up on the peace Carter envisioned.

Along with many of my generation (that ridiculous word “boomers”) I both looked forward to and thoroughly enjoyed James Mangold’s A Complete Unknown. The writing was crisp, the scenery was great, the acting was tremendous, and with a couple of exceptions (I’ll get into that) the scenes were all right on target. He even threw in several Easter Eggs for those of us with a bit too much obsessive knowledge of Bob Dylan’s history–like seeing Al Kooper, who had never played keyboards, sit down at the organ in the studio and pick out what became an iconic riff in “Like a Rolling Stone.” A pleasing, exciting romp through an incredible, unequaled moment when, as Dylan so succinctly put it, the times were most definitely changing.

So why, as the credits rolled to a blast of “Like a Rolling Stone” that I swore was Dylan’s version—Timothée Chalamet really was that good–was I not fulfilled? Why did it feel akin to eating a pastrami sandwich on white bread? And my wife Maryann, who at a decade younger than me didn’t experience those years as I had, left with the same feeling. What was missing?

And then it hit. Context.

As the dawn of a new fascism looms, one that will potentially render the repression of the 1950s the good old days, the need to break free of the stifling “way things are” and create a new, liberating path full of both promise and danger is more urgent than ever.

Where did those early songs come from? Did they just pop into Dylan’s head from nowhere? What was happening, both in Greenwich Village and more significantly around the country, that led him to write startling songs like “Blowin’ in the Wind” that became overnight anthems? When, as depicted in the film, Dylan sang “The Times They Are A-Changin’” for the very first time, his young audience instantly latched on to it and went nuts, loudly and joyously singing along. Why? Was he telling them something they didn’t already know? Or was he giving voice to their lives as they were living them at that moment?

Okay, this may seem obvious. After all, everyone “knows” that the 60s were a time of youthful rebellion and upheaval. So what else is new? Does a film about Dylan really need to spell that out? And as far as the politics so many of his songs were infused with, isn’t it enough that the film depicted him singing at the 1963 March on Washington?

I would contend that it’s not nearly enough, because it doesn’t get close to what drove Dylan to write songs like “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll,” “Only a Pawn in Their Game,” and “The Death of Emmet Till,” to name just a few. No, I’m not arguing that the film should have been a history lesson about the 60s, but I believe it would have better served both Dylan and the audience had it set the stage more clearly with what was explosively emerging in the dawn of that decade, because in fact this is not so obvious, especially to younger audiences.

To get that sense, I went back to Suze Rotolo’s wonderful memoir, A Freewheelin’ Time. Rotolo, was Dylan’s girlfriend from shortly after he arrived in New York. In the film she is given the name Sylvie Russo (interestingly at Dylan’s insistence, to protect her privacy. She died in 2011). Their relationship, which lasted four years, is beautifully depicted in the film, including the fact that, despite his growing relationship with Joan Baez, he never stopped loving her. And the film does briefly allude to her political influence on his writing. But there are two key points in her memoir that are sorely missing in the film, I think to its detriment.

The first is the nature of the Greenwich Village that Dylan walked into in that winter of 1961. Rotolo goes into vivid detail about the cultural and political cauldron bubbling up there. Here is her description of a typical Sunday in Washington Square Park:

The atmosphere… was lively. Groups of musicians would play and sing anything from old folk songs to bluegrass. Old Italian men from the neighborhood played their folk music on mandolins. Everyone played around the fountain, and people would wander from group to group, listening and maybe singing along. There were poets reading their poems and political types handing out fliers for Trotskyist, Communist, or anarchist meetings and hawking their newspapers… Everything overlapped nicely.

Just a 30 second walk in the park through Dylan’s eyes would have added an element that was missing.

And that was just the start. Along with the folk clubs that were depicted in the film, there was the burgeoning avant garde theater and film scenes. Clubs featured jazz and the beat poets. Musicians, not just folk, were drawn there from all across the country. Every night, folks would gather in various apartments to share songs and debate philosophy and politics. All of this, Rotolo makes clear, Dylan dove into and hungrily absorbed everything around him. He was not alone. He was being influenced by others, and he in turn influenced them. As he himself wrote, revolution was in the air.

A vivid example of this is one of his most political songs, “When the Ship Comes In.” He wrote it after attending a particularly striking and powerful version of the song “Pirate Jenny” from Bertolt Brecht’s Threepenny Opera. In that song, the maid Jenny sings about her fantasy of leading a pirate ship into harbor to wreak revenge on the bourgeoise “gentlemen” who treat her like a piece of dirt. Dylan turned that concept into a truly uplifting depiction of revolution:

Oh, the foes will rise with the sleep still in their eyes
And they’ll jerk from their beds and think they’re dreamin’
But they’ll pinch themselves and squeal
And know that it’s for real
The hour that the ship comes in.

Then they’ll raise their hands,
Sayin’ we’ll meet all your demands
But we’ll shout from the bow your days are numbered
And like Pharoah’s tribe they’ll be drownded in the tide
And like Goliath they’ll be conquered.

This does bring up one particular objection I have to the film. In it, the only time we hear that song is when he is singing it under duress at a fundraising party. It’s clear that by now he hates having to perform it and all of his songs up to that point, and the scene marks his break with the past and headlong dive into the future. The scene itself is an accurate depiction of Dylan’s growing rebellion against both the rigid strictures of the folk music world and the political messages they now expected him to include in every song. But without a strong sense of why he wrote it in the first place, we’re left with an incomplete picture of what was driving him all along.

And that brings up the question of how well, or weakly, the film depicts the times he was in the midst of and responding to. Rotolo paints a vivid picture of the fear that dominated every aspect of American life in the 1950s—the ubiquitous shadows of an impending nuclear war, combined with the grinding repression of the “Red scare” witch hunts, were everywhere. Hundreds were persecuted and jailed, with Pete Seeger on the top of the list. That the film opens with Seeger’s sentencing is to its credit. The intensity and ubiquity of that repression was a huge part of what those who flocked to Greenwich Village were rebelling against, often at great cost. Dylan nailed the paranoia permeating society hilariously with his “Talkin’ World War III Blues” on the Freewheelin’ album.

But what was increasingly taking center stage in the early 1960s, and deeply influencing Dylan, was the civil rights movement. All too often, and unfortunately in this film as well, that movement is squashed down to the March on Washington and maybe one or two other big events. But none of that gives a sense of how dramatic, dangerous, and explosive events from 1960 to 1964 were in a South where lynchings were still commonplace.

Take a look at just a few of those events:

• February 1, 1960–Four African American college students sit down at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, and are viciously beaten while the cameras rolled;
• 1961–Black and white students, known as “Freedom Riders,” are brutally beaten and their busses burned as they attempt to ride integrated busses through the South;
• May 2, 1963–1,000 Black school children are attacked with fire hoses and police dogs as they attempt to march for school integration in Birmingham, Alabama;
• June 12, 1963–Civil rights leader Medgar Evers is gunned down outside his home in Jackson, Mississippi;
• September 15, 1963–A bomb kills four children and injures dozens at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham; and
• June 21, 1964–Three Civil Rights Movement workers—James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—are kidnapped and murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi.

Imagine how all of those things hit young people straining against the heavy 50s repression still hanging over their heads, and you get a sense of how wildly liberating Dylan’s songs were.

My point here is not that this film is in any way required to “educate” the audience about all this, but the problem is this—it’s one thing to know the facts, and it’s something altogether different to feel their impact at the time and in the historical context they happened. It’s that feeling that is crucial for really understanding (getting a feel for, so to speak) what was driving young people, and especially Dylan, to reach with all their hearts and souls for a new society.

That is why he wrote “The Times They Are A-Changin’” and that is why it became an anthem. How much stronger A Complete Unknown would have been had the filmmakers found the ways to channel that feeling.

To get why this matters you only have to take a cursory look at our world today. As the dawn of a new fascism looms, one that will potentially render the repression of the 1950s the good old days, the need to break free of the stifling “way things are” and create a new, liberating path full of both promise and danger is more urgent than ever. There is and will only ever be one Bob Dylan, but to quote Joe Strummer, the future is unwritten.

The upshot? Go see A Complete Unknown, then take a deep dive into the decade that created Dylan. Lots to learn there.

PS: The film perpetuates the myth that Pete Seeger was furious at Dylan for insisting on doing his electrified set at the 1965 Newport Film Festival and looked for an axe to chop of the electrified sound. As Seeger himself has said multiple times, he had no problem with what Dylan was doing, and loved the songs he played, especially “Maggie’s Farm.” But the quality of the sound system he was using was so terrible that it created distortion and made it virtually impossible to hear the music, and that was what he was furious about. Quite a difference.

For the last 48 hours, one of the most horrifying quotes I have read during the past decade—and the Trump boys have provided a lot of material—is one from the pastor of one of the worst people on the planet: Pete Hegseth. This quote is haunting me. Hegseth is a strong supporter of an unordained pastor from the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, Doug Wilson—Hegseth’s whole family is heavily involved in this far-right outfit, his kids being brainwashed daily, as they are taught this nonsense in their “school.”

Here are the words of this “man of God.”

“The sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasure party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” The alleged failure of women to submit leads men to the “dream of being rapists” deprived of the “erotic necessity” found in women’s submission. Wilson also believes God created women “to make the sandwiches” and thinks giving women the right to vote has led to a long, sustained war on the family.

These men are trying to do the impossible: create 1950s stay-at-home wives when the super-rich have made it impossible for the working class, and even the middle class, to survive on one income as they could in 1952.

We need to worry here. A lot. This ideology must be nipped in the bud! Anyone can see what this guy, and Hegseth, and any of the other rapists attending his church believe: that God loves them for committing rape. The implications of this toxic talk is pretty obvious: If you, like U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Matt Gaetz, and a number of the other good ol’ boys have raped a woman, you can now pat yourself on the back because you are doing God’s work. If we allow it, these men will be weakening the already poorly enforced laws protecting women from sexual violence, destroying rape kits in police stations, and attempting to force women to have the babies from the rapes. In some legal cases, rapists have demanded rights to raise the child—and judges have sometimes sided with violent rapists.

Women have fought long and hard for the few rights we thought were safe. The Trumpers overturned the big one—the right to reproductive care—and are bullying large companies into eliminating “DEI,” much of which was helpful for women in career options. More Trumpers than the creepy Doug Wilson have questioned women’s right to vote. In some of the most egregious cases of women’s oppression in Texas and a few other states, the right of child-bearing-age women to cross state lines is being stolen from them, as well as the most basic right to healthcare as more women bleed out in hospital parking lots—and we will hear less and less about these cases as the states responsible are trying to keep the state-sponsored murders of young women quiet.

Women got together in the late 1960’s and rose up, because many of us grew up in a moment of great change: Women were out in the streets protesting the Vietnam War and were an integral part of the civil rights movement. We were not going to be secretaries in polyester suits making coffee for the boss. The book Our Bodies, Ourselves taught many of us a tremendous amount about our own selves that we never had access to before: what is healthy in a cycle, a pregnancy, a miscarriage, a relationship, a woman’s life. We created safe spaces for women to gather. Women were not able to access credit without a male cosigner as recently as 1974. This includes a mortgage—so as recently as 50 years ago, a woman could not purchase a home without a male cosigner. With a seriously few exceptions, all the doctors were male, so women really were on their own unless they lived in one of the very few families where sex talk was acceptable.

The best aspect, by far, of the Harris campaign was the focus on women’s rights. Too bad Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t care about the rights of the women in Gaza—she might have won the election. The slogan “We won’t go back” is even more essential right now. These men are trying to do the impossible: create 1950s stay-at-home wives when the super-rich have made it impossible for the working class, and even the middle class, to survive on one income as they could in 1952. The Trump-Musk economic plan is basically to impoverish anyone who is not already struggling or who is not in the highest earning class. The Musk dream of every white woman producing a plethora of babies is never going to happen unless they are able to create a Handmaid’s Tale-type situation: compulsory breeding. And Elon Musk has implied that is exactly what he is shooting for.

Women: no capitulation! Rape is a crime. Rape destroys lives, rape creates unwanted and unloved babies. Rapists are violent criminals—their wealth, class, race, ethnicity are irrelevant. Men who violently rape women are all guilty of a major sin. Rape is not a sacrament.

2025 offers an intriguing mix of the certain and the uncertain.

Here’s what is certain: Democratic institutions will continue to crumble, witness the erosion of the rule of law in the U.S. and elsewhere; long-standing norms governing public affairs, such as a bar to prosecuting political opponents, will loosen their grip on behavior; countless species, especially among birds and insects, will go extinct; a host of “unnatural” disasters attributable to climate change, like wild fires and floods, will devastate wondrous landscapes and settled communities; politically or environmentally-induced mass migration, as experienced now in the various parts of the world, will become more pervasive; income inequality between the top 0.01% and the lowest 50% will increase; economic stability, as in the world-wide acceptance of the U.S. Dollar, will wane.

While not a certainty there’s reason to give added credibility to the risks of nuclear warfare, catastrophic climate tipping points, metastatic ethnic cleansing, and a world-wide pandemic, with mass extinction the result.

Within our own narrower, national context, certainties include the highest ever figures for extraction of natural gas and oil, continued increases in chronic diseases such as Type-2 diabetes and cancer, ballooning healthcare costs per capita, upward swings in gun sales and school shootings, dramatically increased levels of homelessness, and more intrusion of microplastics into the oceans and into our bodies.

An unfettered grasp of our situation can offer up considerable light, hope, even optimism; and it can strengthen our resolve and solidify our resilience.

Uncertain are the targets, timing, locales, extent of severity, and designation of victims related to these eminently predicable developments in the world and in our country. Unclear is what will constitute right and effective action in the face of this inevitable political, social, and environmental unravelling. Finally, the grounding for individual and collective action—spiritual moorings, moral anchors, forms of mutual aid—remains inchoate.

To be human is to know we are going to die. This is certain. With each passing day of 2025, my physical being will be undergoing its own forms of unravelling, making death more proximate. What I don’t know is when and under what circumstances it will occur. Nor do I know for sure what my attitude and affect will be should I be conscious at the time.

With increasing disintegration worldwide and the social fabric in this country fraying, what can one do, how should one approach and contend with encroaching forms of “death” in the world and in this country? What are citizens’ essential responsibilities? For me what are mine as a mate, a father, grandfather, and friend?

You, the reader, might conclude, as you absorb all this, “How pessimistic, how fatalistic!” It will likely surprise you that that is not my mind set at all. Rather I am of the mind that the truth indeed sets one free. An unfettered grasp of our situation can offer up considerable light, hope, even optimism; and it can strengthen our resolve and solidify our resilience. Take a hard look at the obverse: that burying unvarnished realities has improved our prospects. Hardly! Denial, obfuscation, euphemism, soft- pedaling, and distraction have not improved things. In fact, a strong case can be made that they have produced exactly the opposite, a deepening of our plight.

So I beckon my fellow citizens to adopt a different strategy, one that willfully accepts our dire circumstances, without wallowing in them, thus offering the chance of achieving more positive outcomes than our current predicament presages. The basis of hope for a better future, I believe, is the courage to accept reality. A change of collective consciousness is our best shot at not only surviving but thriving.

That I will die soon is certain. That 2025 heralds negative trend lines on multiple fronts is certain. But this is where the parallel can end. With a willingness on all our parts to accept our dire lot we can begin to veer away from what now seems a foregone conclusion.

Based on an Institute for Policy Studies analysis of data from the Forbes Real-Time billionaire list from December 31, 2024, the last day of market activity, there are 813 billionaires with combined wealth totaling $6.72 trillion.

The total number of billionaires has remained constant at 813 when Forbes published their 38th annual World’s Billionaire List on April 2, 2024. But the combined wealth of U.S. billionaires increased over the last 9 months by $1 trillion, from $5.7 trillion at the beginning of April 2024 rising to $6.72 trillion at the end of 2024.

The top five billionaires and their individual wealth are:

1. Elon Musk of Tesla/X and SpaceX with $428 billion (up from $252.5 billion in September 2024).
2. Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $235.2 billion.
3. Larry Ellison of Oracle fame moving into number three spot with $210.5 billion, surpassing Marc Zuckerberg.
4. Mark Zuckerberg of Meta with $204.4 billion.
5. Larry Page of Google, with $157.6 billion.

There are now 15 U.S. billionaires with more than $100 billion each and combined wealth totaling $2.4 trillion.

Among the wealthiest dynastic families on the Forbes list, these dynastic families closed 2024 with huge pools of wealth:

• Walton. Seven members of the Walton Family with combined wealth of $404.3 billion
• Mars. Six members of Mars family with combined wealth of $130.4 billion
• Koch. Two members of Koch family have a combined wealth of $121.1 billion

Many top billionaires have seen their wealth surge during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

On March 18, 2020, Elon Musk had wealth valued just under $25 billion. By 2024 year’s end, his wealth was $428 billion.

Jeff Bezos saw his wealth rise from $113 billion on March 18, 2020 to $235.2 billion in the Dec 31, 2024 analysis survey.

Three Walton family members—Jim, Alice and Rob—saw their combined assets increase from $161.1 billion on March 18, 2020 to $317 billion in the September 13, 2024 survey.

In Fort Wayne, Indiana, this September, I was arrested with a long time activist friend, Cliff Kindy, for blocking the entrance to a Raytheon Corp. facility. We both requested jury trials, and the dates were set for mid-December and early January. Prosecutors dropped the charges in each case, and the trials did not happen.

For my defense, I planned to bring Gaza home to jurors from Allen County, home to Fort Wayne, with wire service photos and by extrapolating the effects of the U.S.-Israeli genocide in Palestine to their own county.

That same approach can be used for any city or county in the U.S. Simply find your population and area, then do the math based on Gaza’s population and area. The genocide statistics were published by Al Jazeera for its summary report on one year of Israel’s U.S.-funded genocide.

U.S. census figures show that Allen County’s population is 395,000—or 18% of Gaza's 2.2 million people—and its area is 660 square miles, roughly 4.5 times that of Gaza’s 144 square miles.

Here, then, is how to bring Gaza home for your city or county.

✴ Tons of Bombs Dropped

As of October 2024, Israel’s military has dropped nearly 85,000 tons of bombs—591 tons per square mile—on Gaza, far exceeding that dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined in World War II.

For Allen County the comparable number is 390,000 tons of bombs at 591 tons per square mile.

✴ Casualties

More than 43,000 Palestinian bodies, mostly of women and children, were recovered last year. Many thousands more remain buried under the rubble—reliable reports say up to 200,000. Over 97,000 have been wounded. Anesthesia is rarely available.

For Allen County the comparable numbers (18% of the above) are:

• 7,740 bodies recovered.
• 17,460 wounded.
• Up to 36,000 buried under the rubble.
• Over half are women and children.

✴ Healthcare Infrastructure and Personnel

According to the Gaza Media Office, 34 hospitals and 80 health centers have been put out of service, 162 health institutions were hit by Israeli forces, and at least 131 ambulances were hit and damaged. Israeli attacks on hospitals and the continual bombardment of Gaza have killed at least 986 medical workers including 165 doctors, 260 nurses, 184 health associates, 76 pharmacists, and 300 management and support staff.

For Allen County the comparable numbers are:

• 20 hospitals and health centers destroyed.
• 30 doctors, 47 nurses, 14 pharmacists, and 54 support staff killed.
• 24 ambulances damaged.

✴ Disease

In the past year, 75% of Gaza’s population have been infected with contagious diseases from lack of sanitation, open sewage, and inadequate hygiene. At least 10,000 cancer patients can no longer receive the necessary treatment

For Allen County the comparable numbers are:

• 296,250 people (75% of pop.) infected with diseases from lack of sanitation and open sewage.
• 379,000 people (96% of pop.) endure severe lack of food and have not had access to clean water for months.
• 79,000 face outright starvation.
• 1,800 cancer patients do not receive necessary treatment.

✴ Imprisoned

More than 10,000 Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons under grave conditions with at least 250 children and 80 women among them.

For Allen County the comparable numbers are:

• 1,800 residents held in prison, 599 of them without charges.

✴ Buildings damaged and destroyed

According to the United Nation’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as of January 2024, 60% of Gaza’s residential homes and 80% of all commercial facilities have been damaged or destroyed.

For Allen County the comparable numbers are:

• 100,800 houses damaged or destroyed
• 7,668 businesses damaged or destroyed

✴ After the war

When the bombing finally stops, whoever attempts to rebuild Gaza—for luxury Israeli condos or refugee housing—will be exposed to unexploded ordnance (UXO), asbestos, PCBs, and carcinogenic ingredients from the toxic soup left by exploded bombs and artillery shells.

For example, in a heavily bombed area of Vietnam, Quang Tri Province (1,832 square miles), an intensive campaign to find and destroy UXOs has eliminated over 815,000 of them—everything from 1,000-pound bombs to cluster bombs and grenades. Given the area of Gaza and the tons of bombs dropped on it, some 64,100 UXOs may lie in wait.

For Allen County the number of UXOs would be 293,7000

On December 15, many people in Syria felt the earthquake. Seismic scales registered above 3.0 on the Richter scale and could be felt at least 500 miles away. Natural disasters usually have the attention of people around the world. When earthquakes happen, humanitarian workers and supplies are sent to help out. After hurricanes, organizations release statements responding to the urgency of the climate crisis and hypothetical transitions away from fossil fuels.

In Syria, what happened on December 15 wasn’t an earthquake—it was a massive airstrike that Israel carried out in Syria. This ongoing bombardment is reciprocally destructive to daily life and the environment as it continues to push the climate crisis further through jarring fossil fuel consumption.

But where are the environmental organizations? Many organizations that would typically release these statements after “natural” disasters have been silent. Except this was not a natural disaster—and the countries that would typically send “humanitarian aid” are the ones that caused this quake to happen. This deliberate mass destruction came shortly after the U.S. dropped dozens of bombs in just a few hours after the fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The U.S. has carried out this disastrous project through the extraction of oil in the ground for the sake of extracting more oil from the ground.

The bewildering longtime silence of environmental organizations when it comes to U.S. militarism is not representative of any genuine commitment to climate justice. The most heavily weighted factors in their silence may be a blissful ignorance from the normalization of a whitewashed “environmentalism,” or the fear of repression and financial repercussions of taking popular anti-war stances. Regardless, the murderous result is antithetical to everything they profess.

A June 2024 United Nations report on the environmental impact of the genocide in Gaza highlighted the catastrophic impacts of Israel’s incessant bombing on the ecosystem, water quality, air quality, and soil in Gaza. Genocide doesn’t just cause ecocide, isn’t just parallel to ecocide, but is also a result of ecocide. Ecocide is a tactic of genocide. The long-term damage to every ecological foundation in Gaza makes it harder and harder to sustain life. Life can’t be sustained without agriculture or without clean drinking water. And now, the U.S. and Israel are attempting to repeat this cycle of destruction in Syria, just as they have started to in Lebanon.

Regardless of how hard the imperialism and war economy of Western powers try to create a lavish life for its beneficiaries at the expense of everyone else, it is fundamentally impossible to sustain life for anyone when war-making tools continue to devastate the planet. The grim irony is that the war economy eats its own makers.

The first 120 days of the genocide in Gaza alone produced more emissions than 26 countries combined. Every new base that is established across the globe contaminates the soil that it occupies, harming the ecosystem and the valuable biodiversity that is critical for sustaining life. As it builds bases over occupied land globally, the military literally steamrolls over survival.

Now, the U.S. and Israel are taking advantage of a destabilized Syria to eat away at the nation’s territory to gain more standing in a dangerous escalation against Iran. This is the newest development in a decades-long conquest for dominance in the oil industry that environmental organizations have long campaigned shifts away from. The U.S. has carried out this disastrous project through the extraction of oil in the ground for the sake of extracting more oil from the ground, destroying homes, families, and nations in the process, all while stumbling into the possibility of planetary destruction via climate collapse, nuclear winter, or both.

U.S.-made Israeli bombs have killed multiple civilians in Yemen in the past weeks. Meanwhile, the “cease-fire” reached in Lebanon continues to be breached as toxic bombs rain down on the people of the country daily, while fossil fuels are unleashed in the sky, which has already led to island nations that toxic U.S. bases occupy becoming inhabitable.

Since Assad’s fall, Israel has claimed more land in Syria than all of Gaza. The more that Israel and its allies encroach on this land, the more emboldened the U.S.-Israeli regime becomes in its terrorism throughout the region and the more it risks our global future. The short- and long-term survival of the people of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen are increasingly threatened due to ecological devastation while they fight to prevent U.S.-made bombs from continuing to destroy their homes every single day. Is their disposability so blinding that these NGOs sacrifice themselves? The longer we escalate, the more emissions will be released from this catastrophe and the longer that crucial biodiversity and Indigenous caretaking will be destroyed.

So, amid this war that is causing complete ecological and planetary devastation, where is the mainstream climate movement? When the U.S. military is the largest institutional polluter in the world, consuming 4.6 billion gallons of fuel annually (77-80% of all U.S. government energy consumption), how can its deadliest campaign in years be ignored by those who seek to protect the planet? When the bombs the U.S. manufactures register on the Richter scale, how is that not a threat to the environment? How is nuclear winter not a threat to agricultural global survival? How can the groups that claim to care about our well-being not stand against a deadly bombing campaign in Syria and possible war with Iran or Russia?

The anti-war movement from within the U.S. is at its strongest in decades. The majority of Americans want a cease-fire in Gaza. The environmental movement from within the belly of the beast must recognize that it needs to be part of this anti-war movement and push for the U.S. to take its hands off Syria. It must raise the public’s consciousness of the dangers of war with Iran. When we think about existential threats to the planet, environmental organizations should be looking at the ecological devastation that Israel and the U.S. are causing and ask themselves why they haven’t done or said a damn thing about the elephant in the room.