California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 3 - The Difference Among Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Illegals

by John Lawrence

A refugee is someone who wants to emigrate to another country, but applies typically from a refugee camp in a neighboring country. If granted refugee status, they can not determine exactly which country they will be granted admission to.  An asylum seeker is like a refugee in the fact that they want to leave their home country, but unlike a refugee they attempt to set foot in the country they want to go to. Some of them do this legally by approaching a port of entry and requesting asylum. They are then processed and given a court date at which time a judge will decide whether or not to give them asylum status. It all depends on whether or not they can convince the judge that they are fleeing violence in their home country. Fleeing poverty is not a good enough reason. Approximately 80% are denied asylum status and ordered to leave the US. Others enter the US illegally ^i.e. by crossing the border but not at a port of entry. If they are picked up by border patrol, they can then also request asylum. Others enter illegally and manage to evade the authorities altogether. They are the true illegals.

The problem from the asylum seeker's point of view is 1) their court date may be way off in the future and they are given no government assistance until after they are granted asylum and 2) their chances of getting asylum are very meager. So this situation incentivizes people to enter illegally and try not to get caught especially if they have family in the US who can shelter them. There are a number of ways to change the dynamics of this situation - some favored by conservatives and some favored by liberals. To really solve this problem what is needed are elements from both sides. The policy of letting anyone who sets foot in the US claim asylum should be changed. People should be incentivized to request asylum at a port of entry or better yet ask for refugee status in their home country or a neighboring one. The border wall should be strengthened to make it very unlikely that anyone can get in illegally. The fact that someone can wade across the Rio Grande, set foot in the US and request asylum is ridiculous. This is where I side with conservatives. On the other hand the process of requesting asylum at a port of entry needs to be expedited. These cases should be decided in a matter of days not months. If you have to hire more judges and build more court rooms, so be it. Furthermore, the policy for granting asylum should be liberalized to the extent that reasons other than "fleeing violence" are acceptable. Fleeing the results of climate change should be factored in as, more and more, that will be one of the main reasons for migration. So the goal should be discouragement of illegal entry by means of a strong border wall whether physical, electronic or both and encouragement of asylum seekers to do so at a port of entry.

Another component of immigration policy is that quotas should be greatly increased for refugees and immigrants in general. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, slightly more than 707,000 immigrants became lawful permanent residents (LPRs, also known as green-card holders), the lowest number since 2003 and the first time the figure dropped below 1 million since 2013, when 991,000 people obtained green cards. This number needs to be greatly increased. If more immigrants are let in legally, they will disincentivized from coming illegally. Also the US is greatly in need of workers for those jobs that immigrants typically do. The bracero program used to let Mexican farm laborers come to the US on short term labor contracts to do farm work. These kinds of workers are in short supply today and liberalizing immigration laws should help to bring much needed workers to the US legally.

Amnesty International estimates that there are 70 million refugees worldwide. Some of the largest refugee camps are in Africa. Refugees are hoping to be resettled in a country where they can experience basic human rights. Some are willing to leave these camps and risk life and limb to get to the European Union or the US. Many have drowned in the Mediterranean trying to get to Italy or Greece. Similarly, many have lost their lives trying to get to the southern border of the US. Southern border states as well as Italy and Greece are upset that they have to bear the brunt of illegal immigrant crossings.

The third thing the US could do is to ameliorate conditions in Central and South America as well as Haiti and some other Caribbean countries that are contributing to the high volume of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This could be done by using the US military to root out the gangs which are threatening peoples' lives and doing the human trafficking as well as drug smuggling. Financial and economic help could reduce the impact and burden of poverty in those countries. The Peace Corps could help people to build their lives from the ground up rather than just giving their governments money which could be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats. Ameliorating poverty and the negative effects of climate change by improving infrastructure and creating a safe environment will reduce the number of those seeking admission to the US. Processing asylum seekers and refugees in countries outside the US so that immigrants don't have to trek thousand of miles or pay a coyote to traffic them would cut the pressure on the southern border.

Off the Top of My Head

Without Majority Rule Is The US Still a Democracy?

by John Lawrence

The US Senate is not ruled by a majority. Arguably that makes the US not a democracy or a democracy in name only. The filibuster is an artificial rule that precludes majority rule in the Senate, and, therefore, in the US since the Senate is a representative body of the people. A majority of the people want gun control, but, because the Senate is not a democratic institution, there is no gun control. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2019 found that 60% of Americans say gun laws should be tougher. Conclusion: the US is no longer a democracy. Strong majorities of voters across party lines view access to clean water, a quality public education, adequate food, and housing as basic human rights that should be secured by the federal government. A survey by Harvard University found the following: "The right to clean air and water, for example, was considered important by 93 percent of those surveyed; protection of personal data, by 93 percent; the right to a quality education, by 92 percent; racial equality, by 92 percent; affordable health care, by 89 percent; and the right to a job, by 85 percent."

The filibuster precludes democracy. It is not in the Constitution. Neither is the right to own a gun. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." At the time of the American Revolutionary War, militias were groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states. They were state based armed groups that later became the National Guard. It was these groups that were allowed by the Constitution to bear arms, not every idiot who came down the pike. Other more mature societies regulate gun ownership the way the US regulates drivers.

NPR reports:

"It's illegal for Russian citizens to own automatic and semi-automatic guns. It's possible to apply for a handgun or shotgun license, though citizens are required to provide reasons such as hunting or target shooting. Applicants face strict background checks, including criminal history, a full psychological evaluation and a medical exam. They must pass a test on firearm laws and safety. Each weapon is then registered by the police during a home visit. Police take bullet patterns, test bullets and cartridges so bullets can be matched if the gun is used in a crime. A license lasts five years, after which applicants must go through the whole process again."

The US is falling apart because groups with lots of money are lobbying Congress to perpetuate their income stream from gun sales regardless of what the majority of US citizens want. Yet the US lectures other countries about human rights. Is it a human right to own a gun? I don't see it listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. What is listed is the following:

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

The controlling interests of US society are not the majority of the people. US society is controlled by wealthy interests which lobby Congress providing them with financial incentives to do their bidding. One of the main reason companies lobby Congress is to preserve their rights not to have to pay for externalities. Externalities are byproducts of the production process that pollute the environment. It would lower their profits if they had to pay for them. William D Nordhaus writes in The Spirit of Green:

"One prominent example is the activities associated with the Koch brothers and their companies. Koch Industries is a privately owned company holding companies with major environmental impacts and with revenues of around $115 billion in 2017. As reported by the Center for Public Integrity, one of Koch's holdings, Georgia-Pacific, is significantly impacted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision on dioxin. They write that Koch has intervened 'in various regulatory proceedings to dilute or halt tighter federal regulation of several toxic by products that could affect its bottom line, including dioxin, asbestos and formaldehyde, all of which have been linked to cancer.' According to Greenpeace, 'Koch Family Foundations have spent $145,555,197 directly financing 90 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997 - 2018.'"

So it's understandable why Republicans especially don't want Joe Biden's climate change agenda to pass even though a majority (actually two thirds!) of Americans want the government to do something about climate change according to a Pew poll. "A majority of Americans continue to say they see the effects of climate change in their own communities and believe that the federal government falls short in its efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change." But since the Koch brothers and others like them have the Republican party in their pockets, the filibuster assures them that nothing will get done. And this is happening in a democracy where democracy rule supposedly prevails? The US, sadly to say, is no longer a democracy if it ever was.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Represent a Diasporized Ku Klu Klan

by John Lawrence

America First was also a credo of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan organization. This assertion rated true by Snopes. Now Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are embarking on an "America First" tour of the USA. It seems that the US can not get over its racist past. Republicans are basing their party on lies like that Trump won the election. Maybe the biggest lie was the one Thomas Jefferson wrote when he penned the preamble to the Constitution: All men are created equal. That was patently a lie because Jefferson himself was a slave owner as was George Washington and many of the other Founding Fathers.Obviously, Native Americans were not created equal. Neither were African Americans. So why did Jefferson create the first BIG LIE which Trump and the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene are only perpetuating. On the other hand the sentiments embodied in Jefferson's preamble can be seen as aspirational and that is the tack the Democratic party is taking at the present time. Let's make this a country where all men, women and children are in fact created equal.

The Ku Klux Klan has become normalized in the Republican party which pretends to exemplify our Anglo Saxon heritage. So let's just go back to the era of King George, why don't we? Republicans could change their name to the Tory party. The term Tory or "Loyalist" was used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Since early in the 18th century, Tory had described those upholding the right of the King over Parliament. During the war of independence, particularly after the Declaration of Independence in 1776, this use was extended to cover anyone who remained loyal to the British Crown. The US has already become a neo-feudal society with great wealth concentrated in the upper one percent, and great poverty concentrated among black and brown people. "America First" is just a slogan for perpetuating the idea that those who are superior by dint of their having acquired great wealth should be the nobiity and the lesser among us should just be content with their lot of a few crumbs from the table. They surely shouldn't be given de facto equal rights despite the fact that the Constitution says that they were created equal.

A diaspora is a spreading out of a people or a philosophy. The Ku Klux Klan used to be concentrated mainly in the South. The Republican party is still based there, but the philosophy has metastasized to include white supremacists in the heartland as well. "Republican" is a more respectable name for a philosophy that bears an eerie resemblance to that of the Ku Klux Klan. "America First: really means "white people first." Let's just keep the example that white people were the ones that first officiated over the construction of a so-called democracy, one that denied women, African Americans and Native Americans the vote. The only reason they let in eastern and southern  Europeans was that they needed their labor power. Asians were discriminated against and even put in concentration camps during the Second World War. What has been consistent about America is the fact that white people have held the reins of power ever since the country began. African Americans, who have been here as long as white people have, were first enslaved and then subjected to Jim Crow laws. Native Americans were herded onto reservations.

At the beginning of the 1830s, nearly 125,000 Native Americans lived on millions of acres of land in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina and Florida–land their ancestors had occupied and cultivated for generations. By the end of the decade, very few natives remained anywhere in the southeastern United States. Working on behalf of white settlers who wanted to grow cotton on the Indians’ land using black slaves as labor power, the federal government forced them to leave their homelands and walk hundreds of miles to a specially designated “Indian territory” across the Mississippi River. This difficult and sometimes deadly journey is known as the Trail of Tears.

So get the picture? All men, let alone women, were not created equal in fact despite Jefferson's words which he didn't really believe himself. At best they were aspirational. Well how long do some people have to wait for aspirations to become realized? Joe Biden's administration is trying to correct some of these historical wrongs which go back to the BIG LIE that was embodied in the US Constitution with the flowery words of Thomas Jefferson. Today Trump supporters like Marjorrie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz with their America First tour are only trying to perpetuate the BIG LIES that go back to the beginning of the country. They didn't start with Trump. He only exemplified them, and now Republicans are doing their best to carry on that American tradition.

Off the Top of My Head

The Solution to Gun Violence in America

by John Lawrence

The government should simply buy out the gun industry. According to Fortune Business Insights: "The global guns and accessories market size was $6.14 billion in 2019 and is projected to reach $9.33 billion by 2027." So for just $10 billion or so, the US government could buy out the gun industry and shut it down except for those guns that are needed by police and the military. Without lobbying and campaign donations to Republican Congressmen, political support for guns would quickly dry up, and gun sales could be carefully controlled by the government. Throw in another $10 billion to buy back guns that are already on the street, and for a measly $20 billion the government could buy up the gun industry and get guns off the street. Or a billionaire could do it. With the government spending trillions of dollars on an annual basis, $20 billion is peanuts in order to solve the gun violence epidemic in America. It would also be peanuts for a consortium of billionaires. Bill Gates is an advocate for global health and eliminating global disease. He could singlehandedly eliminate this one.

Other countries are capable of controlling the sale, distribution and licensing of guns in rational manners. Only in the US is there a literal fury about the right to own a gun as if it were a sine qua non more precious than food or water. There have been 47 mass murders in the last month, and it will only be getting worse without control of gun distribution. Why not replace the right to gun ownership by the right to health care and the right to adequate housing? We have the world's worst and most expensive health care system with the pharmaceutical industry along with the car industry practically supporting network television with ads. It would be better to eliminate pharmaceutical ads like they used to be disallowed before Republicans made them legal. These ads have been generating a nation of hypochondriacs. Sickness is becoming a booming entrepreneurial industry. Better to encourage the American population to have more healthy lifestyles.

Sad to say but the US is becoming a second rate nation incapable of maintaining public order. Liberty has gotten out of hand. There can be too much of anything, and Republicans have doubled down on the Second Amendment despite mass violence which is draining the life and security out of the American people. No one is safe and secure any more as long as mentally disturbed people have the right to buy guns. Republican demands for liberty are also affecting the pandemic response as they demand that Americans go about their business in any way they freely choose despite the best advice from responsible experts on pandemics. Rights should be balanced with responsibilities but in the US there are no responsibilities expected of citizens. Compulsory voting, also called mandatory voting, is the requirement in some countries that eligible citizens register and vote in elections. Penalties might be imposed on those who fail to do so without a valid reason. According to the CIA World Factbook, 21 countries, including 10 Latin American countries, officially had compulsory voting as of December 2017. Instead the US is doing its best to restrict voting. It is a country getting out of whack with the rest of the world yet pretending it has the right to control the world. Even the vaunted US dollar is losing ground as other countries find workarounds to avoid US sanctions.

Compulsory public service should be required as an alternative to military service. This could be in return for free public education. The US has been turned into an exploiter's dream where everything must be paid for or people have to go into debt or people have to do without the necessities of life if they can't pay. Money talks and shit walks. Instead of a rational public order, we get sold a bill of goods about the need for a bloated military and the right to own guns when the biggest threat to the security of American lives is domestic terrorism and random nuts with guns. In short unless some things are changed, America will lose whatever moral authority it ever had. This is a fast track to second ratedness and moral bankruptcy.

Off the Top of My Head

The Trouble With Belief Systems

by John Lawrence, March 28, 2021

Belief systems lead to cults. A cult can be defined as a group of people who all fervently believe the same things although there is no objective proof for any of their beliefs. People who believe Trump won the election are members of a cult. People who believe their religion is the only correct and true religion and everyone who does not accept their belief system is going to Hell are members of a cult. A lot of wars have been fought because members of one cult dehumanized members of another cult. The European wars of the 16th century were fought because Catholics and Protestants could not accept that there were people who did not have the same cult beliefs as they did. The 30 years war was a war between Protestants and Catholics. The Crusades were wars between Christians and Muslims. People who hold belief systems fervently cannot accept the fact that there are other people in the world who don't hold their same belief system.

There are some things that are unknowable, at least at this point in time, and they form fertile ground for some one or one to develop a belief system around. Charlatans and manipulators realize that there is money to be made by claiming to assuage peoples' anxieties. One of the biggest unknowables is what happens to us after we die. Another is is there a God or, if there is, is He a judgmental or a loving God? The Founding Fathers of the US, cognizant of the European wars of religion, were mainly Deists. They believed that God created the universe, but was not involved with it after that, the so-called "watchmaker God." Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists include Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was more influenced by the reason-centred Enlightenment than either Adams or Washington. Jefferson also created his own version of the Bible. This Bible was focused only on Jesus, but none of his mystical works. It didn’t include major scenes like the resurrection or ascension to heaven, or miracles like turning water into wine or walking on water. Instead, Jefferson’s Bible focused on Jesus as a man of morals, a teacher whose truths were expressed without the help of miracles or the supernatural powers of God.

Because of our existential anxiety caused by not knowing what's going to happen to us after death or even in this life, belief systems have grown up and attracted adherents. Fervent belief systems are really cults as they exclude and dehumanize people with alternative beliefs. There is no objective proof, but people are willing to kill those who aren't members of their cult. This is from Britannica:

"Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”: I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.''"

The problem with the Trump "true believers" is that they have been sold a bill of goods by those who shamelessly have made money off of feeding this cult a bunch of lies. These people have been conditioned by means of their religion to have a certain set of beliefs which they are willing to fight over. These beliefs coincide with a way of life predicated on an American version of history and an American narrative in which America is a shining city on a hill and a beacon of veracity and truth to the rest of the world. They believe in an America also which is fundamentally white like it's always been in their minds, but that's not the reality any more. American history is not all that noble. Indians were robbed of their lands and Africans were brought here and used as slaves. After they were freed, supposedly, Jim Crow laws made sure that they remained second class citizens. So there is  clash of belief systems. There are those who think the great and noble sentiments expressed by our Founding Fathers should not apply to everyone equally and those who point out the hypocrisy of not doing so.

The problem really is with belief systems which turn into cults. The way forward is really the one expressed by Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" With deference to Mission Impossible: your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to make the world a better place for this and future generations without regard to belief systems or ideology. Your vaunted way of life, as perceived to have existed in the past, is irrelevant.

Off the Top of My Head

Pence Will Likely Not Pardon Trump Even If He Resigns

by John Lawrence, January 11, 2021

When Richard Nixon resigned his Presidency in 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford pardoned him for any and all crimes connected with the Watergate break-in. But this will not happen in Trump's case because he threw Pence under the bus in the January 6 insurrection. Trump has immense criminal and legal liability for his actions on that day. As Pence presided over the Senate, domestic terrorists were breaking in and chanting "Hang Mike Pence." Pence's life as well as those of Congress persons, staff and others were in danger. Pence's wife, daughter and other family members were in the Capitol that day. Yet Trump never called Pence to warn him, check on him, see how he was doing, make sure he and his family were safe. Reportedly, he hasn't spoken to Pence since.

So it remains to be seen how many people Trump will pardon on his way out the door. Probably family members and Rudy Giuliani but not any of the rioters. Even though they were doing his bidding, he cares nothing for them. He used them; they were just tools as far as he was concerned. The people who spoke at Trump's "Save America" rally, including Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama who declared: “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass", are certainly culpable. But I don't think Trump will pardon him. He'll just be thrown under the bus like many of Trump's other friends and associates.

The people marching through the halls of Congress carrying flags and chanting "USA. USA." are not patriots. To be a patriot it is not enough to carry a flag and shout USA. The true patriots were the Congress persons themselves who didn't let a little insurrection that put their lives in danger prevent or deter them from carrying out the nation's business certifying Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the next President and Vice President of the United States. I wrote previously, "What is patriotism? Is it just saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, getting choked up when the US wins a gold medal at the Olympics, stuff like that? All these expressions of patriotism are merely lip service. They are insubstantial. Or is it patriotic, as George W Bush said, to go shopping?"  I have suggested that what we need is a planetary patriotism. We must care about the whole planet and its peoples especially in view of the threats which affect the whole planet: pandemics and global warming. We need also to be concerned about people living in poverty planet wide, and about the 70 million people who are refugees largely due to US started wars in the Middle East and their continuations.

The US has lost the moral high ground and shouldn't be lecturing the rest of the world about human rights. The US has many human rights problems itself including the disenfranchisement of African American and Native Americans both politically and economically. I expect that the Biden administration will do much more to create peace in the world and use diplomacy than the Trump administration, which attempted to bully other countries. Sanctions also should be taken off the table. If we can have treaties with Russia over nuclear weapons, why can't we have a treaty over internet hacking? The  trillion dollars a year we spend on the military-industrial complex did nothing to stop the pandemic or domestic terrorism. The enemy is not so much out there as it is in here. The US needs to get on the right track and associate peacefully with other countries in order to combat our mutual enemy - global warming. We need to create peace in the world, not fuel petty animosities and cold wars. The true threat is domestic terrorism not terrorism from abroad. Money needs to be spent on the former rather than the latter.

I wrote previously:

Patriotism as now defined is based on militarism. Patriotic displays are expressions of militarism. Love of country is expressed in jingoistic terms: "We're number one!" Instead, war and militarism should be thought of as necessary evils instead of exalting them. The goal should be to eliminate them while at the same time building the foundations for peace and prosperity in the world. There should be opportunities for those who want to serve their country by eliminating poverty, building infrastructure, saving the environment, curing the sick and extending helping hands to the underserved and downtrodden."

"God bless America."

Off the Top of My Head

There is No Such Thing as a National Solution to a Global Crisis

by John Lawrence, October 9, 2020

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation announced its 2020 Goalkeepers report with the above words. COVID-19 has killed more than 850,000 people worldwide. Every year until this one the world has made progress towards reducing poverty and disease. Notice the Gates foundation emphasis on the world as one coherent unified organism rather than just on US national boundaries. The pandemic knows no national boundaries. Until it's stamped out worldwide, the US is vulnerable. The foolishness of spending a trillion dollars a year on the US military which was powerless to do anything about the pandemic has been demonstrated. International cooperation is crucial to ending this pandemic, as well as others which are likely to follow, and reducing the conditions of poverty and disease in the world which breed war and terrorism. When will the US get its priorities straight?

The Goalkeepers report tracked 18 indicators included in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In recent years, the world has improved on every single one. This year, on the vast majority, we’ve regressed.There is also a worldwide recession that the military and military-industrial complex is powerless to do anything about. The US is not an island. Pandemics, global warming - these are problems affecting the whole world not just the US. Nations that have the resources need to assist other nations that don't have the resources. That means that the developed world has to help the developing world to combat these problems: disease, poverty, weaponization, global warming.

In 2015, 193 world leaders agreed to a series of 17 ambitious goals to end poverty, fight inequality, and stop climate change by 2030. The Global Goals are within our reach, but we must remain committed—embracing what works and addressing what doesn’t, while holding ourselves and others accountable. In 2016 President Trump dropped out of global cooperation with his America First policy. That has gotten the US nowhere. Whichever countries handle the pandemic intelligently are going to come out of the recession as world leaders. That won't be the US unless Joe Biden gets elected and is able to turn the shambles of Trump's response to the pandemic around.

The first and most important goal is ending poverty. Eradicating poverty is not a task of charity, it's an act of justice and the key to unlocking an enormous human potential. Still, nearly half of the world’s population lives in poverty, and lack of food and clean water is killing thousands every single day of the year. Together, we can feed the hungry, wipe out disease and give everyone in the world a chance to prosper and live a productive and rich life. The second goal is zero hunger. Hunger is the leading cause of death in the world. Our planet has provided us with tremendous resources, but unequal access and inefficient handling leaves millions of people malnourished. If we promote sustainable agriculture with modern technologies and fair distribution systems, we can sustain the whole world’s population and make sure that nobody will ever suffer from hunger again.

The third goal is good health and well-being. Over the last 15 years, the number of childhood deaths has been cut in half. This proves that it is possible to win the fight against almost every disease. Still, we are spending an astonishing amount of money and resources on treating illnesses that are surprisingly easy to prevent. The new goal for worldwide Good Health promotes healthy lifestyles, preventive measures and modern, efficient healthcare for everyone. The fourth goal is quality education. Education liberates the intellect, unlocks the imagination and is fundamental for self-respect. It is the key to prosperity and opens a world of opportunities, making it possible for each of us to contribute to a progressive, healthy society. Learning benefits every human being and should be available to all.

The fifth goal is gender equality. Gender bias is undermining our social fabric and devalues all of us. It is not just a human rights issue; it is a tremendous waste of the world’s human potential. By denying women equal rights, we deny half the population a chance to live life at its fullest. Political, economic and social equality for women will benefit all the world’s citizens. Together we can eradicate prejudice and work for equal rights and respect for all. The sixth goal is clean water and sanitation. This will require major infrastructure development. It's not rocket science. The techniques involved are well known in the developed world. One in three people live without sanitation. This is causing unnecessary disease and death. Although huge strides have been made with access to clean drinking water, lack of sanitation is undermining these advances. If we provide affordable equipment and education in hygiene practices, we can stop this senseless suffering and loss of life.

Actually I would put clean water and sanitation right up there with ending poverty. It would put an end to many of the diseases that occur in the underdeveloped world. The emphasis on healthy living and basic creature comforts needs to spearhead the use of resources worldwide. That means that developed nations have to give back to the underdeveloped ones instead of putting their further enjoyment and well being first which is the gist of America First. Global cooperation to combat global problems needs to take precedence over preparations for war and bullying other nations by the most powerful ones. The negligence and incompetence with which Trump has treated the COVID pandemic, the withdrawal of the US from universal institutions, almost assures that the US will assume a secondary status in the world unless the next administration can make up for the damage Trump has done and set us on a new and more constructive course.

Off the Top of My Head

What is Justice for George Floyd?

by John Lawrence, June 4, 2020

I just listened to the Reverend Al Sharpton's rousing eulogy for George Floyd. He said we want justice for George Floyd. All over the world people want justice for George Floyd. Even in bombed out Syria, an artist painted a wall honoring George Floyd. That's significant. It's not justice for George Floyd here in America. It's justice for George Floyd all over the world. That means justice for George in the Middle East, justice for George in Iran, justice for George Floyd in China, in Russia. So what would justice be? Reverend Al quoted Ecclesiastes, "For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heaven. A time to be born and a time to die. A time to plant and a time to harvest. A time to kill and a time to heal." So what would this justice be?

For sure criminal justice system reform. Let's start with a national ban on carotid restraint, a national ban on the knee-to-neck restraint. Yes, but that's not enough. I feel that all this protest energy might just be dissipated unless there are concrete demands on the system. Where is Bernie Sanders when we need him now? He had concrete demands: a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, forgiveness of student loan debt. Most of the protesters both black and white are millenials, the most screwed generation in American history. But who among them would most benefit from these progressive demands? African Americans. They are the Americans who not only suffer from the criminal justice system and the law enforcement system, they are the ones who most suffer from poverty as it was made clear George Floyd's family did. Reforming the criminal justice system is not enough. Reforming the economic system is necessary to redress the grievances of first slavery, then Jim Crow and now the videotaped deaths of so many black people that generated the Black Lives Matter movement.

Black Lives Matter in terms of equal economic justice and millenial lives, both black and white, weighed down with student loan debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy, matter as well. A country which supports a bloated military bureaucracy that consumes a trillion dollars a year while there is 20% unemployment represents a knee on all our necks. Justice for George Floyd has to extend to justice for all those innocent lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria. Justice for George Floyd is justice for the 70 million people, half of them children, in refugee camps. Justice for George is justice for all the poverty stricken in favellas and barrios who can't socially distance. Justice for George Floyd is American acceptance of the United Nations 1948 Declaration of Human Rights which include economic as well as political rights.

Justice for George Floyd is justice for people all over the world: black, white and all shades in between. Justice for George Floyd is justice for people without regard to race, religion or national residence. Justice for George Floyd is electing leaders of our country who will make friends instead of enemies, who will convert swords into plowshares, who will create peace and justice in the world.

Off the Top of My Head

A Jobs Program for Inessential Workers
by John Lawrence, April 30, 2020

Turn inessential workers into essential workers by putting them to work building green infrastructure. This is essential work that is not getting done. Much of the previous inessential work they did is better left undone even in a recovery. It is still inessential. It'll always be inessential compared to what needs to be done in creating and building green infrastructure. Building out solar and wind renewable energy could employ thousands if not millions of people. Repairing roads, bridges, waterways, clean water systems, airports, railroads and all other infrastructure could employ millions. This is essential work that has remained undone despite the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given the US a D rating for infrastructure. High speed rail needs to be built. The widespread adoption of electric cars has to be mandated, and construction of a national electric vehicle charging network to power them has to be built.

Unemployed people still need jobs. Mark Cuban said on CNN this morning that there should be a jobs program similar to that of the New Deal. He is exactly right although he didn't make the necessary connection about the essential work that's still being left undone and the inessential work that doesn't need to be done even in a recovery. Forget Cuban's sports and entertainment enterprises. I hate to tell you that they are basically inessential. What is essential is greatly expanding the public health undertakings of the Federal  government which has been totally behind the curve in this pandemic.

We must ask ourselves what is essential and not go back to a new normal in which all the inessential businesses of the past are brought back just in order to provide employment to the millions who have lost their jobs. The pre-pandemic economy was 70% consumerism. The economy post epidemic should be much less a consumerist economy and much more an investment economy. The four components of gross domestic product are personal consumption, business investment, government spending, and net exports. Of these government spending must be ramped up to provide the essential jobs in infrastructure building as well as in the areas that the pandemic has made clear are indeed essential: health care, education, transportation, agriculture.

Government spending must go up; personal consumption must go down. It's as simple as that. As for business investment, it's a lost cause as business will only do what's profitable for itself as has been made abundantly clear. Investment in fossil fuels and plastics which the big oil companies are making is only destructive to a green economy, not constructive. As far as exports are concerned, the dollar has already been weakened as much as it could possibly be by zero interest rates, so increased exports, although desirable, are not likely to happen any time soon.

Private enterprise knows only one thing in terms of the economy "reopening": get back to consumer spending. It ain't going to happen. People are still afraid of the virus. The pandemic is not over. They will use their money to pay off debts instead of going in debt to the hilt like they are used to. People will save their money instead of entertaining themselves to death. Why? Maybe they have learned their lesson that a high employment economy predicated on the fact that people will always have a job and always have a prepensity to consume is just a chimera. Rather than living paycheck to paycheck, I hope people will understand that there may come a rainy day, and they need to save for that. That lesson has really been brought home by the coronavirus pandemic.

The true heroes are essential workers not the military. The military itself was brought to its knees by COBID-19. There is a lesson there. It's more important to spend our collective money on preparing for the coming pandemic of global warming than on a bloated military. It is more important to house the homeless and guarantee the economic rights of shelter and health care to all Americans as in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is more important to help people all over the world escape from extreme poverty because poverty breeds health crises which then can spread all over the world. It's more important to make peace with our rivals rather than try to control them with military threats and sanctions.

May the next President (and I hope to heaven that it's not Donald Trump) see the light of a more rational, compassionate and humane world, one more concerned about the health and welfare of all the world's peoples. I hope Governor Cuomo's values of being tough, smart, disciplined and most importantly loving spread to every corner of US and world society, and we get on with essential business instead of the inessential business of amusing, entertaining and consuming ourselves to death.

Off the Top of My Head

When The Pandemic Is Over, The World Must Come Together

by John Lawrence, April 28, 2020

These are the fateful words of Mikhail Gorbachev, Nobel Prize Laureate and the first and only President of the Soviet Union. Recently, he recalled how the threat of nuclear war was reduced by the treaties in the 1980s made possible by his friendly relationship with Ronald Reagan. Writing in Time magazine, he said, "The leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union declared that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought." Despite the fact that the Cold War was declared to be over, the neocons running foreign policy today have been doing their best to create another one. The pandemic has made it clear that there are more important challenges than U.S.-Russian rivalry, and that the world has more to gain by cooperating even with supposed enemies or rivals than it does by perpetuating idiotic animosities. We have common enemies that affect us all with the coronavirus pandemic being just one of them.

Gorbachev mentioned "poverty and inequality, the degradation of the environment, the depletion of the earth and the oceans." Global warming is an existential threat that must be addressed now or there won't be a habitable earth left to fight over. "We have so far failed to develop and implement strategies and goals common to all mankind." Not only that the U.S. under Trump has retreated from any kind of cooperation with the other nations of the earth even our supposed allies. Instead U.S. foreign policy has been based on ordering other nations around as if we were the supreme bully. Trump's latest blunder is to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) in the middle of a pandemic.

"Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, adopted by the U.N. in 2000, has been extremely uneven." The U.S. under Trump does not really support the U.N. in any way because it wants to be the ruler of nations not part of an organization that attempts to have a forum for the cooperation of nations. The United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000 commits world leaders to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women. The Eight Millennium Development Goals are:

• to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
• to achieve universal primary education;
• to promote gender equality and empower women;
• to reduce child mortality;
• to improve maternal health;
• to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases;
• to ensure environmental sustainability; and
• to develop a global partnership for development.

I had never even heard of the Eight Millennium Development Goals although I think I'm pretty well informed. All of the media time spent on Trump's self-serving bragging could have been better spent informing us about this WHO program. But instead the media spends its time either chastising Trump's stupidity or praising his glory depending on which channel you watch. He has changed from campaign rallies to hour long daily commercials for himself.

"What we urgently need now is a rethinking of the entire concept of security. Even after the end of the Cold War, it has been envisioned mostly in military terms." Yes, military hubris crowds out any prospect of peace let alone a prospect of eliminating extreme poverty. Bill Gates is singlehandedly doing his best to eliminate poverty and disease in the world. He basically is a one man United Nations surrogate. He presciently tried to warn us of the pandemic in a Ted talk. Now he is spending millions of his own money on developing a coronavirus vaccine. There are some good people in the world - even billionaires. That I am sure of. It's just that not a lot of them occupy positions of power in the U.S. government.

Gorbachev continued: "The overriding goal must be human security: providing food, water and a clean environment and caring for people's health. To achieve it, we have to develop strategies, make preparations, plan and create reserves. But all efforts will fail if nations continue to waste money by fueling the arms race. I'll never tire of repeating: we need to demilitarize world affairs, international politics and political thinking."

Gorbachev is calling on national leaders to cut military budgets by 10% to 15%. It is not enough. The mindset, even among Democrats, is that we need a huge military to defend ourselves from perceived threats and perceived enemies. They don't have the mindset that they could make the world a better place by defusing tensions among nations that they perceive as threats. It might start by apologizing to Iran for overthrowing their democratically elected leader Mossaddegh and installing the brutal Shah. That would go a long way to establishing a peaceful relationship with Iran. It could start there. Instead the U.S. only fuels tensions by applying sanctions and carrying on like the rest of the world should bow down to the almighty dollar.

The Promising Cuba/US Cooperation on Cancer

Published on Sunday, April 12, 2020

by Common Dreams

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that medical care is a human right."

by César Chelala

 

7 Comments

Cuban doctor Liz Caballero and student Susana Diaz leave El Vedado polyclinic in Havana on March 31, 2020. (Photo: Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images)

In 1991, I headed a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) mission of Latin American physicians to evaluate a national Cuban project involving the use of interferon to treat inoperable lung cancer. At the time, there was a rumor that Fidel Castro had lung cancer was particularly interested in the research about it. Castro showed his interest, in part, when he came to visit us and discussed the findings. At the time, interferon didn’t seem to have a significant effect, but Cuban doctors persisted in their search and, even with limited resources, they have now developed a new treatment for lung cancer that shows promising results.

In September of 2011, the Chinese press agency Xinhua reported that Cuban doctors had produced the first therapeutic vaccine for lung cancer called CIMAvax-EGF. It was the result of a 25-year research project at Havana’s Center for Molecular Immunology. Although the vaccine doesn’t prevent lung cancer from developing in new patients, it turns later-stage lung cancer, specifically non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) into a controllable chronic disease.

The vaccine contains a protein called epidermal growth factor (EGF). This substance stimulates the growth of normal cells. However, when present in excess in tumors, it causes them to multiply and grow without control. The Cuban doctors’ original approach was to pair EGF and a protein from the meningitis bacteria. When they enter the bloodstream of patients, this protein encourages their immune system to produce antibodies against the combined molecule, thus suppressing the effects of excessive EGF in the tumor cells. As a result, the vaccine doesn’t eliminate the tumors but prevents them from growing and spreading to other parts of the body.

The vaccine is given to people who already have lung cancer and where the traditional treatments have proven to be ineffective. For these types of patients, the vaccine could be a life saver. Unlike other immunotherapies, this technique uses the patients’ own antibodies, rather than using manufactured ones, thus having less side effects and being much cheaper to produce.

The vaccine, which is now available in Cuba, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru and Paraguay, is relatively cheap to produce and store, and produces only very mild side effects such as nausea, chills, fever, and lack of energy. There are now agreements to test it in the United States, Japan, and some European countries.

 

Initial trials have shown a trend towards longer survival among vaccinated test subjects. Also, a direct correlation has been found between the level of antibodies that a vaccinated patient has produced against EGF and survival. Other trials have shown that those under 60 benefit the most in terms of survival. However, researchers caution that some early positive results to date have been found in relatively few cancer patients who were carefully selected and given special oncology care. They may not represent all the patients who could benefit from this vaccine.

Trials are currently being planned in the United States, Japan, the European Union and Serbia. In late October 2016, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, to conduct a Phase I/II clinical trial of CIMAvax in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. “The chance to evaluate a vaccine like this is a very exciting prospect,” declared Candace Johnson, President and CEO of Roswell Park.

The same epidermal growth factor (EGF) acting on the lungs could play a role also on prostate, breast, colon and pancreatic cancer, thus opening a vast array of practical applications. Kelvin Lee, an immunologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center indicated that all these organs could be potential targets for this vaccine.

During several trips to Cuba on UN public health-related missions, I have had the opportunity to work with several Cuban physicians and became aware of their high commitment to public health. As Dr. Kelvin Lee has said, “The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that medical care is a human right.”

The collaboration between the Cuban doctors and those at the Roswell Cancer Center is a promising one. But there are still several hurdles to overcome in large part because of the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Researchers at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center had to wait four years to obtain the government approval for clinical trials of the CIMAvax vaccine. Clearing the path to an effective collaboration may result in one of the most important advances to combat cancer in our time.

Dr. César Chelala is an international public health consultant, co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award and two national journalism awards from Argentina.

Off the Top of My Head

In the Age of Pandemic Has War Become a Luxury?

by John Lawrence, April 12, 2020

Saudi Arabia and Yemen have declared a cease fire. Sailors are becoming infected on aircraft carriers. War planning requires groupings of military people. So has war become a luxury we can no longer afford? Are we really "all in this together"? Does the pandemic require cooperation among all nations since the pandemic doesn't respect national borders? Will the pandemic, when it's over, have changed the way human beings conduct their affairs in the world or will we get back to business as usual. If the pandemic engenders cooperation instead of rivalry among the nations of the world, does this mean that we will all be socialists or communists? Does it even matter?

If the pandemic makes us realize that war is a useless exercise with few benefits, will the US military-industrial complex be defunded. Will the money then go to health care workers, to Peace Corps and AmeriCorps workers who will attempt to bring clean water and modern sanitary systems to developing countries? Will there be a push to create more sanitary conditions in the world so that pandemics don't get started? Plagues and pandemics before have motivated people to build modern sanitary systems in places like London and New York in the 19th century where urban populations in close proximity created the conditions of cholera and bubonic plague. Is homelessness a social situation we can no longer afford?

Will the meaning of 'essential services' become normalized in the economy post corinavirus? What then will be considered essential and what could we live without? As long as there is no vaccine for coronavirus, new cases will continue to crop up even after the economy has "reopened." The flu epidemic of 1918 lasted 10 months and had several spikes. We can expect more spikes in the current pandemic until there are widespread vaccinations available. So what is essential? Sports events? Cruises? Rock concerts? Movie theaters? Now with Netflix and Amazon prime we can watch movies at home. Any movie we want to see. I'm catching up on all the great movies I've missed over the years. Last night I watched "To Catch a Thief" with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. Free on Amazon Prime. The fidelity  both video and audio was excellent on my smart TV. I have no need to go to a movie theater where I can't control the volume. Hint: they are too loud.

Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that cooperation among peoples and nations is more important than manufactured rivalries over some nation's form of government. Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that diplomacy is more important, getting along is more important and winning isn't everything. Maybe now public health and human rights can be seen as more important than having everyone pull themselves up only by their own bootstraps. Maybe we can get on with the business of cooperating to combat the real enemy - climate change and even future pandemics. Maybe we will bring the US infrastructure into the modern world with a Green New Deal. Maybe we can finally grow up and have a consensus about what is really important, what really matters. Maybe doctors, nurses, caregivers, and social workers will come to be seen as more important that Wall Street brokers, the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps as more important than the War Corps. As Governor Cuomo says, "Love will conquer all." Happy Easter.

Off the Top of My Head

Bernie Socks It To Them

by John Lawrence, February 25, 2020

The critics have piled on Bernie about how he's going to pay for his proposals for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, forgiving student loan debt and free college tuition. Now Bernie has come out with a detailed plan about how to do it. The obvious answer is how do other countries do it? Most other advanced countries have free universal health care and free college tuition. They take it for granted. I had some passengers from Calgary, Alberta whom I asked 'how do you like the Canadian health care system?'. He replied, "It's free." I said, "Yeah, but don't you have to pay for it in your taxes?" He said, "I guess so." So he wasn't really concerned that he was paying taxes through the nose to pay for "free" health care. He didn't even know what percentage of his taxes went to health care. I suspect that once the tax structure changes here so that rich people pay more and poor people pay less that everything will be like that too.

It will cost $2.2 trillion to make public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free and to cancel all student debt over the next decade. It is fully paid for by a modest tax on Wall Street speculation that will raise an estimated $2.4 trillion over ten years. A Financial Transaction Tax has been talked about for years. Bernie is the only one bold enough to actually make it part of his campaign platform. It needs to be done. The financialization of the economy is what led to the 2008 economic debacle in which the banks were bailed out by the American people to the tune of trillions of dollars. So now even though it's years later, let them pay to bail out the American people. It's a good thing.

Bernie’s bill to expand Social Security will increase benefits for low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities by more than $1,300 a year. It is fully paid for by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans – those with incomes over $250,000 a year – pay the same rate into Social Security as working families. I like that a lot. Right now even though I'm still working and paying into social security, I'm receiving less than $700. a month in social security. Another $1300. a month would bring my social security up to $2000. a month. Why it's even enough to rent an apartment!

Bernie’s proposal to guarantee housing as a human right and to eliminate homelessness will cost $2.5 trillion over the next decade. It is fully paid for by a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent – those who have a net worth of at least $32 million. (Bernie’s wealth tax will raise a total of $4.35 trillion.) A wealth tax on the rich! I love it. Eliminating homelessness and finally implementing the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights - priceless! It's time the millionaires and billionaires paid to eliminate poverty in this country. The wealth tax will also pay for universal child care and pre-school. By the way maybe the Congress should get on board and finally ratify the 1948 Declaration.

The Green New Deal will transform this country and be the first step in saving the planet from ultimate destruction. It needs to be extended to the rest of the world eventually as well. We need to cooperate with other countries to implement it and share renewable energy technology. This means joining China's Belt and Road initiative in terms of making sure everything under development is based on renewable energy and is non-polluting. It goes without saying that the US should rejoin the Paris Accords on climate change, but extend it even further.

All in all Bernie's plans are a wonderful and refreshing change of pace for the US of A and the rest of the world. If they come to pass, i will be proud of my country again for implementing both humanitarian policies and policies which will save the earth from a global warming catastrophe.

Off the Top of My Head

Affordable Housing or Public Housing?

by John Lawrence, February 7, 2020

We here a lot of talk about how we need more affordable housing, but what they are talking about is housing provided by the free market. Affordable housing and the free market are oxymorons. The free market builds houses for profit. Any profitably built housing in today's market is almost by definition unaffordable, and most developers have taken advantage of whatever subsidies government has offered with the result that housing is only getting more unaffordable. Public housing, on the other hand, is housing built by government which can charge whatever rent they want to. They can charge zero rent for the homeless if they want to or charge modest rents for people with modest incomes. Although public housing was built in the past, hardly any is being built today, but it is the only solution that would really work.

Public housing would act as a damper to privately developed housing. Since it would be priced cheaper than the market, it would tend to bring down the price of housing on the market. Market forces today are just propelling the price of housing upward. Public housing as a competitor in the market would bring the cost of market based housing down.

There have been problems with public housing in the past. The most notorious public housing development was the Cabrini-Green project in Chicago. Over the years, crime, gang violence and neglect created deplorable living conditions for the residents, and "Cabrini–Green" became a metonym for the problems associated with public housing in the United States. The last of the buildings in Cabrini–Green were demolished in 2011. Any public housing built today should have both security and proper maintenance. We might ask why was the Cabrini-Green project "neglected?" Proper maintenance and security would both have to be provided to insure the safety and comfort of residents.

But the real problem is that Republicans will block, to the extent they are able, any expenditure of public money on anything. They don't want government competing with the free market. That's why the problem of homelessness has not been solved. Market based housing will never be affordable by the homeless and increasingly it's becoming unaffordable for the lower middle class which is one disaster away from slipping into homelessness. The US already has a Department of Housing and Urban Development so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. It is just totally underfunded. That's the problem. Of course it is another department that Republicans want to get rid of. The budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is $44.2 billion in fiscal 2019, a complete drop in the bucket compared to the trillion dollar budget of the military and the military-industrial complex.

It's all about priorities. Tokenism for housing for the poor. Trillion dollar budgets for war and war related activities. Section 8 rental assistance is a joke. The website for San Diego says "Selected applicants will be placed on the waiting list by date and time of application submission, by order of preferences. The wait to receive assistance [for Section 8 rental assistance] may be 8-10 years or more, depending on the funding levels..." Most of the applicants are dead before they become eligible.

If we get serious about affordable housing, we will build public housing. That's housing that is government owned and operated as opposed to developer built and privately managed "affordable" housing. For single people, housing similar to Single Room Occupancy hotels (SROs) is adequate. Tenants share a kitchen, toilets or bathrooms. SRO units range from 80 to 140 square feet. They  may have a small refrigerator, microwave and sink. There has been an increasing displacement of SRO units aimed at low-income earners due to gentrification, with SRO facilities being sold and turned into condominiums. Between 1955 and 2013, almost one million SRO units were eliminated in the US due to regulation, conversion or demolition.

SROs need to be rebuilt as public housing units. For families, obviously, larger units should be made available. Homelessness in America should be regarded as a crime and a shame. In addition to health care and education, having a home should be a human right. So says the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Of course the official US policy is that it doesn't agree. Rather that's the Republican policy. Democrats, led by Bernie Sanders, are coming around to the position that maybe the US should agree with the UN Declaration also.

Off the Top of My Head

Democratic Socialism in America

by John Lawrence, December 2, 2019

The Democratic Socialist period in America took place between the two gilded ages. The first gilded age was in the 1890s when you had incredible fortunes being made by Andrew Carnegie, Jay Gould, John Rockefeller and others. The second one is today when you have incredible fortunes being made by Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and others. In between was the Democratic Socialist era presided over by the Democratic administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But progress breeds poverty, and the first gilded age led to the Great Depression. His administration oversaw the tools that brought America out of the Great Depression. Tools like the Works Progress Administration which built schools and civic buildings all over America including San Diego's County Administration Building and the Wantage school where I attended as a child and where my Dad was fortunate enough to have gotten the principal's and later the superintendent's job.

But progress breeds poverty, and the first gilded age led to the Great Depression. FDR's vice President was Henry Wallace, a committed Democratic Socialist in the Bernie Sanders mold or rather Bernie Sanders is in his mold. He used the term "economic democracy." While vice President in 1942 he gave a speech at Madison Square Garden in New York City in which he said "The new democracy, the democracy of the common man, includes not only the Bill of Rights but also economic democracy, ethnic democracy, education democracy and democracy in the treatment of the sexes." In 1942 President Roosevelt delivered the Four Freedoms speech in which he declared that there should be not only freedom of speech and freedom of worship but freedom from want and freedom from fear. After WW II, these ideas which amounted to economic guarantees by government in addition to the guarantees provided by the Bill of Rights were embedded in the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights.

Article 22 and 23 say;

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

There was an excellent documentary on Nova about violence - "The Violence Paradox" presided over by Steven Pinker who claims that violence has decreased over the millennia. When the data was looked at more closely they found that there were pockets of violence within a larger area that was mostly peaceful. Where were these pockets of violence? In places where there was enormous economic inequality compared to surrounding areas and enormous poverty. Makes sense, doesn't it? Such areas as the south side of Chicago which is mostly comprised of poor African Americans living side by side with the rich areas of Lake Forest and Oak Brook. The same goes for Detroit in which the worst area to live in is Forest Park. In Forest Park 94.42% of the population is Black or African American. On the other hand Grosse Pointe Shores, a Detroit suburb is the wealthiest town in Michigan. The overall crime rate in Forest Park is 275% higher than the national average. So there you go.

The legacy of racism is still extant in the US and manifests itself in gun violence in poor neighborhoods comprised mostly of African Americans. So who is doing something about it? The main idea is could violence be treated in the same way as infectious diseases for which the most important thing is to detect the first case and cut it off there before it spreads. With violence one shooting leads to revenge shootings which lead to more revenge shootings etc so if there could be an intervention after the first shooting, then maybe the others could be prevented. So a new kind of health worker has been invented - a violence interrupter.

Safe Streets Baltimore is doing just that. These guys who know the streets identify the hot spots and intervene to try to resolve problems before they escalate. They deserve a lot of credit. They are putting their own lives at risk. They know that the precipitating factors are lack of economic opportunities, lack of education, lack of all the things they have in the wealthier communities. Cure Violence International is working on the same principles around the world. But the root problem is the same. People take to street crime because they don't have the things other people take for granted - a roof over their head, proper nutrition, education, health care including mental health care, a good job, a community that cares.

Back to my first point. Bernie Sanders and his philosophy of democratic socialism is nothing new, therefore, nothing radical. It has been made to seem that way by radical Republicans and reactionaries who hated FDR, hate the UN, hate anyone or any group that is trying to alleviate poverty and, therefore, violence in the world. But the challenge now is far worse than just the eradication of poverty and violence. If the nations of the world can't cooperate and work together to ameliorate global warming, then the whole earth and its peoples don't have a chance. This calls for putting nation state conflicts aside and massive government collaboration on a global scale. We can't afford to dither while the economic forces of the elite are all about making more billions for themselves. This goes hand in hand with eliminating poverty in the world and making the whole world a better and safer place.

Off the Top of My Head

What the World Needs Now

by John Lawrence, October 28, 2019

No, we don't need another aircraft carrier. We don't need another Aegis weapon system. We don't need a Paladin tank. What the world needs now is proper sanitation. An estimated 1.8 billion people (25% of the world's population) don't have access to adequate sanitation. They have no running water. They have no flush toilets. Because of this, approximately 140 million people develop dysentery each year, and about 600,000 die. Most of these deaths occur in developing countries among children under age five. They all die for lack of something we take for granted - a flush toilet and an adequate sanitation system. Access to safe sanitation reduces child diarrhea by 30 percent and significantly increases school attendance by the way. 

Because latrines in developing countries are such gross and smelly places, about 892 million people, or 12 percent of the global population, practice open defecation. Seventy-six percent (678 million) of the 892 million people practicing open defecation in the world live in just seven countries, India being the largest. What happens with the latrines is that the poop is hand scooped out and dumped in the rivers where it contaminates the water that children play in, and they get dysentery. All for the lack of something that Americans and Europeans take for granted - a flush toilet.

Clean water and adequate sanitation should be the basics provided to every human being worldwide. Instead the US is more concerned with the development of weapons systems. It took one very wealthy and intelligent American, namely Bill Gates, to decide to do something about this problem. He attacked it with all the considerable resources at his disposal and came up with a sanitary toilet that required no electricity or running water. Also a sanitation system was developed that required no electricity or running water. The problem was that these inventions were too expensive to deploy on a mass basis.

Gates has also done much to eradicate polio in the world. Again due to his considerable mental and financial resources, polio was almost eradicated in Nigeria until Boko Haram intervened and started killing vaccination workers. In India polio has been entirely eradicated. In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was launched, polio was present in more than 125 countries and paralyzed about 1,000 children per day. Thanks to immunization efforts that have reached nearly 3 billion children, the incidence of polio has decreased by 99 percent since then. India, which was long considered the most difficult place to end the disease, hasn’t reported a polio case since 2011. Today, polio is found only in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria. These are the exact places that terrorism runs rampant. Maybe a functioning sanitation system would go a long way to eliminate terrorism as well.

But why isn't the United States with its considerable resources doing more to improve the lives of the world's population thus eliminating the breeding grounds for terrorism? There is USAID started by President John Kennedy. In FY 2016, USAID invested more than $441.5 million toward water and sanitation efforts in 47 countries and regions, including 13 high-priority countries. The Gates Foundation in and of itself spends almost that much in this area. Surely, a great country like the US could do a lot more. It spends 10,000 times as much on weapons systems development as it does on the development of basic life saving sanitation and clean water systems in the developing world. These are the US national priorities.

Bill Gates is trying to reinvent the toilet, not exactly a high tech undertaking. This is from the Gates website:

Bill Gates Launches Reinvented Toilet Expo Showcasing New Pathogen-Killing Sanitation Products That Don’t Require Sewers or Water Lines

Gates Foundation and Global Partners Announce Commitments to Advance Commercialization of Disruptive, Off-Grid Toilet Technologies

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

206-709-3400

media@gatesfoundation.org

follow @gatesfoundation

BEIJING, November 6, 2018 – The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), today joined global innovators, development banks, private-sector players, and governments at the Reinvented Toilet Expo in Beijing. Together, they committed to accelerate the commercialization and adoption of disruptive sanitation technologies world-wide over the next decade. Rapid expansion of new, off-grid sanitation products and systems could dramatically reduce the global human and economic toll of unsafe sanitation, including the deaths of half a million children under the age of 5 each year and the more than $200 billion that is lost due to health care costs and decreased income and productivity.

Note how involved China is. If the US wants to make America great again, perhaps they should take a page out of China's book and participate in making the world a better place instead of just a better place for US weapons sales. China is taking a leading role in making the world a better place with its Belt and Road initiative and now with its efforts to reinvent the toilet. All the US is trying to do is to slow down China in a pathetic attempt to compete with them.

Off the Top of My Head

Dependence and Homelessness

by John Lawrence, July 20, 2019

It seems to me that there are those who can fend for themselves in life and those, for whatever reasons, that can't. There are the obvious people who can't fend for themselves and are dependent on their families, society, charity or the kindness of strangers. The obvious ones are babies who are totally dependent on their mothers. Then there are old people who are too decrepit mentally or physically or both who need someone(s) to care for them. Adults can usually fend for themselves. But there are exceptions. Take my sister, for example. She suffered severe brain damage at birth and her mental capacity throughout life was never greater than a one and a half year old's. She never learned to talk; she walked unsteadily for only a few years. She fell a lot and had seizures. She was life long dependent on my parents who were saints to have loved and cared for her for a life time.

Many parents with a child like Jeanne would have placed her in an institution like the Kennedys did with Rosemary, sister of John F, Robert and Ted Kennedy, who was mentally disabled. But Jeanne loved her parents so much. They were the only thing she really had in life. They did send her to a "school" for a year when she was a young teenager. This "school" was supposed to teach her something, but I don't know what. Within a year she almost died there, and the school called my parents and told them to come get her. She recovered. I think she would have died of a broken heart because my parents were all that she had and all that she loved in life. She was probably abused at that school because she was physically normal and pretty, and she couldn't tell anyone if she had been abused because she couldn't communicate verbally.

So there are people who have disabilities of one sort or another either mental or physical who deserve to be cared for throughout life not just at the beginning and the end stages. Should society take care of these people if their families can't? In other words should taxpayers? Otherwise, if it were not for saints like my parents, what would happen to them. Jeanne had all the normal emotions. She could laugh; she could cry. She could give and receive love.

Which brings me to the subject of homelessness. There are some people who, for whatever reason, just cannot fend for themselves in life. Or maybe they could fend for themselves under certain conditions and with certain support. That is if they had some kind of support from society. But so many of these people who in former days were cared for by their families today are just forced out on the streets. Hitler would have disposed of all these people in the gas chamber. He was in the process of doing just that in addition to disposing of a lot of perfectly functioning and good people because of their ethnicity. Today's America treats them with Nixon's famous phrase - "benign neglect."

In 21st century America dogs and cats are treated better than homeless people. Only people and corporations with paid lobbyists get any respect from government. The government exists only to support a trillion dollar military-industrial complex and major corporations that can lobby Congress. Taxpayers in general don't want their tax money to go to support people who can't fend for themselves, but they are only all too willing to let their tax money be spent on a dominating military system.

It should be a human right to have a roof over your head or at least to be treated humanely in a society that spends billions of dollars further enriching billionaires. Their money isn't earned by dint of their own hard work. It's earned by dint of lobbying Congress for favorable tax laws and favorable environmental legislation - that is for environmental degradation. The US has not even accepted the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. It does not support the weakest among us. It supports the strongest among us. Homelessness is not the real problem. Most homeless people need a social worker more than they need a "home." They need support from a heartless society that leaves them to vanquish on the streets with benign neglect. But don't ask the taxpayers for that.

The Homegrown Crisis California Refuses to Own

by Robert Scheer, from truthdig, July 5, 2019

Anyone who has spent even a short period of time in California’s cities will immediately notice the homelessness crisis that has grown to stunning proportions in recent years. The “explanation” that’s often thrown around is that people who become homeless travel to the Golden State, where, presumably, the mild weather blunts some of the difficulties of living without a roof over one’s head. But this, like most justifications for inhumane problems, is just that: a justification to make Californians feel slightly less terrible every time they come across a person in need on the streets of some of the wealthiest, most progressive cities in the world.

As Tommy Newman, a lawyer and a senior director at the nonprofit United Way, points out in the latest installment of the “Scheer Intelligence” podcast, a quarter of the nation’s homeless live in California, earning it the shameful moniker of “Homeless Capital of America.”

That’s not the only staggering number related to the issue. “About 70% of the people who are living outside [in Los Angeles County] last lived indoors in L.A. County, and of that subset, 50% lived here for more than a decade indoors,” Newman tells Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer on the podcast. The numbers, which clearly debunk the common rationalization about homelessness, should lead us all to the crucial conclusion Newman has drawn from the statistics.

“This is a homegrown challenge,” he says. “Some people will come here, but if your whole life falls apart and you’re in Iowa, you’re not going to say, ‘All right, well, I’ve lost everything, and now I’m going to California’—you’re stuck.”

Jerry Brown, the state’s four-term governor, considered the crisis so dire that, as Newman points out, he thought that climate change would be solved sooner than homelessness. Newman, however, isn’t willing to give up on the pressing issue, and thanks to his work and that of his colleagues, big changes in both policy and popular opinion have already begun to materialize. Two Los Angeles ballot measures—Proposition HHH and Measure H—aimed at creating affordable housing for thousands—passed in the miraculous span of four months. The efforts to pass these measures were documented in the 2018 film “The Advocates,” in which Newman appears, and which is available for viewing on streaming services. While the progress springing from these policies will take time, Newman warns, it will take place.

One of the main difficulties faced by United Way and others who advocate for helping homeless people is how Californians feel about housing, especially one specific group that is stuck on a suburban Nimbyism and rejects zoning for more affordable multifamily housing.

“It’s white people who are primarily the challenge on this housing question,” Newman tells Scheer. “White people support more multifamily housing, more apartments—whether they’re affordable or not, more apartments—to the tune of about 40%. And people who are not white support apartments to the tune of about 60%. So it is white people who own homes who are the cause of the homelessness crisis, and will need to be a part of the solution in some way, unless we can build a larger coalition around them and create that pressure.”

Scheer, who has lived in California most of his adult life, sees the question of how we approach homelessness amid blatant affluence as one that gets to the core of our humanity.

“The fact of the matter is, we’re kind of in this Dickens world of London,” Scheer says. “We have extreme wealth in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and points in between. And yet we have the most abject misery.

“I do want to encourage people to realize that we are actually talking about a notion of what is civilization,” he adds. “I think that you can’t be a city of the future, which is what L.A. advertises as, [unless you are] welcoming to people who all look different ways, come from different backgrounds, have different skill sets, different employment opportunities.”

Listen to the full discussion between Scheer and Newman about the political, social and economic factors contributing to the Golden State’s most shameful failures to date. You can also read a transcript of the interview below the media player and find past episodes of “Scheer Intelligence” here.

—Introduction by Natasha Hakimi Zapata

---

Robert Scheer, editor in chief of Truthdig, has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his 30 years as a journalist. His columns appear in newspapers across the country, and his in-depth interviews have made headlines. He conducted the famous Playboy magazine interview in which Jimmy Carter confessed to the lust in his heart and he went on to do many interviews for the Los Angeles Times with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and many other prominent political and cultural figures.

Between 1964 and 1969 he was Vietnam correspondent, managing editor and editor in chief of Ramparts magazine. From 1976 to 1993 he served as a national correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, writing on diverse topics such as the Soviet Union, arms control, national politics and the military. In 1993 he launched a nationally syndicated column based at the Los Angeles Times, where he was named a contributing editor. That column ran weekly for the next 12 years and is now based at Truthdig.

Scheer was raised in the Bronx, where he attended public schools and graduated from City College of New York. He studied as a Maxwell Fellow at Syracuse University and was a fellow at the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, where he did graduate work in economics. Scheer is a contributing editor for The Nation as well as a Nation Fellow. He has also been a Poynter Fellow at Yale, and was a fellow in arms control at Stanford.

Scheer received the 2010 Distinguished Work in New Media Award from the Society of Professional Journalists' Greater Los Angeles Chapter, and in 2011 Ithaca College awarded him the Izzy Award for outstanding achievement in independent media.

'Blatant Effort to Intimidate and Retaliate': Pompeo Imposes Visa Ban on ICC Staff Probing US War Crimes

Published on Friday, March 15, 2019 by Common Dreams

"It reeks of the very totalitarian practices that are characteristic of the worst human rights abusers."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

40 Comments

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced new visa restrictions in a press briefing on Friday. (Photo: U.S. State Department)

Human rights defenders expressed outrage on Friday after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed that the Trump administration is revoking or denying visas for any International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel who try to investigate or prosecute U.S. officials or key allies for potential war crimes.

"This is an unprecedented attempt to skirt international accountability for well-documented war crimes that haunt our clients to this day."
—Jamil Dakwar, ACLU

The move, Pompeo confirmed to reporters Friday morning, is a direct response to ongoing efforts by the ICC to probe allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity tied to the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan.

Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU's Human Rights Program, was among those who spoke out against the decision. The ACLU currently represents Khaled El Masri, Suleiman Salim, and Mohamed Ben Soud, who were all detained and tortured in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008.

"This is an unprecedented attempt to skirt international accountability for well-documented war crimes that haunt our clients to this day," Dakwar said. "It reeks of the very totalitarian practices that are characteristic of the worst human rights abusers, and is a blatant effort to intimidate and retaliate against judges, prosecutors, and advocates seeking justice for victims of serious human rights abuses."

Richard Dicker, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, called it "an outrageous effort to bully the court and deter scrutiny of U.S. conduct." He encouraged ICC member countries to "publicly make clear that they will remain undaunted in their support for the ICC and will not tolerate U.S. obstruction."

Daniel Balson, advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, noted that this is just "the latest attack on international justice and international institutions by an administration hellbent on rolling back human rights protections."

Visa bans, as Balson pointed out, are "powerful tools typically reserved for the most serious of human rights abusers."

But rather than targeting global criminals, the Trump administration has set its sights on the ICC—an impartial judicial body that aims to promote accountability under international law by probing and prosecuting crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

"Throwing roadblocks in front of the ICC's investigation undermines justice not only for abuses committed in Afghanistan, but also for the millions of victims and survivors throughout the world who have experienced the most serious crimes under international law."
—Daniel Balson, Amnesty International USA

 

The move is "is highly indicative of [the administration's] culture of disregard for rights abuses," said Balson. "Throwing roadblocks in front of the ICC's investigation undermines justice not only for abuses committed in Afghanistan, but also for the millions of victims and survivors throughout the world who have experienced the most serious crimes under international law."

Pompeo's announcement came after John Bolton, President Donald Trump's national security adviser and a longtime critic of the ICC, threatened to impose sanctions on court officials in September if they continued to pursue an investigation of potential crimes by U.S. civilians or military personnel in Afghanistan.

Echoing Bolton's broader denunciations of the ICC last year, Pompeo on Friday highlighted that the United States—under both Democratic and Republican presidents—has refused to join the court for more than two decades "because of its broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers and the threat it poses to American national sovereignty."

Warning that "the court could eventually pursue politically motivated prosecutions of Americans," the secretary of state told reporters that the Trump administration is "determined to protect the American and allied military and civilian personnel from living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation."

"These visa restrictions may also be used to deter ICC efforts to pursue allied personnel, including Israelis, without allies' consent," Pompeo added. "Implementation of this policy has already begun."

Watch Pompeo's full remarks to the media on Friday:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

A Preferential Option for the Poor?

by John Lawrence, December 27, 2018

Some time ago the Catholic church came out with a pronouncement that there should be a preferential option for the poor. I took that to mean that in policy decisions the poor were to be given preference to the rich. However, the world has not worked out that way. Today we have a preferential option for the rich. The rich and powerful are glorified all over the world from Russian oligarchs to Trump style billionaires. The poor are represented by the phrase "let the devil take the hindermost." In other words to hell with those who fall behind in the glorious race to see who can accumulate the most wealth.

It's clear to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the New Testament of the Bible that Jesus represented the poor and suffering and excoriated the rich. But who knew when the rich and powerful give lip service to Christianity but ignore totally Jesus' teachings. We see a growing number of people living on the streets because they can't afford to rent an apartment. Jesus would have been upset by that. Would he have assaulted the Halls of Congress as a lobbyist for the poor. Would he have called them hypocrites. He probably would have been ushered out by security.

Jesus the Peacemaker, the Prince of Peace, would have been astounded by the trillion dollar military budget, by how many rich mouths are feeding at the military-industrial complex trough. He would have been astounded by the total ignorance both of his own teachings and of scientific data that show the earth to be in jeopardy from global warming. When the worst effects of global warming become manifested, people would probably be imploring him for a miracle. Fantastical thinking as opposed to rational thinking is what the human race always turns to. I'm surprised that they're not waiting for another Messiah to lead them out of the wilderness and deliver them from global warming. But many don't even believe in global warming. Each catastrophe that happens because of it is simply taken as an Act of God, something that has never been seen before, a thousand year event that is becoming increasingly common.

Let's hope that the human race can come to its senses, stop spending money on war and the weapons of war, start converting to renewable energy and start putting the legitimate needs of people first with a preferential option for the poor and homeless and the needs and concerns of the wealthy last. Let's have a Green New Deal.

"These Are Prisons for Babies": Forcibly Separated From Parents, Youngest Kids Sent to So-Called "Tender Age" Detention

Published on Wednesday, June 20, 2018 by Common Dreams

Those who have visited the facilites describe "play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis." 

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

5 Comments

The Associated Press reports that young migrant children forcibly separated from their parents are being sent to facilities that critics described as "prisons for babies." (Photo: @NIJC/Twitter)

Under the Trump administration's cruel and widely condemned family separation policy, immigrant babies and young children torn from their parents at the Southern border have been sent to a trio "tender age" shelters that, according to lawyers and medical professionals who have visited the South Texas facilities, feature "play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis."

"They've created a jail for babies," tweeted ThinkProgress editor and founder Judd Legum, in response to the "absolutely soul-crushing" Associated Press report. "Creating prisons for babies and toddlers is not just another screwed up policy. These are crimes against humanity."

These are prisons for babies.

Prisons. For babies. https://t.co/417dScJZLi

— Women's March (@womensmarch) June 20, 2018

As of Tuesday, at least 2,342 children had been separated from their families since May 5. Images of children in cages and audio of young migrants crying for their parents have fueled international outrage and demands that the administration immediately halt the policy, which critics say amounts to a serious abuse of human rights, and even torture.

With the number of children detained in U.S. custody expected to continue rising as long as the policy remains in place, the AP reports that the government plans to convert a fourth facility in Houston, despite protests from local leaders. Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner says the fourth facility is a warehouse that was used to house people after Hurricane Harvey, and could hold up to 240 children.

Turner has met with the contractor for the fourth shelter, Austin-based Southwest Key Programs—which is reportedly slated to make some $458 million off of operating child detention centers—to ask the nonprofit to reconsider the plans. At a press conference on Tuesday, Turner said he told the contractor: "I do not want to be an enabler in this process. I do not want the city to particiapte in this process."

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner voiced opposition to a plan to house migrant children separated from their families at the border in a private facility in his city, saying he doesn't want to be an "enabler" of the Trump administration practice https://t.co/xoN842gUSM pic.twitter.com/nv9vhIHuJS

— CNN (@CNN) June 20, 2018

"The thought that they are going to be putting such little kids in an institutional setting? I mean it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around it," Kay Bellor of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which organizes foster care and other services to migrant children, told the AP. "Toddlers are being detained."

Toddlers are being detained. Toddlers.

This is why we filed a class action. This is why we won’t stop fighting until families are reunited.#FamiliesBelongTogetherhttps://t.co/hHTpmBB7jB

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 20, 2018

The three existing facilities for young migrants are located in Combes, Raymondville, and Brownsville, and, according to the report, "have been rapidly repurposed to serve needs of children including some under 5."

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who recently attempted to visit a facility in Texas, called out Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen—who has been sharply ridiculed for lying about then defending the family separation policy, and even left a Mexican restaurant where she was dining Tuesday evening after being confronted by members of the Democratic Socialists of America's Metro D.C chapter.

Taking babies from their moms and putting them in mass shelters is horrific. @SecNielsen: Look in a mirror. Is this how you want to be remembered?https://t.co/i5YVxkJ4E8

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) June 20, 2018

While the Trump administration continues to claim the policy is necessary to deter immigrants from coming to the United States and that the shelters are specially equipped to meet the needs of children—despite news reports to the contrary—as South Texas pediatrician Marsha Griffin, who has visited many facilities, concluded, "The shelters aren't the problem, it's taking kids from their parents that's the problem."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow broke down on air Tuesday night while trying to read the breaking AP report to her viewers. Maddow addressed the moment in a series of tweets following the broadcast.

This is the clip of Rachel Maddow in tears when she found out about the report of "tender age" shelters for babies and young children separated from their parents.pic.twitter.com/ELMj1ylrwT

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) June 20, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

US Leaves UN Human Rights Council

by John Lawrence, June 20, 2018

The US is becoming the world's pariah. After leaving the Paris climate accords, the Iran nuclear deal and the Trans Pacific Partnership, now they're leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) after the UNHRC criticized the US for separating parentrs and children at the border and Israel's shooting of unarmed protesters. Trump's go it alone strategy and make America Great Again (at the expense of everyone else) is isolating the US and turning it from a world leader into a banana republic. Slapping tariffs on everyone and starting a trade war is only going to redound to the malefit (the opposite of benefit) of American businesses and consumers. Trump is literally shooting the US in the foot. Countries that used to look up to us are now looking down upon us.

What message does this latest brouhaha send to the rest of the world, CNN fondly askes:

The United States has quit the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), saying the body is a "cesspool of political bias."

US ambassador Nikki Haley announced the move Tuesday, which followed criticism by the UNHRC of Israel's shooting of unarmed protesters and the separation of children from their parents at the US-Mexico border.

While US officials have tried to frame the move as pro-human rights, Washington's withdrawal is likely to renew criticism that the Trump administration places less value on human rights than its predecessors, as exemplified by Trump's dealings with alleged human rights abusers like North Korean leader Kim Jong Un or Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, and the recent outcry over the treatment of immigrants along its southern border.

The UNHRC is only the latest international body or agreement that the Trump administration has withdrawn from, including the Paris climate accords, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

Both Haley and Trump have previously sparred with the wider UN over criticism of the US and Israel, with Haley claiming the international community pays outsized attention to Washington's actions while ignoring the "reprehensible human rights records of several members of its own Human Rights Council."

That comment was in response to UN criticism of the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, which Haley said was the "sovereign" right of the US to pursue.

In a statement, US Vice President Mike Pence said that in exiting the UN body Washington "took a stand against some of the world's worst human rights violators," claiming the council had made "a mockery" of its original mission in its criticism of the US and Israel.

However, both the Trump White House and previous US administrations have been open to dealing economically and otherwise with human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, China and Egypt.

 

Founded in March 2006, the UNHRC is responsible for "strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them." It acts as something of a UN equivalent to international human rights groups, monitoring and investigating situations in countries and drawing international attention to them. So what is the definition of human rights? They are based on the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, which lays out the basic rights, both political and economic, that every human being on the planet should be entitled to.

 

The US never adhered to the economic rights laid out in the Universal Declaration. According to the US, there are no economic rights, only political rights. As far as political rights are concerned, the US has allied itself with some of the worst violators in history including Saudi Arabia. And as far as human rights are concerned, the Declaration needs to be amended to cover the rights of civilians who have been harmed by war and the rights of refugees. So far the US has been given a free pass for all the damage caused to civilians by its interminable wars in the Middle East including its support for Saudi Arabia in the current travesty happening in Yemen. These wars have created the European refugee crisis, and , while they have caused Europe much grief and hardship, the US has gotten off Scot free. At the same time the US has created its own refugee crisis on its southern border which has noting to do with the one in the Middle East and Europe.

 

Off the Top of My Head

The US Shouldn't Be Such a Hypocrite About Human Rights

by John Lawrence, June 18, 2018

The US is always taking a holier-than-thou attitude about human rights with respect to other nations. The concept of human rights evidently does not include freedom from being killed or injured in war or having your real estate destroyed if you are a non-combatant. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq and other Middle East countries because of the illegal war that President George W Bush got us into there. Did those Iraqis that were killed or injured or that lost loved ones have their human rights violated? Evidently not, according to the narrow US definition. But the US doesn't hesitate to criticize other nations if they kill their own citizens. For instance, Assad in Syria is said to be despicable because he bombed his own citizens. Didn't President Lincoln kill his own citizens in the American Civil War. Of course he did - in massive numbers. It was a war of attrition.

Now the US is involved in a massive humanitarian crisis in Yemen in which children are being starved and contracting cholera in huge numbers. Don't tell me this is not a human rights violation of the highest magnitude. We are supplying the weapons to the Saudis who are killing and starving civilians, men, women and children, without mercy. Don't they have human rights? It makes the fact of separating children from their parents at the border a minor crime against humanity in comparison.

So maybe Putin had a few journalists killed. Of course there is no proof, but even assuming he's culpable, what's a few journalists compared to hundreds of thousands of civilians including wedding parties killed by the US? Is it the fact that they are not US citizens but the journalists were Russian citizens that makes the difference? I don't think so. A death is a death. An injury is an injury. The same applies to Kim Jong Un. If killing his brother makes him a pariah, is the killing of hundreds of thousands by the US in the Middle East OK because it was done as an act of war? Because they were collateral damage? A life is a life. A death is a death. Not too many world leaders do not have blood on their hands.

The US has been involved in the overthrow of legitimate governments and bloody coups all over the world like in Iran in 1953 when the US ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the brutal Shah. The democratically elected Allende in Chile was ousted by Pinochet in 1973 aided and abetted by the CIA which was complicit in Pinochet's "human rights violations." There are many more similar situations in world history so the US should not take a holier-than-thou attitude and lecture other countries about human rights violations. Human rights, as Shakespeare's Hamlet said, are honored more in the breach than in the observance.

Like Nixon said "If the President does it, it is not a crime." I guess if the US does it, it is not a crime either or a human rights violation even when greater numbers of victims are involved.

What the World Needs Now? - More Cooperation or More Competition?

by John Lawrence

When I was a graduate student at UCSD in the midst of the anti-war movement, protesting the war in Vietnam, I went to the library and pondered what would make the world a better place, what could I do to contribute something that might make war less likely and peace time activity more likely. I concluded that more cooperation was needed. More ways to resolve conflicts big and small. For example, democratic voting systems resolve conflicts in such a way that solutions are found that are acceptable to all parties for the most part. I took it for granted that institutions that provided for more cooperation and less competition were more desirable. I thought that this was what the Enlightenment was all about. My heroes were the Enlightenment superstars: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, John Locke.

As I sat there and went through the stacks, I discovered another field and another set of superstars. Social choice has a long history going back to the French Enlightenment philosophers, the Marquis de Condorcet and Jean-Charles de Borda, and even further back than that. One of the 19th century superstars in this field was none other than the Rev. C. L. Dodgson otherwise known as Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland. These guys came up with voting systems which are essential to democracy and are essential to the whole notion of cooperation and conflict resolution. The most recent work in this field was by Kenneth Arrow who published a book Social Choice and Individual Values in the 1950s which attempted to generalize conflict resolution in society in both the political and economic spheres. Arrow concluded that this was impossible and came up with his famous Impossibility Theorem which was a generalization using sophisticated mathematics of the paradox of voting that was known to Condorcet hundreds of years ago. Therefore, Arrow concluded democracy was impossible and any economic system other than capitalism was impossible too. Hmmm, I thought, this is obviously a cop-out because some political and economic systems are more desirable than others and Arrow has done nothing except to throw cold water on any framework that could consider these. I took it as my self-assigned task to prove that Arrow was wrong, that social choice is possible. My work can be found on the website Social Choice and Beyond.

My latest work is "Politonomics: A Meta-Theory Encompassing Political and Economic Decision Making." This is from the Abstract:

In “Social Choice and Individual Values,” Kenneth Arrow said , “In a capitalist democracy there are essentially two methods by which social choices can be made: voting, typically used to make ‘political’ decisions, and the market mechanism, typically used to make ‘economic’ decisions.” This paper resolves that dichotomy by developing a meta-theory from which can be derived methods for both political and economic decision making. This theory overcomes Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem in which he postulates that social choice is impossible and compensates for strategic voting, an undesirable aspect of decision making according to Gibbard and Satterthwaite. Thus the politonomics meta-theory spawns both political and economic systems which are indeed possible and which cannot be gamed. In a typical voting system the outcome of an election among several candidates results in one realized outcome – the winner of the election - which applies to all voters. In a typical economic system, a consumer may choose among a variety of possible baskets of consumer items and work programs with the result that multiple realized outcomes are possible with a unique or quasi-unique outcome for each worker/consumer. As the number of possible realized outcomes of a political-economic decision making process increases, the process becomes more economic and less political in nature and vice versa. We show that as the number of possible realized outcomes increases, voter/consumer/worker satisfaction or utility increases both individually and collectively.

I never considered, as I sat there pondering, that there would be people who would argue that what the world needed was not more cooperation but more competition, but, as I sit here today, I realize that the whole conservative right wing is in favor of just that. They want not more cooperation in either the political or economic realm but more competition believing that only winners should prevail and human progress is only possible when you give free reign to those among us who are the most talented, intelligent and ambitious. They believe that competition will result in the strongest among us winning just as Nietzsche believed that a good war hallows every cause. Their ethic is that the naturally gifted elite should prevail, and they are not concerned about what happens to the rest of us or of who is trampled in the process. This is also the philosophy of Ayn Rand as espoused in her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

The debate today about increasing inequality in the world has to do with the prevalent conservative belief that only the strong should survive and be promoted and that freedom should preclude equality as a value. The rich should get more tax breaks because they are the true instigators of human progress and should be catered to at every turn. Perhaps a few crumbs will trickle down to the rest of us. This kind of thinking is counter to the Enlightenment and is fast returning us to a neo-Dark Age. No more is human progress to be measured in reduction of poverty and extension of basic services like health care to everyone. It is to be measured in terms of the great advances to human civilization like iPads, iPods and iPhones. People who are capable of coming up with these advances should be cut every break and none of the billions of dollars they make should be transferred by government to the least of these among us like the homeless, the poverty-stricken and the destitute because, well, they are the least among us, not the best among us who should be given every break.

Nevertheless, I remain in the camp of those who think that more cooperation in the political and economic spheres will do more for human progress than more competititon. I also have spent about 40 years in my spare time trying to prove that Arrow was wrong, that social choice is not impossible and that democracy in both the political and economic spheres is not only possible but desirable. This has a lot to do with voting systems, democratic institutions and constitutions but also with cooperative economic systems in which freedom is seen not as the freedom to make money at other people's expense (the losers in the competitive struggle) but the freedom to work as much or as little as one chooses and in accordance with one's preferences as much as possible. Freedom from work is for many people just as desirable a goal as the freedom to make billions of dollars, and wealthy people who don't have to work would be the first to tell you that. Economic democracy in my view is more desirable than cutthroat capitalism, and can be practiced not only at the national level, but at the enterprise level in the form of co-ops like the Mondragon Corporation.

Marx's famous definition of the "good society" was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This of course was perverted in defining communism as a society where all the wealth created by those who had a lot of talent and ability as well as a strong work ethic combined with those who had not so much in those categories would be thrown into a pot and then divided up in equal portions and handed out by the government. Such need not be the case in achieving the "good society." The "needs" part is pretty basic and could probably be accomplished with abouit 10% of the wealth that exists in the world today. Most people can provide for their own needs - no transfer necessary. There are some who cannot and to transfer a small part of the wealth of the wealthy to provide for their basic needs seems to me to be no more than humane. That still leaves the vast amount of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. In other words if you total up how much it would cost to provide for all the basic needs of everyone in the world and tote up how much wealth there exists in the world, it would take a fraction of all that wealth to provide the basic needs for everyone who cannot provide for their basic needs themselves who turn out to be mainly children, seniors and handicapped (whether physically or mentally) people.

A recent documentary by German TV station Deutsche Welle pointed out that half the world's production of food is wasted because super markets only want perfect vegetables and ones with slight blemishes are thrown out even though they are perfectly edible. Shelves need to be fully stocked with bread right up till closing hours even though any bread left over at the end of day will be thrown out as "day old." All the food that is thrown out by advanced nations is enough to feed all the world's hungry three times over although no governments or other institutions, much less the supermarkets themselves, seem to be interested in organizing that effort. This is what I mean by the fact that the basic needs of all the world's people could be satisfied without subtracting much if anything from the world's wealthy although a lot of them would admit they do not need incomes of millions of dollars a day like the Fortune 400 billionaires have.

Another documentary noted that Finnish school children have the highest test scores in the world despite the fact that they have one of the world's shortest school days with 15 minutes intermissions between classes during which time they are encouraged to go outdoors and play. All grades have large amounts of music, art and self-defined projects. They don't teach to the test. They are concerned with the development of each student as an overall human being not just as some super competitive cog in a nationally competitive machine. The Chinese on the other hand have the opposite approach demanding that children learn by rote methods and extra hours in school and at study. The Finnish schools are all public and everyone is accepted into every class. There are no advanced classes or tracking of students into lesser classes if they are not among the elite intellectually. Everyone is thrown in together; yet they have the best outcomes of any country in the world on standardized international tests. Egalitariansim seems to gain the best results.

An egalitarian ethic in which the concern is for the development of the whole human being rather than a promotion of just those who have superior abilities in accordance with a competitive ethic seems to me to be the most humanitarian way to treat both children and adults. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights already provides for most of the "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" ethic. It calls for free health care which most advanced socierties, with the exception of the United States, already provide. It calls for free education and other public institutions and covers most basic human needs including food and shelter.

Here are Articles 25 and 26:

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

All the basic needs of everyone on the planet could be provided for without subtracting much of the wealth of the rich since most people can provide for at least their basic needs without any transfer of wealth whatsover being necessary. Interestingly, the US among other nations does provide food security for the poor through its food stamps program. And of course seniors are provided for through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, programs which conservative free marketers are anxious to change or eliminate.

I am with the Enlightenment thinkers especially the English utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who thought about the happiness of society as a whole and concluded that everyone counted, not only the ones with exceptional talent, ability and other admirable qualities. A society should be judged by how it treats "the least of these my brethren" which is the core and essence of Jesus' teachings but, sad to say, not the core and essence of Christianity as it exists in the world today. Perhaps we should start thinking about an alternative constitution for the US which has the world's oldest constitution (236 years old!) while being the world's youngest advanced nation. Other societies including most European societies while being older than the US have newer constitutions. As far-sighted as the Founding Fathers were, a new and updated constitution incorporating not only political but also economic rights along the lines of the UN Declaration of Human Rights would do much to right the wrongs and shortcomings of present day America and the world.

Congratulations, Egypt! A People's Revolution Done Right: Next Step - Prevent it From Being Hijacked

by John Lawrence

 
The people's revolution in Egypt may be a turning point in world zeitgeist. For 30 years neocon values have prevailed. On November 23, 2006 I blogged in a post entitled "Neocon Rats Leaving the Sinking Ship":

"The whole neocon idea of spreading democracy in the middle east by attacking and invading a country in order to change it from a dictatorship to a democracy is a ridiculous proposition on the face of it, but that's what the neocons were selling. And the preposterous notion that this was a moral undertaking - it was morally a good thing to do - to bring death and destruction to a nation in order to spread democracy is as repugnant as the notion that Hitler was morally correct to invade weaker countries because the Germans were the most advanced civilization composed of the stongest and best people. The American supermensch, according to the neocons, would advance the Iraqi undermensch to democracy and freedom. Depite the cost in death and destruction, they would thank us some day. They would throw flowers at the advancing troops much as the Austrians threw flowers at the German army during the Anscluss."

This pretty well sums up American policy under George W Bush and the neocons. Their notion of forcing democracy on a country by invading it played out in Iraq and Afghanistan. The IMF and the World Bank were US surrogates which forced policies of privatization, deregulation and shredding of the social safety net down the throats of any country not stong enough to resist. The neocon US saw as its duty the forcing of what they considered to be American values down the throats of the rest of the world. The result in many cases was the creation of an elite class of wealthy oligarchs and increased poverty among the majority of the people with a corrupt and repressive dictator favorable to American intersts at the top. The intersection of political and economic power was complete. Such was the case in Egypt.

For those that say that this protest came out of nowhere, let me set the matter straight. There have been protests as recently as last June. They just never got the mass publicity. In an article, Privatization and Corruption in Egypt, we find the following:

Last June there were protests against privatization in Egypt. The protests were so severe that the government actually decided to effectively end the program. Since the 1990's a key economic priority in Egypt was the privatization of state owned industries and a transition from a centrally controlled economy to a more free market oriented economy that would be part of the global capitalist system. The justification for such a move was the inefficiency of the state controlled command economy. However, the more pressing concern was to open up the country to foreign investment and also enrich crony supporters of the government through privatization of state owned assets at fire sale prices. Many in the public long believed that privatization of state companies involved corruption involving insider dealings and opposed it for this reason but also there was oppoosition from some old guard officials who thought that privatization would be destabilizing. When the state owned companies, this ownership could be used to help control dissent. Wages could be raised and people could be employed even when in purely capitalist market terms they were not needed. In fact they provided a social safety net of sorts. The privatization has already gone about as far as it could go. Remaining state companies often are technologically outdated and overstaffed with poorly trained workers. No capitalist investors are interested in buying them except perhaps at very low prices. In June of 2010 thousands of workers protested outside parliament complaining about lost jobs, wages, and social protections. Fearing even more political unrest the government decided to drop further privatization for now. The government has even bought back several companies from investors. The demand from the international business community has been for further "reform"to cut Egyptians expectations. Egyptians expect their government to do things for them not just for business! Experts claim that the fundamental mistake of the government was in failing to reduce public expectations. Under the command economy and state ownership people expected the state to be the primary provider. People supported the government because the government gave everyone jobs. The experts complain that there are still about six million state civil service employees. Of course the reform would be to privatize most of these services, make them centers for private profit and investment and hire only if this made money for investors. The new view of this is expressed by an official. Anonymous of course and to the New York Times! ‘You educate me, give me a degree, you give me a job, when I die you bury me - and I do nothing.' " Of course they did do something; they kept the system going inefficient or not. The problem is that it is not part of the system of global capitalism and it does not provide much for private profit or investors. Political scientist Amr El-Shobaki said that privatization was a way that friends of the rich and powerful could grow more rich and powerful. The privatization process had begun under Anwar Sadat but it begin in earnest in 1991. The goal was to privatize 314 companies. All the bargains are gone to investors, dissolved or merged with other state companies. 150 are still left. Shobaki said:"There is always a cost for reform, but the problem here is that people now have the impression that those who always pay the cost of every reform are the simple people, while businessmen are never held accountable for corruption and while privatization of companies takes place in secret, without the knowledge or participation of the people," Perhaps people's impressions are correct. Faced with opposition to privatization the government took another tack. Open the door to foreign investment and let state industries wither. In the Egyptian context, economists say it is a victory that this work force has shrunk, to about 300,000 from about 1.3 million in 1978. Right, it is a victory that jobs are lost. THe government that scored that victory is now in danger of falling. One of the reasons is the high unemployment. The government has adopted other "reforms" to reduce expectations of the Egyptian working class and whip them into shape. The government adopted a law that allowed state-owned companies to deal with employees in the same way as private-sector companies. In 2009 it began to carry out a new law allowing the private firms to build infrastructure, including sewage plants and hospitals, another unpopular move intended to whittle away the state-dominated system. A study of Egyptian attitudes show a quite different view of privatization and the role of government than in the U.S. Consider this: ""The majority of citizens believe that the best system would strengthen the role of the state and the public sector; only 20% of citizens considered privatization to be beneficial to Egypt’s economy. ""

There you have it, friends, in a nutshell! Privatization, a core neocon value, led to large scale unemployment and it was this that was the primary factor behind Egypt's revolution. You had large numbers of young college educated people with no job prospects. You had fantastic wealth among a tiny elite while the rest lived in poverty. This revolution was about corruption in this sense, but it was all perfectly legal. Mubarak himself had siphoned off $70 billion dollars from the system which required foreign investors to enter into partnerships with Egyptians owning 51%. The best state owned companies had been privatized and snapped up by foreign investors. The remaining state owned companies were virtually worthless. No investor wanted to buy them. In the name of efficiency workers had been laid off.

The New York Times confirmed that what was happening was the sell-off of state owned enterprises to private investors with the consequence of laid off employees and high unemployment:

Privatization began in earnest in 1991, when Egypt agreed to work with international lenders on an economic restructuring plan to help it repair a failing economy. This represented an effort to accelerate changes started in the 1970s by President Anwar el-Sadat, who began the process of dismantling the state-controlled economy fashioned by President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and early ’60s. The 1991 effort started off easily enough when the state readily found buyers for assets like its beer and cement industries. But over time, the state said it was left with difficult-to-sell assets, outdated factories producing cars, instruments for textile manufacturing and other things that are either obsolete or unwanted. At the same time public pressure became intense as workers complained that their rights were being auctioned off. The goal was originally to sell off 314 companies. There are still 150 left: the rest have been sold to investors, gone public on the stock market, dissolved or merged with other state industries. “There is always a cost for reform, but the problem here is that people now have the impression that those who always pay the cost of every reform are the simple people, while businessmen are never held accountable for corruption and while privatization of companies takes place in secret, without the knowledge or participation of the people,” Mr. Shobaki said. Faced with so many obstacles, the government took another approach, trying to open the door to foreign investment while quietly allowing state industries to wither. In the Egyptian context, economists say it is a victory that this work force has shrunk, to about 300,000 from about 1.3 million in 1978. The government also adopted a law that allowed state-owned companies to deal with employees in the same way as private-sector companies. This year it began to carry out a new law allowing the private firms to build infrastructure, including sewage plants and hospitals, another unpopular move intended to whittle away the state-dominated system.

So fundamentally the revolution was about jobs. It was about economic democracy as opposed to economic aristocracy. It was a rejection of crony capitalism in which state owned assets are sold off to a group of politically powerful and connected insiders. It was about a repudiation of neocon values. The reason that the American right wing is so upset is that they are afraid that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over. They are upset over the word "Brotherhood." Any new economic system put in place by the Egyptian people that has anything to do with "Brotherhood" is antithetical to American economic values, the values of capitalism. Why it might mean redistribution of wealth not from the poor to the wealthy which they favor but in the other direction from wealthy to poor which they don't. When George W Bush and the neocons talked about "democracy," democracy was just a euphemism for American style capitalism - a top down elite of wealthy investors and a majority underclass living in poverty with a repressive dictator at the top who maintained stability so American interests in the region would not be transgressed. The American right wing has gotten so comfortable with sham democracy that it has a problem with anything approaching authentic democracy.

But the Egyptian people are interested in real democracy not sham democracy, and that real democracy very definitely has an economic component as did the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." The Egyptian revolution is a repudiation of neocon values, a repudiation of privatization, deregulation, austerity and shredding of the social safety net. It is more than a call for free elections and a new parliament. It is a call for economic as well as political justice. Let's hope that the Egyptian people's revolution is not hijacked.

It's impossible to know what went on behind closed doors, but the final results show that the military sided with the people and against the oligarchy. If Bush were President, the results might have turned out differently. The military might have been persuaded to turn on the people thus preserving American interests in the region. The victory of the Egyptian people does not mean a repudiation of American interests, just a rejection of neocon values. Neocon values are only American values when Republicans are in control. The fact that we have a President Obama and Democrats are in power in the White House means that American values have shifted. Now American values can support and work hand in hand with a true democracy in Egypt. This might be the paradigm shift which truly delivers power and economic justice to the people and away from the interests of globalized transnational corporations and the international wealthy class of elite investors. Let's hope so.

Rethinking the Global Economy: The Case for Sharing

Published on Friday, November 26, 2010 by Share the World's Resources (STWR)

by Rajesh Makwana and Adam Parsons

As the 21st Century unfolds, humanity is faced with a stark reality. Following the world stock market crash in 2008, people everywhere are questioning the unbridled greed, selfishness and competition that has driven the dominant economic model for decades. The old obsession with protecting national interests, the drive to maximise profits at all costs, and the materialistic pursuit of economic growth has failed to benefit the world's poor and led to catastrophic consequences for planet earth.

The incidence of hunger is more widespread than ever before in human history, surpassing 1 billion people in 2009 despite the record harvests of food being reaped in recent years. At least 1.4 billion people live in extreme poverty, a number equivalent to more than four times the population of the United States. One out of every five people does not have access to clean drinking water. More than a billion people lack access to basic health care services, while over a billion people - the majority of them women - lack a basic education. Every week, more than 115,000 people move into a slum somewhere in Africa, Asia or Latin America. Every day, around 50,000 people die needlessly as a result of being denied the essentials of life.

In the face of these immense challenges, international aid has proven largely ineffective, inadequate, and incapable of enabling governments to secure the basic needs of all citizens. Developed countries were cutting back on foreign aid commitments even before the economic downturn, while the agreed aid target of 0.7 percent of rich countries' GDP has never been met since it was first conceived 40 years ago. The Millennium Development Goals of merely halving the incidence of hunger and extreme poverty, even if reached by 2015, will still leave hundreds of millions of people in a state of undernourishment and deprivation. When several trillion dollars was rapidly summoned to bail out failed banks in late 2008, it became impossible to understand why the governments of rich nations could not afford a fraction of this sum to ‘bail out' the world's poor.

The enduring gap between rich and poor, both within and between countries, is a crisis that lies at the heart of our political and economic problems. For decades, 20 percent of the world population have controlled 80 percent of the economy and resources. By 2008, more than half of the world's assets were owned by the richest 2 percent of adults, while the bottom half of the world adult population owned only 1 percent of wealth. The vast discrepancies in living standards between the Global North and South, which provides no basis for a stable and secure future, can only be redressed through a more equitable distribution of resources at the international level. This will require more inclusive structures of global governance and a new economic framework that goes far beyond existing development efforts to reduce poverty, decrease poor country debt and provide overseas aid.

In both the richest and poorest nations, commercialisation has infiltrated every aspect of life and compromised spiritual, ethical and moral values. The globalised consumer culture holds no higher aspiration than the accumulation of material wealth, even though studies have shown that rising income fails to significantly increase an individual's well-being once a minimum standard of living is secured. The organisation of society as a competitive struggle for social position through wealth and acquisition has led to rampant individualism and the consequences of crime, disaffection and the disintegration of family and community ties. Yet governments continue to measure success in terms of economic growth, pursuing ever-greater levels of GDP - regardless of the harmful social consequences of a consumption-driven economy.

Although the crises we face are interlinked and multidimensional, the G20 and other rich nations offer no vision of change towards a more sustainable world. The old formula, based on deregulation, privatisation, and the liberalisation of trade and finance, was unmasked by the economic crisis and shown to be incapable of promoting lasting human development. Multilateral institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have failed the world's poor, and the myth that economic growth will eventually benefit all has long been shattered. As we also know, endless growth is unsustainable on a planet with finite resources. This impasse is further compounded by ecological degradation and climate change - the side-effects of economic ‘progress' that disproportionately affect the poorest people who are least to blame for causing these multiple crises.

Humanity's ability to effectively address these interrelated crises requires governments to accept certain fundamental understandings that are instrumental to securing our common future. Firstly, that humankind is part of an extended family that shares the same basic needs and rights, and this must be adequately reflected in the structures and institutions of global governance. And secondly, that many basic assumptions about human nature that inform the thrust of economic decision making - particularly in industrialied nations - are long outdated and fundamentally flawed. The creation of an inclusive economic framework that reflects our global interdependence requires policymakers to move beyond the belief that human beings are competitive and individualistic, and to instead accept humanity's innate propensity to cooperate and share. This more holistic understanding of our relationship to each other and the planet transcends nations and cultures, and builds on ethics and values common to faith groups around the world. It also reflects the strong sense of solidarity and internationalism which lies at the heart of the global justice movement.

International Unity

The first true political expression of our global unity was embodied in the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. Since then, international laws have been devised to help govern relationships between nations and uphold human rights. Cross-border issues such as climate change, global poverty and conflict are uniting world public opinion and compelling governments to cooperate and plan for our collective future. The globalisation of knowledge and cultures, and the ease with which we can communicate and travel around the world, has further served to unite diverse people in distant countries.

But the fact of our global unity is still not sufficiently expressed in our political and economic structures. The international community has yet to ensure that basic human needs, such as access to staple food, clean water and primary healthcare, are universally secured. This cannot be achieved until nations cooperate more effectively, share their natural and economic resources, and ensure that global governance mechanisms reflect and directly support our common needs and rights. At present, the main institutions that govern the global economy are failing to work on behalf of humanity as a whole. In particular, the major bodies that uphold the Bretton Woods mandate (the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation) are all widely criticised for being undemocratic and furthering the interests of large corporations and rich countries.

A more inclusive international framework urgently needs to be established through the United Nations (UN) and its agencies. Although in need of being significantly strengthened and renewed, the UN is the only multilateral governmental agency with the necessary experience and resources to coordinate the process of restructuring the world economy. The UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been adopted by all member states and embody some of the highest ideals expressed by humanity. If the UN is rendered more democratic and entrusted with more authority, it would be in a position to foster the growing sense of community between nations and harmonise global economic relationships.

Jesse Jackson Channels Progressive Robert LaFollette; Calls for Economic Justice, More Jobs

Published on Sunday, September 12, 2010 by The Nation

Bring the Troops Home, Bust the Banksters, Democratize the Economy

by John Nichols

 BARABOO, WISCONSIN -- Decrying the excesses of big banks and Wall Street speculators, the Rev. Jesse Jackson told thousands of cheering progressives at a county fairgrounds in rural Wisconsin Saturday that: “There is a contest for the soul of America.

Cheered on by the crowd that had gathered for Fighting Bob Fest, the annual progressive chautauqua on the Sauk County Fairgrounds in this central Wisconsin community, the civil rights leader and two-time presidential candidate declared that America would have to choose between being of a country where a tiny elite controls the vast majority of wealth or one where the great mass of Americans have a chance to survive and thrive.

“We cannot subsidize bankers and leave people homeless on the streets of America,” Jackson said. “It’s time for a change!”

“We will fight back!” chanted the crowd, which packed the grandstand and field for one of the largest Bob Fest gatherings in the nine-year history of the event.

For Democratic strategists who worry about an "enthusiasm gap" in this year's mid-term election season, Jackson offered the antedote. His adamant address had thousands of people -- many of them from rural and smalltown Wisconsin -- on their feet and cheering. And this year's Fighting Bob Fest drew more than twice as many people as a highly publicized and expensively promoted "Tea Party" event -- which featured television personalies, "Joe the Plumber" and Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Janesville -- held the same day in Racine, Wisconsin.

The enthusiastic response for Jackson’s populist speech offered a reminder that there is no enthusiasm gap. There's a message gap.

When the message is muscular, the enthusiasm is there.

Jackson wasn't the only one drawing cheers on a day that heard rousing speeches from  former Texas Secretary of Agriculture Jim Hightower, Congressman David Obey, Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett and other prominent speakers from Wisconsin and across the nation.

A Saturday that began with overcast skies and scattered rain showers ended with bright sunshine and a rollicking, old-school rallying of the progressive faithful in the tradition of Robert M. La Follette, the Wisconsin governor, senator and 1924 presidential candidate for whom the festival is named.

Jackson, who was honored with a lifetime achievement award by festival organizers, hailed the progressive movement led by La Follette, which campaigned for economic and social justice at home while opposing empire building abroad.

Sounding anti-war themes that were very much in the La Follette tradition, Jackson called for bringing U.S. troops home and reallocating resources from fighting wars abroad to fighting unemployment at home.

“We want for America what we provide for Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Jackson. “We want jobs for Chicago… jobs for Milwaukee… jobs for Sauk County.”

Sounding economic justice themes that repeatedly brought the crowd to its feet, Jackson warned that: “We’ve globalized capital without globalizing human rights, without globalizing workers’ rights, women’s rights, children’s rights. Let’s democratize our economy!

© 2010 The Nation

John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again and Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy. Nichols is also author of Dick: The Man Who is President and The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.

US Non-Signatory to UN Declaration of Human Rights

Published on Friday, April 23, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

Housing Is a Human Right

by Saul Landau

Our nation is running a $1.4 trillion-dollar budget deficit this year. So why is Congress on track to approve more than $1 trillion for "defense" spending, while cutting back services that most countries think of as human rights? Even in the wake of Obama's landmark health-care legislation, our priorities are out of sync with what the public needs.

Consider this: About 3.5 million Americans--including 1.35 million children--are homeless for significant periods of time over the course of a year, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Under U.S. law, American citizens don’t have rights to shelter, food, medical care, or a decent old age. Yet these are human rights, and they’re etched into the United Nations’ Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Albania, Tunisia, Finland, and dozens of other countries have signed on to this document, which of course has gone unratified by the U.S. Senate.

What part of “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights and freedom” do our lawmakers reject?

Homelessness isn't the only indicator that underscores our mistaken priorities. Experts have estimated that at least 20,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance and can't get needed care. And a recent study found that 37 million people in this country sought emergency food assistance from food banks in the Feeding America network last year. That's roughly one in eight Americans.

Meanwhile, our country positions itself as the world’s leading human rights advocate, ignoring many aspects of what the rest of the world considers to be human rights.

For example, the State Department recently published a report that found Cuba to be violating legal and political rights. The report made no reference to Cuba’s success in housing and feeding its people, or providing them with health care.

The skewed policy of focusing on deficiencies in Cuba while ignoring our own glaring lack of substantive rights has characterized every administration for 30 years. Arizona, like many states suffering from reduced revenues, recently slashed its Children’s Health Insurance Program. About 47,000 kids--all poor, of course--now have no medical coverage.

Self-righteous human rights attacks on other countries don’t help mask glaring needs at home, particularly food and shelter for millions.

Distributed by Minuteman Media

Saul Landau is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. IPS is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. www.ips-dc.org