California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

The Hype Over AI

by John Lawrence

There is much hand wringing over whether or not AI will be used for good purposes or bad. The proprietors of AI are mostly concerned about making money, not about how to use their products for good. That's the capitalistic system. And one can rest assured that one of the most interested parties in AI is the defense establishment. They are always interested in using the most advanced technology in order to create even more sophisticated and destructive weapons in accordance with the theory that, if they don't create them, their enemies will create them first, and then they will be in a less advantageous position. Of course this is always premised on the consideration that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. Our supposed enemies use the same rationale with the result that the world becomes ever more dangerous as both sides develop more and more destructive weapons. AI is just the latest chapter of this merry-go-round.The problem is that the tech companies creating AI are just in it for the money, and the military-industrial complex, in addition to just being in it for the money, is in it for the rationale that we better use AI to create advance weapons first so that our "enemies" don't get them first.

Has anybody considered that some entity, whether it be government or private enterprise, should adopt the position that AI or any other technology should be used not only for good but for the purpose of creating peace in the world? No, no entity is concerned about that. If government was concerned, they would be using some of the trillion dollar military-industrial complex budget to develop peaceful enterprises in the world. Instead while a trillion dollars yearly is spent on defense/offense, a paltry $400 million is spent on the Peace Corps. So that's where our values are. We value a strong defense, not strong efforts to make the world a more peaceful place, and we value financial competition to make as much money as we can off of any new technology. Those are the imperatives. Peace is thought to be the absence of war rather than building enterprises that would prevent war in the first place. The interstices between wars should be used to prevent the next war, but instead the only prevention is thought to be to have such a strong military apparatus that no one would think about stepping out of line with the line being defined by us or whoever is the most powerful empire at any point in time. Empires come and go over the long term, but the mental imperative of using all resources to create the most powerful military establishment never changes.

The result is that war is inevitable as it has been for millennia. In fact for thousands of years war has been a way of life. Empires have been created because someone came along who was in a position to create them whether that was Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great or Napoleon. No one ever called Jesus "the Great" because he didn't create an empire. He just preached peace as the foremost value. Too bad no one in a position of power ever took him seriously. That was not realpolitik. Instead, religion was used to placate and sublimate the masses while the war machines of the various empires ground on until thy eventually were subdued or wore themselves out or went bankrupt. AI does not presage a new millennium. It's just more of the same. It will be used beneficially in medicine and a few other enterprises. But its main development will be in the art of war wherein battlefields are populated not by humans but by robots. The destruction however will remain the same or worse. Not the military but innocent civilians will bear the cost of death and destruction as already has been taking place in modern warfare. Not military assets but civilian real estate will be destroyed. Such a shame that technological advances have been deployed more in the service of war than in the service of peace.

Off the Top of My Head

War is Institutionalized; Peace is Not

by John Lawrence

If all you have is a hammer every problem looks like it can be solved by pounding a nail. If all you have is a military-industrial complex, every problem looks as if it can be solved by the threat or application of military power. This has been true for thousands of years, most of which time war was just accepted as a given. Now more elaborate justifications seem to be necessary, but the results are the same. Resources are devoted to war while a pittance is devoted to peace. The US currently spends about a trillion dollars annually on its military-industrial complex while the Peace Corps is allocated next to nothing. Congress has completed its work on a budget for fiscal year 2022, passing a $1.5 trillion spending package. Unfortunately, for a seventh consecutive year, instead of providing new resources to better meet the needs of a changed world, it keeps Peace Corps' baseline funding flat at $410.5 million.  Diplomacy and even common sense take a back seat to war. Take Ukraine, for example. The longer the war goes on, the predictable result is only more destruction of real estate and more lives ruined both physically and emotionally.

President Biden wants to continue the war until there is a "winner", and he is sure that with the provision of US military assets, that winner will be Ukraine. More level headed experts think that the war will only be settled with a partition of Ukraine. To settle the Russo-Ukraine war diplomatically, a number of analysts have suggested that the apparent military stalemate be accepted in a ceasefire agreement in which Ukraine would be partitioned along the current battle lines. If we look at the history of eastern Europe, we see that partitions are not a novelty. The Partitions of Poland were three partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth that took place toward the end of the 18th century and ended the existence of the state, resulting in the elimination of sovereign Poland and Lithuania for 123 years. The partitions were conducted by the Habsburg monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire, which divided up the Commonwealth lands among themselves progressively in the process of territorial seizures and annexations. Hmmm. Partitions are nothing new and the redrawing of national boundaries is nothing new? So in 2024 the powers that be insist that there will be no redrawing of national boundaries even if it means that a war of attrition will go on indefinitely. I think President Biden has been a great President when it comes to domestic policy, but less so when it comes to perpetuating the wars both in Ukraine and Israel. Without going into detail about Israel, he has not been forceful enough in restraining Israel from destroying Gaza.

America does not need to defund the Department of Defense (War). It just needs to refund a Department of Peace. The United States accounts for nearly 40% of global military spending, and devotes a larger share of its GDP to defense than most other countries. U.S. military spending was greater than the next ten biggest spenders in 2023. Fruitless wars will only continue if revenge is the operative factor. Peace building needs to continue in other parts of the world in spite of wars currently being waged. However, there is always money to fight wars, hardly ever is there money to wage peace. The military and/or the national guard could be used in a more productive way to provide security in those areas where peace builders need protection and even along the border. This would be a productive use of the military. Instead, most military personnel sit idle in 800 military bases around the world only to be deployed in hot wars. Why not use them to provide security in areas where militias are running amok? So I feel that, while military resources are not intelligently utilized, peace building resources hardly exist. The two could be complementary if used wisely.

Off the Top of My Head

Congress Gets Paid While Government Shuts Down: Perfect!

by John Lawrence

A bunch of highly paid do-nothings keep getting paid while average paycheck-to-paycheck people starve. It doesn't get any better than this. The leader of the free world can't even keep its government functioning. What's wrong with this picture? Or, if you prefer, what a revolting development this is. Obviously, the founders did not contemplate this! Republicans want to reduce government spending, but they're not interested in reducing spending for the bloated defense department. They want to spend more on defense (offense), and they're only too happy to talk about all the wonderful new weapons the US is developing like the F-35 which continues to crash. Every one costs $150 million by the way. Recently a pilot bailed out of one and let it crash rather than trying to land it and save the country $150 million. And then there are the ATTACKEMS. What a clever name! Let's attack em before they ATTACKUS. Now Republicans don't want to spend any more money on Ukraine. Does that mean the US and NATO will have to negotiate a peace settlement? What a disaster - being forced to stop the killing because of an inability to ATTACKEM any more. As a last option we would be forced into peace instead of WINNING! What a disaster! No more killing? No more generals on TV telling us how disastrous this would be?

All the generals and spokesmen - and they are mostly men -  for the military-industrial complex, who only can think in terms of war and winning, cannot even contemplate that a negotiated peace settlement might be even possible. For them peace is an unmitigated disaster. Lockheed's profits might even go down. At least one thing Elon Musk has done is to show that it's possible to do great things without the venerable cost plus contracts that the military industrial complex prefers. Musk just gets paid for performance not cost plus. Cost plus contracts incentivize private industry to delay the finish date and run up costs because their profits are guaranteed to be a percentage of those costs. So, what the hell, the more something costs, the more money they make! Fortune magazine wrote: " Lockheed Martin’s $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter jet is 10 years late and 80% over budget—and it could be one of the Pentagon’s biggest success stories" Subtitle: "How America's biggest defense contractor turned a military spending fiasco into a business victory." You could say much the same for the bureaucracy at NASA. Musk totally showed them up with a workforce one tenth the size. Can you say "BLOATED" and by the way, "SCLEROTIC." Now the US government relies on Elon Musk for its space program. Pitiful. But at least it's saving the taxpayers money. You go, Elon!

Well, at least, SpaceX won't be shutting down although they probably won't be getting paid either. Perhaps Musk could build the next jet fighter for a fraction of the cost of the F-35. Meanwhile, part of the world is laughing at the fact that the US government can't even keep the lights on. And part of the world is crying in their beer about the fact that the US can't keep the lights on. I'll leave it up to you, dear reader, to guess what parts are laughing and what parts are crying.

Off the Top of My Head

American Democracy Teetering on the Brink

by John Lawrence

So what are the possible outcomes? Let's assume Trump is the Republican nominee. Option 1: Trump is convicted and goes to jail before the 2024 election. In this scenario, Trump will probably lose the election for President. Independents will be aghast. Trump's base will not be able to organize sufficiently to carry out another assault on the seat of American democracy. There will be sporadic outbursts. In jail Trump will not have the media exposure he has outside of jail. Option 2: Trump is indicted multiple times but not convicted before the 2024 election. Trump probably still loses the national election, but is in a position as a free man to organize another insurrection, this time on a much larger level than the one on January 6, 2021. This could amount to civil war. Option 3: Trump loses the election and subsequently goes to jail. This could also result in a dangerous situation because Trump still has access to an outsize megaphone and continue to rile up his base before he goes to jail and cause trouble leading again to a possible civil war.

As long as Trump is a free man, he can continue to foment a revolution. He can continue to advocate for violence towards his perceived enemies, even those that are a legitimate part of the judicial and legal system. He is already attacking Jack Smith, the special counsel, who is prosecuting him on multiple counts regarding January 6 and also the document handling fiasco. Trump continues to insist that the American legal system is not legitimate. He continues to undermine the legitimacy of the rule of law. His followers essentially consist of a cult who want Trump exonerated irrespective of his purported criminality. As long as Trump is free, he will continue to whip up his followers and lead them to the brink of civil war. Who knows if in addition to Trump's calls for revolution, there is also a parallel movement going on to organize for a response to Trump's being convicted and put in jail or if Trump loses the election regardless of whether he has been convicted or not. Trump's followers are bound and determined to put Trump back in the White House by any means necessary. They will do whatever Trump eggs them on to do.

The United States' continued existence as a democracy cannot be taken for granted at this point. The Republican controlled House can throw the US into chaos if they decide not to authorize the budget. That in and of itself could shut the country down. There is a good chance that they will not authorize the continuance of government spending. There are many other ways that they could partner with Trump to bring the country down. Are some elements of the military also in league with Trump? Who knows. It seems that they were on January 6 when they wouldn't send troops to protect the Capitol on a timely basis. Obviously, some people in the military establishment sympathize with Trump. The influence of Fox News and other conservative media continues to amplify Trump's messages. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech enhances Trump's ability to foment a possible civil war. Trump's base who have grievances going back to loss of the Civil War combined with Trump's perceived grievances reinforce each other. An aggrieved leader and his aggrieved followers represent a volatile mixture

Trump almost succeeded in overturning the American government on January 6. Only Mike Pence stood in his way. Notably, firearms were not a part of the insurrectionists' arsenal as they invaded the Capitol. Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that next time they would bring their fire arms. Could another mob do what they did on January 6, and also be successful at it? Or could they be successful at the State level? These are tenuous times during which a number of scenarios involving Trump trying to take over the American government could play out. His base will never accept the outcomes of any indictments or even convictions. How will they react when he is sentenced to jail for the rest of his life? Or will the prosecutors chicken out when it comes to conviction and putting Trump in jail. If Trump is successful in fomenting a civil war, an unlimited right of Free Speech will be largely to blame. Can Trump be sentenced to shutting his mouth?

Off the Top of My Head

"Spare me the bullshit about mental illness"

by John Lawrence

In sane countries abortions are legal and assault rifles are illegal just the opposite of the US. Italian women are eligible to request an abortion for health, economic or social reasons, including the circumstances under which conception occurred. Abortions are performed free of charge in public hospitals or in private structures authorized by the regional health authorities. Assault weapons are not legal in Italy, nor are any fully automatic rifles or handguns. Noise suppressors, or silencers, are also illegal, along with any kind of military or police-grade weapons. Abortion in the United Kingdom is de facto available through the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain, and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.The following are generally prohibited: Fully automatic or burst-fire weapons, which may include some air guns. Semi-automatic or pump-action rifles that fire centre-fire ammunition (e.g. Ruger Mini-14, L1A1). The Swedish Abortion Act came into force in 1974, giving women the right to decide for themselves whether they wanted to end a pregnancy in the first eighteen weeks. Since then, abortion procedures have become more effective, safe, accepted and accessible. Current Norwegian legislation and public health policy provides for abortion on request in the first 12 weeks of gestation, by application up to the 18th week, and thereafter only under special circumstances until the fetus is viable, which is usually presumed at 21 weeks and 6 days. In Norway there is a total ban on automatic firearms for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime. The EU already bans all automatic weapons, plus some semi-automatic guns widely available in the United States.

Apart from the very few European nations that retain highly restrictive laws on abortion — Andorra, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco and Poland — no other European country “bans” abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Instead, almost all European countries allow abortion throughout pregnancy on a range of grounds, including where there are risks to a patient’s physical or mental health, and in situations involving severe or fatal fetal impairment. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 95% of European women of reproductive age live in a country where abortion services are available on demand.

NBC reported:

[Connecticut Senator] Murphy said the shooting deaths of 19 students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday was a uniquely American problem.

"This only happens in this country and nowhere else. Nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day. Nowhere else do parents have to talk to their kids as I have had to do about why they got locked into a bathroom and told to be quiet for five minutes just in case a bad man entered that building. Nowhere else does that happen except here in the United States of America. And it is a choice. It is our choice to let it continue," Murphy said.

In comments to reporters afterward, Murphy took aim at the Republican talking point that mass shootings are a problem of mental illness, not easy access to guns.

"Spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness, because we don’t — we’re not an outlier on mental illness. We’re an outlier when it comes to access to firearms and the ability of criminals and very sick people to get their hands on firearms. That’s what makes America different,” he said.

There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. The US quibbles while the earth burns and floods due to global warming. Nations are immersed in conflict while they need to be cooperating if the human species, despite all its vaunted high technology, is to survive. Earth itself will survive. The survival of the human species is doubtful unless every nation goes all out to prevent global warming which is not happening. What is happening is that nations are trying to prevent the release of greenhouse gasses on the margins without interfering with economic growth. It's a recipe for disaster.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Not Go State by State for Stricter Gun Laws?

by John Lawrence

Recently, with the overturning of Roe v Wade, red states are going one by one in enacting tougher abortion laws. Why not go the same route in blue states with regard to stricter gun laws? Forget the national Congress. They're dysfunctional and next to useless as long as Republicans control the House. But states in which Democrats control the state legislature and the Governorship should be able to implement assault weapon bans as well as many other severe gun control restrictions. States such as California and Michigan, in which this is the case, should go ahead with this legislation. Make it illegal to own an AR-15. Confiscate existing AR-15s. CNN reported: "A study published in January by a leading non-profit organization that focuses on gun violence prevention found that there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings. The study by Everytown for Gun Safety determined that California had the strongest gun laws in the country. Hawaii topped the list with the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country while Mississippi led the country with both the weakest gun laws and highest rate of gun deaths. “What this project does, is show what we’ve been saying for years: Gun laws save lives,” said Nick Suplina, senior vice president of law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. “We think this is going to be a really important tool for lawmakers, reporters and advocates that have been looking for the kind of visual tool that can make that case clearly.”

State government trifecta is a term to describe single-party government, when one political party holds the governorship and majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. One political party holds the governorship, a majority in the state senate, and a majority in the state house in a state's government. As of March 30, 2023, there are 17 Democratic trifectas,The following states represent Democratic trifectas: California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine. These states should get together or go singly one by one to pass stricter gun laws just as red states have passed stricter abortion laws. Then anyone who wants a gun can move to a red state and anyone who wants an abortion can move to a blue state. Ha! As ridiculous as that sounds, it's emblematic of the reality that we are not, contrary to Obama's statement, really one United States of America.

California is the state with the strictest gun laws, and it also has the seventh-lowest rate of deaths by gun violence. In addition to regulation on who can purchase a gun and what kinds of firearms may be legally obtained, California gun laws allow for funding to community programs that have reduced gun-related violence. Other states with strict gun laws include Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Some of these states require background checks and a waiting period before someone is allowed to purchase a gun; some require that they undergo training first. New York recently passed more restrictive gun laws:

"Governor Kathy Hochul today signed a landmark legislative package to immediately strengthen the state's gun laws, close critical loopholes exposed by shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde and protect New Yorkers from the scourge of gun violence that continues to infect our nation and endanger our communities. Governor Hochul signed the bills at the Northeast Bronx YMCA flanked by Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Speaker Carl Heastie, partners in the legislature, Attorney General Letitia James and victims and survivors of gun violence.  

"Gun violence is an epidemic that is tearing our country apart. Thoughts and prayers won't fix this, but taking strong action will," Governor Hochul said. "In New York, we're taking bold steps to protect the people of our state. I am proud to sign a comprehensive bill package that prohibits the sale of semiautomatic weapons to people under 21, bans body armor sales outside of people in select professions, closes critical gun law loopholes and strengthens our Red Flag Law to keep guns away from dangerous people—new measures that I believe will save lives."

Time magazine reported on March 12, 2023:

"Michigan lawmakers are aiming to pass an 11-bill gun safety package across the state this week, considering provisions that would require background checks on gun purchases, create safe storage laws, and establish extreme risk protection orders—also known as red flag laws. Democrats, who have control of the state government for the first time in some 40 years, hope to deliver on the promise of advancing gun safety following a Michigan State University mass shooting last month that left three dead and five wounded."

In Colorado:

State of play: Five major gun control measures are under consideration as the Democratic-dominated Legislature hits the halfway mark this week in the 120-day session.

Details: Three measures advanced through a Senate committee Wednesday after a day-long hearing and party-line vote. The legislation would:

• Expand the state's "red flag" law to allow psychologists, teachers and others to ask a judge to temporarily seize a person's firearms if they pose a threat.
• Repeal current limits to allow civil lawsuits — including from the attorney general — seeking damages against firearm makers and sellers.
• Increase the minimum age to purchase a firearm in certain cases to age 21, up from 18.

Meanwhile, earlier this week, a House panel approved a measure to require a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases.

In Illinois:

"State lawmakers in January passed and Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law a measure that would ban assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those who already own such rifles would face limitations on their sale and transfer, and would have to register them with the Illinois State Police by 2024. But that law – which came about six months after the Highland Park shooting – faced immediate lawsuits in state and federal court, arguing it violated the Illinois and US constitutions. A Macon County judge found earlier this month that exemptions to the law, including for law enforcement officers and armed guards at federally supervised nuclear sites, violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to fast-track the state’s appeal, slating oral arguments for May."

So fight these bastards all the way to whatever Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Keep on fighting them. Pass very creative laws. Tie them up in court. Do whatever it takes to get AR-15s off the streets. Gun violence is ruining this country. Nowhere else in the world do people have to put up with this type of situation.

The New Cold War Could Be Worse

January 6, 2023

by Melvin Goodman

from Counterpunch

Facebook Twitter Reddit

Email

 

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

More than one-third of the U.S. population was born after 1970, and thus has no personal memories of the Cold War, particularly the Berlin crises or the Cuban missile crisis.  Since we are in the early stages of a new Cold War, it’s a good time to review the tensions that we will confront.  Spoiler alert: Cold War 2.0 will be more costly and risky than its predecessor.

The soaring defense budget, which is woefully understated in the mainstream media, is the Congress’ pet rock and its only genuine bipartisan undertaking.  The media consistently refers to the record defense budget ($858 billion), but ignore an additional $300 billion that is devoted to the military.  The latter figure would include important elements of spending by the intelligence community, which primarily serves the military; the Department of Energy, which stores our nuclear inventory; the Veterans’ Administration; and important agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Coast Guard, the world’s seventh largest navy.  The roughly $1.2 trillion devoted to defense equals the sum that the rest of the global community allocates to the military!

The bloated defense budget, moreover, does not take into account the huge military expenditures of key nations in Europe and Asia that support the national security interests of the United States.  In addition to the 31 other nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that devote huge sums of money to contain Russia, there are the increased defense budgets of such Asian states as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that target China.  The United States is also the world’s leading arms merchant, selling and providing more weapons overseas than the rest of the global community.  Saudi Arabia, the leading buyer of U.S. weaponry, allocates more money to defense than any non-nuclear state in the world with a budget that roughly equals the defense spending of Russia.

The greatest drivers of U.S. defense spending are the modernization of nuclear weapons, which have no utilitarian purpose, and the obscene U.S. military presence the world over.  The Pentagon will receive $2 trillion over the next decade to create a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers and submarines.  The global race for smaller nuclear bombs is also intensifying with no arms control treaties regulating so-called tactical or nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

We have hundreds of military facilities around the world, whereas China has only one facility on the Horn of Africa and the Russians have two facilities in Syria.  Neither Russia nor China devote vast sums to power projection; most of their defense spending is devoted to defending the homeland.  It is long past time for someone in Congress to investigate why the United States has to maintain military dominance in every corner of the globe.

The policy of dual containment of Russia and China carries far greater risk than U.S. policy in the first Cold War.  Current Russian and Chinese leaders either have no limits on their use of power (Vladimir Putin) or have greater international ambition than previous leaders (Xi Jinping).  Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev had to deal with a Politburo in crises involving Cuba and the Middle East, respectively, which were resolved peacefully. The United States is risking an arms race not only against Russia, but against China as well.  New weapons such as hypersonic missiles and cyber weapons that threaten command and control systems are unsettling.  Pentagon spokesmen have sent increasingly alarming warnings regarding China staging a “strategic breakout,” whatever that means.

Unlike the first Cold War, which was restrained due to respect for arms control and disarmament, the new Cold War is more threatening in view of the decline and fall of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (blame Bill Clinton); the abrogation of the ABM Treaty (George W. Bush); the suspension of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (Putin); and the abrogation of Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty (Donald Trump).  Biden’s lackluster national security team doesn’t even have an arms control specialist, and the Department of Defense, led by a retired four-star general, has replaced the Department of State at the center of the national security process.  Civilians should be calling the shots and not general officers.

The first Cold War was marked by Soviet-American recognition of the necessity of avoiding direct conflict in the wake of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and to ensure direct military-to-military communication; there is far less direct communication between the two sides at this juncture.  Our allies in the first Cold War did their best to maintain communication with the Kremlin; currently our allies are expanding their defense budgets and cooperating in the fields of cybersecurity and defense technology.  The budgetary increases in Germany and Japan are particularly stunning with Japan becoming only the second country allowed to purchase U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles as part of its unprecedented military buildup.

Meanwhile, the United States has become a participant in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and President Joe Biden has kept his predecessors anti-China policies in place, including Trump’s tariff policies, closer relations with Taiwan, and a military buildup in the Pacific.  In Congress, the Democrats and Republicans provide bipartisan support for increased defense spending and relentlessly compete with each other in their anti-China rhetoric.  It is reminiscent of the 1950s when no one wanted to be accused of “being soft” on China.

The United States remains increasingly isolated from both Russia and China at the same time that Moscow and Beijing are building the closest bilateral relationship in hundreds of years of history.  The competition over Taiwan risks a conflict in the Taiwan Straits; the warfare in Ukraine risks conflict in the Black Sea.  The United States may believe that it is not a “participant” in the war in Ukraine, but the use of U.S.-supplied HIMARs on New Year’s Day to kill and injure several hundred Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine sends a different message.

The Middle East and Southwest Asia provide additional sources of tension.  Biden should have returned to the Iran nuclear accord at the outset of his administration; instead, the Biden administration talked about rewrites to the agreement and Iran predictably objected.  Israel has installed a dangerous right-wing government, but the Pentagon now refers to Israel as our “leading strategic partner.” Biden threatened to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah,” but instead he went hat-in-hand to Riyadh and negotiated $4 billion in arms sales. Syria and Lebanon are failed states, and invite foreign interference. The new regional stresses on stability and the  challenges for deterrence vis-a-vis Russia and China do not augur well for a more predictable or peaceful international arena.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

Off the Top of My Head

What Mass Shootings and Global Warming Have in Common

by John Lawrence

Even if sales of AK-15s were banned today, there would still be enough AK-15s on the streets for mass shootings to continue for decades. Even if no more carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere starting today, there is enough already there to provide weather disasters for decades. Meanwhile, gun sales and carbon dioxide generation are continuing apace. There will be no diminution of gun violence nor will there be any diminution of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. If there were zero gun sales tomorrow and zero carbon dioxide generation tomorrow, there might be a chance for recovery from both travesties, but, no, those travesties will continue along predictable lines. There will be even more mass shootings and assorted other gun violence while gas powered vehicles and power generating plants will continue to pump out carbon dioxide using the atmosphere as a waste dump. Plastic will continue to pollute the oceans. Chemical fertilizer and pest control chemicals will continue to pollute waterways. People pursuing the American Dream will continue consuming products to the point of commercial gluttony and beyond.

The production of steel and cement produces large amounts of carbon dioxide that goes directly into the atmosphere. It's a matter of sheer chemistry. Steelmaking is one of the most carbon emission intensive industries in the world. As of 2020, steelmaking is estimated to be responsible for 7 to 9 per cent of all direct fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions. In order to mitigate global warming, the industry will need to find reductions in emissions. In 2020, McKinsey identified a number of technologies for decarbonization including hydrogen usage, carbon capture and reuse, and maximizing use of electric arc furnaces powered by clean energy. A Swedish company has developed a way of making carbon dioxide emission free steel. The Guardian reported:

The world’s first customer delivery of “green steel” produced without using coal is taking place in Sweden, according to its manufacturer.

The Swedish venture Hybrit said it was delivering the steel to truck-maker Volvo AB as a trial run before full commercial production in 2026. Volvo has said it will start production in 2021 of prototype vehicles and components from the green steel.

Steel production using coal accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Hybrit started test operations at its pilot plant for green steel in Lulea, northern Sweden, a year ago. It aims to replace coking coal, traditionally needed for ore-based steel making, with renewable electricity and hydrogen. Hydrogen is a key part of the EU’s plan to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

So the chemistry is being changed so that water H₂O is produced as a by product instead of carbon dioxide, CO².

CNBC reported:

Cars and electricity get a lot of attention in conversations about decarbonization, and they should. But building materials like cement and steel also need to be scrutinized.

The production of cement is responsible for about 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions and 5.5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.

On [April 28, 2022], Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Bill Gates’ climate finance firm, and DCVC, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, announced they led a $55 million funding round in Brimstone Energy, a start-up aiming to commercialize carbon-negative cement.

“We need to recognize that cement is a massive problem for climate and that nobody has figured out how to address it at scale without dramatically increasing costs or moving away from the regulated materials that the construction industry knows and loves,” Breakthrough partner Carmichael Roberts told CNBC.

So it is not enough to get gas guzzlers off the roads. Gas prices going up is a good thing. It will guarantee that more new car purchases will be hybrid or all electric vehicles. But the world is not changing over to non-polluting forms of energy quick enough. Major climate related disasters are already occurring and will continue to occur. Since we are still adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, these disasters will only get worse as time goes by. Meanwhile, all kinds of other ecological disasters are taking place including the insane and greedy pursuit of insatiable profits in the gun production industry and the buildup of military hardware. In 2019, a report released by Durham and Lancaster University found the US military to be “one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries”. In addition to climate pollution the military is responsible for the development of assault rifles like the AR-15 which was first developed for combat operations. Very conveniently, it is now a profit center for US gun corporations, and in addition to killing combatants on the field of battle, it has brought war time slaughter into children's schools, people's super markets and night clubs. We've come full circle. And in addition the production of steel weapons results in increased carbon emissions.

Off the Top of My Head

Tie Build Back Better Aid for Americans with Weapons Aid for Ukraine

by John Lawrence

Funny how all the concern about inflation doesn't apply to the billions being spent with US weapons manufacturers for javelins, stingers, howitzers and other weaponry. The aid for Ukraine is not money being spent in Ukraine. It's money being spent right here in America going into the coffers of the military-industrial complex. Then the deliverables are shipped to Ukraine, not the money. Since it's being spent right here in the US, it is increasing inflation because more money going into the money supply increases inflation. But hardly anyone is concerned about the inflation that that is causing. When it comes to Biden's Build Back Better plan, it's dead in the water because that would cause inflation. Congress persons are so concerned about that inflation, but they're not at all concerned about the inflation being caused by the billions being spent to make weapons of war. The original BBB package was supposed to be tied with the physical infrastructure legislation that has already passed. They were supposed to be approved in tandem, but they never were. This was a huge failure and huge mistake by the Biden administration which essentially sold out the progressive wing of its party in order to get something, anything, passed. As a result, physical infrastructure, but not human infrastructure, alone got passed, and, more importantly, a huge amount of the global warming infrastructure didn't get passed. So now why don't they tie BBB to the expenditure for more weapons for Ukraine?

According to resources.org:

"The [BBB] legislation allocates $1 billion over the next few years to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Highway Administration for efforts that support the use of low-carbon materials in highway construction projects. It authorizes $4.225 billion for the US General Services Administration (GSA) for its acquisition of green products and its portfolio of environmental sustainability programs, including initiatives that range from securing fuel-efficient vehicles for the federal fleet to setting net-zero energy and water targets for newly constructed GSA properties. An additional $8.98 billion are slated to go toward the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs) and associated infrastructure (e.g., charging stations) by the GSA and the US Postal Service."

Not too much to ask, really, to save the planet. By the way subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles for consumers would help offset the price of gas at the pump. The US may help Ukraine to win the war or at least achieve a protracted stalemate, but at the same time it is letting global warming proceed with minimum intervention. So what is more important - influencing the outcome of a war between two countries or dooming every country on earth which is what will happen if we don't proceed full steam ahead to forestall global warming. Is funding the war in Ukraine being penny wise and pound foolish? Better, if all countries put their money towards combating global warming instead of weapons of war, there might be a slight chance of saving the planet. As it is now, the human race would rather fight wars than save the planet. War is one addiction the human race is not willing to give up even if it means our grandchildren will inherit a planetary hell.

Off the Top of My Head

The BIG LIE

by John Lawrence

A lot of people still believe the Big Lie - that Joe Biden didn't legitimately win the election. What isn't talked about is all the other Big Lies which the Republican party has been telling their constituents for years: the Big Lie that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, the Big Lie that Obama was born in Kenya, the Big Lie about selling arms to Iran to benefit the Contras, the Big Lie represented by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which escalated  the Vietnam war (OK that was Johnson, a Democrat), the Big Lie that Hillary was responsible for the death of White House attorney Vince Foster, the Big Lie that Hillary ran a child sex ring in a pizza restaurant and much more. There are more Big Lies, most of them associated with Republicans, especially Republican Presidents George W Bush, Ronald Reagan and Dick Nixon (his Big Lie was "I am not a crook.").

Lying is part and parcel of the way Republicans do business. How else to get a bunch of people to vote against their own real interests? Republicans have trained their base to respond favorably to them based on lies. Lies are usually juicier than the truth. The truth is often very mundane and quotidian. The truth is that Hillary was a very experienced and capable public servant. That's not too exciting. And then there was George H W Bush's dog whistle racist campaign ad about Willy Horton, a murderer who escaped prison on a week-end pass devised by his opponent Michael Dukakis. Racism probably won Bush the Presidency.

George W Bush was determined to invade Iraq. He went out of his way to no avail to pin 9/11 on Saddam. When no evidence could be found of this, he fabricated evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In The Untold History of the United States, the authors write:

"Lacking evidence, they manufactured their own. Cheney and Libby pointed repeatedly to a meeting in Prague between the hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official, even though Tenet had proved that Atta was in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting, living in Virginia in the shadow of CIA headquarters. ...

"Using this kind of notoriously false information, the administration challenged the findings of CIA analysts and UN weapons inspectors and tirelessly made its case for invading Iraq. "We know they have weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfield insisted. "There isn't any debate about it." In early October 2002, Bush, echoing a similar warning from Rice a month before, announced, "we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." But no one could outdo Cheney when it came to outright fabrications and dire prognostications:

"'The Iraqi regime has ... been very busy in enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue the nuclear program. ... Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat at a top [sic] 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail. Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, our allies and us.'"

Of course after the invasion no weapons of mass destruction were actually found. Recently deceased and highly decorated General Colin Powell was sent forth to argue about the existence of WMD in Iraq. The authors continue:

"But the most ignominious moment came on February 5, 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell, the most respected and trusted member of the administration, went before the United Nations and made the case for war. Bush had handpicked Powell for the job. "You have the credibility to do this," he told Powell. "Maybe they'll believe you." ...

"It was a thoroughly shameful performance that Powell later called a low point in his career. ... Members of the intelligence community were outraged over Pentagon neocons' hijacking, distorting and fabricating intelligence. When the nonexistent WMD failed to materialize, New York Time columnist Nicholas Kristof described them as "spitting mad" and eager to have their say. One lashed out, "As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know that this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attacks on Iraq."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said, "As we know today, the Bush administration's reasons for the Iraq war were based on lies."

George W Bush's Big Lie cost a lot of American and Iraqi lives. So far Trump's Big Lie has cost the lives of relatively few Capitol policemen. But the stage is set for an assault on American democracy itself. The perpetration of Trump's Big Lie is being carried on by his henchmen in Congress and in the media. Their use of symbols such as flags in the January 6 insurrection is reminiscent of all the flags, symbols and pageantry of Nazi Germany, much of which was designed by Hitler himself who was an artist who failed to gain entrance to the Munich University before aspiring to world domination. The cries of "We're Number 1" by the insurrectionists and other bellicose Americans are echoes of their predecessors' cries of "Heil Hitler."

Off the Top of My Head

The Militarization of the American Mind

by John Lawrence

From seemingly rational thought processes that would make it impossible to end the war in Afghanistan to the insurrection at the Capitol to the "American movie" chock full of violence to the "well regulated militia" justification of gun proliferation, there is no end of rationalizations for the American military-industrial complex and gun culture on every level. Why does it come as a surprise to some journalists that many participants in the January 6 insurrection were current or ex military or police officers? They are exactly the ones with the mind set that believes Trump won the election, and that it was OK to do what their leader commanded them to do - invade the Capitol. The Generals who say that Biden shouldn't end the Afghanistan war on the grounds that the Kabul government will collapse are exactly the ones that argued we shouldn't end the Vietnam war because the South Vietnam government would collapse. Sure when the US sets up a puppet government and then props it up with money and a military presence, it probably will collapse when the US leaves that country which it never should have invaded in the first place. Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again or as Yogi Berra would say deja vu all over again.

The division among Americans into two tribes can be understood in terms of the two paths Americans take after high school graduation. There are those who go to college and there are those who go into the military. Those are basically the two choices high school graduates have. Those who go to college are taught to think critically to some extent, while those who go into the military are taught to obey orders. Unfortunately, Trump, as their Commander-in-Chief gave them the order to invade the Capitol, and they felt justified in following it because that is what their training led them to do. The choice to go into the Peace Corps or AmeriCorp is not really viable for most high school graduates because the perks of going into the military greatly exceed the perks of going into more peaceful pursuits, and they are less glorious. This is also a characteristic of the militarization of the American civilian mind. The military-industrial complex including, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, profits greatly from ongoing militarization and military thought processes, employs most of the college graduates and provides debate ending rationalizations for American military preparedness despite the fact that their extremely expensive hardware doesn't work half the time, and the threats to America are primarily cyber in nature as well as domestic terrorism.

The divide and contrast between high school graduates who go into the military and are taught to follow orders and those who go to college is reflected in the political divide between those on the right and those on the left.The military is all about symbolism including snappy uniforms, medals for valor in combat, saluting the flag and honoring themselves for their patriotism. On the left results in the improvement of the lives of the American people - and not just the elite civilian Officer's Corps - are more important than symbols of glory. They are more likely to question authority rather than unquestionably following orders. The January 6 insurrectionists were following Trump's orders at least that's what they were thinking in their own minds and by their own admission. I would like to see the FBI release to the public the number of insurrectionists who were military or former military. I bet that would be most of them, especially the males. A lot of ex military go into police work because of the familiarity with weaponry which they gained in the military. Since guns are a familiar way of life for them, naturally they become arch supporters of the Second Amendment, "well regulated" or not. They are used to classifying groups of people as either friendly or the enemy, and this mind set lends itself to police work.

In the final analysis, America is so used to being the world's policeman and profiting in various ways therefrom, that it is unthinkable that we should cooperate with our supposed adversaries to forestall global warming or to thwart future pandemics let alone the current one. We must always have an enemy or at least an adversary to justify our existence. A peaceful world in which everyone gets along and cooperates to solve the problems we earthlings face and have to deal with is unthinkable. Even though the US has a glut of vaccines while the rest of the world is begging for them, Americans feel free not to have their arms jabbed because after all they are free - free to be stupid, free to ignore the safety of other Americans and free to get infected with the virus and die taking others with them.. They just want to get back to normal entertaining themselves to death and ignoring totally any responsibility to their fellow citizens not to mention fellow citizens of the world, many of which they would like to maintain in their necessary roles as the enemy.

Dr. Fauci wondered why we couldn't all unite to fight the common enemy  - COVID - instead of fighting among ourselves about taking the vaccine. Uniting to fight a common enemy like COVID or climate change just isn't the way Americans and maybe humanity in general do things. We need to disagree even about things that are crucial for our continued existence as a species. As a nation we need an enemy whether it be Russia or China seemingly to justify our existence.

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

Sadness for a Good Man Leaving After a Life Well Lived Contrasted With the Sadness for Victims of Mass Murders Gone Before Their Time

by John Lawrence

Prince Philip lived a good, successful and honorable life to the age of 99. It is sad to see him go, but that is tempered by the nobility of his life and the fact that we all have to go at some time. On the other hand, the US is in the throes of mass murders on a daily basis killing people senselessly before their time on earth was up. Is there nostalgia for a monarchy to replace the chaos that the descendants of the rebels against the British monarchy have created? Did the emphasis on liberty and the Second Amendment make this inevitable? Now we have politicians whose sole purpose in life is to fund raise off the chaos that they themselves have created. The First and Second Amendments are killing us. That includes the "peaceful protests" that turn into rioting and looting when the sum goes down. God save the queen.

The US is alone in the civilized world with an unrestricted right to gun ownership. The only other countries which have a right to bear arms written into their Constitution are Mexico and Guatemala, Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws. The US should do the same. The US is the only country with a right to keep and bear arms with no constitutional restrictions. Americans own nearly half of all the civilian-owned guns in the world, and on a per capita basis, the US has far more guns than any other nation.

Just south of the US border, the Mexican government has a strict hold over civilian gun ownership. Although Mexicans have a right to buy a gun, bureaucratic hurdles, long delays, and narrow restrictions make it extremely difficult to do so. Article 10 of the 1857 Mexican Constitution guaranteed that "every man has the right to keep and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense." But 60 years later in 1917, lawmakers amended it following Mexico's bloody revolution. During the rewriting of the constitution, the government placed more severe restrictions on the right to buy guns. The law precluded citizens from buying firearms "reserved for use by the military" and forbid them from carrying "arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations." Today, Mexicans still have a right to buy guns, but they must contend with a vague federal law that determines "the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized."

In Guatemala individuals who want to purchase a gun for private security purposes need approval from the government. They are also limited in how much ammunition they can own, and they must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licenses every one to three years, according to GunPolicy.org. A license also requires proof that the applicant has a clean police record, does not suffer from mental illness, and has not deserted the army or police. Although Guatemalans are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons, they are allowed to buy semi-automatic weapons, handguns, rifles, and shotguns if they obtain a permit. Still, that can be difficult.

Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own, because it is the only country without any restrictions on gun ownership in its Constitution. The US makes up 4.4 percent of the world’s population but has almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world. The horror show of mass violence will continue until there is gun control at the Federal level or gun restrictions are written into the Constitution. The latter is probably not possible. The Second Amendment to the Constitution in and of itself is probably enough to doom the US to the fate of a second class nation or worse. In the People's Republic of China, access by the general public to firearms is subject to some of the strictest control measures in the world. With the exception of individuals with hunting permits and some ethnic minorities, civilian firearm ownership is restricted to non-individual entities. China is surging ahead of the US economically and doesn't have to deal on a daily basis with the spectacle of mass violence committed by its citizens on other citizens. As Joe Biden said, mass murders are a national embarrassment.

The conclusion is that most of the world's nations are much more sensible about gun control. The US is the outlier, and it's turning the US into a police state not because police own all the weapons but because the citizens own so many of them and are using them on fellow citizens with increasing frequency. This is having a destabilizing effect on the whole citizenry because no one knows who may be next to suffer a random act of mass violence. Lenin once famously remarked that businessmen would happily sell for a profit the rope that would later be used to hang them. American businessmen who sell guns and ammunition are now happily selling American citizens the guns with which on a daily basis they are slaughtering each other senselessly and for no reason at all. The US is degenerating into a nation dragging itself down and destabilizing itself into a black hole that seemingly it can't recover from.

Off the Top of My Head

Civilization and Its Discontents

by John Lawrence, March 22, 2020

Are we becoming more or less civilized? What does civilization even mean? Doesn't it mean that there is less conflict and more harmony among all the 9 billion human beings that inhabit the world? Doesn't it also mean an increased knowledge about how to care for the planet which is our common home? I don't think it means more and more stuff. There is something to be said for material well-being, but, after a certain level has been achieved, further increase only represents gluttony especially if it is not more or less equally distributed among all the earth's population. Progress towards civilization means less conflict, less war, not more freedom. Freedom is a component but is not essential to civilization. Love and diplomacy are.

By any measure human society is becoming less civilized and more solipsistic. The emphasis on extreme individualism and ego-centrism in the US has meant that the US has gone from the world's savior after WW II to the world's dominant and ruling empire placing itself and its prerogatives above the welfare of the world's people. The slogan for the French revolution was "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" and it's France's motto to this day. Although the American and French revolutions happened at about the same time and were based on many similar values, the US totally forgot about the fraternité part. It was replaced with "every man for himself and "don't tread on me." This emphasis on individualism without a corresponding emphasis on compassion and social responsibility was increased during the Reagan and Alan Greenspan era. Greenspan was an acolyte of Ayn Rand who brought a flower arrangement depicting a dollar bill to her funeral. Rand was an extreme individualist whose views didn't recognize any other validity than that which was central to her own mind.

Extreme individualism has found its latest proponent in Donald Trump who might have been a character in one of Ayn Rand's novels, a hero whose only interest was himself and his own interests without any regard for anyone else. Trump has projected this philosophy onto an entire nation with his motto of "America First." However, his real motto is "Trump first." Fraternité or brotherhood has nothing to do with Reagan's or Greenspan's or Ayn Rand's thought processes and there is a direct line among them and their influence on the US turning a once compassionate nation into the equivalent of the Roman Empire, but, whereas the Romans only sought to rule Western Civilization, Trumpism and the American Empire seeks control over the entire planet.

In recent days even Trump has uttered the words "We're all in this together." That's nice to know Mr Trump, but it took a global pandemic for Trump to realize or give credence to this sentiment. However, there is another pandemic that makes the coronavirus pale by comparison, and that is global warming and climate change with respect to which Trump has never uttered the same words and is not likely to. Instead Trump and his Republican progenitors have consistently sought to make America the world's preeminent nation and ruler of the world.  Civilization has retreated since the high point of the FDR administration. Even Democratic administrations other than that of Jimmy Carter have triangulated with the devil.

I come back to fraternité. Wouldn't there have been more progress towards civilization if this word had been taken more seriously and not just among Americans or Frenchmen, but among all human beings in a globalized world. Globalism in terms of civilization should lead to peace on earth and a reasonable distribution of material goods instead of a US which hoards everything for itself (the hoarding of toilet paper is symbolic!) and tries to dominate other nations with its military and its economic prowess in terms of the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Since the dollar has been weaponized by its application to sanctions, other currencies are seeking equivalency and will probably soon have it if not dominancy.

It's taken a world wide pandemic to make US leaders realize that we are all in this together. When the pandemic subsides, will this be the takeaway? Will it mean an increase in civilization in terms of understanding and compassion for all peoples of the earth? Will it mean an increase in diplomacy and a reduction in weapon caches? Will it mean a reduction in the size and expenditures on the military-industrial complex? Will it mean some sense of humility instead of hubris on the part of US leaders? In other words will the coronavirus pandemic have resulted in an increase in civilization? Hope springs eternal, but don't bet on it.

Off the Top of My Head

Border Security: Is There a Sane Approach?

by John Lawrence, November 3, 2018

The issue of border security has been so politicized that it's hard to decipher what might be a meaningful approach to the subject. It has been made the linchpin of Trump's attempt to rally his base before the upcoming election. Congress has been in a state of total inaction regarding this and many other subjects. Let's take a look at the two extreme positions on the subject, and see where a line might be drawn that represents a realistic approach.

The extreme Left would like to have open borders. That is nobody would be checked at the border. Anyone could come in, perhaps after showing some ID. There would be no border patrol or quasi military people at the border trying to prevent illegal entry so illegals could come right in. The extreme Right would like a strong border that would prevent anyone form entering illegally. They wouldn't be satisfied until not one person could enter the country illegally. Obviously, that would require a strong commitment of resources.

Right off the bat I reject Trump's proposal of building a wall. I think that would be the most expensive and least effective solution. However, I have to give Trump credit in the fact that it is inconceivable that any American citizen would approve of anyone entering the country illegally. Trump is right that, if you have open borders, you don't really have a country. No European country lets people enter illegally if they can do anything about it. When trains cross borders in Europe, I know from personal experience that guards with loaded rifles get on the train and check everyone's passport even in the middle of the night!

I am in favor of strong border security. The question is - as always - how much do you want to pay for that? The US defense budget is already so bloated with hundreds of military bases located all over the world that I would not be in favor of spending even more money to beef up border security. However, I would be in favor of shutting down at least half of those bases, perhaps diminishing the current defense budget in other ways as well, and using that money to beef up border security. Why are we defending other countries when they have the resources to defend themselves? This is a point Trump has made that he has yet to follow through on and perhaps never will, but it is a valid point. The implication is that the US defense budget should be diminished and spent on other things, and yet Trump has only added to it.

I would be in favor of diminishing the current defense budget which is predicated on the fact of defending the whole world and using part of the money to defend our own borders which means I would be in favor of beefing up border security but in a smart way - no wall. This means additional resources should be employed at the border to make it impossible for anyone to gain access illegally. These would include electronic patrols from tower to tower, satellite surveillance, helicopter surveillance, rapid deployment teams similar to the SEALs, Coast Guard boat patrols in the Rio Grande, drone patrols etc etc. With the expertise the US has, it could secure the border 100% if it transferred resources for that effort and diminished resources going into defending other countries which could provide their own security.

But not only the land border with Mexico needs defending. The Coast Guard should be beefed up patrolling the coasts so that no one can gain access by sea. Ports of entry should have more sophisticated means to detect illegal persons and contraband being smuggled into the US. The border with Canada should be better secured as well. Surveillance of aircraft attempting to circumvent land or sea entry needs to be addressed. People coming in on visas need to be tracked to make sure they leave when they are supposed to.

The sad fact is that so much money has been devoted to high tech weapons systems and aircraft that the idea of protecting our borders has been given short shrift. There's more money to be made for defense contractors like Boeing in building high performance aircraft and high tech weapon systems than there is in the relatively less expensive devices that could be developed to protect our borders. So the emphasis on defense spending is on war fighting rather than defending our borders. If more attention were paid to border security and more resources allocated towards it, the flow of illegal contraband such as drugs could be stopped in its tracks. As it is, the US not only tolerates the influx of illegal people but illegal goods such as drugs as well. One other point is that the US should expedite the flow of legal traffic through ports of entry such as the land port at San Ysidro, the world's busiest border crossing. While stemming the flow of illegal people and goods, the flow of legal transborder people and goods should be expedited. This has been happening at San Ysidro where I cross frequently to see the dentist in Tijuana. My SENTRI card gets me over the border in a short time rather than having to wait for hours to cross the border as in olden days.

My main point is that resources should be taken away from the kind of defense systems that the US currently employs which is an attempt to patrol the whole world and given to beefed up border security defense.

Weapons For Anyone: US Selling Arms as if There Were No Tomorrow.

Published on Monday, April 02, 2018 by TomDispatch

And There Might Not Be at the Rate We're Going

by William Hartung

 

5 Comments

"Selling weapons to dictatorships and repressive regimes often fuels instability, war, and terrorism, as the American war on terror has vividly demonstrated for the last nearly 17 years." (Photo: Ahmed Farwan/Flickr/cc)

It’s one of those stories of the century that somehow never gets treated that way. For an astounding 25 of the past 26 years, the United States has been the leading arms dealer on the planet, at some moments in near monopolistic fashion. Its major weapons-producers, including Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, regularly pour the latest in high-tech arms and munitions into the most explosive areas of the planet with ample assistance from the Pentagon. In recent years, the bulk of those arms have gone to the Greater Middle East. Donald Trump is only the latest American president to preside over a global arms sales bonanza. With remarkable enthusiasm, he’s appointed himself America’s number one weapons salesman and he couldn’t be prouder of the job he’s doing.

Earlier this month, for instance, on the very day Congress was debating whether to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, Trump engaged in one of his favorite presidential activities: bragging about the economic benefits of the American arms sales he’s been promoting. He was joined in his moment of braggadocio by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the chief architect of that war. That grim conflict has killed thousands of civilians through indiscriminate air strikes, while putting millions at risk of death from famine, cholera, and other “natural” disasters caused at least in part by a Saudi-led blockade of that country’s ports.

That Washington-enabled humanitarian crisis provided the backdrop for the Senate’s consideration of a bill co-sponsored by Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, and Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. It was aimed at ending U.S. mid-air refueling of Saudi war planes and Washington’s additional assistance for the Saudi war effort (at least until the war is explicitly authorized by Congress). The bill generated a vigorous debate. In the end, on an issue that wouldn’t have even come to the floor two years ago, an unprecedented 44 senators voted to halt this country’s support for the Saudi war effort. The bill nonetheless went down to defeat and the suffering in Yemen continues.

Debate about the merits of that brutal war was, however, the last thing on the mind of a president who views his bear-hug embrace of the Saudi regime as a straightforward business proposition. He’s so enthusiastic about selling arms to Riyadh that he even brought his very own prop to the White House meeting with bin Salman: a U.S. map highlighting which of the 50 states would benefit most from pending weapons sales to the prince’s country.

You undoubtedly won’t be surprised to learn that Michigan, Ohio, and Florida, the three crucial swing states in the 2016 presidential election, were specially highlighted. His latest stunt only underscored a simple fact of his presidency: Trump's arms sales are meant to promote pork-barrel politics, while pumping up the profits of U.S. weapons manufacturers. As for human rights or human lives, who cares?

To be fair, Donald Trump is hardly the first American president to make it his business to aggressively promote weapons exports. Though seldom a highlighted part of his presidency, Barack Obama proved to be a weapons salesman par excellence. He made more arms offers in his two terms in office than any U.S. president since World War II, including an astounding $115 billion in weapons deals with Saudi Arabia. For the tiny group of us who follow such things, that map of Trump’s only underscored a familiar reality.

On it, in addition to the map linking U.S. jobs and arms transfers to the Saudis, were little boxes that highlighted four specific weapons sales worth tens of billions of dollars. Three of those that included the THAAD missile defense system, C-130 transport planes, P-8 anti-submarine warfare planes, and Bradley armored vehicles were, in fact, completed during the Obama years. So much for Donald Trump’s claim to be a deal maker the likes of which we’ve never seen before. You might, in fact, say that the truest arms race these days is between American presidents, not the United States and other countries. Not only has the U.S. been the world’s top arms exporting nation throughout this century, but last year it sold one and a half times as much weaponry as its closest rival, Russia.

Pope Denounces 'Mentality of Fear' Caused by Nuclear Regimes, Urges Disarmament

Published on Friday, November 10, 2017 by Common Dreams

At a seminar at the Vatican, Pope Francis praised the U.N.'s recent anti-nuclear weapons treaty

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

1 Comments

 

Pope Francis called for nuclear disarmament at a Vatican summit on Friday, a week after an emotional anti-war speech at a military cemetery in Italy. (Photo: Republic of Korea/Flickr/cc)

At a Vatican seminar attended by Nobel Peace Prize winners, United Nations officials, and representatives from countries with nuclear capabilities, Pope Francis urged leaders to move towards nuclear disarmament on Friday.

The pontiff's speech came a week after he made a plea for an end to "useless massacres" in an anti-war speech at a military cemetery in Italy, in which he alluded to the rising tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, exacerbated in recent months by President Donald Trump's bellicose threats in response to Kim Jong-un's nuclear tests.

Pope Francis argued that the insistence on maintaining nuclear arsenals by nations including the United States, North Korea, and France "creates nothing but a false sense of security," and therefore total disarmament is the only acceptable solution.

Nuclear weapons, he said, "exist in the service of a mentality of fear that affects not only the parties in conflict but the entire human race. International relations cannot be held captive to military force, mutual intimidation, and the parading of stockpiles of arms."

"Weapons that result in the destruction of the human race are senseless even from a tactical standpoint," added the pope.

Pope Francis also expressed "gratitude and appreciation" for the U.N.'s recent treaty calling for an elimination of nuclear weapons. The agreement was adopted in July, but all the nuclear states abstained from voting. So far, three parties have ratified the treaty.

The seminar signified a shift in the Catholic Church's tolerance of the existence of nuclear programs. Bishops in the U.S. expressed a "strictly conditional moral acceptance of deterrence" but the Pope's recent remarks indicate that the conditions may now call for a policy change.

"The church's tolerance of deterrence was predicated on it being a step toward disarmament," said Stephen Colecchi, director of the U.S. bishops' conference's Office of International Justice and Peace, in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Today, regimes are "planning modernization of nuclear weapons. You don't modernize a weapons system that you intend to disarm from. So I think deterrence is on very thin moral grounds."

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