Dissident Notes

Writing and Journalism Website

Menu Close

“Say It Ain’t So, Joe: the Latest Neoliberal from the War and Wall Street Party

“Say It Ain’t So, Joe:” the Latest Neoliberal from the War and Wall Street Party

Published at CounterPunch on March 20, 2019

 

Trump’s Plot Against America: It Can Happen Here

Trump’s Plot Against America: It Can Happen Here

Published at CounterPunch on March 5, 2019

When Philip Roth wrote The Plot Against America (2004), I instinctively recoiled at Roth’s fictional account of a neo-Nazi political party coming to power in the U.S. with figures such as Charles Lindbergh at its helm. When a Nazi document surfaced just recently (“Nazi blueprint for North American Holocaust acquired by Canada archive,” Guardian, January 25, 2019), that outlined the World War II Nazi plan to turn parts of North America into a Nazi enclave, probably with an effort to round up Jews and others that the Nazi regime saw as undesirable, I paid closer attention.

The Guardian published “The neo-Nazi plot against America is much bigger than we realize,” (March 3, 2019), which discusses the alarming rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the U.S.

Now with Michael Cohen’s (Trump’s former lawyer) testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he concluded that Trump and his backers may not allow a peaceful transition of power should Trump lose the 2020 election, the handwriting has been more clearly written on the wall than ever (“Michael Cohen Worries There Won’t Be a ‘Peaceful Transition Of Power’ If Trump Loses in 2020,” Huffington Post, February 27, 2019).

Trump and his followers, both rich and terminally ignorant, despite their Make America Great Again red hats of disdain for institutions and the little left of democratic traditions in the U.S., are the real “America” haters in the “room.” Trump and his father had a long history of racism in the way they managed their rental empire in New York City. Trump’s treatment of workers in his many projects was abysmal. His history of cheating contractors is legendary. The recent history of the Republican Party is one of total disdain for the few remnants of democratic institutions that remain. The nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court  (Washington Post, April 5, 2018) comes to mind, as does the recent shutdown of the federal government.

As a Jew, I am very, very concerned that a loss in 2020 for Trump and his backers could mean that a U.S. version of the Einsatzgruppen could happen here. There is easily enough hate and an ample supply of guns to loosen a segment of this society that would carry out and enjoy random and targeted murder in the streets of the U.S. Look to those with grudges and those who came out on the streets in Charlottesville, Virginia at the Unite the Right rally in August 2017, which resulted in the death of one protester. They shouted for blood and soil while chanting “Jews will not replace us.” Trump said there were some “fine people” among the white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Jews would not be the only targets of such murderous mayhem if Trump, et al. turned to violence to hold power. People of color and people with sexual orientations objectionable to religious fundamentalists, along with immigrants, would be “fair game.” As reported in the Guardian above (March 3, 2019), the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented the escalating level of anti-Semitism and racism in the U.S. The 11 people killed at the Tree of Life synagogue in 2018 are testament to the violent expression of hate here!

Those who want to conflate being a Jew in the U.S. with support for Israel’s denial of the Palestinian people their right to a state need to pay attention to a 2018 poll by the American Jewish Committee (reported in the Chicago Tribune) in which 59% of Jews polled favored a Palestinian state. Only a small fraction of Jews in the U.S. support Trump. My sense is that the number of Jews in the U.S. supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state is now higher.

To those who hold that “It can’t happen here,” this nation already has a history of actions against black people dating back to slavery and its aftermath. The Ku Klux Klan existed in various forms since the end of the Civil War and colluded violently with some local police departments in the U.S. South during the Jim Crow era. The history of the treatment and massacre of many Native Americans is yet another historical reality in just how vicious the government can be to those who get in its way in the face of expansionary policies and its solidifying of power. Smaller movements against women, gay people, and those who have taken to the streets against war are other valid examples of how violent both official and unofficial reaction to protest can be.

The government maintains, or can cull, information about dissidents from powers it has had over decades and can put into effect powers given to it by the Patriot Act enacted following the attacks of September 2001. It would not be difficult to envision the melding of government power and the violent dissatisfaction of enclaves of those filled with hate around this nation to begin a pogrom against those deemed as objectionable by Trump and those like Trump both inside and outside of the government. A fabricated so-called national emergency such as war based on regime change could be the event that sparks the final thrust toward fascism. Only a tiny fraction of Democrats in Congress would resist such a war.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

Follow the Money to the Border Wall

Photo credit: pbs.org

Follow the Money to the Border Wall
Published at CounterPunch on February 27, 2019

Readers may rightly believe that the government and segments of this society have fallen to their absolute lowest levels just as a new outrage becomes obvious. Such is the case with Trump’s (read his far-right handlers) border wall.

What are the objectives of the border wall? In other words, just what does the man behind the curtain and his handlers have in mind? First, they placate their base of haters and ignoramuses. Next, they make lots and lots of money for their special interests such as security companies, gun manufacturers, infrastructure companies, the military, and other government agencies.

The Real News Network presents a compelling recounting of just who will profit from Trump’s latest outburst of hate in “Trump’s Border Wall: Who Profits?” (February 25, 2019). Not surprisingly, some companies, like selected Israeli security companies that supply all manner of security equipment such as is used on Israel’s border wall (the Israeli West Bank barrier) at its border with the West Bank, have already seen their stock prices skyrocket: Follow the money: Make some good bets! Readers may be able to see the demonization of immigrants trying to enter the U.S. at the U.S./Mexican border connected to the plight of the Palestinian people in the West Bank. The comparison is more than valid.There’s lots of money to be made around the world from so-called security devices.

And while Israeli security companies are under scrutiny, consider that the racist Benjamin Netanyahu has just cemented a pact in order to facilitate a ruling majority with “ultranationalist extremists” of the Jewish Power party according to the Guardian (February 25, 2019). Now there’s a match made in hell: Trump and Netanyahu, an anti-Semite and racist president in the U.S. and a racist prime minister in Israel.

Then there is the question of infrastructure decay in the U.S. Who has not driven along roads and over and under bridges in the U.S. without being personal witness to those decaying roadways and bridges? Environmentalists may object here (Where is the juggernaut for mass transportation and environmentally friendly vehicles?), but in the near future we all need ways to get around and roads and bridges in the U.S. are an absolute disaster in many cases, while Trump touts his hate at the border with a wall. Trump would like around $8 billion to put his hate into reality at the border, but meanwhile human needs go unmet and ignored in the U.S.

Don’t pay attention to the grotesque caricature behind the curtain while the plutocrats and oligarchs take your wallet, destroy the sad remnants of democratic institutions, stoke the hate they are so adept at, laugh all the way to the bank, plan openly for a coup d’etat in Venezuela, and destroy the planet!

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Anti-immigrant Hate

Photo credit: timesofisrael.com

Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Anti-immigrant Hate

Published at CounterPunch on February 15, 2019

Growing up in a small town in New England, I never thought much about anti-Semitism. I was, however, aware of the differences that marked the Jewish presence in a town in which most residents were first and second-generation children or grandchildren of immigrants who had come from Canada, Ireland, Portugal, and from several countries in Eastern Europe. One black family lived in the town where I grew up. Most residents earned their living from textile mills, or from running shops in the business district. I never felt very uncomfortable because of the differences in background. People learned to get along with imperfection. The small Jewish community in which I grew up had seen dwindling numbers following World War II, but shopkeepers and a few professionals gave me the sense I belonged to a group that defined its own identity and was not molested in any way.

The textile mills in town had seen labor strikes decades earlier.

By the time I worked in public schools the sense of being different because of the strong presence of ethnocentrism was obvious. Before leaving public schools for work in community colleges, the kinds of anti-Semitism that I experienced were substantial. A neighbor with whom I had had a minor dispute said, “I’ve read your articles in the newspaper and Hitler should have killed all of the Jews.”

I had lost an adjunct teaching position at a college for what a colleague called out as being brash enough to address women’s rights in a school founded on sectarian principles, but this was only a minor issue since I had full-time employment to fall back on.

Despite the loss of that job, I never felt that my identity as a Jew was ever under any serious threat. I even felt confident challenging Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Now with Trump, all of this has changed for the worse. Anti-Semitism has escalated to levels that make putting hate into perspective impossible. A few days ago, a probable anti-Semitic incident took place at an Orthodox-Jewish school in the Catskill region of upstate New York, with fire damage and swastikas spray painted on the outside walls of a school building. Visions of Nazi Germany came to mind as they had when 11 worshipers were killed at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in October 2018. Readers will remember that the gunman in Pennsylvania identified an immigrant aid society as one of the reasons for his attack.

I have closely followed anti-Semitic incidents as they have been reported in the press. There is an area of the lower Hudson Valley in upstate New York that has seen an alarming increase in anti-Semitic incidents, the suspicious school fire being the latest example.

The hatreds expressed in many of Trump’s statements are partly an attempt to enrage his base and drive them to act out the foulest kinds of behavior while the far right solidifies its grab of more power and more wealth. These trends are the hallmarks of a decaying society where inequality and meanness on the streets are the calling cards of the few and the wealthy and their sycophants like Trump. Recall his “very fine people” comment referring to some neo-Nazis and some white supremacists at Charlottesville, Virginia, and the neo-Nazi chants of “Jews will not replace us.”

While searching for information about the closing of a clothing store in a nearby town in upstate New York where I shopped, I found a disturbing comment from its former owner, a person with whom I often chatted while in the store. He talked about his suspicion that when an incident of arson took place at the store in the middle of the decade of the 1980s, he strongly suspected that the motivation for that arson may have been the targeting of a business owned by someone Jewish.

The business owner pointed to the fact that at the time of the fire at his store, a similar fire took place at a clothing store in a nearby town in Connecticut. There were two issues that stuck in the business owner’s mind about the second fire: The clothing store in Connecticut was owned by a Jewish individual and that fire took place on Hitler’s birthday. Although no proof of anti-Semitism has come to light in these arsons, enough information is available to draw tentative conclusions.

I met with a religious leader near the community in which I live to discuss a number of incidents near my home that I considered to have some elements of anti-Semitism. The area has many Jews who have relocated from the greater metropolitan New York area. The rabbi I spoke with observed that when Jews come into conflict with long-time residents of the area, in any number of ways, that sometimes innocuous contact may be seen by people as interfering with their established control over some of the aspects of living, working, and governing in the hill towns that comprise most of this geographical area.

As nativism and populism grow on the right worldwide, along with economic uncertainty, anti-Semitism, racism, and anti-immigrant actions and attitudes have once again become prominent.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

The Mother of All Bombs: U.S. Foreign Policy

The Mother of All Bombs: U.S. Foreign Policy

Published at CounterPunch onFebruary 6, 2019

Following the horrific destruction left in the wake of World War II, the United Nations in its seminal and founding document, the Charter of the United Nations, set out to prevent future wars among member nations. The Charter’s admonition against war was also voiced in the lessons learned from the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in its condemnation of war: “starting or waging a war against a territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or violation of international treaties or agreements.” are crimes against peace and “makes all war crimes possible.”

The few and the wealthy of many nations are no longer constrained by rules that categorize civilized and enlightened behavior toward other nations such as Venezuela and Iran. They’ve had many nations in their crosshairs and have met with much “success.” Their attacks against Venezuela’s sovereignty are the final nail in the coffin of the endless wars, and the preparation for war, that are now all the rage among the sycophants of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Venezuela is absolutely no threat to the U.S., and therefore, the U.N. Charter prohibits the kinds of dangerous and lethal idiocy that the Trump administration is now orchestrating against Venezuela. Readers need to consider that presidents are viewed in a positive light when they are seen as acting in a presidential manner, i.e., threaten or incite war against other nations. Recall the popularity of the newly elected Trump when he ordered the use of the mother of all bombs against Afghanistan. The bipartisan talking heads in the U.S. loved that theatre (“Trump Drops The Mother Of All Bombs On Afghanistan,” New Yorker, April 14, 2017).

Even billionaire Michael Bloomberg got in on the act of Venezuela bashing in his attacks against mild reformers of the political system like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren:
To plutocrat Michael Bloomberg, Sanders is a “demagogue” preaching “unreason,” while Sen. Elizabeth (D-Mass.) will transform the United States into a “non-capitalistic” system where “people are starving to death,” like “Venezuela” (“What The Left Gets Wrong About Bernie Sanders And Elizabeth Warren,” Huffington Post, January 31, 2019).

Critics of Nicolas Maduro’s government are right to point out that some of the blame of the current state of domestic affairs in Venezuela is attributable to Maduro’s handling of dissent among ordinary Venezuelans. Additional responsibility is undeniable in that the Venezuelan economy has not diversified to the extent that could have offset the declining price of oil. But, these serious failings do not rise to the level of the attacks against Venezuela by those with power and wealth and their errand “boys” who want a one-dimensional political and economic world where their wildest whims of power and control go unchallenged.

The mass media have been the biggest and most vocal cheerleaders of regime change in Venezuela. Following upon the heels of Russia bashing from mass media outlets such as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Guardian have made Juan Guaido the poster boy of their own agendas in support of the few and the wealthy: “Si puede! (“Yes we can!”) shouts rapturous crowd at Juan Guaido rally,” (January 31, 2019). Quickly forgotten is the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq, based on lies that turned that nation into a quagmire of sectarian hatreds and civil war.

Will Maduro be dragged through the streets in the manner of Muammar Gaddafi (a scoundrel in his own right) following the U.S.-led bombing campaign that turned that nation (Libya) into yet another quagmire? The Trump administration has Cuba and Nicaragua next on its hit list with absolutely no basis. The rules of war specify that a direct threat must be established before any aggressive actions are taken against sovereign nations. No direct threats exist! We seem to have learned next to nothing from history and are condemned to repeat the egregious and lethal mistakes of the past! And why not, they’re big money producers for some.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

The Long Goodbye of Antiwar Protest

Photo credit: benningtonbanner.com

The Long Goodbye of Antiwar Protest

Published at CounterPunch on February 5, 2019

It’s been a case of the long goodbye for what’s left of the peace movement in the U.S. On Saturday (January 26, 2019), a small group, very small by historic peace actions go, protested in front of the White House.

Watching the protest and interviews with protest participants on The Real News Network was almost painful. Medea Benjamin’s insightful observations, and a few other people’s, about the ongoing coup against Venezuela were just about the only sane and adult comments in the “room.” Across the globe, the vast majority of governments lined up behind the U.S. administration in its attacks against the people of Venezuela and Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro. The fallen zeitgeist of peace was as clear as it was after September 11, 2001.

Maduro is not blameless in what has happened in Venezuela, but that nation’s demise is a complicated matter with many domestic missteps along the way, particularly connected to the lack of domestic economic diversity. Venezuela has enormous fossil fuel reserves, along with other highly valued minerals, which makes it open to the predatory wolves of the global market. Look to Iraq as an example.

Then there are the media outlets across the U.S. and Europe pushing for this bald-face regime change in Venezuela. Imagine a major newspaper or other news outlet in the U.S. or elsewhere suddenly proclaiming that some unknown entity ought to be supported as president of the U.S. Imagine again, sanctions brought to bear against the U.S. for failing to heed that regime change advice. Suggesting that U.S. wealth be tied up by legal stratagems and handed over to the newly selected president would automatically be seen in the media as a case of high treason.

Why bother with the CIA or NSA, or other intelligence agencies when regime change is now handled in plain sight? It used to be that the process was slow, sort of like watching a kettle come to a boil, but this is now the stuff of a post 9/11 world and an Orwellian thought process that is truly disconcerting. The government tells us who we are at war with, and woe to those who buck the tidal wave of warmongering. It was as if they gave the merchants of war a ticker-tape parade through the streets of New York City and the sycophants of endless war were the cheerleaders of the confetti brigades.

A comment on The Real News Network piece observed that the disarray in the peace movement reached its apex during the Obama administration when people were sucked in by the empty rhetoric of hope and change and promptly left the streets and ignored Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan.

The long march of the acceptance of regime change through war and subterfuge began long before the Obama administration. Regime change followed upon the heels of World War II and the Cold War. The U.S. championed dictators who toed the U.S. foreign policy line and cared little for issues such as human rights and economic development that would benefit masses of ordinary people.

The September 11, 2001 attacks put regime change on the fast track and a series of nations were placed on one axis of evil list or another and mayhem broke out. Syria and Iraq come to mind as do Venezuela and Iran now. The axis transforms into the troika and few are paying any attention.

Perhaps the cliche fits that when a movement hits rock bottom, then the only way is up. But cliches are always weighed down by the reality on the street and that reality is anything but hopeful. This society has been carefully taught to accept war as a necessity, and not even a necessary evil. Journalist Chris Hedges wrote that War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002). Instead of something to be avoided at all costs, they have sold us a bill of goods about the trillions of dollars that are wasted on wars instead of on social programs. For those of us who were on the streets during the Vietnam War and continued on through the present-day’s endless wars, the writing has always been on the wall. They can fool most of the people most of the time about war. It’s not even seen as sexy to protest war anymore.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

The Government that Knows How to Channel Hate

Photo credit: commons.wikimedia.org

The Government that Knows How to Channel Hate

Democracy Now presented a segment on its January 23, 2019 program that featured ACLU attorney Chase Strangio. The segment covered the latest attacks against yet another vulnerable population in the U.S.: transgender people. The Supreme Court and the Trump administration have created what is essentially a system of harassment and discrimination against transgender people in the military, making for a “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” policy reminiscent of the Clinton administration’s harassment of gay people in the military. Yogi Berra may have said, “It’s like deja vu all over again,” but not much of what goes on in U.S. society these days is very funny.

Martin Luther King, Jr. observed: “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world: My own government.” (“Beyond Vietnam,” April 1967). Recall how Barack Obama dismissed King as some relic from the past vis-à-vis U.S. militarism? To enforce that violence, it uses its military forces and other global strategies like economic sanctions to punish any nation (and people) who dare to buck U.S. superpower global hegemony. And that’s the rub! The debate can’t end with a separation of U.S. military policy from the military, which is its enforcement tool just as police are the enforcement tool of domestic economic, social, and political inequality on the streets of the U.S. They’re two sides of the same coin. Check out the prison population in the U.S. to see how the latter works.

Following the horrors of World War II, the last time that the U.S. stood for a good cause that the military won, an international set of principles were expanded upon that include the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles, the U.N. Charter, and other documents and laws. It took only a few, short years for the U.S. to toss those principles and goals into the trash bin of history. The Cold War and the War on Terror have spawned their own perversions against what was achieved in 1945. Where an international police action could have sufficed in September 2001, now we have endless war. And the latter does not take into account the reasons September 2001 took place. Even a baseline of the rules of war, thousands of years in the making, are not seen as a hindrance to military planners, war profiteers, and their ilk at all branches of the federal government. It’s very, very big business. Trillions of dollars are at stake.

Regarding income inequality and militarism, it is noteworthy that as both the global economy and endless wars have morphed, inequality continues to grow at alarming rates further victimizing groups such as transgender people, people of color, and the poor. It is a vicious cycle that has at its heart and soul the U.S. global empire that is the primary, but not the only, enforcer of the global economic, political, and social order.

Democracy Now and other media outlets are no strangers to the reality facing journalists on the ground today who attempt to report on the global empire. Once, one of the defenses against tyranny, journalism itself has repeatedly seen attacks of all kinds. Even with the proliferation of the Internet, the hegemony of U.S. control of the message and medium is difficult to deny. As I write, the government has become so bold that while they once cooked up plans to overthrow their adversaries behind a veil of secrecy, they now do these dirty deeds on primitive newscasts. Shame is too delicate a word to apply to such wrongdoing and bestial behavior.

Nuclear proliferation and environmental destruction are other suits of the military card that accompany the military’s march across the world in support of the global empire.

The U.S. has about 800 military bases in 80 countries (Politico Magazine, July/August 2015). They are not there to hand out chocolates to local children as some G.I.s did during World War II following their hard-won victories.

The Costs of War Project shows (The Nation, January 4, 2018) that the so-called War on Terror involves 39% of the world’s countries.

Here’s ACLU attorney Chase Strangio:
And I want to say something, too, to a lot of people who I’ve been in community with for a long time, who have very justifiable concerns about the actions of our U.S. military and don’t support the military for many reasons. This isn’t a question about whether or not we support the United States military policy. This is a labor issue. This is a survival issue. This is a question about whether the largest employer in our country can tell transgender people that they are not welcome, that they cannot actively be who they are and retain their employment. So we should be incredibly concerned not only about what this means for trans people, for our employment, for our healthcare, for our survival, in absolutely every context, but also whether or not we’re going to accept a government policy that’s premised on the idea that we don’t exist, and that if we do exist, we should not be protected in any way.

Agreed, transgender people deserve the same treatment as all others in all kinds of federal employment, including the military. That inclusion comes with a hefty moral and monetary price these days.

There is even a more significant issue or two here. Trump orchestrates hate like almost no political figure in the past. He feeds on his base of haters who like nothing more than to see others hurt more than they have already been. Look to the lethal reaction to the historic civil rights movement and the same forces can be seen here today. Faces twisted in anger and hate with the capacity to strike out and give those in power, who don’t care about democratic traditions and institutions, carte blanche.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

Another Slugger from Louisville: Muhammad Ali

Photo credit: www.youtube.com

Another Slugger from Louisville: Muhammad Ali

Published at CounterPunch on January 22, 2019

Here’s some good news. Louisville International Airport in Kentucky, Muhammad Ali’s hometown, will be renamed the Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport.

Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all-time, a sport that has many features that readers may abhor. Airports are also great stains on the environment, with aircraft spewing tons of CO2 into the environment. But with those considerations noted, there was the long-distance runner of boxing, Ali, who became a symbol of resistance to the war in Vietnam. The observation made at the time was that Ali was at the pinnacle of his success in the ring and that boxing was one of the few places that a black man could defeat a white man and not risk death for his effort.

On April 28, 1967, Ali refused induction into the U.S. Army, citing his religion, Muslim, and had his heavyweight boxing title taken away. He said he would not go half-way around the world to kill people who had not insulted or degraded his race, and that observation must have earned him the ire of hordes of militant haters across the U.S. Ali said: “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong.”

The controversy lasted decades after Ali won his case before the Supreme Court. In 2004, baseball pitcher Bob Feller, a World War II veteran and baseball hall of fame member said: “I object very strongly to Muhammad Ali being here to throw out the first pitch… [Ali] changed his name and changed his religion so he wouldn’t have to serve his country, and to me, that’s disgusting.”

Many criticized Ali for accepting the Medal of Freedom from warmonger George W. Bush in 2005. By then, Ali suffered from the ravages of Parkinson’s syndrome that may have been brought on by his years in the boxing ring. It is impossible to comment dispassionately about the circumstances of the award, or the state of the U.S. as a country already at war for four years (now almost 18 years). But when confronting war and racism during the Vietnam War, it was Muhammad Ali who stood just as immovable as he did against the ropes of a boxing ring and waited patiently for his opponents to run out of steam.

Ali’s support for Ronald Reagan in 1984, in what Ali categorized as a religious issue in public schools, is difficult to explain.

Like the baseball bat named after Ali’s hometown, whose airport now bears his name, Muhammad Ali was in it for the full 12 rounds, or nine innings in real life.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

The Faux Political System by the Numbers

Border Wall Photo credit: news.stanford.edu

The Faux Political System by the Numbers

Published at CounterPunch on January 15, 2019

It’s sort of funny in a diabolical way: Trump a Russian agent. That’s the line that readers might expect from a remake of Back to the Future 1, 2, or 3, or a possible article from the National Enquirer… the stuff of science fiction, or fiction, or gossip. But the FBI, our national police, seem to have not much else to do than to cook up schemes of intrigue and espionage.

There is something going on in the dimension of real politics and it can be expressed by the equation mr=ip squared, where m stands for mild, r stands for a reformer, i stands for identity, and p stands for politics. Try it with, say, a mild, but genuine reformer like Ralph Nader and see how the formula works, or an even milder reformer like Bernie Sanders and the result will be the same. Come to the political and economic table in the U.S. in the 21st century, propose mild reforms such as consumer protection, or addressing the effects of climate destruction, and the few and the wealthy, the oligarchs and plutocrats, will stop you in your tracks.

Senator Bernie Sanders is the mildest of reformers, say with issues of student debt or of income inequality, but over the past few weeks his 2016 presidential campaign has been rocked by allegations of sexism (New York Times, January 2, 2019). No matter that the senator has apologized repeatedly and was committed to rooting out any semblance of sexism in his recent senate race in Vermont and in any potential future bids for higher office.

The Women’s March slated for January 19, 2019, has already seen the headwinds of reactionary change banging at its door. A noble cause, the major organization behind the march has seen allegations of anti-Semitism leveled at it. The march has splintered into smaller groups that in some cases will march under a banner highlighted by specific identities. The formula mm=ip squared could be applied to the march, where mm stands for mass movement and ip equals identity politics squared. A casual observer might conclude that these candidates and causes begin to self-destruct under their own particular weight of issues, but the nefarious hand of other forces cannot be discounted. Dirty tricks is the name of the game with powerful forces on the right. COINTELPRO, the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence program of the 1960s and 1970s, comes to mind. However, sometimes dirty tricks cannot explain intolerance.

Ralph Nader, a genuine reformer, but absolutely not a radical, has been marginalized since the 2000 presidential campaign. Despite being one of the most accomplished reformers in U.S. politics, he is universally seen as a political pariah among Democratic campaign operatives for the sin of not being a serious threat to Al Gore during that election cycle. His, Nader’s problem, is that he appeared to be a serious contender for those with an identity in the Democratic Party. Readers know Gore beat George W. Bush in that election, but they, the elite, threw it through a combined effort of the reactionary politics of Florida and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then there is the political equation of gr=ip squared, where g is equal to being genuine, r represents a radical, and the ip in the previous equation stands for exactly the same elements squared. Take Professor Angela Davis for example. She was supposed to receive an award early this year for her achievements in civil rights. If anyone deserves such an award, it’s the professor. I know because I was right across the street from the Women’s House of Detention in 1971 when they brought in Angela Davis. When a person is willing to risk jail for their political beliefs for positive or even radical change, then questioning their commitment is bad business.

Professor Davis ran into the anti-BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement), racism, and red baiting. Some organizations in the Birmingham Jewish community criticized the professor who had already been told that she was to receive the award from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (AL.com). Some of the naysayers who support a rabid form of modern Zionism, that contains all of the elements of racism, seem to have effectively nixed the professor’s award. Even a retired general and former college president got in on the criticism of Davis, citing her communist past and involvement with the Black Panther Party. Imagine being a member of a radical black liberation and action group. We can’t even imagine a mild reformer in the U.S., so why even consider Davis as the recipient of the Fred R. Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute? It’s all by the numbers, as readers can see.

Here’s the point in all of this: It doesn’t matter if a political actor or radical wants to reduce student debt, or put consumers on somewhat of an equal footing with capitalists, or support the BDS Movement to stop the suffering of the Palestinian people or establish a Palestinian state. The few and the wealthy and the haters will get their target every time without fail. They are flawless in how they focus their power and money like a laser beam against their intended target and leave destruction and confusion behind. They allowed Trump, a dangerous nincompoop, to ascend to the imperial throne and the destruction that lies in his wake is breathtaking. They will allow the environment to tank in their greed and lust for power and to hell with the species that populate the planet. Their biggest “games” now are military spending, endless wars, and predatory financial practices. So, putting monkey wrenches into the political system is small-time work for them. It’s all sort of part of their game.

And this final note about mild reformers, except for Ralph Nader: They cling to the war machine and will only make small concessions to the causes of justice and peace when they are pushed by their constituencies. Natural constituencies on the left need to consider when consensus is possible among groups, and that consensus of demands is not limited to the electoral system.

Readers may want to make note of the fact that on the political right, fundraising is not a particular problem since they have their own form of identity politics. An Iraq veteran has raised more than $20 million (Huffington Post, January 13, 2019) that may be returned to donors by GoFundMe. The money had been raised to donate to the building of a border wall along the southern border of the U.S. The money may be returned because the organizer of the fundraiser has opted to use a nonprofit for the donations rather than sending the money to the federal government.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

U.S.-Led Airstrikes Continue to Cause Civilian Deaths in Syria and Iraq

Source of photo: Airwars

Source: Airwars

US-led Coalition slashes airstrike transparency despite rising civilian toll
In its first published strike report since President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American forces from Syria on December 19th, the US-led Coalition has substantially reduced available information on where and when it is bombing.

The move represents the most significant reduction in Coalition transparency since the start of the war in August 2014 warns Airwars – and will make the task of securing proper accountability for battlefield civilian harm far harder. At the same time, a new Airwars monthly assessment shows that likely civilian casualties from US-led actions are at their highest point since the bloody 2017 battle for Raqqa.

The reduction in Coalition strike transparency was unexpected. For the entirety of the 52-month war against ISIS, the US-led alliance had published information on the number of strikes conducted daily in both Iraq and Syria – along with the near location of attacks and the reported targets. That detail helped distinguish the US-led alliance from other belligerents such as Russia, which remains barely accountable for its own actions in Syria.

While these public Coalition reports more recently shifted to a weekly format, the alliance nevertheless maintained a commitment to state where, when and what it bombed in both Iraq and Syria on each given date. The last such weekly report was published on December 19th – coincidentally the date President Trump announced a US withdrawal from Syria.

In its new fortnightly bulletin, the Coalition declares 478 airstrikes consisting of 1,015 engagements for the period December 16th-29th. While the release gives some detail on what was bombed, there is no mention of where in Iraq or Syria the strikes occurred – or on which specific dates. An accompanying Coalition statement claims that “Our intent is to reduce the number of reports while maintaining transparency.”

However in the view of Airwars, transparency has been significantly reduced. With the Coalition no longer identifying where or when it strikes in either Iraq or Syria, it will no longer be possible for external monitors to match potential civilian harm events to Coalition strikes. That process has been a key part of Airwars’ engagement until now on more than 2,000 claimed civilian casualty events in the war against ISIS, which it has flagged to the Coalition’s own civilian casualty monitoring team for assessment.

Civilian toll from US-led strikes is climbing fast, new report finds

In the Airwars monthly assessment for November 2018 published today, researchers found that at least 221 civilians and perhaps hundreds more likely died as a result of Coalition actions in Syria during the month.

Deaths were mostly clustered around the towns of Hajin, Al Sha’afa and Al Kishma in Syria’s Deir Ezzor province, where ISIS is making a last stand. Thousands of civilians including the families of ISIS fighters are known to be trapped in the so-called ‘Hajin Pocket’.

The reported Coalition casualty toll was the highest since the end of the Raqqa campaign in October 2017. The Coalition’s own air and artillery strike data also showed a 32%. However, actions by the US’s Dutch, British and French allies actually fell significantly during November 2018 – suggesting that the great majority of reported civilian casualties at Hajin were from US military actions alone.

“The war against ISIS is not yet over – and civilians continue to pay a heavy price,” says Chris Woods, the Director of Airwars. “We are troubled to see the US-led Coalition slashing public transparency in the wake of President Trump’s recent announcement – even as civilian casualties climb back to troubling levels. Airwars urges the US and its allies to re-think this shortsighted decision to reduce public accountability for the war against ISIS.”

Main image: The children Aisha, Zaid and Ziad Mahmoud al Haj Hussein, killed in a reported Coalition strike on al Sha’afa in Syria on November 3rd 2018. Image courtesy of the Syrian Network for Human Rights.

© 2019 Dissident Notes. All rights reserved.

Theme by Anders Norén.

Follow by Email
Facebook
Google+
http://dissidentnotes.com">
Twitter