Truth Out

Subscribe to Truth Out feed
Truthout sparks action by revealing systemic injustice and providing a platform for transformative ideas through investigative reporting and analysis.
Updated: 59 min 50 sec ago

Gerrymandering's Collateral Damage at Center of Fight Over Virginia House Control

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 14:47
Help preserve a news source with integrity at its core: Donate to the independent media at Truthout.

Republican Bob Thomas was sworn in as the representative for the Virginia House of Delegates' 28th District last week following a recount that confirmed him as the winner in the race for the open seat by 73 votes over Democrat Joshua Cole.

Coupled with the decision by Democratic challenger Shelly Simonds to concede the tied race for Virginia's 94th House District to GOP Del. David Yancey following her loss in a lottery-style drawing, the outcome gives Republicans control over the chamber by a 51-49 margin.

But a legal challenge to the 28th District election continues to move forward in the federal courts. And it's shining a spotlight on a somewhat obscure but serious problem related to gerrymandering: split precincts.

A precinct is usually the smallest administrative unit in an election district, with a specific place where all eligible residents go to vote. But a split precinct is divided by one or more election district lines, meaning some precinct residents vote in one race and some in another. Split precincts require multiple versions of the ballot, creating potential for confusion among poll workers.

That's exactly what happened in Virginia this past Election Day. Poll workers in the Fredericksburg area gave the wrong ballot to at least 147 people, sparking an ongoing federal lawsuit filed by voters seeking a new election for the House seat.

The problem of split precincts has grown along with gerrymandering, as politicians in charge of drawing election district maps have prioritized concerns such as partisan advantage and racial division over ease of election administration.

The 2011 redistricting process in Virginia led to what the Williams & Mary Law School blog characterized as an "explosion of split precincts" driven by a sharply divided legislature, the desire to protect incumbents, and improved technology allowing house-by-house precision in drawing election district maps:

According to research done by the Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) staff, the 1991 Virginia redistricting plan created 102 split precincts from a total of 2133 precincts and the 2001 plan created 75 split precincts from a total of 2239 precincts, healing some of the 1991 splits. In 2011, there are 2376 total precincts in Virginia. Of those, the most recent round of redistricting carved up 224 precincts into more than one piece; three times the number of split precincts created in the last round of redistricting.

The initial proposal considered during Virginia's most recent redistricting process would have split 500 precincts. Lawmakers worked to lower that number; after then-Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) vetoed the first version of the legislature's maps, they whittled it down further.

Besides increasing the chances for poll worker error, split precincts cost taxpayers more. They require not only multiple ballots but also pre-election materials to educate voters about district line shifts as well as polling place signage to ensure voters get the right ballot. The additional costs of a single split precinct have been estimated at up to $25,000.

Dividing North Carolina

Split precincts are also a problem in other gerrymandered Southern states like Alabama and South Carolina. But perhaps no state has gone so far to divide local communities for partisan political ends as North Carolina.

The election maps that the state's Republican-controlled legislature drew in 2011 created 563 split precincts that are home to more than 2 million voting-age adults -- a quarter of North Carolina's voting-age population. That's more than twice as many splits as under any of that state's previous redistricting plans. In one of the more extreme examples, one six-block area of Durham County had so many district lines running through it that it could potentially require 18 ballot versions.

The split precincts have caused problems in North Carolina's elections. During the 2012 election, for example, hundreds of voters across the state received the wrong ballots because of confusion over what district they lived in, with communities of color disproportionately affected. Research by Democracy North Carolina found that black voters are 50 percent more likely than white voters to live in a split precinct.

The legal challenges to the North Carolina maps pointed out that split precincts make it harder for voters to cast ballots and essentially create two classes of voters. The challengers also argued that split precincts violate the state constitution, which calls for redistricting to keep counties -- not just precincts -- whole to the greatest extent possible.

In addition, voting rights advocates point out that split precincts jeopardize the secrecy of the ballot. As Kellie Hopkins, elections director in North Carolina's Beaufort County, noted in a 2012 affidavit, "By having such a small number of voters with a ballot style, I am afraid that reporting by [precinct], which is required by law, could possibly allow others to know how someone marked their ballot."  

The federal courts have ruled that the North Carolina legislative districts drawn in 2011 included unconstitutional racial gerrymanders and ordered lawmakers to draw new ones. Among the criteria lawmakers adopted to guide their redrawn maps was the requirement to "make reasonable efforts" to split fewer precincts.

But, dissatisfied with lawmakers' efforts to undo racial gerrymanders, the courts assigned a special master to redraw the maps -- Stanford University professor and redistricting expert Nathan Persily. His plan does not add any more split precincts and in, fact, unifies some precincts that were split in the original 2011 plan or 2017 legislative revision.

A panel of federal judges is currently considering which version of the maps to use. A decision is expected soon as filing for legislative races is set to begin on Feb. 12.

Categories: News

Trump's New Health Division Embodies Institutional Oppression, Not "Religious Freedom"

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

Fear of discrimination and violence already takes an enormous toll on the health and well-being of so many living under the Trump administration. Today's action denying women, LGBT and non-binary people agency over their own bodies further institutionalizes the ability to reject health care for whole groups of people and will likely lead to devastating health outcomes and death for many.

 Aaron P. Bernstein / Getty Images)Sen. James Lankford speaks at a news conference announcing a new division on Conscience and Religious Freedom as Office of Civil Rights Director Roger Severino (center) and Acting Secretary Kevin Hargan (right) lat the Department of Health and Human Services look on, January 18, 2018, in Washington, DC. (Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein / Getty Images)

Truthout readers like you made this story possible. Show your support for independent news: Make a tax-deductible donation today!

The Trump administration today announced the creation of what it is calling a "new conscience and religious freedom division" within the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The purpose of this new division is to protect health care workers who object to the treatment of transgender individuals and to the provision of abortion and other reproductive health care, among other things.

Speaker after speaker invoked the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. to defend the expansion of the so-called conscience and religious freedom division.

At a mid-morning press conference, led by HHS OCR Director Roger Severino and a host of other anti-LGBTQ lawmakers and leaders, speaker after speaker invoked the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. to defend the expansion of the so-called conscience and religious freedom division. HHS leaders compared health care workers forced to treat transgender patients or provide reproductive health care against their moral and religious objections to civil rights leaders who spoke out against anti-Black discrimination and violence. They praised the new division as a critical step in the protection of religious freedom.

There is no question that the freedom of religion is a central tenet of US law protected both in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and in federal statutory law. But religious liberty does not permit a health care worker to refuse to treat a transgender patient because that worker does not believe that transgender people should exist. Religious liberty does not permit a doctor to deny life-saving care because the care could result in the termination of a pregnancy or sterilization. Religious liberty cannot be used to widen the door to systemic discrimination against LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities and people of color -- discrimination that already has led and will inevitably lead to pain, suffering and premature death.

Today's action by the Trump administration encourages widespread discrimination in the provision of health care.

Health care discrimination is already all too familiar to transgender people. Many of us avoid the doctor when we are sick to avoid the humiliation we face in waiting rooms, from hospital staff, and from the providers who are supposed to protect and treat our bodies and minds. In the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, of the more than 27,000 transgender respondents, one-third who had seen a health care provider in the past year reported having at least one negative experience related to being transgender. For many of us, these negative experiences characterized any and every visit to the doctor: invasive questions about our genitals when seeking flu shots; refusal to touch our bodies; insistence on calling us by the wrong name and gender pronoun; questions about our sex lives and practices; refusal to provide contraceptive care; and outright refusals to treat us at all.

Rather than encourage medical professionals to treat all patients and ensure that no one is denied care because of who they are, the condition from which they suffer or how their body looks, today's action by the Trump administration instead encourages widespread discrimination in the provision of health care. It sends the message that women, trans people, LGB people and non-binary people do not and should not have agency over our bodies.

Speakers at this morning's press conference, including Severino, cited Martin Luther King Jr. in defense of the newly created division. They likened their proclamation to Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." Severino also compared requiring doctors to treat trans people to the Nazi practice of forcing Jews to inscribe sacred texts on the soles of their shoes (thus violating their religious laws). The same administration that has systemically targeted and expelled immigrants of color from the United States, attacked Black athletes, expanded the mass incarceration machine, and refused to denounce white supremacist and Nazi activities is invoking Black civil rights leaders to defend their sweeping efforts to undermine the very civil rights laws those leaders died defending.

Perhaps today's speakers forgot to read King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" in its entirety. King wrote of conscience in the context of the pain of systemic anti-Black discrimination and the cost to his family and community:

[W]hen you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky ... then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

Today's announcement cannot be extricated from the larger policy goals of this administration. These goals include increasing the numbers of white immigrants while targeting immigrants of color for deportation, restricting access to reproductive health careexcluding trans people from public life and legal protection, expanding policing and deportation forcesrestricting voting access, and sending a message to so many of us that we are not a part of or welcome in society.

When our bodies are cast as deviant and our health needs rejected, places of healing become sites of violence.

Fear of discrimination and violence already takes an enormous toll on the health and well-being of so many. Further institutionalizing the ability to reject health care for whole groups of people will inevitably lead to devastating health outcomes and likely death for many people.

When our bodies are cast as deviant and our health needs rejected, we become perilously situated. Places of healing become sites of violence. Preventive care is avoided, and preventative and curable diseases become fatal.

With today's announcement, HHS not only distorts Dr. King's legacy but also further entrenches the very injustices he condemned from the Birmingham jail in the letter that Severino and others invoked today.

This is not a story of religious freedom but of institutional oppression. This is an effort to sanction the rejection of whole groups of people and further institutionalize control over our bodies, our health needs and our lives.

It is dangerous and we will fight back.

Categories: News

Have you heard...

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00
Categories: News

Palestinian Teenager Remains Imprisoned Because She "Has No Fear"

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

Ahed Tamimi -- the 16-year-old Palestinian activist who has been imprisoned since her arrest in December for slapping an Israeli soldier -- was denied bail at a January 17 hearing in a military court. Citing the teenager's lack of fear of Israeli soldiers as a reason to penalize her, the judge proved once again that sowing terror in children is an accepted tactic of the occupation.

 Ahmad Gharabli / AFP / Getty Images)Sixteen-year-old Ahed Tamimi stands for a hearing in the military court at Ofer military prison in the West Bank village of Betunia on January 1, 2018. Israeli authorities are seeking 12 charges against Tamimi after a video of her slapping and kicking two Israeli soldiers in the West Bank went viral, her lawyer said. (Photo: Ahmad Gharabli / AFP / Getty Images)

Help Truthout keep publishing stories like this one: We depend on reader support! Click here to make a tax-deductible donation.

Ahed Tamimi, a 16-year-old Palestinian activist who was arrested in December for slapping an Israeli soldier, was denied bail on Wednesday, January 17, amid calls by human rights groups for her release.

Tamimi is an activist who lives in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, where life has become unbearable because of Israeli occupation. Some of the village's land was illegally annexed by the nearby Israeli settlement, and military checkpoints control their movements in and out of the village.

Tamimi's parents and relatives are principal organizers in the weekly, nonviolent demonstrations protesting the loss of their land that began in 2009.

Children under Israeli occupation don't get any special treatment. They are arrested, injured and killed just like adults.

For their resistance, the Tamimi family has been consistently targeted by the Israeli military with arrests, night raids and violence that has sometimes been fatal.

On December 15, 2017, shortly before the slapping incident, the Israeli army shot Tamimi's 14-year-old cousin in the head during a weekly protest in Nabi Saleh.

"He was in a coma for seven days," 11-year-old Jana Jihad, Tamimi's cousin told Truthout. Jihad is also an activist, and she reports on events in Nabi Saleh, calling herself the "youngest journalist in Palestine."

The soldier that Ahed slapped was in Nabi Saleh as part of an effort to violently disperse Palestinian protests against the nearby Israeli settlement that took control of their land.

"Ahed was angry about that, and we were all very sad about it," Jihad said.

Tamimi was grieving and worried about her cousin and whether he would survive when soldiers tried to enter her house to take over the roof in order to shoot at more protesters, Jihad said.

Tamimi told them to get off of her family's property.

"I think it's a normal thing that Ahed did, because she didn't want her friends to be killed or injured by the soldiers," Jihad said.

Minor scuffles consisting of pushes and shoves took place between Ahed and the soldier before the infamous slap occurred. The soldier slapped Ahed -- and seconds later, she slapped him back.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) did not respond to Truthout's request for comment.

Jihad said she didn't think it was fair that Tamimi was in jail.

"And I think that it's not anybody's right to put her in jail because she's still a child," Jihad said.

But children under Israeli occupation don't get any special treatment. They are arrested, injured and killed just like adults. Already in 2018, 16-year-old Musaab al-Tamimi, a relative of Ahed's in the next village over, was killed by the Israeli military.

"It's not a childhood, and not just in Nabi Saleh -- we're living under occupation," Jihad said. "Our friends are getting injured, our mom is getting injured, our dad is getting arrested...."

Kids in Nabi Saleh are forced to grow up fast. They can show you things like how "rubber bullets" shot by IDF soldiers are actually rubber-coated steel bullets by peeling back the thin layer of rubber. They've likely experienced tear gas, and had a close relative arrested by the Israeli army.

Tamimi's family, including her parents Bassem and Nariman, have been targeted specifically by the Israeli army for their part in planning protests.

Bassem has been arrested by Israeli soldiers many times throughout Ahed's life. Nariman is also active in the weekly protests in Nabi Saleh, and for that was shot in the leg and has been arrested by the Israeli army.

Tamimi's younger brother, Mohammed Tamimi, was targeted by Israeli soldiers during a weekly protest several years ago. The soldier put now 14-year-old Mohammed in a headlock and pinned him against a rock -- sitting on him, despite the boy's arm being in a cast.

Tamimi, her mother and father, and other relatives arrived and tried to pull the soldier off of Mohammed.

In this 2015 incident, Ahed was videotaped being choked by the soldier as she tried to pull him off of her brother. It showed her trying to protect her brother's arm, and trying to bite the soldier in her attempt to get him off of her brother.

Ahed spoke about her fear that something could happen to her family in a 2016 interview.

"All of my family is in danger here. We are at risk of dying at any moment," Tamimi told teleSUR in 2016. "Although I am not afraid of death, I'm always afraid of losing my family, or my loved ones, or my friends."

The stress and hardships the Israeli occupation inflicts on children ruins their childhoods, Tamimi said in the interview. They feel unsafe all the time -- feeling they could be arrested, even killed.

"This feeling cannot be explained or put into words -- those who do not live our suffering cannot understand it, and no one can translate it into words," Tamimi added.

Israeli soldiers have killed three protesters during Nabi Saleh's weekly marches, including Ahed's cousin Mustafa Tamimi. He was shot in the head at close range with a high-velocity tear gas canister.

Ahed's father said experiencing these violent incidents has left Ahed with a negative impression of soldiers, to say the least.

"When you grow up under these conditions and you see, all the time, soldiers -- the image of the soldier in your mind is the same," Bassem Tamimi told Truthout. "For her, this is the soldier who killed her uncle, shot her mom, arrested her brother, arrested her dad, killed Saba (Obaid), Rushdi (Tamimi) and Mustafa (Tamimi) -- this is the image."

Was his daughter expected to give the soldier a rose and welcome him after she had just found out her cousin was shot? Bassem asked.

Three out of four Palestinian children experience some form of physical violence following arrest.

"The occupation has not just put my daughter in the prison; it forced her to grow up earlier," Bassem said. "Earlier, she wanted to be a football [soccer] player, but the occupation destroyed her dream."

Nabi Saleh is in what's known as Area C, which comprises 60 percent of the West Bank and all of the settlements, buffer zones, Israeli military and training sites. It is under full Israeli control. Area A is under the Palestinian Authority's control and Area B is under shared control. These delineations were made in the Oslo Agreement in 1993.

Nabi Saleh is surrounded by Israeli military checkpoints that are often arbitrarily closed, cutting the village off from the rest of the West Bank. Next door is the Halamish settlement.

Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law because they are built on occupied lands, and activists like Bassem say they are destroying the chance for a two-state solution.

The Halamish settlement is why the village began protesting in the first place.

One day in 2008, villagers found they were simply not allowed to access part of their land, which included al-Qawas spring and agricultural lands. That land was now to be used by settlers only, and that ban would be enforced by the Israeli military.

Ahed Tamimi watched the settlers enjoy the spring she could no longer go to. The settlers had picnics and dips in the water. She saw them enjoy Nabi Saleh's land and swim in pools in the settlement, where they had round-the-clock running water. Villagers in Nabi Saleh receive water only 12 hours out of every day.

Nabi Saleh responded by starting weekly protests. Every Friday, they would attempt to march to their stolen land. And every week, they would be met by the Israeli army.

The army uses heavy dispersal tactics against the nonviolent marchers, and clashes almost always break out. Among the several West Bank villages where weekly protests are held, Nabi Saleh is notoriously dangerous.

Soldiers almost always enter the village, shooting ammunition ranging from high velocity tear gas canisters to live bullets. There is no safe place in the village on Fridays, not even for children.

And if children are arrested, they most likely experience violence, advocates say.

"Three out of four Palestinian children experience some form of physical violence following arrest," Brad Parker, international advocacy officer and attorney at Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-Palestine), told Truthout.

Since 2000, at least 8,000 Palestinian children, or 500-700 children every year, have been arrested and prosecuted in Israeli military detention centers that are notorious for ill-treatment and torture.

The military judge actually cited Ahed's lack of fear of Israeli soldiers as a reason to penalize her.

"Children often give confessions after verbal abuse, threats, physical and psychological violence that, in some cases, amounts to torture," Parker said.

Tamimi has been in prison since she was arrested in December. She faces up to 14 years in prison for the charges against her, which include aggravated assault against a soldier and obstructing a soldier in the performance of his duty.

Bassem said he wasn't surprised.

"This is the occupation and we don't expect them to give us a gift because we are resisting," Bassem said.

"They will punish us," Bassem said. Nariman, his wife, was arrested on charges of incitement for sharing the video of the slap on social media when she went to visit her daughter at the jail.

On his daughter's charges, Bassem said the Israeli military "inflated the charges to make the punishment as high as they could."

Part of the reason behind the severe charges could be the outcry among many Israelis in the days following the video of the slap going viral, saying it "humiliated" the army.

The fact that Tamimi shows no fear and resists the soldiers has caused an outcry in Israel, Amit Gilutz, a spokesperson for B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, said. The military judge actually cited Ahed's lack of fear of Israeli soldiers as a reason to penalize her.

"When an entire system works in unison to humiliate and penalize a 16-year-old on the grounds that 'she has no fear,' it gives us an excellent opportunity to understand its essence," Gilutz wrote in an op-ed for the Times of Israel.

The occupation's courts are not there to seek justice, but to maintain Israeli control over the Palestinian people, Gilutz added.

"Let us state the obvious: If Ahed Tamimi were Jewish, chances of her being arrested would have been negligible; only Palestinians are tried in Israel's military courts in the West Bank; the conviction rate in these courts is almost 100 percent," Gilutz said.

Gilutz forwarded a B'Tselem report to Truthout that details how the Israeli military has violated the rights of demonstrators in Nabi Saleh.

Every Friday, hundreds of villagers are intimidated into staying in their homes for many hours, and their movement is restricted when the military declares the entire village a "closed military zone" most Fridays, the report said.

In one demonstration, "security forces hurled tear gas canisters at a procession of children in costumes who were flying kites," the report said.

The extreme reaction by Israel to a teenage girl shows that fearless resistance to the Israeli occupation won't be tolerated, and not even if it's in the form of a procession of children flying kites.

"It is clear that detaining and prosecuting Palestinian children in Israeli military courts has little to do with justice," Parker, of DCI-Palestine, said.

Categories: News

How Trump's Base Inspired an International Racist Fiasco, Again

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

 Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)Steven Miller, Trump's advisor for policy, attends a meeting with Donald Trump and congressional leadership in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 28, 2017, where Trump spoke on the intercontinental ballistic missile launch by North Korea. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)

In the space of a week, Donald Trump went from embracing immigration reform to shunning it with racist vulgarities, potentially upending the lives of millions while tempting a government shutdown. Why? His base must be placated, because it's all he has left.

 Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)Stephen Miller, Trump's adviser for policy, attends a meeting with Donald Trump and congressional leadership in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 28, 2017. Trump spoke on the recent intercontinental ballistic missile launch by North Korea. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."  -- George W. Bush, 25 March, 2001.

Stephen Miller, the administration's latest iteration of Official Screaming Person, flexed his White House muscles last week and made history in all the wrong ways. Everything that has gone down since "Shithole Thursday" -- the collapse of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) negotiations, the real threat of a government shutdown and an eruption of unvarnished racist invective from the president of the United States -- came about because Miller picked up the phone with one priority in mind: Play to the Trump base.

Unspooling this pluperfect fiasco takes some doing. A week ago Tuesday, Donald Trump staged a bit of theater by not being demonstrably incapacitated by incompetence for 90 whole minutes during a meeting with members of Congress on immigration. The White House felt such a performance was necessary after Trump went on Twitter and accused the leader of a volatile nuclear adversary of having a small penis. Editorial pages from sea to shining sea were dusting off the text of the 25th Amendment again, so a good showing with the Congress members was pretty much required.

During the entire Tuesday meeting, Trump was smiling, friendly and coherent. He was open to several legislative proposals offered by Democrats, including one for a clean DACA bill, to which he reacted enthusiastically -- said enthusiasm being later erased "accidentally" from the transcript of the event. The press loved it. That night, most news stations led their evening broadcasts with some permutation of, "Wow, the president didn't humiliate us all today!" 

It was strange because it wasn't a hot mess… and Stephen Miller hated it, for reasons beyond his own gaudy racism. A deal on the status of the Dreamers would be a quantum-level betrayal of Trump's still-hardcore base of political support. His current 33 percent approval is comparable to George W. Bush's 25 percent approval level near the end of his second godawful term. Those voters are The Last Patrol, the true bitter-enders, and if Trump loses them, well… it's the old joke. What do you call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk.

It has been widely whispered for a while now that Donald Trump often repeats the last thing he heard as if it were his own wisdom. This mess pretty much proves that out.

In order to save Trump from alienating his base by doing the right thing, Miller called in congressional reinforcements before a Thursday meeting Trump had planned with Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and other members of Congress. Miller's back-up crew -- Freedom Caucusers like Representatives Bob Goodlatte and David Purdue along with hard-line Republican senators like Tom Cotton -- beat feet to the White House and swarmed Trump like maddened wasps before the Durbin meeting began. When they were finished, Tuesday's jovial huckster statesman was gone. The growling muddy-eyed dog was back, baring its yellowed teeth again.

Talk about a turnstile presidency. It has been widely whispered for a while now that Donald Trump often repeats the last thing he heard as if it were his own wisdom. This mess pretty much proves that out. "I'm all for a clean DACA bill." ("No you're not.") "NO I'M NOT." 

Shithole shithole shithole! This is journalism now; thanks again, Don.

My wife can verify that as I watched Calm Don at the Tuesday meeting. I pointed at the TV and said, "There's no way he's going to hold it together." He did… for about 48 hours.

The rest is shithole history, drafted by a shithole president who bragged afterward to his shithole friends that calling Haiti and all of Africa "shitholes" would play really well with his base. Shithole shithole shithole! This is journalism now; thanks again, Don. Watching the news anchors try to slither past the word last Thursday night was better than Cats. It's a good thing TV comes without spam filters, or we'd all be watching the test signal.

Negotiations over DACA and the Dreamers collapsed immediately after the Durbin meeting debacle, and now the threat of a federal government shutdown looms at close of business tomorrow. Congressional Democrats are under heavy pressure to staple DACA to any government spending bill, but are hesitant to deploy this oft-attempted Republican "hostage-taking" tactic themselves. 

They just might do it, and God I hope they do, because the alternative is a shattering disaster. With families included, DACA covers more than a million people now caught in the middle of yet another xenophobic nationalist uprising, one more true American tradition. If the Dreamers are turned out, anyone who calls this a moral, Christian nation should be summarily ejected into space.

The rampant racist aspect, right there in the umbra of the MLK holiday (which Mike Pence celebrated by turning Roll-Tide crimson in his church pew on Sunday when the pastor denounced his boss), was further exacerbated when reports surfaced about Trump's backhanded reaction to legislative input from the Congressional Black Caucus. "You've got to be joking," he reportedly said. CNN's Jon Acosta opened his evening report that night by calling the president of the United States of America a racist while standing in front of the White House.

This regime tailors public policy and comment to please a dwindling cadre of white voters who still enthusiastically support Trump's pan-directional hate.

Then came the spin. The press office obviously couldn't deny Trump said it -- there were multiple witnesses, and the man bragged to his friends about it afterward -- so of course they tried to deny he said it. When that failed, they backpedaled to, "He didn't call Haiti a shithole country, only all of Africa," before trying out the "He-said-shithouse-not-shithole-so-ha!" defense. It didn't fly, so they were left with, "Well, those countries really are shitholes. The president was just telling the truth. He talks like 'regular people' think!" They went with that, because of course they did, because they thought it would play well with the base, again.

For the record: Haiti bears the burden of having shared the hemisphere with the United States during the Cold War. Every president from Eisenhower to Reagan lent US support to the murderous regimes of François "Papa Doc" Duvalier and his son, Jean-Claude, who used their Tonton Macoute militia to butcher and disappear tens of thousands of people while looting the country. Everything since -- the invasion, the coups -- has been political aftermath from the US's Cold War game of thrones with the USSR.

Also, Tropical Storm Jeanne killed 3,000 people in 2004. In 2008, Tropical Storm Fay along with Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna and Ike left 800,000 Haitians in need of humanitarian aid. In 2010, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti, killing an estimated 300,000 people and leaving another 1.6 million people homeless. Another 10,000 died after the quake in a massive cholera outbreak caused when a UN peacekeeping base accidentally poisoned Haiti's main river with cholera-infected wastewater. In 2016, Hurricane Matthew tore apart most of Haiti's remaining infrastructure and killed another 3,000 people. The storms of this last hurricane season only exacerbated the crisis further. Nearly a dozen major storms, one massive earthquake and a cholera epidemic in 14 years would undo any nation of similar size -- especially given the lack of sufficient support from its hemispheric neighbors, most emphatically the United States. 

Haiti is a victim of bad luck, but mostly, it's a victim of deliberate policy. So was Ireland, once upon a time, when those who fled British oppression and the Potato Blight were the new scourge of these shores. Most of the immigrants who have come here over the generations were running for their lives from dire circumstances beyond their control. Such is the case today. With a rank racist in the White House, however, all bets are off. This regime tailors public policy and comment to please a dwindling cadre of white voters who still enthusiastically support Trump's pan-directional hate.

This, right here, is what happens when Trump's base is put in the driver's seat. Thanks to Stephen Miller's base-saving phone calls last week, a million innocent people may well have their lives brutally upended with no DACA deal in sight, the despised (by the base) federal government is again on the brink of shutting down and one-sixth of the planet stands racially insulted by a president who works so few hours a day that some think he could qualify for unemployment benefits.

Miller did it for the base. Maybe it's time to stop listening to those people, yeah?

This Truthout original was only possible because of our readers' ongoing support. Can you make a monthly donation to ensure we can publish more like it? Click here to give.
Categories: News

How Trump's Deregulatory Push Is Harming Workers, Muzzling EPA Scientists and Unleashing Pollution

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

As President Trump's own chief of staff, John Kelly, calls his boss "uninformed," we will look at how Trump is transforming the nation by slashing taxes on the rich, gutting the nation's regulatory system and muzzling climate scientists. We speak to David Cay Johnston, author of It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America.

Please check back later for full transcript.

Categories: News

David Cay Johnston: Trump Is Determined to Provoke War to Draw Focus From Racist and Erratic Behavior

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

The New York Times reports that the Pentagon is proposing widening the permissible use of nuclear weapons to include responding to cyberattacks and other non-nuclear attacks to US infrastructure. The Pentagon has already outlined this expanded nuclear strategy in a draft document sent to President Trump for approval. It comes amid a series of moves by the Pentagon and President Trump that have escalated the threat of nuclear war. The Wall Street Journal reports the Pentagon is planning to develop two new sea-based nuclear weapons. The New York Times also reports the Pentagon is conducting a series of war games to prepare for a potential war with North Korea. We speak to Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston, who has been covering Donald Trump for nearly 30 years. His latest book is just out, titled It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America.

Please check back later for full transcript.

Categories: News

Avoiding Armageddon in Korea or Launching a War for the Ages

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00
Help preserve a news source with integrity at its core: Donate to the independent media at Truthout.

Most people intuitively get it. An American preventive strike to wipe out North Korea's nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, or a commando raid launched with the same goal in mind, is likely to initiate a chain of events culminating in catastrophe.  That would be true above all for the roughly 76 million Koreans living on either side of the Demilitarized Zone. Donald Trump, though, seems unperturbed. His recent contribution to defusing the crisis there: boasting that his nuclear button is "bigger and more powerful" than that of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

The president's high school locker-room braggadocio provided rich material for comedians.  Meanwhile, there remains the continuing danger of a war in the Koreas, whether premeditated or triggered accidentally by a ship seized, an aircraft downed, a signal misread... you get the picture.  No serious person could dismiss this scenario, but even the experts who track the evidence closely for a living differ on just how probable it is.  In part, that's because, like everyone else, they must reckon with a colossal wild card -- and I'm not talking about Kim Jong-un.

The Pessimists 

On one side are those who warn that President Trump isn't blowing smoke when he talks, or tweets, about destroying North Korea's nuclear warheads and missiles, the infrastructure supporting them, and possibly even the whole country.  By now, it's common knowledge that his national security officials -- civilian and military (the distinction having blurred in the Trump era) -- have been crafting plans to strike before that country's nuclear arsenal becomes fully operational.  

No one who listened to PBS NewsHour's Judy Woodruff interviewingNational Security Adviser Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster just after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy in December could simply dismiss the warnings as those of so many Cassandras.  McMaster dutifully summarized that document, which included a pledge to "respond with overwhelming force to North Korean aggression and improve options to compel denuclearization."  When Woodruff then asked whether he believed war was becoming more likely by the day, he agreed, adding that "the president has asked us to continue to refine a military option, should we need to use it."

Others who should be in the know have offered even scarier prognoses.  During an interview with ABC News on the last day of 2017, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen claimed that, while McMaster and Defense Secretary James Mattis had stayed Trump's hand so far, their ability to continue to restrain such a "disruptive" and "unpredictable" president was diminishing. "We're actually closer to nuclear war with North Korea and in that region," he concluded, "than we've ever been."

Then there's Trump himself.  He has long since moved from saying, as he did last May, that he would "be honored" to meet Kim Jong-un "under the right circumstances" to warning, in August, that if North Korea threatened the United States, it would "be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen." In September, he upped the ante again in a speech to the UN, declaring that he would "have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea" if that were needed to defend the United States. 

Left unspecified was Trump's definition of "defend."  Would additional North Korean nuclear and missile tests pose a sufficient threat for him to order a preventive war?  Was his red line a fully operational North Korean nuclear force?  Or did he mean that he would retaliate in kind only if Pyongyang were to attack the United States, Japan, or South Korea with nuclear weapons? If either the first or second scenario represents his threshold, then Mullen's dire assessment can't be discounted as hyperbole. If it's the third, the world can breathe a bit easier for now, since there's no conceivable reason for Kim Jong-un to attack a country with nuclear weapons, least of all the United States, except in response to the potential destruction of his state.

In his latest gyration, having failed to scare Kim into denuclearization, Trump has welcomed talks between Seoul and Pyongyang that he had only recently discounted and, predictably, taken credit for a turn of events that has sidelined him.  He even suggested that the United States could eventually join the negotiations, meant in part to prevent a conflict during the February Winter Olympics in Seoul, and reacted positively to the possibility that they might continue even after the games end.

Of course, this president can turn on a dime, so such words mean next to nothing and should offer no solace.  After all, on two occasions he derided Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's efforts to defuse the crisis through negotiations, declaring, "I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he's wasting his time trying to negotiate with little Rocket Man.  Save your energy, Rex, we'll do what has to be done."

The Optimists (Well, Sort of)

On the opposing side of the how-likely-is-war debate are the optimists, a different coterie of journalists, ex-officials, and policy wonks.  Their basic point boils down to this: yes, Trump has made fire-and-brimstone statements about North Korea, but chalk up the endless bombast to his problem with impulse control and his desire to feed red meat to his base, while scaring Kim.  

Unfortunately, you can't put much stock in this take either -- not once you consider the accompanying caveats.  Gideon Rachman, an Asia specialist and Financial Times columnist, is typical of this crew in concluding that war on the Korean peninsula is unlikely -- only to liken the current atmosphere in Washington to the one that prevailed just before the 2003 Bush administration invasion of Iraq.  For good measure, he adds that Lindsey Graham -- super-hawk, Trump confidant (to the extent that anyone is), and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- believes that war is "inevitable." (This is optimism?)  Rachman's fallback suggestion is that Australia, Japan, and South Korea won't support a preventive strike on North Korea.  Now ask yourself this: How often does Donald Trump take others' advice?  When is the last time you heard him say "multilateralism"?

Jeffrey Lewis, a well-regarded expert on nuclear weapons, discounts the likelihood of war for a different reason.  He thinks Trump's bombast is so much bluster, designed to jangle Kim's nerves and drive the North Korean leader to relinquish his nuclear cache lest an out-of-control American president vaporize his regime.  Given what we now know about the present occupant of the Oval Office, that might be a modestly convincing thought if Lewis didn't introduce his own qualifiers.  He believes Trump's faith that China, in hopes of getting economic rewards from the United States, will eventually persuade (or coerce) Kim to denuclearize is misplaced because Beijing lacks the necessary clout in Pyongyang.  Indeed, Kim doesn't trust China and has killed or sidelined those whom he suspects of being pro-Chinese.  

Lewis also lays out a range of possibilities, each of which could trigger a spiral toward war. These include North Korea shooting down an American reconnaissance aircraft or sinking a South Korean naval vessel, both of which, he reminds us, Pyongyang has done in the past (the first in 1969, the second in 2010) -- when it still lacked nuclear weapons.  So Lewis's American-style optimism doesn't offer any more grounds for cheer than Rachman's British variant.

Where does this lack of consensus on the likelihood of war leave us?  The answer: no one can really assess the gravity of the danger, particularly because the man who occupies the White House is arguably the most volatile president we've ever had.  

It's no pleasure to quote former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but when it comes to the probability of war in the Koreas, it's hard not to be overwhelmed by the "known unknowns."

What We Do Know

The inability to fathom just how close we may be to war there doesn't mean we know nothing about the Korean crisis that's worth knowing.    

We know that North Korea has long been committed to building nuclear weapons and produced small quantities (six to thirteen kilograms) of weapons-grade plutonium as early as 1992.

We know that North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which it joined in 1985) in 2003; that it detonated its first nuclear weapon in 2006 during the rule of Kim Jong-il, the father of North Korea's current leader; and that it has conducted five other tests since then in 2009, 2013, 2016 (twice), and 2017 -- four of them after Kim Jong-un took power in December 2011. 

We know that North Korea has been no less dogged in building and testing ballistic missiles, beginning in 1984, and that the Hwasong-15, test-fired last November (with an apogee of 2,800 miles and an estimated range of 8,100 miles), has the capacity to strike the continental United States.  And Pyongyang has gone beyond liquid-fuelled missiles (that require prolonged, telltale preparations to launch), testing solid-fueled variants, which can be fired at short notice.

We know that Pyongyang is close to producing, or has already produced, a warhead that can be placed atop an intercontinental ballistic missile and survive the heat and stress encountered on reentering the earth's atmosphere.  In other words, North Korea is without question effectively a nuclear weapons state, which means Kim Jong-un's claim, in his 2018 New Year's Day speech, that he has a nuclear button on his desk may not be an idle boast (even if no literal button exists).

Finally, we know that American threats and military maneuvers on and around the Korean peninsula, a series of UN Security Council sanctions since 2006, and behind-the-scenes diplomacy by China and Russia have not induced Pyongyang to change course, even though China, in particular, recently imposed draconian limits on energy exports to that country, which could potentially weaken its struggling economy.

The Denuclearization Fantasy

No one (outside of Pyongyang) could celebrate a nuclear-armed North Korea, but no one could reasonably be surprised by it either.  Nuclear weapons have long served as a symbol of exclusivity for great powers and their regional cohorts.  It's no accident that all the Security Council's permanent members are nuclear states.  Having accorded such weaponry supreme prestige, who could be shocked that other countries, even relatively small and poor ones, would try to acquire them as well and refuse to be cowed by political or economic pressure.

Despite various campaigns for nuclear disarmament, the current nuclear states have not shown the slightest inclination to give them up; so the promise of a nuclear-free world rings hollow and is unlikely to persuade states that really want nukes not to build them.  Beyond conferring status, these weapons make attacking a country that has them dangerous indeed, providing a de facto guarantee against regime change.  

The North Koreans have made this point more than once, citing the fates of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, each of whom gave up his country's nuclear program and then was taken down by the United States.  The idea that the leaders in Pyongyang can't possibly believe that they face such a threat from the United States (which already fought one war on the Korean peninsula) is preposterous.  If you were Kim Jong-un, you'd probably build nuclear weapons.

The upshot: short of a war, there's no chance of denuclearization. That, in turn, means: were Trump and his generals to launch an attack on North Korea's nuclear arsenal and even a single warhead capable of striking the United States survived, Pyongyang might well use it to retaliate.  According to the experts who engage in such grisly estimates, a 15-kiloton nuclear weapon (equivalent to "Little Boy," the atomic bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945) that lands somewhere in, say, Los Angeles would kill more than 100,000 people immediately and yet more thereafter.  To put this in perspective, bear in mind that the estimates of the yield of the warhead North Korea tested last September run as high as 250 kilotons.  And don't forget that, even if it couldn't effectively reach the United States, the North could still target either South Korea or Japan, causing a devastating loss of lives and sending shockwaves through the global economy. 

And even if Kim couldn't retaliate with nuclear weapons, he could still order the thousands of artillery pieces his military has trained on the South Korean capital, Seoul, to fire.  The metropolis and its satellite towns are home to nearly 25.5 million people, half of the country's total population, so the death toll would be enormous, even taking into account the limitations of the North's artillery.  And given that some 28,500 American troops and nearly 137,000 American civilians are based in South Korea, many close to the border, Trump's reported remark to Lindsey Graham that, in the event of such a war, people will "die over there" is not just callous in its disregard for Korean lives, it's ignorant.  Even an American commando raid into North Korea could trigger a wider war because the North Korean leadership might reasonably regard it as a prelude to a larger attack.

The bottom line?  Trump could fulfill his vow never to allow North Korea to become a nuclear-armed power only by resorting to a preventive war, as Pyongyang hasn't been and is unlikely to be moved to disarm by sanctions or other forms of pain.  And a preventive war would be calamitous.

Stopping the War Machine

Here's a prerequisite for avoiding war in Korea: stop believing in the North's denuclearization, attractive and desirable as it might be (if achieved through diplomacy).

It doesn't follow, however, that war can't be avoided.  Kim Jong-un and his inner circle are not, in fact, irrational beings immune to deterrence.  Their paramount aim is to ensure the survival of the North Korean state. Starting a nuclear war would destroy it.  Yes, many people have perished in North Korea (whether due to repression or famine), but deterrence worked in the cases of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and China's Mao Zedong, both of whom enacted policies that killed millions. Mao supposedly even boasted that China could survive a nuclear war because of its huge population. 

Coming to terms with the reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea and trusting in deterrence may not sound like a perfect ending, but under the circumstances it's undoubtedly the best way to avert catastrophe.  And that, unquestionably, is the urgent task.  There are other ways, down the line, to make the Korean peninsula a better place through dialogue between the two Koreas, by drawing the North into the regional economy and reducing troops and weaponry on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone.  These shouldn't be ruled out as infeasible.    

For them to happen, though, South Korea would have to separate itself from Trump's war plans by refusing to allow its sovereign space (land, sea, and air) to be used for such a preventive war.  The symbolism would be important even if Trump could strike in other ways.  

Seoul would also have to build on two recent positive developments that emerged from a surprise January 9th meeting between the Koreas.  The first is the agreement on Kim Jong-un's proposal (initially advanced by the South last June) to send a North Korean contingent to the February Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea.  The second flowed from South Korean President Moon Jae-in's follow-up idea of restoring the hotline between the countries and beginning discussions of how to tamp down tensions on the peninsula.  (Pyongyang shut down the hotline in February 2016 after South Korea's conservative government closed the Kaesong joint industrial zone located in the North, which then employed more than 50,000 North Koreans.)  Moon's suggestion doubtless eased the way for the subsequent agreement to hold future military talks aimed at reducing the risks of war.

There are further steps Seoul could take, including declaring a moratorium on military exercises with the United States -- not just, as now (with Washington's consent), during the February Olympics and the Paralympics that follow and end in March, but without a preset time limit. While such joint maneuvers don't scare Pyongyang, moves like flying American B1-B bombers and F-15C fighter jets in international airspace off North Korea's coast do ratchet up the tension.  They increase the chances of one side concluding that the other is about to attack. 

Trump may continue his threats via Twitter and again denigrate the value of negotiations with Pyongyang, but South Korea is a powerful country in its own right. It has a $1.4 trillion economy, the 11th largest in the world (versus North Korea's paltry $32.4 billion one), and ranks sixth in global exports.  It also has a formidable military and will spend $34 billion on defense in 2017 -- more than North Korea's entire gross domestic product.  It is, in short, anything but the Asian equivalent of a country for which Donald Trump should be able to write the script.

Trump's generals and the rest of the American foreign policy establishment won't welcome independent initiatives by Seoul, typified by the condescending remark of a former official about the hazards of South Korea "running off the leash."  Predictably, mainstream warnings have already begun.  Cunning Kim Jong-un wants to drive a "wedge" between the United States and South Korea.  He's trying to undo the sanctions.  Agreeing to talks with Pyongyang will only communicate weakness.  The United States must demonstrate its resolve and protect its credibility.  And so it goes. 

Policies based on these shibboleths, which portray South Korea as an American dependency, have brought us to the brink of war.  Continuing them could push us over the edge. 

Categories: News

How Trump's Base Inspired an International Racist Fiasco, Again

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

 Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)Steven Miller, Trump's advisor for policy, attends a meeting with Donald Trump and congressional leadership in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 28, 2017, where Trump spoke on the intercontinental ballistic missile launch by North Korea. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)

In the space of a week, Donald Trump went from embracing immigration reform to shunning it with racist vulgarities, potentially upending the lives of millions while tempting a government shutdown. Why? His base must be placated, because they're all he has left.

 Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)Steven Miller, Trump's advisor for policy, attends a meeting with Donald Trump and congressional leadership in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 28, 2017. Trump spoke on the recent intercontinental ballistic missile launch by North Korea. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch-Pool / Getty Images)

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."  -- George W. Bush, 25 March, 2001.

Stephen Miller, the administration's latest iteration of Official Screaming Person, flexed his White House muscles last week and made history in all the wrong ways. Everything that has gone down since "Shithole Thursday" -- the collapse of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) negotiations, the real threat of a government shutdown and an eruption of unvarnished racist invective from the president of the United States -- came about because Miller picked up the phone with one priority in mind: Play to the Trump base.

Unspooling this pluperfect fiasco takes some doing. A week ago Tuesday, Donald Trump staged a bit of theater by not being demonstrably incapacitated by incompetence for 90 whole minutes during a meeting with members of Congress on immigration. The White House felt such a performance was necessary after Trump went on Twitter and accused the leader of a volatile nuclear adversary of having a small penis. Editorial pages from sea to shining sea were dusting off the text of the 25th Amendment again, so a good showing with the Congress members was pretty much required.

During the entire Tuesday meeting, Trump was smiling, friendly and coherent. He was open to several legislative proposals offered by Democrats, including one for a clean DACA bill, to which he reacted enthusiastically -- said enthusiasm being later erased "accidentally" from the transcript of the event. The press loved it. That night, most news stations led their evening broadcasts with some permutation of, "Wow, the president didn't humiliate us all today!" 

It was strange because it wasn't a hot mess… and Stephen Miller hated it, for reasons beyond his own gaudy racism. A deal on the status of the Dreamers would be a quantum-level betrayal of Trump's still-hardcore base of political support. His current 33 percent approval is comparable to George W. Bush's 25 percent approval level near the end of his second godawful term. Those voters are The Last Patrol, the true bitter-enders, and if Trump loses them, well… it's the old joke. What do you call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk.

It has been widely whispered for a while now that Donald Trump often repeats the last thing he heard as if it were his own wisdom. This mess pretty much proves that out.

In order to save Trump from alienating his base by doing the right thing, Miller called in congressional reinforcements before a Thursday meeting Trump had planned with Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and other members of Congress. Miller's back-up crew -- Freedom Caucusers like Representatives Bob Goodlatte and David Purdue along with hard-line Republican senators like Tom Cotton -- beat feet to the White House and swarmed Trump like maddened wasps before the Durbin meeting began. When they were finished, Tuesday's jovial huckster statesman was gone. The growling muddy-eyed dog was back, baring its yellowed teeth again.

Talk about a turnstile presidency. It has been widely whispered for a while now that Donald Trump often repeats the last thing he heard as if it were his own wisdom. This mess pretty much proves that out. "I'm all for a clean DACA bill." ("No you're not.") "NO I'M NOT." 

Shithole shithole shithole! This is journalism now; thanks again, Don.

My wife can verify that as I watched Calm Don at the Tuesday meeting. I pointed at the TV and said, "There's no way he's going to hold it together." He did… for about 48 hours.

The rest is shithole history, drafted by a shithole president who bragged afterward to his shithole friends that calling Haiti and all of Africa "shitholes" would play really well with his base. Shithole shithole shithole! This is journalism now; thanks again, Don. Watching the news anchors try to slither past the word last Thursday night was better than Cats. It's a good thing TV comes without spam filters, or we'd all be watching the test signal.

Negotiations over DACA and the Dreamers collapsed immediately after the Durbin meeting debacle, and now the threat of a federal government shutdown looms at close of business tomorrow. Congressional Democrats are under heavy pressure to staple DACA to any government spending bill, but are hesitant to deploy this oft-attempted Republican "hostage-taking" tactic themselves. 

They just might do it, and God I hope they do, because the alternative is a shattering disaster. With families included, DACA covers more than a million people now caught in the middle of yet another xenophobic nationalist uprising, one more true American tradition. If the Dreamers are turned out, anyone who calls this a moral, Christian nation should be summarily ejected into space.

The rampant racist aspect, right there in the umbra of the MLK holiday (which Mike Pence celebrated by turning Roll-Tide crimson in his church pew on Sunday when the pastor denounced his boss), was further exacerbated when reports surfaced about Trump's backhanded reaction to legislative input from the Congressional Black Caucus. "You've got to be joking," he reportedly said. CNN's Jon Acosta opened his evening report that night by calling the president of the United States of America a racist while standing in front of the White House.

This regime tailors public policy and comment to please a dwindling cadre of white voters who still enthusiastically support Trump's pan-directional hate.

Then came the spin. The press office obviously couldn't deny Trump said it -- there were multiple witnesses, and the man bragged to his friends about it afterward -- so of course they tried to deny he said it. When that failed, they backpedaled to, "He didn't call Haiti a shithole country, only all of Africa," before trying out the "He-said-shithouse-not-shithole-so-ha!" defense. It didn't fly, so they were left with, "Well, those countries really are shitholes. The president was just telling the truth. He talks like 'regular people' think!" They went with that, because of course they did, because they thought it would play well with the base, again.

For the record: Haiti bears the burden of having shared the hemisphere with the United States during the Cold War. Every president from Eisenhower to Reagan lent US support to the murderous regimes of François "Papa Doc" Duvalier and his son, Jean-Claude, who used their Tonton Macoute militia to butcher and disappear tens of thousands of people while looting the country. Everything since -- the invasion, the coups -- has been political aftermath from the US's Cold War game of thrones with the USSR.

Also, Tropical Storm Jeanne killed 3,000 people in 2004. In 2008, Tropical Storm Fay along with Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna and Ike left 800,000 Haitians in need of humanitarian aid. In 2010, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti, killing an estimated 300,000 people and leaving another 1.6 million people homeless. Another 10,000 died after the quake in a massive cholera outbreak caused when a UN peacekeeping base accidentally poisoned Haiti's main river with cholera-infected wastewater. In 2016, Hurricane Matthew tore apart most of Haiti's remaining infrastructure and killed another 3,000 people. The storms of this last hurricane season only exacerbated the crisis further. Nearly a dozen major storms, one massive earthquake and a cholera epidemic in 14 years would undo any nation of similar size -- especially given the lack of sufficient support from its hemispheric neighbors, most emphatically the United States. 

Haiti is a victim of bad luck, but mostly, it's a victim of deliberate policy. So was Ireland, once upon a time, when those who fled British oppression and the Potato Blight were the new scourge of these shores. Most of the immigrants who have come here over the generations were running for their lives from dire circumstances beyond their control. Such is the case today. With a rank racist in the White House, however, all bets are off. This regime tailors public policy and comment to please a dwindling cadre of white voters who still enthusiastically support Trump's pan-directional hate.

This, right here, is what happens when Trump's base is put in the driver's seat. Thanks to Stephen Miller's base-saving phone calls last week, a million innocent people may well have their lives brutally upended with no DACA deal in sight, the despised (by the base) federal government is again on the brink of shutting down and one-sixth of the planet stands racially insulted by a president who works so few hours a day that some think he could qualify for unemployment benefits.

Miller did it for the base. Maybe it's time to stop listening to those people, yeah?

This Truthout original was only possible because of our readers' ongoing support. Can you make a monthly donation to ensure we can publish more like it? Click here to give.
Categories: News

United States Policing and "Gun Rights" Began With Slave Patrol

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

In Loaded, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz details the white supremacist background of the Second Amendment and the perennial NRA cry of gun rights. Guns were vital tools in the suppression and killing of the Indigenous population and Black people before the Bill of Rights was written.

 Fstop Images / Getty Images)(Photo: Fstop Images / Getty Images)

In Loaded, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz details the white supremacist background of the Second Amendment and the perennial NRA cry of gun rights. She reveals the irony of the gun lobby's equation of gun ownership with freedom. Guns, after all, she notes, were vital tools in the suppression and killing of the Indigenous population and Black people before the Bill of Rights was written. Get the book now with a donation to Truthout.

In the chapter "Slave Patrol," Dunbar-Ortiz provides the historical context for how militias that killed and oppressed slaves and Indigenous persons became the precedent for the militia cited in the Second Amendment. The following is the full-chapter excerpt.

Following the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles and the development of Cop Watch groups in cities around the United States, along with the widespread incarceration of Black men in the 1990s, what had long been known by scholars, but rarely acknowledged in media or history texts, became increasingly clear on a national level: The origins of policing in the United States were rooted in slave patrols.

In a study of slave patrols in Virginia and the Carolinas in 1700-1865, historian and law professor Sally E. Hadden writes: "People other than masters or overseers had legitimate rights, indeed, legal duties, to regulate slave behavior." Black people escaping to freedom were hunted down to prevent labor loss to their white slavers, and also to send a message to those enslaved who might be strategizing to lose their chains through rebellion or insurrection.

Because chattel slavery was uncommon in the 1500s in England itself, the existing legal system that colonists brought to the early British colonies in North America did not suffice, so nearly all law related to slavery was forged in the colonies, borrowing from existing practices in Spanish, Portuguese, and English Caribbean plantation colonies, and specifically borrowing the use of slave patrols from the Caribbean and adapting them to local conditions on the continent.

The Virginia militia was founded for one purpose: to kill Indians, take their land, drive them out, wipe them out.

The 1661 and 1688 slave codes in the British Carib bean colony of Barbados extended the task of controlling enslaved Africans from overseers and slavers to all white settlers, in effect shifting private responsibility to the public. Any enslaved person outside the direct control of the slaver or overseer required passes and was subject to questioning by a slave patrol, as well as by any member of the European population; free Black men were denied such power. This collective racial policing was in addition to the traditional English constabulary that investigated and detained European residents for infractions of laws.

British slavers from Barbados moved in large numbers to the South Carolina colony after 1670, and brought the slave patrol practice with them. By 1704, the South Carolina colonial government had codified slave patrols and embedded them within the already existing volunteer militias, whose principal role was to repel Native Americans whose land they had appropriated. Members of slave patrols were drawn from militia rolls in every locale. The South Carolina structure of slave patrols was adopted in other colonies by the mid-eighteenth century and would remain relatively unchanged until the Civil War. Following US independence, this structure and practice was applied to what became the Cotton Kingdom, following the US wars against the Muskogee peoples that ended in their forced relocation to Indian Territory.

Virginia was the first of the thirteen English settler colonies in North America, but there were fewer enslaved Africans there, and they were more widely dispersed than in South Carolina, as Virginia settlements were long surrounded by resistant Native communities. The Virginia militia was founded for one purpose: to kill Indians, take their land, drive them out, wipe them out. European settlers were required by law to own and carry firearms, and all adult male settlers were required to serve in the militia. Militias were also used to prevent indentured European servants from fleeing before their contracts expired, in which case they were designated "debtors." Despite militia vigilance, many escaped on ships in ports.

Truthout Progressive Pick  A Disarming History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is built upon a foundation of white supremacy.

Click here now to get the book!

During the 1660s and 1670s, Virginia settlers turned from indenturing Europeans to importing enslaved Africans, and by 1680, the enslaved were required to carry passes. Of course, slave uprisings increased, and in 1705, the Virginia colony enacted its first slave code and established slave patrols. Militia members, focused on attacking Indigenous towns and fields to expand the Virginia colony refused to participate in slave patrols, so the colonial authorities imposed harsh punishments to control the enslaved Africans, such as death for even mentioning rebellion. Colonists prohibited the enslaved Africans from holding meetings or learning how to read. In 1727, the Virginia colony enacted a law requiring militias to create slave patrols, imposing stiff fines on white people who refused to serve.

After 1650, slavers in Virginia began expanding deeper into the territory of the Tuscarora Nation, and were the first English settlers in what became the North Carolina colony in 1729. During the first three decades of Virginia settler incursion, the colony's militia was used solely to attack and burn down Tuscarora towns, incinerate their crops, and slaughter the families who resided there. By 1722, the embattled Tuscaroras joined the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) and migrated north for protection from settler terrorism, while some communities remained in severely deteriorating conditions.

In 1715, North Carolina's slaver government began requiring passes for enslaved individuals who were in public spaces doing errands or rented out as craftsmen, as many were escaping from bondage to Spanish Florida or marooning in the swamps of Cape Fear. Militias were used for pursuing Africans escaping to freedom, but did not form specific slave patrols as a separate category. In 1753, fearing increasing slave rebellions, the North Carolina colony established what they called "searchers," not drawn from the militias but authorized by courts; later they would be called "patrollers." They were exempt from militia duty as well as from jury duty and taxation, and two decades later, actually were paid salaries.

Public patrols of varying types were established in all the slave colonies, but, significantly, any individual, including free Blacks or Natives, could claim a reward for capturing a person escaping from slavery, a practice that continued until the end of the Civil War. If weapons were found with the captive, the catcher could collect compensation for the weapons or keep them.

After Independence, rapid expansion of slavery into newly conquered Native territories brought a concurrent increase in slave patrols, but the basic structure remained. An 1860 judicial hornbook, The Practice at Law in North Carolina is an example:

The patrol shall visit the negro houses in their respective districts as often as may be necessary, and may inflict a punishment, not exceeding fifteen lashes, on all slaves they may find off their owner's plantations, without a proper permit or pass, designating the place or places, to which the slaves have leave to go. The patrol shall also visit all suspected places, and suppress all unlawful collections of slaves; shall be diligent in apprehending all runaway negroes in their respective districts; shall be vigilant and endeavor to detect all thefts, and bring the perpetrators to justice, and also all persons guilty of trading with slaves; and if, upon taking up a slave and chastising him, as herein directed, he shall behave insolently, they may inflict further punishment for his misconduct, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.

In Slave Patrols, historian Hadden argues that the notion that slave patrols were made up of impoverished white men, as portrayed in Gone with the Wind and Uncle Tom's Cabin, is false. She cautions against conflating entrepreneurial individual "slave catchers" and slave patrollers. Whether rich or poor, all Euro American males were required to serve in militias and slave patrols, but the commanders of the patrols were property owners and slavers. Impoverished whites were not trusted and would be unable to compensate a slaver for the property loss entailed in a death or injury incurred during an attempted capture.

"Patrollers" were exempt from militia duty as well as from jury duty and taxation, and two decades later, actually were paid salaries.

Writing about slavery in the Cotton Kingdom during the decades before the Civil War, historian Walter Johnson points to the central role horses played in subjugating runaways. Horses were a symbol of power for slavers, not only for show and racing, but as a physical symbol of racial power. "The words 'slave patrol' summon to mind a vision of white men on horseback, an association so definitive that it elides the remarkable fact that the geographic pattern of county governance in the South emerged out of circuits ridden by eighteenth-century slave patrols." It was not only the advantage of height and speed that a horse provided in pursuing a person on the run, but also the nature of the animal itself, its own power, the fear the huge, galloping animal could evoke, and the severe bodily harm it inflicted when it trampled a person or when the patroller tethered a bound captive to the horse.

Another tool was the widely distributed "wanted" flier that alerted the public to be on the lookout, which attracted Euro Americans from hundreds of miles away to hunt freedom-seekers for bounty. And of course, slavers used dogs. Resistant Africans marooned in the swamps, or if fleeing rested there, where horses could not travel and most settlers were afraid to enter. Bloodhounds were trained from pups to identify and hunt Black people. "'Loyal' to their masters (or those to whom their masters hired them) and able to travel more rapidly than any human being across even the most difficult ground, these weaponized dogs were implacable enemies, driven by a purpose beyond that of even their owners."

And above all, there were the guns. Historians Ned Sublet and Constance Sublet write:

Unlike England, Virginia was a gun culture. "Whereas in England, only men with estates valued at above one hundred pounds sterling were allowed to own guns," writes Kathleen M. Brown, "English men in Virginia at all levels of property ownership were expected to own them…." Guns and slavery were intimately associated with each other; all slave-raiding relied on guns, and all slaveholding relied on armed repression.

By the early 1820s, slave-worked plantation agribusiness in Tidewater Virginia waned as the soils were degraded from mono-production and over-production, and investments moved to the Mississippi Valley. Nevertheless, slave patrols actually increased in Virginia, where the main commercial "crop" of the plantations was the enslaved person's body, as farms turned into breeding factories to produce slaves to be sold in the Cotton Kingdom. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of Black children was increasing Virginia's capital stock by 4 percent annually. It is estimated that in 1860 the total value of enslaved African bodies in the United States was $4 billion, far more than the gold and silver then circulating nationally ($228.3 million, "most of it in the North," the authors add), total currency ($435.4 million), and even the value of the South's total farmland ($1.92 billion). 

Like slave patrols in the Deep South, the   Texas Rangers -- formed primarily to kill Comanches, eliminate Native communities, and control colonized Mexicans to take their land -- also hunted down enslaved Africans escaping to freedom. They began to operate in the 1820s, even before the population of slavers in the independent province of Texas had seceded from Mexico in 1836, when Mexico formally outlawed slavery. With the new border in place, enslaved Africans in Texas could escape into Mexico, often with the help of armed Seminoles and Kickapoo, who had fled to take refuge in Mexico rather than remain in Indian Territory, where they had been forced to migrate when the United States annexed their lands east of the Mississippi. They created a community west of Rapiers Negros far inside Mexico, and a place for them to live freely. When the United States Army and Marines invaded and occupied Mexico, departing only when Mexico had ceded half its territory to the United States, these maroon communities were vulnerable. Slave hunting escalated, by the Rangers as well as by individual bounty hunters.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished legal chattel slavery, but the surveillance of Black people by patrols continued, as the occupying Union army took no concerted action against the patrols in most places (depending on the army commander), forcing formerly enslaved Africans to remain and work on plantations. Even with military vigilance, "patrolling" Black people continued as a form of organized terrorism, perpetrated especially by the Ku Klux Klan, which was founded for that very purpose nineteen months after the Civil War ended. The intensive military training and experience over four years of fighting in the Confederate Army produced a militaristic character to the formation of police forces and patrol techniques under Reconstruction; in addition, the Freedmen no longer even had the protection of being valued as property and collateral by former slavers, allowing for extreme forms of revenge violence against them. 

When Republicans were elected to state offices, they attempted to reform local militias requiring all males to serve, regardless of race, but few Anglo-Americans would serve with Freedmen. Freedmen did serve in the state militias, but they also developed their own local volunteer militia groups. Former slavers spread rumors that Freedmen were forming insurrectionary armies to kill white people. White elites formed agricultural cooperatives to maintain economic dominance over Freedmen, a goal one group made clear: "a united and systematic plan with respect to the regulation of our colored population." They also created their own forces to intimidate other Anglo-American farmers and merchants who attempted to trade with Black farmers, often putting white merchants out of business.

It is estimated that in 1860 the total value of enslaved African bodies in the United States was $4 billion, far more than the gold and silver then circulating nationally.

Most ominously, elite white Southerners formed volunteer militias under the guise of private rifle clubs. By 1876, South Carolina had more than 240 such clubs. This allowed thousands of Confederate combat veterans, along with former Confederate guerrillas, to mobilize quickly. Of course, the KKK was the most ominous terrorist organization to emerge from these efforts, its purpose being to subdue the Freedmen and control black labor when slavery ended. But the KKK was not alone. Either by their absence in many places or their actions in others, some of the US Army officers in charge made these developments possible. One that stands out is US General E.R.S. Candy, a Kentuckian who was occupation commander of the Carolinas. Candy refused to make use of his own soldiers, and instead relied on white Southern law enforcement to maintain order. He had to have known what would happen. Like many US Civil War commanders assigned to the occupation army of the former Confederacy, in 1872 he soon reassigned to the Army of the West, where he commanded troops to round up several dozen Modoc families in Northern California who refused to be forced into an Oregon reservation. The Modocs waged a year-long resistance to the Army's counterinsurgency, finally killing General Candy. One of the reasons troops were pulled out of the South prematurely was to fight in the dozens of wars the United States was initiating against Indigenous Nations in the Northern Plains, the Southwest, and the West.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished legal chattel slavery, but the surveillance of Black people by patrols continued.

As Hadden points out, Southern settlers had long relied on "self-help" measures to enforce slavery leading up to the formalized slave patrols, which had continued where possible during the Civil War. What was different after the abolition of slavery was the tons of technologically advanced guns and ammunition, and the tens of thousands of militarily seasoned and violent men who made ideal candidates for the Klan. Particularly, when the Confederate war hero Nathan Bedford Forrest joined the Klan, it gained a chivalric image that attracted other war heroes. Congress enacted laws forbidding secret groups, but the laws were rarely enforced.

Elite white Southerners formed volunteer militias under the guise of private rifle clubs.

In fact, the United States never broke with the slaveocracy, as exemplified in the career of Nathan Bedford Forrest. He lost his parents and economic security at seventeen, but became a slave trader, land speculator, and finally a wealthy slaver with his own large plantation. He was the epitome of the "self-made" man that was the vaunted ideal of white supremacy. In the Civil War, Forrest was a cavalry officer for the Confederate Army, infamous for having led the massacre of hundreds of Black Union soldiers in 1864, a war crime. Yet President Andrew Johnson granted Forrest a presidential pardon in 1868. 

The Klan, illegal as it was, operated like a huge slave patrol, requiring Freedmen to have written permission to travel from the plantations where many continued to work. The Klan established curfews for gatherings of African Americans, as well as limits on the number who could gather. The Klan burned homes, confiscated the guns of Freedmen, and, of course, inflicted punishment similar to slave patrols' beatings, but also had far more freedom to torture and murder, since the Black body no longer carried monetary value that the murderer would have to compensate for. Of course, Black people resisted, as they had resisted the slave patrols. However, the Klan was a private terrorist organization, not a public force, and had no legal status or accountability. Some Klansmen were put on trial, but none was ever convicted. Occasionally, the US Army would declare martial law, but as one army commander said in 1871, "The entire United States Army would be insufficient to give protection throughout the South to everyone in possible danger from the Klan."

the language of slave patrols is still employed in police work in the twenty-first century.

From the perspective of African Americans who survived the organized violence, there was no distinction between patrollers, Klan, and white policemen, whether rural, in towns, or in the cities. In nineteenth-century criminal digests, arrests made by slave patrollers before the Civil War continued to be used as legal precedents in the 1880s.

Hadden notes that the language of slave patrols is still employed in police work in the twenty-first century, "patrol" being the most obvious, but also "beat." More disturbingly, techniques were folded into police practices, such as surveillance methods like the stakeout. And until the 1960s pushback, police had little supervision and routinely brutalized and confined suspects without consequences; even in the twenty-first century, when police torture or murder Black people, juries rarely find the involved officers guilty of any crime. 

In the first four decades of the twentieth century, around 6 million African Americans left the South. With World War II, 1.5 million more left the South between 1940 and 1950, many to work in the war industry in California. More than 300,000 Black Southerners migrated to the greater Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas during that decade. And, during the Depression and droughts of the 1930s, a wave of some 400,000 mostly Anglo Oklahomans, Texans, Arkansans, and Missourians poured into California, followed by another wave to work in the war industry in the 1940s.

In 1950, William Parker became chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for the following decade and a half, ending after the 1965 Watts Uprising. The LAPD was already virtually all white and solidly racist, with mainly Mexicans making up the oppressed and controlled target community.

With the goal of controlling the increasing African American blue-collar population in South Central Los Angeles, Parker began recruiting Anglo veterans from the South and Southwest who had settled in Southern California after the Dust Bowl migrations or military service. The new technology of television brought the series Dragnet to homes all over the country, extolling the LAPD and attracting recruits, as well as influencing other urban police forces all over the country. During this time, the LAPD became the most notorious racist police operation ("police culture") in the country, with nearly every aspect of the Southern tradition of slave patrols woven into the system. A similar police force was formed in Oakland, where many Black veterans and war-industry workers had settled. At the same time, the Civil Rights movement was making widespread gains, with school integration mandated by law and growing Black resistance to police violence in the South, in Northern cities, and in Los Angeles and Oakland.

In an article for The Atlantic, liberal writers Saul Cornell and Eric M. Ruben make a strong argument for the slave-state origins of modern gun rights. Certainly, any inquiry into the institutionalization of slave patrols in those colonies/states reveals the connection with the Second Amendment. However, this does not explain why the N.R.A. and gun rights are so popular in other parts of the country. Armed slave patrols comprise half the story in the Second Amendment; the whole story implicates more than the slave states. While the "savage wars" against Native Nations instituted brutal modes of violence for the US military, and slave patrols seamlessly evolved into modern police forces, both have normalized racialized violence and affinity for firearms in US society.

Copyright (2017) by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. Not to be reposted without permission of the publisher, City Lights Books.

Categories: News

Private Market Fail -- US Indefinitely Reliant on Russian Government for Space Travel

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

 Ninara)The Soyuz MS-06 spacecraft prepares for a launch to the International Space Station with two US astronauts and one Russian cosmonaut on September 10, 2017, at the Tyuratam 3 Airport in Qyzylorda, Kazakhstan. (Photo: Ninara)

Zero, zip, zilch. That's how many ads we run on this site. Help keep it that way: Make a tax-deductible donation to support the free and independent journalism at Truthout.

The US's future in space is largely in the hands of private companies whose work continues to be delayed and filled with uncertainty, a government watchdog testified on Wednesday.

NASA contractors Boeing and SpaceX were supposed to have commercial crew transport systems ready to be certified for launch by 2017, providing the US with its own manned space flight system for this first time since the Space Shuttle program was retired in 2011.

But those time schedules have since shifted. The certification date is now 2019. And that goal won't likely be reached until next decade, according to the Government Accountability Office.

In a report furnished as testimony on Wednesday before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the GAO warned that "uninterrupted access" to the International Space Station (ISS) is in danger due to the contractors' ongoing schedule overruns.

The delays also "lessen NASA's return on investment with the contractors," the oversight agency reported.

SpaceX and Boeing both received multi-billion dollar contracts from NASA in 2014 to build crew transportation systems to shuttle US astronauts to and from the ISS. Boeing garnered a $4.2 billion contract, while SpaceX pulled in $2.6 billion.

Since the inception of the agreement, however, the project has been plagued by contractor tardiness. In twelve quarterly reviews since 2014, "Boeing has reported a delay six times and SpaceX has reported a delay nine times."

The watchdog concluded that the contractors promises were overly "aggressive" from the beginning, and that "anticipated schedule risks have now materialized."

Each delay forces NASA to purchase seats on Russian rocket ships in order to send US astronauts to the ISS for routine activities.

GAO warnings about schedule delays in February 2017 prompted NASA to plan ahead and purchase seats aboard the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Five seats were bought from the Russian Federal Space Agency for $410 million.

GAO's report on Wednesday stated that "if the Commercial Crew Program experiences additional delays, NASA may need to buy additional seats from Russia to ensure a continued US presence on the ISS." The agency provided no further recommendations to NASA.

Categories: News

Reaching Rural America With Broadband Internet Service

Thu, 01/18/2018 - 05:00

All across the US, rural communities' residents are being left out of modern society and the 21st century economy. With an upcoming Federal Communications Commission vote on whether cellphone data speeds are fast enough for work, entertainment and other online activities, Americans face a choice: Is modest-speed internet appropriate for rural areas, or do rural Americans deserve access to the far faster service options available in urban areas?

Thirty seconds: That's how long it takes to support the independent journalism at Truthout. We're counting on you. Click here to chip in!

All across the US, rural communities' residents are being left out of modern society and the 21st century economy. I've traveled to Kansas, Maine, Texas and other states studying internet access and use -- and I hear all the time from people with a crucial need still unmet. Rural Americans want faster, cheaper internet like their city-dwelling compatriots have, letting them work remotely and use online services, to access shopping, news, information and government data.

With an upcoming Federal Communications Commission vote on whether cellphone data speeds are fast enough for work, entertainment and other online activities, Americans face a choice: Is modest-speed internet appropriate for rural areas, or do rural Americans deserve access to the far faster service options available in urban areas?

My work, which most recently studies how people use rural libraries' internet services, asks a fundamental set of questions: How are communities in rural regions actually connected? Why is service often so poor? Why do 39 percent of Americans living in rural areas lack internet access that meets even the FCC's minimum definition of "broadband" service? What policies, beyond President Donald Trump's new executive orders, might help fix those problems? What technologies would work best, and who should be in control of them?

The Wide-Ranging Rural Internet Problem

Since the dawn of the internet, rural areas of the US have had less internet access than urban areas. High-speed wired connections are less common, and wireless phone service and signals are weaker than in cities -- or absent altogether. Even as rural America's wired-internet speeds and mobile-phone service have improved, the overall problem remains: Cities' services have also gotten better, so the rural communities still have comparatively worse service.

 

National standards have not helped: As people, businesses and governments need and want to do more online, the FCC-set minimum data-transmission speeds for broadband service has climbed. The current standard -- at least 25 megabits per second downloading and 3 megabits per second uploading  -- is deemed "adequate" to stream video and participate in other high-traffic online activities

But those speeds are not readily available in rural areas. The FCC is actually considering reducing the standard, which critics say may make the rural digital divide disappear on paper, but not in real life.

Rural residents have few choices of internet service providers  -- or none at all. They pay higher prices for lower quality service, despite earning less than urban dwellers.

A related issue is that fewer rural Americans are online: 39 percent of rural Americans lack home broadband access -- in contrast to only 4 percent of urban Americans. And 69 percent of rural Americans use the internet, compared to 75 percent of urban residents. That means less participation in the culture, society, politics and economic activity of the 21st century.

Building a Nationwide Internet Structure

The basic problem is that high-speed internet has not yet reached huge swathes of rural America. There are two main ways to fix this problem: with wires, and without wires. 

Smaller towns in rural areas typically have two options for wired connectivity. About 59 percent of all fixed broadband customers use internet provided by the local cable company. Another 29 percent get their internet over phone lines, often called digital subscriber line service, or DSL. However, older systems in rural areas aren't upgraded as often, making them slower than those in metro areas.

A few small rural towns have fiber optic networks that are much faster, but they are exceptions.

One reason rural wired service is less available and less advanced is cost, which relates to population density. In urban communities, a mile-long cable might pass dozens, or even hundreds, of homes and businesses. Rural internet requires longer wires -- and often special signal-boosting equipment  -- with fewer potential customers from whom to recoup the costs. Rural homeowners who complain to me that they can't get DSL, but say the farm down the road can, are probably just a bit too far from the phone company's networking equipment. That's much less common in cities and towns.

Wireless Options

Covering these longer distances may be easier with wireless technologies, including satellite broadband, short-distance radio links and mobile-phone data. 

Satellite broadband -- where a customer has an antenna that connects with an orbiting satellite linked to a faster internet connection back on Earth -- is technically available anywhere in the country. But it is slower, and often more expensive, than wired broadband connections. And its connections are vulnerable to bad weather.

Radio connections can vary significantly. One type, called "fixed wireless," requires customers to be within sight of a service tower, much like a cellphone. Speeds can be up to 20 megabits per second. Satellite broadband and fixed wireless are used mostly in rural areas, but account for less than 3 percent of the US fixed broadband market.

Other options just being explored involve frequency ranges that are newly available. An approach using "white space" signals would transmit data on channels previously used by analog television broadcasters. Its signals, like TV broadcasts, can travel several miles, and are not blocked by buildings.

Another frequency range around 3.5 GHz, called "Citizens Broadband Radio Service," could let rural internet companies use frequencies previously reserved for coastal radar -- even in places far inland. But the FCC may be changing the rules to favor large telecommunications companies instead.

Mobile Wireless

The fourth type of wireless internet is already quite widespread -- it's on people's smartphones nationwide. Many people have higher-speed connections at home and use mobile data on the go. However, people who don't have access to, or can't afford, other internet service, often use mobile wireless service as their primary internet connection.

US wireless companies' coverage maps can be deceptive. Just because a carrier has a cell tower along an interstate highway does not mean the rest of the surrounding county also has good coverage.

In our group's research trips to Maine in 2016 and 2017, four people had phones with four different carriers, but there were plenty of places where not a single cell service was working. We have heard tales of small towns that have acceptable signals only in very specific spots -- like in the middle of a side street.

Mobile phone data service has different speeds, and is often priced by how much data and how fast it travels -- though even plans labeled "unlimited data" may slow down traffic after a customer transmits or receives a certain amount. Many companies promote their fourth-generation, or 4G, networks for their potential download speeds of around 20 megabits per second. But 5 to 12 megabits per second may be far more common, especially in rural regions -- making it more comparable to DSL. 

Mobile companies built massive networks to serve densely populated cities, leaving less populous rural markets without comparable improvements. Some hold out hope for the next wireless-data standard, the even faster fifth-generation 5G system -- but rural America may not see that service for a while.

Bringing High Speeds to Remote Places

 

In our work, we have found a lot of people on tight budgets figuring out how to use local Wi-Fi connections to download content onto their phones, so they use (and pay for) less mobile data. Public libraries, which generally have fast and free Wi-Fi, are popular options in rural areas. Many rural librarians have told us about people in their parking lots after hours simply using the library Wi-Fi. Those connections aren't always the fastest, but are a testament to the efforts of public libraries over many years to provide their communities' residents with computer and internet services.

The policy debates in Washington provide the US with the opportunity to choose to provide equal access to high-speed internet all across the country, or to relegate rural users to their smartphones, library parking lots and slow home connections. Real high-speed internet could change the lives of rural Americans: The FCC itself has reported that people use fixed broadband differently, and get more benefits from it than mobile data.

Fundamentally, it is a question of values. In the 1930s and '40s, the public sentiment was that the nation would be better off if everyone had reasonably comparable electricity and telephone service. As a result, the federal government established a system of loans and grants to ensure universal access to those key utilities. To help, the FCC set up a system to charge businesses and urban customers slightly higher fees to subsidize the higher costs associated with bringing phone lines to rural areas. 

The question facing the FCC and Congress -- and really, the US as a whole -- is whether we are willing to invest in providing broadband service equitably to both urban and rural Americans. Then we need to make sure it is affordable.

Disclosure statement: Sharon Strover receives funding from The Robin Hood Foundation in New York (for research on New York's public library system hotspot program) and the federal agency Institute for Museum and Library Services (for a research project looking at rural libraries). She has worked with several federal agencies and foundations on projects relating to communication policy topics over my 30-year career.

Categories: News

Facebook's Algorithm Change: Maintaining the Flow of Information in Dangerous Times

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00

 Bill Hinton /  Getty Images)(Image: Bill Hinton / Getty Images)

If you use Facebook regularly, you've probably realized that the items on your newsfeed don't appear at random or in chronological order. Facebook uses an ever-changing algorithm -- a mechanism that decides what content will appear for each person, and in what way it will be prioritized -- to determine what shows up in your feed. Recently, Facebook has made a significant change to its algorithm. Under this new iteration, users will encounter far less news from publishers in their everyday use of Facebook. Since most of us get at least some of our news from social media, this change will undoubtedly lead to a disruption in the flow of information. In the dangerous times we live in, we believe the flow of information has never been more crucial, but when corporations control over 90 percent of the media, and a corporate algorithm governs the distribution of news and analysis, events like this are bound to unfold. The relationship between journalism and social media has been a troubled one for some time, and instead of fostering a dynamic of direct connection, many media outlets have been cajoled into trusting an algorithm with the management of the truth itself.

The only way forward, given the extremity of this corrosion, is to be intentional about recreating connections between ourselves as publications, writers and readers -- and the need to build these connections has never been more urgent. Social platforms will continue to share posts from readers that spark dialogue. That means sharing and sparking discussion about the issues we care about most will be more crucial than ever to the flow of honest information. The corporate filter must be replaced with curation of a publication readership. The flow of information will depend on the desire of readers to not simply be informed, but create dialogues around the information they receive.

Ensuring that stories about what harms disenfranchised communities, and what forces are, indeed, killing the Earth itself, are delivered to the public will now, more than ever, be a collective effort. We are ready to rise to that challenge, and embrace that change, because we believe that relationships, rather than mere facts and analysis, are the root of social transformation. At Truthout, we are asking our readers to join us in this culture-building shift, which we hope will take hold throughout the digital news sphere. If you believe in the necessity of independent journalism, we want to deliver the news to your doorstep. Truthout is committed to the free flow of information, and to keeping information free. We will create no paywalls. We will feature no ads. We will not be influenced by corporate sponsors. And in partnership with our readers, we will cut out the corporate middlemen and spread the truth from person to person, and inbox to inbox.

We are currently developing new ways to work in partnership with our readers to tell stories that fuel movements, and that will better enable our readers to connect with the struggles they care about. While the internet has added some sharp edges to the exchange of information, we must not sacrifice the truth. This is the work of change. This is part of the fight. And de-consolidating knowledge will help set us free.

If you want to receive our daily edition, and help spreads news that can promote change, sign up here.

Categories: News

Focusing on Trump's Mental Health Deflects Attention From His Politics

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00

Ever since Donald Trump hit the presidential campaign trail more than two years ago, there has been a drumbeat about whether he is mentally unstable -- from mainstream news sources (the Washington Post: "Is Trump mentally ill? Or is America? Psychiatrists weigh in") to the left media (Democracy Now!: "Psychiatrists 'deeply concerned' by Trump's instability call for urgent mental health evaluation").

But it is wrong to put all this focus on Trump's mental health because it deflects attention from his reactionary politics. As David Perry wrote at Pacific Standard magazine in an article titled "Stop speculating about Trump's mental health":

I don't believe Trump's mental condition is all that relevant to his miserable performance as president. I believe he's always been a liar, a merchant of racism and sexism, and a person willing to exploit any perceived weakness for the sake of personal gain. The urge to pathologize his conduct says much more about the ableist biases of American society than whatever is going on in the president's brain. What's more, Trump's enablers will resist any such reporting.

To be blunt, the label of "crazy" is both too gentle for the monster who sits in the White House and also insulting to millions of people who suffer from mental illness. As Perry writes:

He lies, boasts, exaggerates, grifts, swaggers, spreads hate and division, and does whatever he can to improve his own fortunes while concealing his vast incompetencies and bottomless ignorance. None of these characteristics requires a pathology to explain. Trump's complete lack of fitness as president has nothing to do with whether he has any diagnosable conditions.

***

It turns out that there are accepted guidelines for how psychiatrists and psychologists should treat speculation of the mental health of elected officials when they take place in the media. They are known as the Goldwater Rule, as Christie Aschwanden explained at FiveThirtyEight:

The rule arose from a 1964 cover story in Fact magazine that had the headline, "FACT: 1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!" which led Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater to sue for libel -- and win.

The American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule explicitly states: "[I]t is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."

Ashwanden quotes Allen Frances, a co-author of the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and a defender of the Goldwater Rule.

"Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely," Frances wrote in a New York Times op-ed article. "Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump's attack on democracy."'

Ashwaden wraps up the article with a point that liberal commentators might do well to think about: "People accusing Trump of insanity might well feel different about the practice if it was turned on one of their favored candidates."

The answer to this part of the "crazy" label is simple: Trump -- like any other serial abuser, for that matter -- is responsible for his actions and must be held responsible, or he will be unaccountable.

***

Stigma against mental illness is serious problem in this culture. Our society has made important improvements from the draconian days of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but that stigma persists -- and both Republicans and Democrats help perpetuate it, while cutting desperately needed resources.

Access to mental health care is worse than other types of medical services -- in a country that already has horrifically bad health care when compared to other developed countries.

The impact on people who suffer real mental health problems -- which are often rooted in the oppressive and alienating world around us -- is drastic. Many end up in prison, houseless, or dependent on partners or family to make up for their inability to function in a way that serves capitalism's needs.

This gives a very different picture of mental illness and its consequences from the media stereotypes. All too often, for example, the media tend to blame mass shootings on "mental illness," when mentally ill people are more likely to be the victims of violence rather than commit it.

Rev. William J. Barber, the architect of the Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina who is now launching a new Poor People's Campaign, made an important point on Democracy Now!: "I've been looking at how people are focusing now on Trump's "mental status." I think that's the wrong thing...Dr. King talked about America being sick."

In fact, Donald Trump is the human embodiment of this sickness, having been born into wealth and grown into a spoiled, racist, serial rapist who was then accidentally elected president of the richest and most militarily advanced country in the world.

Trump is erratic and extreme in his self-aggrandizement, and those traits no doubt shape his behavior. But to use mental illness as an explanation is to ignore how the rulers of the capitalist system collectively use sexism, racism, transphobia, Islamaphobia and so on to keep their profit system functioning.

Truthout combats corporate power by bringing you trustworthy, independent news. Join our mission by making a donation now!
Categories: News

New York City Councilmember Jumaane Williams: Civil Disobedience Is Needed to Protect Immigrants

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00

New York City Councilmember Jumaane Williams was arrested last Thursday along with fellow City Councilmember Ydanis Rodríguez and 16 others as they and others attempted to block an ambulance being used to transport Ravi Ragbir to detention last week. Speaking at Judson Memorial Church, Williams talked about Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's inspiration and the need for civil disobedience.

Please check back later for full transcript.

Categories: News

Is ICE Targeting Immigration Activists? Family Members of Detained and Deported Leaders Speak Out

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00

Ravi Ragbir, the executive director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of NYC, was detained on Thursday when he went to his check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Ravi’s detention sparked a peaceful protest that was met with police violence. Police arrested 18 people, including members of the New York City Council. He is now being held in Florida and faces deportation. We speak with his wife Amy Gottlieb, a longtime immigrant rights advocate with the American Friends Service Committee.

Please check back later for full transcript.

Categories: News

These 18 Senate Democrats Just Voted to Hand Trump Mass Spying Powers

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00

 Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call)Sen. Doug Jones is seen during a photo op in the Capitol on January 3, 2018. Jones was one of 18 Democrats who voted in favor of expanding Donald Trump's warrantless spying powers. (Photo: Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call)

Help Truthout supply a counterpoint to the dangerous rhetoric and misinformation spewing forth from Washington DC. It takes less than thirty seconds to contribute via card or PayPal: Just click here!

Senate Democrats had an opportunity Tuesday night to block legislation that places expanded warrantless spying powers into the hands of President Donald Trump -- who they have frequently criticized as a deranged authoritarian -- but 18 Democrats opted instead to do the opposite, providing the decisive votes in favor of a cloture motion that essentially ensures the bill's passage this week.

While many viewed the Senate's approval of cloture as a sure thing, a bit of drama ensued Tuesday night as the motion was two votes shy of the necessary 60 with two senators -- John Kennedy (R-La.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) -- left to vote. 

But after Kennedy opted to vote in favor of the motion, McCaskill quickly followed with a yes vote of her own -- giving the Republican majority enough votes to kill debate on the the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 (S.139), block any possible privacy amendments, and clear its path to the Senate floor.

In total, 18 Democratic senators -- as well as Angus King (I-Maine) -- voted with Republicans to move the widely denounced bill forward.

The 18 Democrats were: Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Doug Jones (Ala.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Mark Warner (Va.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.).

Democrat Claire McCaskill just made the deciding vote: she voted YES on on cutting off debate for privacy amendments to the NSA spying bill.

The bill—which expands the Trump admin's ability to conduct domestic surveillance—will now almost certainly pass.

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) January 17, 2018

Civil liberties groups were quick to condemn every senator who cast a vote in favor of legislation that, if passed, will renew Section 702 of FISA, which allows the government to spy on the electronic communications of Americans and foreigners without a warrant.

"Members of both parties who voted in favor of this legislation should be sharply rebuked for supporting a bill that is in flagrant violation of the rights enshrined in the Constitution," ACLU declared on Twitter following Tuesday's vote. "Instead of instituting much needed reforms and safeguards, Senators supported legislation that would give spying powers to an administration that has time and time again demonstrated its disregard for civil rights and civil liberties."

60 Senators tonight voted to make it easier to spy on people against whom the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing than against criminal suspects.

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) January 17, 2018

The Senate's vote on Tuesday came just a week after 65 House Democrats momentarily dropped their skepticism of Trump's mental capacity and voted to gift him and Attorney General Jeff Sessions the ability to conduct mass surveillance of Americans with little oversight.

What follows is a full list of the senators who voted in favor of the cloture motion Tuesday night. (Ten of the Democrats on the list are up for reelection in November.)

2018 0117nsa2

 

Categories: News

We Cannot Expect a President With Racism "in his DNA" to Save DACA

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00

After a federal judge ruled that Trump's racist comments likely led him to illegally end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrvals (DACA), Trump filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Courts. Now his "shithole countries" comment not only threatens Dreamers, but it could also lead to a government shutdown. It's up to the courts and Congress to save DACA.

 Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images)Donald Trump listens to his Kazakh counterpart Nursultan Nazarbayev speak to the press at the White House in Washington, DC, on January 16, 2018. (Photo: Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images)

After Donald Trump called Haiti and African nations "shithole countries" and exclaimed, "We should have more people from Norway," Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) noted that being a racist "must be in his DNA, in his makeup." Trump's offensive characterization of Haitians and the entire continent of Africa, the latest in his pattern and practice of racist epithets, imperils legal protection for the 800,000 "Dreamers" who have been able to remain in the United States under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

On September 5, 2017, Trump rescinded the DACA program, effective March 5, 2018. Attorney General Jeff Sessions incorrectly declared that Barack Obama had overstepped his legal authority when he established DACA, as I explained previously.

Indeed, US District Judge William Alsup disagreed with Sessions and ordered the Trump administration to shield existing DACA enrollees from deportation until the courts could rule on the legal challenges to the program. Alsup concluded that plaintiffs contesting the rescission of DACA would likely prevail on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims.

To read more stories like this, visit Human Rights and Global Wrongs.

Ironically, Trump's habit of spewing racist bile has come back to bite him. In his ruling, Alsup wrote there is "a plausible inference that racial animus towards Mexicans and Latinos was a motivating factor in the decision to end DACA." Alsup cited Trump's rhetoric against Mexicans and Latinos during the presidential campaign, specifically calling Mexicans "rapists" and referring to migrants crossing the border as "animals."

After rescinding DACA, Trump reacted to the overwhelming opposition to his decision by tossing the ball to Congress, tweeting, "Congress has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama administration was unable to do). If they can't I will revisit this issue!"

Two days later, Trump tweeted, "For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the six month period, you have nothing to worry about -- No action!"

The president's "shithole" words were uttered in a meeting called to save the Dreamers. It appeared there was a bipartisan consensus to reinstitute DACA with a path to citizenship for Dreamers; allocate "border security" funding, including money for Trump's "beautiful wall"; prevent Dreamers from sponsoring their parents for legal immigration status; and end the diversity visa lottery system.

Trump sought "a bipartisan bill of love," pledging to sign any bill that came to his desk as long as it contained money for "the wall."

But pressure from right-wing hardliners, who Trump considers his base, scuttled the deal in the volatile meeting in which he made the grotesque remarks. Trump also stated, "Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out," indicating an intention to remove Haitians from the United States.

The initial reaction from the White House was revealing. One official told CNN's Kaitlan Collins:

The President's "shithole" remark is being received much differently inside of the White House than it is outside of it. Though this might enrage Washington, staffers predict the comment will resonate with his base, much like his attacks on NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem did not alienate it.

But after the firestorm erupted in response to his outrageous comments, Trump denied uttering the words "shithole countries" or "take them out," insisting, "I am not a racist."

Astoundingly, although several attendees at the meeting confirmed Trump's "shithole" comments, Sens. David Perdue (R-Georgia) and Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) said Trump had not used that language. According to the Washington Post, "[t]hree White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard 'shithouse' rather than 'shithole,' allowing them to deny the president's comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who was present in the meeting, confirmed that Trump used the phrase "shithole countries" several times. But whether Trump said "shithole" or "shithouse" to refer to other nations is insignificant. Both are equally insulting.

Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen also tried to shield the president, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, "I did not hear that word."

Earlier in the week, Trump had ended temporary protected status for 200,000 people from El Salvador, effective September 2019; many of them have been in the United States for 20 years. In November, Trump had halted temporary protected status for 59,000 Haitians, who are still reeling from the earthquake and cholera epidemic that have devastated that country.

Trump's use of racist language in regard to immigrants -- including those from Haiti -- is, of course, nothing new. The New York Times reported Trump's comments during a meeting in June 2017:

Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They 'all have AIDS,' [Trump] grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there. Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never 'go back to their huts' in Africa, recalled two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office.

Democrats insist that reaching a deal to protect the Dreamers is a prerequisite to securing their votes to continue funding the government. Trump blames the Democrats for the impending government shutdown, tweeting, "DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don't really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our military."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) told the New York Times, "To believe that you can successfully blame Democrats for a shutdown over the DACA debate is naïve." Graham, who also attended the controversial meeting, confirmed to Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) that Trump said "shithole countries." Graham said he had confronted Trump about the president's words during the meeting.

The deadline to fund the government is Friday, January 19. Trump's racist tantrum has put not only DACA, but also the entire government, in jeopardy.

Trump has appealed Alsup's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen whether the appellate courts or Congress will ultimately save DACA.

Exposing the wrongdoing of those in power has never been more important. Support Truthout's independent, investigative journalism by making a donation!
Categories: News

What's Wrong With Trump?

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00

Ever since Donald Trump hit the presidential campaign trail more than two years ago, there has been a drumbeat about whether he is mentally unstable -- from mainstream news sources (the Washington Post: "Is Trump mentally ill? Or is America? Psychiatrists weigh in") to the left media (Democracy Now!: "Psychiatrists 'deeply concerned' by Trump's instability call for urgent mental health evaluation").

But it is wrong to put all this focus on Trump's mental health because it deflects attention from his reactionary politics. As David Parry wrote at Pacific Standard magazine in an article titled "Stop speculating about Trump's mental health":

I don't believe Trump's mental condition is all that relevant to his miserable performance as president. I believe he's always been a liar, a merchant of racism and sexism, and a person willing to exploit any perceived weakness for the sake of personal gain. The urge to pathologize his conduct says much more about the ableist biases of American society than whatever is going on in the president's brain. What's more, Trump's enablers will resist any such reporting.

To be blunt, the label of "crazy" is both too gentle for the monster who sits in the White House and also insulting to millions of people who suffer from mental illness. As Parry writes:

He lies, boasts, exaggerates, grifts, swaggers, spreads hate and division, and does whatever he can to improve his own fortunes while concealing his vast incompetencies and bottomless ignorance. None of these characteristics requires a pathology to explain. Trump's complete lack of fitness as president has nothing to do with whether he has any diagnosable conditions.

***

It turns out that there are accepted guidelines for how psychiatrists and psychologists should treat speculation of the mental health of elected officials when they take place in the media. They are known as the Goldwater Rule, as Christie Aschwanden explained at FiveThirtyEight:

The rule arose from a 1964 cover story in Fact magazine that had the headline, "FACT: 1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!" which led Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater to sue for libel -- and win.

The American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule explicitly states: "[I]t is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."

Ashwanden quotes Allen Frances, a co-author of the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and a defender of the Goldwater Rule.

"Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely," Frances wrote in a New York Times op-ed article. "Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump's attack on democracy."'

Ashwaden wraps up the article with a point that liberal commentators might do well to think about: "People accusing Trump of insanity might well feel different about the practice if it was turned on one of their favored candidates."

The answer to this part of the "crazy" label is simple: Trump -- like any other serial abuser, for that matter -- is responsible for his actions and must be held responsible, or he will be unaccountable.

***

Stigma against mental illness is serious problem in this culture. Our society has made important improvements from the draconian days of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but that stigma persists -- and both Republicans and Democrats help perpetuate it, while cutting desperately needed resources.

Access to mental health care is worse than other types of medical services -- in a country that already has horrifically bad health care when compared to other developed countries.

The impact on people who suffer real mental health problems -- which are often rooted in the oppressive and alienating world around us -- is drastic. Many end up in prison, houseless, or dependent on partners or family to make up for their inability to function in a way that serves capitalism's needs.

This gives a very different picture of mental illness and its consequences from the media stereotypes. All too often, for example, the media tend to blame mass shootings on "mental illness," when mentally ill people are more likely to be the victims of violence rather than commit it.

Rev. William J. Barber, the architect of the Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina who is now launching a new Poor People's Campaign, made an important point on Democracy Now!: "I've been looking at how people are focusing now on Trump's "mental status." I think that's the wrong thing...Dr. King talked about America being sick."

In fact, Donald Trump is the human embodiment of this sickness, having been born into wealth and grown into a spoiled, racist, serial rapist who was then accidentally elected president of the richest and most militarily advanced country in the world.

Trump is erratic and extreme in his self-aggrandizement, and those traits no doubt shape his behavior. But to use mental illness as an explanation is to ignore how the rulers of the capitalist system collectively use sexism, racism, transphobia, Islamaphobia and so on to keep their profit system functioning.

Truthout combats corporate power by bringing you trustworthy, independent news. Join our mission by making a donation now!
Categories: News

Should Darth Vader Have Warrantless Spying Powers?

Wed, 01/17/2018 - 05:00
Categories: News

Pages