|
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
'A Tangible Way to Fight for the World I Want to Live In': Water Protector Arrested After Blockading Line 3 Pipe Yard
"Profits for a few are being privileged over the well-being of all communities near and far, present and future."
"Profits for a few are being privileged over the well-being of all communities near and far, present and future."
by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on Monday, December 28, 2020
by Common Dreams
Before climbing a tripod in front of a tar sands pipe yard, Emma Harrison said, "I'm part of the Line 3 resistance movement because this pipeline embodies everything I believe is wrong with the world." (Photo: Honor the Earth/Twitter)
Water protector Emma Harrison was arrested Monday in Backus, Minnesota after successfully obstructing construction on Enbridge Energy's Line 3 pipeline project for several hours by ascending a tripod in front of a tar sands pipe yard owned by the Canadian company.
"I'm part of the Line 3 resistance movement because this pipeline embodies everything I believe is wrong with the world," Harrison said before she engaged in civil disobedience.
TODAY Water Protectors are at Backus, MN Line 3 pipe yard to block construction
via @GiniwCollective #StopLine3 @HonorTheEarth https://t.co/j15MEZgjze— MN350 (@MN_350) December 28, 2020
As Common Dreams has reported, climate justice and Indigenous rights advocates are opposed to the expansion of the Line 3 pipeline, which would send 760,000 barrels of crude oil every day through northern Minnesota, from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin—traversing more than 800 wetland habitats, violating Ojubwe treaty rights, and putting current and future generations at risk of polluted water and a despoiled environment.
Since Enbridge began working on the pipeline in late November despite pending lawsuits, opponents have attempted to halt construction through a series of direct actions, including Monday's blockade. Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has responded "with complete silence," Line 3 resistance activists said in a statement.
When an Enbridge employee was killed in a worksite accident less than two weeks ago, the company resumed work after pausing for only a few hours.
BREAKING: Water Protector Arrested After Blockading Enbridge Line 3 Pipe-yard until 2pm.
This action is just 9 days after an Enbridge worker was killed at a Line 3 workyard, Enbridge has yet to comment on its unsafe practices. We’re standing up for your water, your health also. pic.twitter.com/pM8Lr09isq— giniw collective (@GiniwCollective) December 28, 2020
In a New York Times op-ed published Monday morning as people gathered to oppose the Line 3 pipeline, Louise Erdrich—a Minnesota-based novelist and poet as well as a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, a Native American tribe in North Dakota—called the project "a breathtaking betrayal" of tribal communities and the environment.
"This is not just another pipeline," Erdrich wrote. She continued:
It is a tar sands climate bomb; if completed, it will facilitate the production of crude oil for decades to come. Tar sands are among the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet. The state's environmental impact assessment of the project found the pipeline's carbon output could be 193 million tons per year.
That's the equivalent of 50 coal-fired power plants or 38 million vehicles on our roads, according to Jim Doyle, a physicist at Macalester College who helped write a report from the climate action organization MN350 about the pipeline. He observed that the pipeline's greenhouse gas emissions are greater than the yearly output of the entire state.
If the pipeline is built, Minnesotans could turn off everything in the state, stop traveling, and still not come close to meeting the state's emission reduction goals. The impact assessment also states that the potential social cost of this pipeline is $287 billion over 30 years.
On top of the project's massive carbon footprint, "the extraction process for oil sands is deeply destructive," Erdrich noted. "The water used in processing is left in toxic holding ponds that cumulatively could fill 500,000 Olympic swimming pools."
Moreover, "if the pipelines were to leak, the sludgy mixture is almost impossible to clean up," she added. "The state's environmental impact statement notes that the pipeline will run through two watersheds that drain into Lake Superior. Any spill in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, which contain 84% of North America's available freshwater, is an existential threat to our water supply."
According to 350Kishwaukee, there were at least 1,000 spills by Enbridge pipelines between 1996 and 2004. Erdrich cited Rachel Havrelock, the founder of the University of Illinois Freshwater Lab, who said: "There is nowhere worse on earth to have an oil sands pipeline system than the Great Lakes region. It is, everything else aside, the world's worst planning."
Erdrich said that "with the Keystone XL Pipeline on hold and Line 5 challenged in Michigan, Enbridge is building as fast as it can to lock in pipeline infrastructure before regulatory agencies and governments institute rules on climate change... These Canada-based corporations are perpetrating a vast ecological crime, and Minnesota is their accomplice."
Prior to her arrest, Harrison said that "profits for a few are being privileged over the well-being of all communities near and far, present and future." She called stopping Line 3 "a tangible way to fight for the world I want to live in."
Published on Monday, December 28, 2020
by Common Dreams
Before climbing a tripod in front of a tar sands pipe yard, Emma Harrison said, "I'm part of the Line 3 resistance movement because this pipeline embodies everything I believe is wrong with the world." (Photo: Honor the Earth/Twitter)
Water protector Emma Harrison was arrested Monday in Backus, Minnesota after successfully obstructing construction on Enbridge Energy's Line 3 pipeline project for several hours by ascending a tripod in front of a tar sands pipe yard owned by the Canadian company.
"I'm part of the Line 3 resistance movement because this pipeline embodies everything I believe is wrong with the world," Harrison said before she engaged in civil disobedience.
TODAY Water Protectors are at Backus, MN Line 3 pipe yard to block construction
via @GiniwCollective #StopLine3 @HonorTheEarth https://t.co/j15MEZgjze— MN350 (@MN_350) December 28, 2020
As Common Dreams has reported, climate justice and Indigenous rights advocates are opposed to the expansion of the Line 3 pipeline, which would send 760,000 barrels of crude oil every day through northern Minnesota, from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin—traversing more than 800 wetland habitats, violating Ojubwe treaty rights, and putting current and future generations at risk of polluted water and a despoiled environment.
Since Enbridge began working on the pipeline in late November despite pending lawsuits, opponents have attempted to halt construction through a series of direct actions, including Monday's blockade. Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has responded "with complete silence," Line 3 resistance activists said in a statement.
When an Enbridge employee was killed in a worksite accident less than two weeks ago, the company resumed work after pausing for only a few hours.
BREAKING: Water Protector Arrested After Blockading Enbridge Line 3 Pipe-yard until 2pm.
This action is just 9 days after an Enbridge worker was killed at a Line 3 workyard, Enbridge has yet to comment on its unsafe practices. We’re standing up for your water, your health also. pic.twitter.com/pM8Lr09isq— giniw collective (@GiniwCollective) December 28, 2020
In a New York Times op-ed published Monday morning as people gathered to oppose the Line 3 pipeline, Louise Erdrich—a Minnesota-based novelist and poet as well as a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, a Native American tribe in North Dakota—called the project "a breathtaking betrayal" of tribal communities and the environment.
"This is not just another pipeline," Erdrich wrote. She continued:
It is a tar sands climate bomb; if completed, it will facilitate the production of crude oil for decades to come. Tar sands are among the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet. The state's environmental impact assessment of the project found the pipeline's carbon output could be 193 million tons per year.
That's the equivalent of 50 coal-fired power plants or 38 million vehicles on our roads, according to Jim Doyle, a physicist at Macalester College who helped write a report from the climate action organization MN350 about the pipeline. He observed that the pipeline's greenhouse gas emissions are greater than the yearly output of the entire state.
If the pipeline is built, Minnesotans could turn off everything in the state, stop traveling, and still not come close to meeting the state's emission reduction goals. The impact assessment also states that the potential social cost of this pipeline is $287 billion over 30 years.
On top of the project's massive carbon footprint, "the extraction process for oil sands is deeply destructive," Erdrich noted. "The water used in processing is left in toxic holding ponds that cumulatively could fill 500,000 Olympic swimming pools."
Moreover, "if the pipelines were to leak, the sludgy mixture is almost impossible to clean up," she added. "The state's environmental impact statement notes that the pipeline will run through two watersheds that drain into Lake Superior. Any spill in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, which contain 84% of North America's available freshwater, is an existential threat to our water supply."
According to 350Kishwaukee, there were at least 1,000 spills by Enbridge pipelines between 1996 and 2004. Erdrich cited Rachel Havrelock, the founder of the University of Illinois Freshwater Lab, who said: "There is nowhere worse on earth to have an oil sands pipeline system than the Great Lakes region. It is, everything else aside, the world's worst planning."
Erdrich said that "with the Keystone XL Pipeline on hold and Line 5 challenged in Michigan, Enbridge is building as fast as it can to lock in pipeline infrastructure before regulatory agencies and governments institute rules on climate change... These Canada-based corporations are perpetrating a vast ecological crime, and Minnesota is their accomplice."
Prior to her arrest, Harrison said that "profits for a few are being privileged over the well-being of all communities near and far, present and future." She called stopping Line 3 "a tangible way to fight for the world I want to live in."
Climate Cost of Organic Meat Is Just as High as That of Conventionally Grown Animals: Study
"The prices are lying," said one of the study's researchers. "Climate costs are rising and we are all paying these costs."
by Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on Wednesday, December 23, 2020
by Common Dreams
A newly published study concluded that the climate cost of organically produced animal products is just as high as that of their conventional counterparts.
(Photo: Farm Sanctuary/Flickr/cc)
Advocates for eco-friendly, plant-based diets hailed a study published last week that revealed the climate cost of organic meat production is as high as that of conventionally produced animal products.
"We expected organic farming to score better for animal-based products but, for greenhouse gas emissions, it actually doesn't make much difference."
—Maximilian Pieper, Technical University of Munich
The study, published on December 15 in Nature Communication and reported Wednesday in The Guardian, used the German government's climate damage cost baseline of $219 per tonne of CO2 and determined that in order to cover climate costs, the farm-direct price of beef must rise by $7.31 per kilogram, while the per kilo price of chicken must increase by $3.66. The price of conventionally raised meat would have to rise by 40% in stores, while organic meat would need to be about 25% more expensive. Conventional milk would be one-third higher, while the price of organic milk would rise by 20%.
The researchers analyzed animal agriculture in Germany and concluded that the climate costs of organic beef and lamb are similar to that of their conventionally produced counterparts. And while they found that organic pork has a slightly lower climate cost than conventional pig meat, for organic chicken it was somewhat higher.
The cost of plant-based foods, on the other hand, would remain nearly the same.
'The cost of the climate damage caused by organic meat production is just as high as that of conventionally farmed meat, according to research.' There's never been a better time to try a plant-based diet, join us this Veganuary https://t.co/wdXB6xsbj1https://t.co/X68saquozf
— Veganuary (@veganuary) December 23, 2020
"We expected organic farming to score better for animal-based products but, for greenhouse gas emissions, it actually doesn't make much difference," Maximilian Pieper of the Technical University of Munich, who led the study, told The Guardian. "But in certain other aspects, organic is certainly better than conventional farming."
University of Greifswald researcher Amelie Michalke, who also participated in the study, said that "the prices are lying."
"Climate costs are rising and we are all paying these costs," she said.
While animals emit greenhouse gases in their excrement—and in the case of cows and sheep, through belching and farting—the grain fed to conventionally raised livestock can also contribute to emissions, especially if it is grown on land which has been deforested in places like South America's Amazon rainforest.
Animals raised organically are often grass-fed. But they also grow at a slower rate and spend more time expelling greenhouse gases before they are slaughtered.
"The climate damage costs for meat are especially startling if you compare them to the other categories. The price increases required are... 68 times higher than for plant-based products."
—Pieper
All animals also need water to live, and separate research has shown that the global average water footprint—the total amount of water needed—to produce a pound of beef is nearly 1,800 gallons. For a pound of pork, it's 576 gallons. In stark contrast, a pound of soybeans needs only 216 gallons of water; for corn, just 108 gallons.
The new study's researchers said the results show a need for government policies that reflect the true cost of eating animals, including a meat tax. Revenues from such corrective measures could be used to help farmers adopt more eco-friendly practices, and to provide relief to poor families and people affected by the climate crisis.
However, instead of encouraging Americans to consume less meat, the U.S. government subsidizes animal agriculture by as much as $38 billion annually. Shoppers pay artificially low prices for animal products at the supermarket checkout counter, while their tax dollars fund an industry whose retail sales approach $250 billion per year.
As David Simon notes in his 2013 book Meatonomics, for every $1 of product sold by the animal agriculture industry, taxpayers pay $2 in hidden costs, and a $4 McDonald's Big Mac really costs society $11.
If meat cost its actual price none of you leftist would be saying is classist to be vegan.
Its already cheaper to be vegan but imagine how much cheaper it would be if meat included its cost to society and climate in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
— Andrew Velez (@AndrewMVelez) December 16, 2020
"The climate damage costs for meat are especially startling if you compare them to the other categories," Pieper told The Guardian. "The price increases required are 10 times higher than for dairy products and 68 times higher than for plant-based products."
"The big difference is the simple effect that when you have a field of plants and you eat them directly, then that's the end of the [emissions], basically," he added. "But for beef, for example, you need 42kg of feed to just produce one kg of beef. This huge inefficiency explains the gap."
Advocates for eco-friendly, plant-based diets hailed a study published last week that revealed the climate cost of organic meat production is as high as that of conventionally produced animal products.
"We expected organic farming to score better for animal-based products but, for greenhouse gas emissions, it actually doesn't make much difference."
—Maximilian Pieper, Technical University of Munich
The study, published on December 15 in Nature Communication and reported Wednesday in The Guardian, used the German government's climate damage cost baseline of $219 per tonne of CO2 and determined that in order to cover climate costs, the farm-direct price of beef must rise by $7.31 per kilogram, while the per kilo price of chicken must increase by $3.66. The price of conventionally raised meat would have to rise by 40% in stores, while organic meat would need to be about 25% more expensive. Conventional milk would be one-third higher, while the price of organic milk would rise by 20%.
The researchers analyzed animal agriculture in Germany and concluded that the climate costs of organic beef and lamb are similar to that of their conventionally produced counterparts. And while they found that organic pork has a slightly lower climate cost than conventional pig meat, for organic chicken it was somewhat higher.
The cost of plant-based foods, on the other hand, would remain nearly the same.
'The cost of the climate damage caused by organic meat production is just as high as that of conventionally farmed meat, according to research.' There's never been a better time to try a plant-based diet, join us this Veganuary https://t.co/wdXB6xsbj1https://t.co/X68saquozf
— Veganuary (@veganuary) December 23, 2020
"We expected organic farming to score better for animal-based products but, for greenhouse gas emissions, it actually doesn't make much difference," Maximilian Pieper of the Technical University of Munich, who led the study, told The Guardian. "But in certain other aspects, organic is certainly better than conventional farming."
University of Greifswald researcher Amelie Michalke, who also participated in the study, said that "the prices are lying."
"Climate costs are rising and we are all paying these costs," she said.
While animals emit greenhouse gases in their excrement—and in the case of cows and sheep, through belching and farting—the grain fed to conventionally raised livestock can also contribute to emissions, especially if it is grown on land which has been deforested in places like South America's Amazon rainforest.
Animals raised organically are often grass-fed. But they also grow at a slower rate and spend more time expelling greenhouse gases before they are slaughtered.
"The climate damage costs for meat are especially startling if you compare them to the other categories. The price increases required are... 68 times higher than for plant-based products."
—Pieper
All animals also need water to live, and separate research has shown that the global average water footprint—the total amount of water needed—to produce a pound of beef is nearly 1,800 gallons. For a pound of pork, it's 576 gallons. In stark contrast, a pound of soybeans needs only 216 gallons of water; for corn, just 108 gallons.
The new study's researchers said the results show a need for government policies that reflect the true cost of eating animals, including a meat tax. Revenues from such corrective measures could be used to help farmers adopt more eco-friendly practices, and to provide relief to poor families and people affected by the climate crisis.
However, instead of encouraging Americans to consume less meat, the U.S. government subsidizes animal agriculture by as much as $38 billion annually. Shoppers pay artificially low prices for animal products at the supermarket checkout counter, while their tax dollars fund an industry whose retail sales approach $250 billion per year.
As David Simon notes in his 2013 book Meatonomics, for every $1 of product sold by the animal agriculture industry, taxpayers pay $2 in hidden costs, and a $4 McDonald's Big Mac really costs society $11.
If meat cost its actual price none of you leftist would be saying is classist to be vegan.
Its already cheaper to be vegan but imagine how much cheaper it would be if meat included its cost to society and climate in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
— Andrew Velez (@AndrewMVelez) December 16, 2020
"The climate damage costs for meat are especially startling if you compare them to the other categories," Pieper told The Guardian. "The price increases required are 10 times higher than for dairy products and 68 times higher than for plant-based products."
"The big difference is the simple effect that when you have a field of plants and you eat them directly, then that's the end of the [emissions], basically," he added. "But for beef, for example, you need 42kg of feed to just produce one kg of beef. This huge inefficiency explains the gap."
'If You Own the Seeds You Own the Food System': Campaigners Demand Public Ownership to Counter Big Ag Privatization
"Empty shelves during the pandemic made clear, allowing huge corporations to 'own' seeds is a very bad idea!"
"Empty shelves during the pandemic made clear, allowing huge corporations to 'own' seeds is a very bad idea!"
by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on Monday, December 28, 2020
by Common Dreams
Sarah Gattiker stores the 24,200th species of seed in the vault at Kew's Millennium Seed Bank, which now holds 10% of the world's wild plant species, on October 15, 2009 in Sussex, England. (Photo: Oli Scarff/Getty Images)
A growing number of people around the world are calling for the public ownership of seeds, which they say is essential for a more democratic and ecologically sound food system, as the coronavirus-driven spike in empty supermarket shelves and the continued loss of biodiversity this year sparked a rise in the popularity of saving and swapping seeds and shed more light on the negative consequences of allowing a handful of agrochemical corporations to dominate the global seed trade.
"Four companies have gained oligopolistic control over more than two-thirds of commercial seed and pesticide sales, while decimating the innovative contribution of public sector researchers and threatening the 12,000-year-old right of peasants to breed, save, and exchange their seeds."
—Pat Mooney, ETC Group
In the United Kingdom, the seed saving movement had been "quietly growing" for awhile, but "from March onwards, when the pandemic hit the U.K., seed producers and seed banks across the country were overwhelmed with demand," with multiple organizations experiencing a "sharp surge in orders, 600% in some cases," Alexandra Genova reported Monday in The Guardian.
"People crave connection," David Price, managing director of the Seed Cooperative, told The Guardian. "They want connection with other people and connection with the planet, and growing and saving seed is a way of getting both."
Genova noted that while "many British consumers feel disconnected from the processes of food production... seed saving allows everyone to be involved in the food system." Moreover, advocates say seed saving can contribute to reversing the dramatic decline in the availability of plant varieties that are "richly diverse, well adapted to the soil and local climate, and more resilient to climate change."
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has estimated that since the beginning of the 20th century, roughly 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops and 93% of unique seed varieties have disappeared. This biodiversity loss has been attributed to industrialized agriculture and what Genova called "the big boom in agrochemicals."
As the FAO has explained, the increasingly commercialized nature of plant breeding has permitted transnational seed and agrochemical corporations—which enjoy so-called plant breeders' rights that give "patent-like protection to breeders with limited monopoly rights over the production, marketing, and sale of their varieties"—to privatize access to genetic resources taken from countries in the global south.
Seed saving movement calls for seeds to be publicly owned. Empty shelves during the pandemic made clear, allowing huge corporations to "own" seeds is a very bad idea! Power to the People, not corporations. https://t.co/b7v4sE4elx
— B.E.A.T. (@TheBEATNews) December 28, 2020
Scholar-activist Pat Mooney of the ETC Group coined the term "biopiracy" to describe how genetic material originally nurtured by impoverished farmers is turned into patented seeds that now generate huge profits primarily for BASF, Bayer/Monsanto, ChemChina-Syngenta, and Corteva Agriscience.
In a 2018 report (pdf) on industrial food chain concentration, Mooney explained that these "four companies have gained oligopolistic control over more than two-thirds of commercial seed and pesticide sales, while decimating the innovative contribution of public sector researchers and threatening the 12,000-year-old right of peasants to breed, save, and exchange their seeds."
"I want all local communities or regions to have their own seed bank so everyone knows exactly where to get free seed."
—Helene Schulze, Seed Sovereignty Program of the U.K. and Ireland
The blossoming of what researchers Karine Peschard and Shalini Randeria call "seed activism" is "largely in response to the intensification of corporate seed enclosures and to the loss of agrobiodiversity," Genova reported. "Many seed savers are motivated by this idea of dismantling the increasing privatization of seeds... by drawing attention to the negative impact of such high levels of concentration." She continued:
Less than 50 years ago, most of the world enjoyed food that came from entirely open-pollinated seed varieties, which could be saved for future crops. Much of the seed sold now by the large companies are, in contrast, GM or F1 hybrid seeds. These cannot be saved for use in following years because they are genetically unstable and are protected by seed and patent laws, meaning most farmers are tied to chains of dependency.
According to Helene Schulze, who works on the Seed Sovereignty Program of the U.K. and Ireland and co-directs the London Freedom Seedbank, "Covid made people really understand how our food system is dominated by a few large corporations, and this has put a focus on seed sovereignty," which Genova defined as "a grower's right to breed and exchange diverse, open source seeds, which can be saved and are not patented, genetically modified, or owned by one of the four agrochemical companies that control more than 60% of the global seed trade."
Campaigners at Open Source Seeds, the Campaign for Seed Sovereignty, and elsewhere are pushing for seeds to be brought back into public ownership, arguing that "something as universal as food crops should belong to everyone, not a small group of agrochemical companies."
"This land was made a treasury for everyone to share" Seeds should not be private property https://t.co/4l7G1yFNMK
— Global Justice Manchester (@GlobalJustManc) December 28, 2020
"If you own the seeds you own the food system," Schulze told The Guardian. "Access to open-pollinated seeds is the cornerstone of food citizenship because it creates non-market access to growing."
"I want all local communities or regions to have their own seed bank," she added, "so everyone knows exactly where to get free seed."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Ro Khanna Applauds 19 House Democrats Who Joined Him in Voting No on 'Bloated' $740 Billion Military Budget
"They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 29, 2020
by Common Dreams
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen on the House steps of the Capitol during votes on Friday, December 4, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
Just 20 House Democrats opted to break with their party and their Republican counterparts late Monday to vote against overriding President Donald Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, a sprawling bill that greenlights over $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one the few House Democrats who voted against overriding the president's NDAA veto, applauded his colleagues for having "the courage tonight to vote no on the bloated defense budget."
"We're spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can't find money to get food in to people who need it?"
—Rep. Ro Khanna"They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people," said Khanna.
The veto override ultimately succeeded in the House by a 322-87 margin and now heads to the Senate, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other members of the Democratic caucus are threatening to hold up the NDAA in an effort to force a vote on $2,000 direct payments.
Here are the 20 Democrats who voted against overriding Trump's NDAA veto: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Jesús GarcÃa (Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Joe Kennedy (Mass.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Grace Meng (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).
Nearly 70 House Republicans also voted against the veto override, but more out of allegiance to the president than opposition to out-of-control military spending.
Trump vetoed the NDAA last week not because of the bloated military budget, but rather because he objected to the exclusion of a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and inclusion of a provision ordering the Pentagon to rename military installations named after Confederate generals.
In an interview on Democracy Now! ahead of Monday's vote, Khanna said that while Trump's reasons for opposing the NDAA don't align with progressive objections, "the bottom line is, $740 billion is way too much defense spending."
"We're spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can't find money to get food in to people who need it?" Khanna said. "We can't find money to get more rental assistance for folks who are going to face evictions? We can't find money to get $2,000 into the pockets of Americans? The priorities are wrong, and so I'm not going to vote to override his veto."
"They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 29, 2020
by Common Dreams
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen on the House steps of the Capitol during votes on Friday, December 4, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
Just 20 House Democrats opted to break with their party and their Republican counterparts late Monday to vote against overriding President Donald Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, a sprawling bill that greenlights over $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one the few House Democrats who voted against overriding the president's NDAA veto, applauded his colleagues for having "the courage tonight to vote no on the bloated defense budget."
"We're spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can't find money to get food in to people who need it?"
—Rep. Ro Khanna"They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people," said Khanna.
The veto override ultimately succeeded in the House by a 322-87 margin and now heads to the Senate, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other members of the Democratic caucus are threatening to hold up the NDAA in an effort to force a vote on $2,000 direct payments.
Here are the 20 Democrats who voted against overriding Trump's NDAA veto: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Jesús GarcÃa (Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Joe Kennedy (Mass.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Grace Meng (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).
Nearly 70 House Republicans also voted against the veto override, but more out of allegiance to the president than opposition to out-of-control military spending.
Trump vetoed the NDAA last week not because of the bloated military budget, but rather because he objected to the exclusion of a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and inclusion of a provision ordering the Pentagon to rename military installations named after Confederate generals.
In an interview on Democracy Now! ahead of Monday's vote, Khanna said that while Trump's reasons for opposing the NDAA don't align with progressive objections, "the bottom line is, $740 billion is way too much defense spending."
"We're spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can't find money to get food in to people who need it?" Khanna said. "We can't find money to get more rental assistance for folks who are going to face evictions? We can't find money to get $2,000 into the pockets of Americans? The priorities are wrong, and so I'm not going to vote to override his veto."
ACLU Reminds Biden of 'Moral and Legal Imperative' to Reverse Trump's Unlawful Asylum Policy
The civil liberties group stressed the new administration must "restore the right to asylum and end the government's ongoing violations of law."
by
Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by
Common Dreams
A camp for asylum-seekers stands next to the international bridge to the United States on December 9, 2019 in Matamoros, Mexico. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
The ACLU on Tuesday reminded President-elect Joe Biden of the "moral and legal imperative" to reverse President Donald Trump's dangerous and illegal asylum policies, following reports that nominees for Biden's Cabinet are already walking back a campaign promise to end them on "day one" of the new administration.
"This is a classic bait and switch. It perpetuates Trump's dehumanization of migrants and breaks a core campaign promise."
—Rep. Ilhan Omar
Common Dreams reported Tuesday that Biden domestic policy adviser Susan Rice and national security adviser-designate Jake Sullivan appeared to be tamping down progressive expectations buoyed by Biden's pledge to end Trump administration's Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" asylum policy.
Under Trump's policy—part of a "zero tolerance" immigration framework in which thousands of migrants have been imprisoned in concentration camps and thousands of children have been forcibly seized, possibly indefinitely, from their parents—more than 66,000 asylum-seekers have been unlawfully denied entry into the U.S. and have been forced to live in tent encampments on the Mexican side of the border without access to adequate medical care, shelter, or legal aid.
"Donald Trump has slammed the door shut in the face of families fleeing persecution and violence," Biden tweeted in January. "On day one, I will eliminate President Trump's decision to limit asylum and end the MPP program."
However, Rice told Spanish wire service EFE Monday that while Biden "is committed to honoring and restoring our asylum laws," he will "need time" to undo Trump's immigration policies.
"Processing capacity at the border is not like a light that you can just switch on and off," said Rice. "Migrants and asylum-seekers absolutely should not believe those in the region peddling the idea that the border will be suddenly be fully open to process everyone on day one" of the new administration.
This apparent backpedaling prompted the ACLU to issue a statement reminding the Biden team that "every day the Trump administration's anti-asylum policies remain in place, our country puts peoples' lives at risk."
"It is the Biden administration's moral and legal imperative to expeditiously roll back all these Trump era policies, in order to restore the right to asylum and end the government's ongoing violations of law," the statement said.
It continued:
The ACLU welcomes and supports the commitments the incoming administration has made to end Trump policies and bring fairness to the asylum system. Following through on those commitments requires that the new administration immediately begin to safely process people seeking protection, ensure that no person is subjected to unlawful policies—like forced return to Mexico—and repair the damage Trump wreaked with the high sense of urgency required when life and death is at stake.
Other progressives weren't so gentle. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) fired off a tweet accusing the incoming administration of "a classic bait and switch."
"It perpetuates Trump's dehumanization of migrants and breaks a core campaign promise," Omar wrote. "Democrats lose big when administrations won't fulfill their promise. I urge the Biden transition team to reconsider this position."
The civil liberties group stressed the new administration must "restore the right to asylum and end the government's ongoing violations of law."
by
Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by
Common Dreams
A camp for asylum-seekers stands next to the international bridge to the United States on December 9, 2019 in Matamoros, Mexico. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
The ACLU on Tuesday reminded President-elect Joe Biden of the "moral and legal imperative" to reverse President Donald Trump's dangerous and illegal asylum policies, following reports that nominees for Biden's Cabinet are already walking back a campaign promise to end them on "day one" of the new administration.
"This is a classic bait and switch. It perpetuates Trump's dehumanization of migrants and breaks a core campaign promise."
—Rep. Ilhan Omar
Common Dreams reported Tuesday that Biden domestic policy adviser Susan Rice and national security adviser-designate Jake Sullivan appeared to be tamping down progressive expectations buoyed by Biden's pledge to end Trump administration's Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" asylum policy.
Under Trump's policy—part of a "zero tolerance" immigration framework in which thousands of migrants have been imprisoned in concentration camps and thousands of children have been forcibly seized, possibly indefinitely, from their parents—more than 66,000 asylum-seekers have been unlawfully denied entry into the U.S. and have been forced to live in tent encampments on the Mexican side of the border without access to adequate medical care, shelter, or legal aid.
"Donald Trump has slammed the door shut in the face of families fleeing persecution and violence," Biden tweeted in January. "On day one, I will eliminate President Trump's decision to limit asylum and end the MPP program."
However, Rice told Spanish wire service EFE Monday that while Biden "is committed to honoring and restoring our asylum laws," he will "need time" to undo Trump's immigration policies.
"Processing capacity at the border is not like a light that you can just switch on and off," said Rice. "Migrants and asylum-seekers absolutely should not believe those in the region peddling the idea that the border will be suddenly be fully open to process everyone on day one" of the new administration.
This apparent backpedaling prompted the ACLU to issue a statement reminding the Biden team that "every day the Trump administration's anti-asylum policies remain in place, our country puts peoples' lives at risk."
"It is the Biden administration's moral and legal imperative to expeditiously roll back all these Trump era policies, in order to restore the right to asylum and end the government's ongoing violations of law," the statement said.
It continued:
The ACLU welcomes and supports the commitments the incoming administration has made to end Trump policies and bring fairness to the asylum system. Following through on those commitments requires that the new administration immediately begin to safely process people seeking protection, ensure that no person is subjected to unlawful policies—like forced return to Mexico—and repair the damage Trump wreaked with the high sense of urgency required when life and death is at stake.
Other progressives weren't so gentle. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) fired off a tweet accusing the incoming administration of "a classic bait and switch."
"It perpetuates Trump's dehumanization of migrants and breaks a core campaign promise," Omar wrote. "Democrats lose big when administrations won't fulfill their promise. I urge the Biden transition team to reconsider this position."
The Union Members Who Voted for Trump Have to Be Organized—Not Ignored
If the Left is to win progressive policies (and the next presidential election), it needs a militant labor movement.
by
A union member listens to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden stump
in New Alexandria, Pa., on September 30, 2020. (Photo: Roberto Schmidt/Afp via Getty Images)
Although President Donald Trump will be leaving the White House, progressives must reckon with the fact that 74 million people — almost a third of whom came from households making under $50,000—voted for him. It is alarming that so many working-class people would vote against their class interests, but perhaps most alarming of all are the union members who were drawn in by Trumpism. Before the 2016 election, Democratic presidential candidates had long won union households by comfortable double-digit margins; but in 2016 and 2020, Trump eroded those margins. If the Left is to win progressive policies (and the next presidential election), it needs a militant labor movement. Unions, after all, are one of the only effective working-class institutions in this country that can engage workers to build power on the job and in society at large. We must understand who these union Trump voters are, why they voted for Trump, and what can be done to win them back.
Many on the Left have written off Trump supporters as a lost cause or unworthy of effort. This response is understandable, particularly for people of color and others directly harmed by Trump policies. And we should by no means court the vocal subset of Trumpists who are virulent white supremacists.
If the goal of reaching out to Trump voters is to activate their progressive beliefs strongly enough to influence their voting behavior, then union Trump voters should be a promising place to start.
But most Americans hold a confusing mix of political beliefs that will never fit squarely within the Democratic and Republican parties. When the group Working America held in-depth conversations with more than 2,300 working-class voters in so-called battleground states in 2016 and 2017, it found that beliefs didn’t map to party lines: Voters believed in both expanding the coal industry and protecting the environment; in both universal healthcare and keeping out “freeloading” refugees; in both banning abortion and lowering healthcare costs. A 2019 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation and Cook Political Report found that, in battleground states, 70% of respondents supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and yet 71% felt it was a bad idea not to detain people who crossed the border without documentation. Not every issue drives voting behavior: 70% of Americans support Medicare for All, and yet the presidential candidate championing the policy (Sen. Bernie Sanders) came up short.
If the goal of reaching out to Trump voters is to activate their progressive beliefs strongly enough to influence their voting behavior, then union Trump voters should be a promising place to start. A good union naturally ties the fate of the worker to others, a powerful counter-narrative to the rugged individualism our society (and Trump) promotes. Union members are also (theoretically) trained and experienced in fighting their bosses. Being part of a struggle against a boss means reliance on fellow workers, regardless of race and gender and other social divisions. Unions themselves, of course, need to embark on a far-reaching program for membership to put these struggles in context — one that doesn’t shy away from tough questions in fear of upsetting a (tenuous) sense of unity.
Discussions around immigration and racism, for example, are challenging in their own right but have become especially charged since Trump took office. Avoiding these topics may preserve a sense of unity in the short term but damages the long-term ability of workers to forge solid bonds of solidarity and organize to fight against racism and social programs like Medicare for All.
To understand how unions might reach the union Trump voter, we can look at how similar efforts have succeeded and failed — and get to know union Trump voters themselves.
The Trump Unionist
Tony Reitano, 49, works in maintenance at a Bridgestone plant in Iowa. He is a member of the United Steelworkers and voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. Reitano tells In These Times, “I liked what [Trump] said about trade deals in 2016; that was a big thing for me … bringing jobs back to America.” He adds, “And this time around, [Trump] did, or tried to accomplish, all of the things he said he was going to do … like backing away from the [Trans-Pacific Partnership].” (The United Steelworkers, which endorsed Biden in 2020 and Clinton in 2016, opposes the trade deal, on the grounds that jobs would be lost.)
Trump voters often cite their concern with jobs and wages as the reason they voted for him. While most voters rank the economy as one of their most important issues, 84% of Trump voters rated the economy as “very important” in 2020, compared to Biden supporters’ 66%.
Lynne (who didn’t want her last name used for fear of social retaliation), 62, is a retired teacher and union member in the suburbs of Philadelphia. A registered Independent, Lynne voted for Obama in 2008, moved by his message of hope and change. Like Reitano, she was drawn to Trump in 2016 by his economic promises — and voted Trump again in 2020. “You can’t care about other policies if you’re worried about losing your house or if your children don’t have food or if your heat may get turned off,” Lynne tells In These Times. “Having shelter and food is everyone’s number one concern. And with Trump, we had the lowest unemployment rate in this country … for everyone, including Latinos and Blacks.”
Trump clearly understood that a strong economic message would be the key to victory, boasting about the unemployment rate on the 2020 campaign trail. But the Trump unemployment rate only decreased slightly before the pandemic, and likely because of Obama-era policies. Meanwhile, wage growth has stagnated or declined for the bottom 70% of workers since the 1970s and the Job Quality Index (a proxy for the overall health of the U.S. jobs market) fell significantly after 2006 and never recovered.
"Democrats' lack of willingness to name the enemy—runaway corporate power—just left a huge vacuum for the Right to use race and immigration."
Amid this uncertainty, Trump parlayed economic concerns into his brand of racism to drive white voters. Of course, many Trump voters do not consider Trump an ardent racist. For example, Ernie Justice, 76, a retired coal miner in Kentucky, tells In These Times that “there’s not a racist drop of blood in Donald Trump.” Like Lynne, Justice also voted for Obama and later Trump. Lynne, too, says she “doesn’t really see the racism.”
But Trump certainly associated the decline in quality of life experienced by white workers with not only the Democratic Party, but immigrants and other people of color. George Goehl, director of the national grassroots organizing network People’s Action, says “Democrats’ lack of willingness to name the enemy — runaway corporate power — just left a huge vacuum for the Right to use race and immigration.”
While Republicans authored the so-called right-to-work legislation that has undermined union organizing, Democrats are the proponents of the free trade agreements that have decreased wages and off-shored jobs. Decades of economic devastation — including loss of good union jobs in the Rust Belt, factories moving abroad and stagnant wages— opened a door for Trump to step through. Goehl says people have “clearly been punched in the gut tons of times by neoliberalism” — and Trump’s campaign capitalized on that by promising to bring back manufacturing jobs.
This landscape is difficult for both unions and the Democratic Party. While union leadership has thrown its weight behind Democrats in hopes of better organizing terrain, establishment Democrats are caught between unions and their party’s allegiance to big business. And the Democrats have a history of making labor promises they don’t keep. In 2008, Obama ran on passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made the process of unionization faster and easier — but didn’t champion the bill once elected. And unions, which are no match for lobbying efforts by giant corporations like Walmart or Home Depot, couldn’t win the law alone. Repeated disappointments have led union members to lose faith in institutions they once held dear.
That loss of faith played out in the 2016 and 2020 elections. After unions spent record amounts on campaigns to defeat Trump, Hillary Clinton won union households by only 8% in 2016 (to Obama’s 18% in 2012), a small enough margin to cost her Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (and the election). And after unions broke that 2016 record in 2020, Biden won union households by 16% (and won those three states back), but Trump won union households in Ohio by 12% (which Obama had won by 23%). Unions can spend huge amounts of money and mobilize the votes of a (declining) portion of their members, but to keep those members from slipping away, they’ll need to do much more.
A Battle of Ideas
Each of the three Trump voters who spoke with In These Times for this story mentioned jobs and the economy as big issues, but all independently shared concerns about open borders, later abortions, and the creep of socialism and communism. These issues are discussed nearly constantly on Fox News and by conservative radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And as trust of the media is at an almost all-time low, many Trump supporters only tune into media that reflects what they already believe — just as centrist and liberal Democrats watch CNN or MSNBC. Never mind that the U.S.-Mexico border wall was started under President Bill Clinton, later abortions are exceedingly rare and most socialist organizing is about basic rights, like healthcare and a living wage.
Unions need to cut through the right-wing fog of disinformation by offering educational programs of their own to explain the systemic problems causing the decline in workers’ conditions.
The constant onslaught of hateful messages from rightwing media and the war waged against the working class by the rich has led U.S. workers into a fog of confusion without an ideological beacon to help clarify and fight back. The unions that have survived have become more insular, increasingly focused on the immediate issues of their own members, taking a concessionary approach that treats bosses like coalition partners. If the Left and unions hope to make appeals to union Trump voters (and other sections of the working class), this strategy must change.
Unions need to cut through the right-wing fog of disinformation by offering educational programs of their own to explain the systemic problems causing the decline in workers’ conditions. One model, offered by People’s Action, has shown that talking with Trump supporters about systemic issues can effectively shift attitudes. Beginning in 2017, George Goehl and People’s Action embarked on a rural and small-town organizing project, focused on “deep canvassing,” to show white people how systemic racism is real and actively harming them and their communities. (Some of these people are union members, though many are not.) While many (especially nonwhite) people on the Left find it difficult to have conversations with Trump supporters (fearing abuse or just afraid of wasted energy), Goehl sees the talks as crucial. “While you are much more likely to live in poverty if you are Black or Latino, the largest group of people living in poverty are white people,” Goehl says. “And a Left saying, ‘We are not going to be in relationship with the largest group of people living in poverty’ … seems nuts.”
People’s Action has had nearly 10,000 conversations in rural areas since the 2016 election, mostly with Obama voters who flipped to Trump. While immigration is a controversial issue all over the country (including inside the Democratic Party), objection to a wider immigration policy is higher in rural areas, presumably because of the ease of blaming immigrants for a lack of jobs. During their deep canvasses, People’s Action organizers found that the mostused word was “lack,” and that economic insecurity reverberated through all responses. “When we asked people who they saw as responsible for the declining conditions,” Goehl says, “people were able to pick multiple answers, and 41% of people said undocumented immigrants, but 81% [said] a government encaptured by corporations.”
Onah Ossai, an organizer with Pennsylvania Stands Up, which is affiliated with People’s Action, tells In These Times, “People at the top [are] using race and class to divide us so that they can turn around and pick our pockets. … Everyone [whose door we knock on] agrees with that.”
Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers and secretary treasurer of the Ohio AFL-CIO, echoes Goehl, telling In These Times, “It’s hard to get out and have these grassroots-level conversations, but we need to invest in grassroots organizers from the communities who can have these conversations and can work [on solutions] with the community.”
Unions can follow People’s Action by holding more political discussions with their members about how the labor movement (and the Left) fights for working people. But they must also show the path forward — how workers themselves can join the fight to rein in corporate power.
Rebuilding unions — organizing more workers — is the first step toward a broader worker coalition. But People’s Action and progressive unionists also believe race and class issues are keys to a coherent Left — because if we ignore them, the Right will use them to drive a white, reactionary, populist movement.
“[Labor leaders] have to … explain the construction of race and capitalism,” says Bill Fletcher Jr., executive editor of The Global African Worker and former AFL-CIO staffer. “The absence of that, and the reliance on so-called diversity programs, at best teaches tolerance but does not get at the particular role that race plays as a division of the working class. They need to embark on massive internal educational efforts.”
Unions should place a higher premium on building solidarity among the working class as a whole, in all of its diversity. One example is the 2020 partnership between the United Electrical Workers (UE) and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The groups formed the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee to help workers organize on the job in the midst of Covid-19. It’s exactly the kind of alliance the Left and the labor movement should forge, amplifying both groups’ impacts by organizing new workers and engaging existing membership.
These types of alliances demonstrate an attitude of “not me, us” (to quote Sanders’ presidential campaign slogan)— the key to building worker trust and taking on the powerful forces ultimately responsible for the economic inequality so many experience. Reitano believes strongly in his union, but he worries that new hires, who are immigrants, won’t join the union or won’t fight for higher wages, because they are used to lower wage standards. “If the union can educate these people so they understand that we have to stand together, I think it’ll be okay,” he says. In a situation like this, a union political education program could not only engage new members, as Reitano suggests, but also forge solidarity and trust across the old guard/new guard divide.
Currently, however, many unions focus primarily on mobilizing their members to vote, rather than on a more robust political program. In many cases, members don’t have a mechanism to even offer input on the political endorsements of their locals and internationals. Instead, every union shop should have stewards who constantly engage workers in educational programs and struggles on the shop floor. Unions launched campaigns like this in anticipation of the 2018 Janus Supreme Court decision, which allowed public-sector employees in union shops to get the benefits of the union without paying for them. Many unions around the country began proactive campaigns to talk one-on-one with their members about the importance of their union. In the conversations, they stressed the power of collective action and exposed the right-wing forces trying to undermine unions through Janus and other measures. They encouraged members to recommit to being dues-paying members even though they would soon have the ability to become “free riders.”
None of this work will be easy, but unless unions commit to this educational work, Trumpism will continue to grow and the possibility of achieving policy that can actually help working people will diminish. (Left unchecked, Trumpism also could drive an increasingly violent alt-Right.) The Left must support unions in this work by engaging in partnerships (like the DSA/UE partnership) and encouraging workers to organize and unionize.
The Democratic Party, for its part, must prove itself worthy of the union vote. Right now, tens of millions of workers (both union and nonunion) are suffering through unemployment, housing insecurity, hunger and a lack of healthcare in a devastating pandemic. The Democratic Party leadership has barely lifted a finger to put up a real fight to win relief that is desperately needed by so many. They could take example from Sen. Sanders, who has voiced his opposition to the most recent proposed “compromise” stimulus bill. While millions suffer through the coronavirus pandemic with woefully inadequate federal support, Democratic Party leadership has refused to go big, choosing to ignore the progressive Dems’ early push for monthly cash payments and expanded Medicare. Without these steps, the Democrats should not expect working people to vote for them without question.
Without countermeasures from unions and Democrats alike, Republicans will continue to turn the union vote. A 2020 Delaware Senate race between Republican challenger Lauren Witzke and Democratic incumbent Sen. Christopher Coons offers a glimpse of what’s to come. Though she lost (with 38% of the vote), Witzke ran on an “America First” platform including support for unions and collective bargaining, opposition to immigration (on the basis that migrant workers worsen conditions of all workers), and an anti-abortion stance.
While Trump’s racism likely provoked many white professionals to vote against him in 2020, it did not deter a growing group of people of color — and what’s even more alarming than a whites-only right-wing movement is a multiracial one. To counter the appeal of Trumpism, we need to build a multiracial, working-class labor movement that can arm workers with solidarity and a renewed commitment to struggle for the world we deserve.
© 2020 In These Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)