Tuesday, May 31, 2022

A Conversation About Civilizational Collapse

This Is How Civilizations Collapse, And Why Ours Feels Like It’s Beginning To

Image Credit

May 30

recently did an interview with veteran broadcaster Anthony Davis, formerly of the BBC. I don’t often do interviews these days, for a simple reason — I turn down most requests from American mainstream media because they expect me to be an actor. A pundit. They’re a charade, in which you’re expected to say certain things. I enjoyed this one — because I felt that with Anthony, we could talk…seriously.

And, friends, we need to talk. Why? Don’t take it from me — take it from the UN, which is now warning of an increased risk of “global collapse.”

How so? “When global collapse risk is analysed according to the nine planetary boundaries, scenarios that consider achievement of the SDGs and the Sendai Framework goal within the concept of planetary boundaries show a dangerous tendency for the world to move towards a global collapse scenario.”

We are living now in the Event. Extinction. It’s beginning all around us. You can begin to see it with your own two eyes now. Birds falling dead from the sky in a scorched subcontinent. War. Lunatics taking control of societies, as they give up on the future. Ecologies crashing and literally burning. It used to be a guess, a scenario, a theory. Now you can literally begin to see it happening. This is Extinction.

Anthony and I talked about many things. Collapse. Failure. Risk. That oh so American accusation — alarmism. Let me tie up a few the threads of our discussion here, using the notion of global collapse.

Anthony raised the point that people like me — us — are often dismissed as “alarmists,” which is because Americans, in particular, need a certain tone. One of sober-minded optimism. But what if the facts point to a different conclusion? Me? I’d rather be making music. Facts get in the way. Let’s discuss a few inconvenient ones that I’ve come to observe as an economist that alarm me.

There aren’t many economists left who study our civilization. They’re taught not to — the answer you’re inculcated into when you study Econ is that markets will solve everything, so, hey just put a market in place of something, and presto — you don’t ever have to look at a fact again. But when you do, if you do…

The way that the UN looks at the future is bottom-up. They outline certain scenarios. They have to do with climate change, and whether goals are being met, or enough pledges are being made. And every year or so, what happens is that the worst set of cases of all these scenarios seem to be coming true. That’s for a simple enough reason. Pledges and goals are easy. But fulfilling them is much, much harder.

The way that I look at the future — one way I do — is top-downWhat does that mean? It means I look at the hard facts of our civilization. Not pledges and goals, but what you can call the macroeconomics of our civilization. And those macroeconomics are incredibly troubling. Let me give you three facts I discussed with Anthony that, to me, point squarely to global collapse.

Everything for a civilization has to do with investment. Investment is the linchpin of the project of civilization. Town squares, universities, science, art, literature, medicine — all these come from investment. Civilizaiton in a very real sense is just the act of collective investment. That is how we come to “be” civilized, to have things like schools and roads and hospitals and drugs and books and so forth. And then we live, hopefully, in peace, and intelligence, and with empathy. Everything depends on investment.

Our investment rate as a civilization is about 20%, give or take. That sounds high, maybe — but you need context to really understand it.

What does 20% investment get you? It gets you America. That’s America’s investment rate, too. And we can see, from the example of America, that it’s not enough. America doesn’t have any functioning systems — healthcare, retirement, education, even food. People live miserable enough lives that downward mobility has become the norm, and they’ve turned atavistic: they’re seeking belonging, meaning, stability, purpose, in regress, as their society simply falls apart. So they’ve turned back to every kind of lunacy, from fundamentalist religion to authoritarianism to supremacy and all those put together. The vicious cycle of collapse accelerates this way, because this atavistic turn makes investment more or less impossible, and so collapse hits harder and faster.

So. Fact one. We know that 20% isn’t enough. To keep the project of civilization going. To stop The Event, which is now beginning, which will cleave human history in two — Extinction. Human beings have been around for 300,000 years. The last time the planet was as hot it’s getting was millions of years ago. We have never — ever — experienced anything like what is beginning now, and human history will regard it is it’s greatest cataclysm and defining event. This is the Age of Extinction.

And that’s happening because 20% is too low.

Fact two. How high does our civilizational investment rate need to be to do something about The Event? Extinction. Can we stop it, or even try to lessen it? What would have to be done? Or do we just keep looking at goals and pledges and then next year, saying, it’s getting worse and worse? The temperature’s getting hotter. It’s 50 degrees Celsius in the Indian Subcontinent. Europe’s scorching. The American West is running out of water. How much longer do we have? Extinction.

The answer lies in looking at the only region in the world which has managed to cut carbon emissions. There’s only one. Europe. And Europe has an investment rate of 50%. That’s why Europeans enjoy all those things they’re renowned for, that Americans don’t have — good hospitals, schools, retirements, affordable educations, the right to live in dignity, without massacres every week. And that investment rate, too, is what begins to be necessary to begin to put the brakes on the runaway train of The Event.

So. We have an investment rate of 20% as a civilization. We need one of 50%. These are facts. They are not just idle opinions. They’re not alarmism or hyperbole or exaggeration or any of the rest of it. They are empirical truths about the world that we live in. Without a dramatic transformation in our civilizational economics, just as the UN says, we are heading for collapse.

The difference between me and the UN is that I’m more certain of it. Because, like I explained, the way I think about is top down. Beginning with civilizational macroeconomics allows me to see the whole picture at once. And hopefully you can too.

You can begin see how big this gap really is.

Fact three. Our entire global economy needs to transform radically and dramatically in the next decade, two, tops three — or collapse accelerates continues. It spreads outwards from America, and engulfs the world. The lights begin to go out. We’re already living in an era, now, of shortages, inflation, uncertainty, war, conflict, nationalism, fascism, fundamentalism. All that spreads and takes hold, and this atavistic turn that’s taken place in America — and India and Russia and so forth — goes viral.

Why do I say that? 20% needs to become 50%. But how big is that number, in hard terms? Our economy as a civilization is — let’s call it $100 trillion for simplicity’s sake. We invest $20 trillion of that back. It’s not high enough. That number needs to rise from $20 trillion to $50 trillion. That’s $30 trillion, in a decade or two.

We need the greatest wave of investment in human history. In all the 300,000 years since humanity first took its steps. The greatest oneWhat does that investment wave have to do? It has to provide decarbonized basics, from food to water to energy. But even deeper than that — as Vaclav Smil has pointed out, our civilization’s Big Four, fertilizer, glass, cement, and steel, all depend critically on hydrocarbons. We need to make those clean, too. And then we need to provide every human being on planet earth with a little money, food, water, shelter, sanitation, an education, so that fascism, which has already returned, is stopped in its tracks.

Big job. Big jobs.

Why do we have, at this point, three generations of chronically underemployed young people? Who are fast losing faith and optimism in the future? Who barely believe there’ll be one? Why is the feeling that young people will live worse lives than their elders?

Because we’re not doing this work.

Think about all the jobs this transformation — and again, it’s the greatest one in human history — would provide. Everything from young people figuring out how to make clean steel, energy, glass, cement, agriculture, to entire categories of careers and jobs we haven’t even imagined yet. “Extinction Guardian” — someone who’s job it is to protect collapsing ecologies. “Ecosystem Architect” — someone whose job it is to keep our critical ecologies alive, the ones which provide us food, water, air, medicine. “Planetary Systems Manager” — someone whose job it is to make sure every kid in the world is getting the education or water or food they deserve.

Think of the fact we don’t even know how many species are going extinctHow basic is that job? Just…counting? For a species like us, on a dying planet? We could just begin with “Life Systems Accountants.”

Now think of all the new institutions those new jobs would require creating. A Planetary Extinction Agency. A Global Systems Fund. A Life on Earth Development Foundation. And so on and so on. We don’t have any of those. Any of them, really. What we have are the ones left over from the last World War — the UN’s Development Agency, and it’s Children’s Agency, and so on. They do good, vital, crucial work. But we need to go much, much further now.

We need to invest the greatest amount in human history, in the shortest period of time. Or our civilization is going to collapse.

Again, you can accuse me of all the things you like. I have only spoken to you about facts. Empirical truths about the world we live in. None of this is anything but grounded in those truths. I have taken you on a brief tour of civilizational macroeconomics.

Now. What does “global collapse” mean? Collapse is a technical, formal term. It’s not something that I — or any good thinker — says to scare you. It’s meant literally, in a few ways. The collapse of economies, of social structures, of systems, and of institutions.

Global collapse means all those things, and it’s already here.

How much more do you pay for food this year than a couple of years ago? For fuel? For everything? Inflation is surging, and the cause isn’t just war. It’s Cataclysm, the Event. Extinction. Harvests are beginning to fail. The water is beginning to run out. What dirty fuel there is is left in the hands of fascists and lunatics. Inflation is here, and it’s not going to stop. Sure, there’ll be little hiccups here and there. But now…

We are in the age of fighting over the last few resources on a dying planet. Those conflicts have already begun. Russia’s war on Ukraine is about controlling the world’s food and oil and gas supplies — and while Russia’s losing soldiers, it’s succeeding, to an extent, in that objective. This dismal trend will of course only continue, because on a dying planet, without investment, there is not going to be enough to go around. Think of the Indian Subcontinent. Hindus and Muslims are already at each others’ throats. Now imagine what happens when it hits 60 degrees in the summer — and the water’s running out. Bang. Resource conflicts aren’t “going to happen.” They already are.

With Extinction comes the collapse of systems that we take for granted. My Western friends think they can turn on the ACs, retreat indoors forever, and ignore the plight of a dying planet. They’re wrong. What are they going to eat? Drink? Where’s their medicine going to come from? What happens as energy grids fail? Extinction is going to bring with it the breakdown of all these basic systems — and again, that’s already beginning. In the Indian Subcontinent, it’s 50 degrees already, and energy grids are failing. Water’s a precious commodity. Food’s skyrocketing in price, because the scorched Punjab feeds two billion people, and the harvests are failing.

What happens as systems fail? People lose their moorings. They turn on their neighbors and friends, desperate to feed their kids. They seek some kind of explanation for it all in fundamentalist religion. They seek some kind of optimistic vision for the future in authoritarianism. They look for already hated groups to scapegoat for it in neofascism. The entire project of civilization begins to come undone.

You can see this happening in America, which is why I use it as an example. Being the world’s “richest” country hasn’t protected it from all these forms of collapse. Because the resources, money, time, everything, has been hoarded by the super rich, who own it all, and the average person has been getting poorer for decades now. Now, life in America is a bitter, brutal struggle for the basics — healthcare, education, shelter, a little money to pay off all that debt, some kind of “job” to have it. One tiny misstep, and you lose it all. It’s a fight to the death.

And an increasingly brutal one. That fight has torn Americans apart. It has destroyed what was left of America’s social capital — it’s trust, relationships, community. Americans don’t just distrust one another now — they actively hate one another. Everything is bitter, rancorous, enraged. There’s no public life. Nobody smiles. America’s a divided nation, and half of it wants to go back to some kind of weird medieval slash fascist fantasyland. This is what the end of civilization looks like.

At least part of it. The other half, you can see in the Indian Subcontinent. There, it doesn’t feel that way so much because it still has social capital. There are reglious and ethnic divisions, but within those communities, people still like and trust one another. But resources are now in seriously short supply. What do you when it’s 50 degrees — and the lights go out all day? Or the taps stop running? Or there’s no medicine left, because it’s all spoiled?

Westerners think: he’s saying life comes to an end! No, it doesn’t. Civilization does. Life goes on. But living in a civilized way becomes harder and harder. A dark age falls.

Extinction — and I always have to add this caveat for new readers, so forgive me — doesn’t mean “everyone dies!” It means that there is an Extinction Event now unfolding. A huge, huge number of the earth’s species are going to be gone. So many we can’t even count them yet. Trees, forests, animals. All of that is going to cause a systems collapse, which it already is. Covid wasn’t a fluke — we are learning now that it was part of a trend, pandemics, which happen when animals and humans rub shoulders, as habitable land is scorched, burned, flooded, drowned.

Extinction is an Event. It means many, many things. We are all going to have to understand it. In subtle and complicated and thoughtful ways. I don’t bring it up so you just panic and react and some people lash out defensively thinking “he’s saying we’re all going to die!” Quite the opposite. I mean we are now beginning to live through the single event of greatest impact in human history, ever.

And we need to begin to understand it, in genuinely thoughtful and precise and reflective ways. So far, we don’t even have the vocabulary, language, ideas, which is why I write about it.

So. Let’s draw some conclusions. Are we headed for global collapse? I gave you three facts. My conclusion from those three facts is that we need the greatest wave of investment in human history, to even begin to lessen the impact of Extinction. The more that we do that, the more chance of surviving, in some form, our civilization has. But if we don’t do it at all — which is where we are now — sorry, let me add one last fact.

We need the greatest wave of investment in human history to begin to lessen the Event. Extinction. But. Fact four. Our investment rate is still exactly the sameThis is why, every year, the UN has to do this sad dance — goals and pledges unmet, the worst case scenarios come true. The investment rate — our investment rate civilizationally — isn’t rising.

And you can now see what happens when it doesn’t. With your own eyes. The temperature keeps rising. Nations like America simply fall apart. Demagoguery and fascism recur. Resource wars erupt. Religious and ethnic tensions alight. Ecologies collapse. Our basic systems begin to fail.

We are now living in the Event. You can now literally begin to see what it means to be a species living on a dying planet. You can see with your own two eyes what happens when a civilization’s investment rate is too low, and it’s consumption rate is too high — this does. Extinction. It eats through everything, and replenishes not enough, and so it’s own life support systems come undone. This is where we are now.

We are travelers into the Event.

And we need to begin preparing for this journey, my friends. Nobody is going to escape to Mars. Nobody is going to live in some fortified compound and “ride it out.” We are in it together. This planet. Civilization.

Extinction.

umair haque

Umair

May 2022

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Opinion
How to get West Virginia off coal
May 30, 2022 


Coal cars wait to be loaded at a loading facility in Belle, W.Va., on April 2, 2020. 
(Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

Regarding the May 22 news article “In W.Va., pivot to clean energy rests with Joe Manchin”:

It is not just parochial interests that drive West Virginia’s stubborn adherence to coal and opposition to green power sources. Anyone who has ever been to deep Appalachia knows that there is more than a grain of truth to the shibboleth that the only things there are coal and disability.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

What is needed is a viable alternative to coal as the economic mainstay of the region — the only economic mainstay. The West Virginia legislature should have been working on this a decade ago, but, instead, it continues to fight the inevitable with its advocacy of “clean coal” and stubborn refusal to recognize the increasing obsolescence of fossil fuels. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D) should be working on it today.

It is not an easy problem. Because of its rugged terrain and remoteness from major markets and transportation corridors, the area is not conducive to manufacturing or other industries involving the movement of goods. Nor is it conducive to large-scale farming. White-collar industries, such as any form of information or data processing, require an educated workforce, generally lacking in the region.

Until a large-scale replacement industry takes root, the people of deep Appalachia will continue out of desperation to oppose anything that diminishes the coal industry and will express that sentiment at the ballot box. These people, most of whom have lived there for generations, are not going to just quietly disappear as the coal industry dries up. Transitioning them must be part of any solution.

Paul B. Weiss, Hedgesville, W.Va.


Rabbi James Rudin’s memoir recounts the interfaith movement’s hits and misses

In the book, 'The People in the Room: Rabbis, Nuns, Pastors, Popes, and Presidents,' Rudin writes about his favorite collaborators, the challenges of cultivating pluralism and the future of interfaith relations.

(RNS) — Rabbi James Rudin had a front-row seat to all the major developments in Jewish-Christian relations in the second half of the 20th century.

Probably no other rabbi has traveled as widely or met with as many global religious leaders as Rudin, who for 32 years worked at the American Jewish Committee, retiring as its national interreligious affairs director in 2000.

At 87, he’s now written a memoir chronicling his efforts to improve Jewish-Christian ties in the wake of the Holocaust and give Jews a measure of dignity and respect they were often denied.

Rudin’s book, “The People in the Room: Rabbis, Nuns, Pastors, Popes, and Presidents,” tells of his many travels — 42 times across the Atlantic — and his meetings with popes, presidents, Protestant denominational leaders and world-famous evangelists.

James Rudin as a U.S. Air Force chaplain at the Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Facility in Japan in 1962. Photo courtesy James Rudin

Rabbi James Rudin as a U.S. Air Force chaplain at the Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Facility in Japan in 1962. Photo courtesy James Rudin

Rudin’s personal biography before joining the AJC helped. As he writes in the first part of the book, he grew up in Alexandria, Virginia, among Southern Baptists. After finishing rabbinical school, he served for several years as an Air Force chaplain stationed in Japan and Korea. And then, while serving an Illinois congregation, he did graduate work in history at the University of Illinois.


RELATED: Despite 2022’s cluster of religious holidays, multifaith understanding slow to evolve


In addition to possessing a curious mind eager to learn about other religions and make friends across the faith divide, he is also a writer, contributing hundreds of columns over the years to Religion News Service, among other outlets.

RNS spoke to Rudin from his home in Florida about his favorite collaborators in his interfaith work, the challenges, even today, of cultivating pluralism and the future of interfaith relations. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You devote a full chapter to the late New York Cardinal John O’Connor and another to a Catholic Sister Ann Gillen. Are Catholics the group you had the most success with?

No. We just hit it off very well. I came on board the AJC in 1968. That was three years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. Because of the excitement and the breakthrough of “Nostra Aetate” (the document that transformed the church’s approach to Judaism), there was a lot of energy around Catholic-Jewish relations. Also, Jews historically had more contact with Catholics than any other group. Cardinal O’Connor, of blessed memory, was a friend, a colleague. In private we called each other by our first names.

But growing up in Alexandria, Virginia, I also had an understanding of Southern Baptists. I knew these folks. I went to school with them. I went to their revivals. It helped me in relating to them.

Each December in the area I grew up there was a huge Christmas decoration contest. It was very important to these families who won the contest. They had a very divisive decision one December and it looked like it would be the end of the contest. They came to my father and asked him if he and my family could be the judges because we would be totally impartial, which we were. So for several years my late brother and father and I trudged round in the snow to judge which house had the best Christmas decorations. Our judgments were upheld because we were totally impartial. I don’t think too many rabbis had that experience.

One of the evangelicals you grew to respect is Billy Graham. How did your views of him change?

I met with him during his last crusade when he came to New York in 2005. In a private conversation he said that he would go on his hands and knees and beg forgiveness from the Jewish community for the things he said and agreed with in 1972 in his White House meetings with President Richard Nixon, which were full of antisemitism. He regretted it. He apologized.

A lot of the work you did abroad was trying to explain to Christians how their own Scriptures often cast Jews as Christ-killers. You devote a chapter to Oberammergau, a town in the Bavarian Alps famous for its Passion plays, which in years past were virulently anti-Jewish. How hard was it?

When I went there I was fully aware that we were trying to overcome antisemitism. Europe was a haunted continent because of what happened there. I went to Germany many times. I was one of the first interreligious American Jewish leaders to go to Poland in 1989 to build positive Christian-Jewish relations. But it was also very personal. My own family — my uncles, my cousins — were involved in battles with the Germans in World War II. I got a tour of Auschwitz by a wonderful Polish Catholic priest. It made the work sacred to me. But it was also very difficult.

The U.S. is having a hard time with pluralism these days. But you write about a battle back in the late 1980s over the design of a chapel at Camp David in which the committee you served on wanted stained glass windows with Christian symbols. How’d you get them to change their minds? 

The committee felt they were not creating an interreligious chapel for a presidential retreat but a Christian church. I was told again and again, America is a Christian country. But the Founding Fathers had every opportunity to put Jesus into the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It’s not an accident that it isn’t there. Ironically, Camp David is a place 99% of Americans will never visit. It’s a secluded presidential retreat. But that’s where it played out at the highest level. I had to deal with it diplomatically. It was a time for me to not only quote Jefferson and Madison but to point out that we were doing this for history. Once you put this chapel there, international visitors would come there of all religions and no religion. It was a very important and symbolic moment for me. It was one of my proudest moments. I’m not sure I would be as successful today persuading people to understand American history.

What do you think of interreligious work today when the authority of religious leadership is being challenged everywhere?

In the sexual abuse scandal we have the perfect trifecta. We’ve had the Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandal. Earlier this year we had sexual abuse scandal in my movement, the Reform (Jewish) movement. Now we have it in the largest Protestant denomination. Is it any wonder respect and commitment to various religious leaders are under attack? Religion is radioactive. Sometimes it can be very helpful; sometimes highly destructive. You have to handle it with great care. We need fewer declarations, fewer statements, fewer proclamations. We need less wholesale religion and more retail. I’m advocating for lay-led, small groups that tackle problems in communities on an interreligious basis. That’s the future; small pockets of religious energy.

In the U.S., all religions are represented. Nobody’s getting out of the boat. It’s a necessity that we have interreligious cooperation and bridges of human solidarity.

Yes, Muslims are portrayed negatively in American media — 2 political scientists reviewed over 250,000 articles to find conclusive evidence

In examining media coverage of Muslims over a 21-year period, in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, scholars found that articles mentioning Muslims were far more negative than other faith groups.

(The Conversation) — The warm welcome Americans and Europeans have given Ukrainians in 2022 contrasts sharply with the uneven – and frequently hostile – policies toward Syrian refugees in the mid-2010s.

Political scientist David Laitin has highlighted the role that religious identities play in this dynamic. As he pointed out in a recent interview, Syrian refugees were “mostly Muslim and faced higher degrees of discrimination than will the Ukrainians, who are largely of Christian heritage.”

The media provide information that shapes such attitudes toward Muslims. A 2007 Pew Research Center survey of Americans found that people’s negative opinions on Muslims were mostly influenced by what they heard and read in the media. Communications scholar Muniba Saleem and colleagues have demonstrated the link between media information and “stereotypic beliefs, negative emotions and support for harmful policies” toward Muslim Americans.

To better grasp the evolution of media portrayals of Muslims and Islam, our 2022 book, “Covering Muslims: American Newspapers in Comparative Perspective,” tracked the tone of hundreds of thousands of articles over decades.

We found overwhelmingly negative coverage, not only in the United States but also in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

Negative coverage of Muslims

Previous research has identified widespread negative media representations of Muslims. An overview of studies undertaken from 2000 to 2015 by communications scholars Saifuddin Ahmed and Jörg Matthes concluded that Muslims were negatively framed in the media and that Islam was frequently cast as a violent religion.

But the studies they reviewed leave open two pressing questions that we address through our research.

First, do articles touching on Muslims and Islam include more negative representations than the average newspaper article? Second, are media portrayals of Muslims more negative than articles touching on other minority religions?

If stories about minority religious groups made it to the news only when they were involved in conflict in one way or another, then they may be negative for reasons that are not specific to Muslims.

What we found

To answer these questions, we used media databases such as LexisNexis, Nexis Uni, ProQuest and Factiva to download 256,963 articles mentioning Muslims or Islam – for which we use the shorthand “Muslim articles” – from 17 national, regional and tabloid newspapers in the United States over the 21-year period from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2016.

We developed a reliable method for measuring the positivity or negativity of stories by comparing them to the tone of a random sample of 48,283 articles about topics drawn from a wide range of newspapers. A negative value on this scale means that a story is negative relative to the average newspaper article.

Crucially, this approach also provided a baseline for additional comparisons. We collected sets of articles from U.S. newspapers relating not only to Muslims, but also separately to Catholics, Jews and Hindus, three minority religious groups of varying size and status in the United States. We then assembled stories linked to Muslims from a broad array of newspapers in the U.K., Canada and Australia.

Our central finding is that the average article mentioning Muslims or Islam in the United States is more negative than 84% of articles in our random sample. This means that one would likely have to read six articles in U.S. newspapers to find even one that was as negative as the average article touching on Muslims.

To give a concrete sense of how negative typical Muslim articles are, consider the following sentence that has the tone of the average Muslim article: “The Russian was made to believe by undercover agents that the radioactive material was to be delivered to a Muslim organization.” This contains two highly negative words (“undercover” and “radioactive”) and implies that the “Muslim organization” has nefarious goals.

Articles that mentioned Muslims were also much more likely to be negative than stories touching on any other group we examined. For Catholics, Jews and Hindus, the proportion of positive and negative articles was close to 50-50. By contrast, 80% of all articles related to Muslims were negative.

The divergence is striking. Our work shows that the media are not prone to publishing negative stories when they write about other minority religions, but they are very likely to do so when they write about Muslims.

Beyond comparing coverage across groups, we were also interested in coverage across countries. Perhaps the United States is unique in its intensely negative coverage of Muslims. To find out, we collected 528,444 articles mentioning Muslims or Islam from the same time period from a range of newspapers in the U.K., Canada and Australia. We found that the proportion of negative to positive articles in these countries was almost exactly the same as that in the United States.

Implications of negative coverage

Multiple scholars have shown that negative stories generate less favorable attitudes toward Muslims. Other studies that looked at the impact of negative information about Muslims also found an increase in support for policies that harm Muslims, such as secret surveillance of Muslim Americans or the use of drone attacks in Muslim countries.

In addition, surveys of young American Muslims have found that negative media coverage resulted in weaker identification as American and in lower trust in the U.S. government.

We believe acknowledging and addressing the systemic negativity in media coverage of Muslims and Islam is vital for countering widespread stigmatization. This may, in turn, create opportunities for more humane policies that are fair to everyone regardless of their faith.

(Erik Bleich, Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science, Middlebury. A. Maurits van der Veen, Associate Professor of Government, William & Mary. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

 

Banker says he warned Vatican about London fund investor

Enrico Crasso cited a series of emails he sent to Vatican officials expressing concern and perplexity at some of Mincione's investment choices.

A rainbow shines over St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, on Jan. 31, 2021. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino, File)

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican’s longtime investment banker testified Monday that he repeatedly voiced concerns about a fund that was investing in a troubled London property, but said the Holy See’s secretariat of state insisted on pursuing the deal even as it lost money.

Enrico Crasso said he was very much on the sidelines of the London deal, which is at the center of the Vatican’s big fraud and embezzlement trial. Prosecutors have accused Crasso and nine other people of fleecing the Holy See of tens of millions of euros and of ultimately extorting the Vatican for 15 million euros to get control of the property.

Crasso, who handled the secretariat of state’s investments for 27 years at Credit Suisse and his own firms, is accused of several counts of embezzlement as well as corruption, fraud and extortion. Crasso denies wrongdoing and testified Monday that in his more than quarter-century of work for the Holy See, the investments he managed always turned a profit.

On his first day on the stand, Crasso stressed that he was only brought into the London deal by chance after he was called on by the secretariat of state to help it evaluate ways to diversify its asset portfolio in 2012, first into a potential petroleum development deal in Angola and then the London property.

Crasso said Credit Suisse recommended a commodities expert, Raffaele Mincione, to evaluate the Angola deal. After all sides agreed against it, Mincione stayed on as a new money manager for the Vatican via his Athena investment fund that was investing in the London property.

Crasso referred to a 2016 formal statement from the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, making clear that there were no limits on where the Vatican’s Credit Suisse assets could be invested. Crasso’s defense has cited the letter to rebut the embezzlement allegation that Crasso routed Vatican money destined for charity to highly speculative investments.

Crasso testified that he was essentially sidelined after the Vatican began working with Mincione and he cited a series of emails he sent to Vatican officials expressing concern and perplexity at some of Mincione’s investment choices.

By 2018, the Vatican decided to exit Mincione’s fund because it had lost some 18 million euros and was looking for a way to buy him out of the London property. Enter another defendant, Gianluigi Torzi, who was proposed by a friend of Pope Francis as a potential manager and developer for the property.

The deal involved paying off Mincione 40 million euros and then entering into an agreement with Torzi via a new holding company, Gutt, to manage and develop the property. The deal, in which the Vatican held 30,000 shares in Gutt and Torzi 1,000 shares, was hashed out over three days in Torzi’s London office in November 2018.

Crasso said he attended the meetings but had no real reason to be there since the negotiations were being handled by the two top in-house money managers of the Vatican.

Unbeknown to the Vatican at the time, Torzi structured the Gutt shares in such a way that his 1,000 shares were the only ones with the right to vote, meaning he controlled the building and the Vatican held virtually nothing.

According to previous testimony, Francis and the Vatican decided against suing Torzi for alleged fraud and agreed to pay him 15 million euros to finally get control of the property — a payout that Vatican prosecutors say amounted to extortion.
t
Crasso said there was no logic to prosecutors’ claim he was involved in the alleged extortion since he had only met Torzi for the first time a few days before the November 2018 meetings.

World Leaders Must Commit to End Covid-19 Patents: Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus

Decrying the "brutally unequal global rollout of Covid-19 vaccines," Yunus wrote that "there is still time for world leaders to say never again."



People carry mock coffins in front of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's office in London on October 12, 2021.
(Photo: Hasan Esen/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)


ANDREA GERMANOS
May 28, 2022

Social entrepreneur and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus on Saturday called for a comprehensive waiver of intellectual property rules for Covid-19 vaccines and treatments, declaring that "freeing" the technology "from profit and patent is the key" to a global health system that puts human lives above corporate profit.

In an op-ed published Saturday in Stat news, Yunus—who's previously joined with other Nobel laureates in pushing for an end to intellectual property barriers—pointed to the global inequality in access to vaccines.

"The brutally unequal global rollout of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments is a consequence of an ever-increasing concentration of wealth and focus on profit maximization."

He referenced Oxfam's estimate that it could take an additional two and a half years for the poorest countries to meet the World Health Organization's target of vaccinating 70% of the world's population.

"Denied vaccines for more than a year," lower-income countries are now seeing the arrival of doses, he wrote, yet those countries will not be the ones deciding on which company's products arrive nor on what timeline, thus complicating vaccination campaigns. A similar phenomenon, he added, is now happening with antiviral pills, which are being hoarded by wealthy nations.

"Wealth is power," wrote Yunus. "And the brutally unequal global rollout of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments is a consequence of an ever-increasing concentration of wealth and focus on profit maximization."

The pharmaceutical industry, he asserted, is on a quest for "ever-greater profits" and thus supplies vaccines to the highest bidder.

Yunus went on to accuse "the wealthy nations, the G10, the continuous beneficiaries of the wealth-concentrating economic machine" of gaining from the current framework at the expense of the rest of the world. But these same wealthy nations, he said, "have the resources to narrow the great vaccine gap, if they want to."

A key step in ensuring equitable access to vaccines, according to Yunus, is the establishment of pharmaceutical companies focused on solving social problems rather than making profits, ones that could distribute the doses at cost. And that means "removing barriers like intellectual property rules.

Related Content

'Appalling': Deal on IP Waiver Reportedly Limited to Covid Vaccines
Jessica Corbett

That needs to happen this month, he said, with world leaders taking a step they've so far refused to do in the pandemic—backing a comprehensive waiver of parts of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. He pointed out that the E.U. and U.K. have thus far blocked such an effort. He also called out the U.S. for backing a waiver solely on vaccines.

"There is still time for world leaders to say never again," he wrote, "and to commit to a fairer system of global health that prioritizes human life over the profits of a handful of pharmaceutical companies."
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Organizers Herald 100th Win as Starbucks Unionization Wave Continues

"Howard Schultz and Starbucks are getting creamed in union vote after union vote."


The Starbucks Workers United hub in Buffalo, New York on November 16, 2021. 
(Photo: Libby March for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

ANDREA GERMANOS
May 29, 2022

The tally of unionized Starbucks locations is continuing to swell, with the latest additions coming after pro-unionization votes late last week in Seattle and Birmingham, Alabama.

The coffee giant's CEO "Howard Schultz and Starbucks are getting creamed in union vote after union vote," labor journalist Steven Greenhouse tweeted Saturday.

By the union's count, there are now 100 stores across the nation that have unionized.

The milestone was achieved after successful votes Friday at two stores in Seattle.

The Eastlake store employees won their effort to collectively bargain in a landslide 12-0 vote, while the Union Station store voted 6-3 in favor, local KOMO News reported.

A day earlier, the store on Birmingham's 20th Street South became Alabama's first Starbucks to back unionization after a 27-1 vote Thursday.

Kadarius Perkin, a shift supervisor at that store, declared after the vote, "Our voices will be heard," according to AL.com.

"Starbucks has until later this week to file any objections with the National Labor Relations Board," The Associated Press reported Sunday.

Workers at hundreds of Starbucks stores have filed to unionize since the first successful union drive in Buffalo, New York late last year.

According to Matt Bruenig, founder of People's Policy Project, "a trickle of election filings" that started last year "has built to a wave—and Starbucks workers are winning in location after location."

Bruenig analyzed data from the National Labor Relations Board, writing in an op-ed published last week at Jacobin that out of 89 union elections that had taken place at Starbucks, the union prevailed in 77 locations—87%—of them.

Those wins, he noted, came despite "a fierce campaign against the union, prompting a torrent of unfair labor practice (ULP) charges against the company."

Related Content

Starbucks Workers Urge Congress to Grill CEO Howard Schultz on Union-Busting


John Logan, a professor and director of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University, also pointed to that campaign in a recent op-ed at Jacobin in which he described Starbucks as worthy of the title "worst worker rights violator."

Contributing to the "union-busting lawlessness," wrote Logan, is the company's firing of over 20 union activists and announcement of a benefit increase to stores that have not unionized.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has previously boosted Starbucks workers' unionization efforts and told Schultz as he resumed his position as CEO this year, "If Starbucks can afford to spend $20 billion on stock buybacks and dividends and provide a $20 million compensation package to its CEO, it can afford a unionized workforce that can collectively bargain for better wages, better benefits, safer working conditions and reliable schedule."

"Please respect the Constitution of the United States and do not illegally hamper the efforts of your employees to unionize," Sanders wrote in a March letter to the billionaire executive.

Sanders reiterated that message in a tweet on Friday.

"Congratulations to Starbucks Workers United for winning the 100th union election at Starbucks coffee shops all over America," he wrote.

"I say to Howard Schultz: Stop the union-busting," he continued. "Obey the law. Negotiate a fair contract with your workers now—no more delays. Enough is enough."