Thursday, June 29, 2023


Nationwide UPS Strike 'Imminent,' Teamsters Warn After Rejecting 'Appalling' Contract Offer

"UPS executives couldn't make it one more day without insulting and ignoring union leaders and rank-and-filers as negotiations resumed on Wednesday."


Members of Teamsters Local 174 at the UPS hubs in Seattle, Shoreline, and Redmond, Washington marched with "Just Practicing" signs on June 27, 2023.
(Photo: Teamsters/Twitter)

BRETT WILKINS
Jun 28, 2023

"The largest single-employer strike in American history now appears inevitable."

So said Teamsters general president Sean O'Brien late Wednesday after leaders of the union representing shipping giant UPS quit negotiating with company representatives after giving them a Friday deadline to "act responsibly and exchange a stronger economic proposal for more than 340,000 full- and part-time workers."

The Teamsters had initially given the company a week to propose a better offer, but "UPS executives couldn't make it one more day without insulting and ignoring union leaders and rank-and-filers as negotiations resumed on Wednesday," the union said in a statement.

Common Dreamsreported earlier this month that 97% of UPS workers represented by the Teamsters voted to authorize a nationwide strike if a deal wasn't reached with management by July 31.



"The world's largest delivery company that raked in more than $100 billion in revenue last year has made it clear to its union workforce that it has no desire to reward or respectfully compensate UPS Teamsters for their labor and sacrifice," Wednesday's statement alleged. "During the past week, UPS returned an appalling counterproposal to the union's financial package, offering minuscule raises and wage cuts to traditional cost-of-living adjustments."

O'Brien argued that "executives at UPS, some of whom get tens of millions of dollars a year, do not care about the hundreds of thousands of American workers who make this company run."

"They don't care about our members' families. UPS doesn't want to pay up," he added. "Their actions and insults at the bargaining table have proven they are just another corporation that wants to keep all the money at the top. Working people who bust their asses every single day do not matter, not to UPS."



One Denver-area UPS driver toldWorld Socialist Web Site that "I want UPS to get rid of 60-hour work weeks. Driving a truck for 12 hours a day for five days a week is absolutely ridiculous and unfair... Then sometimes they demand six days from us. This is a violation of our lives. They act as though we have no families."

Another UPS worker, this one at a Northern California warehouse, told the site that "working conditions are pretty brutal, with start times being pushed as far as 5:15 am."

"We are being pushed to get these trucks loaded. We are not allowed to stop the conveyor belt if we have bulk items that are big and heavy," the worker added. "We really are busting our behinds in loading trucks in numerical order for drivers to get deliveries. Also, a lot of time there was supposed to be double time but we were not paid double time. And when we request a sick day, those requests are not being met."



In a statement, UPS said: "Last week, we provided our initial economic proposal. This week, we followed with a significantly amended proposal to address key demands from the Teamsters."

"Reaching consensus requires time and serious, detailed discussion, but it also requires give-and-take from both sides," the company added. "We're working around the clock to reach an agreement that strengthens our industry-leading pay and benefits ahead of the current contract's expiration on August 1. We remain at the table ready to negotiate."

Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, on Wednesday offered a solution to avert a strike.

"Instead of a Teamsters strike," the two-time congressional candidate tweeted, "what if—just hear me out—UPS decided to meet their workers' demands?"
Uganda passed one of the world’s harshest anti-gay laws. LGBTQ people describe living there as ‘hell’

By Larry Madowo and Bethlehem Feleke, CNN
Thu June 29, 2023

Kampala, Uganda CNN —

In between leading Sunday services at All Saints’ Cathedral in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, Rev. Canon John Awodi declares vehemently that “homosexuality is a sin that must be repented of,” adding that it is against the “order of God.”

“Homosexuality is not natural, it is unnatural. That is the stand of the church here. It is unbiblical, it is unnatural,” the Anglican cleric told CNN.

These themes have become a common thread in his sermons and interviews, especially since Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act was signed into law last month.

The act outlaws gay marriage in Uganda, punishes same-sex acts with life imprisonment, and calls for the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” – which includes sex with a minor or otherwise vulnerable person, having sex while HIV positive and incest.

After initially wavering and sending the bill – which is widely popular with lawmakers, Christian and Muslim leaders in Uganda, as well as commentators on social media – back to parliament for review, President Yoweri Museveni eventually signed it into law in May, leading to global criticism, existential dread within the LGBTQ+ community, and legal challenges.
‘Nowhere is safe’

“It dehumanizes us as human beings, it doesn’t treat us as citizens. We are literally criminals and we are illegal in our own space that we call home. Nowhere is safe for any queer person living in Uganda,” Joan Amek, co-founder of Rella Women’s Foundation, told CNN.

Even though she created a safe space and shelter for lesbian, bisexual, and queer women through her organization, she says, she herself faces eviction from her rented apartment by the end of July. She believes it is because of her sexuality and prominence in queer activism, even though her landlord didn’t explicitly say so but her suspicions rose after a neighbor tipped her off.

“I have had myself being chased away from where I’m staying,” she said.

Returning to her parents’ house was not an option either. “My mum stands in solidarity with me but from a distance. When we had the conversation that I had been evicted, she didn’t say ‘you can come home’ she just said ‘oh, sorry, I’ll pray for you.’ How is prayer going to help?” Amek asked.


Joan Amekis seen at the Rella Women's Foundation in Uganda.Bethlehem Feleke/CNN

In recent weeks, disturbing videos have surfaced showing mounting hostility towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals in Uganda since the reintroduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

In one video, verified by a consortium of civil society groups called the Strategic Response Team (SRT), a transgender woman is marched naked on the streets while a jeering crowd follows, and a lesbian couple endures ridicule from neighbors, among other forms of public shaming.

At least 300 human rights violations against suspected homosexuals have been reported in Uganda arising from the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023, the SRT told CNN. As it investigates them, the SRT says it submitted a list of 50 verified cases to a judge while seeking an injunction against the law.

They include cases of evictions, so-called “corrective” rape, outing, termination from employment, blackmail, threats of violence or physical attacks and incidents of mob justice, according to SRT.

However, opposition lawmaker Asuman Basalirwa, who introduced the 2023 bill, dismissed the latest reports of human rights violations as “distortions” and fabrications.

He told CNN the allegations were “completely false,” and backed the law.

“Who has been fired from their jobs? Who has been evicted from their houses? This is a very innocent law. No one has been targeted,” he said.
‘My life is hell’

Nash Wash Raphael, a 30-year-old transgender man, says he was attacked on the night Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act. He was left with a broken ankle and relies on crutches to walk while it heals.

This was not the first time Raphael had faced violence; he says it was the ninth assault since his transition. Raphael describes his life as “hell,” and says he attempted suicide when pictures of him and his partner were leaked and went viral. While they weren’t intimate photos, they still outed him.


Nash Wash Raphael says he fears being attacked again. An assault last month left him with a broken ankle.
Fabien Muhire/CNN

“I feel like I should take my own life as there is nothing else I’m left to protect. This is my second year on hormones, and I was supposed to get my top surgery next year, but all this has been shattered, and I can’t even afford it,” Raphael said. Top surgery refers to the procedure to remove breast or chest tissue.

Raphael says he no longer walks during the day, afraid that he might get attacked again.

After getting fired from his job for not wearing traditional women’s clothes, he tried casual jobs in Dubai and Saudi Arabia and hawking baked goods in Kampala but says he couldn’t keep his identity hidden for long.

He says his Muslim family disowned him and he remains in contact only with his youngest sister out of six siblings. His father told CNN that Raphael is his daughter who has refused to come home.

“My life is actually useless to them. I literally tell myself that I don’t have a family in this world. The same God that created them has a reason why he made me the way I am,” Raphael says, his voice breaking.
‘Promoting’ homosexuality penalized

The new law states that “a person who promotes homosexuality commits an offense and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.”

It also requires Ugandans to report suspected homosexuals or violations of the law to the authorities.

On Museveni’s recommendation, the law prescribes rehabilitation for convicted homosexuals to change their sexual orientation, even though scientists say so-called conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective.

Ugandan lawmakers, who overwhelmingly supported the bill, railed against the supposed “recruitment” of young people into homosexuality, pedophilia and grooming.

Basalirwa, the lawmaker, told CNN he had met with people who had been “recruited” but had, in his words, “counseled out of it.”

“I want to disagree with the people who say homosexuality is a Western concept. No, it is not. We’ve lived with homosexuality here in this country, in Africa. What is foreign is recruitment and promotion. That’s un-African,” he said.

Human rights advocates say that the offense of “promotion” of homosexuality could be weaponized against activists, journalists, or any ordinary citizen.

“Someone can accuse anyone of being queer and they’ll get arrested. And next thing you know, you could be spending up to life in prison,” Amek told CNN.
Cutting ties with the Anglican Church

Amek has grown accustomed to the dangers of her work, after she says her organization’s offices were raided by police three times, forcing them to move to a new shelter for vulnerable queer women.

It is the cost of continuing to operate in a conservative Ugandan society where homophobic messaging emanates everywhere from churches and mosques to the highest political offices, Amek said.

The Church of Uganda openly defied the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and supported the Anti-Homosexuality Act, accusing the global head of the Anglican Church of misinterpreting the Bible.

Welby wrote to the leader of Ugandan Anglicans expressing his “grief and dismay” for at that support, but it fell on deaf ears. The Church of Uganda says it will separate from the Church of England over their differences on the issue of homosexuality.

The Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023 is a revival of a previous version nicknamed the “Kill the Gays” Bill that Uganda’s parliament passed in 2014 but which was blocked in court on a technicality. This current law is also being challenged in court.

Amek understands that she risks jail time by speaking up, but she persists, saying it is worth it. “I don’t want to be a martyr and die. But I want to stand strong for protection of the LGBTIQ generation and community now, but also for the future,” she said.

“Silence equals death. And regardless of whether I stay silent or not, they’ll still kill us, they’ll still criminalize us.”
In the Philippines, a survey shows growing support for gays and lesbians

June 28, 2023
Ashley Westerman

Filipino same-sex couples tie the knot in a mass wedding ceremony on June 25, 2023, in Quezon City in metro Manila, Philippines. In a symbolic act against the lack of comprehensive legislation for gender minorities in the Philippines, 29 same-sex couples tied the knot in a mass wedding ceremony organized by the LGBTS (Let God Be Thy Savior) Christian Church Inc.
Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

MANILA, Philippines – A sharp majority of Filipinos say they agree that gays and lesbians are trustworthy and contribute to the progress of society, according to a national survey.

The survey, conducted in March by the nonprofit social research group Social Weather Stations and released in June — Pride Month in many nations — shows a substantial rise in supportive views of gays and lesbians in the socially conservative country in the past decade.

In the survey conducted among 1,200 adult Filipinos nationwide, 79% agreed that "gays or lesbians are just as trustworthy as any other Filipino." Meanwhile, the percentage who agree that "gays or lesbians have contributed a lot to the progress of our society" was only a bit lower at 73%.


THE TWO-WAY
Philippines Elects First Transgender Member Of Congress

These findings mark a "very strong" increase in sympathetic attitudes toward gays and lesbians over the years. The last time the same question about trustworthiness was asked was 2013, when 67% of respondents agreed with the statement, reported Rappler.com. At the time, only 54% of Filipino adults agreed that gays and lesbians contributed to society.

"We welcome [the results] as a positive development. ... It's quite a big stride, compared to how it was in the 1990s, for example, when the word 'gay' was considered taboo," said Reyna Valmores, the 26-year-old chairperson of the Philippines-based LGBTQ+ organization Bahaghari (or "rainbow" in Tagalog).

However, there is still much public awareness education to be done, noted Valmores. In the same survey, 43% of respondents believe that AIDS is a sickness of gays and lesbians, and 40% of respondents agreed that if there was a gay or lesbian member of their family, they would like them to change and become straight.

Valmores' own story reflects the Philippines' lingering pray-the-gay-away culture. Valmores is a transgender woman who grew up with a conservative father in Tacloban, a city located about 360 miles southeast of the capital, Manila, that she describes as conservative. Valmores says she has been a victim of domestic abuse at home and was not able to transition until college.

"Because I was away from home and had more of an opportunity to explore myself," she says. "Unfortunately, many other trans kids and LGBT kids in general don't have that kind of privilege."


ASIA
Same-sex couples will now have full adoption rights in Taiwan

The Philippines is a staunchly Christian country. More than 86% of the population identifies as Catholic, while another 8% claims to follow some other form of Christianity. Additionally, many of the laws in the Philippines reflect how socially conservative the country is, including the banning of abortion, divorce and same-sex marriage.

Faith has long been seen as a hurdle for the country's LGBTQ+ communities to flourish and be accepted with rights, such as national anti-discrimination legislation and civil unions, having been argued over for decades. However, there has been some evidence that Filipinos' Catholic faith can also serve to boost the resilience of queer individuals. According to a 2023 article in the journal Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, some LGBTQ+ adolescents reported that their connection to the divine empowers "them to see the values of their identities" and that they "utilize their faith to their advantage as [a] fount of resilience."

Still, LGBTQ+ advocates in the country say the Philippines has a ways to go in accepting LGBTQ+ individuals for who they are.

"So it's one thing to say out in the open that we consider LGBTQ+ persons to be just as trustworthy as others," Valmores says. "But it's another to have concrete policies and measures in place to ensure that discrimination does not happen across the country — and unfortunately, in that regard, there's still much to be done.
The 2022 Giving Slump Exposes the Fragility of Top-Heavy Charity


 
JUNE 28, 2023
Facebook

This week, the Giving USA Foundation published Giving USA 2023: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2022. The numbers were bad. Really bad.

2022 was, as the Chronicle of Philanthropy wrote, “one of the worst years in philanthropy history.” Steep revenue losses more than wiped out the giving surges of the previous two years, leaving charities in an even worse position than in the years before the pandemic.

The Giving USA analysts attribute the slump primarily to two factors: small-dollar donors giving less because of high inflation, and major donors giving less because of the poor performance of the stock market.

What we would say is that the declines of 2022 reveal just how fragile we have allowed our philanthropic ecosystem to become. For the past couple of decades, wealthy donors have taken more and more control over our charitable sector, while increasingly distressed households of everyday Americans drop off the donor rolls. This has always posed great risks not only for charities, but also for our society as a whole. And, unfortunately, the consequences may now be catching up with us.

In the past, big giving camouflaged an increasingly top-heavy charitable system

Giving USA is the most comprehensive analysis available of national U.S. philanthropy, and is an invaluable compendium of otherwise inaccessible giving data. According to this year’s report, the total amount given to charity in 2022 was $499 billion. This was a 3.4 percent decline from the previous year, or a 10.5 percent decline when adjusted for inflation.

This is bad enough. But most of the charitable giving in this country comes from individuals — as opposed to corporations, foundations, or bequests — and giving from individuals declined almost twice as much in 2022 as overall giving. Individual giving was just $319 billion in 2022, a decline of 6.4 percent from 2021, or a 13.4 decline when adjusted for inflation.

Nearly every year for the past couple decades, Giving USA has been able to report record levels of dollars being poured into charitable coffers. But underneath that positive story lay a disturbing, relentless trend. More and more charitable dollars were coming from wealthy donors, and fewer and fewer were coming from lower- and middle-income donors — a trend we call “top-heavy philanthropy.”

Top-heavy philanthropy poses at least two huge risks to charities.

One is that it makes charities vulnerable to donor fickleness and donor control. When nonprofit organizations depend on a small number of very wealthy donors for a big chunk of their fundraising dollars, they must work harder to ensure those donors keep giving. They may even find themselves compromising their activities or their missions to keep the major-giving revenue streams flowing.

The other is that it actually means less money for charitable programs. When wealthy people give, they tend not to give directly to working nonprofits, but to intermediaries like private foundations and donor-advised funds. This means that even as the number of dollars given to charity has technically gone up, charities on the ground have seen less and less of it.

Organizations are even more dependent on major donors than ever

Even before 2022, as charitable dollars were going up, donor numbers were going down. According to the Lilly School of Philanthropy’s Philanthropy Panel Study, the percentage of American households that give to charity slipped from 65 percent in 2008 to just below 50 percent in 2018 (the most recent year available). This is nearly a quarter of giving households gone in just 10 years.

And not only are everyday donors dropping out of the donor rolls, but they’re giving a smaller proportion of money to charity as well. The best indicator of this is what has happened to individual giving as a percentage of people’s disposable income — since the extra money a person has available to spend during the year largely determines how much that person gives to charity. Individual giving as a percentage of disposable income has been remarkably consistent; over the past 40 years; it has rarely strayed from a narrow range of 1.8 to 2.2 percent. But according to the most recent edition of Giving USA, it fell to just 1.7 percent in 2022. This is the lowest it has been since 1995.

In other words, in 2022, average Americans gave the smallest chunk of their disposable income to charity than they had in almost thirty years — smaller, even, than during the recession of 2007-2008.

This means that giving from individuals is making up a smaller and smaller slice of the total charitable pie — and the steep declines in individual giving in 2022 have accelerated this trend. In 1992, individual giving accounted for 78 percent of all giving. By 2022, according to Giving USA, donations from individuals had fallen to just 64 percent of all charitable revenue. As this happens, private foundations and corporations make up an increasingly large share of U.S. giving each year.

Top-heavy philanthropy means more money diverted from working charities

To make matters even worse, when more charitable revenue comes from wealthy donors, working charities actually receive less money. This is because when wealthy donors give, they tend to give disproportionately less to working charities, and disproportionately more to intermediaries like private foundations and donor-advised funds.

In 2022, for example, of the $13.96 billion given to charity by the top six mega-donors listed in Giving USA, at least 73 percent of it — $10.14 billion — went to private foundations. Five of these six donors gave all of their 2022 giving to foundations.

With only a five percent payout requirement for private foundations and no payout requirement at all for donor-advised funds, the dollars going into them quite often have a hard time finding their way out. This means that the recent record-breaking levels of charitable revenue are, more and more, being funneled away from charity and into intermediary investment portfolios where they may stay for years.

As of 2021, more than a third of individual giving was diverted into intermediaries — up from just 5 percent 30 years ago. Individuals donated $326 billion to charity in 2021, but $50 billion of that money went to private foundations, and $73 billion went to donor-advised funds. And the trend has been going relentlessly upward, particularly in the past five years.

This spells trouble for charities — and all of us who depend on their work

The relentless decline in individual giving and the shift towards intermediaries have been a painful one-two punch for working nonprofits. They have been taking in smaller and smaller portions of the donations that come in. They have been increasingly at risk of losing significant chunks of funding if one or two major donors lose faith with them. And their major funders have been exercising increasing control over their programs and even their missions.

And, if anything, these trends appear to be moving at light speed in the wrong direction. According to reporting by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, a full 5 percent of all individual giving came in the form of mega-gifts of $500 million or more, and a full 3 percent of total giving came from “just six individuals and couples” — meaning that organizations are even more dependent on the ultra wealthy. And more than three-quarters of private foundations plan to give the same or less in 2023 than they did last year — meaning that charities won’t be able to turn to foundations to make up for losses in individual giving.

The coming decade will be a critical one. National and global challenges such as climate change, crumbling infrastructure, and widening economic inequality demand our urgent attention. And the institutional expertise and skill of our nonprofit sector could help immensely with all of it — but not if it is hamstrung by declining support and autonomy.

We have the power to reverse these trends. If our working charities walk on many legs — if they can rely on the support of a broad, stable donor base — they will be more representative, more effective, and better able to weather storms like this. We must take the steps to make that possible.

Helen Flannery is a researcher with the IPS Charity Reform Initiative.


Babbling about Prigozhin


 
 JUNE 29, 2023
Facebook

Photograph Source: Government of the Russian Federation – CC BY 3.0

A lot of nonsense is being spouted by a bevy of spontaneous “Russian experts” in light of the Prigozhin spray, a mutiny (no one quite knows what to call it), stillborn in the Russian Federation.  It all fell to the theatrical sponsor, promoter and rabble rouser Yevgeny Prigozhin, a convict who rose through the ranks of the deceased Soviet state to find fortune and security via catering, arms and Vladimir Putin’s support.

In the service of the Kremlin, Prigozhin proved his mettle.  He did his level best to neutralise protest movements.  He created the Internet Research Agency, an outfit employing hundreds dedicated to trolling for the regime.  Such efforts have been apoplectically lionised (and vilified) as being vital to winning Donald Trump the US presidency in 2016.

His Wagner mercenary outfit, created in the summer of 2014 in response to the Ukraine conflict, has certainly been busy, having impressed bloody footprints in the Levant, a number of African states, and Ukraine itself.  Along the way, benefits flowed for the provision of such services, including natural resource concessions.

But something happened last week.  Suddenly, the strong man of the mercenary outfit that had been performing military duties alongside the Russian Army in Ukraine seemed to lose his cool.  There were allegations that his men had been fired upon by Russian forces, a point drawn out by his capture of the 72nd Motorised Rifle Brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Roman Venevitin.  Probably more to the point, he had found out some days earlier that the Russian Defence Ministry was keen to rein in his troops, placing them under contractual obligations.  His autonomous wings were going to be clipped.

The fuse duly went.  Prigozhin fumed on Telegram, expressing his desire to get a number of officials, most notably the Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, and Chief of the General staff Valery Gerasimov, sent packing.  A “march for justice” was organised, one that threatened to go all the way to Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin fumed in agitation in his televised address on June 24, claiming that “excessive ambition and personal interests [had] led to treason, to the betrayal of the motherland and  the people and the cause”.  Within hours, Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko, whose diplomatic skills are threadbare, had intervened as mediator, after which it was decided that the Wagner forces would withdraw to avoid “shedding Russian blood”.

This all provided some delicious speculative manna for the press corps and commentariat outside Russia.  Nature, and media, abhor the vacuum; the filling that follows is often not palatable.  There was much breathless, excited pontification about the end of Putin, despite the obvious fact that this insurrection had failed in its tracks.  John Lyons of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was aflame with wonder.  Where, he wondered, was the Russian President?  Why did the Wagner soldiers “get from Ukraine to Rostov, take control of Ukraine’s war HQ then move to Voronezh without a hint of resistance”?

John Lough of Chatham House in London claimed that Putin had “been shown to have lost his previous ability to be the arbiter between powerful rival groups.”  His “public image in Russia as the all-powerful Tsar” had been called into question.  Ditto the views of Peter Rutland of Wesleyan University, who was adamant in emphasising Putin’s impotence in being “unable to do anything to stop Prigozhin’s rogue military unit as it seized Rostov-on-Don”, only to then write, without explaining why, about uncharacteristic behaviour from both men in stepping “back from the brink of civil war”.

Then came the hyperventilating chatter about nuclear weapons (too much of the Crimson Tide jitters there), the pathetic wail that accompanies those desperate to fill both column space.  The same degree of concern regarding such unsteady nuclear powers as Pakistan is nowhere to be seen, despite ongoing crises and the prospect of political implosion.

Commentors swooned with excitement: the Kremlin had lost the plot; the attempted coup, if it could even be called that, had done wonders to rattle the strongman.  Those same commentators could not quite explain that Prigozhin had seemingly been rusticated and banished to Belarus within the shortest of timeframes, where he is likely to keep company with a man of comparatively diminished intellect: Premier Lukashenko himself.  Prigozhin, for all his aspirations, has a gangster’s nose for a bargain, poor or otherwise.

As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov put it, the original criminal case opened against Prigozhin for military mutiny by the Kremlin would be dropped, while any Wagner fighters who had taken part in the “march for justice” would not face any punitive consequences. Those who had not participated would be duly assimilated into the Russian defence architecture in signing contracts with the Defence Ministry.

The image now appearing – much of this subject to redrawing, resketching, and requalifying – is that things were not quite as they seemed.  Assuming himself to be a big-brained Wallerstein of regime stirring clout, Prigozhin had seemingly put forth a plan of action that had all the seeds of failure.  Britain’s The Telegraph reported that “the mercenary force had only 8,000 fighters rather than the 25,000 claimed and faced likely defeat in any attempt to take the Russian capital.”

Another reading is also possible here, though it will have to be verified in due course.  Putin had anticipated that this contingently loyal band of mercenaries was always liable to turn, given the chance.  Russia is overrun with such volatile privateers and soldiers of fortune.  Where that fortune turns, demands will be made.

Ultimately, in Putin’s Russia, the political is never divorceable from the personal.  Chechnya’s resilient thug, Ramzan Kadyrov, very much the prototypical Putin vassal only nominally subservient, suggests that this whole matter could be put down to family business disputes.  “A chain of failed business deals created a lingering resentment in the businessman, which reached its peak when St. Petersburg’s authorities did not grand [Prigozhin’s] daughter a coveted land plot.”  The big picture, viewed from afar, can be very small indeed.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com


My 40 Year War on Reefer Madness


 
 JUNE 29, 2023
Facebook

Forty years ago last week, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner published my first attack on the federal drug war. The previous year, the Reagan administration unleashed its “Just Say No” program, vilifying anyone who smoked a joint, sniffed the wrong powder, or used non-approved hallucinogens. I was mortified to see Ronald Reagan—who was elected on a promise to get “government off your backs”—double-cross his supporters with what morphed into the most intrusive scheme in American history.

Like kids everywhere in the 1970s, I laughed at the 1936 “Reefer Madness” movie in my high school health class. I’d occasionally smoked marijuana but hadn’t felt compelled to burn down any orphanages afterwards. When Reagan went on the antidrug warpath, I was “laying for him,” as Mark Twain would say.

The Herald Examiner was a conservative leaning paper so I slanted my argument accordingly: “Many heavy marijuana users voted Republican in 1982, so there is no proof that it causes irreparable brain damage.” I pointed out that legalizing and taxing marijuana could raise enough money to pay for the MX-missile program that Reagan championed. (Pentagon boondoggles were much cheaper back then.) Ending marijuana prohibition would put hundreds of lawyers out of work, I cheerily noted. Reagan’s drug crackdown was playing to a culture war theme which I mocked in the final sentence of my piece: “Personally, I’m all in favor of locking up hippies, but we need to find a better reason.” The editor wisely deleted that last sentence before printing the article.

My attempts at humor were not universally appreciated. When I took the page from the Herald Examiner to a photocopy shop in uptown Washington, the cranky old manager was outraged by the article’s headline: “Making Pot a Crime Is, Well, Un-American.” He railed about how drugs were destroying the nation and wagged his finger so hard he almost threw his shoulder out of joint. The real problem, he said, was troublemakers like me. I just grinned at him and found another copy shop.

Two years later, writing in The San Diego Union Tribune, I declared, “The only things drug laws achieve is to make drugs more dangerous, crime more prevalent, and government more obnoxious.” I scoffed: “If the FBI didn’t have a thousand agents chasing dope dealers, would the Soviets be having so much success stealing U.S. military secrets?” I also whacked the feds’ narcotic nitwittery in The Detroit News and other papers.

My pieces had as much impact on the drug war as bouncing a ping pong ball off the hull of a battleship. After the drug war became politically profitable, the number of drug offenders in prisons rose tenfold. More people were locked up for drug offenses than for violent crimes, and possessing trace amounts of cocaine was often punished with longer sentences than rape, murder, or child molesting.

In 1992, I headed to Guatemala to give a few speeches on perfidious U.S. protectionist policies. Outside of Guatemala City, I met farmers and small businessmen who explained to me how the U.S. drug war was ravaging their country. A Guatemalan banker told me that the DEA was involved in shooting down or forcing crash landings of small planes suspected of carrying drugs. A prominent Guatemalan politician told me, “If you criticize the Drug Enforcement Agency, you might lose your visa” and be banned from visiting the U.S.

Shortly after Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993, the The Washington Times published my report on Guatemala: “U.S. anti-drug activities are wrecking the environment, terrorizing the people, and subverting the market economies that the U.S. loves to champion.” U.S. aid was pouring into the coffers of  military forces notorious for committing genocide against the Mayans and other minorities. I observed: “Giving the Guatemalan army more weapons to fight marijuana growers is like giving the Mafia bazookas to combat jaywalking in New York City.” Just in case I hadn’t riled up officialdom enough, I tossed in a closing line: “Exporting our drug war to Guatemala and other Latin American nations is Yankee Imperialism at its worst.”

Bingo: DEA chief Robert Bonner was enraged. “Columnist sprays tons of misinformation over your pages” was The Washington Times’ headline for his response. Bonner claimed that I had done “a great disservice to your readers” and declared, “We certainly are not behaving as if the ‘drug war gives us the right to impose martial law on foreign nations,’ as Mr. Bovard contends.” The DEA later became notorious for wreaking havoc throughout Central America. DEA was dousing Guatemala with Round-Up pesticides, but Bonner claimed that “adverse human health effects…are virtually nonexistent.” Turn on late night TV nowadays and you’ll see a torrent of ads soliciting class action claimants for American victims of Round-Up. And the massive U.S. aid for the Guatemalan military became a propellant for drug smuggling that was spearheaded by top generals and elite Special Forces units.

Writing about the drug war got me vilified from all sides. In early 1994, I pummeled  DEA entrapment operations at Grateful Dead concerts in a Newsday article. My piece, headlined, “Narcs Should Let the Deadheads Be,” pointed out that “abusive federal prosecutions” were destroying far more lives than LSD, the DEA’s pretexts for witch hunts. One enraged antidrug zealot howled to Newsday: “Obviously, James Bovard sees the world through the same haze many deadheads do,” and I was to blame for the “crime problem in this country” because I opposed holding people “accountable for their actions.” Flipside, a fan of the band denounced me for “perpetuating false stereotypes of Deadheads,” including the notion that they tended to be “aging hippies.” As Joe Biden would say, “C’mon, man!”

Later that year, I began hammering and lampooning drug warriors for Playboy. A November 1994 piece blasted the use of drug courier profiles (later a favorite topic for social justice warriors). A December 1994 headlined, “Oops -You’re Dead! No-Knock Raids” helped put that proliferating atrocity on the national radar screen (followed by a 2000 update). I also flogged asset forfeiture abuses, the informant scourge (“Uncle Scam Wants You”), the prison industrial complex, and the perverse sentencing guidelines that made talking about drugs worse than murder. In a piece with an evergreen theme, I detailed how kinfolk of members of Congress and other powerful Washingtonians routinely received wrist slaps or had their drug charges dismissed (Senator John McCain’s wife was a prize example). And some folks think that type of favoritism only began with Hunter Biden…

At the end of the 1990s, I turned to American Spectator to thump Clinton’s program that was deluging hundreds of square miles in Colombia with deadly pesticides to suppress coca production. The program got some bad press when U.S.-funded crop dusters repeatedly fumigated school children, sickening many of the kids. Clinton administration officials trumpeted their drug war salvation mission at the same time the wife of the U.S. military commander in Colombia was convicted for smuggling kilos of cocaine to New York. Luis Alberto Moreno, Colombia’s ambassador to the U.S., attacked a piece I wrote for the The Baltimore Sun. Moreno claimed the Clinton aid package was carefully targeted and would “strengthen law enforcement institutions and help protect human rights.” Alas, some of the torrent of U.S. aid was diverted to “carry out spying operations and smear campaigns against Supreme Court justices,” crippling the nation’s judiciary that was exposing mass-murdering paramilitary groups allied to the governing regime.

During the George W. Bush administration, I jibed his drug czar for demonizing drug users in federally funded TV ads and portraying people who bought drugs as terrorist financiers threatening America with annihilation. Federal drug warriors arrested cancer patients who smoked marijuana to control chemo-induced nausea and busted doctors who gave suffering patients more pain killers than the DEA preferred. I ridiculed the federal vendetta against comedian Tommy Chong (and again here last year) who was sent to prison for selling bongs. Shortly after his arrest in 2003, Chong scoffed at the nationwide raids to seize drug paraphernalia: “I feel pretty sad, but it seems to be the only weapons of mass destruction they’ve found this year.”

After the Global War on Terror and Bush’s invasion of Iraq spiraled out of control, I shifted my focus away from the drug war. I still got in an occasional slap. A decade ago, I lamented in USA Today: “Too many lives have already been destroyed so that politicians could win votes by appearing to be tough on crime.”

Since that first piece in the Herald Examiner, more than 10 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana violations. Many states have legalized marijuana possession but more people continue to be busted each year for marijuana offenses than for all violent crimes combined. The federal drug war continues with more drug fatalities than ever.

Actually, drug policy debates have become more depraved (if not demented) in recent years. During the 2020 election season, the media mostly portrayed Joe Biden as a progressive, compassionate alternative to President Donald Trump. But for decades, Biden had been the biggest drug warrior on Capitol Hill, championing policies that sent hundreds of thousands of Americans to prison. In a 2019 piece headlined “Joe Biden and the Era of Mass Incarceration,” The New York Times hyped Biden’s favorite fix: “Lock the S.O.B.s up!” (That article ran before Biden had a lock on the Democratic presidential nomination.) Republicans seem hellbent on out-boneheading Biden.  Republican presidential frontrunner Trump is now calling for death penalties for drug dealers. Trump has not yet specified what other Taliban-style reforms he will endorse. Several Republican presidential candidates are calling for invading Mexico to curb drug imports. Maybe these wizards don’t realize that Pancho Villa got away a long time ago.

Before I fired my first salvo at the war on drugs, I was captivated by a line from an 1839 essay by British historian Thomas Macaulay: “It is mere foolish cruelty to provide penalties which torment the criminal without preventing the crime.” That line remains the best summary of the folly and inhumanity of criminalizing victimless crimes.  As the Grateful Dead’s Jerry Garcia wrote, “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”

As I wrote in Lost Rights in 1994, “The war on drugs is essentially a civil war to uphold the principle that politicians should have absolute power over what citizens put into their own bodies.” But there is scant hope that politicians will forfeit any punitive power regardless of how many lives they continue to blight.

An earlier version of this piece was published by the Libertarian Institute

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit DemocracyThe Bush BetrayalTerrorism and Tyranny, and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at www.jimbovard.com  This essay was originally published by Future of Freedom Foundation.