CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK

Progressives Fume as Democrats Fold in Face of Trump's 'Corporate-Owned Cabinet'

"Defeating the MAGA movement does not require clever theories, it requires the hard work of opposition on behalf of the millions who will suffer at the hands of Trump's corporate Cabinet."


U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), with Democratic majority whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), speaks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol on December 3, 2024.
(Photo: Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jan 13, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The government watchdog group Revolving Door Project on Monday denounced Democratic lawmakers for the "perfunctory resistance" with which they appear to be preparing for confirmation hearings on President-elect Donald Trump's nominees to lead federal agencies, saying some in the party's upper ranks appear willing to allow far-right appointees to sail to top government positions without facing a true opposition party.

As Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) toldNOTUS on Monday, some of Trump's nominees are "objectionable," but others "are going to get bipartisan support."

Jeff Hauser, executive director of Revolving Door Project (RDP), acknowledged that with Republicans now holding 53 seats in the Senate and the Democratic Party holding 45, "Democrats do not have the votes to kill any of these nominations."

"But they do have the ability to begin drawing attention to the cronyism that will inevitably appear from within the Trump administration. Contrary to the party's current position, being able to say 'I told you so' is helpful to future success," said Hauser.

Democrats aren't ensuring they'll have the ability to say that, Hauser warned, as they signal little resistance "to the few Trump nominees so brazenly offputting that they draw nearly uniform skepticism."

"For all the Trump nominees not accused of killing a dog or committing heinous crimes, Democrats do not seem poised to offer even a whisper of resistance, no matter how unqualified," said Hauser.

"Democrats must find their inner populists and fight at all times, even in battles that they will almost certainly lose."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) held a meeting Monday with Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss the upcoming questioning of defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth this week, saying his upcoming confirmation hearing on Tuesday will provide the party an opportunity to attack the GOP's "brand." Hegseth has been accused of sexual assault, which he has denied.

But the party has not called attention to problems with nominees like Scott Bessent, Trump's treasury secretary nominee, or Chris Wright, the fracking CEO who has denied the climate emergency and whom Trump picked to run the Department of Energy (DOE).

"Senate Democrats have failed to question how Scott Bessent's experience of running a second-tier hedge fund with declining assets under management qualifies him to hold one of the most powerful economic policymaking in the world," said Hauser. "Or how Chris Wright's experience as an unhinged plutocrat out of touch with scientific reality would qualify him to manage some of the world's most important laboratories."

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told NOTUS that Democrats are prepared to use the confirmation hearings to answer the question: "Are they fighting for Americans, or are they going to fight for the kind of cronyism politics that's really hurt this place?"


"I want to support nominees that are going to really fight for the American people, not fight for special interests, not fight for rich people, not fight to take away our freedoms," he told NOTUS.

But with nominees like hedge fund manager Bessent, former corporate lobbyist Pam Bondi for attorney general, cryptocurrency promoter Howard Lutnick for commerce secretary, and Medicare Advantage proponent Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Hauser said Democrats shouldn't act as though the nominees' conflicts of interest and loyalty to the wealthy are a question.

"Every senior Trump administration official will have the discretion to exercise presidential authority on behalf of corporate interests in ways that will hurt ordinary Americans. Workers, consumers, breathers of air—every typical American is at risk from the most corporate captured set of nominees in American history," said Hauser. "Democrats should be telling this story now, not only to raise alarms ahead of the inauguration, but to be able to tell a compelling story about what went wrong and why when things inevitably decline across so many critical fronts in the next few years."

Instead, Booker told NOTUS that the party is "not looking to make this partisanship or tribalism."

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), for his part, met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and told NOTUS his plan going into confirmation hearings is "to listen." He has expressed support for secretary of state nominee Marco Rubioubio, United Nations ambassador nominee Elisa StefanikStefanik, and transportation secretary nominee Sean Duffy.


"Senate Democrats are seeking strategic retreat wherever possible, convinced that 'opposition' is a bad strategy for the opposition party," Hauser warned.


In a post at RDP's Substack newsletter, research assistant KJ Boyle wrote that the problem with Booker and Fetterman's approach "is that Trump's picks are partisan, chosen for their loyalty both to him and the moneyed interests they'll ostensibly be tasked with overseeing. Now is not the time to sit back and listen. It's time to make a big stink about how unqualified and dangerous these nominees are, and explain how that will translate to real world consequences that harm everyday people."

The group plans to release suggested questions for Democrats to ask at each of the confirmation hearings in the coming days; Boyle started with Wright, interior secretary nominee Doug Burgum, and Office of Management and Budget director nominee Russell Vought.

He suggested senators ask Wright about his former company, trade association Western Energy Alliance, and its public comment opposing energy efficiency standards for gas stoves.

"The public comment erroneously claimed the DOE's rule was 'intended to ban new gas stoves and compel a transition to electric,' rather than a commonsense rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers money," Boyle wrote in a suggested question. "Moreover, are you aware that approximately 13% of childhood asthma cases can be attributed to nitrogen dioxide exposure from gas stoves? Do you believe the federal government has no role in protecting our children from exposure to these hazardous airborne pollutants?"

Boyle suggested senators ask Vought about his record of budget cuts that have harmed low-income families, and ask Burgum why he opposed a rule requiring coal plants to reduce mercury emissions, which are linked to heart attacks, cancer, and developmental delays in children.

"Why do you think that the coal industry should be given handouts and allowed to make people sick?" Boyle suggested senators ask.

Hauser said that Democrats' electoral defeat in November has left them "doubling down on an ostrich-like strategy of hiding their heads until Donald Trump goes away."

"But the MAGA movement will not go away on its own, it will have to be defeated," he said. "Defeating the MAGA movement does not require clever theories, it requires the hard work of opposition on behalf of the millions who will suffer at the hands of Trump's corporate Cabinet. Democrats must find their inner populists and fight at all times, even in battles that they will almost certainly lose."

"There is never a better opportunity to find an opposition's voice," he said, "than when a would-be populist president appoints a corporate-owned Cabinet."

Amazon Quietly Rescinds Pledges to Protect Black and LGBTQ Rights HUMAN RIGHTS

“Seeing DEI being rolled back so aggressively by so many companies is jarring,” said LGBTQ researcher Allison Chapman.

By Zane McNeill , TruthoutPublishedJanuary 13, 2025

 Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Amazon has quietly removed commitments to protecting the rights of Black and LGBTQ people from its publicly listed corporate policies. This change comes as part of broader corporate rollbacks of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, seemingly aligning with the GOP’s far right agenda and signaling a disregard for the safety of marginalized communities ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration later this month.

President-elect Donald Trump has been an outspoken critic of DEI programs and recently appointed Stephen Miller, founder of America First Legal Foundation — a group that actively opposes corporate DEI initiatives — as his deputy chief of staff for policy. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

In a December 16, 2024 memo to employees, Candi Castleberry, Amazon’s vice president of Inclusive Experiences and Technology, announced that the company would also be phasing out “outdated programs and materials” as part of a comprehensive review of hundreds of company initiatives, which includes scaling back some of its diversity and inclusion efforts.

Never miss another story

Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day.

Email*









“Seeing DEI being rolled back so aggressively by so many companies is jarring,” LGBTQ legislative researcher Allison Chapman told Truthout. “While I have always believed that we are not going to be saved by rainbow capitalism, it is shocking how quickly years of work have been erased, even before Trump takes office.”

This decision by Amazon reflects a broader trend of companies retreating from their DEI commitments. Recently, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, joined John Deere, Harley Davidson, Walmart and McDonald’s in curtailing its DEI initiatives.

Related Story

Continuing Rightward Shift, Zuckerberg Cancels All Diversity Programs at Meta
The move is the latest of the Meta CEO’s seeming efforts to cozy up to Donald Trump and reactionary forces. By Brett Wilkins ,  Common Dreams January 12, 2025

Meta is also currently facing backlash from LGBTQ groups for ending its third-party fact-checking program and reducing its enforcement of policies on hate speech and abuse. “In one week, [Meta has] dismantled an entire history of brand-safety best practices, consumer trust, and most importantly, user safety. These changes will harm users and make Meta’s platforms unsafe for everyone,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement on Meta’s policy changes. “Meta is now an anti-LGBTQ company.”

Apple, meanwhile, has taken a different approach. The company is currently urging shareholders to vote against a proposal to eliminate its DEI programs brought by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, which is arguing that DEI efforts expose companies to “litigation, reputational, and financial risks.”

Despite efforts by conservative activists and groups like the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty to undermine DEI programs through boycotts and legal challenges, compliance with DEI principles actually helps organizations align with anti-discrimination laws, thereby minimizing the risk of legal disputes. Companies like Starbucks and McDonald’s implemented DEI initiatives following high-profile incidents of racial bias in an attempt to address potential legal and reputational liabilities. On the other hand, eliminating or scaling back DEI programs often results in significant reputational damage and financial losses for organizations.

In a notice to shareholders, Apple’s board advised investors to vote against the proposal, stating that the company already has appropriate compliance procedures in place to address potential risks. The board said that the anti-DEI proposal “inappropriately attempts to restrict Apple’s ability to manage its own ordinary business operations, people and teams, and business strategies.”

“Unfortunately, I expect Apple to be the outlier and not the norm as I suspect we will see more and more companies dropping their DEI initiatives,” Chapman told Truthout.

The anti-DEI proposal is scheduled for a vote at Apple’s annual general meeting on February 25.

“America’s Stamp Is Everywhere” on Bomb Shells in Gaza, Report Finds


“There is a linkage between every single bomb that is dropped in Gaza and the U.S.,” one former official said.

By Sharon Zhang , 

Truthout

January 13, 2025

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken attends a UN Security Council meeting on Sudan at the UN headquarters in New York on December 19, 2024.

Former U.S. officials have spoken out about the Biden administration’s deep complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, highlighting that the assault would not be possible without U.S. assistance and that the State Department is censoring those within the agency who speak out against it.

In a new interview with “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, Josh Paul, who formerly oversaw arms shipment approvals within the State Department, said that the U.S. is implicated in every bombing in the Gaza Strip. Paul resigned from his position shortly after the genocide began on October 7, 2023, citing the U.S.’s staunch support of Israel as it carpet bombed Gaza.

“Most of the bombs come from America. Most of the technology comes from America. And all of the fighter jets, all of Israel’s fixed-wing fleet comes from America,” Paul said. “There is a linkage between every single bomb that is dropped in Gaza and the U.S. because every single bomb that is dropped is dropped from an American-made plane.”

Just according to publicly reported figures, the U.S. sent Israel $18 billion in military assistance in the first year of the genocide — a record figure for U.S. aid to Israel. Last year, the Biden administration also announced a $20 billion sale of more weapons to Israel, with $18.8 billion of the sale representing F-15 fighter jets and jet parts.

Then, this month, the Biden administration announced yet another planned sale of thousands of weapons to Israel, totalling $8 billion, including bombs and artillery shells — even as human rights groups like Amnesty International are warning that Israel is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Experts have long said that U.S. officials are risking complicity in these alleged crimes by sending Israel weapons without red lines.

Related Story

Israel Killed 74 Children in Gaza in First Week of 2025
The children are among at least 332 Palestinians killed by Israeli attacks since the beginning of the year. By Sharon Zhang , Truthout January 8, 2025

“60 Minutes” aired footage from May in which American shell casings, printed with “U.S.A.” on the side, are present all over Gaza. The footage showed how Palestinians have even resorted to using the massive ammunition casings to prop up makeshift tents and clotheslines in displacement camps.

“Across this now-decimated 25 mile long strip of land, America’s stamp is everywhere,” the program’s host said.

Israel has destroyed the vast majority of Gaza’s infrastructure in over 15 months of genocide. The official death count, as tallied by Gaza health officials, is over 46,000 people, but researchers have estimated in an article published in The Lancet last week that the true toll from violent death alone could be well over 70,000 people.

Meanwhile, Israel’s humanitarian blockade is causing an unknown number of deaths due to starvation and disease. Experts, advocates and lawmakers have long said that the blockade violates international humanitarian law and renders the Israeli military ineligible to receive U.S. assistance, but the U.S. is reportedly purposefully sweeping aside these reports in order to continue sending Israel weapons.

Former U.S. Diplomat Hala Rharrit said in an interview with “60 Minutes” that she was actively censored by U.S. officials when she spoke up about Gaza. She said that, in daily reports she sent to higher ups, she “would show the complicity that was indisputable,” like images of U.S. bomb shells next to dead Palestinian children.

“When you tried to speak out, vocalize what you saw happening in Gaza, you feel like you were told to shut up?” asked “60 Minutes”’s Cecilia Vega.

“Yes,” responded Rharrit, who also resigned shortly after the genocide began in October 2023. “I would show images of children that were starved to death. In one incident, I was basically berated [by a superior] — ‘don’t put that image in there. We don’t want to see it. We don’t want to see that the children are starving to death.’”

Paul similarly said that U.S. officials are operating as though Israel’s atrocities in Gaza are a nonissue and should not be cited to interrupt the flow of weapons.

“After October 7th, there was no space for debate or discussion,” said Paul. “I was part of email chains where there were very clear directions saying, ‘Here are the latest requests from Israel. These need to be approved by 3 p.m.’”

In 60 Minutes Interview, Ex-State Dept. Officials Spotlight US Complicity in Gaza Assault

"There is a linkage between every single bomb that is dropped in Gaza and the U.S.," said one former official.


A former State Department official Hala Rharrit speaks during the press conference held by doctors who returned from Gaza at the Council on American-Islamic Relations headquarters in Washington DC, United States on December 9, 2024.
(Photo: Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Jan 13, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

In a Sunday interview with 60 Minutes, former State Department officials spoke with journalist Cecilia Vega and offered a window into how the United States has greased the wheels of carnage in Gaza.

Hala Rharrit, an American diplomat who spent 18 years working on human rights and counterterrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, left her post last spring—becoming the first State Department diplomat to publicly resign over the Biden administration's policies backing Israel's siege on Gaza, according to Democracy Now!.

Rharrit would send daily reports to senior leadership in Washington containing "gruesome images and her warnings," according to 60 Minutes. "I would show the complicity that was indisputable. Fragments of U.S. bombs next to massacres of... mostly children," Rharrit recounted.

Here's what else Rharrit had to say:
Cecilia Vega: When you tried to speak out, vocalize what you saw.... like you were told to shut up?

Hala Rharrit: Yes. I would show images of children that were starved to death. In one incident, I was basically berated, "Don't put that image in there. We don't wanna see it. We don't wanna see that the children are starving to death."

Cecilia Vega: Who told you that?

Hala Rharrit: A colleague.

The United States has offered largely unchecked support for Israel since Hamas fighters attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, prompting Israel to launch attacks on the Gaza Strip. The U.S. has provided Israel with at least $17.9 billion in military aid to its ally in the Middle East, and in early January the State Department informed Congress of a planned $8 billion arms sale. Local health officials in Gaza say the death toll in the enclave stands at over 46,000. However, a recently published peer-reviewed analysis estimates that Israel's assault on Gaza had actually killed 64,260 people between October 7, 2023 and June 30, 2024—a figure significantly higher than the one reported by the enclave's health ministry.

Meanwhile, multiple human rights organizations have said that Israel's conduct in Gaza constitutes genocide or acts of genocide.

60 Minutes tallies that 13 officials in the White House, Army, and State Department have publicly resigned in protest.

"There is a linkage between every single bomb that is dropped in Gaza and the U.S. because every single bomb that is dropped is dropped from an American-made plane," Josh Paul, a former director in the State Department's Bureau of Political - Military Affairs who resigned shortly after October 7, told 60 Minutes.

"After October 7th, there was no space for debate or discussion. I was part of email chains where there were very clear directions saying, 'Here are the latest requests from Israel. These need to be approved by 3:00 pm,'" said Paul, who was involved in signing off on U.S. security assistance to other countries.

Andrew Miller, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, resigned last June to spend more time with his family, but has since gone public with concerns about U.S.'s role in the war—the highest ranking official to do so thus far, according to 60 Minutes.

In reference to 2,000-pound bombs that the U.S. has supplied to Israel, Miller said that "the Israelis were using those bombs in some instances to target one or two individuals in densely packed areas. And in enough instances, we saw that was in question, how Israel was using it. And those weapons were suspended."

The U.S. suspended a shipment of 2,000 pound bombs to Israel in spring 2024, though in general weapons have continued to flow.

Reacting to Miller’s comments that Israel bombed densely packed areas, one observer wrote Sunday: “60 Minutes is finally exposing the supply chain of genocide.”

There’s Much to Say About Economics of War, But Most Economists Won’t Address It

Traditional economics virtually ignores war, even though economic triggers directly contribute to conflicts.

By C.J. Polychroniou , 

Truthout

January 13, 2025

Firefighters work at a site after a Russian missile attack on December 20, 2024, in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Oleksii Samsonov / Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images


Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

“Economic policies have profound effects on the tensions within and between countries — tensions that can lead to war,” renowned progressive economist James K. Boyce remarked to me recently, adding that economics is in part “about plunder … and plunder sometimes morphs into war.”

Given that economic triggers clearly contribute to conflicts, why is war a topic largely neglected by the economics profession?

In the interview that follows, Boyce explains why war is ignored by most economists; dissects the link between economics and war, and more specifically capitalism’s relationship to war and conflict; and discusses the role that economics can play in peacebuilding.

James K. Boyce is professor emeritus of economics and senior fellow of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is the author of Investing in Peace: Aid and Conditionality after Civil Wars and editor of Peace and the Public Purse: Economic Policies for Postwar Statebuilding and Economic Policy for Building Peace: The Lessons of El Salvador. He received the 2024 Global Inequality Research Award and the 2017 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. This interview is based on his seven-part video series released by the Institute for New Economic Thinking in October 2024.

C. J. Polychroniou: War and peace are topics studied by scholars in the fields of political science and international affairs and largely ignored by economists. But in a series of lectures available from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, you argue that economic theory has a lot to offer. So, start by telling us how economics can help us analyze war and peace yet why mainstream economists think that war and peace are not an “economic” problem.

The Global South Is on the Brink of a Disastrous Debt Crisis. Reform Is Urgent.
The coming debt crisis will surpass that of the 1980s and disproportionately impact women, economist Ilene Grabel warns. 

By C.J. Polychroniou , Truthout December 15, 2024

James K. Boyce: Let me start with the second part of your question: why, despite the long history of wars and their terrible consequences for human well-being and economies, this topic is neglected today by most economists.

One basic reason is that rather than starting from observed reality and then trying to make sense of it, orthodox economics starts from theory and then tries to squeeze reality into it. Whatever doesn’t fit is dismissed as “non-economic.” This is what I call the “shrug” response: War is somebody else’s problem.

The other response is to concede that economics may be relevant to the dynamics of war and peace, but then to claim the way to minimize violent conflict is to stick to business-as-usual policy prescriptions focused on efficiency and growth. This is what I call the “smug” response: Economics matters, but there is no need for rethinking.

The videos discuss why, in my view, these responses are inadequate and irresponsible. In truth, economic policies have profound effects on the tensions within and between countries — tensions that can lead to war. They also can affect the success of efforts to build a durable peace. Of course, economics is not the whole story. But neither is it wholly immaterial.

As to how economics can help us to analyze war and peace, one key point is that we must pay attention to not only the size of the economic pie but also how it is sliced. This includes not only vertical inequality, the distribution of wealth and income between rich and poor, as measured for example by the Gini coefficient, but also horizontal inequality, the distribution of wealth and income across lines of ethnicity, region, race and religion that often form the fault lines of conflict.

Carl von Clausewitz’s most famous saying is that war is the continuation of politics by other means. According to his thinking, war occurs as states pursue goals that clash with the goals of other states. What else can economics tell us about why wars occur?

One could also say that politics is the continuation of economics by other means. This is evident once we realize that economics involves more than the textbook fantasy world of perfectly competitive markets with perfectly defined property rights. Economics is also about plunder, the seizure of resources and the control of market choke points. And plunder sometimes morphs into war.

In neoclassical economic theory, plunder is ruled out by assumption: The theory begins an initial distribution of “endowments,” in effect, property rights that fall from the sky. This distribution, together with preferences and technology (likewise typically taken to be exogenous) determines what will be produced and who will consume it. In the real world, however, people devote a lot of time and effort to battles over the control of property, as any lawyer will tell you.

In Marxian economic theory, plunder is seen as having played a crucial role during the “rosy dawn of primitive accumulation” before the industrial era, when fortunes were acquired by theft, enslavement and expropriation. But during the 19th century the engine of wealth accumulation shifted to the appropriation of the surplus value produced by wage labor, and the main axis of conflict became the struggle over the division of output between capital and labor. Yet in practice, conflicts over land, minerals, and other forms of property remain a common feature of economic life even in the advanced industrialized economies, and these conflicts are ubiquitous in many former colonies like the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In addition to struggles over control of resources, we also see constant struggles over control of markets. Monopolies and oligopolies yield profits well above what would prevail in a textbook world of perfect competition. Choke points are especially lucrative in markets for essential commodities like oil and minerals and in key technologies like software and semiconductors.

Both sorts of plunder — via appropriation of resources and control of markets — are ruled out as long as economic theory is based only on free exchanges among consenting adults. Instead, they involve the coercive power of the state, the manipulation and subversion of legal frameworks, and chicanery as well as outright theft. In the words of Woody Guthrie, the great American folksinger, “Some rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.”

Greed is often seen as a cause of war in modern times. But is it because people are greedy or because they are capitalist that conflict and wars occur? Aren’t capitalism and war linked?

Well, yes. Economies and wars are linked, and most people live today in capitalist economies. But wars happened long before capitalism, and it would be naïve to assume that without it wars would disappear. Capitalism is distinctive, however, in that its ideological cheerleaders sometimes extoll greed as a positive virtue. It is hard to imagine the phrase “greed is good” gaining moral traction in other societies. But even under capitalism, calling a person greedy typically is not meant as a compliment.

One of the videos in the series describes a research project on the economics of violent conflict that was launched in the late 1990s by the World Bank. The project aimed to assess the respective roles of greed and grievance as drivers of civil war. Opportunities for the plunder of natural resources were found to be a strong predictor of conflict, and this was seen as evidence that greed is a key cause of war.

Grievance, for which vertical income inequality was taken as a proxy variable, was initially found to be relatively unimportant. But this was partly due to how inequality was conceptualized. For understanding the roots of war, we must look at not only vertical inequality — overall gaps between rich and poor — but also horizontal inequality.

Greed and grievance can feed each other. The greedy behavior of kleptocrats, oligarchs and their cronies leads to grievances among the public, and these provide fertile ground for the rise of rebel leaders who then pursue their own opportunistic, greed-driven agendas. Both greed and grievance are important in the dismal science of war.

What role can economics play in peacebuilding, and what do you see as the main obstacles to investing in peace?

In war-torn societies, economic recovery is crucial in building a durable peace. The prospect of a “peace dividend” — economic benefits after the cessation of hostilities — often serves as an important incentive for warring parties to come to a negotiated settlement that falls short of their ultimate political objectives.

That said, it is not enough simply to rebuild infrastructure and reboot growth. How the economic fruits of recovery are distributed within and between the opposing sides also matters greatly. For external assistance to contribute effectively to peacebuilding, other choices matter greatly, too: whether the aid helps to build a legitimate and effective state or instead has the effect of undermining statebuilding; whether goods and services needed for projects are procured locally or imported from overseas; and what formal and informal conditions are attached to the provision of aid. I discuss these in the videos.

In the last episode, I identify four important obstacles to investing in peace. One is that the commercial and geopolitical aims of aid donors do not necessarily align with the needs of peacebuilding. Second, the internal incentive structures of aid agencies, where the emphasis is on “approval and disbursement,” impedes the careful calibration of aid disbursements as a carrot to advance the peace process. A third obstacle lies in the ideological biases of policymakers, especially economists, who focus on “efficiency” — defined simplistically as a larger economic pie — to the exclusion of other considerations, including how the pie is sliced. The final obstacle is that aid recipients sometimes object to peace conditionality, claiming that it infringes on “national sovereignty,” as if aid otherwise would not have political impacts. These obstacles are not insuperable, but the first step in dealing with them is to face them squarely.

Tooth Decay Rose in Canadian Cities Without Fluoride. RFK Wants This for the US.


Montreal residents say a petition by RFK, the US health secretary nominee, stoked their city’s rejection of fluoride.

By Nora Loreto ,

Truthout

January 13, 2025

Dental students, working as volunteers, attend to patients at a mobile dental and medical clinic on October 7, 2023, in Grundy, Virginia.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

It’s not uncommon for Canadian dentist Brandon Doucet to see patients who are in so much pain that they’ve tried to extract their own teeth.

As a dental student, Doucet was inspired by Bernie Sanders’s first presidential campaign and realized that he needed to take action where he was, in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 2019, Doucet founded a group called the Coalition for Dental Care to advocate for public access to dental health care in Canada.

Canada’s public dental care spending is abysmal: Just 6 percent of all dental spending is public, which puts the country second to last of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). At 6 percent, Canada spends almost half of what the United States spends (10 percent). Compare that to the highest spenders in the world — Japan, at 77 percent and Germany, at 64 percent — and Canada’s public dental spending is downright shameful.

Access to dental care is skewed by income. Lower-income Canadians have nearly double the rate of untreated need for oral care than higher-income Canadians have, and lower-income families have outcomes that are two times worse (more dental disease, more pain, more time off work) than higher-income Canadians.

In 2024, the Liberal Party of Canada created the Canadian Dental Care Plan, the country’s first national, public dental care program. Spending on this program will bring Canada close to the OECD average of 32 percent, Doucet says. But as the program onboards more and more people in a phased rollout, debates about what Doucet calls the easiest public health intervention for oral health — fluoride in drinking water — swirl at municipal councils. And in the past few months, these debates have reignited thanks to spurious claims made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been tapped by Donald Trump to lead the U.S.’s Department of Health and Human Services.

No More Fluoridation in Montreal

On November 27, 2024, the City of Montreal announced that it would no longer add fluoride to drinking water at two of the city’s water treatment plants, Pointe-Claire and Dorval. They processed just 5 percent of the city’s drinking water and were among the very few locations in the province that still fluorinated its water in Quebec. The vast majority of the province (99 percent) does not put fluoride in its water.

Fluoride has long been accepted as the most efficient way to ensure a base-level access to improved dental health for the whole of a population. Even so, curiously absent in the announcement made by the City of Montreal regarding its decision to end fluoridation is any mention of health. While the statement questions the impact of fluoride on aquatic and marine life, it explains, “After a rigorous assessment of the technical, operational and economic data, the agglomeration council decided on November 21, 2024 to discontinue the fluoridation process at the Pointe-Claire and Dorval drinking water production plants.” A 1990 study of the possible impact of water fluoridation on the St. Lawrence River found that it would have no measurable impact on aquatic life.

A City of Montreal spokesperson declined an interview request, sharing instead the November 27 statement in French.

Fluoride was never added to drinking water to improve technical, operation or economic performance — its principal purpose was to reduce the prevalence of dental caries (tooth decay). Fluoride is known to cut the prevalence of tooth decay among children by 25 percent.


Ultimately, the argument over fluoride is less about the conspiracy theories of a few, and more about money and jurisdiction: who saves money, how much, who spends it and who manages the infrastructure.

Almost three-quarters of all U.S. residents have access to fluoridated water, but just 38.8 percent of Canadians do. Between 98.5 percent and 100 percent of the residents of Quebec, British Columbia, Yukon, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have no access to fluoride in their drinking water. Whether to fluoridate drinking water has been a long-standing debate raging in municipalities across Canada for decades, driven by different political arguments. The Public Health Agency of Canada declined to be interviewed for this piece.

Disinformation Drives Discussion

Why did the issue resurface in Montreal last year? Local journalists and politicians pointed to a petition circulated by an RFK Jr.-influenced far right activist in Montreal as the catalyst. Ray Coelho, longtime opponent of fluoride and one-time candidate for a far right fringe party, claimed credit for the decision in the Montreal Gazette.

RFK Jr. has suggested that fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, is akin to industrial waste — a falsehood often repeated by anti-fluoride activists quoted in Canadian media. He claims that fluoride is “associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.”

As with most (if not all) minerals, consuming high amounts of fluoride is bad for human health — there’s a reason why we are told not to swallow our toothpaste, after all. But the amount put into drinking water systems is far lower than the threshold shown to cause side effects. There is overwhelming consensus among oral health professionals that fluoridation is an important and safe public health intervention. When contacted by Truthout, the Canadian Dental Association (CDA) shared a November 26, 2024, statement on its current position on fluoride, which says: “CDA closely monitors scientific developments and remains confident in the current consensus, which is based on evidence provided by quality research, that fluoridation at optimal levels poses no risk to cognitive health, including IQ. Studies suggesting a link between fluoride and cognitive decline are often limited by methodological flaws, and their findings do not apply to the optimal fluoride levels used in Canada (0.7 mg/L), which are carefully regulated by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.”

The statement was released just days after the decision made in Montreal’s Pointe-Claire borough.

Yet many Canadian cities are moving in the opposite direction after years of not fluoridating their water has resulted in an increase in oral disease.
Some Cities Return to Fluoride, But Municipalities Face Budget Constraints

Aimee Dawson, a dentist and dentistry professor at Laval University in Quebec City, points to Calgary and Edmonton as two cities that have offered a real-life test in the utility of water fluoridation. She said that there was a clear increase in the number of dental caries that were being treated in Calgary when the city stopped fluoridation in 2011, as compared to Edmonton, which still fluoridates its drinking water. Researchers found that among two cohorts of grade-two children in both cities, the ones in Edmonton had a 55.1 percent prevalence of dental caries while the ones in Calgary had a 64.8 percent prevalence.

And indeed, the impact on public health has been dramatic: After Calgary ended fluoridation, 700 percent more children needed intravenous antibiotics to avoid fatal dental infection. The city is now working to upgrade systems to turn the fluoride back on in 2025 after citizens mobilized to add it back.

The municipal council of Kingston, Ontario, is also in favor of reintroducing fluoride to the water, despite the efforts of local anti-fluoride activists. A spokesperson from Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health said that the authority has seen a “significant and concerning rise in tooth decay among children.” The City of Windsor, Ontario, readded fluoride to its system in 2022 after it was stopped in 2013 and dentists saw a subsequent increase in tooth decay among children.

Some critics of fluoride point to Canada’s new dental program as one reason why fluoride is no longer needed. If fluoride is intended to improve the oral health of all Canadians, the most impoverished included, then this new program targeted to poorer Canadians should be all we need, they argue.

But the Canada Dental Benefit isn’t a replacement for fluoridated water. Doucet argues that even with Canada’s new dental care program, the lowest-income people are still unlikely to access dental services — if you live in a community with no dentist, the program won’t help. This is why community fluoridation is such an important intervention: It can help everyone.

While municipal councilors debate the issue, Dawson reminds us, “Water fluoridation is demonstrated to reduce the number of tooth surfaces affected by dental caries. This [public dental care] initiative of the federal government will do that for certain people, but probably not for the people with the greatest need.”

“Every $1 spent on community water fluoridation will save … anywhere between $15 and $35 in reduced dental decay needing to be treated,” Doucet says. “And the dental decay that is reduced is disproportionately in poorer communities who often struggle accessing dental care.”

It isn’t just cost savings, of course. Fluoridation also gives people a stronger start to their oral health, which goes a long way to maintain their oral health over the rest of their lives.

Ultimately, the argument over fluoride is less about the conspiracy theories of a few, and more about money and jurisdiction: who saves money, how much, who spends it and who manages the infrastructure. While the Canadian Dental Care Plan is a federal program, oral health is mostly the responsibility of the provinces. Fluoride, meanwhile, is the responsibility of the groups that manage local water systems, which are mostly municipalities. With 3,342 water treatment facilities in Canada, all managed by local boards or politicians, that’s a lot of different bodies that all have to balance financial pressures and public health through water fluoridation. Dawson says that because decisions are made at the municipal level, “the people making those decisions don’t necessarily have the background, staff with the scientific expertise necessary or the training to make that decision.”

Indeed, in 2021, the water authority in Halifax and Dartmouth stopped adding fluoride consistently to the water but didn’t tell anyone. It was revealed in 2024 that the agency stopped adding it while doing repairs to water infrastructure. The water agency has since promised to inform the province’s association of dentists the next time it decides to quietly stop fluoridating water, and that it should be back in the water sometime in 2025.

Fluoridation costs money, as referenced by the City of Montreal. In Calgary it will cost $28 million to reintroduce fluoride and then $1 million each year to maintain it. In Windsor, it was expected to cost $850,000 to reintroduce it and then an annual maintenance cost of $150,000.

As municipal budgets are increasingly stressed, many communities will decide that fluoridation is just not worth it. And, aided by disinformation campaigns, the decision to avoid fluoridation becomes easier than following the science and adding it to community water systems.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Nora Loreto is a writer and activist based in Quebec City. She is also the president of the Canadian Freelance Union.

'Alarming': Violent attacks on WV teachers are most frequently in kindergarten classrooms

Teacher At Montessori School Reading To Children At Story Time (Shutterstock).

Amelia Ferrell Knisely, 

West Virginia Watch

January 13, 2025

The highest rate of battery on a school employee from a child is occurring in West Virginia’s kindergarten classrooms — an alarming statistics that the state schools superintendent said is tied to the state’s multigenerational drug epidemic.

State Superintendent of Schools Michele Blatt told lawmakers that 19% of battery cases were in kindergarten classes, and the number drastically dropped off as children moved up in grade levels.

“I don’t believe that we have kindergartners who are doing this out of willful intent to harm someone,” said Blatt, who spoke with lawmakers Jan. 7 at the state Capitol. “As we are thinking about these students, we know that we’re dealing with either students who are born addicted to alcohol or drugs. We’re dealing with students who are being raised by parents who are addicted to one of those substances.”

Del. Joe Statler, R-Monongalia, said the number of violent incidents was likely much larger than the data reported.

“These numbers are alarming to say the least,” he said.

West Virginia’s overdose rate is declining since its spike during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the state continues to lead the nation in overdose death rates and has the highest number of babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. Fetal drug exposure is tied to a higher likelihood of mental disorders, adverse behavior problems and needing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).

Lawmakers are grappling with how to help elementary teachers address an uptick in violent and disruptive student behavior.

Teachers told lawmakers that they need more staff to help these children, who sometimes spend their school day in the principal’s office because there’s nowhere to put them. Test scores won’t improve until it’s addressed, educators said.

Many counties don’t have alternative learning centers for young students, and Blatt said creating those spaces must be a priority.

“What are we going to do with those students when those supports aren’t enough? Where is that alternative education placement? … I do believe in most instances, if we can get the proper supports and treatments in place for those students, and the support for those teachers in the classroom, then for many of these children we can change their trajectory,” she said.

Senate Education Committee Chair Amy Grady, R-Mason, has proposed asking counties to use their opioid settlement funds to build alternative environments.

The second highest rate of battery on a teacher (13% of incidents) occurred in third grade classrooms.

Blatt said that many children had never been taught how to behave in a classroom.

“We are truly dealing with students where no one has ever taught them how to behave in school or how to behave in any situation. Many of them have physical issues from the addictions they were born with,” she said.
Lawmakers will try again on student discipline bill


Blatt updated lawmakers on the West Virginia Department of Education’s STRIVE Initiative, which is meant to bolster schools’ resources for addressing kids’ behavioral health, chronic absenteeism and more. It offers financial resources, alternative learning programs, behavioral support and more.

“The STRIVE model is to make sure that not only do have have a touch point with what’s going on in all of our counties and what their needs are, but also that they are aware of all the resources that are available to them to support, whether it’s academic, social, emotional or behavioral needs,” Blatt said.

Additionally, the WVDE will work with Marshall Behavior/Mental Health Technical Assistance Center to examine seven schools with an excessive amount of battery on a school employee.

“While there were 511 of these incidents, we’re looking at 131 students. If you look at the data … what we’re finding is there’s a lot of incidents of the same child repeatedly,” Blatt said. “Whatever’s being done with that student to address those concerns, their needs are not being met, and we need to find a different way to address those needs.”

Del. Buck Jennings, R-Preston, said that discipline was one of “our biggest issues.”

“I hope you can come up with an answer that’s more than having another group study,” he said.

Lawmakers last year failed to pass legislation that would have given elementary teachers greater authority to remove students for disruptive, aggressive or violent behaviors. It outlined steps for how schools should deal with students who needed to be removed from their classrooms. Critics of the bill worried that it didn’t do enough to help address children’s mental health needs, and they noted that it didn’t come with funding to hire additional staff or create alternative learning spaces.

Some version of the elementary discipline legislation is expected to be considered during the upcoming 60-day legislative session. It begins Feb. 12.

West Virginia Watch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. West Virginia Watch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Leann Ray for questions: info@westvirginiawatch.com.

Translating fiction: How AI could assist humans in expanding access to global literature and culture

Photo by Sebastien LE DEROUT on Unsplash

The Conversation
January 10, 2025

News that Dutch publishing house Veen Bosch & Keuning (VBK) has confirmed plans to experiment using AI to translate fiction has stirred up a thought-provoking debate. Some believe it marks the beginning of the end for human translators, while others see this as the opening up of a new world of possibilities to bring more literature to even more people. These arguments are becoming increasingly vocal as the advance of AI accelerates at an ever-increasing rate.

This debate interests me as my work examines the intersections of art, ethics, technology and culture, and I have published research in areas of emerging technologies, particularly in relation to human enhancement.

Across every new technology, debate centres on what we stand to lose by embracing change and, with AI, this echoes the developments in the recent history of genetic science. But somehow, when we meddle with culture and human history, it can seem that something even more fundamental than DNA is at stake.

Fiction translation, with its intricate language, emotional undertones and nuances, has traditionally been the domain of skilled human translators. But this initiative to use AI in fiction translation may be an early foray into disrupting what is often considered the last bastion of humanity’s most remarkable – and perhaps irreplaceable – achievement: the ability to express complex human sentiments through words.

As such, the decision to use AI to translate books raises an important question that speaks to the core of our concerns about how AI could take precedence over human endeavour: can a machine capture the nuances that give fiction its depth, or is it simply too complex for an algorithm?

In defence of the human, language – especially in literature – isn’t just about words. It’s about cultural context, subtext and the distinct voice of the writer. As such, only a human who understands both languages and cultures could accurately translate the heart of a story without losing its essence.

Yet machine learning has made extraordinary strides in understanding language, best evidenced by the latest version of ChatGPT, which includes an audio conversational agent.

We seem to be at a point in the development of AI where its capabilities in using language adequately approximate human functionality in a wide range of circumstances, from customer service chatbots, to a growing number of health diagnostic tools. Even the World Health Organization has created and deployed an AI “health worker” using a conversational platform.

Of course, it’s also true that human translators, despite their expertise, sometimes miss nuances or make errors. And there’s an enduring belief among scholars and literary purists that to truly understand an author’s intent, one must read them in the original language.

Learning every language to read every book is, of course, impractical. But not understanding a particular language can exclude us from discovering great works of native literature that may never be translated into our own languages. For this reason, we might advance a social justice argument for using AI translation to radically expand access to insights from many cultures and their varied languages. On this basis, AI translation is more morally problematic to withhold than to allow.

This is where AI translation holds promise: expanding access to literature for those who might otherwise never have the chance to engage with it.

The potential here is vast. Only a small fraction of the world’s literature is ever translated. If AI could increase that, then it would broaden access to diverse voices and ideas, enriching the global literary landscape. And for works that might never find a human translator due to cost, language or niche appeal, AI could be the only viable way to bring works to new audiences.

Of course, the rise of AI in translation is not without its downsides. If AI replaces human translators, we risk losing not only their craft but also their insights and the cultural understanding they bring. And while it’s easy to argue that AI should only be used for works that wouldn’t otherwise be translated, it could still undermine the economic viability of human translation, further reducing demand for human translators.

But it doesn’t have to be an either/or scenario. AI could serve as a tool to augment, not replace, human translators. Translators could be involved in refining AI models, ensuring higher accuracy and quality, and curating works to be translated.

Imagine a world where translators and AI work together, pushing the boundaries of what can be accomplished. If AI can help translate more books, the collaboration could lead to more inclusive access to global literature, enhancing our collective understanding of diverse cultures.

In the long run, if AI brings us closer to a world where every book in every language is accessible to every one, then it’s an extraordinary vision worth embracing. What’s more, real-time translation is being used in some critical settings.

In one of my current projects my collaborator, the tech company MyManu, has already pioneered real-time translation earbuds, which are being used in some remarkable settings, such as helping asylum seekers understand and communicate more effectively, when arriving in a new country.

The path forward will require a balance: using AI to expand the reach of literature, while preserving and valuing the irreplaceable artistry of human translators. But increasingly it looks like we’re only scratching the surface of the vast possibilities afforded by this new technology.

Andy Miah, Chair in Science Communication & Future Media, University of Salford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The 10 'worst examples of profiteering and dysfunction in US healthcare' in 2024

Brett Wilkins
Common Dreams

January 12, 2025

The "winners" of the annual Shkreli Awards—named after notorious "pharma bro" Martin Shkreli and given to the 10 "worst examples of profiteering and dysfunction in healthcare"—include a Texas medical school that sold body parts of deceased people without relatives' consent, an alleged multibillion-dollar catheter scam, an oncologist who subjected patients to unnecessary cancer treatments, and a "monster monopoly" insurer.

The Shkreli Awards, now in their eighth year, are given annually by the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based think tank "advocating bold ideas for a just and caring system for health." A panel of 20 expert judges—who include physicians, professors, activists, and others—determine the winners.

This year's awardees are:

10: The University of North Texas Health Science Center "dissected and distributed unclaimed bodies without properly seeking consent from the deceased or their families" and supplied the parts "to medical students as well as major for-profit ventures like Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson," reporting revealed.

9: Baby tongue-tie cutting procedures are "being touted as a cure for everything from breastfeeding difficulties to sleep apnea, scoliosis, and even constipation"—despite any conclusive evidence that the procedure is effective.

8: Zynex Medical is a company facing scrutiny for its billing practices related to nerve stimulation devices used for pain management.

7: Insurance giant Cigna is under fire for billing a family nearly $100,000 for an infant's medevac flight.

6: Seven suppliers allegedly ran a multibillion-dollar urinary catheter billing scam that affected hundreds of thousands of Medicare patients.

5: Memorial Medical Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico allegedly refused cancer treatment "to patients or demanding upfront payments, even from those with insurance."

4: Dr. Thomas C. Weiner is a Montana oncologist who allegedly "subjected a patient to unnecessary cancer treatments for over a decade," provided "disturbingly high doses of barbiturates to facilitate death in seriously ill patients, when those patients may not have actually been close to death," and "prescribed high doses of opioids to patients that did not need them." Weiner denies any wrongdoing.

3: Pharma giant Amgen was accused of pushing 960-milligram doses of its highly toxic cancer drug Lumakras, when "a lower 240mg dose offers similar efficacy with reduced toxicity"—but costs $180,000 less per patient annually at the lower dose.

2: UnitedHealth allegedly exploited "its vast physician network to maximize profits, often at the expense of patients and clinicians," including by pressuring doctors "to reduce time with patients and to practice aggressive medical coding tactics that make patients seem as sick as possible" in order to earn higher reimbursements from the federal government."

1: Steward Health Care CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre was accused of orchestrating "a dramatic healthcare debacle by prioritizing private equity profits over patient care" amid "debt and sale-leaseback schemes" and a bankruptcy that "left hospitals gutted, employees laid off, and communities underserved" as he reportedly walked away "with more than $250 million over the last four years as hospitals tanked."

"All these stories paint a picture of a healthcare industry in desperate need of transformation," Lown Institute president Dr. Vikas Saini said during the award ceremony, according toThe Guardian.

"Doing these awards every year shows us that this is nothing new," he added. "We're hoping that these stories illuminate what changes are needed."

The latest Shkreli Awards came just weeks after the brazen assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealth subsidiary UnitedHealthcare. Although alleged gunman Luigi Mangione has pleaded not guilty, his reported manifesto—which rails against insurance industry greed—resonated with people across the country and sparked discussions about the for-profit healthcare system.

'Dialogue will prevail': Mexico's president on Trump's return

Agence France-Presse
January 13, 2025 

President Claudia Sheinbaum delivers a speech on January 12, 2025 in Mexico City to mark her first 100 days in office (Rodrigo Oropeza/AFP)

by Arturo ILIZALITURRI / Samir TOUNSI

Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum said Sunday she expected "good" relations marked by "dialogue" with US President-elect Donald Trump when he returns to the White House in a week.

In a speech to mark her first 100 days in office, Mexico's first female president stressed that her country, which is in Trump's sights over illegal migration and drug trafficking, was "free, independent and sovereign."

"We coordinate, we collaborate, but we never subordinate ourselves" to other powers, the 62-year-old leftist president told thousands of supporters at a rally in Mexico City.

Sheinbaum's early days in office have been dominated by a war of words with Trump.

On Sunday, however, she said she was "convinced" their relations would be "good, respectful and that dialogue will prevail."


Sheinbaum's mix of firmness and diplomacy in the face of the Republican's attacks have boosted her popularity.

An Enkoll opinion poll showed a staggering 80 percent of Mexicans approving of her performance so far, higher than her popular predecessor and mentor, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Trump unleashed deep concern in both Mexico and Canada in November when he threatened to impose tariffs of 25 percent on all imports from both countries over their alleged failure to halt the flow of migrants and drugs into the United States.

Mexico's government said that some 400,000 jobs at US companies that manufacture in Mexico could be lost if Trump enacted his threat, and warned that the tariffs would also drive up US inflation.

On Sunday, Sheinbaum insisted that Mexican migrants north of the border "contribute more to the economy of the United States" than to that of Mexico, which last year received nearly $65 billion in remittances from US-based Mexicans, according to official figures.

But the former Mexico City mayor has also made overtures to Trump.

During telephone talks, she assured him of Mexico's efforts to prevent caravans of migrants from Central America reaching the United States across the Mexican border.

Mexican authorities have also carried out record seizures of fentanyl -- the powerful opioid linked to tens of thousands of overdose deaths in the United States -- since the row began.

Trump has nonetheless continued to take aim at the United States' southern neighbor, vowing to rename the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America."

Sheinbaum responded in kind this week, with a sarcastic suggestion to revive a 17th-century label for North America: "Mexican America."

© Agence France-Presse

Manifest destiny redux: Why settle for a summer home in NC when Greenland is just sitting there?

So what if there’s some “treaty”? 

We’re imperial America. Treaties mean nothing.

Photo by Visit Greenland on Unsplash

Diane Roberts, Florida Phoenix

January 13, 2025

Florida’s simply not large enough: As part of a growing empire, we need a bigger place.

People keep coming here, especially Canadians, clogging up the aisles in Publix, ostentatiously ordering Molson beer in bars, bragging about how they don’t have to worry about going bankrupt paying for health care.

Canada owes us big time, so it’s only fair they cede their territory to us. We’ll call it “Florida North” (not “North Florida” which, as everybody knows, is weird).

Why not? Canada doesn’t do anything but sit up there being polite.

Politeness is a security risk.

Also, the Canadians have oil, which should clearly belong to us.

As the Dear Leader asserted the other day in his completely rational press conference, if the 51st-staters don’t play nice, we’ll bring them to their frostbitten knees with “economic force” and turn their so-called “provinces” into good Christian Florida counties with lousy hospitals and empty libraries.

“Governor” Trudeau (what a loser) says there’s “not a snowball’s chance in hell” we’ll get Canada.

Yeah, well, in MAGAmerica, hell is full of snowballs: We call them big, beautiful tariffs.

If the tariffs don’t work, there’s always the 101st Airborne.

While we’re at it, we might as well invade Greenland.

Maybe we’ll give Denmark, a small loser country which claims Greenland is an autonomous territory of its kingdom, a bit of money for the place.
A place in Nuuk

This would be awesome for Florida, too.

Floridians used to dream of having a house in North Carolina to escape the Sunshine State’s eight months of summer, but when the U.S. gets its mitts on that big old hunk of ice in the North Atlantic, Floridians can get a place in Nuuk.


Cheap!

Besides, as a blond lady on “The Five” (obviously a distinguished historian) reminded us, back in 1867 President Harry Truman offered the Danes, a people known only for pastries, $100 million for it.

They should have taken the deal.

Now the Danes (many of whom are large dogs) are being rude and nasty, and if there’s anything the Dear Leader hates its rudeness and nastiness.


The so-called “King of Denmark” changed his coat-of arms, which used to have a tiny polar bear — the symbol of Greenland with a bunch of lions and crowns.

Now the polar bear is really big, like the king is saying “Greenland isn’t for sale.”

Au contraire, mein amigo: Everything is for sale.

Ask Elon Musk: He bought the presidency of the United States for a mere $250 million.


Don Jr. took a “day trip” to Greenland on Jan. 7, merely, you know, as a snow-loving tourist, called his father from a restaurant, and put him on speakerphone.

Anybody sitting there, innocently enjoying their seal-meat Suasaat, could hear Don Sr. hollering, “You see the people and the ships sailing around and they’re not the right ships. They’re not the ships you want to know about.”

Anyway, Greenland: The place should be grateful we want to give them the benefits of our civilization:

“Real Housewives.”

Unaffordable homeowners’ insurance.

High fructose corn syrup.

Guns.

‘Liquid invasion’

Besides, Greenland totally owes Florida for the flood damage it continues to inflict upon us.

As the never-satirical Florida columnist Frank Cerabino points out, Greenland persists in sending “giant chunks of your ice floe into the Atlantic, knowing fully that they will eventually wage a liquid invasion against the low-lying coastline of Florida.”

An act, he says, of war.

Nations have been carpet-bombed for less.

If Greenlanders keep saying “no,” the Dear Leader warns he might resort to military force.

He doesn’t like the word “no.”

It’s perfectly clear this God-favored nation needs both Canada and Greenland for “economic security,” “national security,” and to make America great — or at least way bigger — again.

As deep thinker and Manifest Destiny Dude Jesse Watters remarked on Fox, “The fact that they don’t want us to take them over makes me want to invade. I want to quench my imperialist thirst.”

If the British, the Spanish, the French, the Chinese, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Moguls, and every-damn-body else gets to colonize, we do, too.

We’re not stopping at Canada and Greenland, either: the Panama Canal is also on the list.

So what if there’s some “treaty”? We’re imperial America. Treaties mean nothing.

Ask the Indians. They thought they had treaties, too.

Jimmy Carter gave that canal away and look what happened to him?

Sure, he got the Nobel Peace Prize, but the guy never made any money.

Loser.

While we’re at it, there’ll be a little rebranding.

The Gulf of “Mexico” is now the Gulf of America. We’ll make Mexico pay for the new maps.

And how do you like the sound of “Trump International Canal”

Beautiful.

Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.