Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Personal interview: Lee Camp What are the Prospects for Peace?

Lee Camp directly address the role of the U.S. in the escalating tensions and its capacity to reduce them.


SOURCENationofChange

Events are unfolding at a quickening pace. Facing an alarming escalation in tensions around the world, we are looking to our most respected and renowned thought leaders for an honest assessment of both U.S. foreign and military policy to offer their most current thoughts and insights. We know they have some ideas for improving the prospects for peace. 

Lee Camp is the head writer and host of the national TV show Redacted Tonight with Lee Camp on RT America. He’s a former contributor to The Onion, former staff humor writer for the Huffington Post, and co-host of the podcast “Government Secrets.” He’s toured the country and the world with his fierce brand of standup comedy and hard-hitting political commentary. His book, Bullet Points & Punch Lines has earned enormous praise. RadMediaNews is his most recent project, an alternative to the propaganda of mainstream media and a vehicle to deal with large-scale suppression of the truth. His responses below are exactly as he provided.

The questions here are not philosophical or abstract. They focus on the realities of the international power struggle unfolding in real time. They directly address the role of the U.S. in the escalating tensions and its capacity to reduce them. We also probe the role of everyday citizens in affecting the relationship the U.S. now has and will have with the rest of the world community.

Here is what Lee Camp had to say.

Q.    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has recently put the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight. Midnight means all out war, probably nuclear holocaust. This is the closest it has ever been. Do you agree with this dire assessment?

A.    I mean, in general midnight is usually when the party gets started – so we should be excited, no? Oh, wait, they’re saying midnight is bad. I get it now. I do think things are quite dire. One of the core problems with our system almost never gets discussed. Capitalism is a system in which true sociopaths inevitably end up running the show. The estimates are that 1 out of every 100 humans is a sociopath—and sociopaths are uniquely suited to succeed at a profit-over-all-else system. So the gravity of capitalism will always pull the most irrational humans to run the systems. This is how we ended up with a political system that vomited up the likes of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama. Obama’s Pentagon dropped 26,000 bombs his final year in office. Trump’s Pentagon dropped 40,000 his first year in office. I’m sure the Biden numbers aren’t far off. These are war criminals, and yet the mainstream media dances around happily celebrating these villains as if it’s Mardi Gras (Fox News for Trump, the other networks for Biden & Obama). 

Q.     The U.S. always portrays itself as the greatest force on the planet for peace, justice, human rights, racial equality, etc. Polls tell us that most other nations actually regard the U.S. as the greatest threat to stability. What in your view is the truth here?

A.    We are absolutely the greatest force for justice and racial equality. During the hundreds of years we spent kidnapping black people and owning them as property, we always treated each slave as equal to every other slave. So, that’s a great deal of equality right there. Also, our Declaration of Independence said “All men are created equal” and at that time, they were referring to white, land-owning males, who were six percent of the population. So what it really meant was “All six percent of us are created equal.” And my gosh, those white land-owning males were treated SO VERY equal. No one can deny that. . . . Is my sarcasm coming through in writing or not so much? . . . Anyway, what was the question again? Oh yes, is the United States a threat to stability? Absolutely. Not just because we’re literally always at war but also because we are the largest cause of catastrophic climate change, which will cause immense suffering, death, instability, and large scale extinction — all things I’m not a fan of. 

Q.     Here’s a chicken-or-egg question: The U.S. accuses both Russia and China of rapidly expanding their military capabilities, claiming its own posturing and increase in weaponry is a response to its hostile adversaries, Russia and China. Both Russia and China claim they are merely responding to intimidation and military threats posed by the U.S.  What’s your view? Do Russia and China have imperial ambitions or are they just trying to defend themselves against what they see as an increasingly aggressive U.S. military?

A.    Rather than give an opinion, I’ll just give people some facts. The U.S. has roughly 900 military bases around the world. China has a grand total of one outside of China. Russia has around 18, I think, and they’re mostly in the former Soviet bloc. The U.S. spends roughly $1 trillion a year on military (when we include the black budgets), which is the same amount as 144 countries COMBINED. The Pentagon has been found to have roughly $21 trillion in unaccounted-for financial adjustments on their books over the past two decades. To put that in perspective, if you earn $40,000 a year, in order to make $21 trillion, it would take you 525 million years. The Pentagon was finally audited for the first time a few years ago. It took over 1,000 auditors and lasted for over a year. At the end of it, the Pentagon simply said, “We failed our audit.” And that was basically the end of the information given to the public. . . . So yeah, I guess the U.S. is just defending itself from the dastardly Chinese and Russians. 

Q.     The U.S. always denies that it has imperial ambitions. Most unbiased experts say that by any objective standards, the U.S. is an empire — indeed the most powerful, sprawling empire in history. Does the U.S. have to be an empire to be successful in the world and effectively protect and serve its citizenry?

A.    Well, if you want to decide if the U.S. is an empire, please see previous facts. In terms of “being a success,” the U.S. is not a success. We here in the U.S. face immense inequality (a higher Gini coefficient than Ancient Rome just before its collapse), don’t have universal healthcare, don’t have free college education, face a crippling opioid epidemic, have a political system filled with corruption, and the world’s largest prison state (both total number and per capita). On top of that, late-stage capitalism is killing the environment in the U.S. and around the world. We’ve lost 50% of all wildlife over the past 40 years, the oceans are filling with plastic, 2000 cities in the US have elevated lead in the water, and the insect world is facing a genocide. Under no interpretation of the word, could the U.S. be considered a “success.” A success would be a sustainable society that provides a comfortable and fulfilling future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. We seem to have the opposite. 

Q.     The highest ranking commanders of the U.S. military recently sounded the alarm. They have concluded that the U.S. — widely regarded as the most formidable military power in history — can’t defeat either Russia or China in a war. These military commanders are saying we need to dramatically increase our military capabilities. What do you make of this claim and the resulting demand for more DOD spending?

A.    (Please see earlier numbers about the amount spent on the military.) Toxic nationalism along with capitalism is destroying the globe. We’re told to hate enemies like Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, etc. Can anyone explain to me why a baby born in Iran is evil and a baby born in the U.S. is wonderful and moral and pure? I haven’t heard a good answer for that, but they want us to believe it. 

Q.     In 2009, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced a reset with Russia, heralding greater cooperation and understanding.  By 2014, Obama had made a sharp reversal. A sweeping regime of sanctions has since been imposed on Russia to cripple its economy. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats now relentlessly demonize Russia and Putin, blaming them for every imaginable ill. Both in the media and from official pronouncements by government officials, Russia has become the favorite whipping boy for both the U.S. and its “special friend”, Great Britain.  Why?  What happened?

A.    The U.S. is a waning empire in the turbulence of late-stage capitalism. America doesn’t treat our own citizens well (just look at our insane healthcare system), and therefore the only way to get citizens to ignore their true enemies (the ruling elite), is to convince them the great “other” is out to get them. Hence the War on Terror, the new cold war against Russia and China—each of these propaganda tools helps keep average American citizens in line and willing to give up all of their rights and liberties. The oligarchs are basically saying, “We’re not the ones exploiting you. We’re not the source of your troubles. It’s the Russians. It’s the Chinese. It’s the Syrians.” This is not the only reason for the new cold wars that have been instituted, but it’s definitely one of the important ones. 

Q.     The U.S. against the clear objections of the government in Syria is occupying valuable land, stealing the country’s oil, and preventing access to the most agriculturally productive region, effectively starving the population. The world sees this for what it is, a cruel game sacrificing innocent people for some perceived geopolitical advantage.  Is this the kind of reputation the U.S. wants? Or does it simply no longer care what the rest of the world community thinks?

A.    The U.S. really only has one playbook. So even though the standard propaganda — The U.S. wants to give you freedom and democracy — has broken down and no longer holds up, the US government keeps pushing it. Meanwhile they have and endless array of economic sanctions on countries (economic war), they’re bombing multiple countries, and they spend billions on CIA cutouts trying to create coups in various nations. They’ve invaded, destroyed, or “coup’ed” numerous countries — most commonly those who are outside our central banking system and/or are socialist. Yet, when a U.S. official walks up to that podium, they still say, “We need to bring democracy to  ___[fill in country]__.”

Q.     In a democracy, at least in theory citizens have a say in all matters of public policy. Yet, in the end none of the recent military campaigns and undeclared wars seem to achieve much popular favor or support. What is and what should be the role of everyday citizens in determining the foreign policy and military priorities of the country? Or are such matters better left to the “experts”?

A.    I’ll do you one better. For much of what our Pentagon’s actions — not even elected officials have a say. Congress rarely intervenes in military matters. They no longer declare wars, even though they’re supposed to. Even the president doesn’t oversee most military intelligence actions. He may have some say in whether we start bombing a country, but 99% of the Pentagon’s behavior is not scrutinized by the President or Congress. On top of that, no one seems to know where the money goes. As I said earlier, trillions of dollars are floating around and thousands of auditors can’t even get to the bottom of it. Whistleblowers have said that when they were serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, they would be given bundles of millions of dollars to hand out and no one kept track of where it went. In Afghanistan we were paying the Taliban and fighting the Taliban. We were paying the opium growers and fighting the opium growers. The only book that does this insanity justice is Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22

Q.    Now there’s pervasive spying on U.S. citizens right here at home.  What place does any of this have in “the land of the free”? Does this mean government of the people, by the people, for the people is just a sham?

A.    Yes, it’s a sham. The government can’t truly represent the people unless the people know what the government is up to. But we’re not told most of what the government does. And when a whistleblower reveals what our government is up to — or a journalist like Julian Assange — they’re horribly persecuted and imprisoned. Furthermore, even if you wanted to claim we have a free democracy in the U.S., the two corporate parties agree on 90% of the core issues of our country. They agree on capitalism, on militarism, on Wall Street, on environmental destruction, on unlimited surveillance, on a massive prison state, on dystopian policing — they agree on just about everything. So if our choice is between those two parties, then it’s no choice at all. None of our elections are legit in this regard. 

Q.     Recently we’ve seen some token but precedent-setting direct payments to citizens in the form of Covid relief. There is also the ongoing discussion about reparations to descendants of slaves. If it could be unequivocally established that the government has abused DOD funding, misused and squandered vast sums of money to promote unjustified wars, purchase unneeded equipment, unnecessarily expand U.S. military presence across the globe, and regularly lied to the American public to manufacture consent for these misadventures and  fraudulent activities, practical and political considerations aside, do you see any constitutional or other legal barriers to the public identifying, expecting, or even demanding proper compensation? A cash refund or citizen reparations for massive, authenticated abuse of power?

A.    I’ll go beyond that. I believe Universal Basic Income is both doable right now and would save millions of lives. It would instantly end homelessness, extreme poverty, hunger, and a large percentage of health problems. Ending those things would also greatly decrease crime. Furthermore, UBI already exists in Alaska and other smaller examples. However, this is not to say it would solve all the problems with capitalism. It would not. Having an economic system that pushes everyone to seek profit over all else will ultimately destroy everything eventually. Capitalism requires infinite growth on a finite planet. By definition, it cannot sustain, and we’re already seeing signs of environmental collapse. We need a mental revolution, an evolution of what is possible. And we need it now. 

We are grateful to Lee Camp for his thought-provoking views. The interview was arranged by John Rachel, Director of the Peace Dividend Project. This effort embraces a powerful, unprecedented, end-to-end strategy for challenging the tyranny of neocon warmongers in Washington DC, ending the endless wars, and reversing the self-destructive foreign policy and military paradigm which now poisons U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Lee has also agreed to be interviewed for the full-length Peace Dividend documentary film, a devastating indictment of the corruption and fraud built into our excessive military budgets and imperial overreach. This movie will inform, unite and empower everyday citizens to have a voice in determining the future they want for themselves and their children.

Welcome to the Martians!

Or will we truly find ourselves living in Trumptopia?


SOURCETomDispatch
Image Credit: Iona Clinton

Who knew that Martians, inside monstrous tripodal machines taller than many buildings, actually ululated, that they made eerily haunting “ulla, ulla, ulla, ulla” sounds? Well, let me tell you that they do — or rather did when they were devastating London.

I know that because I recently reread H.G. Wells’s 1898 novel War of the Worlds, while revisiting an early moment in my own life. Admittedly, I wasn’t in London when those Martian machines, hooting away, stalked boldly into that city, hungry in the most literal fashion imaginable for human blood. No surprise there, since that was almost a century and a quarter ago. Still, at 77, thanks to that book, I was at least able to revisit a moment that had been mine long enough ago to seem almost like fiction.

Yes, all those years back I had been reading that very same novel for the very first time under the covers by flashlight. I still remember being gripped, thrilled, and scared, at a time when my parents thought I was asleep. And believe me, if you do that at perhaps age 12 or 13, you really do feel as if you’ve been plunged into a futuristic world from hell, ululations and all.

But of course, scary as it might have been, alone in the dark, to secretly live through the Martian desolation of parts of England and the slaughter of countless human beings at their hands (actually, more like the tentacles of octopi), as if they were no more than irritating bugs, I was always aware of another reality as well. After all, there was still the morning (guaranteed to come), my breakfast, my dog Jeff, my bus trip to school with my friend Jim, my anything-but-exciting ordinary life, and my sense, in the ascendant Cold War America of the 1950s, of a future extending to the distant horizon that looked boring as hell, without even a stray Martian in sight. (How wrong I would turn out to be from the Vietnam War years on!)

I felt that I needed some Martians then. I needed something, anything, to shake up that life of mine, but the sad truth is that I don’t need them now, nor do the rest of us. Yet, in so many ways, in an America anything but ascendant, on a planet that looks like it’s in a distinctly War-of-the-Worlds-style version of danger, the reality is that they’re already here.

And sadly enough, we Americans and humanity in general seem little more effective against the various Martian stand-ins of today than the human beings Wells wrote about were then. Remember that his Martians finally went down, but not at the hands of humanity. They were taken out, “after all man’s devices had failed,” as the novelist expressed it then, “by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.” The conquerors of those otherwise triumphant Martians were, he reported, “the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared.”

If only we were so lucky in our own Wellsian, or do I mean Trumptopian (as in dystopian, not utopian) world?

Living in a science-fiction (or science-fact) novel?

In the 1950s, I went on to read, among other books, John Wyndham’s Day of the Triffids (about giant killer plants taking humanity apart), Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, and Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy which sent me into distant galaxies. And that was before, in 1966, I boarded the USS Enterprise with Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock to head for deep space in person — at least via my TV screen in that pre-Meta era.

Today, space is evidently something left to billionaires, but in the 1950s and 1960s the terror of invading aliens or plants with a taste for human flesh (even if they had perhaps been bioengineered in the all-too-Earthbound Soviet Union) had a certain strange appeal for the bored boy I was then. The future, it seemed, needed a Martian or two or a Triffid or two. Had I known, it wouldn’t have mattered in the least to me then that Wells had evidently created those Martians, in part, to give his British readers some sense of what it must have felt like for the Tasmanians, living on an island off the coast of Australia, to be conquered and essentially eradicated by British colonists early in the nineteenth century.

So, yes, I was indeed then fascinated by often horrific futures, by what was coming to be known as science fiction. But honestly, if you had told me that, as a grownup, I would find myself living in a science-fiction (or do I mean science-fact?) novel called perhaps Trumptopia, or The Day of the Heat Dome, or something similar, I would have laughed you out of the room. Truly, I never expected to find myself in such a world without either those covers or that flashlight as protection.

As president, Donald Trump would prove to be both a Martian and a Triffid. He would, in fact, be the self-appointed and elected stand-in for what turned out to be little short of madness personified. When a pandemic struck humanity, he would, as in that fictional England of 1898, take on the very role of a Martian, an alien ready to murder on a mass scale. Though few like to think of it that way, we spent almost two years after the Covid-19 pandemic began here being governed (to use a word that now sounds far too polite) by a man who, like his supporters and like various Republican governors today, was ready to slaughter Americans in staggering numbers.

As Trump’s former White House Covid-19 response coordinator Deborah Birx recently testified, by rejecting everything from masking to social distancing in the early months of the pandemic (not to speak of personally hosting mass superspreader events at the White House and elsewhere), he would prove an all-too-literal murderer — though Birx was far too polite to use such a word. In the midst of a pandemic that has, by now, killed an estimated 17 million people globally and perhaps more than a million Americans, he would, she believed, be responsible for at least 130,000 of those early deaths. That’s already slaughter on a monumental scale. (Keep in mind that, in the Trumpian tradition, from Florida’s Ron DeSantis to Texas’s Greg Abbott, Republican governors have continued in that distinctly murderous tradition to this very moment.)


And when it came to slaughter, the Trumpian/Republican response to Covid-19 will likely prove to be the milder kind of destruction they represented. As a climate denialist (it was a Chinese hoax!) and a major supporter of the fossil-fuel industry (no wonder the Saudis adored him!), The Donald would prove all too ready to all-too-literally boost the means to destroy this planet.

And wouldn’t you say that the various Trump supporters who now make up what’s still, for reasons unknown, called the Republican Party are ululating all too often these days, as they hover over dead and dying Americans, or at least those they would be perfectly willing to see wiped off this planet?

Lights off, flashlights on?

Sadly enough, however, you can’t just blame Donald Trump and the Republicans for our increasingly endangered planet. After all, who needs giant Martians or monstrous human-destroying plants when carbon dioxide and methane will, in the long run, do the trick? Who needs aliens like Martians and Triffids, given the global fossil-fuel industry?

Keep in mind that more representatives of that crew were accredited as delegates at the recent Glasgow climate-change talks than of any country on the planet. That industry’s CEOs have long been all too cognizant of climate change and how it could ravage this world of ours. They have also been all too willing to ignore it or even to put significant funds into climate-denial outfits. If, in 2200, there are still historians left to write about this world of ours, I have little doubt that they’ll view those CEOs as the greatest criminals in what has been a sordid tale of human history.

Nor, sadly enough, when it comes to this country, can you leave the Democrats out of the picture of global destruction either. Consider this, for instance: after the recent talks in Glasgow, President Biden returned home reasonably triumphant, swearing he would “lead by example” when it came to climate-change innovation. He was, of course, leaving behind in Scotland visions of a future world where, according to recent calculations, the temperature later in this century could hit 2.4 to 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.32 to 4.86 degrees Fahrenheit) above that of the pre-industrial age. That, of course, would be a formula for destruction on a devastating scale.

Just to consider the first leading “example” around, four days after Glasgow ended, the Biden administration began auctioning off to oil and gas companies leases for drilling rights to 80 million acres of public waters in the Gulf of Mexico. And that, after all, is an administration headed by a president who actually seems committed to doing something about climate change, as in his ever-shrinking Build Back Better bill. But that bill is, of course, being Manchinized right now by a senator who made almost half a million dollars last year off a coal brokerage firm he founded (and that his son now runs). In fact, it may never pass the Senate with its climate-change elements faintly intact. Keep in mind as well that Manchin is hardly alone. One in four senators reportedly still have fossil-fuel investments and the households of at least 28 of them from both parties “hold a combined minimum of $3.7 million and as much as $12.6 million in fossil-fuel investments.”

Take one small story, if you want to grasp where this country seems headed right now. As you may remember, the Trump administration worked assiduously to infringe upon national parks and indigenous lands to produce yet more fossil fuels. Recently, President Biden announced that his administration, having already approved a much-protested $9 billion pipeline to carry significant amounts of oil through tribal lands in Minnesota, would take one small but meaningful remedial step. As the New York Times described it, the administration would move “to block new federal oil and gas leasing within a 10-mile radius around Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, one of the nation’s oldest and most culturally significant Native American sites.”

I know you won’t be shocked by what followed, sadly enough. The response was predictable. As the Times put it, that modest move “generated significant pushback from Republicans and from New Mexico’s oil and gas industry.” Natch! And that, of course, is but the smallest of stories at a time when we have a White House at least officially committed to dealing in some reasonable fashion with the overheating of this planet.

Now, imagine that the Republicans win the House and Senate in the 2022 elections and Donald Trump (or some younger version of the same) takes the 2024 presidential election in a country in which Republican state legislators have already rejiggered so many voting laws and gerrymandered so many voting districts that the results could be devastating. You would then, of course, have a party controlling the White House and Congress that’s filled with climate-change denialists and fossil-fuel enthusiasts of the first order. (Who cares that this country is already being battered by fireflood, and heat in a devastating fashion?) To grasp what that would mean, all you have to do is expand the ten-mile radius of that New Mexican story to the country as a whole — and then the planet.

And at that point, in all honesty, you could turn off the lights, flick on that old flashlight of mine, and be guaranteed that you, your children, and your grandchildren will experience something in your everyday lives that should have been left under the covers. As almost happened in The War of the Worlds, it’s possible that we could, in essence, kiss this planet goodbye and if that’s not science fiction transformed into fact of the first order, what is?

The Martians have arrived

You know, H.G. Wells wasn’t such a dope when it came to the future. After all, his tripodal Martian machines had a “kind of arm [that] carried a complicated metallic case, about which green flashes scintillated, and out of the funnel of this there smoked the Heat-Ray.” In 1898, he was already thinking about how heat of a certain sort could potentially destroy humanity. Today, the “Martians” stepping out of those space capsules happen to be human beings and they, too, are emerging with devastating heat rays.

Just ask my friend journalist Jane Braxton Little, whose town, Greenville, largely burned down in California’s record-breaking Dixie Fire this fall, a climate-change-influenced inferno so vast and fierce that it proved capable of creating its own weather. Imagine that for our future.

Of course, in another sense, you could say that we’ve been living in a science-fiction novel since August 6, 1945, when that first American nuclear bomb devastated Hiroshima. Until then, we humans could do many terrible things, but of one thing we were incapable: the destruction of this world. In the nearly eight decades that followed, however, the Martians have indeed arrived and we human beings have taken over a role once left to the gods: the ability to create Armageddon.

Still, the truth is that we don’t know how our own sci-fi tale will end. As in War of the Worlds, will some equivalent of those bacteria that took down the Martians arrive on the scene, perhaps some scientific discovery about how to deal so much better with the greenhouse gases eternally heading into our atmosphere? Will humanity, Greta Thunberg-style, come together in some new, more powerful way to stop this world from destroying itself? Will some brilliant invention, some remarkable development in alternative energy use, make all the difference in the world? Will the United States, China, and other key fossil-fuel burners finally come together in a way now hardly imaginable?

Or will we truly find ourselves living in Trumptopia?

Stay tuned.

Copyright 2021 Tom Engelhardt.

Deadly pesticide still legal in US can harm bee populations for generations, study finds

The latest research offers another argument that U.S. regulators should follow the EU and ban neonicotinoids.


SOURCEEcoWatch

A new study shows just how dangerous pesticides can be for bees.

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America this month, found that bee populations can take a hit for generations if a bee is exposed just once to a common pesticide during its first year of life.

“Especially in agricultural areas, pesticides are often used multiple times a year and multiple years in a row,” study lead author and University of California in Davis ecology Ph.D. candidate Clara Stuligross told The Guardian. “So this really shows us what that can actually mean for bee populations.”

Stuligross and her team studied a type of bee called the blue orchard bee. These bees are about the size of a honeybee, but they live alone and have a blue, metallic color, National Geographic explained. They are also important pollinators for native U.S. wildflowers and crops like apples, cherries, almonds and peaches.

The researchers exposed the bees to a neonicotinoid called imidacloprid, which is the most commonly used neonicotinoid in the U.S. and one of the most used in California specifically, according to The Independent.

Neonicotinoids are well known to be harmful to bees and other insects because they bind to their nerve cells and prevent the insect from transmitting electrical signals, National Geographic explained. However, this study is unique in showing how exposure can continue to impact bee populations for generations, something known as the “carryover effect.”

The scientists exposed the bees to the pesticide at different life stages and got the following results, The Guardian explained:

  1. Bees exposed only in their first year of life saw 20 percent fewer offspring.
  2. Bees exposed once as adults had 30 percent fewer offspring.
  3. Bees exposed once as both larvae and adults had 44 percent fewer offspring.

The research therefore adds to the evidence the neonicotinoids are harming bee and insect populations, which have both taken a dive in recent decades.

“These findings support what many of us beekeepers and solitary beekeepers suspect is happening in agricultural fields,” researcher and beekeeper Steve Peterson, who was not involved with the research, told National Geographic. “We are seeing massive declines in all kinds of insects over the past several decades and much of it may be due to pesticide residues in the environment.”

A quarter of bee species have not been sighted since the 1990s, and insects that live on land have seen their populations fall by around 25 percent in the last 30 years and 50 percent in the last 75. Pesticides are considered a major threat to insect populations, along with other stressors like habitat loss, pollution and the climate crisis.

The latest research offers another argument that U.S. regulators should follow the EU and ban neonicotinoids.

“I hope that the EPA will review studies like this and carefully consider these kinds of effects in their risk assessment,” Peterson told National Geographic. “I do think that multigenerational and non-direct contact 

Dollar Tree CEO—Who Made Over $10 Million Last Year—Blames Inflation for Price Hike to $1.25

"Dollar Tree made $1,230,000,000 in profits this year, gave its CEO $10,767,883, and pays workers as little as $8.32 an hour."



A person walks past a Dollar Tree store on November 23, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)


JAKE JOHNSON
November 24, 2021

Dollar Tree CEO Michael Witynski—who raked in around $11 million in total compensation last year—announced Tuesday that his company is raising prices to $1.25 at stores across the United States, pointing to the current "inflationary environment."

"Corporations are using the excuse of inflation to raise prices and make fatter profits."

But observers weren't buying Witynski's explanation for the imminent price hike, which was publicized as Dollar Tree reported $216.8 million in net profits for the third quarter of 2021. The 25% price increase is expected to take effect at Dollar Tree stores nationwide in early 2022.

"Dollar Tree made $1,230,000,000 in profits this year, gave its CEO $10,767,883, and pays workers as little as $8.32 an hour. Over 7,400 Dollar Tree employees are forced to rely on food stamps and Medicaid subsidized by U.S. taxpayers," Warren Gunnels, majority staff director for Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), pointed out on Twitter.

"Unfettered greed is corporate America closing U.S. factories where workers made $30/hour, opening sweatshops abroad where workers make 30 cents/hour, hiring U.S. workers to sell the sweatshop goods for $8/hour and blaming inflation for a 25% price increase at Dollar Tree," Gunnels wrote.

Dollar Tree's decision to push higher costs onto consumers follows a growing trend of companies citing inflationary pressures in the economy to justify price hikes—even as they bring in record profits and lavishly reward their executives and shareholders. In 2020, according to a recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, CEOs made 351 times as much as a typical worker, and CEO pay has soared by 1,322% since 1978.

The Institute for Policy Studies noted in a May study that Witynski—who took over as Dollar Tree's CEO in July of 2020—received $11.3 million in total compensation last year.

"That's 715 times as much as the pay for the company's median worker, a part-time U.S. store employee who earned $15,816," IPS observed.

Related Content

Corporate Greed the 'Real Culprit Behind Rising Prices,' Researchers Say
Kenny Stancil

A report released earlier this month by the watchdog group Accountable.US found that at least a dozen major U.S. corporations have "reported nearly $11 billion in profits the same quarter they announced price increases, along with over $34 billion in stock buybacks and dividends this year."

"As millions of Americans are already struggling against a worsening hunger crisis, eight of these companies, including Proctor & Gamble, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola, have jacked up food prices, or announced their intent to do so, despite recent healthy financial reports," the group said.

While acknowledging that many factors—including major supply chain disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic—are contributing to rising U.S. inflation, progressive economists and lawmakers have argued that consolidated corporate power is a key driver of recent price increases.

"Corporations are using the excuse of inflation to raise prices and make fatter profits. The result is a transfer of wealth from consumers to corporate executives and major investors," former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in a blog post earlier this month. "This has nothing to do with inflation, folks. It has everything to do with the concentration of market power in a relatively few hands."



The Wall Street Journal reported last week that as the coronavirus continues to wreak havoc worldwide, executives of U.S. companies "are seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to raise prices to match and in some cases outpace their own higher expenses."

"Nearly two out of three of the biggest U.S. publicly traded companies have reported fatter profit margins so far this year than they did over the same stretch of 2019, before the Covid-19 outbreak," the Journal noted. "Nearly 100 of these giants have booked 2021 profit margins—the share of each dollar of sales a company can pocket—that are at least 50% above 2019 levels."

"We're having to pay more because corporate America made a choice to raise prices on us."

On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called on the Justice Department to investigate "major poultry companies' anticompetitive practices that have lined the pockets of executives and shareholders while raising prices for families at the grocery store ahead of Thanksgiving."

"Lack of competition in the poultry industry is allowing these massive companies to squeeze both American consumers and farmers to fuel record corporate profits and payouts to shareholders," Warren said in a statement. "When companies have monopoly power as massive suppliers, they can jack up prices of the goods they sell."

"And when those same companies have complete or substantial market power as large employers or buyers of inputs, also known as monopsony power, they can suppress their own costs for those inputs, including workers' wages," she added. "This is the worst of all worlds, where wages are held back while prices are jacked up."

Faiz Shakir, founder of the advocacy journalism organization More Perfect Union, wrote in the New Republic earlier this week that "corporate America has seized on the fears of inflation to jack up prices on you and make a ton more money."

"For months, they have, with one hand, fueled talk of inflation as a way to make obscene profits off the backs of consumers. That’s bad enough," Shakir noted. "But with the other hand, they have been manipulating the talk of inflation to engage in a full-frontal assault on President Biden’s efforts to pass a Build Back Better bill for working families."

"As we head into Thanksgiving and Christmas, and we all look forward to large enjoyable feasts with friends and family, we should rightly harbor anger about inflation," Shakir continued. "Not just that they made us pay more for turkey, cranberries, and pie crusts. We're having to pay more because corporate America made a choice to raise prices on us, and then on top of that, it tried to manipulate your fear about those prices to keep you from getting paid leave, home care, childcare, and climate change action. Corporate America made you pay more while trying to make sure it didn't have to."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Cuba's Homegrown Covid-19 Vaccines Poised to Protect Millions in Poor Nations

As rich countries hoard doses and Big Pharma refuses to share the knowledge required to ramp up manufacturing, Cuba's public biotech sector could play a key role in defeating vaccine apartheid.



A nurse vaccinates an elderly woman against Covid-19 with Cuban vaccine Abdala in Havana on August 2, 2021.
 (Photo: Yamil Lage/AFP via Getty Images)

KENNY STANCIL
COMMONDREAMS
November 24, 2021

Despite the added challenges created by a six decade-long U.S. blockade, Cuba's public biotech sector has developed two highly effective vaccines and its universal healthcare system has inoculated four-fifths of its population.

Additionally, the island has begun exporting its homegrown doses and is on the verge of sharing its recipes with impoverished nations abandoned by Big Pharma and wealthy countries.

"Cuba knew it would be hard to obtain Covid vaccines, so it made its own... and they could be key to vaccinating the world."

"Cuba is now one of the few lower-income countries to have not only vaccinated a majority of its population," Jacobin's Branko Marcetic wrote Tuesday, "but the only one to have done so with a vaccine it developed on its own."

According to Our World in Data, Cuba has fully vaccinated 80% of its population against Covid-19, putting it in the top 10 globally, and well ahead of several wealthy nations. Nearly 90% of Cubans have received at least one dose, again outpacing most of the world—even as the Biden administration has intensified Washington's embargo on the island, stifling its economy and depriving its residents of food and medical supplies, including syringes.

"Cuba," wrote Marcetic, "has been able to do the unthinkable, developing its own vaccine and outdoing much of the developed world in overcoming the pandemic, despite its size and level of wealth, and despite a policy of concerted economic strangulation from a hostile government off its shores."

He added that "international solidarity efforts have been vital, too. When the U.S. blockade meant a shortage of syringes on the island, jeopardizing its vaccination campaign, solidarity groups from the United States alone sent 6 million syringes to Cuba, with the Mexican government sending 800,000 more, and more than 100,000 on top of that coming from Cubans in China."

Since a late-August peak of nearly 10,000 cases and almost 100 deaths per day, Cuba's successful vaccination effort has coincided with a major decline in coronavirus infections and mortality. While Covid-19 has claimed the lives of 8,295 Cubans since the pandemic began, the country recorded zero deaths from the disease on Tuesday.

Moreover, "the country reopened its borders on November 15 to tourism, roughly a tenth of its economy, and has reopened schools," Marcetic noted. "This makes Cuba an outlier among low-income countries, which have vaccinated only 2.8% of their combined populations."



The glaring gap in vaccination rates between rich and poor countries is the result of vaccine hoarding by wealthy governments—which have gobbled up most of the world's doses, occasionally wasting excess supplies even as they tout their insufficient donations—and pharmaceutical corporations' refusal to share vaccine formulas, even though the underlying technology is publicly funded.

While health justice advocates continue to push for a temporary suspension of deadly intellectual property barriers at the World Trade Organization—a widely supported move that would enable qualified manufacturers to produce generic Covid-19 vaccines, treatments, and tests—Big Pharma has lobbied to maintain its extremely profitable monopoly control over lifesaving knowledge, and the industry continues to be backed by the United Kingdom, Germany, and a few other opponents of the patent waiver.

As that struggle continues ahead of the WTO's biannual Ministerial Conference that begins on November 30, Marcetic argued that Cuba's domestic vaccine production "suggests a path forward for the developing world as it continues struggling with the pandemic in the face of ongoing corporate-driven vaccine apartheid, and points more broadly to what's possible when medical science is decoupled from private profit."

Marcetic attributed Cuba's successful inoculation drive to the country's "decision to develop its own vaccines, two of which—Abdala, named for a poem penned by an independence hero, and Soberana 02, Spanish for 'sovereign'—were finally given official regulatory approval in July and August."

He continued:

In the words of Vicente Vérez Bencomo, the internationally acclaimed head of the country's Finlay Vaccine Institute, the country was "betting it safe" by waiting longer to manufacture its own vaccines. This way, it would avoid dependence on bigger allies like Russia and China while adding a new commercial export at a time of ongoing economic hardship.

These efforts are already underway. Vietnam, with only 39% of its population fully vaccinated, inked a deal to buy 5 million vaccine doses, with Cuba recently shipping more than 1 million of them to its communist ally, 150,000 of which were donated. Venezuela (32% fully vaccinated) also agreed to buy $12 million worth of the three-dose vaccine and has already started administering it, while Iran (51%) and Nigeria (1.6%) have agreed to partner with the country to develop their own homegrown vaccines. Syria (4.2%) has recently discussed with Cuban officials the prospect of doing the same.

The two vaccines are part of a suite of five Covid vaccines Cuba is developing. That includes a vaccine delivered nasally that's progressed to Phase II of clinical studies, one of only five vaccines in the entire world that have a nasal application, according to one of its top scientists, that could be particularly useful if proven to be safe and effective, given the virus's entry through the nasal cavity. It also includes a booster shot specially designed to work for those already inoculated with other vaccines, and which was recently trialed on Italian tourists. Since September, Cuba's been in the process of getting World Health Organization approval for its vaccines, which would open the door to its widespread adoption.

Unlike the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna, Cuba opted to develop a more traditional vaccine, as Nature explained Tuesday:

In developing Soberana 02, Vérez Bencomo's group drew on its existing "conjugate" vaccine technology. Finlay's conjugate vaccines take a protein or a sugar from a bacterium or virus and chemically link it to a harmless fragment of a neurotoxin protein from the tetanus bacterium... Conjugate vaccines against meningitis and typhoid are used around the world, and Cuba has been immunizing children with a vaccine of this type for years.

[...]

[The Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology's] Abdala vaccine is also making major strides. As with Soberana 02, the technology behind it is adapted from an existing vaccine—one for hepatitis B—that Cuba developed and has used for many years.

Protein-based vaccines like Soberana 02 and Abdala come with multiple advantages.

For one thing, Marcetic wrote, they "can be kept in a fridge or even at room temperature, as opposed to the subpolar temperatures the Pfizer vaccine has to be stored at or the freezer temperatures Moderna's vaccine requires," making distribution easier, especially in developing countries and remote areas.

"Cuba has decommodified a vital human resource—the exact opposite policy direction that we've seen in these last four decades of neoliberalism."

Alluding to other vaccines' extreme cold storage requirements, Helen Yaffe, senior lecturer in economic and social history at the University of Glasgow, told Marcetic that "in the Global South, where huge amounts of the population have no access to electricity, it's just another technological obstacle."

Moreover, because Cuba has relied on conjugate vaccines for years to protect people, including children, from meningitis and typhoid, Bencomo told Nature he is confident that Soberana 02—which has been used to inoculate nearly two million Cuban children so far—is safe across age groups.

As Marcetic noted, "the mRNA technology, which has never been used on kids before, has meant a lag between adult and child vaccination in the developed world—and means vaccines for kids under five are still being developed."

Cuba, by contrast, "aimed from the outset to create a vaccine that kids could take," he added. "As of this month, it's fully vaccinated more than four-fifths of all kids aged two to eighteen."

Arguably the most important aspect of Cuba's vaccines, proponents say, is that their development demonstrates the existence of an alternative model for scientific research that puts people over profits.

"The Cuban vaccine," Yaffe told Marcetic, "is 100% entirely a product of a public biotech sector."

Marcetic explained:

While in the United States and other developed countries, lifesaving medicines are developed thanks largely to public funding before their profits and distribution are ruthlessly privatized for corporate enrichment, Cuba's biotech sector is wholly publicly owned and funded. That means Cuba has decommodified a vital human resource—the exact opposite policy direction that we've seen in these last four decades of neoliberalism.

Cuba has poured billions of dollars into creating a domestic biotech industry since the 1980s, when a combination of an outbreak of dengue fever and new economic sanctions from then-president Ronald Reagan forced its hand. Despite a crushing blockade by the United States, responsible for a third of the world's pharmaceutical production, Cuba's biotech sector has thrived: it makes nearly 70% of the roughly eight hundred medicines that Cubans consume and eight of the eleven vaccines in the country's national immunization program, and it exports hundreds of millions of vaccines a year. The revenues are then reinvested into the sector.

Journalist Paris Marx marveled at Cuba's recent accomplishment. "Under U.S. embargo for 60 years," they tweeted, "Cuba knew it would be hard to obtain Covid vaccines, so it made its own... and they could be key to vaccinating the world."

"The Cuban vaccine is 100% entirely a product of a public biotech sector."

"Being in Canada, it's such a stark contrast," Marx added. "Canada hasn't even manufactured Covid vaccines, let alone developed them, after privatizing the public pharma company. Meanwhile, Cuba is not only measuring up to the top global pharma giants, it's producing vaccines for export."


Marcetic wrote that "while Cuba's rebound from the pandemic suggests [Bencomo's] and the Cuban government's confidence in the vaccines isn't misplaced, it may take some more time for them to get the international scientific community's official imprimatur."

"Should it come," he continued, "it would prove a powerful refutation of the corporate-driven vaccine model that has so far dominated, which holds that, in line with the talking points of Big Pharma, only profit-driven competition can produce the kind of lifesaving innovation the world is desperate for."

Ongoing opposition to the WTO patent waiver threatens to prolong vaccine apartheid and with it, the Covid-19 pandemic—potentially endangering everyone should a vaccine-resistant variant emerge, as epidemiologists have repeatedly warned is a growing possibility.

In light of that, Marcetic added, "we should all hope that Cuba's vaccines are proven as successful as its scientists are sure they are."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

PAID FOR BY KENNEY & UCP
KXL Pipeline Company Exploits NAFTA Provision to File $15 Billion Claim Against US

"NAFTA's legacy of granting multinational corporations special rights to sue governments taking action to protect the environment lives on."



Climate activists hold signs against the Keystone XL project at a September 20, 2013 protest. 
COMMONDREAMS
November 24, 2021

The Canadian company behind the canceled Keystone XL pipeline filed a formal request for arbitration this week under the North American Free Trade Agreement to seek over $15 billion in economic damages over the Biden administration's revocation of the cross-border oil project's permit.

In its Monday filing, TC Energy criticizes the permit's cancellation as "unfair and inequitable" and argues the U.S. government should pay damages for the "regulatory roller coaster" the company endured while seeking to build the pipeline.

"Action on the climate crisis will require trade reforms, including killing these investor provisions."

Erin LeBlanc, a lecturer at the Smith School of Business in Kingston, Ont. told CBC News that amount represents "the largest claim for a Canadian organization against the U.S. government."

The company said in a statement announcing its filing that it "has a responsibility to our shareholders to seek recovery of the losses incurred due to the permit revocation, which resulted in the termination of the project."

The pipeline project, which would have transported tar sands from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast, was first proposed in 2008. Following sustained grassroots pressure, the Obama administration ultimately rejected the pipeline—prompting a since-dropped NAFTA claim. That permit rejection was reversed by the fossil fuel-promoting Trump administration.

President Joe Biden then canceled the permit in his first hours in office—a move attributed to relentless Indigenous-led activism and heralded by climate groups as "a huge win for the health and safety of Americans and our planet."

Related Content

After 'Incredible First Steps' on KXL and Paris, Biden Urged to 'Go Further' on Climate
Jessica Corbett

In July, a month after it declared the project dead, TC Energy filed its intent to use the NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions to recoup perceived economic losses.

As such, the new filing is not surprising, author and water rights expert Maude Barlow noted in a Tuesday tweet. "This awful practice," she added, referring to the ISDS mechanism, "was grandfathered in the old NAFTA."

While the ISDS provision of NAFTA was "gutted" under the replacement U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the company is making a "legacy" NAFTA claim. According to advocacy group Public Citizen, ISDS is "totally rigged" in favor of corporations.

As the group explains on its website:


Under ISDS, [a tribunal of three corporate lawyers] can order U.S. taxpayers to pay corporations unlimited sums of money, including for the loss of "expected future profits" that the corporation would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking.

The multinational corporations only need to convince the lawyers that a law protecting public health or the environment violates their special “trade” agreement rights. The corporate lawyers' decisions are not subject to appeal. And if a country does not pay, the corporation can seize a government's assets—bank accounts, ships, airplanes—to extract the compensation ordered.

Addressing the TC Energy-U.S. government dispute, Bloomberg reported that "the tribunal cannot compel a country to change its laws over the matter nor force approval of the pipeline, but it could award damages for lost profits and costs incurred by the company."

In a Tuesday tweet, Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, put TC Energy's filing in the context of the planetary climate emergency.

"NAFTA's legacy of granting multinational corporations special rights to sue governments taking action to protect the environment lives on," he wrote. "Action on the climate crisis will require trade reforms, including killing these investor provisions."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
FASCISM
South Dakota Supreme Court Kills Recreational Marijuana Law Approved by Voters

The ruling is a win for Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, who directed the state to pay for the legal fight against the voter-backed amendment.



A worker looks through a bag of marijuana that will be used to make marijuana infused chocolate edibles at Kiva Confections on January 16, 2018 in Oakland, California. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

ANDREA GERMANOS
COMMONDREAMS
November 24, 2021

The South Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a lower court's ruling in striking down a voter-approved measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana.

"Legalization opponents... are now petitioning the courts to overturn the will of the people."

In a statement explaining its 4-1 ruling, the court argued that Constitutional Amendment A—which passed by an eight-point margin last year in a state-wide referendum vote last year—was invalid because it dealt with more than one subject and thus ran afoul of the state constitution.

In addition to addressing recreational pot, the measure also had provisions regarding hemp and medical marijuana.

"As a result of the constitutional violation, the court has declared the amendment invalid," the judges said.

Matthew Schweich, campaign director for South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, which led the campaign in support of Amendment A, called the ruling "extremely flawed."

The ruling, according to Schweich, "states that Amendment A comprised three subjects—recreational marijuana, medical marijuana, and hemp legalization—and that South Dakotans could not tell what they were voting on when voting for Amendment A." But Schweich rejected that finding as "a legal stretch and one that relies on the disrespectful assumption that South Dakota voters were intellectually incapable of understanding the initiative."

Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, had backed the lawsuit against legalization and welcomed the supreme court's ruling.

The plaintiffs in the case are South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller and Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom. "Legal fees for Miller's role in challenging the amendment," the Sioux Falls Argus Leader previously reported, "are being paid for by the state of South Dakota at the order of Gov. Kristi Noem, who campaigned against the ballot measure leading up to the election."

Related Content

Senate Democrats Call On Biden to Pardon All Federal Nonviolent Marijuana Offenders
Jessica Corbett

“Legalization opponents cannot succeed in the court of public opinion or at the ballot box," Paul Armentano, deputy director of advocacy group NORML, said in a statement. "Thus, they are now petitioning the courts to overturn the will of the people. Whether or not one supports marijuana legalization, Americans should be deeply concerned by this trend and by the outcome of this case."

Fifty-four percent of South Dakota voters approved the amendment last November. Among other things, it would have allowed recreational use for those over 21, as well as the possession and distribution for up to an ounce of marijuana.

"We had full confidence that a majority of South Dakotans, if given the opportunity to vote on (marijuana), would realize the economic, health, and social justice benefits of marijuana reform. And they did," Drey Samuelson, political director for South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, said at the time.

Legal challenges in the conservative state, however, quickly ensued.

Wednesday's decision upholds the February decision from Circuit Court Judge Christina Klinger.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.