Wednesday, December 27, 2023

Beyoncé’s ‘Renaissance’ comes at pivotal time for Black LGBTQ community

AP Photo/Chris Pizzello

When Leslie Hall first listened to Beyoncé’s Renaissance album, he knew it was something to behold. 

“With this particular album … she gave a love letter to a community that has really made the music and culture industry possible,” said Hall, director of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities program at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

With a world tour that grossed $579 million — becoming the highest-grossing tour by a female artist — and a documentary that earned $21 million its first weekend in theaters, advocates say Beyoncé’s “Renaissance” creations have highlighted Black power and Black queerness at a time when Black history and LGBTQ+ rights are under attack. 

Hall admits he is not one to usually enjoy whole albums, but he found himself listening to Renaissance without skipping any tracks. 

“I didn’t feel like I had to put on different hats — the Black hat or the gay hat,” Hall said. “I felt I could be my whole self throughout the entire album.”

The album features voices from iconic members of the LGBTQ+ and house music communities, including samples from Lidell Townsell & M.T.F, Honey Dijon and Ts Madison. 

During the Renaissance World Tour, Black and LGBTQ+ dancers graced the stage. Fans screamed themselves hoarse as dancers like Honey Balenciaga and Amari Marshall vogued and twerked across the stage.

The inspiration behind “Renaissance” comes from the superstar’s late Uncle Johnny, a gay man who died of AIDS when Beyoncé was a teenager. 

“Uncle Johnny had a lot of different layers of marginalization on him and to now be able to go from really not being able to say gay and living your truth to being able to go to a concert in a state where you could lose your job for being gay shows the beauty and the promise of America,” Hall said. “I’m not really trying to be all ‘American Dream’ about it, but it does show that, like, America is an imperfect project and it shows that over time, we do evolve and get better.”

In one of her songs, “Heated,” Beyoncé proudly declares that Uncle Johnny made her dress. Fans catch a glimpse of that dress in “Renaissance: A film by Beyoncé,” released on Dec. 1, which is World AIDS day. 

It was a powerful moment, said David Johns, director of the National Black Justice Association (NBJC), as it highlighted just how many have been able to thrive because of the encouragement of Black LGBTQ+ people around them.

“Most of us Black folks know an Uncle Johnny or Aunt Justine,” Johns told The Hill. “Many of us have been loved on by Black trans-, queer and gender-expansive folks and I think those of us who are lucky enough to have been able to do so in public not only find ways to acknowledge the references that we got from them and how they showed up for us, but also find ways to give them their flowers.” 

The album not only pays homage to the man who introduced Beyoncé to house music — a genre created by gay Black men in the clubs of Chicago — but makes clear that Beyoncé stands with the LGBTQ community, added Hall.

In one song, the Grammy award-winning artist fully spells out the colors of the Progress Pride flag: black, green, pink, blue, purple, blue, white, brown and yellow.

During the World Tour, which was three times in three different cities by this reporter, the flag is portrayed across a screen as attendees file in. 

“The way that she allowed us to feel safe and loved, in spite of all of the political attacks that we are experiencing, is noteworthy,” Johns said.

Those political attacks include banning books that delve into race and LGBTQ+ topics; attempts by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to ban an Advanced Placement African American studies program from running in public schools; and the more than 520 anti-LGBTQ+ bills that have been introduced in state legislatures this year.

Hall and his team at HRC are pushing back against these laws through Beyoncé’s artistry. The HBCU Program recently created “Renaissance: A Queer Syllabus.” 

The syllabus takes each song from the album and pairs it with resources to explain topics like the Harlem Renaissance, intersectionality and social justice. The syllabus also features authors like bell hooks and Audrey Lord. 

“If a faculty member or a teacher wanted to … talk about LGBTQ inclusion, particularly in an environment where folks are banning your lesson plans and books, this is how you could take music and still be able to get certain lessons across without jeopardizing these draconian, unethical, immoral laws that are in place in some of these states,” said Hall. “We just really wanted to want Beyoncé’s work, but more importantly we want it to advance LGBTQ inclusion, queer identities, and empowerment and resilience.”

Still, there was a time when some fans urged Beyoncé to cancel her shows in states that were passing such legislation.

The New York Times projected the “Renaissance” tour generated nearly $4.5 billion in revenue for the U.S. economy. 

“There’s not a state that you can travel to where a version of ‘Don’t Say Gay’ hasn’t either been introduced or codified,” Johns said. “I understand where it comes from, but if the ask or expectation is to only go to friendly or affirming — especially queer — spaces, they really don’t exist. There are very few spaces where we can actually go and assume safety. I think that that’s true for all of us who are Black or who have skin that’s been kissed by the sun. It’s doubly true for those of us who have intersectional identities. And for that reason, I think we have a birthright to take up space and experience joy as often as possible.”

But Johns added that the “Renaissance” movement has also highlighted the power behind Black women in particular. 

“We see the results of the labor of Black people in this moment, and Black women in all arenas,” Johns said. “Beyonce, [Supreme Court] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama – we see what happens when Black women show up and take up space. If we were freed up from having to deal with the bulls–t we could do that much more.”






THE NEW CANCEL CULTURE
Activist Shaun King says Meta banned him from Instagram because of his pro-Palestinian stance

Without citing specifics, the tech giant said it disabled the account for "multiple instances of praise for designated entities in violation of our policies."

Shaun King had a following of more than 5 million users before his Instagram account was removed on Christmas Eve.
Dave Kotinsky / Getty Images for Universal file
HEY INSTAGRAM; JESUS WAS PALESTINIAN 
GET THE IRONY

Dec. 26, 2023
By Angela Yang

Meta has banned social justice activist Shaun King from Instagram, and he claims his account was disabled because he posted support for Palestinians in the Israel-Hamas war.

King, known for his social media advocacy on movements such as Black Lives Matter, had a following of more than 5 million users before his account on the Meta-owned platform was removed on Christmas Eve.

“The account was disabled due to multiple instances of praise for designated entities in violation of our policies,” a Meta spokesperson wrote in an email.

The spokesperson did not specify King’s violations, although Meta has come under scrutiny since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel for its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, which states that its platforms do not permit “praise, substantive support and representation of various dangerous organizations and individuals.”

A Human Rights Watch report this month urged Meta to overhaul this policy, pointing to a series of “flaws” in its enforcement. The organization analyzed patterns of “heightened censorship” around content supporting Palestinians, citing user reports of Meta removing their posts or restricting their access to certain Instagram and Facebook features.

On Monday, King posted a video and statement on his Facebook page claiming the platform banned him for “fighting for Palestine” online.

“I am told by my sources inside of Meta that they are tracking my IP address and will delete anything I say anywhere I say it,” King wrote on Facebook, which is also owned by Meta.

He added that he plans to take every measure available to get himself back on Instagram.

“I formally appealed the night of the suspension, but have also now retained attorneys to proceed with the Civil Rights Division of the legal team at Meta,” King wrote in an email to NBC News Tuesday.

In his Facebook statement, he wrote that he is “safe” and that he had hoped his Instagram platform would serve as a cover for Palestinians who “cannot afford to lose their accounts” by documenting their plight within Gaza and the West Bank.

“I refuse to betray my values and principles by staying silent about this genocide and the war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank,” he wrote. “You can NEVER mince words about genocide. You can never mince words about war crimes. ⁣You MUST speak truth to power every way you know how.”

He said he feared Meta would further retaliate against Palestinians.

Many on Facebook commented their support under his post. But others online were more critical, and even some pro-Palestinian activists celebrated his account's removal.

King has been a controversial figure online, having faced repeated accusations of failing to deliver money he raised to the intended recipients. He has also faced allegations of lying about his biracial background, accusations he denied in a 2015 essay.

Some on X resurfaced the hashtag #BlockShaunKing, which first trended on the platform more than two years ago after Samaria Rice, mother of Tamir Rice, and Lisa Simpson, mother of Richard Risher, called him out for “monopolizing and capitalizing [on]” the Black Lives Matter movement.

“I support Palestine. I do not support Shaun King,” one X user posted to more than 4,000 likes. The user added in a reply: “I understand the role he has played in showcasing information coming from Palestine, but I do not believe his intentions were pure, and I do believe intentions matter with regards to doing this kind of work.”

Another user wrote on X: “The best Christmas gift I could imagine is Shaun King getting deleted from the internet. He is not the hill anyone should die on. Follow actual Palestinians. Follow actual Black people. Let’s not take known grifters into the new year, thanks!”


Angela Yang is a culture and trends reporter for NBC News.





POSTMODERN WAR COMMUNISM
Ghost Ships at reawakened North Korea port put Ukraine in peril

Jon Herskovitz - Bloomberg News (TNS)

A dormant North Korean port near the border with Russia has sprung back to life, fueling what experts say is a burgeoning trade in arms destined for the frontlines in Ukraine that is simultaneously bolstering the anemic economy managed by Kim Jong Un.


Satellite imagery of the Najin port taken from October to December shows a steady stream of ships at the facility, hundreds of shipping containers being loaded and unloaded, and rail cars ready to transport goods.

The activity appears to have picked up since early October, when the U.S. accused North Korea of sending munitions to Russia. The White House provided imagery it said showed weapons later being delivered thousands of miles away to a depot in the Russian town of Tikhoretsk for use in Ukraine.

The flow of munitions that the U.S. and South Korea say have included hundreds of thousands of artillery shells could grow far greater in importance as divisions in the U.S. Congress and European Union over military aid threaten Kyiv’s ability to repel Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion.

“Pyongyang’s decision to deliver munitions at scale once again underscores the grave threat that North Korea poses to international security, this time feeding a conflagration on European soil that has already cost the lives of tens of thousands of Ukrainians and consumed tens of billions of dollars in Western military support,” according to a report by the Royal United Services Institute, a U.K. security think tank.

Pyongyang, which has been banned from arms sales for about 15 years, has repeatedly rejected accusations it is supplying Russia.

Analysis of the satellite data suggests otherwise. In a recent example, an image from Dec. 9 seems to show the Russian container ship Angara, sanctioned by the U.S., in Najin’s port unloading cargo while containers from North Korea await loading at an adjacent pier.

“Satellite imagery shows that round trips of cargo vessels between Najin, North Korea, and Dunay, Russia, have continued unabatedly despite additional U.S. sanctions and widespread reporting on this activity in the past few months,” said Jaewoo Shin, an analyst at the Open Nuclear Network in Vienna.

Shin said that while the nature of the cargo can’t be confirmed with available imagery,
the number of round trips and transferred containers suggest a significant and ongoing exchange, possibly including weapons and other military supplies.

As the North Korea-Russia trade picks up, the flow of U.S. military aid to Kyiv has been increasingly under threat, with the Pentagon saying it will run out of money to replace weapons sent to Ukraine by Dec. 30 unless Congress approves additional funding. That’s unlikely now, with most lawmakers out of Washington for the year-end holidays.

With an effective stalemate on the battlefield, the Kremlin is increasingly confident Russia can consolidate its control over occupied regions of eastern and southern Ukraine and wait for international support for Ukraine to erode. Putin said this month that “there’ll be peace when we achieve our goals.”

For many U.S. partners, the flagging support for Ukraine is tied in part to a much-vaunted counteroffensive during the spring and summer that failed to deliver on the high expectations of allies.

While satellite imagery shows steady activity at Najin, the vessels docking there appear to have turned off international maritime transponders that give their location, effectively turning them into ghost ships as they make the relatively short trip between Najin and Dunay — also written as Dunai — about 110 miles away. The Central Intelligence Agency identified the port as a Soviet submarine base during the Cold War, according to a document obtained by RUSI, the U.K. think tank.

RUSI’s October report analyzed dozens of high-resolution images that it concluded showed a few cargo vessels repeatedly making the trip between Najin and Dunay, likely packed with North Korean arms that are then sent across Russia.

That trade appears to have continued in the time since the report was published, according to Joseph Byrne, a research fellow at RUSI and co-author of the report.

“There has been a continuation of deliveries by these vessels,” he said, adding there is “a continuation of the unloading of boxes loaded in Russia and delivered to North Korea and then the loading of containers that have seemingly comes down from rail cars from other places in North Korea to apparently be shipped back to Russian military facilities.”

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service told lawmakers in November there had been about 10 shipments of weapons from North Korea to Russia since August, likely encompassing more than 1 million rounds of artillery. North Korea holds some of the world’s largest stores of munitions, much of it interoperable with weapons Russia has on the front lines.

“About six weeks later, I’ve seen no signs of the transfer rate slowing down — so for all we know that’s another half million shells,” said weapons expert Joost Oliemans, who co-authored the book The Armed Forces of North Korea.

Oliemans said he’s identified four types of munitions that have been a part of recent deliveries: 120 millimeter mortars, 122mm and 152 mm artillery shells and 122 mm rockets based on an analysis of what is making its way to the front lines.

“The situation on the battlefield is impacted” by those deliveries, he said. “Rather than seeing a notable change in tactics or swaths of land suddenly changing hands, it will allow Russia to keep up much higher pressure for longer on Ukrainian forces.”

An extra one million shells means about 2,700 rounds more per day Russia could fire at Ukraine, which is already having trouble procuring artillery and may face more difficulty if aid from the U.S. isn’t secured.

“How much exactly North Korea will be able to deliver is anyone’s guess,” Oliemans said, adding that deliveries will likely slow down once inventories become depleted, with North Korea’s manufacturing capabilities insufficient to keep up with the pace of demand.

Russia’s importance to North Korea had waned after the end of the Cold War, with China becoming Pyongyang’s biggest benefactor. Trade between Russia and North Korea slowed to a trickle when Kim shut the borders at the start of the pandemic.

But as COVID protections eased, and international sanctions hung over Moscow and Pyongyang, the two rekindled ties, finding they each had something the other wanted and could trade without real repercussions from the outside world.

The assistance Kim receives from Russia is easing the pressure of years of sanctions over his increasing nuclear arsenal and potentially making the already-tense situation on the Korean Peninsula worse.

“With both Kim and Putin recognizing the utility and benefits of partnership, cooperation is likely to continue between North Korea and Russia into next year,” said Soo Kim, a former Korea analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, who now works at U.S.-based management consulting firm LMI.

“The give-and-take between the two countries is unlikely to be stopped so long as the international consequences — sanctions, reputational shaming — remain symbolic and largely insufficient to deter bad behavior,” she said.

(With assistance from Kevin Varley.)

©2023 Bloomberg L.P. 

Ghost Ships at Reawakened North Korea Port Put Ukraine in Peril


Nothing Personal
Dec 26, 2023

A dormant North Korean port near the border with Russia has sprung back to life, fueling what experts say is a burgeoning trade in arms destined for the frontlines in Ukraine that is simultaneously bolstering the anemic economy managed by Kim Jong Un.


U$A

Patient infections and falls, spiked in hospitals owned by private equity: study

(File: Getty)

Patient falls and infections spiked at hospitals that were taken over by private equity firms according to a new study.

The study, published Tuesday in the Journal of American Medicine, used data from 100 percent Medicare Part A claims and found that three years after hospitals experienced private equity acquisition, there was a 25.4 percent rise in “hospital-acquired conditions, which was driven by falls and central line–associated bloodstream infections.”

“Medicare beneficiaries at private equity hospitals were modestly younger, less likely to have dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, and transferred more to other acute care hospitals relative to control, likely reflecting a lower-risk population of admitted beneficiaries,” the study read.

“This potentially explained a small relative reduction for in-hospital mortality that dissipated by 30 days after hospital discharge.”

Two weeks ago, the Lower Costs, More Transparency Leadership Act passed the House after facing previous opposition in September from Democrats like Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) due to it not having any provisions regarding private equity ownership of health facilities.

The bill also has an aim of banning spread pricing from pharmacy benefit managers, alongside adding site-neutral payment reforms to Medicare.

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) described the legislation as “is a victory for everyone who has ever struggled to navigate and understand the cost of a health care procedure or a prescription drug at the pharmacy counter.”

“These measures will empower consumers and employers with data on the prices hospitals charge and the rates insurers pay so that they can compare prices and save money,” Pallone added. 




The Army’s first-ever lead special trial counsel just got fired for behaving ethically

Christine Wormuth
Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, testifies before a Senate Armed Services committee hearing to examine the posture of the Department of the Army in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2023 and the Future Years Defense Program, Thursday, May 5, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Last December, Brigadier General Warren Wells was appointed and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Army’s Lead Special Trial Counsel. The newly created position was part of a sweeping effort by Congress to reform the military justice system to insulate against unlawful command influence in cases involving serious criminal offenses, such as those involving sexual assault and violence.

At the time of Wells’s appointment, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth hailed him as “the experienced leader the Army needs to lead the Office of Special Trial Counsel and ensure its independent oversight of the Army’s most complex cases.” 

Yet earlier this month, Wells was relieved of his position over a single decade-old email. This came after he had served only a year as the Army’s top independent prosecutor and within weeks of the statutory deadline for the new office to become fully operational.

In 2013, serving in his leadership role, Wells had urged a group of fellow defense attorneys to uphold their duty in the face of high-pressure sexual assault cases. The email read in part, “hopefully a Soldier will be able to get a fair trial. You and your teams are now the ONLY line of defense against false allegations… [y]ou literally are the personal defenders of those who no one will now defend, even when all signs indicate innocence.”

That email was the essence of leadership. Wells exhorted defense counsel to do their job and remain independent from outside influence. Service members deserve nothing less from appointed defense counsel. What American would want otherwise?

By firing Wells, the Secretary of the Army endangers the professional ethos that is the cornerstone of our armed forces. Political commissars operating in Joseph Stalin’s Russia or implementing Vladimir Putin’s personal desires would understand her desire to control independent thinking and professional practice among sworn public servants.

As a retired Army Judge Advocate, I have never previously thought that I should condition advice to students based on the possibility that, if they take their legal careers into the armed services, they might be obligated to sacrifice professional judgement or ethical obligations in doing so. This has now changed with the winds of political correctness blowing across President Biden’s Army, potentially devastating combat effectiveness. 

Secretary Wormuth fired Wells, she said, because she had lost “trust and confidence” springing from the old email. Her decision signals that fear of political recrimination should color the advice of active-duty attorneys acting on behalf of clients.

The irony is that Wells’s removal vindicates his caution from a decade ago to his subordinate attorneys, that they should perform their duties in the face of criticism by “those with an agenda.” 

The ethical calling of defense attorneys is to zealously represent their clients. Secretary Wormuth has signaled that compliance with professional and ethical duties is insufficient. Careers now depend on shifting political winds.

This will lead lead defense counsel to give weak or ineffective legal advice. It is also the pathway to unlawful command influence that rattles in any American family sending daughters and sons into uniformed service.

We owe service members unfettered legal advice in pursuit of their basic human rights to fair and independent proceedings. Representation of clients cannot coexist with considering the interests of either military or civilian superiors. Any other rule creates inescapable perceptions of unfair corruption of supposedly impartial trial processes. 

Today, our all-volunteer Army already faces serious recruiting headwinds. This is just one more reason for smart and well-educated young people to avoid serving as officers.

Wormuth had every official right in her role to shape the United States Army to her liking. By the same token, Biden owns this problem. The secretary of the Army serves at his pleasure. He has constitutional authority to request her resignation for precisely the rationale she employed in eroding the independence of uniformed lawyers.

Biden, and he alone, can attest that the current secretary of the Army has “lost my trust and confidence.” Anyone who cares about the integrity, apolitical professionalism, and preparedness of the U.S. military should demand that he stand for these principles.

Professor Michael Newton is a West Point graduate and former U.S. Army Judge Advocate. He currently serves as a professor in the Practice of Law and Director International Legal Studies Program at Vanderbilt University Law School. 

 

Nearly 10 million Americans will get raises from minimum wage hikes in 2024: study


HOW THE 99% GET RAISES
Over two dozen states will raise their minimum wage in 2024. Is yours one of them? (Getty)

A new year will bring more pay for millions of Americans, according to a new study from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

On New Years Day, 22 states will raise their minimum wage, giving nearly 9.9 million Americans a pay raise. In total, workers will receive $6.95 billion in additional wages from the increases.

In addition, 38 cities and counties will increase their minimum wages on January 1, rising above their state floors and adding to the number of workers who will see any increase in their paychecks.

The analysis by EPI shows that women will make up more than half — 57.9 percent — of the workers getting an increase on the first day of 2024.

Minimum wage increases will also disproportionately help Black and Hispanic workers, EPI argued.

African Americans make up nine percent of the workforce in states with increases, but 11 percent of the workers affected by the increases. Meanwhile, Hispanic workers make up 19.6 percent of the states workforces, but nearly 40 percent of the ones earning an increase.

The increases will also benefit families, with more than a quarter (25.8 percent) of affected workers being parents, equating to more than 2.5 million people. As a whole, 5.6 million children are living in a home where an individual will receive a minimum wage increase.

Workers and families in need will earn support from the increases. Almost one in five of the workers getting a raise have incomes below the poverty line and an even higher 47 percent have incomes two times below the poverty line.

Individuals in California, Hawaii and New York make up 51 percent of those earning a raise, all states with high costs-of-living.

The twenty-two states increasing their minimum wage in the new year are:

  • Maine
  • Vermont
  • Washington
  • Montana
  • Minnesota
  • Michigan
  • Illinois
  • New York
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Ohio
  • New Jersey
  • Connecticut
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Nebraska
  • Missouri
  • Maryland
  • Deleware
  • Arizona
  • Alaska
  • Hawaii

Hawaii is the state with the highest increase, growing to $14 an hour, a two-dollar increase. This translates to a boost of $1,380 in annual wages for the average, full-time and year-round worker.

Michigan is the state with the smallest increase, going from $10.10 an hour to $10.33, translating to an additional $216 a year for the average full-time worker.

case before the Michigan Supreme Court could increase that amount for low-wage workers.

Among other notable increases, the minimum wages in Maryland, New Jersey and upstate New York will equal or exceed $15 an hour for the first time, joining the rest of New York, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Washington as the only states with minimum wages at or above $15 an hour.

Seven states have passed legislation or ballot measures to reach or exceed $15 an hour. The states are Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Virginia.

Over 17 million workers still earn less than $15 an hour, according to EPI, and 47.8 percent of those people live in one of the 20 states that use the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

 

Bristol Myers to buy cancer therapy company in $4.1 billion deal

Credit: Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb on Tuesday announced a deal to acquire RayzeBio in an effort to expand the drugmaker’s cancer treatment offerings.

The acquisition was for a total equity value of about $4.1 billion, at $62.50 per share.

RayzeBio, a clinical-stage radiopharmaceutical therapeutics (RPT) company, has several cancer treatments under development, specifically ones targeting the treatment of solid tumors, including gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), small cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma and other cancers, according to a press release.

The lead program, RYZ101, is undergoing clinical trials, and the press release said the interim results of an earlier phase of the trial suggested promising results.

“This transaction enhances our increasingly diversified oncology portfolio by bringing a differentiated platform and pipeline, and further strengthens our growth opportunities in the back half of the decade and beyond,” Bristol Myers Squibb CEO Christopher Boerner said in the press release.

“Radiopharmaceutical therapeutics are already transforming cancer care, and RayzeBio is at the forefront of pioneering the application of this novel modality. We look forward to supporting and accelerating RayzeBio’s preclinical and clinical programs and advancing its highly innovative radiopharmaceutical platform,” he added.

Samit Hirawat, the executive vice president and chief medical officer for drug development at Bristol Myers Squibb, described the acquisition as one that will “establish Bristol Myers Squibb’s presence in one of the most promising and fastest-growing new modalities for the treatment of patients with solid tumors — delivering radioactive payloads to cancer cells in a targeted manner.”

Bristol Myers Squibb will also acquire RayzeBio’s new manufacturing facility in Indianapolis, which is under construction but is expected to begin GMP drug production in the first half of 2024.

RayzeBio CEO and President Ken Song lauded the acquisition by Bristol Myers Squibb, which Song described as “the ideal partner for RayzeBio at this important moment in our evolution,” noting the company’s “well-established presence in oncology and deep expertise in developing, commercializing and manufacturing treatments on a global scale.”

“Despite therapeutic advances in recent years, the need for more effective treatments in solid tumors persists, and radiopharmaceutical therapeutics are positioned to be an important next wave of innovation in oncology therapy,” Song said. “I am excited to see what our team achieves as part of Bristol Myers Squibb.”

The Military Industrial Complex Is More Powerful Than Ever

The current war machine isn’t your grandfather’s MIC, not by a country mile.

WILLIAM D. HARTUNG and BENJAMIN FREEMAN

A Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning fighter jet is shown at the Singapore Airshow in 201
4.(Jordan Tan, Shutterstock)

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com

MAY 9, 2023

The military-industrial complex (MIC) that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans about more than 60 years ago is still alive and well. In fact, it’s consuming many more tax dollars and feeding far larger weapons producers than when Ike raised the alarm about the “unwarranted influence” it wielded in his 1961 farewell address to the nation.

The statistics are stunning. This year’s proposed budget for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons work at the Department of Energy is $886 billion —more than twice as much, adjusted for inflation, as at the time of Eisenhower’s speech. The Pentagon now consumes more than half the federal discretionary budget, leaving priorities like public health, environmental protection, job training, and education to compete for what remains. In 2020, Lockheed Martin received $75 billion in Pentagon contracts, more than the entire budget of the State Department and the Agency for International Development combined.

This year’s spending just for that company’s overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft equals the full budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And as a new report from the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies revealed recently, the average taxpayer spends $1,087 per year on weapons contractors compared to $270 for K-12 education and just $6 for renewable energy.

The list goes on—and on and on. President Eisenhower characterized such tradeoffs in a lesser-known speech, “The Chance for Peace,” delivered in April 1953, early in his first term, this way:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

How sadly of this moment that is.

New Rationales, New Weaponry

Now, don’t be fooled. The current war machine isn’t your grandfather’s MIC, not by a country mile. It receives far more money and offers far different rationales. It has far more sophisticated tools of influence and significantly different technological aspirations.

Perhaps the first and foremost difference between Eisenhower’s era and ours is the sheer size of the major weapons firms. Before the post-Cold War merger boom of the 1990s, there were dozens of significant defense contractors. Now, there are just five big (no, enormous!) players—Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. With so few companies to produce aircraft, armored vehicles, missile systems, and nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has ever more limited leverage in keeping them from overcharging for products that don’t perform as advertised. The Big Five alone routinely split more than $150 billion in Pentagon contracts annually, or nearly 20 percent of the total Pentagon budget. Altogether, more than half of the department’s annual spending goes to contractors large and small.

In Eisenhower’s day, the Soviet Union, then this country’s major adversary, was used to justify an ever larger, ever more permanent arms establishment. Today’s “pacing threat,” as the Pentagon calls it, is China, a country with a far larger population, a far more robust economy, and a far more developed technical sector than the Soviet Union ever had. But unlike the USSR, China’s primary challenge to the United States is economic, not military.

Yet, as Dan Grazier noted in a December 2022 report for the Project on Government Oversight, Washington’s ever more intense focus on China has been accompanied by significant military threat inflation. While China hawks in Washington wring their hands about that country having more naval vessels than America, Grazier points out that our Navy has far more firepower. Similarly, the active American nuclear weapons stockpile is roughly nine times as large as China’s and the Pentagon budget three times what Beijing spends on its military, according to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

But for Pentagon contractors, Washington’s ever more intense focus on the prospect of war with China has one overriding benefit: It’s fabulous for business. The threat of China’s military, real or imagined, continues to be used to justify significant increases in military spending, especially on the next generation of high-tech systems ranging from hypersonic missiles to robotic weapons and artificial intelligence. The history of such potentially dysfunctional high-tech systems, from President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile defense system to the F-35, does not bode well, however, for the cost or performance of emerging military technologies.

No matter, count on one thing: Tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars will undoubtedly go into developing them anyway. And remember that they are dangerous and not just to any enemy. As Michael Klare pointed out in an Arms Control Association report: “AI-enabled systems may fail in unpredictable ways, causing unintended human slaughter or an uncontrolled escalation crisis.”

Arsenal of Influence

Despite a seemingly neverending list of overpriced, underperforming weapons systems developed for a Pentagon that’s the only federal agency never to pass an audit, the MIC has an arsenal of influence propelling it ever closer to a trillion-dollar annual budget. In short, it’s bilking more money from taxpayers than ever before and just about everyone—from lobbyists galore to countless political campaigns, think tanks beyond number to Hollywood—is in on it.

And keep in mind that the dominance of a handful of mega-firms in weapons production means that each of the top players has more money to spread around in lobbying and campaign contributions. They also have more facilities and employees to point to, often in politically key states, when persuading members of Congress to vote for—Yes!—even more money for their weaponry of choice.

The arms industry as a whole has donated more than $83 million to political candidates in the past two election cycles, with Lockheed Martin leading the pack with $9.1 million in contributions, followed by Raytheon at $8 million, and Northrop Grumman at $7.7 million. Those funds, you won’t be surprised to learn, are heavily concentrated among members of the House and Senate armed services committees and defense appropriations subcommittees. For example, as Taylor Giorno of OpenSecrets, a group that tracks campaign and lobbying expenditures, has found, “The 58 members of the House Armed Services Committee reported receiving an average of $79,588 from the defense sector during the 2022 election cycle, three times the average $26,213 other representatives reported through the same period.”

Lobbying expenditures by all the denizens of the MIC are even higher—more than $247 million in the last two election cycles. Such funds are used to employ 820 lobbyists, or more than one for every member of Congress. And mind you, more than two-thirds of those lobbyists had swirled through Washington’s infamous revolving door from jobs at the Pentagon or in Congress to lobby for the arms industry. Their contacts in government and knowledge of arcane acquisition procedures help ensure that the money keeps flowing for more guns, tanks, ships and missiles. Just last month, the office of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) reported that nearly 700 former high-ranking government officials, including former generals and admirals, now work for defense contractors. While a few of them are corporate board members or highly paid executives, 91 percent of them became Pentagon lobbyists, according to the report.

And that feverishly spinning revolving door provides current members of Congress, their staff, and Pentagon personnel with a powerful incentive to play nice with those giant contractors while still in their government roles. After all, a lucrative lobbying career awaits once they leave government service.

Nor is it just K Street lobbying jobs those weapons-making corporations are offering. They’re also spreading jobs to nearly every Main Street in America. The poster child for such jobs as a selling point for an otherwise questionable weapons system is Lockheed Martin’s F-35. It may never be fully ready for combat thanks to countless design flaws, including more than 800 unresolved defects detected by the Pentagon’s independent testing office. But the company insists that its program produces no less than 298,000 jobs in 48 states, even if the actual total is less than half of that.

In reality—though you’d never know this in today’s Washington—the weapons sector is a declining industry when it comes to job creation, even if it does absorb near-record levels of government funding. According to statistics gathered by the National Defense Industrial Association, there are currently one million direct jobs in arms manufacturing compared to 3.2 million in the 1980s.

Outsourcing, automation, and the production of fewer units of more complex systems have skewed the workforce toward better-paying engineering jobs and away from production work, a shift that has come at a high price. The vacuuming up of engineering and scientific talent by weapons makers means fewer skilled people are available to address urgent problems like public health and the climate crisis. Meanwhile, it’s estimated that spending on education, green energy, health care, or infrastructure could produce 40 percent to 100 percent more jobs than Pentagon spending does.

Shaping the Elite Narrative: The Military-Industrial Complex and Think Tanks

One of the MIC’s most powerful tools is its ability to shape elite discussions on national security issues by funding foreign policy think tanks, along with affiliated analysts who are all too often the experts of choice when it comes to media coverage on issues of war and peace. A forthcoming Quincy Institute brief reveals that more than 75 percent of the top foreign-policy think tanks in the United States are at least partially funded by defense contractors. Some, like the Center for a New American Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, receive millions of dollars every year from such contractors and then publish articles and reports that are largely supportive of defense-industry funding.

Some such think tanks even offer support for weapons made by their funders without disclosing those glaring conflicts of interest. For example, an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholar’s critique of this year’s near-historically high Pentagon budget request, which, she claimed, was “well below inflation,” also included support for increased funding for a number of weapons systems like the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, the B-21 bomber, and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile.

What’s not mentioned in the piece? The companies that build those weapons, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, have been AEI funders. Although that institute is a “dark money” think tank that doesn’t publicly disclose its funders, at an event last year, a staffer let slip that the organization receives money from both of those contractors.

Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets disproportionately rely on commentary from experts at just such think tanks. That forthcoming Quincy Institute report, for example, found that they were more than four times as likely as those without MIC funding to be cited in New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal articles about the Ukraine War. In short, when you see a think-tank expert quoted on questions of war and peace, odds are his or her employer receives money from the war machine.

What’s more, such think tanks have their own version of a feverishly spinning revolving door, earning them the moniker “holding tanks” for future government officials. The Center for a New American Security, for example, receives millions of dollars from defense contractors and the Pentagon every year and has boasted that a number of its experts and alumni joined the Biden administration, including high-ranking political appointees at the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency.
Shaping the Public Narrative: The Military-Entertainment Complex

Top Gun: Maverick was a certified blockbuster, wowing audiences that ultimately gave that action film an astounding 99 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes—and such popular acclaim helped earn the movie a Best Picture Oscar nomination. It was also a resounding success for the Pentagon, which worked closely with the filmmakers and provided, “equipment—including jets and aircraft carriers—personnel and technical expertise,” and even had the opportunity to make script revisions, according to The Washington Post. Defense contractors were similarly a pivotal part of that movie’s success. In fact, the CEO of Lockheed Martin boasted that his firm “partnered with Top Gun’s producers to bring cutting-edge, future forward technology to the big screen.”

While Top Gun: Maverick might have been the most successful recent product of the military-entertainment complex, it’s just the latest installment in a long history of Hollywood spreading military propaganda. “The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have exercised direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and television shows,” according to professor Roger Stahl, who researches propaganda and state violence at the University of Georgia.

“The result is an entertainment culture rigged to produce relatively few antiwar movies and dozens of blockbusters that glorify the military,” explained journalist David Sirota, who has repeatedly called attention to the perils of the military-entertainment complex. “And save for filmmakers’ obligatory thank you to the Pentagon in the credits,” argued Sirota, “audiences are rarely aware that they may be watching government-subsidized propaganda.”

What Next for the MIC?

More than 60 years after Eisenhower identified the problem and gave it a name, the military-industrial complex continues to use its unprecedented influence to corrupt budget and policy processes, starve funding for non-military solutions to security problems, and ensure that war is the ever more likely “solution” to this country’s problems. The question is: What can be done to reduce its power over our lives, our livelihoods, and ultimately, the future of the planet?

Countering the modern-day military-industrial complex would mean dislodging each of the major pillars undergirding its power and influence. That would involve campaign-finance reform; curbing the revolving door between the weapons industry and government; shedding more light on its funding of political campaigns, think tanks, and Hollywood; and prioritizing investments in the jobs of the future in green technology and public health instead of piling up ever more weapons systems. Most important of all, perhaps, a broad-based public education campaign is needed to promote more realistic views of the challenge posed by China and to counter the current climate of fear that serves the interests of the Pentagon and the giant weapons contractors at the expense of the safety and security of the rest of us.

That, of course, would be no small undertaking, but the alternative—an ever-spiraling arms race that could spark a world-ending conflict or prevent us from addressing existential threats like climate change and pandemics—is simply unacceptable.


William D. HartungWilliam D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.


Benjamin Freemanis a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.



MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

The unusual operators of the world's newest airline

 Dec 27 2023

SECRETARíA DE GOBERNACIóN
The Mexicana airline plans to carry tourists from Mexican cities to resorts like Cancun, Puerto Vallarta, Los Cabos, Zihuatanejo, Acapulco and Mazatlan

Mexico has launched its army-run airline on Tuesday (Wednesday NZT), when the first Mexicana airlines flight took off from Mexico City bound for the Caribbean resort of Tulum.

It was another sign of the outsized role that President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has given to Mexico’s armed forces. The airline’s military-run holding company now also operates about a dozen airports, hotels, trains, the country’s customs service and tourist parks.

General Luís Cresencio Sandoval, Mexico’s defence secretary, said that having all those diverse businesses run by the military was “common in developed countries”.
In fact, only a few countries like Cuba, Sri Lanka, Argentina and Colombia have military-run airlines. They are mostly small carriers with a handful of prop planes that operate mostly on under-served or remote domestic routes.

But the Mexicana airline plans to carry tourists from Mexican cities to resorts like Cancun, Puerto Vallarta, Los Cabos, Zihuatanejo, Acapulco and Mazatlan. Flights appear to be scheduled every three or four days, largely on weekends.

The carrier hopes to compete mainly on price: the first 425 tickets sold offered prices of about US$92 (NZ$145) for the flight from Mexico City to Tulum, which the government claimed was about one-third cheaper than commercial airlines.

However, Mexicana's first flight didn't go according to plan. The company said Flight MXA 1788 had to be re-routed to the colonial city of Merida because of poor weather conditions in Tulum. After a wait, it finally took off again and arrived in Tulum about five hours after it took off from Mexico City, about double the usual travel time.

Mexicana also hopes to fly to 16 small regional airports that currently have no flights or very few. For those worried about being told to “Fasten your seatbelt, and that’s an order,” the cabin crew on the Mexicana flight appeared to be civilians. In Mexico, the air force is a wing of the army.

Sandoval said the airline began operations with three Boeing jets and two smaller leased Embraer planes, and hopes to lease or acquire five more jets in early 2024.

López Obrador called the takeoff of the first Boeing 737-800 jet “a historic event” and a “new stage,” marking the return of the formerly government-run airline Mexicana, which had been privatised, then went bankrupt and finally closed in 2010.

The airline combines Lopez Obrador's reliance on the military – which he claims is the most incorruptible and patriotic arm of the government – and his nostalgia for the state-run companies that dominated Mexico's economy until widespread privatisations were carried out in the 1980s.

López Obrador recalled fondly the days when government-run firms operated everything from oil, gas, electricity and mining, to airlines and telephone service. He bashed the privatisations, which were carried out because Mexico's indebted government could no longer afford to operate the inefficient, state-owned companies.

“They carried out a big fraud,” the president said at his daily morning news briefing. “They deceived a lot of people, saying these state-run companies didn't work.”

In fact, the state-run companies in Mexico accumulated a well-deserved reputation for inefficiency, poor service, corruption and political control. For example, Mexico's state-run paper distribution company often refused to sell newsprint to opposition newspapers.

When the national telephone company was owned by the government, customers routinely had to wait years to get a phone line installed, and were required to buy shares in the company in order to eventually get service, problems that rapidly disappeared after it was privatised in 1990.

While unable to restore the government-run companies to their former glory, the administration depicts its efforts to recreate them on a smaller scale as part of a historic battle to return Mexico's economy to a more collectivist past.


FERNANDO LLANO/AP
Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (centre). He has put the military in charge of many of the country's infrastructure building projects.


“This will be the great legacy of your administration, and will echo throughout eternity,” the air traffic controller at Mexico City's Felipe Angeles airport intoned as the first Mexicana flight took off.

López Obrador has also put the military in charge of many of the country's infrastructure building projects, and given it the lead role in domestic law enforcement.

For example, the army built both the Felipe Angeles airport and the one in Tulum.

Apart from boosting traffic at the underused Felipe Angeles airport, the army-run Mexicana apparently will provide flights to feed passengers into the president’s Maya Train tourism project. The army is also building that train line, which will connect beach resorts and archaeological sites on the Yucatan Peninsula.

The army, which has no experience running commercial flights, has created a subsidiary to be in charge of Mexicana.