Why Do Russians Scorn Ukrainian Independence?

By Oleksandr Shulga
August 29, 2023

The question matters because — worryingly — it is a predictor of future Russian invasions.

Until 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine, a citizen living a contented and peaceful life in the village of Robotyne in the western Zaporizhzhia region, for example, would have cared nothing about the average Russian’s view of his country. 

Now, dead or exiled as the Kremlin’s forces raze his or her community to the ground, the matter is very personal indeed. And given that Russian social attitudes move ahead of future military aggression, it’s not only sociologists and politicians who need to worry about what these views might portend for neighboring states. 

On the one hand, the Russian opposition seeks to portray Russian society as detached from the war, placing the blame on Putin personally, or his regime. That is why opposition leaders and representatives avoid discussion about the roots of acceptance of the war against Ukraine. It is an outlook very helpful to those thinking about a post-war settlement and post-Putin coexistence with Ukraine. This might be termed the one-man’s-war theory.  

But there are much broader issues. Because surveys make it crystal clear that ordinary Russians do not recognize Ukrainian independence, and that this is not just one man’s war. 

This results from a widely accepted idea within the Russian Federation regarding now-independent former Soviet states. It can be called a subordination-domination model, rather than one based on cooperation. As a result, the objective in relation to Ukraine is assimilation and absorption rather than mutual exchange and coexistence.  

This is not a mere assertion; there is significant data to support it.  

After more than a year of a full-scale war against Ukraine, with tens of thousands of Ukrainians killed and wounded and hundreds of settlements destroyed, the majority of Russians (65%) say their attitude towards Ukrainians has not changed. 

Furthermore, over half of the respondents (54%) still believe that Russians and Ukrainians are one nation, while an additional 12% believe that both nations are very similar to each other. Only 8% state that Russians and Ukrainians are completely different people. 

These figures may appear puzzling: after so many deaths on both sides, including among Russians (latest US estimates suggest Russian military casualties are now around 300,000), how can its citizens’ outlook have remained the same?  

The absorption-assimilation model helps to explain this. The majority of Russian society perceives the invasion of Ukraine as an internal Russian matter, akin to the “imposition of constitutional order” in the Chechen Republic during the 1990s and early 2000s. If Russians and Ukrainians are essentially indistinguishable and belong to the same people, then the invasion is not seen as aggression against a sovereign state, and the act itself is not considered an attack but rather the re-establishment of order.  

The second key characteristic, that results from the above, is a lack of empathy among the majority of Russians toward Ukraine and its citizens. This is deeply ingrained in the Russian public consciousness, characterized by a model of subordination-domination. 

When asked about their support for Russian military missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, most Russians (63%) responded positively. It is important to consider the context in which this poll was conducted — the question was asked in December, during the peak of attacks on Ukraine’s civilian critical infrastructure. Russian federal television and other media outlets, both state-controlled and opposition, were actively reporting on these developments. 

Despite the clear understanding that missile attacks were inflicting suffering on Ukrainian civilians ( who Russians say are “just like us”), most supported such actions. The refusal of Ukrainian society to accept the Russian model led to their dehumanization; in Russian eyes, those who resist are Nazis. 

The key lies in the conscious or unconscious perception that Ukraine must be absorbed and cannot be treated as a sovereign equal. This is deeply ingrained in the everyday consciousness and life of the Russian public.  

It will not change simply by removing Putin and his regime, whatever the claims of the country’s opposition. 

Dr. Oleksandr Shulga is the head of the Institute for Conflict Studies and Analysis of Russia (IKAR), the only institution in Ukraine conducting monthly sociological monitoring in Russia. He possesses 16 years of advanced experience in the field of quantitative and qualitative sociological research. During these years, Dr. Shulga was engaged as a supervisor, consultant, or expert to carry out various studies, including areas of the potential risk of escalating tensions and instability.  

Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis.

Russian Nuclear Weapons In Belarus: How To Restore Balance In Nuclear Deterrence And Ensure  Ukraine’s Security – OpEd

Nuclear weapons sent by Russia to Belarus will target Europe.

 Source: YouTube Kanal 13 Global

August 30, 2023 
By Oleksandr Musiienko

At the end of July, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that they have “no reason to doubt” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that Russia has moved a first batch of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus.

In turn, back in October 2022, the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, stated that the issue of placing American nuclear weapons on Polish territory, within the framework of the Nuclear Sharing mechanism, is open.

Certainly, such a reaction from the Polish President is justified and is a search for an adequate response to Russia’s decision to move nuclear weapons to Belarus.

Next, I will explain why the concept of nuclear deterrence by Russia needs to be expanded to include Ukraine.

But first, a bit of history to understand why exactly the Russian Federation is responsible for escalating aggression, particularly in the matter of nuclear weapons.”

“Russia against NATO expansion. How many times have we heard such statements from representatives of the Russian government over the years? Moreover, before the full-scale aggressive invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine, President Putin referred to Ukraine as a threat to Russia’s existence. Ukraine, which lacks nuclear weapons, never had any plans to initiate aggressive war against Russia. And, agreed, consciously acting as an aggressor against a nuclear state is sheer madness. Of course, there were no plans to invade Russia, Ukraine, or anywhere else. Just as there were no such plans in the West or NATO.

Why then, after the war, did the United States significantly reduce its military presence, and funding for armies, defense, and security in Europe was substantially diminished? Even in the early 2000s, Russia had more cooperation and exchange programs with NATO than Ukraine did with the Alliance. The Russian Federation was integrated into the European economic space and was a major supplier of gas, oil, and other resources and goods. At the same time, the West actively invested in the Russian economy. There were no permanent NATO bases on the Eastern flank of NATO; there were only small troop contingents on a rotational basis.

It’s worth noting that there were no guarantees that Ukraine was being rapidly prepared for NATO membership. There are none now either. Furthermore, Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014, illegally annexing a part of Ukrainian territory – Crimea. By the way, back then, Ukraine had a formal neutral status, declared by the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Therefore, the possible expansion of NATO and the Kremlin’s exaggerated threats are purely manipulations and attempts to find excuses for their own aggressive actions that violate international norms. The true reasons for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine lie in Moscow’s neo-imperial course. Even a former aide to President Putin stated that Russia needs to live by the idea of expansion because as soon as the Russian government starts addressing its many internal problems, the concept of Russian statehood will be lost.”

Russian President Putin, along with the ruling elites, denies the Ukrainian people’s right to identification and self-determination. The attempts to commit genocide and suppress other nations have been characteristic of Russia for centuries. The reasons behind this Russian aggression against Ukraine have a distinctly genocidal nature, rather than countering any feigned threats from NATO or Ukraine. This also demonstrates the mindset of the current Russian leadership, which operates under the principles of 19th-century absolutism. It’s worth mentioning the frequent references by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Alexander Gorchakov.

But let’s return to nuclear deterrence. As is known, Ukraine voluntarily relinquished its nuclear weapons. Instead, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia guaranteed the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty. France and China later supported the memorandum. I emphasize that the basis for Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was the Budapest Memorandum. Therefore, one can conclude that there has been a breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

It’s already evident that the decision made by Ukraine and the US at that time to voluntarily relinquish nuclear weapons was a grave mistake. As John J. Mearsheimer rightfully warned back in 1993, Ukraine possessing nuclear weapons would have provided a guarantee of nuclear deterrence for Russia and as a consequence, prevented a war in Europe. The error of Ukraine’s decision was also acknowledged by the 42nd President of the US, Bill Clinton. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine with nuclear weapons would have been impossible. Just consider the example of India and Pakistan, where the presence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan became a restraining factor, putting an end to the confrontation between the two countries. In the case of Ukraine retaining nuclear weapons, the entire Eurasian region would have benefited, ensuring stable trade routes and better and faster logistics.

Therefore, in response to the constant threats and nuclear blackmail from the Kremlin, along with the placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus, the deployment of American nuclear weapons in Poland and Ukraine should indeed be considered. This deployment would have full control and the potential for application only by Washington. It would send a powerful signal to Russia that irresponsible threats of nuclear weapon use are unacceptable. This would undoubtedly be a factor that could halt Russian aggression and a large-scale war in Europe, while providing genuine security guarantees to Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Historical examples demonstrate the effectiveness of such strategies.

The US should take leadership in this matter and rectify the mistakes made three decades ago. The lack of resolve has already led to North Korea now posing a nuclear threat. Ukraine, driven by overly idealistic aspirations, made a significant contribution to global security by giving up its nuclear arsenals and is now suffering from Russian unprovoked and illegal aggression. Now it’s the West’s turn to contribute to global security. Otherwise, motivations for nuclear programs in various countries will increase, potentially leading to chaos on our planet. Stopping Russia and restoring balance to bring about peace is possible, and this path involves assisting Ukraine in its victory in the war and in nuclear deterrence against Russia.

Oleksandr Musiienko is a military and legal analyst, and head of NGO "Center for Military and Legal Studies"

Ripples From Putin’s Invasion Reach the Arctic

By Benjamin Valentino Martin and Krista Viksnins
August 30, 2023

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has left scars far beyond Europe including the High North.

The damage done by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is hard to quantify. To stalled grain shipments, world hunger, soaring energy prices, and rampant inflation must be added the baleful effects for one of the most remote and uninhabitable regions of the world, the Arctic. The war has essentially frozen the region’s preeminent governing body, the Arctic Council.

For decades, the Council has been a shining star of light-touch, collaborative governance. Driven by its mandate of sustainable development and environmental protection, its work has informed some of the most significant legally binding international agreements and treaties like the International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code and the Arctic section of the annual Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

This work ground to a halt in March 2022, as the other seven Arctic States — the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland — “paused” their cooperation with Russia. In a joint statement in June, the “Arctic 7” announced a “limited resumption of our work in the Arctic Council, in projects that do not involve the participation of the Russian Federation.” However, without data from Russia’s roughly 45% share of the Arctic, the Council’s working groups cannot possibly function at full capacity.

“One thing is clear — the Arctic Council will not return to ‘normal,’” says CEPA Fellow Mathieu Boulègue. Having forsaken its traditional “leave politics at the door” policy by excluding Russia, the Council must now evolve to compensate for today’s realities. The Arctic has changed significantly since the Council’s inception in 1996 and according to Boulègue, the traditional “High North — low tension” paradigm in the region has been replaced by a “high-octane” environment of geopolitical competition and crisis.

The climate crisis has arrived and is hitting the Arctic especially hard, Interest in new shipping lanes and potential natural resource extraction has sparked competition between non-Arctic states, and the rapid militarization of the region by both Russia and NATO has raised tensions.

The changing geopolitics of the Arctic are by no means sudden. Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008 and of Eastern Ukraine in 2014 were warning signs that the Council’s largest geographical member could no longer be trusted as a good-faith international partner. It took the full-scale invasion of Ukraine to break the veneer of Arctic exceptionalism. The Arctic 7 must now pursue a strategy that deters Russia but also avoids escalation, as any boiling over of tensions in the Arctic would have catastrophic global implications.

In a recent trip to Canada’s North, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke on this very challenge, referring to Russia’s High North military build-up as a “strategic challenge for the Alliance” requiring NATO to increase its “presence and vigilance across the Alliance, including in the High North.”

The question now is how to preserve the Council’s importance in the fight against climate change, the sustainable development for indigenous communities in the circumpolar region, and the preservation of fragile Arctic ecosystems, while adapting it to today’s geopolitical realities. Unsurprisingly, opinions differ greatly over what the future of the Council should be.

Employing doom-filled phrases like “the Arctic Council is dead,” some Arctic experts have suggested that the events of 2022 indicate there’s no chance of a revival. In this view, the Arctic 7 (soon to be a NATO 7) should focus its attention on other mechanisms of High North governance and security like the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable, and the Northern Group. This perspective eschews the importance of the political function of the Council to the Arctic’s roughly 4 million inhabitants, who are some of the most vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation. It does not resolve the significance of the work done by the Council’s six active Working Groups in shaping global Arctic policies, nor does it address the importance of the Council as a forum for discussion on the future of the Arctic with non-Arctic states.

Another approach is to push for the full resumption of Arctic Council operations. According to Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, an expert on the region: “Morality of state actions aside, the collective benefit of a functioning Arctic Council ought to be protected.” From this perspective, the benefits of the Arctic Council’s style of apolitical, collaborative governance are worth preserving. The challenge is to keep the process alive in the hope of a future, less aggressive Russia. It is of course impossible while the Kremlin occupies large swaths of Ukraine.

This could be achieved by the preservation of the Arctic Council’s scientific working groups and limited political functions like the Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat which are indispensable in the minds of many Arctic experts, diplomats, and inhabitants.

The Arctic 7 must make some tough decisions. There are plausible answers for the years ahead where Russia continues to lock itself out of cooperative forums and indeed, there must be. The loss of a key forum for circumpolar dialogue could have catastrophic ramifications for the future of the Arctic and its inhabitants.

Benjamin Valentino Martin attends Science Po Paris and the London School of Economics and is currently an intern with the External Affairs team at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). 

Krista Viksnins is a Program Officer with the Transatlantic Defense and Security Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Her interests include Nordic-Baltic security, cyberwarfare, the rule of law, and congressional relations. Krista received her J.D. from the University of St. Thomas School of Law and her B.A. in Political Science and Spanish from St. Olaf College. She is also a licensed attorney.   

Amnesty Decries Israel’s ‘Punitive’ Demolition of Palestinian Child Detainee’s Home

August 30, 2023

Amnesty International condemned on Wednesday, 30 August 2023 Israeli occupation “punitive” demolition of a Palestinian child detainee’s home.

In a report issued on Friday, Amnesty stated that the Israeli occupation Supreme Court had approved “the punitive demolition of the family home of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy who has spent the past six months in pre-trial detention on unfair charges”, stressing he is being punished for a fault he did not commit.

Read More: Israeli Occupation Deprives 100s of Palestinian Children of Joining New School Year

“In February 2023, Mohammed Zalabani stabbed an Israeli border police officer on a bus at a checkpoint in the Shu’afat refugee camp in occupied East Jerusalem. He was overpowered, but moments later a private Israeli security guard accidentally shot the officer dead.”

 The autopsy proved that the Israeli officer was not killed by the Palestinian child, who was charged with his murder, and is now awaiting trial in a juvenile facility, Amnesty added.

In response, the Israeli military approved “the punitive demolition of the third-floor apartment in Shu’afat where Mohammed Zalabani’s parents and three siblings – one of whom is just a toddler – live.”

Israeli human rights organization HaMoked filed a petition against the order, but the Supreme Court rejected it, Amnesty noted.

Demolishing the homes of Palestinians for allegedly carrying out attacks on Israelis is a long-held practice of the Israeli regime.

Thousands of Palestinians have lost their homes to demolitions in what human rights groups say is a policy by the Israeli occupation of collective punishment that may amount to war crimes.

“International humanitarian law, including the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits collective punishment, including deliberately harming the relatives of those accused of committing crimes, in all circumstances,” Human Rights Watch said in February.

“Courts around the world have treated collective punishment as a war crime,” the rights group said.

Since the beginning of 2023, Israeli occupation forces demolished 673 Palestinian homes, displacing 14,260 Palestinians including women and children, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Shortlink for this post: https://daysofpalestine.ps/?p=48347

 

Study finds that Black legislators who deploy rhetorical symbolism in discussions of race are persuasive

by Sara Savat, Washington University in St. Louis

U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, is known for incorporating powerful

 symbolism in his speeches. Credit: Shutterstock

Black legislators talk more about race and civil rights than their white colleagues—and they often rely on powerful symbolism to connect with constituents and drive home their messages, according to new research from Washington University in St. Louis.

In an analysis of more than 790,654 U.S. House of Representatives floor speeches given between 1996 and 2014, researchers found that African Americans in Congress talk about civil rights over 15 times more often than white representatives. Black legislators also were more than twice as likely to invoke issue-based symbolism when discussing civil rights.

What's more, both Black and white representatives who use symbolism in their speeches reap electoral rewards. Researchers found that symbolism is linked to an increase in Black voter turnout as well as more favorable evaluations of both Black and white members of Congress.

These findings are detailed in a forthcoming paper in the October issue of The Journal of Politics by Matthew Hayes, an associate professor of political science in Arts & Sciences at Washington University, and Bryce J. Dietrich, an associate professor of political science at Purdue University.

"Our research adds to the chorus of scholars who find that Black legislators engage in legislative behavior significantly different from their white counterparts when it comes to representing their Black constituents' interests," Hayes said.

Researchers were not able to access speech transcripts after 2014 because Capitol Words, a project of the Sunshine Foundation that had recorded all U.S. House floor speeches, was discontinued.

A powerful rhetorical tool

According to the authors, symbolism is important in politics because it helps speakers convey complex ideas in a way that is easier for listeners to understand and reinforces emotional attachments the audience has with the symbol.

Common examples of issue-based symbols include Martin Luther King Jr. or Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement and the Stonewall uprising with LGBTQ rights. On the other side of the political aisle, critical race theory has become symbolic in recent years with conservatives' push back against social liberalism in education, Hayes said.

"Issue-based symbols are especially important to marginalized groups. When used appropriately, symbolic speech goes beyond empathy and conveys that the speaker is connected with the group and invested in their interests," Hayes said.

According to Hayes, representatives use floor speeches to build name recognition and garner media coverage. They're especially important for representatives seeking reelection and serve as a means to connect with constituents and potential voters back home. As such, Hayes said he expects politicians to engage in symbolic behavior even more often when talking with constituents on the campaign trail.

How symbolic speech influences voters' perception, behavior

In addition to analyzing 18 years of U.S. House floor speeches to understand how Black and white politicians' use of symbolic speech differs, Hayes and Dietrich also conducted an experiment to study how constituents respond to its use. Study participants received a purported screenshot from a floor speech broadcast along with the speech transcript. They randomly varied the symbolic content, the issue—civil rights or energy—and the race of the speaker. Of the 1,031 people who participated in the study, 50% self-identified as white and 50% self-identified as African American.

The data show that Black constituents report more positive evaluations of members of Congress, Black or white, when issue-based symbols are invoked.

So why don't more politicians use symbolic speech more often to address the Black community? One reason, the research found, could be because white politicians who misuse a symbol—such as Martin Luther King Jr. in a speech about the climate crisis—risk backlash from their Black constituents. However, the researchers found that Black representatives are not uniformly punished for misusing these symbols.

"There seems to be a degree of trust between voters and representatives that affords Black representatives the leeway to push the boundaries of what a symbol actually means," Hayes explained.

The researchers also studied whether symbolic speech influences Black voters' behaviors. Hayes and Dietrich turned to data from the Cooperative Election Study, a national stratified sample survey of more than 50,000 people administered by YouGov.

Indeed, they found evidence that Black voter turnout is higher in districts where members of Congress regularly invoke issue-based symbols. They also found that Black respondents are significantly more likely to vote for a white member of Congress who appropriately used symbolism when talking about civil rights in the months before an election.

Finally, they found that white politicians are more likely to use symbolic references if a significant portion of their constituents are Black. Black representatives, however, appear to use symbolism at similarly high rates regardless of their district demographics.

From civil rights to Black Lives Matter

While the study's data ended in 2014, Hayes said he would expect the results to be even stronger today, given the movements that arose after the deaths of Michael Brown and George Floyd.

"All of our data were from before the peak of the Black Lives Matter movement, and mostly before the Shelby v. Holder decision that opened the door to states adding restrictions to voting access," Hayes said. "As a result, I actually think we would see Black members of Congress even more active in speaking about civil rights in the contemporary U.S. Congress.

"Taken together, our research demonstrates the power of symbolism as a rhetorical tool for representatives of marginalized groups to communicate to their constituents that their concerns can and will be given a voice," he said.

More information: Bryce J. Dietrich et al, Symbols of the Struggle: Descriptive Representation and Issue-Based Symbolism in US House Speeches, The Journal of Politics (2023). DOI: 10.1086/723966

Journal information: Journal of Politics 

Provided by Washington University in St. Louis The Voting Rights Act's impact on Black representation in local government

 

Debunking another myth surrounding low-income housing tax credits

by Georgia Institute of Technology

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

A new study from Georgia Tech's School of Public Policy debunks a common belief about the impact of affordable housing on neighborhood property values. The researchers, led by Assistant Professor Brian Y. An, found that developments funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) do not cause hidden harm to the value of some surrounding properties.

The study, titled "Factors Affecting Spillover Impacts of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Developments: An Analysis of Los Angeles," was recently published in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publication Cityscape. It contradicts a widely held assumption among critics of the subsidy that widely documented increases in nearby property values accompanying LIHTC projects mask damage to other properties. The researchers found no such effect.

"This research is significant as it challenges the stigma often associated with affordable housing," said An. "This pernicious fear of property value decline has been a major source of opposition to affordable housing projects in many communities."

The federal tax credit is designed to encourage private investors to develop affordable housing for low-income households. To better understand its impacts, researchers consulted HUD data on LIHTC properties in Los Angeles, as well as proprietary data on home sales.

They analyzed property values in neighborhoods before and after the introduction of affordable housing developments and compared the changes to those in similar neighborhoods without low-income housing development. Their results showed no significant decrease in property values following the establishment of these developments, regardless of the characteristics of the neighborhood or LIHTC project.

In fact, the research confirms previous studies showing that developments supported by the tax credit broadly increase nearby property values. After completion of mixed developments including both market-rate and subsidized units, surrounding property values rose by 5.4% compared to comparable neighborhoods without tax-subsidized development. Fully subsidized developments boosted property values by 3.2%, the researchers found.

"From a policy perspective, the key takeaway is that LIHTC developments, in addition to creating and preserving badly needed housing that is affordable to low-income households, consistently have positive effects on surrounding property values," the authors wrote in the paper. "A 'bad' place for such properties to be developed does not exist, nor does a 'bad' type of LIHTC development exist. Regardless of the development's size or neighborhood in which it is placed into service, a LIHTC property is likely to have a positive spillover effect on its neighborhood."

The authors noted that some of the conclusions could be specific to Los Angeles, which suffers from an extreme lack of affordable housing. They also noted that rising property values can be beneficial for homeowners, but often can push rental rates out of reach for many existing residents. The researchers are examining these issues in a follow-up study.

More information: Factors Affecting Spillover Impacts of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Developments: An Analysis of Los Angeles. www.huduser.gov/portal/periodi … 5num2/article13.html

Provided by Georgia Institute of Technology 

Building subsidized low-income housing actually lifts property values in a neighborhood

 

Researcher studies how hate speech becomes acts of terror

by Charles Darwin University

The study was conducted by Charles Darwin University (CDU) Linguistics Lecturer 

Dr Awni Etaywe. Credit: Adnan Reza/Charles Darwin University

A new Charles Darwin University (CDU) study on the writings of two of the world's most infamous terrorists could help authorities to identify how topics, schemas and strategies of hate speech are used to incite violence.

The role of (de)bonding in the legitimation of violence in extremists' public threatening communication, published in Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory and Application in Global Contexts: Papers from the First International Online Systemic Functional Linguistics Interest Group Conference, uses forensic linguistics, which is the use of linguistic techniques to investigate crimes, to examine terrorist language used to mobilize support and legitimize harm.

The study by Charles Darwin University (CDU) Linguistics Lecturer Dr. Awni Etaywe analyzed inciting texts and messages by Osama bin Laden and Christchurch Mosque gunman Brenton Tarrant.

The analysis revealed both individuals used bonds—relationships between people or groups based on shared experiences and feelings— to construct a "We/They" division, in which the "We" is used to legitimize violence and delegitimize the opposing actions and beliefs of the "They."

Dr. Etaywe said both individuals used rhetorical strategies and in particular ethos and logos, the appeal to values and authority and the appeal to reason respectively, to persuade the actions and beliefs of the "They" as a threat to the land, resources and ideology of the "We."

"The two terrorists shared a similar style of persuasion, which can be linked to the purpose of their texts, as well as to their violent beliefs and agendas. Both terrorists wanted to bring about social and political change through violence.

"Each terrorist often viewed the world and relationships between different groups in black-and-white terms, and constantly criticized and saw other groups in a negative light while praising their own group and its actions.

"Establishing connections between shared beliefs and incited violence through ethical arguments serves to present the inciter as a more trustworthy person. It serves to position the addressed audiences to believe that the critique is coming from someone with strong ethics and competence who shares 'Our' values."

Dr. Etaywe said this breakdown of language supports the argument that language reveals a terrorist's ideological pattern of thought and behavior and could help authorities in terrorist threat assessments.

"This in-depth semantic analysis, which attends to shared bonds, critique and rhetorical strategies, offers forensic linguists a way to study extremist language that promotes hate and violence," Dr. Etaywe said.

"It helps us better understand the ideas behind encouraging hatred and violence and improves our ability to detect extremists' topics, schemas and linguistic methods leveraged in incitement."

More information: Awni Etaywe, The role of (de)bonding in the legitimation of violence in extremists' public threatening communication, Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory and Application in Global Contexts: Papers from the First International Online Systemic Functional Linguistics Interest Group Conference (2023). researchers.cdu.edu.au/en/publ … violence-in-extremis

Provided by Charles Darwin University Support for extremism among military veterans is similar to U.S. public

Bell Island mine harnesses deep groundwater for energy needs

Story by The Canadian Press •

Deep within Bell Island Mine No. 2 is a three- or four-foot-long water pump that is submerged in a pool of fresh groundwater.

The water flooded the shafts after mining halted and the owners stopped pumping efforts, creating a deep pool.

That water has become a source of heat, as well as air conditioning, for the museum more than 600 feet above it.

A second unit converts the water's energy into heat or air conditioning – whichever is needed.

Being so far below the ground on an island in Conception Bay, one may mistake the pool for seawater that has found its way into the island.

But it is precisely this freshwater that is a reusable resource for heating and cooling the museum.

Museum executive director Teresita McCarthy says that although the system requires electricity to run, it saves the museum thousands of dollars on its heat bill every year.

“We are saving exponentially by having this heat and AC source,” McCarthy says.

She's well aware of just how much — when it malfunctioned over the summer, there was a drastic increase in the museum's energy bill.

The heat pump has been unassumingly in place since the late 1990s, but you’d never know it was there if it wasn’t mentioned.

Why right-wing billionaires and the GOP want a nation of uneducated, compliant serfs | Opinion

Story by Thom Hartmann •

Sheep in a meadow in the mountains© provided by RawStory

Republican politicians and the rightwing billionaires who fund them want a nation of uneducated, compliant serfs in their workforce, not a nation of well-educated union-conscious people who are willing to strike to get better pay and benefits.

Which means Job One is to get America’s kids out of the clutches of those evil unionized teachers. Education, after all, is a liberal value. The conservative vision is “quality education for the children of the wealthy, while ending child labor laws for all the rest.”

And they’re getting their way.

Florida and Arizona are well on the way to destroying their entire systems of public education with statewide private school voucher programs available to every child.

This June, Oklahoma approved the use of public-school taxpayer funds to pay for kids’ attendance at a private Catholic charter school: it’s the first explicitly taxpayer-funded religious school in modern America and a clear violation of America’s founding principle of the separation of church and state.

Meanwhile, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed legislation gutting that state’s prohibition on child labor. Now 14-year-olds can skip school and go straight to work at their local slaughterhouse.

Eight other Republican-controlled states have similar legislation pending.

Florida and Texas have approved animated cartoons produced by a hate radio talk-show host (with big bucks from fossil fuel billionaires) that reinvent Frederick Douglass as an opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement and downplay the role of fossil fuels in our climate emergency.

Last year, DeSantis’ Florida moved an estimated $1.3 billion in taxpayer money originally destined for public schools to pay for private school vouchers. This gutted public school budgets across the state by roughly 10 percent.

Florida is not unique in this: it’s happening in Red states all across the nation. Public education in about half of America is in a crisis and has been for some time. It’s a crisis Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to make worse.

In many ways today’s conservative war on public education dates back to the 1950s when, in 1954’s Brown v Board decision, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must allow Black children to sit in the same classrooms with white children.

This so outraged white conservatives that public schools were shut down altogether in some states and counties, and private, all-white “academies“ were opened, many by religious figures, across the nation.

It was the beginning of a concerted, 75-year-long assault on public education that has now expanded from “whites only” schools to “rich and whites only.”

Because public education is the number-one driver of social and economic mobility, it has become the archenemy of conservatives who believe the “lower classes” should know their place and stay there.

The Republican war against public education moved from being purely about race to incorporating an ideological rationalization with the 1980 effort by billionaire David Koch to run for vice president on the Libertarian ticket.

Koch’s platform said of public schools:

“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

Thus was set the formula that billionaires from David Koch in that era to Betsy DeVos in this day use to push for the destruction of public education. It works this way:

— Privatize public schools through charter schools and by offering vouchers to pay private school tuition.

— Withhold funding from public schools while pouring voucher cash into these new, private entities.

— Expand the nationwide propaganda campaign that public education is failing and/or is an instrument of an oppressive state.

— As public schools become starved of cash, use that crisis to destroy their teachers’ unions and ultimately to shut many of them down altogether.

— Once most primary and secondary schools have collapsed and the teachers’ unions are broken, begin to dial back money available through vouchers, so poor people must use special “cheaper” schools designed just for them.

— Over time cut back voucher funding so, just as Reaganomics has done with our colleges, low-income people have to borrow from banks to send their kids to good schools.

This is not a new model: Reagan began the process with colleges, from substandard junior colleges for low-income people to throwing average Americans who wanted to attend a good college into a $1.8 trillion debt hole.

It’s not even a unique conservative model just for education: we’re halfway through it with Medicare. George W. Bush introduced the Medicare Advantage scam in 2003, and now half of American seniors are routinely having their medical payments denied by these private plans.

Once they’ve destroyed Medicare altogether (probably within a decade) the “good deals” with things like dental and vision coverage available to people buying into the private Advantage plans will evaporate and America’s elderly will be right back where they were before Medicare was created by LBJ in 1965: on their own with private, for-profit insurance companies routinely denying healthcare.

There have been attempts to block GOP efforts to destroy public schools, but in most cases the billionaires got out ahead of them and shut them down.

In 2018, for example, in an effort to stop the GOP’s creeping privatization of public education in their state, parents in Arizona got a measure to save their schools on the ballot. Voters statewide overwhelmingly rejected an expansion of vouchers and charter schools in that state.

In response, Republicans in control of Arizona’s legislature passed the nation’s first statewide voucher program, rejecting the will of the voters and shoving privatized education down the state’s parents’ throats. DeSantis did the same in Florida last year. It’s a cruel scam but an effective one.

The strategy is simple and Republicans have been running it in Red states since the 1980s. Once public education is destroyed, over time the vouchers will be cut back to represent a smaller and smaller fraction of the cost of private education. Parents will have to cough up more and more, just like what happened with college tuition between 1980 and today.

And because most parents won’t be able to pay for private schools, they’ll send their kids to the remaining public schools that have been essentially ghettoized: starved of resources and barely limping along.

This, in turn, will further stratify and rigidify the class structure of American society, cementing the generational advantages of the morbidly rich and the generational disadvantages of the poor and working classes.

This is intentional: a core tenet of conservative ideology is the belief that society must be structured with “classes and orders.” Russell Kirk kicked it off in 1952 with his book The Conservative Mind, as I detail at length in my book on the American oligarchy.

Reflecting the neo-Calvinist belief that great wealth is a sign of their god’s blessing, wealthy conservatives have argued for centuries that society should be run by the rich and virtuous — and the rest of us should shut up and quietly do our jobs in the rich men’s stores and factories.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower issued a direct challenge to that belief when he built thousands of brand-new schools across America and rolled out programs in elementary grades for gifted working class kids (I was in one in the 1950s).

After FDR laid the foundation for America’s first great middle class, Eisenhower’s promotion of quality primary education was rocket fuel to blast that middle class to two-thirds majority status in America by 1980 (it’s now been whittled down to 43 percent, the result of Reaganomics). He even invoked the national defense to get money for public schools: the 1958 National Defense Education Act provided billions to fund public school math and science programs.

Now, using loaded and deceptive language about “Critical Race Theory” and a “gay agenda,” conservatives have hit their groove. The GOP has picked up on the trend: multimillionaire and former Carlyle Group CEO Glen Youngkin was elected Virginia governor, polls show, mostly on the strength of his attacks on public education and unionized teachers.

They’re joined in this effort by religious fanatics who argue that public schools are teaching “the secular religion of big government.” The Washington Post yesterday ran a lengthy profile of a religious fanatic, Michael Farris, who’s spent decades trying to gut public schools:

“Now, speaking on a confidential conference call to a secretive group of Christian millionaires seeking, in the words of one member, to ‘take down the education system as we know it today,’ Farris made the same points he had made in courtrooms since the 1980s. Public schools were indoctrinating children with a secular worldview that amounted to a godless religion, he said.

“The solution: lawsuits alleging that schools’ teachings about gender identity and race are unconstitutional, leading to a Supreme Court decision that would mandate the right of parents to claim billions of tax dollars for private education or home schooling.”

So now we have the perfect storm.

The conservative white supremacists who’ve fought integrated public education since 1954 have found common cause with nationalist religious hucksters who want our children indoctrinated with their own brutal form of what they cynically call “Christianity.”

These two groups have been joined by billionaires committed to reducing social and economic mobility, along with a handful of hustlers (like the phony “university” producing rightwing cartoons for Florida and Texas schools) who want to make a buck off private education.

The good news is that most public schools in America are still largely controlled by local school boards, and anybody can generally run for those boards or simply show up for every meeting and offer their opinions.

Republicans have spent the past three years trying to exploit this, with considerable success: some school boards have even been taken over by local neofascist militia members. The Proud Boys have been particularly active in this space.

But average parents supportive of public education and progressive groups are stepping up. Red Wine & Blue, Defense of Democracy, and the Florida Freedom to Read Project, among others, are endorsing candidates, helping with the campaigns of pro-public education candidates, and training parents in how to show up and speak out at school board meetings.

They’re outspent by the massive, billionaire-funded effort to destroy our public education system, but they also represent the vast majority of American parents.

An NPR/Ipsos poll from last year found 88 percent of respondents said, “My child’s teacher(s) have done the best they could, given the circumstances around the pandemic.”

Seventy-six percent agreed with the statement, “My child’s school does a good job keeping me informed about the curriculum, including potentially controversial topics.”

Fully 80 percent of parents say they are either completely or somewhat satisfied with their child’s education in public schools.

Last year’s annual PRRI American Values Survey reported that 92 percent of Americans “favor teaching children history that includes both the good and bad aspects of our history so that they can learn from the past, versus refraining from teaching aspects of history that could make them feel uncomfortable or guilty about what their ancestors did in the past.”

America, in other words, is on the side of quality public education. And there’s a growing movement to stop and ultimately reverse the damage this billionaire-funded rightwing effort has done to our public school systems.

You can help, whether you have children in public school or not.

Show up for school board meetings and, if you have the time and inclination, run for your local school board.

Ask every candidate, from city council to the US Senate and the White House, their position on public education and vote accordingly. Write letters to the editor and speak out on social media. Make waves.

After all, our public schools are literally where America’s future is being created.

We can’t abandon them just because a bunch of well-funded bigots, militia bullies, and religious cranks are enjoying their moment in the media.

The stakes are just too high.

Recommended Links:

・Neuroscientist sounds the alarm on the GOP's 'contagious sociopaths' who live among us

・‘Right-wing misinformation’ newspaper gave a GOP presidential candidate up to $5M in salary

・Right-wing Bud Light boycott crumbles as GOP faced loss of major donor

・'Very scary': Former RNC staffer dishes on the more terrifying members of GOP's right-wing

・Republicans triggered by Homeland Security chart showing right-wing extremism begins with GOP activism

US cities say they turn food waste into compost. Is it a problem when they don’t?

The scraps in your bin marked ‘compost’ may end up as methane. Here’s what that means

A smart compost bin in Manhattan. The contents go to an anaerobic digester at a wastewater treatment plant.

 Photograph: Robert K Chin/Alamy

Whitney Bauck 

Wed 30 Aug 2023 

When orange bins marked for “compost” drop-off first started proliferating on the streets of New York in February as part of a department of sanitation pilot, many residents celebrated. I was one of them: even as an environmental reporter who has visited the landfill where my trash ends up and is well aware of the problems with food waste, the lack of convenient composting options near me was often prohibitive. Having a bin within walking distance I could access at any time meant all my food waste would finally be converted back into soil.


How to reduce food waste at home: separate your apples and repurpose your leftovers

Or at least that’s what I thought it meant, until the news broke in April that the contents of those “compost” bins mostly don’t go to compost sites, but to an anaerobic digester at a wastewater treatment plant called Newtown Creek. There, the food waste is mixed into sewage before being converted partially into methane.

I wasn’t sure what to make of this, and neither were my neighbors, given that methane is a potent greenhouse gas playing a role in the climate crisis.

Questions about anaerobic digestion – touted as a green solution to food waste – are becoming relevant in more and more places as this method is increasingly a part of organic waste management plans across the US, with plants operating or being built everywhere from Ohio to California and embraced by brands such as Ben & Jerry’s. It’s also fairly common in parts of Europe. But how do its environmental credentials stack up against composting?

The pros and cons of anaerobic digestion

Both composting and anaerobic digestion, or AD, use microorganisms to break down food waste. Composting does so in the presence of oxygen, and creates (you guessed it) compost; AD does so without oxygen and produces solid and liquid organic leftover matter called digestate – and methane.

When anaerobic digestion is at its most climate-friendly, that methane is captured and used for what Dr Stephanie Lansing, a professor of environmental science and technology at the University of Maryland, calls renewable energy, while the solids left over after the AD process are cured and turned into compost. From Lansing’s perspective, these options make AD the clear winner over composting.

“Why would you not want to get the renewable energy first, and then get the compost later, because you still get both resources when you do digestion?” she asked.

But whether or not AD actually comes with those promised environmental benefits depends on how an anaerobic digestion facility is run, which can vary greatly. Though the methane can be turned into energy to power houses or waste facilities themselves, many still flare (burn and release into the atmosphere) some of the methane they generate. (The plant nearest me, Newtown Creek, was flaring half of its methane up until this April.)

Generating garbage is not something we want to be doing at all, so that’s not something that we should be thinking of as renewable

Darby Hoover of the National Resources Defense Council

And even when all the gas from a digester is being captured and used for energy, not everyone is comfortable describing it as “renewable energy”. According to Darby Hoover, a senior resource specialist at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), “‘renewable’ implies a resource that can be replenished. And for me, it implies that it can be replenished with little ecological cost. But generating garbage is not something we want to be doing at all, so that’s not something that we should be thinking of as renewable.”

The NRDC isn’t anti-anaerobic digestion, and it “sometimes supports the inclusion of anaerobic digestion biogas in renewable energy portfolios”, but in a “limited” way, Hoover added. A recent report published by the non-profit instead recommended prioritizing surplus food rescue, food waste prevention and compost over sending food waste directly to anaerobic digesters.

Another recommendation the NRDC makes – that the solids left over at the end of anaerobic digestion be turned into compost and added to soil – is a good practice, and one that AD proponents often highlight. But in reality, the practice is underutilized: more than half of all biosolids in the US are landfilled or incinerated rather than composted. When anaerobic digesters process food waste and sewage sludge at the same time, rather than processing food waste on its own, the end result can contain toxins that render the digestate unfit for adding to dirt that people are in close contact with, ie garden or public park soils.

“The takeaway is not ‘you should never do anaerobic digestion,’” said Hoover. “But it is ‘you should really think through a lot of different components before you launch into using anaerobic digestion for food waste in particular.’”

The case for composting

Many people are familiar with the basic argument for composting: it reduces food waste and the associated greenhouse gases, and leaves behind an end product that supports healthy soils.

But according to Dior St Hillaire, co-director of composting non-profit BK Rot and chair of the Bronx Solid Waste Advisory Board, the benefits go much deeper.

Composting can create local green jobs, build community and generate crucial buy-in, so people are more motivated to separate out their food and yard waste rather than throwing it in the trash.

“That connection is lost when you’re thinking about anaerobic digestion,” she said. “You already see low numbers of recycling because people are not connected to it; they don’t believe it’s happening or believe in the viability of it. So imagine what [organics separation] is going to look like when you have people who are not connected to that end result. I think you’ll find really low participation rates.”

Keeping nutrients cycling locally through compost rather than trucking waste off to a digester also promotes climate resilience. According to Clare Miflin, executive director of the Center for Zero Waste Design, adding compost to soil boosts the health of the trees and greenery that help cities combat dangerous heat. Plus, healthy soils amended with compost absorb up to “six times more rainwater”, protecting the city against floods.

A side-by-side comparison

When weighing the benefits of composting and anaerobic digestion, not everyone agrees on which should come out on top. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prioritizes anaerobic digestion above composting in its food recovery hierarchy; meanwhile, the NRDC places the two options on the same tier and says the best option depends on the scenario.

In New York City, anaerobic digestion looks likely to continue expanding, and financial incentives are almost certainly playing a role. Wastewater treatment plants with digesters receive a “tipping fee” from garbage collectors for accepting food waste, according to the EPA, and facilities that scrub their methane to pipeline quality can sell it as “renewable fuel”, at which point they’re “guaranteed a nice rate by federal law”, said Lansing.

Hoover, of the NRDC, doesn’t think that AD being part of a city’s mix of waste management strategies is necessarily a bad thing. It just means cities and their citizens need to weigh the specifics of any proposed composting or anaerobic digestion system, and demand that it’s held to the highest standards.

Along the way, city agencies need to be transparent if they want citizens to actively participate in the waste sorting necessary to make any of these solutions work. Slapping “compost” on the side of a street corner bin might convince citizens to dump their banana peels there, but if people find out later that those bins don’t actually go to compost, it could break trust and lead to composting being regarded with the suspicion currently reserved for recycling.

“We don’t want to keep sending more messages that it’s OK to say we’re doing one thing, and we’re actually doing another,” said St Hillaire.


The apps fighting food waste by saving restaurant meals from the trash

Luckily, there are a few things everyone seems to agree on. First, certain kinds of waste are better handled by one system or the other: anaerobic digestion can accept dairy, meat and grease that compost sites can’t, while compost is better able to break down paper goods. And even more important, both options offer significant climate benefits. According to a report from the National Renewable Energy Lab, anaerobic digestion and composting have comparable emissions footprints when the AD digestate is applied to soil rather than landfilled.

From the perspective of many environmental advocates, the best solution will involve some mix of the two solutions, blending the efficiency and financial incentives of AD with the community and ecosystem benefits of composting.

“It’s not that AD trumps all or compost trumps all,” said St Hillaire. “New York City is a big city with a very dense population, we need as many [solutions] as possible.”

In other words, both anaerobic digestion and composting are far better options than landfilling, so keep separating out your organics rather than throwing them in the trash. I know I will.