Friday, October 27, 2023

'A textbook case of genocide': Israeli Holocaust scholar Raz Segal decries Israel’s assault on Gaza

https://www.maxpixel.net/Political-Banner-Israel-Protest-Demonstration-Sign-519817
October 21, 2023

Raz Segal, an Israeli expert in modern genocide, calls Israel’s assault on Gaza a textbook case of “intent to commit genocide” and its rationalization of its violence a “shameful use” of the lessons of the Holocaust. Israeli state exceptionalism and comparisons of its Palestinians victims to “Nazis” are used to “justify, rationalize, deny, distort, disavow mass violence against Palestinians,” says Segal.

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

“A Textbook Case of Genocide: Israel has been explicit about what it’s carrying out in Gaza. Why isn’t the world listening?” That’s the headline of a new piece in Jewish Currents by our next guest, Raz Segal. He’s an Israeli historian, associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University, where he’s also an endowed professor in the study of modern genocide. Raz Segal joins us now from Philadelphia.

Professor Segal, welcome to Democracy Now! Lay out your case.

RAZ SEGAL: Thank you for having me.

I think that, indeed, what we’re seeing now in Gaza is a case of genocide. We have to understand that the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 requires that we see special intent for genocide to happen. And to quote the convention, intent to destroy a group is defined as racial, ethnic, religious or national as such that is collectively, not just individuals. And this intent, as we just heard, is on full display by Israeli politicians and army officers since 7th of October. We heard Israel’s president. It’s well-known what the Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said on 9th of October declaring a complete siege on Gaza, cutting off water, food, fuel, stating that “We’re fighting human animals,” and we will react “accordingly.” He also said that “We will eliminate everything.” We know that Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari, for example, acknowledged wanton destruction and said explicitly, “The emphasis on damage and not on accuracy.” So we’re seeing the special intent on full display. And really, I have to say, if this is not special intent to commit genocide, I really don’t know what is.


So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the displacement? Israel is saying that the entire northern Gaza — now hundreds of thousands of people have complied — must move south. The northern part of Gaza is the most populated, with Gaza City.

RAZ SEGAL: Yeah, definitely. I mean, as is well known, this is an impossible order. It’s impossible for specific groups of people — people in hospitals, people defined as disabled, elderly people — many Palestinians who refuse to leave their homes because of their histories and their memories of the Nakba. This is an impossible order. It’s yet another indication of the intent to destroy, the intent to commit genocide.

It’s also worthwhile to emphasize Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a new term that he coined, “complete siege.” It seems like a completely new term that really takes what was already a 17-year siege on Gaza, the longest in modern history, which was already a clear violation of international humanitarian law — it takes this siege and now turns it into a complete siege, which really signals the turn to this kind of genocidal destruction that we’re seeing, including with this eviction order.


It’s also worthwhile to try to explain, I think, why Israel is so explicit in its declaration. We’ve heard Israel’s president talk about evil. We’ve also heard about Biden’s use of the word “evil.” EU leaders describe the Hamas attack as “evil.” And it has to be said, the Hamas attack were clear war crimes, the mass murder of more than 1,000 Israeli civilians, a horrendous war crime that rightfully shocked many Israelis and many, many people around the world. But “evil” is not a term to describe them. “Evil” is a term to decontextualize. “Evil” is a term to demonize and to really enhance the widespread fantasies of Israelis today that they’re fighting Nazis. Actually, former Prime Minister Bennett, Naftali Bennett, said that directly in an interview yesterday: “We are fighting Nazis.” We see this and many, many other indications in Israeli society and politics today. And if we’re fighting Nazis, then everything is permissible.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Segal —

RAZ SEGAL: No law —

AMY GOODMAN: I actually wanted to go to the former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, who’s currently in the Israeli army. This is from a few days ago, where he exploded at the Sky News anchor Kamali Melbourne during an interview Thursday, when Melbourne pressed him on Israel’s attacks on Palestinian civilians. This is a part of what he said.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: What about those Palestinians in hospital who are on life support and babies in incubators, whose life support and incubator will have to be turned off because the Israelis have cut the power to Gaza?

NAFTALI BENNETT: Are you seriously keep on asking me about Palestinian civilians? What’s — what’s wrong with you? Have you not seen what happened? We’re fighting Nazis. We don’t target them. Now, the world can come and bring them anything they want, if you want to bring them electricity. I’m not going to feed electricity or water to my enemies. If anyone else wants, that’s fine. We’re not responsible for them.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: But this is the point —

NAFTALI BENNETT: But you keep on —


KAMALI MELBOURNE: This is the point —

NAFTALI BENNETT: You — I want to tell you —

KAMALI MELBOURNE: No, no, Mr. Bennett, this is the point.

NAFTALI BENNETT: No. No, listen.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: Listen.

NAFTALI BENNETT: You listen to me right now.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: No, you’re raising your voice. And we’re trying —

NAFTALI BENNETT: I’ve heard you enough.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: No, no, I understand. We’re trying to have a conversation here.

NAFTALI BENNETT: I’ve heard a lot of you.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: Listen, this is my program.

NAFTALI BENNETT: No, you’re not having a —

KAMALI MELBOURNE: This is my show.

NAFTALI BENNETT: And that’s exactly —

KAMALI MELBOURNE: And I am asking the questions. You’re raising your voice.

NAFTALI BENNETT: But it’s my country.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: And I’ve asked you. And we’ve already —

NAFTALI BENNETT: And when people — when people —

KAMALI MELBOURNE: We’ve already — stop, please.

NAFTALI BENNETT: When people —

KAMALI MELBOURNE: And let me finish. We’ve already distinguished —

NAFTALI BENNETT: Shame on you, Mister.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: — between Hamas —

NAFTALI BENNETT: I want to tell you, you — shame on you.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: You’re trying to speak over me.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Because we are not —

KAMALI MELBOURNE: No, no.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Shame on you.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: It’s nothing about shame.

NAFTALI BENNETT: I am the — I was the prime minister.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: We’re trying to have a conversation —

NAFTALI BENNETT: There is absolutely shame.

KAMALI MELBOURNE: — about a very serious situation here.

NAFTALI BENNETT: Because when you just jump —

KAMALI MELBOURNE: And you are refusing to address it.


AMY GOODMAN: So, that is the former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, exploding at the Sky News anchor Kamali Melbourne. Professor Segal, you’re an Israeli historian. This is what you’re talking about, when he uses the Nazi analogy and also when he says, “Are you seriously talking about Palestinian civilians?” Your response?

RAZ SEGAL: That’s exactly what we’re — it’s very important to understand this context, the idea of fighting Nazis, the idea of using Holocaust memory in this way. There is a broad context, a long history, of course, of this shameful use of Holocaust memory, which Israeli politicians have used to justify, rationalize, deny, distort, disavow mass violence against Palestinians. And it has allowed also a view to develop that sees Israel as somehow exceptional, providing it impunity. The truth, however, is that all perpetrators of genocide actually see their victims as dangerous, as vicious, as inhuman, right? That’s how the Nazis saw the Jews. And that’s how today Israelis see Palestinians.

And that’s why the lessons of the Holocaust, actually, which were never meant to provide cover and rationalize state violence and genocide, but, rather, protect groups, especially stateless and defenseless groups, groups under military occupation and siege, from violent states — the lessons of the Holocaust are now very, very urgent. We need to center the voices of those facing state violence and genocide, and we need to move to prevention as fast as possible. In order to do that, we need to recognize what’s going on around us, what’s unfolding in front of our eyes, which is really a textbook case of genocide, with the rhetoric, with the actions, with everything involved.

AMY GOODMAN: Raz Segal is associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide. He is an Israeli historian. His new article for Jewish Currents, we’ll link to, “A Textbook Case of Genocide.” The subtitle, “Israel has been explicit about what it’s carrying out in Gaza. Why isn’t the world listening?” Back in 30 seconds.
Unmasking Banksy: The street artist is not one man but a whole brand of people

The Port Talbot Banksy. Ben Birchall/PA Wire/PA Images

The Conversation
October 22, 2023

The graffiti artist known as Banksy might be unmasked in an upcoming defamation case over his use of Instagram to invite shoplifters to go to a Guess store because it had used his imagery without permission. The case could be seen as an attempt to force Banksy to relinquish his anonymity, which, many say, has been important to his success over the years.

There has been much speculation as to the identity of the artist and he is believed by many to be Bristol’s Robin Gunningham, who was named as a co-defendant in the defamation suit. While it has not been confirmed that Banksy is Gunningham, pointing this out is in no way a revelation. Moreover, trying to find out Banksy’s identity ultimately does not matter.

There have been many investigations into the artist’s identity and it has been the topic of serious journalistic and academic investigation for years, but no one has been able to absolutely link Gunningham and Banksy.

Short of Gunningham’s admission, complete certainty is unlikely. But if Banksy’s identity is revealed, police forces around the world could bring vandalism, property destruction, criminal mischief or worse charges against the individual.

Gunningham revealing himself would also destroy the Banksy mystique.

He is not likely to snitch on himself or damage the brand. The more important reason Gunningham being Banksy doesn’t matter is because there is no Banksy – no individual who is Banksy anyway.
A collective

At one time, there was one Banksy who had a graffiti career and a famous “beef” in the subculture with London graffiti legend Robbo. That time is gone.

Banksy is now a collective of artists who work together to produce thoughtful, provocative and subversive pieces and installations. The scope and secrecy of Banksy’s larger works require the cooperation of many individuals to orchestrate, direct and produce them. The “bemusement park” Dismaland(a sinister take on Disneyland-style theme parks), the Walled Off Hotel (Banksy’s hotel and commentary on the Israel/Palestine conflict) in Palestine and Better Out Than In (Banksy’s New York-wide art residence) are examples of this.

Investigators believe that the collective includes many well-known and established artists. Bristol street artist John D’oh is among those rumoured to be involved, as is graffiti and street artist James AME72 Ame and perhaps even Massive Attack singer Robert Del Naja, among others. This is speculation. And again, this doesn’t matter.

What matters is why Banksy has been in the courts recently. More important than the current defamation suit is the 2021 rejection of Banksy’s trademark by the EU. This was the result of Banksy’s battle with street art greeting card producer Full Colour Black, who used Banksy’s image of a Monkey wearing a placard without permission. The ruling uses Banksy’s own words in the decision, stating:
The ruling notes that the street artist explicitly stated that the public is morally and legally free to reproduce, amend and otherwise use any copyright works forced upon them by third parties.

Also, “copyright is for losers”, as Banksy said in his own 2017 book, Wall and Piece.

The application to declare the trademark invalid was filed in 2018. Banksy took great umbrage at this. In October of 2019, he officially revealed the “homewares” brand Gross Domestic Product. The store is officially the website, but it debuted as a pop-up shop which couldn’t be entered.

A statement posted on the pop-up “storefront” declared that Gross Domestic Product was opened in direct response to the trademark cancellation filing and that selling Banksy “branded merchandise” was the best way to ensure ownership and control of the Banksy name. What’s important here is the clear interest in wanting to maintain control over what is and is not a Banksy and what Banksy artwork is associated with in commercial spaces.
A team of professionals

Banksy fakes are everywhere. The artist’s popularity and the fact that the bulk of Banksy’s work is stencils – which are easily reproduced by anyone with some talent, time and an Exacto knife – ensure fakes and copies will continue to be made. To combat this, Banksy has a cohort of trusted art dealers for official Banskys and an authentication service called Pest Control that chases and legitimates the provenance of Banskys.

While it is entirely legitimate for any artist to want to maintain their unique identity and control over their artwork, it’s rare for an artist to maintain an entire staffed department dedicated to it. Not that graffiti writers don’t defend their copyrights.

Revok, Futura and Rime (to name a few) have defended their ownership of their graffiti and art in court. They hired lawyers, but they didn’t have a division dedicated to preempting and preventing infringement.

Pest Control is seemingly in place to maintain the authentic and unique perspective of Banksy’s works and to confirm they were officially produced by Banksy. This is a process often referred to as brand maintenance.

So, what’s the point of all this? Well, Banksy was an individual street artist at one point. This was probably Robin Gunningham. However, Banksy is now a collective of artists who work under the Banksy brand to produce the works that the Banksy authentication service, Pest Control, officially decrees as Banksys. Banksy is also a team of lawyers, art dealers and curators who ensure that only works officially associated with the Banksy brand get the certified Banksy seal of approval.

None of this is secret, but it’s not been publicised because being a litigious art collective equally as dedicated to producing art as engaging in brand maintenance doesn’t evoke the solo, clandestine, provocative raconteur image Banksy is going for. Having a team of lawyers making sure only real Banksys are labelled as such doesn’t do much for your street cred. Still, revealing this publicly likely won’t diminish interest in Banksy or affect the price people are willing to pay for monkey stencils or self-destroying art.

Tyson Mitman, Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology, York St John University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
How the U$ Supreme Court could make same-sex marriage into second-class marriage

October 23, 2023

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court decided to take up the case of a Texas justice of the peace who was sanctioned because she refused to marry same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs—and she’s planning to take her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wait, you must be asking yourself, Haven’t we been here before?

Yep.

Kim Davis, you’ll remember, is the infamous Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples back in 2015 based on her religious beliefs after the Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell marriage equality decision that year. Davis was sued and ordered by a federal judge to begin issuing licenses. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which turned away her appeal.

Davis still wouldn’t issue licenses and was eventually jailed for contempt of court. She was released after five days—only after she agreed that she wouldn’t interfere with deputy clerks granting licenses even as she took her name off of them.

Lots of people thought that settled that. And perhaps it did.

But perhaps not.

Donald Trump, of course, remade the Supreme Court, which took a radical shift to the right. And Justice Clarence Thomas may have foreshadowed what’s to come regarding granting government officials the right to discriminate in the scathing statement he wrote when the high court denied Kim Davis’ appeal in 2015, a statement that was joined by Justice Samuel Alito:

As a result of this Court’s alteration of the Constitution, Davis found herself with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job…
..Davis may have been one of the first victims in this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she won’t be the last.
..By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem only it can fix.
So it was clear in 2015 where these two would take things if they got the chance—that is, if fellow extremists joined them on the court down the road—even though their argument was absurd and hypocritical. Government employees’ religious beliefs haven’t entitled them to discriminate against groups of people. In the case of clerks issuing marriage licenses, surely they couldn’t use religion to turn away an interracial marriage or a Jewish couple, even if it they believed it went against the tenets of their particular faith.

Share The Signorile Report

Fast forward to 2023, and that is not so clear anymore. The current Supreme Court—with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, put on the court by Trump—has ruled in favor of blatant discrimination, all in the name of religious freedom. And Thomas and Alito may now have the chance to “fix” yet another “problem” they claim the court created.

The Waco, Texas, justice of the peace at the center of the current case, Dianne Hensley, refused to perform same-sex marriages in 2019 based on her religious beliefs as a Christian. She was formally sanctioned by the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. She filed a lawsuit, arguing her rights were violated under the Texas Religious Restoration Freedom Act. The case was dismissed by a state district judge, and that decision was upheld upon appeal. Hensley then appealed to the very right-wing Texas Supreme Court, and it decided on Friday to take her case.

Hensley’s lawyers at the First Liberty Institute, a Christian nationalist law firm with ties to corrupt, viciously anti-LGBTQ Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, are using the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last June in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which the court’s conservatives ruled that a Colorado web designer can’t be forced to serve same-sex couples seeking wedding websites based on her religious beliefs—even though no same-sex couple had actually sought the web designer’s services. Per the Texas Tribune:

Justin Butterfield, an attorney for Hensley at First Liberty Institute, has maintained throughout the lawsuit that religious liberty is Hensley’s right as a citizen.
“303 Creative affirmed that religious liberty is not a second-class right in America,” Butterfield wrote in an email to The Texas Tribune. “We look forward to vindicating Judge Hensley’s rights in the Texas Supreme Court.”

Dale Carpenter, chair of constitutional law at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, told the Tribune he believes this is one of a “slew” of cases that will try to expand the reach of 303 Creative. He seems skeptical that that will happen, telling the Tribune that the Colorado case has little to do with Hensley’s case because the 303 Creative decision applies to private businesses, while Hensley is a government official.

But will that matter to the Christian nationalist-friendly Texas Supreme Court and ultimately the current U.S. Supreme Court?

We’ve seen this Supreme Court spin out whatever it wants on a whole variety of issues, from affirmative action and abortion rights to student loan debt and immigration. This court’s motto is: Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

And we know there’s a will because Thomas told us there is—with Alito joining him—in the statement he issued in 2015 regarding Kim Davis.

“If Judge Hensley were to actually win this case, it would basically gut a good portion of marriage equality that we got,” Ash Hall, an ACLU of Texas policy and advocacy strategist, told the Tribune. “Your ability to get married then would be dependent on your ZIP code and kind of what resources were around you.”

Hall said the ACLU isn’t surprised by Hensley using the 303 Creative case either, and has expected such lawsuits would be coming down the pike. No one can predict what the Supreme Court will do. So we shouldn't be shocked if the court expands its abominable decision in 303 Creative to allow even government employees to treat gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens.

The real reason Biden isn't getting credit — and what to do about it

(Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

October 25, 2023

As Republicans squabble, Trump brays, Netanyahu mobilizes a ground invasion of Gaza, and Putin pushes more Russian soldiers to the front lines of Ukraine, President Biden continues to be the one adult in the room.

In response to my letter to you last week about Biden’s leadership, a number of you wondered why he isn’t getting more credit for it.

Granted, polls are meaningless more than a year before an election. Even so, it’s bizarre that Trump — indicted for a rash of felonies, liable for sexual harassment, found to have committed business fraud — has such strong support relative to Biden.

Why don’t voters give Biden more credit?

One theory is that Trump and Fox News have poisoned their minds.

This may be true for some, but I keep coming across self-described Republicans — many of them middle-aged men without college degrees — who don’t particularly like Trump and don’t believe what they see on Fox News.

Yet they’re unimpressed with Biden. They tell me he’s “weak.” They ask questions like, “What has Biden done for me?” or “What’s one way I’m better off because of Joe Biden?”

When I mention some of Biden’s accomplishments — his steady hand in foreign policy, for example, or his creation of tens of thousands of good jobs through investments in wind, solar, electric batteries, infrastructure, and semiconductors — they tell me they didn’t know.

Which brings me to the second theory about why Biden isn’t getting credit: Biden is terrible at “messaging.”

I hear this all the time. “He needs a better ‘message,’” they say, or “He doesn’t know how to get across what he’s accomplished,” or “His speeches are deadly dull.”

I’ve gone back and watched several of Biden’s recent speeches, including last Thursday night’s address to the nation about Israel and Ukraine. His speeches aren’t electrifying, to be sure. But he says what needs to be said. He’s truthful. He doesn’t exaggerate. He’s compassionate.

So why aren’t more people hearing him?

This raises a third theory: Biden doesn’t communicate in ways that today’s media and much of the public are able to hear.

I think there’s a lot to this.

I’m old enough to remember when President Dwight D. Eisenhower talked to the nation. Despite Ike’s flat delivery, which was often punctuated with throat-clearing, the public listened and responded, usually positively, because Americans in the 1950s were able to process non-emotive messages. They might disagree with him, but he gave reasons for what he did or proposed and invited voters to deliberate rationally.

The media of that era felt duty-bound to transmit those non-emotive messages.

By “non-emotive,” I mean messages that are straightforward. They don’t cause the recipient to be entertained or inspired, don’t play on fear or bigotry or any other strong negative emotion.

This is no longer the way the media transmits information or how Americans process it. Now, a message has to pack a wallop to be heard.

Everything Trump says and posts is designed to spur an emotional reaction. His anger, ridicule, and vindictiveness are intended to elicit immediate, passionate responses.

Trump gets attention because the media lives off emotive messaging. The more charged the message, the more likely viewers will stop scrolling. The fiercer the words, the more likely readers will take notice.

Joe Biden still lives in the world of rational, non-emotive messaging. He has been in politics for 50 years. He is steeped in rational, conventional argument — the kind Dwight Eisenhower delivered.

When it comes to “messaging” about his accomplishments, neither Biden nor his surrogates do the emotive work that our media ecosystem demands and the American public is now primed to respond to.

When voters tell pollsters they think Trump is “stronger” than Biden on foreign policy or the economy, the “strength” they feel comes from the emotions Trump stirs up — rage, ferocity, vindictiveness, and anger. These emotions are connected to brute strength.

Biden projects strength the old-fashioned way — through mature and responsible leadership. But mature and responsible leadership doesn’t break through today’s media and reach today’s public nearly as well as brute strength.

So what’s the answer? Not for Biden (or his Democratic allies and surrogates) to abandon facts, data, analysis, and reasoned argument.

The best response is to draw the starkest possible contrast between Trump’s unhinged childishness and Biden’s competent adulthood.

Rather than sell Biden’s policies, sell Biden’s character. Rather than dispute Trump’s arguments, condemn his temperament.

And ask Americans the following question: Do they want a psychopathic infant at the helm again, or a sane grown-up?


Do billionaires have a right to exist?

PBS NewsHour (Screenshot)
October 26, 2023

Last night, United Auto Workers officials alerted local union leaders that the UAW has a tentative deal with Ford to end the strike against the automaker.

The UAW’s battle against the Big Three carmakers has centered on wages and the widening gap between the compensation of the automaker’s top executives and the wages of their average workers. Hopefully, the strike is about to lift the wages of autoworkers significantly.
But Shawn Fain, UAW president, has an even larger vision for where America should be heading. “Billionaires in my opinion don’t have a right to exist,” he says.

What Fain is getting at is that if American capitalism was working as it should, it wouldn’t be producing billionaires — especially when the typical worker’s wages have been nearly stagnant for three decades when adjusted for inflation.

He’s correct.

There are basically only five ways to accumulate a billion dollars and none of them has a legitimate role in free market capitalism.

The first is to exploit a monopoly.

Jamie Dimon is worth $1.6 billion. That’s not because he succeeded in the free market. In 2008, the government bailed out JPMorgan and other giant Wall Street banks because it considered them “too big to fail.”

That bailout created a hidden, government-provided insurance policy for the biggest banks, still in effect, with an estimated value to the banks of $34.1 billion a year. If JPMorgan weren’t so big and hadn’t received that hidden insurance, Dimon would be worth far less than $1.6 billion.

What about America’s much-vaunted entrepreneurs, such as Jeff Bezos, now worth $114 billion? You might say Bezos deserves this because he founded and built Amazon.

But Amazon is a monopolist. The federal government and 17 states have charged it with abusing its position in the marketplace to inflate prices, overcharge sellers, and stifle competition. To be sure, the case hasn’t yet been decided by the courts, but evidence of Amazon’s monopoly power is significant.

In addition, Amazon’s business is protected by a slew of patents granted by the U.S. government. They are very broad and have contributed to Amazon’s market power.

If the government enforced anti-monopoly laws, and didn’t give Amazon such broad patents, Bezos would be worth far less than $114 billion.

A second way to make a billion is to get insider information unavailable to other investors.

Hedge-fund maven Steven A. Cohen, worth $17.5 billion, headed up a hedge fund in which, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department, insider trading was “substantial, pervasive, and on a scale without known precedent in the hedge fund industry.” Nine of Cohen’s present or former employees pleaded guilty or were convicted. Cohen got off with a fine, changed the name of his firm, and apparently is back at the game.

Insider trading is endemic in C-suites, too. SEC researchers have found that corporate executives are twice as likely to sell their stock on the days following their own stock buyback announcements — the timing of which they determine — as they are in the days leading up to the announcements.

If government cracked down on insider trading, hedge-fund mavens and top corporate executives wouldn’t be raking in nearly as much.

A third way to make a billion is to buy off politicians.

The Trump tax cut was estimated to save Charles and the late David Koch and their Koch Industries an estimated $850 million to $1.4 billion a year, not even counting their tax savings on profits stored offshore and a shrunken estate tax. The Kochs and their affiliated groups spent some $20 million lobbying for the Trump tax cut, including political donations.

Not a bad return on their investment.If we had tough anti-corruption laws preventing political payoffs like this, the Kochs and other major political donors wouldn’t get the special tax breaks and other government subsidies that have enlarged their fortunes.

The fourth way to make a billion is to defraud investors.

Adam Neumann conned JPMorgan, SoftBank, and other investors to sink hundreds of millions into WeWork, an office-sharing startup. Neumann used some of the money to buy buildings he leased back to WeWork and to enjoy a lifestyle that included a $60 million private jet. WeWork never made a nickel of profit.

Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of fraud in connection with her blood-testing company, Theranos. Sam Bankman-Fried, former CEO of crypto-exchange FTX, is now facing federal fraud charges. Oh, and remember a guy named Donald Trump? He’s also now charged with fraud.

At least they were caught. Presumably, if we had tougher anti-fraud laws, more would be caught and we’d have fewer billionaires.

The fifth way to be a billionaire is to get the money from rich parents or relatives.

About 60 percent of all the wealth in America today is inherited, according to estimates by economist Thomas Piketty and his colleagues.

That’s because, under U.S. tax law — which is itself largely a product of lobbying by the wealthy — the capital gains of one generation are wiped out when those assets are transferred to the next, and the estate tax is so tiny that fewer than 0.2 percent of estates were subject to it last year.If unearned income were treated the same as earned income under the tax code, America’s non-working rich wouldn’t be billionaires. And if capital gains weren’t eliminated at death, many heirs wouldn’t be, either.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing against big rewards for entrepreneurs and inventors. The possibility of making a bundle has elicited innovations that benefit us all.

The question is one of scale. Do entrepreneurs and inventors need the incentive of billions of dollars? Wouldn’t, say, a hundred million do?

The social costs of billionaires is substantial. Billionaires have purchased right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court, bought and either destroyed or subverted news organizations (such as the former Twitter), and turned their relationships with politicians into patronage troughs.

All of this has undermined the common good.

If capitalism were working as it should, billionaires wouldn’t exist. Shawn Fain is correct.

What do you think?


There is nothing quite as pitiful as whiny billionaires


Jim Hightower
October 25, 2023

And the whiniest of all is the richest -- Elon Musk. This self-entitled bully runs over anyone in his way, then whines when they protest.

Elon's latest high-pitched screech was prompted by public demands that his profiteering schemes obey clean-water and safety regulations. He owns a corporation named (believe it or not) the Boring Company -- an underground tunnelling venture based in Bastrop, Texas, digging out tons of soil, chemicals and contaminated groundwater. But where to put all the waste? I'll just dump the stuff in the nearby Colorado River, said Lord Musk. Lots of stuff -- 140,000 gallons of wastewater per day!
But that river is our main water source, said local people -- you'll need to comply with water treatment and disposal rules. Outrageous, whined Elon, maniacally squealing that "Construction is becoming practically illegal" in America. So, he proceeded to dump his waste without a permit.

Then he encountered Chap Ambrose, a Boring neighbor and former Musk admirer. Chap began asking questions and getting nothing but evasions, lies and disrespect. Musk was messing with Texas, so Ambrose rallied local opposition through a website he named "Keep Bastrop Boring," promoting it on a local billboard. With a drone, he videoed Musk's expanding industrial mess, broadcasting the videos throughout the area. He filed actions with county, state and national regulatory authorities, and got his state senator to hold a hearing, attended by hundreds of residents in this rural county.

Musk can bamboozle powerful officials, but not feisty people like Chap, who recently ridiculed the pouty billionaire. "I'm sorry, neighbor," Ambrose told him. "Development remains legal in Bastrop, but what is illegal is polluting Texas water... You're making this way harder than it has to be."

The fight goes on -- and I'm betting on Chap.

THE SECRETIVE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY THAT EXCLUDES YOU
Are you excited by -- or do you dread -- the upcoming presidential election season? Either way, buckle up, for it's only 12 weeks till the Iowa caucuses, and then (zoom!) there's nonstop voting across America for the rest of 2024. Democracy at work!
Well... unless you don't notice the Plutocratic Primary, where -- shhhh! -- presidential voting is already taking place. However, this balloting is only open to a teensy number of very exclusive voters: billionaires.

These privileged ones don't have to go to public campaign events; candidates come to them for closed-door tete-a-tetes, making undisclosed promises in exchange for millions of dollars in campaign funds. This secretive primary lets moneyed elites initiate or eliminate policies that candidates obediently support. Moreover, by granting or withholding large donations, billionaires can determine which candidates are considered "viable," letting the superrich have a heavy hand in "choosing the choices" that we commoners will have next year.

The New York Times reports that this flexing of the money muscle was recently exercised at a closed meeting of GOP sugar daddies in Utah. Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie and other presidential wannabes were on display, pleading with the donors to choose them as the party's alternative to former President Donald Trump -- and to shoo the other Republican contenders out of the race.

Haley bluntly appealed to the rich clique's plutocratic ego: "I think it's up to the donors to decide which candidates should get off the stage." Christie went a step further toward plutocratic rule, asking the elite attendees to decide who would be "the best president."

No one in the room bothered asking the obvious question: Best for whom? Everyone knew he meant best for the rich. No need for messy elections; let the billionaires choose!
President Carter’s many months on hospice highlight a surprising truth | Opinion

Story by Diana Franchitto, Rhode Island Current •

Former President Jimmy Carter image by Nir Levy, Shutterstock© provided by AlterNet

Isaw a clip last month of President Jimmy Carter, now 99 years old, taking a ride with his wife through a peanut festival in their hometown. That’s a happy story for many reasons. As the former president approaches his eighth month on hospice care, it’s also a chance to clear up a common myth.

Back in February, when the president’s family announced he was ending curative treatments and beginning hospice, it was perhaps natural to assume he wouldn’t live much longer. Instead, President Carter has spent the better part of a year not just holding on, but truly living — in the ways that matter most to him, like with a celebratory drive beside his sweetheart.

Like many others, I was grateful to President Carter for publicly sharing his decision to begin hospice those many months ago, because it helped us raise awareness about this crucial type of care. Now, his long run on hospice gives us a chance to spotlight a truth that many find surprising: Some patients actually live longer on hospice.

We sense this regularly in our work at HopeHealth, as the region’s largest and oldest non-profit hospice and palliative care organization. We have the privilege of supporting patients and families through their final time together, and we care for patients who get an extra summer with their loved ones, who are able to attend that big family reunion, who defy all expectations and live long enough to meet their grandchild.

His long run on hospice gives us a chance to spotlight a truth that many find surprising: Some patients actually live longer on hospice.

Several landmark studies back up these personal observations with research, including a 2007 report in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management00724-X/fulltext) and a 2018 report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Heart Failure. These studies offer several theories for why patients may live longer on hospice than if they had remained on curative-focused care. In general, they come down to this: Hospice offers extra support at a time when it often matters most.

Related video: U.S. President Jimmy Carter turns 99! (WRBL Columbus)
Duration 1:58
View on Watch

Jimmy And Rosalynn Carter Make Rare Public Appearance At Hometown Peanut Festival
0:37


Jimmy Carter admirers across generations celebrate the former president's 99th birthday
0:27

Admirers celebrate Jimmy Carter's 99th birthday
1:14



For example, as part of his hospice care, President Carter has had access to experts who can help with difficult medical decisions, and coordinate between all his doctors. He has a doctor who specializes in making sure he is on the right medications to feel his best, and a medical team that comes out regularly for home visits, noticing and managing any problems early. If he experiences a difficult symptom at any time of day or night, his family can call a 24/7 nurse to come to his side, instead of rushing to the hospital. They have the extra support of a hospice aide for activities of daily living, so they can focus on quality time together. They have access to chaplains and social workers, for spiritual and emotional support.

Above all, President Carter and his family have a team who helps them identify and honor the ways they want to spend their precious time together — like, for example, a pleasant drive through a local peanut festival.

All of these services are available to every patient and family on hospice, not just former presidents. Whether it lasts months, weeks or days, that’s the value of this type of care: It helps us fill our final chapter with comfort, hope and meaning.

I know that President Carter’s final chapter will be every bit as full and meaningful as the life he lived. As in every other chapter, he is leading from the heart.

The six-minute mystery of the 'Alien TV Broadcast' remains unsolved

Story by By Walla! • 1d

© (photo credit: INGIMAGE)

It has been 46 years since the chilling message sent shockwaves through Britain.


During a live television broadcast on Saturday, November 26, 1977, Southern TV's 5 o'clock news suddenly featured the disappearance of broadcaster Andrew Gardner and a peculiar beeping sound. Subsequently, a mysterious voice proclaimed, "This is the voice of Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command, speaking to you. For many years you have seen us as lights in the skies. We speak to you now in peace and wisdom as we have done to your brothers and sisters all over this, your planet Earth. We come to warn you of the destiny of your race and your world so that you may communicate to your fellow beings the course you must take to avoid the disaster which threatens your world, and the beings on our worlds around you."


Listen to the message below:


Vrillon concluded with a stern warning: "Only those who learn to live in peace will pass to the higher realms of spiritual evolution."

However, no further explanation was given. The immediate assumption was that it was a prankster hijacking the regional television broadcast. A spokesperson for Southern Television commented at the time, stating, "An unidentified party disrupted our broadcast in the North Hampshire area by transmitting very closely to it."

Representatives of independent TV networks asserted that orchestrating such a hoax required "considerable technical knowledge." Nevertheless, the alleged prankster never stepped forward to claim responsibility for the peculiar transmission, maintaining the secret for over four decades. Even after locating the relay station responsible for the transmission, no one took explicit responsibility for the incident.



Nevertheless, it remains a possibility that the Rylons, if they exist, observe our actions and await the dismantling of nuclear weaponry before accepting us into the intergalactic community. Prior to the broadcast, individuals claimed for years that they served as conduits for communication with an alien entity known as Ashtar. One of the earliest claims came from George Van Tessel, an American pilot and aircraft technician, who asserted that he was taken on a journey aboard a spaceship by aliens from Venus in 1953.

Watch George Van Tessel discussing aliens, spacecraft, and time travel:



Following this extraordinary journey, Van Tessel commenced hosting meditation and channeling conferences at Giant Rock, which gained considerable popularity, attracting up to ten thousand participants at its peak. Van Tessel and other communicators gradually introduced the concept of Ashtar, a disembodied being overseeing a military or police force, whose mission was to warn Earth's inhabitants of impending doom if they persisted in their malevolent ways, particularly the development of more atomic weapons


THE OTHER VENUSIAN ABDUCTEE CIRCA 1954

History.com

https://www.history.com/news/george-adamski-ufo-alien-photos

Jan 9, 2020 ... To some, he was a prophet. To others, a laughing stock. Even today, more than half a century after his death, George Adamski remains one of ...

Si.edu

https://www.si.edu/object/siris_sil_18409

Object Details ; Author: Leslie, Desmond 1921-: Adamski, George 1891-1965 ; Call number: TL789 .L46X: TL789.L46X ; Type: Books ; Physical description: 232 p. illus.

History.denverlibrary.org

https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/man-who-boarded-flying-saucer-allegedly

Sep 20, 2022 ... When last we spoke of George Adamski, he claimed to have met a man from Venus in the Colorado Desert (Part of the Sonoran Desert) near Desert ...

En.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Adamski

George Adamski (17 April 1891 – 23 April 1965) was a Polish-American author who became widely known in ufology circles, and to some degree in popular ...


Quebec’s Tuition Hike: A Threat to Montreal’s Diversity and Inclusivity



 BNN Breaking


In the heart of Quebec, the sound of student voices in protest is growing louder, echoing through the streets of Montreal. Their discontent stems from a decision by the Quebec government, one that threatens to nearly double tuition fees for out-of-province students attending English universities. A move seen by many as not just an affront to their wallets, but an attack on the multicultural fabric of their city.

A Contested Policy

The government's decision to increase fees from around $9,000 to approximately $17,000 starting next fall is framed as a solution to rebalance the scales between French and English university networks. It aims to curb the influx of Canadian students, who flock to Quebec for the university education then leave upon graduation, taking their skills and potential contributions elsewhere. As the government seeks to stem the decline of the French language in Quebec, it also plans to impose a $20,000 charge on universities for every international student they admit - money earmarked for reinvestment in French-language institutions.

An Inclusive Vision Threatened

The policy, however, has been met with vehement opposition from both English and French-speaking students and university leaders. They argue that the government's actions will precipitate the erosion of Montreal's rich cultural diversity and inclusivity. English universities like McGill, Concordia, and Bishop's, known for their international student populations, will bear the brunt of the blow.

Even heads of French-language universities have voiced their disapproval, rejecting the portrayal of non-Quebec students as threats to the French language. They argue that these students contribute to the excellence, quality, diversity, and relevance of their institutions. The policy, they contend, only serves to redistribute funds, not invest in the local universities' future.

A Rising Tide of Resistance

The response from student bodies has been equally passionate. Student unions, including those at French-language universities, believe the policy will fail to protect the French language and are incensed that Canadian students are being indiscriminately affected. They argue that the government's plan lacks clarity and transparency.

The looming tuition hike has left many students in a state of uncertainty and disappointment. Those from outside Quebec, who had dreamt of studying at English universities in the province, are now being forced to reconsider their options due to financial constraints. Some even question whether they wish to move to a place that appears to be discouraging diversity and non-French speakers.

As Monday approaches, students are preparing to march through the city in protest. They are seeking to reverse the decision and advocate for a more inclusive and equitable approach to education in Quebec. They believe there are alternative ways to preserve the French language without disincentivizing bright and ambitious students from attending English-speaking universities.

As the protest draws near, the controversy over the tuition hike for out-of-province students attending English universities in Quebec continues to gain momentum. It has sparked a conversation about the future of education in Quebec, the value of diversity, and the importance of an inclusive educational environment. The echoes of student voices in protest grow louder, a testament to the power of unity in the face of adversity.

ACCIDENT NOT SABOTAGE
Finland says broken anchor from Chinese vessel caused Balticconnector damage 


Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo addressing the press for the discovered damages in the Balticconnector pipeline, 10th October 2023. Credit: Antti Yrjonen/NurPhoto via Getty Images© Antti Yrjonen/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Investigators from Finland say they have evidence of a Chinese container ship damaging the Baltic Sea gas pipeline earlier this month.

The Balticconnector pipeline transports natural gas from Finland to Estonia and had been shut down after initial warnings of a possible puncture.

The investigation began on 8 October when the Finland police informed of a rupture to the subsea Balticconnector pipeline as well as two telecom cables. While the damage was caused by external mechanical force, it was yet to be determined whether it was accidental or an attempt of sabotage.

On Tuesday, Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) said they retrieved a lost anchor from the seabed, and the information indicated a Hong Kong-flagged, Chinese-owned cargo vessel, NewNew Polar Bear, being involved. The NBI told reporters in Helsinki that the container ship was missing a front anchor.

Finland’s central criminal police said the anchor weighed 6 tonnes, was missing one of its prongs and had been lifted from the seabed using a navy crane. The anchor had also caused deep drag marks on both sides of the fractured pipeline.

The NBI tried to contact the ship’s captain to no avail and suspected that the movement of the vessel closely coincided with the pipeline damage.

Related video: Finland can't rule out 'state actor' involvement in pipeline damage (France 24)
Duration 1:52   View on Watch

“The next questions are about whether it was intentional, negligence, poor seamanship, and that’s where we get into whether there could be a motive for what’s going on. It’s too early to answer that at this stage,” said Robin Lardot, the NBI chief.

Finland relies on gas for 5% of its energy supplies. The pipeline operators have said it will take at least five months to carry out repairs, and the facility will be in operation in April 2024 at the earliest.

Earlier this month, Offshore Technology reported the Balticconnector has an annual capacity of 2.6 billion cubic metres. At the time of the incident, it was transporting approximately 30 gigawatt-hours of gas per day.

In April 2023, Finland became a member of NATO after abandoning its longstanding policy of non-alignment in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On 11 October, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, "If it is proven to be a deliberate attack on NATO-critical infrastructure, then this will be, of course, serious, but it will also be met by a united and determined response from NATO."

Originally created and published by Offshore Technology, a GlobalData owned brand.
UK
I need the fossil fuel lobby to stay out of our MPs' ears - and pockets

Story by Caroline Lucas • METRO UK


It’s time to break with the past and make sure that our politics is fossil fuel free once and for all 

I’ve learned a lot in my 13-plus years in Parliament – but one rule seems to be self-evident.

What the fossil fuel lobby wants, the fossil fuel lobby gets.

I worry about the impact of the cosiness between energy giants and our top politicians – and for the sake of our country and our planet, it can’t go on any longer.

Shocking new analysis published this week by Fossil Free Parliament claims that in the 12 months following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, trade body Offshore Energies UK (formerly Oil and Gas UK) and its members including BP, Shell and Equinor, met with ministers over 200 times.

Some meetings between ministers and trade bodies and other outside groups are to be expected – but you would be forgiven for thinking that this kind of lobbying effort is potentially influencing policy.

Indeed, major loopholes in the so-called windfall tax have benefited fossil fuel companies.


Related video: Global fossil fuel demand will peak before 2030, report says (cbc.ca)
Duration 2:02   View on Watch


Because these aren’t just routine meetings between industry and government – events from fossil fuel companies and groups include a summer reception for MPs attended by the Minister for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and a ‘fiscal forum’ with the man who was then Chancellor and is now Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak.

Of course we don’t know what was said at these meetings, but whether by accident or design, the premiership of Sunak has, in my view, been very good for fossil fuel companies – and very bad for the planet.

Because in just 12 short months we’ve seen Sunak approve a coal mine in Cumbria, grant over 100 new oil and gas licences, wage a culture and misinformation war against critical climate and health measures by talking up a fictitious ‘war against motorists’, and give the green light to Rosebank – the biggest undeveloped oil field in the North Sea.

The OEUK welcomed the approval of the Rosebank deal, and in fact called on the government to go even further.

I truly believe some of Sunak’s decisions wouldn’t have gone ahead without influence like this from industry, and I worry about what that means.


The premiership of Sunak has, in my view, been very good for fossil fuel companies – and very bad for the planet 

Fossil fuel interests have no place in our parliament.

They have no place in the receptions where ministers are wined and dined, and they have no place bankrolling political parties.

And at the very least, if any meetings do take place, full transparency of such discussions is critical.

In my view, not only is the current system of lobbying for fossil fuel interests undemocratic – it’s also deeply dangerous for climate action, given their priority is putting forward policies that can undermine the UK’s climate commitments.

This Government has a seemingly insatiable addiction to fossil fuels – and the lobby is their enabler.

We need to change things to end this toxic relationship.

So what could that mean in practical terms?


According to analysis by Fossil Free Parliament, Offshore Energies UK and its members, including Shell, met with ministers over 200 times 

First – I think fossil fuel companies should be banned from political party conferences.

Chevron was co-hosting an event at Tory Party conference, with the tagline: ‘Can fossil fuel companies play a role in the energy transition?’

Evidence suggests to me the only role they want to play is to delay and obfuscate – so why should they be able to pay to get this privileged access to the governing party.

Second – they should be banned from donating to MPs or to political parties, and from sponsoring parliamentary groups.

There can be no justification for allowing the fossil fuel lobby to even give the suggestion they are buying favours.

Third – the rules on other conflicts of interest need overhauling as well. Theresa Villiers, a former Environment Secretary, had over £70,000 worth of shares in Shell while doing the job – failing to declare them at the time.

The rules as they stand are clearly not fit for purpose.


Theresa Villiers, former Environment Secretary, had over £70,000 worth of shares in Shell 

Fourth, those cosy dinners and drinks events with fossil fuel lobbyists must be dragged into the sunlight.

If ministers who are making huge decisions on the future of the planet have conversations about policy with someone from the oil and gas sector, or another sector that stands to benefit, they should be required to make it public without delay.

Transparency is meaningless if it only emerges months and years afterwards.

Fifth and last, the revolving doors between Whitehall and the fossil fuel companies should come to an end.

This means MPs having no more second jobs in the industry.

It means far greater periods of time elapsing between someone moving from a ministerial role to consulting for an oil and gas firm, for example.

The current toothless two-year ‘cooling off’ period in between such positions, when ex-ministers simply have to seek advice from a government body, hasn’t worked and isn’t fit for purpose.

The actions of the fossil fuel companies are criminal in my view.

But the degree to which they are being aided and abetted by our political system is even more alarming. So it’s time to break with the past, as everyone knows we must, and make sure that our politics is fossil fuel free once and for all.