Sunday, January 16, 2022

Tom Arms’ World Review: Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Justice at home and abroad, Sri Lanka

By Tom Arms | Sun 16th January 2022 -

Ukraine

After a week of Ukrainian talks the question is whether Vladimir Putin is using negotiations to avoid war or create a pretext to start one. The communiques emerging from Geneva, Brussels and Vienna shed little light on the subject. They are peppered with insubstantial diplomatese phrases such as “frank,” “friendly” and “constructive.” Off the record, journalists are being told that chief US negotiator Wendy Sherman is offering to widen the talks with suggested discussions on missile deployments and other issues. The US is clearly trying to drag out talks in the hopes that protracted jaw, jaw will lead to reduced tensions. But on one issue the Americans and their NATO allies appear to be standing firm: They will not agree to a legally binding commitment to block Ukraine (and Georgia) from NATO membership. Putin has made it clear that Ukrainian enrolment in NATO is unacceptable. In fact, Putin has compared it to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The Russian leader has also denounced America’s strategic arms policies, blaming them from withdrawing from the ABM Treaty (true), INF (not true) and the Open Skies Agreement (not true). However, Putin is also adamant that he will not be bogged down in the “swamp” of protracted negotiations. His concern over lengthy talks is at least partly related to the fact that if he doesn’t move soon Russian tanks will become mired in the mud of a Ukrainian spring. If Putin does invade, Biden has threatened sanctions “like none he has ever seen.” These are likely to include locking Russia out of the international banking system and blocking the Nordstream2 gas pipeline.

Kazakhstan

It now appears that the uprising in Kazakhstan was more of an internal power struggle than a popular uprising. In the wake of the violence the head of, Kazakhstan’s security services, Karim Masimov, has been sacked and charged with treason. In addition, 81-year-old former president Nursultan Nazarbayev has been removed from the chairmanship of the nation’s powerful Security Council and his family has dropped from public view. Nazabaryev, who was an autocratic president for 25 years, hand-picked Kassim-Zhomart Tokayev as his successor. It had been assumed that the ex-president was still pulling the puppet strings and grooming his daughter for the presidency. Now it seems that the puppet has cut the strings and turned on his master. He also appears to have the blessing of Russia’s Vladimir Putin who still holds considerable sway in the former Soviet republic. Twenty-five percent of Kazakhstan’s 18 million citizens are ethnic Russian. Its gas pipelines all run to Russia, and 2,000 Russian troops were called in by Tokayev to protect Russian assets when the revolt started. After killing 164 protesters, arresting 10,000 and possibly neutering the Nazarbayev family and their supporters, Tokayev appears to be firmly back in control and the Russian troops are back in their barracks.

War criminals face justice

It is reassuring to note that the blindfold over the eyes of Lady Justice (aka Justitia) appears to remain in place in at least some countries. Britain, Germany, Australia and America (acting with the UK) have this week shown that the greatest in the land are subject to the same laws as everyone else no matter how high they climb the greasy pole of ambition. In the case of the Germans it was a matter of “you can run but you can’t hide.” This week a Koblenz court sentenced former Syrian Colonel Anwar Raslan to life imprisonment for supervising the torture of more than 4,000 prisoners in war-torn Syria. He was found guilty of crimes against humanity under the UN’s Universal Jurisdiction rules. This coming week a Syrian doctor also appears before a German court. Austria, Norway, Sweden and France have also taken legal steps against former members of the Syrian regime who have sought refuge in their countries.

Djokovic, Downing Street Parties and Prince Andrew

Australia has proven that rules apply to tennis players off the court as well as on. The country’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, has overturned a court decision and ordered the deportation of the world’s number one tennis player—Novak Djokovic—who doubles as a prominent anti-vaxxer. Unfortunately for Djokovic, Australia has some of the world’s toughest rules on covid vaccinations and entry into the country. In Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson appears to be heading for the exit door at 10 Downing Street as journalists line up to reveal a succession of Downing Street parties held during covid lockdowns that he ordered. The latest was the day before the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh when the country was in national mourning. Boris has made what he calls a “heartfelt” apology but the press and many of his colleagues think it was half-hearted. Finally the highest in the land (almost) has also been subjected to the rules. Prince Andrew, ninth in succession to the British throne, has been stripped of his titles and military ranks. He will now appear as a private citizen in a US civil court where he will be accused of sexually abusing Ms Victoria Giuffre in 2001. A delighted Ms Giuffre said: “My goal has always been to show that the rich and famous are not above the law.”

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is in deep financial trouble. This creates problems for China, India, Japan, Russia, the US and several other countries. Sri Lanka’s problems started with the refusal of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to accept IMF conditions for a restructuring of the island nation’s debts. In desperate need of cash, the Sri Lankan president turned to China for replacement help. Since then a combination of the pandemic, poor investment decisions and a drop in tourism has worsened Sri Lanka’s economic situation. Its foreign currency reserves have dwindled to almost nil. Inflation is 12 percent. A $500m debt repayment is due on Tuesday (18 Jan). Another $5.4 billion has to be repaid by the end of the year. Enter China which is Sri Lanka’s fourth biggest creditor after Japan, the IMF and Asian Development Bank. Sri Lanka has asked Beijing to restructure its loans. It is not the first time that the Sri Lankans have gone cap in hand to the Chinese. In 2017 they swapped a proportion of their equity in the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota in a debt restructuring deal. The Chinese now own 70 percent of the equity in the port on the south eastern tip of Sri Lanka. The move set alarm bells ringing in Tokyo, Washington, Canberra and Delhi where it was feared that the Chinese might use their equity position to place naval forces in the Indian Ocean. The “Quad” started eyeing the facilities at Trincomalee, the region’s largest deep-water facility. So far, however, the Chinese have kept their presence in Sri Lanka on a strict commercial footing. But they will want something in return for helping the Sri Lankans out of their current financial mess. What that may be is what is causing sleepless nights elsewhere.

* Tom Arms is the Foreign Editor of Liberal Democratic Voice. His book “America Made in Britain” has recently been published by Amberley Books. He is also the author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War.”

Corporate sedition is more damaging to America than the Capitol attack

Robert Reich

Kyrsten Sinema receives millions from business and opposes progressive priorities. Republicans who voted to overturn an election still bag big bucks. Whose side are CEOs on?

Senator Kyrsten Sinema boards an elevator at the US Capitol.

Photograph: Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters

Sun 16 Jan 2022 06.00 GMT

Capitalism and democracy are compatible only if democracy is in the driver’s seat.

That’s why I took some comfort just after the attack on the Capitol when many big corporations solemnly pledged they’d no longer finance the campaigns of the 147 lawmakers who voted to overturn election results.ey were over the moment the public stopped paying attention.

A report published last week by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington shows that over the past year, 717 companies and industry groups have donated more than $18m to 143 of those seditious lawmakers. Businesses that pledged to stop or pause their donations have given nearly $2.4m directly to their campaigns or political action committees (Pacs).

But there’s a deeper issue here. The whole question of whether corporations do or don’t bankroll the seditionist caucus is a distraction from a much larger problem.
Advertisement

The tsunami of money now flowing from corporations into the swamp of American politics is larger than ever. And this money – bankrolling almost all politicians and financing attacks on their opponents – is undermining American democracy as much as did the 147 seditionist members of Congress. Maybe more.

The Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema – whose vocal opposition to any change in the filibuster is on the verge of dooming voting rights – received almost $2m in campaign donations in 2021 even though she is not up for re-election until 2024. Most of it came from corporate donors outside Arizona, some of which have a history of donating largely to Republicans.

Has the money influenced Sinema? You decide. Besides sandbagging voting rights, she voted down the $15 minimum wage increase, opposed tax increases on corporations and the wealthy and stalled on drug price reform – policies supported by a majority of Democratic senators as well as a majority of Arizonans.

Over the last four decades, corporate Pac spending on congressional elections has more than quadrupled, even adjusting for inflation.

Labor unions no longer provide a counterweight. Forty years ago, union Pacs contributed about as much as corporate Pacs. Now, corporations are outspending labor by more than three to one.

According to a landmark study published in 2014 by the Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern professor Benjamin Page, the preferences of the typical American have no influence at all on legislation emerging from Congress.

Gilens and Page analyzed 1,799 policy issues in detail, determining the relative influence of economic elites, business groups, mass-based interest groups and average citizens. Their conclusion: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Lawmakers mainly listen to the policy demands of big business and wealthy individuals – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns and promote their views.

It’s probably far worse now. Gilens and Page’s data came from the period 1981 to 2002: before the supreme court opened the floodgates to big money in the Citizens United case, before Super Pacs, before “dark money” and before the Wall Street bailout.

The corporate return on this mountain of money has been significant. Over the last 40 years, corporate tax rates have plunged. Regulatory protections for consumers, workers and the environment have been defanged. Antitrust has become so ineffectual that many big corporations face little or no competition.

Corporations have fought off safety nets and public investments that are common in other advanced nations (most recently, Build Back Better). They’ve attacked labor laws, reducing the portion of private-sector workers belonging to a union from a third 40 years ago to just over 6% now.

They’ve collected hundreds of billions in federal subsidies, bailouts, loan guarantees and sole-source contracts. Corporate welfare for big pharma, big oil, big tech, big ag, the largest military contractors and biggest banks now dwarfs the amount of welfare for people.

The profits of big corporations just reached a 70-year high, even during a pandemic. The ratio of CEO pay in large companies to average workers has ballooned from 20-to-1 in the 1960s, to 320-to-1 now.

Meanwhile, most Americans are going nowhere. The typical worker’s wage is only a bit higher today than it was 40 years ago, when adjusted for inflation.

But the biggest casualty is public trust in democracy.

In 1964, just 29% of voters believed government was “run by a few big interests looking out for themselves”. By 2013, 79% of Americans believed it.

Corporate donations to seditious lawmakers are nothing compared with this 40-year record of corporate sedition.

Campaigners target senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, near the US Capitol. Photograph: Ken Cedeno/REX/Shutterstock

A large portion of the American public has become so frustrated and cynical about democracy they are willing to believe blatant lies of a self-described strongman, and willing to support a political party that no longer believes in democracy.

As I said at the outset, capitalism is compatible with democracy only if democracy is in the driver’s seat. But the absence of democracy doesn’t strengthen capitalism. It fuels despotism.

Despotism is bad for capitalism. Despots don’t respect property rights. They don’t honor the rule of law. They are arbitrary and unpredictable. All of this harms the owners of capital. Despotism also invites civil strife and conflict, which destabilize a society and an economy.

My message to every CEO in America: you need democracy, but you’re actively undermining it.

It’s time for you to join the pro-democracy movement. Get solidly behind voting rights. Actively lobby for the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Use your lopsidedly large power in American democracy to protect American democracy – and do it soon. Otherwise, we may lose what’s left of it.

The true meaning of 6 January: we must answer Trump’s neofascism with hope
Robert Reich

The US supreme court to Americans: tough luck if you get Covid at work
Robert Reich

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com

Book Review: Cities in the Anthropocene: New Ecology and Urban Politics by Ihnji Jon

Bouchra Tafrata
January 16th, 2022

In Cities in the Anthropocene: New Ecology and Urban Politics, Ihnji Jon explores how researchers, city planners and the public can develop a bottom-up approach to environmentalism in urban areas, focusing on the cities of Cape Town, Cleveland, Darwin and Tulsa. This book contributes to establishing a new approach to urban research that understands cities as complex environments and stresses the importance of collaboration with communities, finds Bouchra Tafrata.

Cities in the Anthropocene: New Ecology and Urban Politics. Ihnji Jon. Pluto Press. 2021.

Find this book (affiliate link):

In her article ‘The City We Want: Against the Banality of Urban Planning Research’, Ihnji Jon reflects on the current state of academia and how a space of intellectual exercise is being threatened by marketisation, the fear of remaining invisible without publications, h-indexes and an obsession with producing ‘objective’ knowledge. As a young scholar trying to carve a pathway in urban studies, I ruminate on how the current knowledge produced within universities is affecting approached communities. Whose voices are we listening to? Why are institutions and academics trying to maintain the barrier they have constructed between research and activism? If cities are complex, why is academia generating ‘banal’ research? In this regard, Jon evokes Robert W. Lake’s words, calling for a shift ‘from a stance of distanced objectivity to an engaged attitude of solidarity and empathy’ (72).

The current climate situation and the continuous debate between governments and policymakers about the deteriorating state of the planet, in addition to the differences in public opinion, push us to question governments’ approaches to climate issues and to ask why many have failed at implementing climate-related policies. Jon’s book Cities in the Anthropocene is a call for researchers, city planners and the public to reflect on the benefits of a bottom-up approach in environmentalism and to incentivise the public to evaluate its local position within an interdependent global system.

Jon’s scholarship focuses on analysing a ‘new ecology’ that advocates for anti-essentialist environmentalism theory and speaks against political discourse that commands the public to foster a coercive relationship between humans and nature. In her words, ‘‘‘new ecology’’ tried to go beyond the kinds of environmentalism that rely on the fetishised understanding of ‘‘nature’’ or ‘‘the environment’’ that unnecessarily creates the boundaries between our everyday living (human needs) and ecosystem functions (ecological needs)’ (3).

The book starts by addressing the politics of scale and how cities can act as frontiers for climate change mitigation. The notion of ‘scale’ remains contested, especially in environmental governance. The interconnected planetary ecosystem continues to shed light on the limits of tackling climate issues on a national scale, as these issues expand beyond political delimitations.

In addition, turning environmental issues into ‘leftist debates’ impedes climate change mitigation and conceals the sources of these issues. The ideological turn of the climate debate must be dismantled, as it is a global issue that incessantly deteriorates our daily lives that rely on the state of the environment. As Jon articulates, ‘proposing a positive reconfiguration of scale is needed more than ever, especially for the environmental issues that are intrinsically both local and global’ (32).

Jon illustrates the implications of embedding nature and climate change mitigation in planning without making it a case of leftist political engagement through two cities: Darwin, Australia, and Tulsa, USA. The urban policies and strategies deployed in these cities are intended to attract different communities whose political positions do not align. This is a phenomenon that Jon refers to as ‘pragmatic environmentalism’ (34).

Climate-related disasters, notably hazardous weather, have been affecting urban citizens’ lives in Tulsa. The city’s history of flooding has contributed to centring nature in design, which has led to the creation of ‘pragmatic environmentalism’ strategies: for instance, stormwater management systems as well as embedding greenery, walkability and the ‘Instagram-able’ in urban space to attract Millenials, professionals and families.

In the case of Darwin, its tropical climate and weather hazards have encouraged the implementation of different projects that foster what the author refers to as ‘secularising nature’ (38). This pragmatic approach to nature strengthens proximity between urban citizens and the weather hazards that affect their cities. It asks us to reflect on how we can implement pro-nature practices without idealising ‘nature’.

Through contrasting Bruno Latour’s attention to ‘negative feelings that are generated by the individuals’ (40) with Spinozian ethics on how doing good makes us feel good (41), Jon highlights the importance of practices that foster care, instead of feelings of obligation and authority. In fact, pro-environment city-scale projects – such as embedding greenery in the streets, minimising parking areas, low-impact development (LID) initiatives (namely on-site stormwater treatment centres), green energy transition and establishing attractive amenities in different neighbourhoods – can shift the narrative on climate issues. They also invite different communities to participate in the pro-nature ethos, as our quality of life relies on the state of the ecosystem. Jon linked these initiatives to Deweyan philosophy which shows how valuing the public’s experiences can serve to build bridges with the ordinary, instead of only relying on theories and ideologies (71). This approach centres the everyday experiences of people and establishes engagement with different communities.

Another timely topic the author tackles is how we can address climate change, environmental sustainability and urban inequalities through the same prism, without marginalising communities who endure socio-spatial disparities. Jon studies this issue in two different cities: Cleveland, USA, and Cape Town, South Africa. These two cities endure poverty and socio-spatial segregation. Cleveland is one of the rust belt cities that bore the aftermaths of the 2008 financial crash and industrial decline, which engendered housing inequalities and socio-economic instability (77, 86). Cape Town’s apartheid history and policies created a spatial divide between white settlers and non-white citizens and pushed the latter to dwell in informal settlements, without access to clean water, sanitation, energy or socio-economic opportunities (94, 97,102).

Jon highlights the role of environmental justice theory, which studies how a green policy agenda can reinforce socio-economic inequalities (81). Environmentalist institutions and climate change social movements, particularly in the West, demonstrate how whiteness continues to dominate these spaces and how environmentalists and activists should question whose climate justice they are advocating for. Socio-economic precarity and urban segregation are colonial and the history of white supremacy is still visible in post-colonies. Recognising this offers a chance to re-imagine inclusive and equitable development policies.

The last chapter of the book explores how social complexity theory can inspire environmental action. Referring to the work of Manuel DeLanda on the materiality of cities and connecting this to Deleuzian assemblage theory, Jon explains the role of interaction between different individuals, how this generates a group identity and how this affects the members of the group. In Jon’s words: ‘placing interaction effects at the heart of understanding social entities may relieve us from the ontological contradiction between “having a group identity (which is the soul of the whole)” versus “respecting/acknowledging individual agency and heterogeneity”’ (114). Additional elements vital to recognising the complexity of social entities are understanding the history of the interactions that have occurred between individuals and establishing practices that accommodate heterogeneity (116, 117, 119). Planning with/within complexity can push decision-makers to consider the varieties of social entities and to practise inclusion.

Jon asks how cities can ‘inject their pro-environmentalist ideas via an abstract machine, using the powers of imagination, narratives, expressions, or poetic devices that can inspire people rather than forcing them to pursue environmentalism’ (135). Jon draws on various examples that illustrate how creative projects are working to shift dominant narratives, including the New York Times’s ‘Modern Love’ series that depicts the multiple forms of ‘love’. Through these, Jon calls for a shift in planning and narrative in urban studies (143) through the embrace of the ‘habit of tolerance’ (158) and the complexity of narratives in cities.

While I continue to reflect on practices of inclusion and exclusion inside and outside of institutional walls, Jon’s book helps in setting the mood for establishing a new approach to urban research. It connects the philosophy of pragmatism, climate change mitigation and city planning. It defines cities as complex environments where inequalities are reinforced through systemic marginalisation, and where local/global governments can advocate for pro-environmentalism through a bottom-up approach. It encourages us, researchers and practitioners, to examine the utility of theories produced in the academy, collaborate with communities and be attentive to their narratives and needs.

Note: This article first appeared at our sister site, LSE Review of Books. It gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Lucas Alexander on Unsplash

About the author

Bouchra Tafrata is a Researcher and host of In Praise of the Margin Podcast. She completed a Master’s in Public Policy at the Willy Brandt School at the University of Erfurt. Her research dissects international political economy, socio-spatial inequalities and urban governance.

US legislators demand probe into Israel's beating to death of 80-year-old man

WASHINGTON, Sunday, January 16, 2022 (WAFA) – US Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Debbie Dingell have called for a thorough investigation into the death of 80-year-old Omar Abdelmajid As'ad, a Palestinian-American man who was beaten to death by Israeli occupation forces during a raid into the village of Jiljilya in the occupied West Bank last week.

"Two days ago, Israeli troops stopped a car driven by 80-year-old Palestinian-American Omar Abdulmajeed Asaad. They dragged him from the car, beat him, and left him on the ground to die. This is outrageous! I call on Secretary Blinken to investigate," said Tlaib in a tweet.

Dingell also tweeted, "My heart is with Omar Abdalmajeed As’ad’s family as they grieve this awful loss with real uncertainty. The circumstances surrounding his death are gravely concerning, and we need a full and thorough investigation to get answers now."

Yesterday, US Congresswoman Marie Newman said she was "deeply disturbed by reports of Israeli troops dragging, beating and leaving an 80-year-old Palestinian-American on the ground, where he later died of a heart attack… I echo the State Department in demanding a full investigation into this incident."

M.N

John Parker: Police Means of Repressing Real Democracy in America

TEHRAN (FNA)- John Parker, political activist, says the US ruling system uses police to maintain the hold of the industrial and financial monopolies on the society.
Speaking in an interview with FNA, Parker shed light on the under-reported US police’s brutality against people of color, and said, “The ruling class cannot afford any criticism of the police. Any recognition of racist police murder fuels the building of a movement amongst working and poor people here, as the protests against the killings of Black people did and continue to do in the US, it challenges the ruling class, or the oligarch’s hold on society by threatening the institution of policing in the US.”

John Parker is a lifelong human rights and ant-war activist based in Los Angeles, California. He is the West Coast coordinator of the International Action Center. John Parker was the Workers World Party presidential candidate in 2004. He also ran for the US Senate from California in 2016.

Below is the full text of the interview:

Q: A recent study shows US police killing of Black people is under-reported by more than half. Why do you think this is the case?

A: The police are indeed afraid to reveal the true numbers and probably do not know what those numbers are because, as the current study shows like many others have in the past, the law enforcement institutions do not allow for the accurate reporting for political reasons. After all, the police function as a military arm of the US government, especially in Black and Brown communities. They are real job in this imperialist country, like the job of the politicians and government institutions here, is to protect the interests of the industrial and financial monopolies that actually run the US, using their capital to determine the laws, select winning politicians to represent their interests, and either directly or indirectly use the police and military for repression to maintain their hold and prevent any real democracy in the US.

The ruling class cannot afford any criticism of the police. Any recognition of racist police murder fuels the building of a movement amongst working and poor people here, as the protests against the killings of Black people did and continue to do in the US, it challenges the ruling class, or the oligarch’s hold on society by threatening the institution of policing in the US.

Q: The report indicates police are more likely to shoot Black civilians than White civilians, even when the victim is unarmed. What does it tell us about the US police in terms of race and ethnicity?

A: It is important to understand that the institution of policing in the US has its origins in the catching of slaves or former slaves. It was established to maintain the murder, rape and forced unpaid labor of Black peoples. And, like today, that was also to ensure the political structure and protect the “property” of the richest in society. When slavery was ended their work expanded and became more integrated with state institutions to more effectively keep down the labor movement and the demand for unions and any other protests or movements of the people fighting for social and economic justice.

However, the racist nature of their repression remained and, while also including other non-white peoples and immigrants in their brutality to suppress social movements, their greatest repression targeted and continues today to target Black people. This is why the reports state that Black people are over 3 times more likely to be killed by police while being 1.3 times more likely to be unarmed when killed by police than white people.

This report by the University of Washington that was published in the Lancet corroborates the earlier studies published in the Guardian and Washington Post on the under counting of police killings by government sources. Another report, Mapping Police Violence, reported that in 1,147 deaths, only 13 officers were charged with a crime.

The Lancet report states, “Police forces should exist to enforce laws that protect public safety, but throughout the USA’s history, police have been used to enforce racist and exploitative social orders that endanger the safety of the most marginalized groups in society.”

Q: What do we learn about the American society in which police violence and racism in policing are undeniable facts?

A: Those who control the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government already know the true nature of this racist and repressive society and the institutions that maintain that reality.

One indication of that is the fact that this report is not reporting anything new. The problem of racist policing and murder has been identified for decades but the situation has gotten even worse. Even recent reform efforts to cut down fatal police violence, like banning chokeholds, mandating body cameras, training in de-escalation, diversifying police forces, and civilian police review and advisory boards have all failed. We know these efforts have failed because fatal police violence has remained the same or increased since 1990. And we know these efforts failed because they were not meant to succeed.

The New York Times spoke to Roger Mitchell Jr., a former chief medical examiner of Washington, DC, and an expert on investigating deaths in custody, about this latest study. He said that long ago he proposed that death certificates should include a checkbox indicating whether a death occurred in custody, including arrest-related deaths as well as those in jails and prisons. Easy enough, but this is still yet to be implemented. And, back in 2014 federal legislation was passed mandating law enforcement agencies to report deaths in custody. However, no public data on this has been produced.

So, we see that this lack of data is intentional and that the only way to cure police murder and racism is to abolish the police and replace them with organizations for public safety that are made up of communities independent of current police and corporate influence – one that represents and reflects the real needs of the communities of the US, especially the Black and Brown communities most targeted by police.

US Vaccine Drive Falls To 'One Of Its Lowest Points' As Cases Soar

Bloomberg / Updated: Jan 16, 2022

The number of new people getting the Covid vaccine is at one of the lowest points since the rollout began, according to a review of the US government data, even as average daily cases approach 800,000. While millions of doses are being administered each week, the majority of those are now booster shots.

Officials at the state and federal levels have tried everything from free beer and cash to get people onboard. In many places, they've succeeded. In New York City, 74% of the population is fully vaccinated. But in other places, no amount of prizes or the fear of getting sick, seems able to move the rates.

In West Virginia, 44% of the population hasn't been fully vaccinated. In Mississippi and Alabama, over half of people haven't been fully vaccinated. Most doses now going into arms are boosters, according to a seven-day average of CDC data. On January 13, about 387,000 boosters were given in the US, compared with 289,000 first or second doses. The divide is even sharper in less-vaccinated places.

In Louisiana and West Virginia, about 60% of doses are booster shots and first shots are near their low point. And the Biden administration's most potent tool to push vaccines has been wiped out: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled out a mandate requiring staff at large employers to either be vaccinated or face regular testing.

Bloomberg

Trumpworld Assembles in Arizona to Spew Garbage About Psy-Ops and Clones

‘JACKED UP ON THE HOLY SPIRIT’

The twice-impeached ex-president bragged about all his fans. His fans, meanwhile, ranted about psy-ops, clones, and the apocalypse.

Zachary Petrizzo
Media Reporter
Updated Jan. 16, 2022

Twice impeached ex-president Donald Trump took to a stage in Florence, Arizona on Saturday night, after a long lineup of 2020 election deniers fired up the crowd with unhinged election conspiracy theories and talk about “psychological operations.”

“The Big Lie, The Big Lie is a lot of bullshit,” Trump exclaimed shortly after taking center stage in a red “Make America Great Again” hat and a crisp open-collar white button-down. “We have had more destruction, I think, than five presidents put together in the last year,” Trump continued while claiming his fervent supporters were being “persecuted” for practicing their freedom of speech.

“There’s nobody that can see the end of this crowd,” Trump added, boasting about his rally crowd size. “And has cars that stretch out for 25 miles. That’s not somebody that lost an election.”

During the lengthy address, Trump praised One America News (OAN) following the Friday evening news of DirectTV not re-upping their contract with the far-right network. “This is a great network… I watch it all the time.” “It’s a disgrace what’s going on!”

During the evening affair, 2020 dead-ender Mike Lindell got time at the microphone too, where the MyPillow executive let out an endless stream of election-related theories with equal parts grievance and gusto.

“The biggest problem we face, it’s not the media, the fake news media, we’re all onto them, it’s the conservative media, the ones that don’t talk,” he stated, taking aim at conservative media. “One of them rhymes with Fox [News]. Okay? Disgusting. They’re disgusting.”

Asked by The Daily Beast how the rally went, the MyPillow man responded, “Great!”

“Arizona is a red state,” Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff), a close ally of white nationalist Nicholas Fuentes, told the crowd. “And President Trump won. Let me tell you, I have proposed over 50 bills, so far this session… and many will fix the problems from the election,” she stated. “We must decertify, the presidential election of 2020!”

Ahead of the pre-rally speeches by the Trumpwold election result denying luminaries, festivities outside of the venue included signature red Trump hats being sold along with other Trump trinkets and collectibles. (At least two Trump rally-goers could be seen walking around with Trumpy Bear plushies.)

Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN), the ardently pro-Trump YouTube channel, sent correspondent Brian Glenn to roam around the venue.

Describing the atmosphere, Glenn described the atmosphere as like the 1969 music festival “Woodstock,” except he noted that “everyone is not completely liberal and jacked up on drugs.” Instead, the RSNB host claimed, attendees were “just jacked up on the holy spirit.”

Speaking with rally-goers, the RSBN host spoke with eccentric Trump supporters, including one who espoused the far-right QAnon adjacent conspiracy theory that Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, in his current capacity, is a “clone.”

“The real Governor [Gavin] Newsom has had his military tribunal at GITMO, and he’s been executed,” the Trump supporter stated.

The RSBN host then attempted to downplay the supporters’ unhinged remarks: “There you go. Thank you for your time.”

Khayree Billingslea, a Trump supporter and self-identified “flat earth boxer,” told RSBN that the world is experiencing an “apocalypse.”

“It’s my persuasion that it’s clearly the apocalypse and that the vaccine is made of aborted children,” he said, which was broadcast onto YouTube. “So it’s literally the mark of the beast, and a lot of people aren’t talking about it.”

The bonkers remarks spewed by Trump supporters on YouTube also centered on baseless and false claims that the election was “stolen” and foreign powers control Dominion Voting Systems. (YouTube didn’t return The Daily Beast’s request for comment Saturday evening.)

Among other attendees at the rally included Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander.

“It’s exciting,” Alexander told The Daily Beast while at the rally. “2022 wave of Trump Republicans coming!”

With a Jan. 6 organizer in attendance, Trump bragged about the dark winter Washington, D.C. day during his speech.

“They talk about the people that walked down to the Capitol,” he said. “They don’t talk about the size of that crowd. I believe it was the largest crowd I’ve ever spoken [to] before and they were there to protest the election!”

One rally-goer wearing a black “Biden 2020” T-shirt was arrested at the political event, as Trump supporters heckled her as she was placed in handcuffs by officers. (Florence’s Police Department did not return The Daily Beast’s request for comment on Saturday night.)

“Get out of here,” a bystander could be heard yelling. “See ya commie.”

During his pre-rally speech, Arizona State Senator Sonny Borrelli said that he believes a “psychological operation” is underway in the country.

“I was in the Marines for 20 years,” he told the crowd, before claiming there was “a psy operation, psychological operations” which included an unknown entity utilizing “black op operations” to “blackout information.”

Trump dolled out heavy praise of Borrelli, saying he is “tough and smart” during his speech. “He is a great guy,” the ex-president added.

IRONIC

Sci-fi action film 'The Matrix Resurrections' tops Chinese box office

Xinhua | Updated: 2022-01-16

BEIJING - US sci-fi action film "The Matrix Resurrections" topped the Chinese mainland box office Saturday, the second day of its screening, figures from the China Movie Data Information Network showed Sunday.

Directed by Lana Wachowski, the sequel to 2003's "The Matrix Revolutions" and the fourth installment in The Matrix film series raked in nearly 18.8 million yuan (about $2.95 million) on Saturday.

Domestic drama "Embrace Again" came in second, finishing the day with a box office revenue of more than 16.77 million yuan.

It was followed by crime thriller "G Storm," which pocketed about 10.25 million yuan on Saturday.

US' Huawei hunt for hegemony at any cost: China Daily editorial

chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2022-01-16

In 2008, the United States prevented the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei from purchasing the network solutions provider 3Com. That marked the start of its 13-year-long campaign against the company. It has even drummed up and marshaled the cooperation of its allies in its "clean networks" initiative aimed at excluding Huawei and other Chinese companies from global 5G networks.

According to EurActiv, a Brussels-based media outlet, former United Kingdom business and industry minister Vince Cable said on Jan 10 that the UK government took moves against Huawei "because the Americans told us we should do it".

In July 2020, the Boris Johnson administration announced that all Huawei products were to be stripped from their country's 5G networks by the end of 2027 due to "security concerns". Yet in his remarks, Cable, who served in David Cameron's administration from 2010 to 2015, said that during his term the intelligence and security services repeatedly assured him that using Huawei equipment posed no risks.

Cable's remarks show that the US' justification for its witch hunt against Huawei on the grounds of "national security" is a shameless lie. Its sole purpose is to contain one of China's leading enterprises.

For Huawei, that might be considered an honor. That means the enterprise that started with six employees in 1987 has grown into a company influential enough to arouse the full force of the US' fear and loathing.

The campaign against Huawei is nothing new. The US has launched campaigns to bring down the high-flying tech companies of other countries before — Toshiba, Alston, and others. These companies share one thing in common, namely the ability to challenge the US' technological hegemony, which is why the US so ruthlessly guns for them.

But Huawei has not caved in. And the US' attacks on it are hurting its own companies too. By prohibiting its enterprises from selling chips to Huawei, the US has employed a double-edged sword. As early as 2019, the US chip giant Qualcomm worried that cutting chip supplies to Huawei might impact its sales in China. In September 2020, VLSI Research CEO, Dan Hutcheson, said that the ban on China's Huawei had triggered a large inventory backlog throughout the entire chip industry.

The UK is not the only country missing technological development opportunities because of their ally's hegemony-at-any-cost antics.

If its allies continue working with the US in its efforts to hobble tech competitors globally, they will only find themselves lagging behind in more emerging sectors.

"If Britain had kept with 5G, we would now be at the forefront of countries using the most advanced technologies," Cable is quoted as saying. "And we're not."

If more people tell the truth like Cable, the US' economic bullying will meet more resistance. That would be good for development and application of new technology.

PAKISTAN

Non-starter of a national security policy

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

HAVING raced through the document that was released on Friday with considerable fanfare and self-congratulatory messages, it was a sad conclusion to reach that it is a no more than a plethora of platitudes and will be a non-starter of a national security policy (NSP).

It is not clear whether most of the mainstream media fell prey to the PR skills of the National Security Division or was also blinded by the presence of the glitterati at the NSP launch — what was evident was no critical appraisal anywhere.

A document filled with worthy objectives and not a single concrete step on how to attain any of them is surprising, to say the least. And if the current state of play is any guide, even more surprising.

Read: National Security Policy can be tabled before parliament, says Moeed Yusuf

Addressing the launch, Prime Minister Imran Khan said the National Security Policy 2022-2026 centres on the government’s vision, which believes that the security of Pakistan rests in the security of its citizens.

Bizarrely, this ‘citizen-centric’ document was not presented in parliament, a forum representing the people’s collective will.

“Any national security approach must prioritise national cohesion and the prosperity of people, while guaranteeing fundamental rights and social justice without discrimination,” The News quoted him as saying. “To achieve the vast potential of our citizens, it is necessary to promote delivery-based good governance.”

Some of the key words/concepts in the prime minister’s address were ‘national cohesion; prosperity of (the) people; guaranteeing fundamental rights and social justice without discrimination; and delivery-based good governance’.

It has taken seven years for the document to be written (it only covers the next four years from 2022-2026); it also mentions ‘reconcilable and irreconcilable’ elements presumably among the Baloch nationalists. Let’s see how long it takes to identify and reach out to those it deems reconcilable and draw them into the mainstream so the cause of national cohesion can be furthered.

The ‘South Balochistan package’ it mentions will promote nothing until political alienation ends. A start would be an immediate end to enforced disappearances that may be fewer than in the past but continue nonetheless.

Neither will the ‘financial package’ for the merged KP districts remove the grievances of the people who have suffered more than anyone at the hands of the TTP terror and often found themselves sandwiched between the terrorists and the security forces.

The document puts the economy at the centre of the policy and suggests that ‘traditional security’ (a euphemism for the military) can’t alone serve the cause of protecting the country. There can be no truer statement.

A more honest acknowledgement would have been that the post-Cold War and ‘war on terror’ generous western funds pipeline has now run bone dry and unless the size of the economy and its rate of growth (alongside trade) increases considerably, the demands of ‘traditional security’ would be impossible to meet.

Guaranteeing fundamental rights is said to be another cornerstone of the ‘citizen-centric’ policy so the people’s ‘dignity and prosperity’ is ensured. Predictably, however, the document is silent on the state of basic rights.

Thus, when even elected parliamentarians are kept incarcerated on spurious charges, individual liberty and free speech remain elusive ideals amid both domestic and international concerns.

Moreover, one very definitely can’t restore even a modicum of dignity and prosperity to the shirtless through the ‘Ehsaas, Panagah’ programmes (which the NSP mentions by name), for they do no more than enable the poorest to partially fend off hunger.

To be honest, though high-profile and noticeable because they are mostly urban-based, the Panagah shelters impact a miniscule, statistically insignificant number of people and hence are no more than window dressing.

Of course, cash subsidies do make a difference as shown by studies on the Benazir Income Support Programme. The BISP was renamed/expanded as Ehsaas. Even then, while this delivers some respite, poverty persists and issues of dignity remain unaddressed as well.

The NSP informs us that two million Pakistanis are being added to the workforce every year and mentions the country’s ‘youth bulge’ with more than half its population being under 30 (and 29 per cent between 15 and 29, as per the UNDP).

It warns that global changes mean that fewer and fewer people will be doing their current jobs over the coming years and decades, and the workforce will need to be retrained to remain employable.

While the document mentions advances such as development of artificial intelligence, it does not address the question many eminent educators are asking: how does the rollout of the Single National Curriculum with its emphasis on faith, and other such initiatives, prepare the youth for stepping into the 21st century global village?

That the prime minister uses the term ‘delivery-based good governance’ but the document does not assess where delivery and the state of governance stand today, is a glaring omission. But I guess the authors did not wish to be rude or unkind to their bosses.

Bizarrely, this ‘citizen-centric’ document was not presented in parliament, a forum that, theoretically at least, represents the collective will of the people or citizens of Pakistan. The big brass could have sat in their gallery seats in parliament if that was the interpretation of its ‘unity in diversity’ slogan.

Journalists are often slammed for nitpicking and not offering a solution themselves. So, here in a couple of sentences is my national security policy. A clean break from the past through a truth and national reconciliation process.

A pledge to uphold the Constitution, rule of law, and democratic dispensation and norms. This is imperative as citizen buy-in can only be achieved through a policy that is representative of their collective will.

Only such a system can deliver social, political and economic justice to the shirtless majority and cement us into one Pakistan that would be more secure than a nuclear bunker.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

abbas.nasir@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2022

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment