Showing posts with label Teacher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teacher. Show all posts
Thursday
Amanda Gorman reads inauguration poem, 'The Hill We Climb'
When day comes we ask ourselves,
where can we find light in this never-ending shade?
The loss we carry,
a sea we must wade
We've braved the belly of the beast
We've learned that quiet isn't always peace
And the norms and notions
of what just is
Isn't always just-ice
And yet the dawn is ours
before we knew it
Somehow we do it
Somehow we've weathered and witnessed
a nation that isn't broken
but simply unfinished
We the successors of a country and a time
Where a skinny Black girl
descended from slaves and raised by a single mother
can dream of becoming president
only to find herself reciting for one
And yes we are far from polished
far from pristine
but that doesn't mean we are
striving to form a union that is perfect
We are striving to forge a union with purpose
To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and
conditions of man
And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us
but what stands before us
We close the divide because we know, to put our future first,
we must first put our differences aside
We lay down our arms
so we can reach out our arms
to one another
We seek harm to none and harmony for all
Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true:
That even as we grieved, we grew
That even as we hurt, we hoped
That even as we tired, we tried
That we'll forever be tied together, victorious
Not because we will never again know defeat
but because we will never again sow division
Scripture tells us to envision
that everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree
And no one shall make them afraid
If we're to live up to our own time
Then victory won't lie in the blade
But in all the bridges we've made
That is the promise to glade
The hill we climb
If only we dare
It's because being American is more than a pride we inherit,
it's the past we step into
and how we repair it
We've seen a force that would shatter our nation
rather than share it
Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy
And this effort very nearly succeeded
But while democracy can be periodically delayed
it can never be permanently defeated
In this truth
in this faith we trust
For while we have our eyes on the future
history has its eyes on us
This is the era of just redemption
We feared at its inception
We did not feel prepared to be the heirs
of such a terrifying hour
but within it we found the power
to author a new chapter
To offer hope and laughter to ourselves
So while once we asked,
how could we possibly prevail over catastrophe?
Now we assert
How could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?
We will not march back to what was
but move to what shall be
A country that is bruised but whole,
benevolent but bold,
fierce and free
We will not be turned around
or interrupted by intimidation
because we know our inaction and inertia
will be the inheritance of the next generation
Our blunders become their burdens
But one thing is certain:
If we merge mercy with might,
and might with right,
then love becomes our legacy
and change our children's birthright
So let us leave behind a country
better than the one we were left with
Every breath from my bronze-pounded chest,
we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one
We will rise from the gold-limbed hills of the west,
we will rise from the windswept northeast
where our forefathers first realized revolution
We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the midwestern states,
we will rise from the sunbaked south
We will rebuild, reconcile and recover
and every known nook of our nation and
every corner called our country,
our people diverse and beautiful will emerge,
battered and beautiful
When day comes we step out of the shade,
aflame and unafraid
The new dawn blooms as we free it
For there is always light,
if only we're brave enough to see it
If only we're brave enough to be it
Sunday
We Knew Disease X Was Coming. It’s Here Now.
We need to stop what drives mass epidemics rather than just respond to individual diseases.
By
Mr. Daszak is a disease ecologist.
In early 2018, during a meeting at the World Health Organization in Geneva, a group of experts I belong to (the R&D Blueprint) coined the term “Disease X”:
We were referring to the next pandemic, which would be caused by an
unknown, novel pathogen that hadn’t yet entered the human population. As
the world stands today on the edge of the pandemic precipice, it’s
worth taking a moment to consider whether Covid-19 is the disease our
group was warning about.
Disease X, we
said back then, would likely result from a virus originating in animals
and would emerge somewhere on the planet where economic development
drives people and wildlife together. Disease X would probably be
confused with other diseases early in the outbreak and would spread
quickly and silently; exploiting networks of human travel and trade, it
would reach multiple countries and thwart containment. Disease X would
have a mortality rate higher than a seasonal flu but would spread as
easily as the flu. It would shake financial markets even before it
achieved pandemic status.
In a nutshell, Covid-19 is Disease X.
Even as there are signs that the epidemic’s spread might be slowing in China, multiple communities and countries have now reported sustained transmission in their midst. The number of confirmed cases has exploded in South Korea in recent days. In Italy, villages and towns are on lockdown, Fashion Week in Milan has been disrupted
and festivals are being canceled while public health authorities search
for patient zero to identify who else is likely infected and may spread
the disease in Europe. Iran appears to have become a new hub of transmission. The looming pandemic will challenge us in new ways, as people try to evade quarantines, and misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theorists ply their trade in open democracies.
But
as the world struggles to respond to Covid-19, we risk missing the
really big picture: Pandemics are on the rise, and we need to contain
the process that drives them, not just the individual diseases.
Plagues are not only part of our culture; they are caused by it. The Black Death spread into Europe in the mid-14th century with the growth of trade along the Silk Road. New strains of influenza have emerged from livestock farming. Ebola, SARS, MERS and now Covid-19 have been linked to wildlife. Pandemics usually begin as viruses in animals that jump to people when we make contact with them.
These
spillovers are increasing exponentially as our ecological footprint
brings us closer to wildlife in remote areas and the wildlife trade
brings these animals into urban centers. Unprecedented road-building,
deforestation, land clearing and agricultural development, as well as
globalized travel and trade, make us supremely susceptible to pathogens
like coronaviruses.
Yet the world’s strategy for dealing with
pandemics is woefully inadequate. Across the board, from politicians to
the public, we treat pandemics as a disaster-response issue: We wait
for them to happen and hope a vaccine or drug can be developed quickly
in their aftermath. But even as Covid-19 rages, there still is no
vaccine available for the SARS virus of 2002-3, nor for HIV/AIDS or Zika
or a host of emerging pathogens. The problem is that between outbreaks,
the will to spend money on prevention wanes, and the market for
vaccines and drugs against sporadic viral diseases isn’t enough to drive
research and development.
During its
World Health Assembly in 2016, the W.H.O. set up the R&D Blueprint
to bridge this gap and announced a priority list of pathogens that most
threaten global health and for which no vaccines or drugs were in the
pipeline. SARS made the list, as did MERS, Nipah, Ebola and other rare
but serious diseases caused by epidemic viruses. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
— a global partnership between public, private, philanthropic and civil
society organizations launched at Davos in 2017 — stepped up to the
plate and sourced funding to develop vaccines and therapeutics against
some of these.
To escape from the Age
of Pandemics, we’ll need to treat them as a public health issue and
start working on prevention in addition to responses. Our first goal
should be to broaden our armory against potential mass epidemics. When
some of us added “Disease X” to the W.H.O.’s priority list
two years ago, we wanted to make the point that it’s not sufficient to
develop vaccines and drugs for known agents when the next big one is
likely to be a different pathogen — a virus close to SARS, say, but not
close enough that the same vaccine can work against both.
As Covid-19 strikes today and a spate of
other pathogens are ready to emerge in the future, we continue to butt
up against nature. Scientists estimate that there are 1.67 million
unknown viruses of the type that have previously emerged in people.
Discovering and sequencing them should be a priority — a simple case of
“know your enemy.” In the aftermath of SARS, research on coronaviruses
originating in bats has discovered more than 50 related viruses, some of
which have the potential to infect people; this information can now be
used to test for broad-action vaccines and drugs. Scaling up this effort
to cover all viral families, as the Global Virome Project proposes to do, is a logical first step toward prevention.
A
radical shift is also needed in the way that tests, vaccines and drugs
are designed so that entire groups of pathogens are targeted instead of
individual pathogens that are already known. The National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States is working on a universal flu vaccine
that would cover all known strains of influenza; a universal
coronavirus vaccine, an Ebola-virus vaccine and others will also be
needed.
With a smaller investment, we
can also try to get ahead of pandemics by working with communities in
hot spots of emerging diseases. Disease surveillance should be focused
on farmers, rural communities and anyone who has extensive contact with
wildlife, to look for unusual illnesses, test for novel pathogens and
work with people to develop alternatives to high-risk activities such as
the wildlife trade.
Pandemics are
like terrorist attacks: We know roughly where they originate and what’s
responsible for them, but we don’t know exactly when the next one will
happen. They need to be handled the same way — by identifying all
possible sources and dismantling those before the next pandemic strikes.
Monday
Charles Koch Network Pushed $1 Billion Cut to CDC, Now Attacks Shelter-in-Place Policies for Harming Business
Lee Fang
Americans for Prosperity, the pro-corporate pressure group founded and funded by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, wants employees to return to work despite desperate pleas from public health officials that people should stay home as much as possible to help contain the spread of the coronavirus.
As states began to order nonessential businesses to shut down last week, AFP released a statement calling for all businesses to remain open.
“Rather than blanket shutdowns, the government should allow businesses to continue to adapt and innovate to produce the goods and services Americans need, while continuing to do everything they can to protect the public health,” said Emily Seidel, chief executive of AFP, in a press release.
Some of the group’s state chapters have taken a similar tone. AFP Pennsylvania’s state director, as well as a regional director with the group, have taken to Twitter to lambast shelter-in-place policies. The Michigan chapter of AFP on Monday slammed Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order, which closed down fitness centers, nail salons, amusement parks, casinos, and other businesses deemed nonessential, calling it the “wrong approach for our state.”
Whitmer’s order, variations of which are being implemented by state and local governments nationwide, contains exceptions for critical industries such as grocery stores, pharmacies, health care providers, financial services, transportation, child care, hazardous materials, and energy.
“All businesses are essential — to the people who own them, the people who work in them, and the communities they serve,” said Annie Patnaude, the Michigan state director for AFP, in a statement responding to the order.
AFP’s position, which directly contradicts the advice of medical experts who say that social isolation is essential to curbing the spread of the coronavirus, comes after the group lobbied the Trump administration in 2018 to rescind $1 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Much of AFP’s recommended cuts to government programs, which included CDC money for infectious disease control and global health, became part of the official White House budget request, though most were not adopted by Congress.
The cuts, AFP argued, would “relieve the burden overspending is placing on all taxpayers.” The CDC is now one of the front-line organizations dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, which has impacted nearly 70,000 people in the United States and has claimed over 1,000 lives.
The libertarian advocacy network has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and reductions to social welfare programs, particularly state Medicaid programs. This aggressive advocacy record has come into focus in recent days as Americans confront the coronavirus pandemic. Medicaid funding is seen as a critical tool for treating sick patients, and many are now questioning the wisdom of reductions to the CDC’s funding and staff.
Internal memos from AFP reveal the size and scope of the organization, which employed 650 staff members during the 2016 election and has successfully worked to block Medicaid expansion in at least four states. During the 2016 election, the group also aired negative advertising sharply criticizing Hillary Clinton and Senate Democrats, an electioneering push that dramatically shaped the current balance of power in Washington, D.C.
The group has since used its government influence to slash environmental rules, retreat from the Paris Climate Accord, and demand cuts to federal programs. It also helped secure $1.5 trillion in tax cuts as part of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax overhaul.
Experts around the country have called for shelter-in-place policies for nonessential businesses, arguing that social isolation can drastically curb the spread of the coronavirus. Slowing the pandemic, they say, can save lives by lowering the demand for medical supplies and limited hospital beds. Despite their medical necessity, these policies are being rejected by conservatives around the country. Republican state leaders, including Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have balked at shutdown requests. On Tuesday, Reeves signed an executive order superseding local bans on public gatherings.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal government’s top infectious disease expert and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, has said he has “emphasized very emphatically” that bars, restaurants, and other nonessential businesses close and that those who may work from home do so.
The Intercept asked AFP if the group had consulted any public health officials before beginning the push against shelter-in-place policies, and whether the group continues to support steep cuts to the CDC.
The group did not respond to the inquiry regarding the CDC and did not name any public health experts.
A spokesperson for AFP noted in an email that they are “encouraging every public official dealing with these incredible challenges to consider how communities and businesses are adapting to meet critical needs as they make these difficult decisions” and that the group believes that there is “value in businesses and government working together to stop the spread of this virus and help the people who need it.”
Americans for Prosperity, the pro-corporate pressure group founded and funded by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, wants employees to return to work despite desperate pleas from public health officials that people should stay home as much as possible to help contain the spread of the coronavirus.
As states began to order nonessential businesses to shut down last week, AFP released a statement calling for all businesses to remain open.
“Rather than blanket shutdowns, the government should allow businesses to continue to adapt and innovate to produce the goods and services Americans need, while continuing to do everything they can to protect the public health,” said Emily Seidel, chief executive of AFP, in a press release.
Some of the group’s state chapters have taken a similar tone. AFP Pennsylvania’s state director, as well as a regional director with the group, have taken to Twitter to lambast shelter-in-place policies. The Michigan chapter of AFP on Monday slammed Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order, which closed down fitness centers, nail salons, amusement parks, casinos, and other businesses deemed nonessential, calling it the “wrong approach for our state.”
Whitmer’s order, variations of which are being implemented by state and local governments nationwide, contains exceptions for critical industries such as grocery stores, pharmacies, health care providers, financial services, transportation, child care, hazardous materials, and energy.
“All businesses are essential — to the people who own them, the people who work in them, and the communities they serve,” said Annie Patnaude, the Michigan state director for AFP, in a statement responding to the order.
AFP’s position, which directly contradicts the advice of medical experts who say that social isolation is essential to curbing the spread of the coronavirus, comes after the group lobbied the Trump administration in 2018 to rescind $1 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Much of AFP’s recommended cuts to government programs, which included CDC money for infectious disease control and global health, became part of the official White House budget request, though most were not adopted by Congress.
The cuts, AFP argued, would “relieve the burden overspending is placing on all taxpayers.” The CDC is now one of the front-line organizations dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, which has impacted nearly 70,000 people in the United States and has claimed over 1,000 lives.
The libertarian advocacy network has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and reductions to social welfare programs, particularly state Medicaid programs. This aggressive advocacy record has come into focus in recent days as Americans confront the coronavirus pandemic. Medicaid funding is seen as a critical tool for treating sick patients, and many are now questioning the wisdom of reductions to the CDC’s funding and staff.
Internal memos from AFP reveal the size and scope of the organization, which employed 650 staff members during the 2016 election and has successfully worked to block Medicaid expansion in at least four states. During the 2016 election, the group also aired negative advertising sharply criticizing Hillary Clinton and Senate Democrats, an electioneering push that dramatically shaped the current balance of power in Washington, D.C.
The group has since used its government influence to slash environmental rules, retreat from the Paris Climate Accord, and demand cuts to federal programs. It also helped secure $1.5 trillion in tax cuts as part of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax overhaul.
Experts around the country have called for shelter-in-place policies for nonessential businesses, arguing that social isolation can drastically curb the spread of the coronavirus. Slowing the pandemic, they say, can save lives by lowering the demand for medical supplies and limited hospital beds. Despite their medical necessity, these policies are being rejected by conservatives around the country. Republican state leaders, including Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have balked at shutdown requests. On Tuesday, Reeves signed an executive order superseding local bans on public gatherings.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal government’s top infectious disease expert and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, has said he has “emphasized very emphatically” that bars, restaurants, and other nonessential businesses close and that those who may work from home do so.
The Intercept asked AFP if the group had consulted any public health officials before beginning the push against shelter-in-place policies, and whether the group continues to support steep cuts to the CDC.
The group did not respond to the inquiry regarding the CDC and did not name any public health experts.
A spokesperson for AFP noted in an email that they are “encouraging every public official dealing with these incredible challenges to consider how communities and businesses are adapting to meet critical needs as they make these difficult decisions” and that the group believes that there is “value in businesses and government working together to stop the spread of this virus and help the people who need it.”
Thursday
Noam Chomsky: “Bernie Sanders Has Inspired a Mass Popular Movement”
Although a linguistics professor by trade, Chomsky’s contributions to politics have influenced generations of activists — from his “propaganda model” explanation of corporate media domination to his critiques of capitalist globalization, the limits of liberal democracy and the failures of Western intellectuals to defend the principles they proclaim. It is this breadth of contribution that has made him one of the most cited academics alive today.
In this interview, Noam Chomsky speaks at a moment when socialists across the world are looking to the United States and the Bernie Sanders campaign for inspiration. He discusses the barriers facing a potential Sanders presidency, the importance of the labor movement to any prospect of meaningful change — and why the US business class will bitterly resist any attempt at social-democratic reform.
JC: If — and this is a big “if” — Bernie Sanders secures the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, to what extent do you think he will be able to deliver the program which he has promised — for example, policies like Medicare for All?
NC:Well, as you say that is a big “if,” but let’s assume it happens. Then there are many factors that would have to be considered. One is what the character of Congress is. Let’s also assume, and this is an even bigger “if,” that he carries a substantial majority of Congress with him. That’s pretty hard to imagine, but let’s suppose so. Then a lot would depend on the character, energy, and commitment of the popular movements that he’s inspired and that, under these assumptions, would have been the factor that led him to victory. If they keep the pressure up, then things could happen.
Unfortunately, the historic cutting-edge of popular activism is
lacking in this case — namely, an organized labor movement. So if you
look say at the New Deal in the 1930s, it was possible to achieve fairly
significant reforms because there was a militant, energized labor
movement which was pressing very hard. In fact, it was threatening
corporate control of business and there was a sympathetic administration
which responded to the pressure. That combination has been critical for
just about every reform known in the past.
There would be a question in the hypothetical case we are considering whether the labor movement could be revived to participate in these efforts. It’s been badly beaten back both in the United States and Britain by the neoliberal assault since Reagan and Thatcher. There is also a question about whether the other popular movements that have developed in recent years, which are pretty significant, can fill the gap. I think those are the kinds of factors that would be essential to achieving anything. But we can be certain that concentrated capital will fight back vigorously.
In fact, if we go back to the New Deal it is a complicated and interesting matter which has been studied in some detail and very insightfully by Thomas Ferguson, a fine political scientist. What he shows pretty convincingly is that during the New Deal there was a split within private capital. In general, more high-tech capital-intensive internationally oriented industries tended to support Roosevelt. Labor-intensive domestically oriented industries like the National Association of Manufacturers violently opposed Roosevelt. So there was an internal split which contributed to the success of the New Deal measures, along with the crucial element of very extensive and active and militant popular support, mostly from the labor movement.
JC: You mentioned the importance of the labor movement which sadly is not as active as it was in previous decades. How does the labor movement, and the progressive left as a whole, address this weakness? Do you think there are internal contradictions or weaknesses within the movement itself which need addressing first before it is able to fight capital and big business?
There would be a question in the hypothetical case we are considering whether the labor movement could be revived to participate in these efforts. It’s been badly beaten back both in the United States and Britain by the neoliberal assault since Reagan and Thatcher. There is also a question about whether the other popular movements that have developed in recent years, which are pretty significant, can fill the gap. I think those are the kinds of factors that would be essential to achieving anything. But we can be certain that concentrated capital will fight back vigorously.
In fact, if we go back to the New Deal it is a complicated and interesting matter which has been studied in some detail and very insightfully by Thomas Ferguson, a fine political scientist. What he shows pretty convincingly is that during the New Deal there was a split within private capital. In general, more high-tech capital-intensive internationally oriented industries tended to support Roosevelt. Labor-intensive domestically oriented industries like the National Association of Manufacturers violently opposed Roosevelt. So there was an internal split which contributed to the success of the New Deal measures, along with the crucial element of very extensive and active and militant popular support, mostly from the labor movement.
JC: You mentioned the importance of the labor movement which sadly is not as active as it was in previous decades. How does the labor movement, and the progressive left as a whole, address this weakness? Do you think there are internal contradictions or weaknesses within the movement itself which need addressing first before it is able to fight capital and big business?
NC:First of all, we should mention and bear in mind that Margaret Thatcher
and the people around Reagan were not fools. They understood that it
would be necessary to destroy the labor movements if they wanted to
carry through the kinds of policies which were certain to harm the
general population, as indeed they have done.
If you want to see some contradictions within the labor movement, take a look at the front page of the New York Times recently, which had a very interesting case. Bernie Sanders was campaigning in Nevada, and there was a conflict within the labor movement. One of the major unions [the Culinary Union, Local 226] was strongly opposed to Sanders’s proposal for Medicare for All. That has to do with an interesting specificity of American labor history. So let’s compare the United States and Canada, which are pretty similar societies. In fact, there’s the same labor movements on both sides of the border. The United Auto Workers (UAW) is the same union on both sides. But they have a different mentality related to the culture and the nature of the societies.
If you go back to the 1950s the UAW in Canada was militantly working for universal health care, what’s called single-payer health care. That was achieved in part because of their militant commitment to it. So Canada now has a health care system of the kind common in developed societies. In the United States on the other hand, the same union — UAW — was struggling for health care for their own members, not for society. They were working out the deals with management in which they would sacrifice control of the workplace benefits. Management was willing to make these deals to keep the labor force quiet. So, union contracts often provide pretty decent health care for their own members, but not for society.
The health care system in the United States is a disaster. It has about twice the per capita costs of other comparable countries with relatively poor outcomes. Sanders’s program for general health care would help everyone and indeed cut back overall costs substantially. But it doesn’t necessarily improve health care for the workers who have succeeded through their own narrow struggles in the workplace to achieve health care for themselves, and there was a split in the union over this. That’s a factor that we have to consider.
While unions were making deals with management for many years, they assumed that there was a compact between themselves and management. They learned better by 1980. Around that time the president of the UAW, Doug Fraser, resigned from a committee that President Carter was instituting. Fraser condemned management for fighting what he called “a one-sided class war against the labor movement,” which of course they had always been doing. Business never relents in its one-sided class war. If management decides that the deal is over, it’s over. Doug Fraser realized that many years too late and the labor movement of course suffered from these class-collaboration policies.
So yes, there are divisions in the labor movement and have been for a long time. There were reform movements within the major unions — steel workers, auto workers, and others — and there’s been conflicts over this, but it’s a situation that’s not easy to resolve.
JC:It’s quite paradoxical because on the one hand the labor movement was built as a collective force, so that workers can secure what they couldn’t secure individually. But on the other hand, it has become a bureaucratic system. How do you think this contradiction can be resolved?
NC:Again, you have to look at the specific history of the United States, which is somewhat different from other industrial societies, even different from Canada. The United States happens to be to an unusual extent a business-run society with a highly class-conscious business community which is also always fighting a vicious class war. Look at the history of American labor, which is unusually violent. Hundreds of workers were being killed in labor actions in the United States when nothing like that was happening in England, Canada, France, and other similar countries.
If you want to see some contradictions within the labor movement, take a look at the front page of the New York Times recently, which had a very interesting case. Bernie Sanders was campaigning in Nevada, and there was a conflict within the labor movement. One of the major unions [the Culinary Union, Local 226] was strongly opposed to Sanders’s proposal for Medicare for All. That has to do with an interesting specificity of American labor history. So let’s compare the United States and Canada, which are pretty similar societies. In fact, there’s the same labor movements on both sides of the border. The United Auto Workers (UAW) is the same union on both sides. But they have a different mentality related to the culture and the nature of the societies.
If you go back to the 1950s the UAW in Canada was militantly working for universal health care, what’s called single-payer health care. That was achieved in part because of their militant commitment to it. So Canada now has a health care system of the kind common in developed societies. In the United States on the other hand, the same union — UAW — was struggling for health care for their own members, not for society. They were working out the deals with management in which they would sacrifice control of the workplace benefits. Management was willing to make these deals to keep the labor force quiet. So, union contracts often provide pretty decent health care for their own members, but not for society.
The health care system in the United States is a disaster. It has about twice the per capita costs of other comparable countries with relatively poor outcomes. Sanders’s program for general health care would help everyone and indeed cut back overall costs substantially. But it doesn’t necessarily improve health care for the workers who have succeeded through their own narrow struggles in the workplace to achieve health care for themselves, and there was a split in the union over this. That’s a factor that we have to consider.
While unions were making deals with management for many years, they assumed that there was a compact between themselves and management. They learned better by 1980. Around that time the president of the UAW, Doug Fraser, resigned from a committee that President Carter was instituting. Fraser condemned management for fighting what he called “a one-sided class war against the labor movement,” which of course they had always been doing. Business never relents in its one-sided class war. If management decides that the deal is over, it’s over. Doug Fraser realized that many years too late and the labor movement of course suffered from these class-collaboration policies.
So yes, there are divisions in the labor movement and have been for a long time. There were reform movements within the major unions — steel workers, auto workers, and others — and there’s been conflicts over this, but it’s a situation that’s not easy to resolve.
JC:It’s quite paradoxical because on the one hand the labor movement was built as a collective force, so that workers can secure what they couldn’t secure individually. But on the other hand, it has become a bureaucratic system. How do you think this contradiction can be resolved?
NC:Again, you have to look at the specific history of the United States, which is somewhat different from other industrial societies, even different from Canada. The United States happens to be to an unusual extent a business-run society with a highly class-conscious business community which is also always fighting a vicious class war. Look at the history of American labor, which is unusually violent. Hundreds of workers were being killed in labor actions in the United States when nothing like that was happening in England, Canada, France, and other similar countries.
The labor movement in the past had been based on class solidarity and
mutual support — support by one group of workers for another — and in
fact to an extent that still remains. The union of longshoremen has, for
example, refused to allow boats to dock if the countries were violently
suppressing their own populations and labor forces. The US conservative
business establishment understood early on that they must break that
mutual support.
You can see this immediately after the Second World War, when the business world mobilized to try to undermine the power of labor that had developed during the Depression and the war. One of the first reactions in 1947 was the Taft-Hartley Act, which for example, banned secondary pickets. Secondary pickets are a means of class solidarity. They happen when a union is on strike and another union helps them — that was made illegal. Actually, President Truman vetoed it, but the reservation was passed over his veto. There was a strong business backlash against the democratic forces that had developed in the previous decades.
There is another special thing about the United States — the militant, almost hysterical, anti-Left propaganda. For example, McCarthyism, which is attributed to Joe McCarthy, though Truman actually is the one who started it. One of its aspects — the red-baiting — was to drive the militant labor leaders out of the unions on charges that they were soft on Communism or working for the Russians or one thing or another. Again, that’s pretty specific to the United States.
You can see that strikingly today where there is huge debate about Sanders being a socialist. “How can we have a socialist president?” In fact, Sanders is what would be called a moderate social democrat in most other societies. In other societies, the word “socialist” is not a curse word — people call themselves socialists and even communists. In the United States, there’s a stigma attached to it by massive propaganda going way back to 1917. Such huge propaganda efforts to demonize the concepts of socialism and communism (saying it means the “gulag” or whatever) is again pretty much unique to the United States. It’s a barrier to introducing even mild New Deal–style social-democratic reforms.
These are all specific problems. They’re not completely unique to the United States, of course, but they happen to be exaggerated here because of the nature of the society — that it is business-run to an unusual extent, and this business community is militant and organized. The Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations are fighting a bitter class war.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), for example, is an important business-based institution which draws support from pretty much the entire spectrum of business. They’re fighting a serious class war now to try to make it impossible to pass any reform legislation. The way they’re doing it is by operating at the state level. They write legislation for states — business-based corporate propaganda — and try to get state legislators to pass it. It’s not very difficult to bribe a US Senator, but it takes some work. However, to pressure the state legislature is much easier; they don’t have any resources and they’re unable to stand up again massive corporate lobbying and pressure. So, the state legislatures tend to pass this legislation.
A lot of it is remarkably regressive. They’re very clearly trying to destroy the public education system and any labor reforms. In fact, they go so far that they’re succeeding in blocking efforts to stop the theft of wages being criminalized. Theft of wages is a huge business in the United States. Workers are having their wages stolen at the level of billions of dollars per year, with employers simply refusing to pay. Wage theft is a huge business. ALEC is trying to prevent it from even being investigated, let alone prosecuted, and they’re succeeding. This is an illustration of the savagery of the highly class-conscious business classes.
One of the most insidious of their proposals, which is proceeding more or less secretly, is an effort to get states to demand an amendment to the Constitution which will require a balanced budget. If you get enough states to ratify that, there’s an amendment. Of course, a balanced budget for the federal government means that we pour money into the military and cut back on social benefits. They’re coming pretty close to achieving that. It’s almost never reported in the media but they’re pretty much succeeding.
This is a class war that goes on constantly in the United States to a level far beyond other comparable societies. You can see this in many ways. If you take a look at CEO salaries relative to workers’ pay the gap, especially since the 1980s, is far higher in the United States than it is in European societies. These are all crucial issues in the United States which require a very intensive effort.
The reason why Sanders is vilified in the media pretty much across the spectrum is not so much because of his policies. It’s because he has inspired a mass popular movement which doesn’t just show up every four years to push a button but is acting constantly — pressuring — to achieve changes and having some success. That’s frightening for the business class. The role of the public is to be passive spectators and not to interfere.
JC:You discuss the role of the media and propaganda quite often. You have referred to what you described in the past as “Orwell’s problem” — a population which despite so much access to information is misled and propagandized by a powerful media system. Do you think that’s still the case? And how can the general public transcend that system of control?
NC:The fact that some people, in fact quite a lot of people, break out of it is not terribly surprising. I mean, even in totalitarian states you have dissidents despite severe punishment and the total control of the media. People are not just robots — plenty of people can see what’s in front of their eyes.
You can see this immediately after the Second World War, when the business world mobilized to try to undermine the power of labor that had developed during the Depression and the war. One of the first reactions in 1947 was the Taft-Hartley Act, which for example, banned secondary pickets. Secondary pickets are a means of class solidarity. They happen when a union is on strike and another union helps them — that was made illegal. Actually, President Truman vetoed it, but the reservation was passed over his veto. There was a strong business backlash against the democratic forces that had developed in the previous decades.
There is another special thing about the United States — the militant, almost hysterical, anti-Left propaganda. For example, McCarthyism, which is attributed to Joe McCarthy, though Truman actually is the one who started it. One of its aspects — the red-baiting — was to drive the militant labor leaders out of the unions on charges that they were soft on Communism or working for the Russians or one thing or another. Again, that’s pretty specific to the United States.
You can see that strikingly today where there is huge debate about Sanders being a socialist. “How can we have a socialist president?” In fact, Sanders is what would be called a moderate social democrat in most other societies. In other societies, the word “socialist” is not a curse word — people call themselves socialists and even communists. In the United States, there’s a stigma attached to it by massive propaganda going way back to 1917. Such huge propaganda efforts to demonize the concepts of socialism and communism (saying it means the “gulag” or whatever) is again pretty much unique to the United States. It’s a barrier to introducing even mild New Deal–style social-democratic reforms.
These are all specific problems. They’re not completely unique to the United States, of course, but they happen to be exaggerated here because of the nature of the society — that it is business-run to an unusual extent, and this business community is militant and organized. The Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations are fighting a bitter class war.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), for example, is an important business-based institution which draws support from pretty much the entire spectrum of business. They’re fighting a serious class war now to try to make it impossible to pass any reform legislation. The way they’re doing it is by operating at the state level. They write legislation for states — business-based corporate propaganda — and try to get state legislators to pass it. It’s not very difficult to bribe a US Senator, but it takes some work. However, to pressure the state legislature is much easier; they don’t have any resources and they’re unable to stand up again massive corporate lobbying and pressure. So, the state legislatures tend to pass this legislation.
A lot of it is remarkably regressive. They’re very clearly trying to destroy the public education system and any labor reforms. In fact, they go so far that they’re succeeding in blocking efforts to stop the theft of wages being criminalized. Theft of wages is a huge business in the United States. Workers are having their wages stolen at the level of billions of dollars per year, with employers simply refusing to pay. Wage theft is a huge business. ALEC is trying to prevent it from even being investigated, let alone prosecuted, and they’re succeeding. This is an illustration of the savagery of the highly class-conscious business classes.
One of the most insidious of their proposals, which is proceeding more or less secretly, is an effort to get states to demand an amendment to the Constitution which will require a balanced budget. If you get enough states to ratify that, there’s an amendment. Of course, a balanced budget for the federal government means that we pour money into the military and cut back on social benefits. They’re coming pretty close to achieving that. It’s almost never reported in the media but they’re pretty much succeeding.
This is a class war that goes on constantly in the United States to a level far beyond other comparable societies. You can see this in many ways. If you take a look at CEO salaries relative to workers’ pay the gap, especially since the 1980s, is far higher in the United States than it is in European societies. These are all crucial issues in the United States which require a very intensive effort.
The reason why Sanders is vilified in the media pretty much across the spectrum is not so much because of his policies. It’s because he has inspired a mass popular movement which doesn’t just show up every four years to push a button but is acting constantly — pressuring — to achieve changes and having some success. That’s frightening for the business class. The role of the public is to be passive spectators and not to interfere.
JC:You discuss the role of the media and propaganda quite often. You have referred to what you described in the past as “Orwell’s problem” — a population which despite so much access to information is misled and propagandized by a powerful media system. Do you think that’s still the case? And how can the general public transcend that system of control?
NC:The fact that some people, in fact quite a lot of people, break out of it is not terribly surprising. I mean, even in totalitarian states you have dissidents despite severe punishment and the total control of the media. People are not just robots — plenty of people can see what’s in front of their eyes.
On the other hand, when you talk about access to information, you
have to be pretty careful. For example, one of the major popular
research institutions that studies popular attitudes in the United
States, the Pew Research Center, just came out with a pretty remarkable
study. They took about thirty news sources — television, print, radio,
and blogs — and they asked people which ones they know and trust, and
they divided it between Democrats and Republicans.
Among Democrats, pretty much no one trusts the major media outlets. Among Republicans the only ones that received even a slight majority were Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart, which is an ultraright website. Even the Wall Street Journal is considered too far left for most Republicans. You just listen to Rush Limbaugh someday. You’ll see what kind of information people are getting. For Rush Limbaugh, science, government, and the media are pillars of deceit — and you just have to listen to the ultraright instead. That’s what Republicans, almost half the population, are getting as information. Not that the rest is so open and free, far from it.
What do you do about this? You do what you’ve always done. You have to work hard on education and organization. The labor movement used to be a major base for it — that can be revived. And there are other bases that can be developed and are being developed.
On many issues popular activism is breaking through. One good example is the environmental movement. Despite overwhelming corporate opposition, Congress is now pressured by popular activism to address its highly regressive policies on this issue. That could make a difference, and there’s a lot more like that.
JC:You have pointed out a lot of evidence for pessimism. What do you think are grounds for optimism?
NC:Oh, the grounds for optimism are pretty clear. I mean, take Bernie Sanders again. In 2016 with no media support, no business backing, and no funding from the wealthy, he was able to almost win the Democratic Party nomination because of popular forces. He probably would have won if it hadn’t been for party shenanigans. He ended up as the most popular political figure in the country. That’s exactly why the establishment is so frightened by him.
Among Democrats, pretty much no one trusts the major media outlets. Among Republicans the only ones that received even a slight majority were Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart, which is an ultraright website. Even the Wall Street Journal is considered too far left for most Republicans. You just listen to Rush Limbaugh someday. You’ll see what kind of information people are getting. For Rush Limbaugh, science, government, and the media are pillars of deceit — and you just have to listen to the ultraright instead. That’s what Republicans, almost half the population, are getting as information. Not that the rest is so open and free, far from it.
What do you do about this? You do what you’ve always done. You have to work hard on education and organization. The labor movement used to be a major base for it — that can be revived. And there are other bases that can be developed and are being developed.
On many issues popular activism is breaking through. One good example is the environmental movement. Despite overwhelming corporate opposition, Congress is now pressured by popular activism to address its highly regressive policies on this issue. That could make a difference, and there’s a lot more like that.
JC:You have pointed out a lot of evidence for pessimism. What do you think are grounds for optimism?
NC:Oh, the grounds for optimism are pretty clear. I mean, take Bernie Sanders again. In 2016 with no media support, no business backing, and no funding from the wealthy, he was able to almost win the Democratic Party nomination because of popular forces. He probably would have won if it hadn’t been for party shenanigans. He ended up as the most popular political figure in the country. That’s exactly why the establishment is so frightened by him.
That tells you to think about what is happening among the general
public. Well, that can extend — there have been dim periods in the past.
In the 1920s the labor movement had been killed — inequality was
soaring, it was a capitalist paradise, and there were no popular
movements. In the 1930s, it all radically changed — that can happen
again.
Tuesday
Saturday
Wednesday
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer Delivers the Democratic Response
Transcript:
But tonight I’m going to talk to those of you who are watching at
home. I’d need a lot more than 10 minutes to respond to what the
president just said. So instead of talking about what he is saying, I’m going to highlight what Democrats are doing. After
all, you can listen to what someone says, but to know the truth, watch
what they do. Michiganders are no different from Americans everywhere.
We love our families and want a good life today and a better life
tomorrow for our kids.
We work hard, and we expect our government to work hard for us, as well.
We have grit and value loyalty, and we still root for the Detroit Lions. We
and all Americans might be weary of today’s politics, but we must stay
engaged. Our country, our democracy, our future demand it. We’re
capable of great things when we work together.
We cannot forget that despite the dishonesty and division of the
last few years, and that we heard tonight from the President of the
United States, together we have boundless potential.
And young Americans are proving that every day by taking action. That’s what I want to focus on tonight.
Monte Scott is 13 years old and lives in Muskegon Heights,
Michigan. Monte’s street was covered in potholes. They were ankle deep
and he got tired of waiting for them to get fixed, so he grabbed a
shovel and a bucket of dirt and filled them in himself. During my
campaign, people told me to fix the damn roads, because blown tires and
broken windshields are downright dangerous, and car repairs take money
from rent, child care or groceries. And we, the Democrats, are doing
something about it. In Illinois, Governor J. B. Pritzker passed a
multibillion dollar plan to rebuild their roads and bridges. Governor
Phil Murphy is replacing lead pipes in New Jersey. All across the
country, Democratic leaders are rebuilding bridges, fixing roads,
expanding broadband and cleaning up drinking water.
Everyone in this country benefits when we invest in infrastructure.
Congressional democrats have presented proposals to keep us moving
forward, but President Trump and the Republicans in the Senate are
blocking the path.
When it comes to infrastructure, Monte has tried to do more with a
shovel and a pile of dirt than the Republicans in D.C. have with the
Oval Office and the U.S. Senate.
Bullying people on Twitter doesn’t fix bridges, it burns them. Our
energy should be used to solve problems, and it’s true for health care,
too.
For me, for so many Americans, healthcare is personal, not political.
When I was 30, I became a member of the sandwich generation. That
means I was sandwiched between two generations of my own family for whom
I was the primary caregiver. I was holding down a new job, caring for
my newborn daughter, as well as my mom at the end of her brain cancer
battle. I was up all night with a baby, and during the day I had to
fight my mom’s insurance company when they wrongly denied her coverage
for chemotherapy. It was hard. It exposed the harsh realities of our
workplaces, our health care system, and our child care system.
And it changed me.
I lost patience for people who are just talk and no action. So as a
state senator, I worked with a Republican governor and legislature to expand health care coverage to
more than 680,000 Michiganders under the Affordable Care Act. Today,
Democrats from Maine to Montana are expanding coverage and lowering
costs. In Kansas, Governor Laura Kelly is working across the aisle to
bring Medicaid coverage to tens of thousands.
In New Mexico, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham enshrined ACA protections into law.
Every Democrat running for president has a plan to expand health care for all Americans.
Every one of them has supported the Affordable Care Act with coverage
for people with preexisting conditions. They may have different plans,
but the goal is the same. President Trump sadly has a different plan.
He’s asking the courts to rip those
life-saving protections away. It’s pretty simple. Democrats are trying
to make your health care better, Republicans in Washington are trying
to take it away.
Think about kids like 17-year-old Blake Carroll from Idaho, who
organized a fundraiser to pay for his mom’s colon cancer treatment, or
19-year-old Ebony Meyers from Utah, who sells art to help pay for her
own rare genetic disorder treatment.
No one should have to crowdsource their healthcare, not in America.
But the reality is not everyone in America has a job with
healthcare and benefits. In fact, many have jobs that don’t even pay
enough to cover their monthly expenses. It doesn’t matter what the
President says about the stock market. What matters is that millions of
people struggle to get by or don’t have enough money at the end of the
month after paying for transportation, student loans or prescription
drugs. American workers are hurting. In my own state, our neighbors in
Wisconsin and Ohio, Pennsylvania and all over the country, wages have
stagnated while CEO pay has skyrocketed.
So when the president says the economy is strong, my question is, strong
for whom? Strong for the wealthy who are reaping rewards from tax cuts they don’t need?
The American economy needs to be a different kind of strong. Strong
for the science teacher spending her own money to buy supplies for her
classroom. Strong for the single mom picking up extra hours so she can
afford her daughter’s soccer cleats. Strong for the small business owner
who has to make payroll at the end of the month.
Michigan invented the middle class, so we know: if the economy doesn’t
work for working people, it just doesn’t work. Who fights for working,
hard-working Americans? Democrats do. In the U.S. House, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and Democrats passed a landmark bill on equal pay, another bill
to give 30 million Americans a raise by increasing the minimum wage, and
groundbreaking legislation to finally give Medicare the power to
negotiate lower drug prices for America’s seniors and families. Those
three bills and more than 275 other bipartisan bills are just gathering
dust on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk. Senator McConnell, America needs you to move those bills.
Meanwhile, Democrats across the country are getting things done.
Pennsylvania’s Governor Tom Wolf is expanding the right to overtime
pay. Michigan is, too. Because if you’re on the clock, you deserve to
get paid.
Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak and North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper
are working to give hardworking teachers a raise. And speaking of the
classroom, Wisconsin governor Tony Evers unilaterally increased school
funding by $65 million last year.
In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis has enacted free all day
kindergarten, and in 29 states, we’ve helped pass minimum wage hikes
into law, which will lift people out of poverty and improve lives for
families. That’s strength. That’s action.
Democracy takes action, and that’s why I’m so inspired by young
people. They respond to mass shootings, demanding policies that make
schools safer. They react to a world that’s literally on fire, with
fire in their bellies, to push leaders to finally take action on climate
change. They take on a road filled with potholes with a shovel and
some dirt. It’s what gives me great confidence in our future, and it’s
why sometimes, it feels like they’re the adults in the room. But it
shouldn’t have to be that way. It’s not their mess to clean up. It’s
ours. The choices we make today create their reality tomorrow.
Young people, I’m talking to you. And your parents and
grandparents.
Democrats want safe schools. We want everyone to have a path to a good life, whether it’s through a union apprenticeship, a community college, a four-year university, without drowning in debt. We want your water to be clean. We want you to love who you love, and to live authentically as your true selves. And we want women to have autonomy over our bodies.
Democrats want safe schools. We want everyone to have a path to a good life, whether it’s through a union apprenticeship, a community college, a four-year university, without drowning in debt. We want your water to be clean. We want you to love who you love, and to live authentically as your true selves. And we want women to have autonomy over our bodies.
We want our country welcoming, and everyone’s vote counted. 2020
is a big year. It’s the year my daughter Sherry will graduate from high
school. It’s also the year she’ll cast her first ballot, along with
millions of young Americans.
The two things are connected. Because walking across a graduation
stage is as important as walking into the voting booth for the first
time. Her future, all our kids’ futures, will be determined not just by
their dreams, but by our actions. As we witness the impeachment
process in Washington, there are some things each of us, no matter our
party, should demand. The truth matters. Facts matter. And no one
should be above the law.
It’s not what those senators say. Tomorrow, it’s about what they do that matters.
Remember, listen to what people say but watch what they do. It’s time
for action. Generations of Americans are counting on us. Let’s not let
them down.
Thank you for listening. God bless America. Good night. [Applause].
Thursday
Impeachment Alone Won’t Stop Trump From Inflicting Lasting Damage on Ukraine
As the House of Representatives voted
on Wednesday to impeach Donald Trump for secretly making diplomatic and
military support for Ukraine contingent on that country agreeing to
subvert its own justice system by opening a politically motivated
investigation of Joe Biden, the president and his allies continued to
defend his conduct by attacking the victim. One after another, they
trashed Ukraine as a hopelessly corrupt swamp unworthy of American aid.
During the hearings that led to the vote, Republicans in Congress even claimed that Trump’s decision to withhold aid was in line with the Obama administration’s prior efforts, led by then-vice president Biden, to stamp out corruption in Ukraine.
Rep. Jim Jordan and Trump himself repeated the Republican talking point that because Ukraine is “one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet,” it was entirely reasonable to test the willingness of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to tackle corruption.
During the hearings that led to the vote, Republicans in Congress even claimed that Trump’s decision to withhold aid was in line with the Obama administration’s prior efforts, led by then-vice president Biden, to stamp out corruption in Ukraine.
Rep. Jim Jordan and Trump himself repeated the Republican talking point that because Ukraine is “one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet,” it was entirely reasonable to test the willingness of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to tackle corruption.
What neither man mentioned was that the Ernst & Young study ranking Ukraine among the three most corrupt countries was conducted in 2012,
two years before Paul Manafort’s client, the notoriously corrupt
President Viktor Yanukovych, was forced from office in a popular
uprising.
Despite subsequent reforms encouraged by the Obama administration, the country does still struggle with graft, but, as the impeachment inquiry revealed, Trump was fostering corruption in Ukraine, not fighting it.
Diplomats and White House officials testified that Trump had secretly deputized his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to coerce Zelensky into agreeing to appear on CNN and announce that Biden was suspected of breaking Ukrainian law — or risk forfeiting nearly $400 million in military aid and a White House visit.
A desperate Zelensky, in no position to refuse, was spared that humiliation only by the whistleblower complaint that prompted the impeachment inquiry.
But Trump’s response to the threat of impeachment and removal from office has been to constantly disparage Ukraine and insist that officials there should investigate the baseless rumor that Biden abused his power as vice president to shield a Ukrainian gas firm that employed his son. For good measure, Trump and his supporters in Congress have also claimed that Ukrainian officials who were dismayed by his support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea or outraged by secret payments to Manafort from their corrupt former president colluded with Democrats to sabotage his 2016 campaign.
Perhaps the clearest evidence that Trump and his Republican apologists are not interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine is that their case against Biden relies almost entirely on information provided by a lawmaker who was in the ousted president’s political party and two former prosecutors who spent more time harassing independent anti-corruption activists than holding corrupt oligarchs to account.
These figures, the pro-Russian lawmaker Andriy Derkach and the former chief prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yuri Lutsenko, all shared elaborate conspiracy theories about Biden with Giuliani during interviews he conducted for the San Diego cable news channel One America News.
Giuliani, who was accompanied on his trip to Ukraine by Chanel Rion, a far-right Republican operative and conspiracy theorist who has reinvented herself as an OAN host, seemed willing to ignore obvious contradictions in the stories told by the three men — including the bizarre claim that Shokin, the prosecutor Biden pressed to have fired in late 2015 for failing to pursue corruption cases, was recently poisoned with mercury and “died twice and had to be resuscitated.”
Despite subsequent reforms encouraged by the Obama administration, the country does still struggle with graft, but, as the impeachment inquiry revealed, Trump was fostering corruption in Ukraine, not fighting it.
Diplomats and White House officials testified that Trump had secretly deputized his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to coerce Zelensky into agreeing to appear on CNN and announce that Biden was suspected of breaking Ukrainian law — or risk forfeiting nearly $400 million in military aid and a White House visit.
A desperate Zelensky, in no position to refuse, was spared that humiliation only by the whistleblower complaint that prompted the impeachment inquiry.
But Trump’s response to the threat of impeachment and removal from office has been to constantly disparage Ukraine and insist that officials there should investigate the baseless rumor that Biden abused his power as vice president to shield a Ukrainian gas firm that employed his son. For good measure, Trump and his supporters in Congress have also claimed that Ukrainian officials who were dismayed by his support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea or outraged by secret payments to Manafort from their corrupt former president colluded with Democrats to sabotage his 2016 campaign.
Perhaps the clearest evidence that Trump and his Republican apologists are not interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine is that their case against Biden relies almost entirely on information provided by a lawmaker who was in the ousted president’s political party and two former prosecutors who spent more time harassing independent anti-corruption activists than holding corrupt oligarchs to account.
These figures, the pro-Russian lawmaker Andriy Derkach and the former chief prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yuri Lutsenko, all shared elaborate conspiracy theories about Biden with Giuliani during interviews he conducted for the San Diego cable news channel One America News.
Giuliani, who was accompanied on his trip to Ukraine by Chanel Rion, a far-right Republican operative and conspiracy theorist who has reinvented herself as an OAN host, seemed willing to ignore obvious contradictions in the stories told by the three men — including the bizarre claim that Shokin, the prosecutor Biden pressed to have fired in late 2015 for failing to pursue corruption cases, was recently poisoned with mercury and “died twice and had to be resuscitated.”
Derkach was praised by Rion for his staunch
opposition to Ukraine’s independent National Anti-Corruption Bureau,
which was set up with support from the United States and disclosed the
records of secret payments to Manafort in 2016, leading to his
resignation from the Trump campaign.
The most revealing moment in Giuliani’s OAN report, however, was the interview with Shokin’s successor, Lutsenko, who took over in 2016 promising to investigate corruption. Lutsenko told Giuliani and Rion that he was affronted when Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the career foreign service official who took over as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine in 2016, pressed him to close an investigation and mentioned three Ukrainians by name whom he should not prosecute.
Enraged by the request, Lutsenko said that he took out a piece of paper and made a list with the three names: “Kasko, Leshchenko, Shabunin.” He then theatrically tore up what he called a Do Not Prosecute list. In another account, Lutsenko compared the request from the U.S. ambassador to the sorts of lists of protected people that used to be circulated in Soviet times.
The most revealing moment in Giuliani’s OAN report, however, was the interview with Shokin’s successor, Lutsenko, who took over in 2016 promising to investigate corruption. Lutsenko told Giuliani and Rion that he was affronted when Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the career foreign service official who took over as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine in 2016, pressed him to close an investigation and mentioned three Ukrainians by name whom he should not prosecute.
Enraged by the request, Lutsenko said that he took out a piece of paper and made a list with the three names: “Kasko, Leshchenko, Shabunin.” He then theatrically tore up what he called a Do Not Prosecute list. In another account, Lutsenko compared the request from the U.S. ambassador to the sorts of lists of protected people that used to be circulated in Soviet times.
However, what Lutsenko failed to explain to
Giuliani and OAN viewers is that those three men were all noted
anti-corruptiuon activists who were at the time the subject of
politically motivated investigations or harassment by the chief
prosecutor’s office. Vitaliy Kasko is a former deputy prosecutor who resigned in 2016
and accused Shokin’s office of being a “hotbed of corruption.” Sergii
Leshchenko is a Ukrainian investigative journalist who was elected to
parliament after the uprising, and displayed pages from the so-called
“black ledger” detailing secret payments to Manafort
at a news conference in Kyiv in 2016. Vitaliy Shabunin is a co-founder
with Daria Kaleniuk of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, a non-profit
partly funded by the U.S. government. Shabunin has faced what Kaleniuk calls
“a series of well-planned attacks from various corrupt officials and
oligarchs” in retaliation for his efforts to expose corruption and
demand transparency.
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the case Yovanovitch asked Lutsenko to drop was an investigation of Shabunin and Kaleniuk’s non-profit, known as AntAc. Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer, told The Intercept in May that state prosecutors investigated a grant from the U.S. to the non-profit simply because they were jealous that the funds to combat corruption had been awarded to the activists instead of the chief prosecutor’s office.
In early September, near the apex of the pressure campaign on Zelensky, Kasko was appointed first deputy to Ukraine’s new chief prosecutor.
Leshchenko, who was an adviser to Zelensky until Giuliani attacked him by name in a Fox News interview for supposedly convincing the new president not to meet with him, has returned to journalism full time and stands by his contention that the records of Manafort’s financial crimes he publicized are genuine.
“We are desperately trying to change the country … from a very corrupt kleptocracy to a democracy,” Kaleniuk told the Los Angeles Times last month. “This is Ukraine’s moment, the moment to help. And instead, we got a knife in the back.”
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the case Yovanovitch asked Lutsenko to drop was an investigation of Shabunin and Kaleniuk’s non-profit, known as AntAc. Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer, told The Intercept in May that state prosecutors investigated a grant from the U.S. to the non-profit simply because they were jealous that the funds to combat corruption had been awarded to the activists instead of the chief prosecutor’s office.
In early September, near the apex of the pressure campaign on Zelensky, Kasko was appointed first deputy to Ukraine’s new chief prosecutor.
Leshchenko, who was an adviser to Zelensky until Giuliani attacked him by name in a Fox News interview for supposedly convincing the new president not to meet with him, has returned to journalism full time and stands by his contention that the records of Manafort’s financial crimes he publicized are genuine.
“We are desperately trying to change the country … from a very corrupt kleptocracy to a democracy,” Kaleniuk told the Los Angeles Times last month. “This is Ukraine’s moment, the moment to help. And instead, we got a knife in the back.”
Wednesday
Trump Letter and his Impeachment
in responds to his looming impeachment.
President Donald
John Trump must feel really proud today (December 19, 2019) since he belongs
now to an elite club of Presidents who have been impeached. He is now in the company
of Former President Andrew Johnson,1868 and
Former President Bill Clinton,1998 were both impeached, as well as Former President Richard Nixon who had resigned
before he could be impeached in 1974.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)