paypal.HostedButtons({ hostedButtonId: "E6NHPHEN6HF9L", }).render("#paypal-container-E6NHPHEN6HF9L")

To Order What’s Left via Amazon, click here.
Please Note: Books purchased via Amazon will not be autographed.

To Order What’s Left from your favorite local bookstore, give them this ISBN: 979-8-898622-0-1
Please Note: Books purchased via your local store will not be autographed. Ted is, however, available to visit your store if they choose to invite him for a public appearance.

 

 

The post “What’s Left: Radical Solutions for Radical Problems” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Eight years before the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam collapsed, I stood with high school friends at Manhattan’s Penn Station on the night of April 15, 1967, waiting for a train back to Washington after attending the era’s largest anti-war protest so far. An early edition of the next day’s New York Times arrived on newsstands with a big headline at the top of the front page that said “100,000 Rally at U.N. Against Vietnam War.” I heard someone say, “Johnson will have to listen to us now.”

But President Lyndon Johnson dashed the hopes of those who marched from Central Park to the United Nations that day (with an actual turnout later estimated at 400,000). He kept escalating the war in Vietnam, while secretly also bombing Laos and Cambodia.

During the years that followed, anti-war demonstrations grew in thousands of communities across the United States. The decentralized Moratorium Day events on October 15, 1969 drew upward of 2 million people. But all forms of protest fell on deaf official ears. A song by the folksinger Donovan, recorded midway through the decade, became more accurate and powerful with each passing year: “The War Drags On.”

By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents—Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris—damaged their efforts to win the White House.

As the war continued, so did the fading of trust in the wisdom and morality of Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon. Gallup polls gauged the steep credibility drop. In 1965, just 24% of Americans said involvement in the Vietnam War had been a mistake. By the spring of 1971, the figure was 61%.

The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam gradually diminished from the peak of 536,100 in 1968, but ground operations and massive U.S. bombing persisted until the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in late January 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, but the war went on with U.S. support for 27 more months, until—on April 30, 1975—the final helicopter liftoff from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon signaled that the Vietnam War was indeed over.

By then, most Americans were majorly disillusioned. Optimism that public opinion would sway their government’s leaders on matters of war and peace had been steadily crushed while carnage in Southeast Asia continued. To many citizens, democracy had failed—and the failure seemed especially acute to students, whose views on the war had evolved way ahead of overall opinion.

At the end of the 1960s, Gallup found “significantly more opposition to President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies” among students at public and private colleges than in “a parallel survey of the U.S. general public: 44% vs. 25%, respectively.” The same poll “showed 69% of students in favor of slowing down or halting the fighting in Vietnam, while only 20% favored escalation. This was a sharp change from 1967, when more students favored escalation (49%) than deescalation (35%).”

Six decades later, it took much less time for young Americans to turn decisively against their government’s key role of arming Israel’s war on Gaza. By a wide margin, continuous huge shipments of weapons to the Israeli military swiftly convinced most young adults that the U.S. government was complicit in a relentless siege taking the lives of Palestinian civilians on a large scale.

A CBS News/YouGov poll in June 2024 found that Americans opposed sending “weapons and supplies to Israel” by 61-39%. Opposition to the arms shipments was even higher among young people. For adults under age 30, the ratio was 77-23.

Emerging generations learned that moral concerns about their country’s engagement in faraway wars meant little to policymakers in Washington. No civics textbook could prepare students for the realities of power that kept the nation’s war machine on a rampage, taking several million lives in Southeast Asia or supplying weapons making possible genocide in Gaza.

For vast numbers of Americans, disproportionately young, the monstrous warfare overseen by Presidents Johnson and Nixon caused the scales to fall from their eyes about the character of U.S. leadership. And like President Donald Trump now, President Joe Biden showed that nice-sounding rhetoric could serve as a tidy cover story for choosing to enable nonstop horrors without letup.

No campaign-trail platitudes about caring and joy could make up for a lack of decency. By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents—Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris—damaged their efforts to win the White House.

A pair of exchanges on network television, 56 years apart, are eerily similar.

In August 1968, appearing on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Humphrey was asked, “On what points, if any, do you disagree with the Vietnam policies of President Johnson?”

“I think that the policies that the president has pursued are basically sound,” Humphrey replied.

In October 2024, appearing on the ABC program “The View,” Harris was asked: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris replied.

Young people’s votes for Harris last fall were just 54%, compared with 60% that they provided to Biden four years earlier.

Many young eyes recognized the war policy positions of Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris as immoral. Their decisions to stay on a war train clashed with youthful idealism. And while hardboiled political strategists opted to discount such idealism as beside the electoral point, the consequences have been truly tragic—and largely foreseeable.

Live 4 pm Eastern Time + Streaming 24-7:

Join Ted Rall and Scott Stantis as they dive into the enduring lessons of the Vietnam War, marking 50 years since the fall of Saigon. This episode unpacks America’s failure to learn from defeat, exploring the universal value of self-determination, the pitfalls of military hegemony, and the staggering costs of war—$1 trillion in today’s dollars, millions of lives lost, and a legacy of PTSD and neglected infrastructure. From the haunting parallels in Iraq and Afghanistan to the historical ramifications of colonial powers like the Netherlands and France, who turned defeat into domestic renewal, Rall and Stantis challenge us to rethink America’s global role. Tune in for a raw, thought-provoking left-vs-right dialogue on how the U.S. can finally accept defeat and invest in its own future.

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 202: “50 Years Post-Saigon” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

For nearly 250 years, the American system of government has been built to guard against an authoritarian leader. Our Constitution created a careful balance of powers among the branches of government to ward off tyranny. But just 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, we are seeing this system bend to the point of breaking under the weight of a willful disregard for the rule of law.

We must take this moment to finally install more concrete guardrails against corruption and abuse of power.

America’s system of checks and balances was never meant to depend on trust alone. It was designed to be tested and strengthened. We have relied on key tools to rein in executive overreach: a vigilant Congress, a strong judiciary, an engaged citizenry informed by public interest groups, an apolitical civil service, independent inspectors general, meaningful whistleblower protections, and ethics laws, to name several.

Some of these safeguards are holding. Right now, civil society is carrying much of the burden. Investigative journalists, watchdog groups, academic institutions, and advocacy organizations are doing the work that too many public officials have abandoned. They are shining lights into corners where the government prefers darkness, informing the public and pressuring institutions to act.

The problem isn’t just that guardrails are being destroyed; some have always been missing.

The courts, too, have shown signs of resilience. Despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling expanding presidential immunity, which chipped away at the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power, judges have issued rulings that uphold our basic constitutional principles. That said, recent moves from the judicial branch are alarming. They have done so even in the face of hostile rhetoric and open defiance.

These bright spots are important, but they are the exception, not the rule. We must confront a harsh reality: Many safeguards have proven extremely fragile. If we hope to emerge from this crisis with our democracy intact, we must also confront what has failed and what we must change.

Congressional oversight has become theatrical at best and nonexistent at worst. This is especially true when the president’s party holds power. And the legislative branch has let the executive branch encroach on its power of the purse and diminish its role in the policymaking process. That dynamic must change. Members of Congress need to remember they work for their constituents. That means scrutinizing the executive branch regardless of which party controls it, holding more hearings back in members’ districts, and creating more accessible public forums.

An apolitical and secure civil service has long been a stabilizing force in our government, ensuring that laws are implemented faithfully and without bias. But mass firings and politically motivated purges are dismantling this safeguard. When loyalty to the president is prized over competence or integrity, the system begins to collapse from within. To protect their essential work, we must strengthen legal safeguards for civil servants and insulate them from political retaliation.

Inspectors general — the independent watchdogs tasked with rooting out misconduct across federal agencies — have been fundamentally disempowered. President Trump has removed many of them without explanation or cause, threatening a critical line of oversight. Congress must not only rebuild but strengthen the independence of inspectors general. That may look like moving them to the legislative branch, where they could be protected from executive interference.

The work of everyone who cares about democracy... matters more than ever. Not just for today’s crisis, but also to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Whistleblowers, another bedrock of internal accountability, are often our first and best defense against corruption. But their protections are increasingly toothless after the president illegally fired the head of the very office designed to uphold them. This move costs us the information we need to root out corruption and abuse.

The problem isn’t just that guardrails are being destroyed; some have always been missing. Ethics laws for the most powerful people in government are far too weak. Both the president and vice president are exempt from the conflict-of-interest rules that apply to the federal workforce. Members of Congress can buy and trade stocks even though their decisions often move markets. And Elon Musk’s role in the White House demonstrates how glaring financial conflicts can sow deep distrust in government actions. We need stronger laws at the highest levels so the public can be confident their government is working in their interest.

None of these failures exist in isolation. Each one enables the other. Without consequences, the last abuse of power is just practice for the next.

But here’s the good news: the reverse is also true. Strengthen any of these pillars, and you strengthen the whole system. That’s why our work — the work of everyone who cares about democracy — matters more than ever. Not just for today’s crisis, but also to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

We can make our democracy work — and for the first time in our country’s history, make it work for everyone. But only if we fight for it.

LIVE 2 pm Eastern Time & Streaming On Demand Afterward:

Dive into “DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou” as they unpack the high-stakes developments of Donald Trump’s first 100 days. With incisive clarity, they analyze today’s newly released economic figures, decoding their implications for America’s trajectory—growth or decline?

The hosts explore the heating 2028 Democratic presidential race, where Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo just announced her candidacy, joining potential contenders like Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, and Pete Buttigieg in a fierce battle to shape the party’s future.

The episode intensifies with breaking news on Trump’s deportation policies: the president’s newly-admitted defiance in refusing to retrieve Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador’s brutal CECOT prison, despite court orders, ignites a constitutional crisis. Meanwhile, a federal judge’s ruling to free Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student activist detained by ICE over pro-Palestinian protests, raises critical questions about free speech and government overreach.

Rall and Kiriakou deliver unflinching commentary, exposing the human and political toll of these unfolding dramas. From economic fault lines to immigration battles, this episode is essential listening for those craving truth amid the chaos. Expect bold perspectives and a challenge to question the status quo in this 60-minute deep dive. Catch DeProgram now on all major podcast platforms—don’t miss this electrifying discussion!

The post DeProgram: “Trump’s 100 Days & 2028 Dems” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Live 10 AM Eastern time; Streaming All Other Times:

On “The TMI Show” with Ted Rall and Manila Chan, the hosts sit down with Dr. Neal King, a psychologist, former college president, and author of the profound new book “Trauma is a Thief.” Described by Midwest Book Review as “an extraordinary, compelling, and intensely personal life story and psychological study,” King’s work chronicles his journey from a childhood shattered by sexual and physical abuse, abandonment, and familial addiction to his distinguished career in international education and mental health advocacy.
Blending memoir with psychological insight, “Trauma is a Thief” explores how King survived the “thief” that stole something essential from him, drawing on his training, including Carl Jung’s wisdom, to offer strategies for navigating trauma’s lasting impact. As a licensed psychologist and former president of Antioch University Los Angeles, King transforms his painful past into a universal case study, creating a vital resource for survivors, their loved ones, and professionals.

Ted and Manila dive into King’s motivations for baring his story, the interplay of personal healing and professional expertise, and trauma’s broader societal impact. This candid, compassionate discussion promises to inspire and provoke thought, resonating with anyone affected by trauma’s echo.

Listeners on YouTube and Rumble can join the conversation by posting questions for Dr. King in the live chat, making this episode an interactive opportunity to engage with his insights and experiences. Tune in for a powerful exploration of resilience, survival, and the hope that comes from feeling seen and understood.

The post TMI Show Ep 128: “Unveiling Trauma’s Lasting Echoes with Dr. Neal King” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

My mom had an uncanny ability to size up current events and accurately predict their long-term effects. 50 years ago, I sat in my mom’s colonial dining room and watched the fall of Saigon on her black-and-white TV with two folds of aluminum foil dangling from the rabbit ears. America was not riding high. A year earlier, gas rationing went into effect and a president reelected in a record landslide resigned in disgrace.

As desperate Americans and South Vietnamese scrambled to evacuate, embassy staffers burned millions of dollars in cash to prevent it from falling into the hands of the victorious North Vietnamese. As landing decks on aircraft carriers in the South China Sea became overcrowded, UH-1 “Huey” helicopters, each worth at least $1 million in today’s dollars, were pushed into the ocean to make room for incoming aircraft. The estimated value of the military and other equipment left behind by retreating U.S. forces ranges between $1 billion and $4 billion, plus an additional $1 billion to $2 billion in corporate assets.

“The United States will never recover from this,” my mom said. “They’ll never learn anything from it, because they’ll never understand why it happened.”

Half a century later, she was clearly right. We lost but we didn’t learn.

The big lesson of the Vietnam catastrophe, one we haven’t begun to internalize, is that self-determination is a universal value. No one wants to be told what to do, much less exploited, by foreigners. There’s a corollary to that lesson: superior military and economic power cannot overcome the universal human desire to independently pursue one’s destiny.

“The enemy will win many battles, but in the end, we will win the war,” General Vo Nguyen Giap, commander-in-chief for North Vietnam, told a French interviewer in 1964. That’s what happened in 1975. And in 2011 in Iraq. And in 2021 in Afghanistan, where the $7 billion in abandoned war materiel and the falling bodies of our Afghan employees raining over Kabul created a perfect echo of the collapse of South Vietnam. Sooner rather than later, the same fate will befall Israel in Gaza.

Movies are a window into America’s political soul. American films about its invasion and occupation of South Vietnam depict a barely revised version of Kipling’s patriarchal “White Man’s Burden” with heavy dollops of confusion and self-pity. While “The Deer Hunter” (1978), “Apocalypse Now” (1979), “Platoon” (1986) and “Full Metal Jacket” (1987) all depict the brutalization of Vietnamese civilians by American troops, the primary effect of those narratives is to portray naïve young men corrupted by forces beyond their control and forced to cope with their physical wounds and psychological guilt in the aftermath. The Vietnamese play bit parts or none whatsoever, relegated to background scenery as their U.S. oppressors blow them to bits and struggle with PTSD—failing to make the ethnically correct decision to refuse to kill.

Americans weren’t victims in Vietnam. We were the bad guys. We lost 58,000 soldiers, who were sent to the other side of the earth to prop up a corrupt, unpopular regime against an enemy that posed no threat to us. Our troops killed 2 million Vietnamese. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall in Washington is slightly less than 500 feet long. An analogous structure dedicated to the Vietnamese would be more than three miles long.

We have never admitted that we had no business being there. “Rambo: First Blood Part II” (1985) marked the beginning of something even worse than mawkish self-pity, a string of right-wing negationist releases that attempted to retroactively justify the war as a noble patriotic cause—don’t feel guilty, be proud of your service to your country—followed by “Hamburger Hill” (1987), “We Were Soldiers” (2002) and similar imperialist whitewashing of the Iraq War in works like “Jarhead” (2005), “The Hurt Locker” (2008), and “American Sniper” (2014).

The second big lesson of Vietnam for a United States that continues to pursue international monetary, economic, political and military hegemony is that it’s cheaper to rent than to own. The United States currently has a $150 billion a year bilateral trade relationship with Vietnam and hundreds of thousands of Americans visit Vietnam every year as tourists. Business is good. There was no need to control their political system.

Finally, war is expensive. Eight million Vietnam war veterans require care for PTSD, exposure to Agent Orange and various psychological and physical injuries. Resources diverted to the Vietnam War contributed to the hollowing out of Rust Belt cities, declining schools and insufficient spending on infrastructure—problems we’re still dealing with, with no end in sight. The war cost approximately $1 trillion in 2025 dollars.

A crisis can be an opportunity. So can a defeat.
At the end of World War II, Indonesian nationalists waged a brutal war of independence against their colonial oppressors, the Netherlands. Forced to withdraw in 1949, the Dutch turned to their domestic needs. They prioritized postwar reconstruction and expanded the welfare state, funding affordable housing, pensions, and healthcare. Losing Indonesia was great for Holland. France performed a similar pivot after losing its war in Algeria in 1962; it decolonized most of its African possessions and invested in massive public works like high-speed rail. Belgium did the same thing after losing the Congo War in 1965, as did Portugal after 1974, when it lost to the liberation movements of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau.

Fifty years after the fall of Saigon, we should learn from our fellow former colonial powers. Stop starting wars we’re bound to lose. Invest in ourselves.

(Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of “What’s Left: Radical Solutions for Radical Problems,” which will be published May 1st. He co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis and The TMI Show with political analyst Manila Chan. Subscribe: tedrall.Substack.com.

The post 50 Years After the Fall of Saigon, Let’s Accept Defeat appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The International Finance Corporation’s website brands many of the well-founded criticisms of industrial animal production as “myths.” This reflects the regrettably polarized debate between those who believe that industrial agriculture is needed to feed the growing world population and those who, like me, argue that a far-reaching transformation of our food system is needed.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) website states that it is a myth that industrial animal production is bad for food security. The truth, however, is that factory farming diverts food away from people; it is dependent on feeding grain—corn, wheat, barley—to animals who convert these crops very inefficiently into meat and milk. For every 100 calories of human-edible cereals fed to animals, just 7-27 calories (depending on the species) enter the human food chain as meat. And for every 100 grams of protein in human-edible cereals fed to animals, only 13-37 grams of protein enter the human food chain as meat.

The scale of this is massive. International Grains Council data show that 45% of global grain production is used as animal feed, while 76% of world soy production is used to feed animals. The inefficiency of doing this is recognized by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which states that it is “essential to fight food insecurity and malnutrition… Reducing the use of much of the world's grain production to feed animals and producing more food for direct human consumption can significantly contribute to this objective.” I calculate that if the use of cereals as animal feed were ended, an extra 2 billion people could be fed even allowing for the fact that if we reared fewer animals we would need to grow more crops for direct human consumption. My figure is very cautious; other studies calculate that ending the use of grains as animal feed would enable an extra 3.5-4 billion people to be fed. Moreover, industrial livestock’s huge demand for these cereals pushes up their price, potentially placing them out of reach of poor populations in the Global South. So, sorry IFC, but it really is not a myth to say that industrial animal production is bad for food security.

To dismiss the harsh suffering endured by industrially farmed animals as a myth is extraordinary

The IFC website dismisses as a myth the argument that industrial animal production is bad for the environment. However, factory farms disgorge large amounts of manure, slurry, and ammonia that pollute air and watercourses. When ammonia mixes with other gases it can form particulate matter; this is a key component of air pollution, which can lead to heart and pulmonary disease, respiratory problems including asthma, and lung cancer.

Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals as feed has been a key factor fuelling the intensification of crop production. This pivotal link between the livestock and arable sectors is often not recognized. With its monocultures and high use of chemical pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, intensive crop production leads to soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and overuse and pollution of water. In short, it erodes the key fundamentals—soils, water, and biodiversity—on which our future ability to feed ourselves depends.

Arjem Hoekstra (2020) calculates that animals fed on cereals and soy (industrially farmed animals) use 43 times as much surface- and groundwater and are 61 times as polluting of water as animals fed on grass and other roughages. Its adherents claim that factory farming saves land by cramming animals into crowded sheds. But in reality it eats up huge amounts of cropland for feed. European Union studies show that feed production accounts for 99% of the land use of the pig and broiler sectors. It is feed production—not the tiny amount of space given to animals on the farm—that makes factory farming so land-hungry.

The contention that industrial systems undermine the socioeconomic potential of small-scale farmers in the developing world is also branded a myth by the IFC. The World Bank, however, takes a different view. Its 2024 report Recipe for a Liveable Planet states, “The global agrifood system disproportionately and detrimentally affects poor communities and smallholder farmers who cannot compete with industrial agriculture, thereby exacerbating rural poverty and increasing landlessness.” Instead of funding industrial agriculture the IFC should help small-scale farmers move to agroecology and regenerative farming which can boost yields, reduce the use of expensive inputs, and improve livelihoods.

Also swatted aside as a myth is the mountain of scientific evidence that industrial livestock production results in poor animal welfare. To dismiss the harsh suffering endured by industrially farmed animals as a myth is extraordinary. In its own Good Practice Note on animal welfare the IFC lists what are commonly recognized to be the key characteristics of factory farming—confinement in narrow stalls, overcrowding, barren environments, painful procedures, hunger, and breeding for high yields leading to health disorders—and identifies them as “welfare risks” that need to be tackled. But now, in a remarkable volte-face, the IFC airily dismisses these problems as a myth.

IFC’s position stands in sharp contrast to UNEP, which states that “intensive systems deprive animals of some of their most basic physical and psychological needs.” World Bank economist Berk Özler has written about the value of policies under which low-income countries can grow without causing massive increases in suffering among farmed animals. He writes, “Perhaps many low-income countries can leapfrog the stage of industrial animal farming, towards something more sensible.”

I urge the IFC to recognize that industrial animal agriculture is destructive—destructive of food security, the environment, small-scale farmer livelihoods, and the well-being of animals.

The American promise rests on a profound yet simple idea: We are governed by laws, not by the whims of individuals. This bedrock principle—that impartial rules apply equally to all—faces an unprecedented assault. On May 1, state and local bar associations, civil rights organizations, and lawyers nationwide will unite in an unprecedented mobilization to defend this cornerstone of American justice.

As lawyers, we take a solemn oath: to support the Constitution of the United States. "Support" in this context implies a more proactive stance than mere defense. This oath compels us to take affirmative steps to uphold the principle that law, not personal power, reigns supreme. Today, fulfilling this obligation has never been more critical.

This Thursday, lawyers in over 40 cities will stand shoulder to shoulder, collectively raising their right hands to publicly recommit to their sacred oath for the National Law Day of Action. This act isn't mere symbolism—it's an alarm bell in a moment of genuine peril for our justice system.

Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow.

The threats to judicial independence have become impossible to ignore. When a federal judge faces impeachment threats simply for upholding the law—as Judge James Boasberg did after halting deportation flights—we've crossed a dangerous threshold. We've witnessed instances where judicial directives are contested not through proper legal channels but through public disparagement and apparent noncompliance. Alarmingly, the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan by federal authorities represents an unprecedented escalation, sending a chilling message to judges across the country. When court orders are treated as optional suggestions rather than binding mandates, and when attorneys face intimidation for representing unpopular clients, our constitutional foundations are actively eroding.

A nation of laws requires an independent judiciary. Judges must be able to rule based on law rather than political pressure. Lawyers must be free to zealously advocate without fear of retribution. Without these, equal justice becomes hollow rhetoric. This is starkly illustrated by recent events where law firms representing clients who oppose administration policies have faced executive orders suspending their employees' security clearances and barring them from federal buildings—actions that one judge noted send "chills down my spine" for the "extraordinary power" they represent.

Our judges and courts have no militias. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist 78, courts depend entirely on their institutional legitimacy and the bar's commitment to uphold their authority. When that authority is undermined through defiance or delegitimized through partisan attacks, we approach a system where power, not principle, determines outcomes. A judge intimidated today means justice denied tomorrow.

This national mobilization on Law Day transcends partisan divides because the rule of law transcends politics. We all lose in a system where legal outcomes depend on who holds power rather than what the law requires. The growing pattern of attempts to circumvent judicial authority—from ignoring court orders to demanding recusal after unfavorable rulings to demonizing "activist" judges—represents an assault on constitutional safeguards that protect us all.

The attacks on judges and lawyers form a two-pronged assault on the constitutional order we pledged to defend. An intimidated bar cannot check government overreach; a weakened judiciary cannot enforce accountability. These essential guardians of liberty now face unprecedented threats.

The oath we took upon joining the bar wasn't a one-time ceremony but a lifelong commitment. On May 1, we renew our promise to the Constitution en masse. We will be a visible reminder that the legal profession stands united against forces that would replace the rule of law with the rule of the powerful.

Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow. No freedom survives when those who defend it are silenced or controlled.

We call on every member of the bar—and indeed every person who values constitutional government—to join this historic stand for democracy. Find your local event at LawDayofAction.org. When we stand together, recommitting to our oath with one voice, we send an unmistakable message: The legal profession will defend our nation of laws and ensure justice remains equal for all.

April 30th marks the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War's end when Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon, soon to be renamed Ho Chi Minh City. The war was a terrible experience for the United States, but even more so for the people of Vietnam and much of the rest of Southeast Asia. Estimates are that up to 3 million Vietnamese perished, as well many many thousands of Cambodians and Laotians. Fifty-eight thousand American died, and a trillion American tax dollars were wasted.

Many of us who were there are still trying to understand and come to grips with it. Based on years of study, here is what I think people still get wrong about the war. What I write will be controversial, but it is based on what I saw and learned. If I seem angry, it is because I still am.

In nearly all wars, the other side is demonized and made into evil caricatures of human beings; doing so makes it easier to kill them. From the U.S. perspective, the Vietnam War was no exception. Even the Vietnamese who were supposedly on our side were commonly referred to as gooks, zips (Zero Intelligence Personnel), slants, slopes and more, often to their faces. In my experience, the U.S. military chain of command made no effort to correct this. Given the pervasive racism among American troops, it should come as no surprise that violence against Vietnamese civilians was common. It is hard to understand how anyone thought the Vietnamese people would rally to the U.S. side while being badly treated.

The lesson to be learned is that U.S. military leaders, if they care about the troops at all, should do all they can to prevent war crimes through training, clear orders, and prosecutions.

In Vietnam many of us learned to be quite skeptical of the media and the U.S. government. To cite just one example out of hundreds, as the advancing NVA/VC forces began to overrun the South (mid-1970's), U.S. officials and media warned of a bloodbath to come. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger warned that 200,000 would be killed if the communists won. The American armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes, in one of the last issues to arrive in Saigon, carried a headline: "At Least a Million Vietnamese Will Be Slaughtered." But that never happened. When it came to allegations of massacres, whether by the enemy in Hue during Tet, or the Americans at My Lai, the truth was regularly mangled by the U.S. government and media.

The leak of the Pentagon Papers, which so infuriated then-President Richard Nixon, revealed many other falsehoods, even as to when the war started. The Papers show that it was in 1945 that the French government decided to reclaim its Vietnam colony from the Japanese occupiers. Then the U.S. got involved under President Harry Truman. From that time the U.S. provided air transport, weapons, advisers, and funding without which the French reoccupation would not have been possible. So the Vietnamese are correct in calling it the Ten Thousand Day War—the 30 years from 1945 to 1975.

The Pentagon Papers also reveal that U.S. leaders all the way from Truman to Nixon and Gerald Ford were advised that the U.S. could not win the war. They all knew that defeat was on the horizon, or perhaps just over the horizon. But except for Ford, all the presidents decided that, while the war was a lost cause, it would not be lost on their watch—so they kept it going by kicking the can down the road to the next president. So the death and destruction continued.

In 1968, Richard Nixon ran for president declaring that he had a "secret plan" to end the war. In actuality, his secret was to covertly sabotage ongoing peace talks to prolong the war. It went on for four more years, and another 25,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war Nixon knew could not be won.

During and after the war we learned a good deal about war-related post traumatic stress. Tens of thousands of returning Vietnam veterans began showing alarming signs of acute mental distress, often leading to harming others or themselves. Thanks to cutting edge research by Veterans Affairs, we learned that troops serving in support roles (which is most of them) had rates of PTSD about the same as the general population, around 6%. On the other hand, troops who were involved in abusing civilians or prisoners had rates of PTSD of over 50%. There are treatments available, but none seem to be especially effective. The lesson to be learned is that U.S. military leaders, if they care about the troops at all, should do all they can to prevent war crimes through training, clear orders, and prosecutions.

Today, most Americans think of the anti-war movement as mostly long-haired, pot-smoking hippies—with a Doctor Spock or a Jane Fonda occasionally thrown in. But that was not the reality. Instead, by 1967 thousands of veterans who had served in Vietnam returned home and eagerly joined the anti-war movement, especially on college campuses, quickly taking leadership positions. Tom Grace, in his book on the Kent State shootings, carefully documents that the leadership of the campus protesters there was almost entirely made up of returned working class veterans. This was typical. The largest of the veteran anti-war groups was the Vietnam Veterans Against the War with 20,000 to 50,000 members at its height. They were active in colleges and universities across the country.

There were also protests and some sabotage from within the active duty forces. In the face of widespread refusals to obey, ships could not put to sea, and aircraft could not fly. Racial tensions ran high.

Even with a half million troops in Vietnam, the U.S. could not prevail against a rising tide of nationalism in Vietnam, or even control most of the country. As the Pentagon Papers explained, the U.S. never had a chance.

Based on subsequent events, sadly it appears that America did not learn much from the Vietnam experience.

Anger alone solves little. If you want peace, you will have to organize to get it.

President Trump has given many contradictory reasons for his recent tariff spree, including claiming tariffs will “create jobs like we have never seen before.”

Yet research shows that tariffs don’t increase employment and instead are likely to cost jobs due to increased input prices and retaliatory tariffs. Economist Michael Strain at the conservative American Enterprise Institute expects Trump’s tariffs will lead to "recessionary levels" of unemployment. Ironically, analysts expect the rural and Heartland communities that voted for Trump will be disproportionately negatively impacted by retaliatory tariffs. Given how this Administration has cavalierly forced tens of thousands of federal workers out of good jobs and destroyed just as many research and nonprofit jobs supported by federal grants, it’s clear that employing Americans has never been the true priority.

A federal job guarantee is a public option for a good job—with living wages, full benefits, and union protections—on projects that meet community needs for physical and human infrastructure that are often long-overlooked.

But it should be a national priority. And we have a much better solution than tariffs: a job guarantee.

A federal job guarantee is a public option for a good job—with living wages, full benefits, and union protections—on projects that meet community needs for physical and human infrastructure that are often long-overlooked. Repairing bridges, helping communities recover from disasters, providing quality care for children and the elderly, fixing potholes, and expanding tree canopy to mitigate extreme heat are just a few examples of the community-building work that would become possible with a job guarantee.

A job guarantee would address the failure of our economy to provide good jobs for all. Even during times of relatively low unemployment, millions of Americans—currently 7.9 million—want full-time work but cannot find it. This is a chronic crisis that disproportionately burdens rural communities and communities of color. Another 39 million American workers are stuck in jobs that pay below $17 per hour, often with precarious, unhealthy, and undignified working conditions. Guaranteed jobs would provide these workers with the option of stable employment and real economic security.

Tariffs may grab headlines, but they don’t build communities or deliver good jobs.

A job guarantee is not a new idea. The right to a “useful and remunerative” job was the number one item on the Economic Bill of Rights proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. Guaranteed jobs were a central demand of the civil rights movement, from the 1963 March on Washington to Coretta Scott King’s advocacy throughout the 1970s. And it nearly became law: the original Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 included a legally enforceable right to a job with the federal government acting as employer of last resort, though that provision was stripped from the watered-down version that eventually passed. In recent years, congressional leaders including senators Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders have supported versions of a job guarantee, and representative Ayanna Pressley introduced a Congressional resolution outlining a modernized federal job guarantee that would pay $25 per hour.

While we’ve never had a true federal job guarantee, successful public employment efforts demonstrate its practicality and potential. In the 1930’s, the Works Progress Administration employed 8.5 million people building physical infrastructure and artistic works that strengthened our economy and culture for decades. Smaller-scale “subsidized employment” programs that provide the on-the-job training and wraparound supports for workers facing barriers to employment (similar to what would be provided by a job guarantee) also have a strong track record of success.

A job guarantee is not a new idea. The right to a “useful and remunerative” job was the number one item on the Economic Bill of Rights proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944.

By producing not only good jobs but also vital infrastructure and services, a job guarantee bolsters families and the neighborhoods where they live. Moreover, it would generate “trickle-up” economic effects. Money would begin circulating in persistently-disinvested communities, creating opportunities for grocery stores, small businesses, and local entrepreneurship. And a public option for good jobs would put healthy pressure on private employers to better compensate their workers—elevating wages and benefits across the board.

Funded by the federal government and implemented locally, a job guarantee would create new opportunities for civic engagement, with communities suggesting new public investments that meet their needs and manifest their aspirations. This partnership could strengthen democracy and rebuild trust that government can work for working people.

Ultimately, a job guarantee would create a more stable, resilient, and equitable economy. By immediately providing jobs and income at the first sign of an economic downturn, it would act as an automatic stabilizer—maintaining consumer spending and preventing prolonged recessions and jobless recoveries. This would benefit the economy as a whole and protect marginalized Black workers who are the “last hired and first fired” when the economy sours. It would enable a “just transition” away from unsustainable industries and address the threat of job displacement posed by AI, creating new jobs protecting the environment and mitigating climate change.

And for those who would dismiss this as socialism, it’s worth emphasizing: the job guarantee simply ensures there is an available job. If the more “productive” private sector can offer something better, all the better—workers will have the freedom to choose.

As we confront what some are expecting to be the third once-in-a-generation economic downturn in less than two decades, we need to be ready with real solutions. Tariffs may grab headlines, but they don’t build communities or deliver good jobs. Instead, this administration’s chaotic policies are creating widespread economic uncertainty and strain. A federal job guarantee, by contrast, is a bold economic policy rooted in American history and grounded in the needs of workers who’ve been sidelined by our economic policies. If we want to empower workers and build a more resilient economy, we should start investing in real solutions—starting with a job guarantee.

I have held public meetings all over Vermont and in many parts of the country. At these gatherings I almost always ask a very simple question: is our healthcare system broken? And the answer I always receive is: Yes! The American healthcare system is broken. It is outrageously expensive. It is horrifically cruel.

Today, we spend almost twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other country on Earth. According to the most recent data, the United States spends $14,570 per person on healthcare compared with just $5,640 in Japan, $6,023 in the United Kingdom, $6,931 in Australia, $7,013 in Canada and $7,136 in France. And yet, despite our huge expenditures, we remain the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right.

While the insurance companies and drug companies continue to make huge profits, over 85 million Americans are either uninsured or under-insured. The result: some 68,000 people in our country die each year because they can’t afford to go to a doctor when they should, and more than half a million Americans go bankrupt due to medically related debt. In the US today, 42% of cancer patients deplete their entire life savings within the first two years of their diagnosis while one out of every four declared bankruptcy or lost their homes to foreclosure or eviction in 2022.

The time is NOW to stand up to the greed and power of special interests who make huge profits off of a cruel and broken system. The time is NOW to pass Medicare for All.

That is insane and unspeakable. Getting cancer in the US should not lead to financial ruin.

In terms of life expectancy, we live four years shorter, on average, than people in other wealthy countries, while the typical working-class person in the US lives seven fewer years than the wealthy. We also have the dubious distinction of having, by far, the highest infant mortality rate of any other wealthy country on Earth.

As bad as our overall healthcare system is, our primary care system is even worse. Today, tens of millions of people live in communities where they cannot find a doctor, a dentist or a psychologist even when they have insurance, while others have to wait months to get seen. Despite our massive healthcare expenditures, we don’t have enough doctors, dentists, nurses, mental health practitioners, pharmacists or home healthcare workers – and one out of four Americans cannot afford to purchase the medicine their doctors prescribe.

For all of these reasons and many more, I am proud to be re-introducing Medicare for All in the Senate this week. My colleague, the representative Pramila Jayapal, is introducing this same bill in the House.

Our legislation would provide comprehensive healthcare coverage to all without out-of-pocket expenses and, unlike the current system, it would provide full freedom of choice regarding healthcare providers.

No more insurance premiums, no more deductibles, no more co-payments, no more filling out endless forms and fighting with insurance companies.

And comprehensive means the coverage of dental care, vision, hearing aids, prescription drugs and home and community-based healthcare.

Importantly, Medicare for All would give Americans the freedom to switch jobs without losing their health insurance. Under our legislation, healthcare becomes a human right, guaranteed to all, and not a job benefit.

Would a Medicare-for-all healthcare system be expensive? Yes. But, while providing comprehensive healthcare for all, it would be significantly LESS expensive than our current dysfunctional system because it would eliminate an enormous amount of the bureaucracy, profiteering, administrative costs and misplaced priorities inherent in our current for-profit system. In fact, the congressional budget office has estimated that Medicare for All would save Americans $650 billion a year.

Under Medicare for All there would no longer be armies of insurance employees billing us, telling us what is covered and what is not covered and hounding us to pay our hospital bills. This simplicity not only substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would make life a lot easier for patients, doctors and nurses who would never again have to fight their way through the nightmare of insurance company bureaucracy.

As we speak, Republicans are working overtime to make a bad healthcare situation even worse. They want to pass a “reconciliation bill” that would decimate Medicaid and throw millions of Americans off the healthcare they have in order to give huge tax breaks to billionaires.

Obviously, we must defeat that terrible legislation. But we must do much more. We cannot simply defend the status quo in healthcare and the Affordable Care Act – legislation that has provided massive amounts of corporate welfare to the big insurance companies and big drug companies – while premiums, deductibles, co-payments and the price of medicine has soared.

The time is NOW to rethink healthcare in America. The time is NOW to declare that healthcare in our country is a right and not a privilege. The time is NOW to stand up to the greed and power of special interests who make huge profits off of a cruel and broken system. The time is NOW to pass Medicare for All.

Enacting Medicare for All would be a transformative moment for our country.

It would not only keep people healthier, happier and increase life expectancy, it would be a major step forward in creating a more vibrant democracy. Imagine what it would mean for the people of our country if we had a government that represented the needs of ordinary people and not just powerful corporate interests and billionaire campaign donors.

This is America. We can do it.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case where religious families in Montgomery County, Maryland, sought to opt their children out of public school lessons involving LGBTQ storybooks. The conservative majority seemed likely to favor the parents, prioritizing religious freedom and parental rights. Justices like Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh questioned the feasibility of denying opt outs, while liberal justices worried about broader impacts. Should parents be able to have their kids educated a la carte, choosing which lessons align with their beliefs? This debate highlights tensions between individual rights and standardized education, with a ruling expected soon.

The post A La Carte Education: Skip The LGBTQ Storybook Special appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

I want to tell you today about two potential bright spots.

The most obvious joy, of course, came last night in Canada, where citizens of the not-51st-state rejected a Trump-lite figure named Pierre Poilievre (who had been leading by 23 points on January 20!) and instead elected Mark Carney to lead their country. This has been correctly interpreted by all as a reaction to the ham-handed bullying of the canned ham currently resident in the White House. But though he was elected a little by accident (albeit after a brilliant campaign) it means something far more: in Carney we now have the world leader who knows more than any of his peers about climate change. And who knows roughly twenty times as much about climate and energy economics as anyone else in power. He may turn out to be a truly crucial figure in the fight to turn the climate tide.

If it wouldn’t strain you financially to take out a modestly priced and voluntary subscription, then thank you! If it would, no worries

I’ve been watching Carney for a long time. A graduate, of course, of both Harvard and Goldman Sachs, he was governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 financial crisis and performed admirably enough that the queen asked him over to run the Bank of England. (It’s probably not quite how that works, but close enough). While in that job, he had the fun of trying to deal with the UK’s Brexit decision, and by all accounts again performed better than one might have expected. So now he gets the task of cleaning up after Trump’s insane tariffs.

But actually it’s the much bigger mess—the one in the atmosphere—that I suspect has long interested him most. In 2014, at a World Bank panel, he quite forthrightly pointed out that we would need to leave the “vast majority” of fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we were at all serious about holding the increase in the temperature of the planet below two degrees. This was, on the one hand, clearly obvious to anyone who had looked at the physics, but on the other hand not something that most leaders were willing to say at the time, or to this day. Those of us who had recently launched the fossil fuel divestment campaign found it to be a great boost—one of three or four crucial moments that turned this into one of the largest anti-corporate campaigns in history.

A year later, wearing a tux and speaking at an opulent dinner to the “names” who run the premier insurance brokerage Lloyds of London, Carney went further, giving one of the most important speeches of the climate era. It is well worth reading in its entirety, but here is the crucial section

Climate change is the Tragedy of the Horizon.

We don’t need an army of actuaries to tell us that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix.

That means beyond: - the business cycle; - the political cycle; and - the horizon of technocratic authorities, like central banks, who are bound by their mandates.

The horizon for monetary policy extends out to 2-3 years. For financial stability it is a bit longer, but typically only to the outer boundaries of the credit cycle – about a decade.

In other words, once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.

This talk came in the run-up to the Paris climate talks, and it was one important reason they succeeded; Carney’s sober warning, and his insistence on the need for disclosure by countries and companies of their emissions, helped smooth the way for what is still the high water mark of climate progress.

And the next year, in 2016, he gave the Arthur Burns Memorial Lecture in Berlin. Again, it is worth reading in its entirety, but for a man who is now fully a politician, here is an important passage.

Underpinning the Paris Agreement is recognition that the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should not exceed the remaining carbon budget, which according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) amounts to 1000 gigatonnes of CO2 from 2011 onwards.
Countries have set their ambitions by submitting their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). At present, these commitments are of varying degrees of specificity, and most still need to be fleshed out to be consistent with the aggregate carbon budget. The Paris Agreement requires that NDCs be updated regularly and that each should be a progression on the last.
Crucially, the Paris Agreement provided an objective assessment that, even if all of the policies implied by the Agreement were implemented, global temperatures would rise by at least 2.7 degrees by 2100. In other words, the world has committed to do something, but not yet enough to meet its stated goals.

The man who said those clear and bold words now finds himself leading a nation hard hit by climate change: Canada has a front row seat the melt of the Arctic, which is the fastest-heating part of the earth; it has watched its boreal forests burn like never before in recent years.

But the man who said those bold words also finds himself leading a nation that contains Alberta, whose vast pool of tarsands makes its one of the biggest carbon deposits on planet earth.

His predecessor Justin Trudeau could never figure out how to square those facts, because they are not easy to square (and also because Trudeau was a nepo baby to the max). But also because he came into power at a moment when fossil fuel was still cheaper than renewable energy, and hence clearly valuable. Carney comes into power when that equation has flipped: we now live on a planet where wind and sun provide energy more cheaply than gas and oil (and where the sane if brutal superpower, China, has clearly figured that out). That fact may give him room to move his country decisively in the right direction.

So here’s the second good thing I wanted to talk about, one that underscores the point I’m trying to make about Carney’s opportunity.

Over the weekend, American officials were in London as part of a large International Energy Agency Summit on the Future of Energy Security. It wasn’t about climate, really, though it did begin with a letter from the King pointing out that “events over recent years have shown that, when well-managed, the transition to more sustainable energy systems can lead itself to more resilient and secure energy systems.”

The U.S. was having none of that. Our man—someone named Tommy Joyce whose biography points out that he has sailed his monohull across the Pacific ocean with his wife, so that’s good—used the occasion to criticize renewables because they depended on China. He recommended that everyone buy a lot of American LNG to power their countries instead. As he put it:

“A typical offshore wind turbine requires four tonnes of a permanent magnet made in the form of rare earth elements and, since China, the supplier of nearly all of them, restricted their sale, there are no wind turbines without concessions or coercion from China.”

Which, true enough. But if your point is that countries don’t want to rely on undependable foreign nations for their energy supply, have you noticed that America has gone crazy in the last hundred days? China is ruthless, but they’re not erratic. (And they’re busy shoring up their climate bona fides). No one was going to say so to his face, but Joyce was describing last year’s world.

More to the point, even if you need to rely on China to build your wind turbine or your solar panel, you need to rely on them once. Because once it’s up, then you’re relying on the wind, the sun, and your stock of batteries, all of which seem eminently more dependable than Donald Trump or J.D. Vance.

And so, as Politico put it, Joyce received a “shrug.”

Joyce’s speech was met with silence. The “awkward but unanimous” moment was “telling,” said one European official who was in the room.

Responding to Joyce’s comments, U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told POLITICO: “I think overall, I would say that the general tenor of these discussions indicates where people are going, which is toward a clean energy transition.”

The U.S. won’t want to hear that—Trump’s plan is all about “energy dominance” through our control of hydrocarbons. And he’s still got people buying into it: LNG exporter Woodside today announced a $17.5 billion investment in new export terminals, with its CEO exulting over its “asset lifespan of more tha forty years.” Trump will do his best to help—he’s essentially compelling Asian nations to sign up for more LNG contracts on the threat of being tariffed. But my guess is that countries will look to buy as little as they can get away with, while they build up their renewable portfolios as fast as they can. For instance, here’s what Barbados’ energy minister Lisa Cummins explained to the London summit:

She added that, as well as suffering from fossil fuels through the climate crisis, Barbados spent over $1 billion importing fossil fuels to generate electricity in 2024. The Caribbean country’s biggest fossil fuel suppliers are Trinidad and Tobago and the US, but it aims to generate all of its electricity from renewables in 2030, using solar, wind and battery storage.

In the very short run, Trump’s insanity may help Alberta—if I had no choice but to depend on LNG, I’d rather buy it from Carney’s Canada, confident that a longtime central banker realizes a deal is a deal. (He seems unlikely, say, to put judges in jail when they disagree with him). But over the slightly longer term the same logic applies to Canada as the U.S., and it all complements Carney’s original 2014 insight: this stuff needs to stay in the ground. It will wreck the climate, and now it will wreck your economy.

I’d say that the rest of the world is going to recognize Carney as the most likely person to midwife us through this transition. I think he’s not done playing a world-historical role, and for that if nothing else we can thank Donald Trump.

Unless something goes awry, both Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi will be in a Vermont courtroom in the next few weeks. Both will contest the government’s right to abduct and imprison people with no due process, because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Both prisoners ask for the ancient right of habeas corpus, a remedy for wrongful detention which prevented kings of England from throwing people in jail arbitrarily. The courts will decide whether freedom of speech and due process for everyone are still the law of the land.

But you and I will decide whether we, the people, will allow illegal arrests like these, or whether we will protest so loudly that the government dare not continue them. Why should we be concerned? What happened here? In the crush of so many outrages, it’s easy to lose track how these two cases involve the same core issues and yet are different in some important respects.

One contrast is that Mahdawi had a public role in organizing and protesting with a Columbia Palestinian students’ union until March 2024, when he withdrew because he advocated for Palestine as a safe place for Jews and Palestinians alike. Ozturk’s only “crime” is co-authoring a column in the Tufts University newspaper asking that the University acknowledge the genocide of more than 50,000 of the Palestinian people, and act accordingly. A State Department investigation before her arrest found no link at all to terrorism or antisemitism. Ozturk literally has been locked up only because of her written words, while Mahdawi was out on the streets exercising his right to free speech.

Can anyone really believe that a column in a university newspaper or demonstrations on a college campus could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?

Another contrast is that Mahdawi reacted to doxxing and false accusations by going underground, and was interviewed by CBS News the day before his arrest. He was prepared. Ozturk was fearful but continued her private life. When Mahdawi reported at the “honey trap” of a long-awaited citizenship interview, he was accompanied by allies who videoed him being taken away in handcuffs. He knew what he was walking into, and decided it was worth the risk because the interview might fulfill his dream: U.S. citizenship. He had the immediate attention of his lawyers, his neighbors, and the press.

The contrast with Rumeysa Ozturk’s arrest and abduction could not be greater. The unsuspecting 30-year-old woman was walking in broad daylight to an interfaith center when six masked agents swooped down on her, grabbed her phone, handcuffed her, and marched her to an unmarked vehicle. For 24 nightmarish hours, Ozturk was whisked across state lines to New Hampshire and then Vermont where she was held overnight, and at dawn flown to Louisiana where she has been imprisoned ever since. Her statement says that she initially thought she was in the hands of killers, not police. Ozturk’s repeated requests to call her lawyer were refused.

While Mahdawi says he is “in good hands” in a Vermont prison, Ozturk has described a nightmarish situation at the detention center in Louisiana. Both in her written statement to the court, and in her conversations with the senator and representatives who visited her, she described 24 women and a mouse in a cell meant for 14. In sum, “unsanitary, unsafe, and inhumane.” Ozturk has also been deprived of asthma medication and healthcare, and her hijab was removed without consent.

For all these differences, the cases have some similarities apart from involving the Palestinian cause. Both people have extensive support from their communities. The classic white-steepled church in Hartland, Vermont was packed with Mahdawi’s neighbors who wanted to help him any way they could. The District judge had never seen so many letters of support (almost 100). Ozturk is also highly regarded. In addition to letters from the President of Tufts University (whom her column criticized) and many colleagues and faculty, 27 national Jewish organizations supported her in an amicus brief. They of all people should understand the dangers of abducting people on the street because of what they say, with no due process.

In both landmark cases, judges specifically ordered that the prisoners not be moved from the state where they were arrested. Mahdawi is still in Vermont because the judge’s order was sought and granted immediately. The agents who abducted Ozturk hurtled across the Massachusetts border and crossed three state lines before 24 hours had passed. The Trump administration contends that Ozturk’s petition is invalid because it wasn’t filed in the right state—despite the fact that they prevented her from communicating until she was in Louisiana.

Both Ozturk and Mahdawi were the victims of doxxing, and false information spread through networks of extremists who targeted them. Ozturk’s column was her only public statement on the Palestinian issue, and the Trump administration had to stretch to find something amiss—that her words were in sympathy with a group that was later temporarily banned on campus. Far from being an antisemite as charged, Mahdawi was the leader of a protest where he led the whole group in chanting, “Shame on you” at a demonstrator who cursed the Jewish people.

The basis for the Trump administration’s action in both situations is vague and alarming. Can anyone really believe that a column in a university newspaper or demonstrations on a college campus could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?

Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi are petitioning for one of the oldest rights in our common law, because their rights under the U.S. Constitution—to speak and to have due process of law—have been violated in numerous ways. Whether you are in Vermont with its traditions of free speech and direct democracy, or in any of the other 49 states where the Bill of Rights is still alive, speak for them. Speak to your president who has jailed them and his officials, your senators and representative, every form of media you read or see, your state and local government. Stand by the road with a sign, and invite your neighbors to join you. Talk to all the organizations you belong to and connect with people, regardless of their political beliefs. Most people feel that no one in our country should be abducted and jailed arbitrarily.

The rights you save might be your own. In fact, they are—at least for now.

LIVE 10 am Eastern, Streaming After:

The TMI Show with Ted Rall and Manila Chan confronts the spiraling Kashmir crisis, where a horrific attack has pushed India and Pakistan to the brink of war. Joined by VK Samhith, a visionary Indian game developer and astute cultural commentator who founded BornMonkie Studios, the hosts deliver a blistering analysis of whether the April 22, Pahalgam attack—killing 26 tourists—could ignite a fourth war between these nuclear-armed rivals. Ted Rall, who’s traveled to the region and chronicled its fraught history, offers unparalleled insight, while Manila Chan’s razor-sharp questions cut through the chaos.

The attack, claimed by The Resistance Front but denied by Pakistan, has triggered India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, border closures, and a crackdown arresting over 500 in Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated by closing airspace to Indian flights and suspending trade, while both sides have exchanged gunfire along the Line of Control for days, raising fears of escalation. The UN and US urge restraint, but India’s vow to hunt the perpetrators “to the ends of the earth” looms large. Could this be the spark for a nuclear nightmare? TMI fearlessly dissects the stakes, blending hard-hitting facts with the raw, unfiltered edge that defines the show. This isn’t just news—it’s a pulse-pounding dive into war, power, and survival in a global flashpoint. Tune in for expert perspectives and a conversation that dares to challenge the mainstream narrative. Catch this urgent episode now on your favorite platform and join the dialogue that matters.

The post TMI Show Ep 127: “Kashmir on the Brink: Will Nuclear Rivals Clash Again?” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

On the evening of November 5, 2024, I sat at a gathering of organizers and volunteers from the campaign to pass Proposition 139, a citizen-driven initiative in Arizona seeking to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution.

After an hour or so of waiting with bated breath, the bulk of Arizona’s ballot initiative results had been counted and posted online. Our hard work had paid off! Prop 139 had amassed 66% voter support (a number that would decrease to a still impressive 61% by the final tally.) After a significant round of applause and the shedding of a few tears, the party settled into a pleasant thrum.

At first I expected shouting, screaming, and crying—we had won a massive victory! But I quickly understood that the celebration was more subdued than expected because the results were exactly what the lead organizers of the campaign hadanticipated: a win.

Healthcare Rising and Prop 139 won because they refused to partake in party politics and instead tailored their campaign toward fighting for issues that were resonant and supported in their constituency and across the political spectrum.

Ultimately, it was unsurprising that this initiative to enshrine abortion access passed in Arizona, despite voters in the state supporting anti-abortion candidate and now U.S. President Donald Trump, because reproductive freedom itself as a policy has proven to be overwhelmingly popular when put to a vote by the electorate.

A recent report from our team at the Center for Work and Democracy uses data from citizen-driven initiatives—ballot initiatives that are drafted, petitioned, and voted on by citizens themselves—from the last 15 years to see where patterns in voting emerge. Put very briefly, we found that people vote for policies that are egalitarian and economically redistributive.

Egalitarian measures—which equalize rights, resources, and decision-making power in society—pass at a rate of 65.63% across blue and red states alike. Initiatives supporting reproductive rights, for example, are considered egalitarian and prove to be extremely successful at the polls. Despite a difficult loss in Florida in the 2024 election and a complicated voting stalemate in Nebraska, abortion access has been protected by voters in 14 out of 17 cases since the fall of Roe v. Wade.

Redistributive measures are a subsect of egalitarian initiatives that specifically focus on the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, like raising the minimum wage. With an even greater passage rate than other egalitarian measures, redistributive ballot measures clock in with an impressive win rate of 75%. In red states, this number rises all the way to a whopping 92% compared to 61.29% in blue states. (We found that blue states’ averages are skewed down by California’s initiative results, which are far less progressive than the state’s image.)

When Healthcare Rising Arizona and the other co-organizers of the campaign for Prop 139 set out to get the initiative on the ballot and enshrined in the state constitution, they knew that party politics were not going to help their cause. From day one, the campaign for 139 was clear that their organizing would be strictly nonpartisan because they knew that abortion as a policy was more popular than any individual Democratic candidates, despite those Democrats being vocally pro-choice.

The strategy worked. The Arizona for Abortion Access Act passed with 417,427 more votes than former Vice President Kamala Harris received in Arizona, proving that egalitarian policies like reproductive rights are simply more popular than pro-choice candidates.

Healthcare Rising and Prop 139 won because they refused to partake in party politics and instead tailored their campaign toward fighting for issues that were resonant and supported in their constituency and across the political spectrum.

Our data tells us that egalitarian and redistributive measures are exceedingly popular with red and blue voters alike. So if Republican and Democrat voters both want many of the same things—policies that equalize rights, break down wealth inequality, and support the decision-making power of everyday people—why won’t politicians just give the people what they want?

During the Trump administration’s recent torrent of executive orders, the Navy paused sexual assault and prevention trainings in response to the administration’s demand to remove all DEI initiatives and programs. The U.S. armed forces are plagued by an epidemic of sexual assault, one of the most devastating markers of persistent gender inequality within the military. The Navy’s pause of just a few days signals the tenuous nature of protections for service members, especially women and minorities, who are by far the most numerous victims of assault.

The military’s sexual assault crisis speaks to the violence embedded within miliary institutions. Intimate partner violence, for instance, is disproportionately high among military and veterans populations. SAPRO, the Sexual Assault and Prevention Response Office of the Department of Defense (DOD), is the only resource that provides prevention and trainings on sexual assault and advocacy services to victims. It is the sole database for reporting and prevalence tracking of unwanted sexual contact in the military, making the Navy’s pause all the more alarming.

The U.S. military has been systematically tracking data via SAPRO since 2005 when the National Defense Authorization Act began to require information to be presented to Congress. However, independent reporting and data from organizations assisting sexual assault survivors indicate a spike in assaults immediately following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This is the year the United States declared an official “Global War on Terror,” which the U.S. military still carries out operations for in 78 countries as of 2023. Also in 2001, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center officially designated April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

In any other workplace, if 1 in 4 women were sexually assaulted by their coworker or superior, there would be a national outrage.

This Sexual Assault Awareness month, we must talk about sexual assault as a disastrous cost of war.

The military’s epidemic of sexual assault is much worse than the DOD is willing to admit. Our Costs of War project research compared the Department of Defense’s data on sexual assault prevalence to independent (non-DOD) data to estimate sexual assault figures within the military from 2001 through 2023. We found that independent data suggest that actual sexual assault prevalence is 2 to 4 times higher than official DOD estimations.

The Trump administration’s policies will only worsen this crisis. Particularly in a hierarchical institution such as the military, the leadership exemplifies the values that the institution expects all members to uphold. It is notable that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was himself accused of sexual assault in 2017 and has a long track record of sexist behavior.

Since 2001, 24% of active-duty women and 1.9% of active-duty men in the U.S. military have experienced sexual assault. That is almost one-fourth of all women in the U.S. military, and given low reporting rates, it is likely even more. Fear of retaliation is one of the primary reasons service members do not report sexual assault, with data showing that service members are 12 times more likely to face retaliation than to see their offender convicted. Nationwide, 81% of women and 43% of men reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetime.

Experiences of gender inequality are most pronounced for women of color, who experience intersecting forms of racism and sexism and are one of the fastest-growing populations within the military. Furthermore, independent data also confirm that queer and trans service members face a disproportionately greater risk for sexual assault.

These numbers are staggering. In any other workplace, if 1 in 4 women were sexually assaulted by their coworker or superior, there would be a national outrage.

The sexual assault crisis should draw our attention to the contradiction of military policies aimed at greater gender and racial equity when this institution waged post-9/11 wars that displaced 38 million people, directly killed 929,000 people, and indirectly killed 4.5-4.7 million people worldwide. The wars waged by the U.S. are existentially linked both to the military as an institution and to the persistent racism and sexism within the U.S. Efforts such as the bipartisan, bicameral legislation recently introduced to help survivors of military sexual trauma (MST) more easily access care and benefits, as well as boost MST claims processing, must be resoundingly supported. One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Minn.) said, “This goes far beyond administrative shortcomings at the VA; it’s a fundamental breach of our moral and constitutional duty to those who served.”

Although there have been consistent internal interventions and resources intended to address military sexual assault, this form of violence continues to occur, illustrating that reforms have not meaningfully transformed institutional patterns of abuse. Military officials have themselves described, in retrospect, that the military prioritized training and deploying troops to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars over confronting a clear institutional problem of sexual assault. In fact, the deliberate cover-up of harassments, assaults, and disappearances of service members to protect sexual predators and their enablers in the U.S. military has been evident in numerous high-profile cases over the years.

The goal is not solely to have higher reporting numbers or more initiatives, but to completely eradicate sexual assault from occuring. Sexual assault in the U.S. military is fundamentally and inextricably linked to fighting wars abroad. Important as they are, better reporting infrastructure or training and prevention programs within the DOD are not enough. This Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we should ask for more—an end to sexual assault and an end to endless wars.

What assurance do any of us have that government agents will not knock at our door, claiming authority to detain us? How do we know that masked agents will not abduct us on the street, taking us somewhere far away?

In ordinary times and places, it would be madness to ask such questions. Rumeysa Ozturk may well have thought so before masked, plainclothes government agents took her off the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts and she ended up in Louisiana. Ms. Ozturk had been studying in the United States on a student visa.

Badar Khan Suri may have thought so before masked agents took him from the street outside his home in Virginia to a federal detention center where he “was issued used underwear and a bright red uniform that is usually reserved for detained individuals who have been classified as ‘high security’ based on their criminal history.” Dr. Suri, like Ms. Ozturk, was in the U.S. legally. Dr. Suri is married to a U.S. citizen; he and his wife have three young children, one of whom “spent days crying uncontrollably following this father’s disappearance, and [then] stopped speaking.”

I don’t know how anyone in the United States sleeps at night.

We are firmly in Martin Niemoller territory, and it may be too late. It is, of course, already too late in an important sense for Ms. Ozturk, Dr. Suri, and many others—some of whom had legal status in the United States, some of whom did not. Some have been taken to federal detention centers within the U.S. Others are in a foreign prison notorious for torture. Trump administration officials brag they are never coming back. President Donald Trump himself speaks openly of sending U.S. citizens there, and publicly asks that country’s dictator to build more prisons to hold those Trump sends.

There is no mystery here, and we cannot say we are surprised as this reign of terror extends further. Trump has openly told us that “homegrowns are next. You [El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele] gotta build about five more places.”

I don’t know how anyone in the United States sleeps at night. Like U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), I am afraid (unlike Sen. Murkowski, I do not have access to much power). FBI agents arrested a judge in Wisconsin last week. This is bone-chilling stuff.

We are always a step or two behind Donald Trump. Those of us who find him abhorrent may have thought of him as a joke when he first ran for president in 2015-16. That is understandable. Trump is a creature of reality television and the New York tabloids, manifestly unfit to hold any position of public trust. Even after a decade in politics, he remains painfully uninformed and incurious. That does not, however, render him innocuous in any way.

He has all the levers of power available to him that he needs to carry out the unspeakable things he has already done and more. All he needs is people willing to carry out his orders and no one capable of stopping him. He has his minions lined up, eager to do his bidding—people like Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Tom Homan, as well as rank and file government officials who work for them. The U.S. Congress has rendered itself a nullity, thanks in large part to Republican senators and representatives who have made clear they will do nothing to stop Trump, no matter how far he goes. There are judges, especially lower federal court judges, who are doing the right thing and insisting on constitutional limits, but those limits mean nothing if they are not backed up by the Supreme Court and Congress.

We may like to think that we will have warning before it is too late. I know someone who lives in the northern U.S. and says he is just a couple of hours from Canada if things get too dangerous. How would proximity to the border have helped Ms. Ozturk, Dr. Suri, or others when federal agents descended upon them?

We have descended into darkness and, at the moment—unless and until others take action to stop them—an aspiring dictator and his followers will decide exactly how far we go. The first step in responding is describing precisely what we are experiencing and what it means. If you grew up in the U.S., like me, wondering what it might be like to live in a country where no one is assured of their security, where no one is truly safe, or if you lived in another country where this has already happened, then this will seem familiar. Organized action is needed—I am speaking of peaceful protest, lawful actions, starting with impeachment and removal of Donald Trump and his minions from office. That may sound laughable, and it certainly cannot happen yet. But it must happen if we are to delivered from this waking nightmare.

The Democratic National Committee needs to take a step back and reflect on the moment in which it finds itself. The sense of national anxiety and uncertainty is palpable. Trust in our institutions is staggeringly low. Everyday Americans are scared, and they’re looking for actual leadership. They’re looking for hope. They’re looking for visionaries.

However, for the sake of party unity and integrity, the leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) must remain neutral when it comes to primary challengers.

At least, that’s what the DNC leadership is saying now.

The only way to win back the trust of voters and challenge the proto-authoritarian regime we’re up against is by listening to the demands of working-class people and dropping the paternalistic attitude that insists the elites know best.

That certainly wasn’t the approach taken in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was given insurmountable preference and privilege by the DNC, and again in 2020 when early primary victories for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) sent the party establishment into a panic. Deals were made, and party elites all but sealed the nomination for former President Joe Biden. Neutrality surely wasn’t a priority then.

So what changed? A young, occasionally progressive vice-chair of the DNC with a massive platform announced that his personal grassroots organization, unaffiliated with the DNC, would pledge funds to back primary challengers in democratic strongholds where the running incumbents are failing to rise to the moment we face, and are pompously ignoring the demands for bold change from their constituents. Now, all of a sudden, it would be improper for anyone with real influence in the party infrastructure to pick a side in contested primaries. Interesting. Apparently it’s only improper for party officials to pick a side when the side they pick challenges the status quo.

DNC Vice-Chair David Hogg is right to call out do-nothing Democrats who cling to power while refusing to fight for popular policies like Medicare for All, green jobs, and a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. These corporate-backed incumbents are dead weight on the party, and are more concerned with donor checks than the people they claim to represent. But where Hogg, and too many well-meaning liberals, fall short in their criticism is in their failure to articulate a bold, unapologetically populist vision that names the enemy: a rigged political system in which wealthy donors, corporations, and special interests can buy off politicians of both parties, and subvert the will of the people by simply writing a check.

The party establishment may not have gotten the memo, but the voters certainly have. According to a February Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults of both parties, the role of money in politics is the issue described by the highest percentage of respondents (72%) as “a very big problem,” followed closely by the affordability of healthcare (67%).

We need candidates and a party that refuse to accept dark money in the primaries. We need candidates and a party that draw a sharp distinction on this front. The Democratic Party must be a democratic party, not a plutocratic or oligarchic party.

If the DNC wants to be the vehicle the future requires, it must rally behind candidates who dare to say that healthcare is a human right, and will fight for a single-payer system. The party needs primary challengers who will unapologetically say that our tax dollars should pay for public services, not for bombs that are sent overseas to maim and murder civilians. We need candidates committed to a transformational Green jobs investment. We don’t need lip service and half-measures, but a full-scale mobilization to save our planet from climate catastrophe and corporate greed. We need candidates who will say enough is enough.

The moderate, establishment wing of the Democratic Party would have you believe that these policies are too radical, fringe, and unrealistic to help win elections. These political elites spend so much time convincing the media that they represent the views of the average voter that perhaps they’ve even begun to believe it themselves. The facts tell a different story.

Not only have progressive policies been proven successes in countless advanced democracies all over the world, but they are also extremely popular among Democratic voters. Let’s first look at who is currently popular among the Democratic base. As of last month, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating stands at just 29%. By contrast, the popularity of bold progressive voices in the party is dwarfing that of establishment moderates. Bernie Sanders, alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is drawing massive crowds scarcely seen in nonelection years on their Fighting Oligarchy tour, while centrist Democrats are struggling to adequately respond to frustrated crowds at their town halls. According to a CNN poll from March 2025, 1 in 6 voters under 45 describe AOC as “emblematic of the party’s values,” much higher than any other politician listed in the poll.

With 48 years separating them, their popularity has less to do with age, and more to do with progressives’ ability to articulate a vision of the future for America that offers more than returning to business as usual. Working class Americans feel left in the dust in a rapidly changing economy that values quick profit over long-term growth and sustainability. The Biden administration failed to acknowledge and sufficiently address the challenges of struggling Americans, and the Kamala Harris campaign didn’t do enough to convince voters that it would be responsive to their needs..

The citizens of this country want to know that their vote and their voice matters, and that it won’t be drowned out by the overwhelming noise of super PACS and billionaire donors. They want to know that a devastating medical emergency won’t be the cause of their family’s bankruptcy. They don’t want the laws of this country to reinforce the idea that the value of your voice and the value of your life are directly tied to the amount of money in your bank account.

The bottom line is this: You win elections by responding to the needs and the concerns of the voters. When the voters of both parties agree that the electoral system is rigged for the rich and the healthcare system is broken, and yet both parties refuse to do anything meaningful about either of those problems, it inevitably follows that voters will look for leaders who seek to fundamentally change the parties that ignore them.

The DNC and the Democratic Party must recognize that leading into the midterms, we are truly at an inflection point. The playbook of the past has failed. There is no reviving it. The only way to win back the trust of voters and challenge the proto-authoritarian regime we’re up against is by listening to the demands of working-class people and dropping the paternalistic attitude that insists the elites know best. While we may disagree with David Hogg on certain issues and candidates, his commitment to cutting the dead weight from the Democratic Party is commendable. Where his strategy misses the mark, however, is in failing to articulate that what we need is not just young candidates willing to fight against Trump. We need to back young candidates willing to fight for a version of America that lives up to its promise in action, not just rhetoric.