For generations, the United States has been a global advocate for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Today, however, the world is calling on the United States to uphold those same principles at home.

Last month, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), representing over 200 million workers through 340 national affiliates in 169 countries, ranked the United States among countries with “systemic violations of worker rights.” The ITUC’s Global Rights Index assesses over 150 countries based on 97 indicators drawn from international standards and jurisprudence.

Given the measurable increase in violations since last year, the United States was also placed on the report’s “Watchlist,” alongside Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Liberia, Moldova, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe.

The inclusion of the United States on the ITUC’s Watchlist is based on the pattern of backsliding of fundamental rights over the past year and serves as a troubling indicator of the country’s current state of affairs. The report notes that, in the United States:

• More than 1 million federal workers have lost their right to collective bargaining.
• The National Labor Relations Board has been left unable to fulfill its essential role of protecting workers’ rights.
• Tens of thousands of immigrant union members have been stripped of their status and rights through the unlawful termination of various forms of rights-based protections and programs.
• Immigration enforcement is being used as a tool to suppress the exercise of freedom of expression, assembly, and association by detaining or revoking the visas of workers who take action or express views contrary to that of the government.

These actions by the Trump administration are intended to undermine workers’ rights to join a union, bargain collectively, and speak freely, but their impacts extend far beyond the workplace.

When workers exercise their rights at work, they are not only better equipped to advocate for better working conditions, they are also better able to engage democratically in their communities. It is often through a union at work that people first vote and run in elections. Currently, there are 564 union and household members who are endorsed to run for office in the midterm elections in the United States, a number that is expected to rise as the elections draw close later this year.

The actions taken by the Trump administration therefore not only threaten working conditions across the country but also debilitate people’s ability to civically engage. As a result, communities will be less prepared to resist other issues they face like corruption, abusive use of technology, and corporate greed.

The weakening of rights in the United States set a dangerous precedent for the world. Governments, employers, and investors across the world are observing and some will feel encouraged to follow.

The good news is that this story is not over.

Across the United States, workers continue to organize. They continue to win union recognition, negotiate better conditions, and build power across industries and communities. Their determination reminds the world that democracy is not sustained by institutions alone, it depends on people who are prepared to defend it every day.

When American workers fight back for their rights, they strengthen democracy not only at home, but around the world.

Half of Americans say they’re having trouble paying for gas and groceries. Their president and the ruling Republicans don’t seem to care much, much less be willing to do anything about it.

The post Half of Americans Can’t Afford Groceries appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

I’m screwed.

You’ve had that thought. You’ve had that feeling: short breaths, panic, hollow chest. This is big. I may not ever be able to get out of this. No one can or will help me.

The doctor closes the door. I don’t like what I see in these lab results.

Firetrucks blocking my street. What’s going on? Ohhhh.

Many events that leave you with that “I’m screwed” feeling are nobody’s fault. Diseases happen. Many can’t be helped. Some diseases are incurable.

There are, however, crises that society can come together either to avoid, mitigate, or even solve. In a high-functioning society with responsive politics, humans marshal their collective resources in order to help individuals who suffer misfortune. Some cultures respond to those among them who are in trouble out of ethical or legal duty. There but for the grace of God go I. If I ignore her cries, I might be arrested for negligence. Others come together as a form of insurance motivated by self-interest: our nation is a hot desert full of dangerous reptiles. If my car breaks down in a sandstorm, I will need someone to offer me shelter; in order to maintain this useful social compact, I will open my door to someone who knocks during a sandstorm.

For a myriad of reasons, we Americans increasingly live in a country that gives more people an increasing number of reasons to conclude that they’re screwed, and that there’s nothing anyone can or will do to help them.

Let’s say that, through no fault of your own, you lose your job. “Not for cause” is, by the way, the main reason most Americans who get fired wind up with no income. Long-term tenured workers lose their livelihoods to “restructuring” and “reorganization,” because their employer moves far away, or there is an economic slowdown. Only a few people get canned for incompetence or misconduct.

Consequences of job loss range from substantial—stress and lost income while job searching—to fatal. Being out of work increases your odds of committing suicide by 60% to 100%. Job loss is also tied to higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease, alcohol-related liver disease, and “deaths of despair” like drug overdoses.

The United States doesn’t offer much help to people who might die because they can no longer afford food or shelter for themselves or their families. An American worker who loses their job through no fault of their own can expect to collect a national average of $532 per week in unemployment insurance benefits. In most states, these benefits expire after a maximum of 26 weeks.

That’s $18,800 total. And, thanks to Ronald Reagan, you pay taxes on that.

And if you can’t find a job? You’re screwed.

Let’s say you get sick. Really, really sick. As in, hospitalization and operations.

Again, the consequences of a severe medical crisis range from bad—weakened health, lost income, etc.—to fatal.

Again, the United States doesn’t have much to offer those who don’t happen to have the average $30,000 “chargemaster” rate that the uninsured—that’s about one out of ten Americans—are expected to shell out for a three-day hospital stay. Both misfortunes—your health setback and the ginormous bill—are your burdens to bear alone.

The U.S. is the only high-income industrialized country without universal healthcare. The U.S. is alone among OECD countries in lacking paid leave for parents. The U.S. does not, unlike most advanced countries, offer free or low-cost college. As discussed, unemployment benefits exist here, but they’re much lower and shorter than in European systems.

America’s penurious social policies would be easier to accept were it not for the Brobdingnagian chasm between what we pay in taxes and what we collect as benefits if—as we often do—we get in trouble. We shell out roughly 12% to 15% less of our income in taxes than Western Europeans, while receiving very few direct payouts from social programs.

We’re politically polarized. Right-wingers want smaller government, lower taxes and fewer services. Lefties want bigger government, higher taxes and more services. What we have instead makes no one happy, and everyone angry.

As a leftist, I would like to live in a country whose citizens were often mistaken when they believed and said that they were screwed, because they had a system that cared about them enough to want to help.

(Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of “Never Mind the Democrats. Here’s What’s Left.” Subscribe: tedrall.Substack.com. He is co-host of the podcast “DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas.”)

 

The post We’re Screwed appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Long before global environmental summits sensationalized terms like sustainability and ecological restoration, a young teenager in an almost forgotten corner of the world stood on a barren, sun-baked sandbar with just 20 bamboo seedlings in his hands.

He was oblivious to the future his hands would sow, a future that would etch his name in textbooks around the world. Today, observances like World Nature Conservation Day exist to remind us how crucial such grassroots action is.

In 1997, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) declared July 28 as the World Nature Conservation Day. Since then, it has evolved into a global movement, galvanizing governments, institutions, civil society, and individuals to advance collective action for environmental stewardship.

This World Nature Conservation Day, the story of this boy who came to be known as the "Forest Man of India" stands as a testament to the power of individual environmental stewardship.

Jadav 'Molai' Payeng

A wall carving of Jadav Payeng is displayed at Goalpara college. (Photo by Medhi Jyoti / CC BY-SA 4.0)

Popularly known as "The Forest Man of India," Payeng earned this title through years of dedication and his childhood passion for change. Change is something that many hope for, but few have the perseverance and groundwork to realize.

Starting with just 20 bamboo seedlings on a sandbar of the river Brahmaputra, he has continued to nurture the plants to this day. Despite the odds, he stood firm with limited resources and determination to keep planting, never giving up on his mission.

This article traces the evolution of his extraordinary journey, examining not only the scale of his environmental contribution but also the quiet determination that sustained it.

The Genesis: How it Started

The origin of the Molai Forest dates back to 1979. Jadav Payeng, who was then employed as a labourer under a development project of the social forestry division, was assigned the stewardship of a 200-hectare patch of land in Arunachapori (an island). The project, which was intended to last for five years, ended in three.

Payeng, who had nowhere else to go, decided to keep planting trees and taking care of the flora he had already planted. In the same year, he found many dead snakes that had died from excessive heat after floods washed them onto the treeless sandbar. It was then that he planted 20 bamboo saplings on the sandbar.

The tale of Jadav Payeng shows that an environmental transformation does not always begin with huge policy changes or major funding. At times, it starts with a single individual who plants a seed and cultivates a dream which never fades away.

It was not just that he took care of the saplings; he also planted additional trees on his own, aiming to convert the area into a forest. What Jadav Payeng has created is arguably the world’s largest man-made forest.

Marked by the recurring devastation of floods on the island of Majuli, Payeng’s childhood was profoundly shaped by the disaster that forced his parents to abandon their native village. Reflecting on his childhood, he recalls that his village provided everything—from thatch to cane needed to sustain a comfortable life in their elevated dwellings, colloquially known as “Chang Ghar.”

Molai Kathoni (Molai Forest)

The Brahmaputra River is shown. (Photo by Dipayan Choudhury / CC BY-SA 4.0)

Molai Kathoni, or the Molai Forest, is the sprawling forest reserve created by Jadav Payeng, named after him as a token of appreciation for his decades of hard work. Now this wonderful forest houses more than 100 varieties of native flora, including hydrophytic, medicinal and aromatic, orchid, fruit-bearing, and timber trees.

The story of Molai Kathoni gained widespread attention in 2008, when a herd of elephants migrated into the forest reserve from the north bank of the Brahmaputra River, moving further south. This unique and flourishing patch of greenery soon caught the eye of the media, who aptly dubbed it “Molai Kathoni,” meaning “Molai’s woods.”

Payeng’s initial efforts evolved into a self-sustaining forest from bamboo to various trees. The net area covered by this forest is a staggering 1,360 acres and shelters threatened species such as Asian elephants, Bengal tigers, and one-horned rhinoceroses. A herd of around 100 elephants regularly visits the forest every year and generally stays for around six months.

In addition, Molai Kathoni provides shelter to 250 families living in about 10 to 12 huts in different groups. Notable flora species from his forest include Arjun (Terminalia arjuna), Pride of India (Lagerstroemia speciosa), Silk trees (Albizia procera), and Cotton trees (Bombax ceiba). Bamboo alone spans over 300 hectares.

Initially, in order to irrigate the large stretch of saplings, Payeng constructed bamboo structures above the saplings and put earthen pots with very small holes in them for drip irrigation. Water was allowed to seep out gradually over several days, nourishing the delicate saplings as he went about other chores.

To transform the infertile sandbar into nutrient-rich soil, Payeng physically transported red ants, earthworms, and organic biomass from his village to the island. The insects served as biological plows, altering the soil's composition and preparing the ground for deciduous trees.

Payeng’s Recognitions

For over three decades, his creation largely remained in the dark, away from public recognition and media sensationalization. When his story finally emerged, the world stood in awe of a man who, despite not having completed his secondary education, had ignited a quiet revolution painted in countless shades of green.

Jadav Payeng went on to win the third-highest civilian award of India: "The Padma Shri" in 2015. He was awarded the "Commonwealth Point of Light" award by the government of the United Kingdom. Payeng was named the "Forest Man of India" by Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2012. In 2025, the Jyoti Prasad Trust instituted the "Jadav Payeng International Award" in his honor.

The innovative solutions he developed, utilizing coconut tree planting to control soil erosion in Majuli, have garnered recognition for helping fight climate change. His inspirational story transcended borders, inspiring a children’s book, Jadav and the Tree Place. Moreover, his story has been integrated into school curricula across the United States and beyond as a compelling lesson in ecology.

Despite international acclaim, numerous awards, and appearances in award-winning documentaries (such as William D. McMaster's Forest Man), Payeng lives a remarkably simple life. He continues to wake up before dawn, taking a boat across the river to care for his forest and earn his living from the sale of milk from his livestock.

Creating a Better World

Payeng's contribution is not just about creating a green forest. The trees that Payeng planted act as carbon sinks, absorbing carbon dioxide while enhancing ecosystem health by supporting biodiversity, regulating water cycles, and sustaining diverse habitats.

Now his focus is on spreading his forest to another sandbar of the Brahmaputra and completely turning Majuli Island into a tropical paradise. In an interview with The Better India, he said that education systems should mandate every child to plant two trees. Payeng reiterated the need to integrate planting trees in school curricula in a TED talk he was invited to in 2015.

The tale of Jadav Payeng shows that an environmental transformation does not always begin with huge policy changes or major funding. At times, it starts with a single individual who plants a seed and cultivates a dream which never fades away.

For those seeking inspiration amid the mayhem of the climate crisis, the Molai island forest is a living testimony to what one dedicated soul can achieve.

As we celebrate World Nature Conservation Day, Payeng’s towering forest whispers a powerful message: Healing our planet doesn’t require an army; it can begin with one person planting the first seed.

Yes, it’s happening and by “it” I distinctly mean climate change. No question about it, this planet is simply getting hotter (and hotter, and hotter yet). Only recently, an international team of scientists reported that greenhouse gas emissions are at an all-time high globally. And if you happened to be one of the estimated 109 million Americans living in certain parts of the Midwestern, Mid-Atlantic, or Northeastern United States recently, then you undoubtedly experienced your sky turning a grim grey (or weird orange) with smoke from those Canadian wildfires that once weren’t but now are a regular summer experience along, of course, with startling heat.

And you might not even have noticed, for instance, that Europe was blasted by heat early, hard, and in a record-setting fashion this summer with its hottest June in history. (It wasn’t a good time to take the London subway, that’s for sure!). Meanwhile, even before those Canadian fires hit, much of the Midwestern and Eastern United States experienced a record-setting heatwave (with more to come). And oh, yes, then there was that report on Legionnaire’s disease breaking out in my hometown, New York City, possibly also linked in some fashion to climate change.

And yet, explain it as you will, surging climate hell (and it does now seem to be happening ever faster), including a possible “super” El Niño weather cycle in the year to come, seldom proves to be a truly headline-making story for long, not in this country, not in the age of President Donald J. Trump. In fact, he’s distinctly into what’s coming to be known as “climate hushing.” Unfortunately, “hush” isn’t really a word that can be used effectively in any context when it comes to him, since he’s not truly quiet about anything on this planet of ours—or, these days, do I mean his?

Under the circumstances (and, yes, I’m already sweating!), consider it strange that an American president should be so visibly set on doing anything he can to ignore—oh, sorry, that’s certainly understating the situation—I guess I mean, anything he can to actively promote the further overheating of this planet of... well, I might once have said “ours” but not in the age of You Know Exactly Whom.

Neither many of the Democrats, nor Donald Trump and his—and these days it is distinctly his—party seem ready to face the world that we’re truly in as the November 2026 elections approach.

And hey, let me not simply dump all the bad karma on him, not when Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine almost four-and-a-half years ago, launching a war that still shows not the slightest sign of ending and war, of course, turns out to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a genuinely remarkable fashion. Not when Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu can’t stop blasting the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon. Not when the US Air Force almost daily continues to bomb what it considers its enemy in Somalia (something you can only hope to keep track of if you read Dave DeCamp at Antiwar.com). Not when Donald Trump (yes, him again!) just can’t stop blasting Iran (and the Iranians continue to respond by blasting their neighbors and US military bases in those countries).

And honestly, that’s just to start down a list—or do I mean to start into deep chaos?—on this distinctly crazed planet of ours. It’s generally growing ever harder to find any version of good news relating to the (yes, again!) distinctly (over)heating world we’re now living in. Under the circumstances, give China some credit. Admittedly, that country still pours more fossil fuels into the atmosphere than any other place on Earth, but in its imperial rise, it’s also taken something remarkably close to full-scale control over making (and selling globally) just about anything from solar panels to wind-turbine equipment that might effectively produce green energy or capture carbon. In fact, give China’s leadership full credit for realizing that the overheating of this planet could prove to be an imperial money-making proposition of the first order.

And yes, give President Trump credit as well. After all, in the end, he’s certain to lend imperial decline new meaning in a distinctly new age for Planet Earth. Can there be any question, in fact, that he’s intent on putting this country (and this planet, too) on the downhill slope of history, while offering China free rein (or do I mean reign?) to control the green energy market globally into what could be a distant (and, given the way things are going, distinctly devastating) future. Hey, hard as it might be to believe, he’s actually spending our taxpayer dollars to get energy companies to agree to cancel (yes, cancel!) planned offshore wind projects, so as not to offer any aid to what he’s labeled a “green scam.” And you really can’t do China a bigger favor (and the rest of us greater harm) than that, can you?

Setting Fire to Our Future

Of course, all of this would truly be funny if it weren’t so deadly serious. After all, to add to the climate mayhem, as The New York Times reported recently, the president appointed “a critic of mainstream climate science to oversee the federal government’s flagship report on how climate change affects the United States.” And why not, given that (as he’s stated more than once) climate change is a first-class “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”? As for predictions about what climate change will do to this planet of ours (no less what it’s already doing), he summed them up this way at the United Nations late last year: “They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”

Meanwhile, in the world of Donald Trump, even the Democrats seem to be in a distinctly climate-hushing mood as the November elections approach. You would think that putting the finger on him for potentially setting fire to our future would be a politically effective approach in any election season. No such luck, though, explain it as you will.

In fact, neither many of the Democrats, nor Donald Trump and his—and these days it is distinctly his—party seem ready to face the world that we’re truly in as the November 2026 elections approach. After all, as part of his campaign season, the president has reached not into the future (god forbid!) but into the American past of my childhood years by starting to call liberal Democrats “communists.” Yes, commies! At Independence Day celebrations on July 4, for instance, he said: “Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We’re not going to let it happen.”

In fact, as The Washington Post recently reported, “From January to June, [right-wing influencers and Republicans] used the words ‘communism’ or ‘communist’ in an average of about 626 posts per week, up from around 439 per week during the same stretch last year—a 43% increase.”

In sum, how truly apocalyptic of both him and so many of the rest of us. Or perhaps it’s simply all too human of us not to want to take in the truly bad news on this planet of... well, I was going to say “ours,” but if it ever was, it really isn’t anymore, is it? And you can certainly give Donald Trump and, of course, those who decided to vote for him a second (or do I mean third?) time around significant credit for running this planet into... well, yes, the ground.

I mean, the very fact that Donald Trump was elected to run the increasingly (dis)United States of America (into the ground) a second time should still be a stunning reality on this increasingly strange planet of ours. Once upon a time, you simply couldn’t have made this up, could you (and if you had, who would possibly have believed you)?

I’m already sweating!

We talk regularly about Big Oil, but it would probably make more sense to at least occasionally refer to it as Big Gas—many of the same players are involved, of course, and the two are often found in the same places, but it’s been clear for some time that oil is not a growth industry. The rapid rise of electric vehicles in most of the world undercuts projections of future use—we’re at or near the top of the plateau now, and by 2030 or so the amount of oil we use should be going down.

That’s why the hydrocarbon industry’s growth story has been largely about natural gas. It’s used for many things—heating, cooking—but above all for generating electricity, and it’s on that ground that the fossil fuel industry has set out to build its market, stressing constantly that it is clean and cheap. Two important new reports in recent days make it clear how false those claims really are.

The first comes from a Center for Climate Integrity team led by Rebecca Leber and Rebecca John. Leber has a long record covering the industry—her 2020 report in Mother Jones about the industry paying Instagram influencers to plug natural gas was an early landmark in our understanding of pay-for-play social media, as well as the lengths the industry would go to in order to tell its fibs. (“#cookingwithgas makes food taste better,” says Camille, an LA-based foodie who poses artfully with her spatula, to her 16,700 followers.”)

But as they document in the new report, which should be read in full, this is a very old story. It turns out that the natural gas industry has been playing the PR game for a very long time. As far back as the 1950s, gas had a bad image: it was known to contribute to respiratory problems when burned indoors (more on that later!), and to local air pollution. And as scientists first started analyzing the greenhouse effect in the 1970s, most of the concern was about carbon dioxide, but there was a growing realization that methane—which is essentially what natural gas is—was the smaller but still important sibling greenhouse gas. And so the industry began doing what it did best, which is lying, or, to use the technical term, “public relations.” They constructed a whole mythology around natural gas, turning it into the fossil fuel equivalent of the “other white meat”:

In the late 1980s, the gas industry and major oil companies started to brand gas as a “bridge fuel”—a clean-burning transition fuel to a renewable energy future. In reality, they planned a long-term future for natural gas, while simultaneously undermining renewables, obstructing the destination to which gas’ “bridge” was supposed to lead. Over the next 20 years, the industry effectively solidified the bridge fuel myth by co-opting the science and oversight originally intended to keep carbon and methane emissions in check.

Working together in a growing coalition that included the oil majors and ultimately several major environmental groups, the industry managed to temper concerns about methane using strategies crafted by the same firms that for decades undermined the scientific consensus about the harms of tobacco. AGA and allied groups aggressively challenged the science around methane through industry-funded studies and the creation of the objective-sounding Gas Research Institute.

But their approach was multidimensional. While muddying the waters on the industry’s methane problem, the gas industry was careful not to deny the issue of climate change outright, instead focusing attention on carbon dioxide. It paired this with relentlessly promoting the concept of gas as clean—certainly cleaner than coal or oil—and positioning gas as a bridge fuel and climate solution. In the process, the gas industry solidified partnerships with EPA with the explicit goal of fending off regulations in favor of voluntary emissions management, while also recruiting environmental organizations that would lend legitimacy to their arguments.

I want to highlight the effectiveness of this strategy with a story about… me. In 1988, before this campaign took off, I was writing The End of Nature, sometimes called the first book for a general audience on climate change. And in it I wrote:

A common suggestion is to replace much of the coal and oil we burn with natural gas, since it produces only about half as much carbon dioxide. But it natural gas—methane—escapes into the atmosphere before it burns, it traps solar radiation more efficiently than CO2… As a result, switching to natural gas may have no effect on the greenhouse effect. It might even make it worse.

So give me credit for knowing this crucial science when I was 27.

But not really, because I think I more or less forgot it over the next two decades, as the gas industry rearranged the terms of the debate, and turned it into the lesser of two climate evils, the “bridge” to a future of cleaner energy. This argument was bought wholesale by politicians, especially Democratic ones—if you go read Barack Obama’s State of the Union addresses, most of them include a paragraph praising the fracking revolution as both an economic boon and a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; we were replacing coal with something cleaner. The Sierra Club’s leader, Carl Pope, barnstormed around the country with one of the fracking industry’s chief spokespeople, promoting this “solution” to the climate crisis.

And so it seemed novel to me when two Cornell scientists, Bob Howarth and Tony Ingraffea, about 15 years ago, began publishing data showing that leak rates from fracking meant that natural gas was no cleaner than coal—the argument that had been there all along. I wrote some early pieces on their work for The New York Review of Books, and then published a long piece in The Nation that made the same point I’d made more than a quarter-century earlier:

Our combined emissions of methane and carbon dioxide have gone steadily and sharply up during the Obama years. We closed coal plants and opened methane leaks, and the result is that things have gotten worse.

I’ve made up for my forgetfulness, I think, by helping lead battles against fracking, and against the buildout of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals; those of you who have been long subscribers to this newsletter got to participate in that latter fight, which we won in the Biden years and then lost in the Trump risorgimento. But if the PR campaign flummoxed me, imagine how well it worked on people who weren’t paying much attention at all (which included virtually everyone in political life, especially Democrats who saw natural gas as a way to have their green cake and reccycle it too). Many thanks to Leber, John, and their whole team for laying the story out in all its gory detail.

The other claim about natural gas is that it’s cheap—this is the formulation that “leaders” like New York Gov. Kathy Hochul are currently relying on as they link fracked gas and affordability as an excuse to cut back on moving towards renewables, and that data center developers are using to justify a buildout of natural gas generation.

But a report out this morning from the good folks at Oil Change International puts paid to all that. It makes clear that the industry is running out of the really cheap stuff—the fracked gas from the Permian and Appalachian shales that it’s been pumping for the last two decades. Many of those wells are playing out fast, and now it’s going to need to turn to the more “geologically complex” Haynesville shale of east Texas and Louisiana, and that will drive up costs—especially since more and more of the gas is, at least theoretically, going to be exported to Asia as the industry builds out massive shipping terminals along the Gulf of Mexico:

If industry succeeds in locking in unprecedented demand for US gas by expanding exports and domestic consumption, US supply may be pushed to its limits. Gas supply can only meet such high levels of demand if prices rise to cover the higher production costs of marginal gas supplies. This connects rising dependence on gas to rising energy costs. US consumers and those in LNG-importing countries must push policymakers to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to reliable, affordable renewable energy

The numbers are fairly startling:

Between 2026 and 2040, the average wholesale price of gas could be 80% higher than during the past decade of US LNG exports, a decade when energy price volatility was already causing hardship in the US and LNG-importing countries. Prices could double relative to the 2020 to 2025 average by the late 2030s.

In other words, those politicians locking us in to natural gas are guaranteeing that our kids will spend much of their lives paying far more for energy than they should—and far more than people in the rest of the world will be spending. Because politicians in those countries are starting to wake up. A big piece in the Times yesterday described the ways that many governments are now trying to “unshackle” themselves from natural gas, after watching the supply dry up with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In the Philippines, for example:

The country’s largest solar project began delivering its first megawatts of power in March. That came two weeks after the outbreak of the Iran War, which pushed up energy prices and knocked out 20% of the global LNG supply.

“That was fortunate timing. It was like fate,” said Emmanuel Rubio, the chief executive of Meralco PowerGen, the utility-backed power generation company that operates and invests in Terra Solar and gas- and coal-fired power plants in the Philippines.

For a country that imports nearly all of its fossil fuels, the solar project has proved that “we can actually be, to a certain extent, self-reliant,” he added.

The collection of lies around natural gas are collapsing in other ways, too. Another new study, this one from an Ohio team, went back to those fears around gas and indoor air pollution that dated all the way back to the 1950s, and what it found was truly startling. As Gary Fuller summarizes, replacing a gas stove with an electric burner—say, an induction cooktop, available online for $60—reduces childhood asthma dramatically. And when I say dramatically, I mean: better than the best medicine:

Ohio’s publicly owned MetroHealth began the study in December 2024 but funding was terminated early by the incoming Trump administration. It had been designed to investigate if replacing gas cooking improved asthma for 1,200 people living near Cleveland, Ohio.

Prof Ash Sehgal of Case Western Reserve University, the project’s leader, said: “We had completed the project at fewer than 100 households. As a result, over 1,100 households were unable to benefit. We also had to lay off about 20 project staff.”

The team finished the stove replacements that were underway and closed the project, but to the researchers’ surprise, the benefits could be clearly detected even in the scaled-down study of 72 homes.

Sehgal said: “We were surprised when we analysed the results and found a very large effect size. The improvements in asthma symptoms following stove change were similar to–or even greater than–those reported in clinical trials of commonly used asthma medications.”

Angela Bland, a 38-year-old resident of Akron, Ohio, said: “I didn’t realize my gas stove was the issue until I used the electric stove. I now need my inhaler way less often.”

If you want more on this study, check out Sammy Roth’s Climate Colored Goggles newsletter. He interviewed Segal too: “Our improvement was about twice as much as you typically see with medical treatment of asthma,” the researcher said. It truly is remarkable to think how much good we could do simply by dousing the campfire that most people have in their kitchen.

Anyway, to summarize: The natural gas industry is destroying the climate, and destroying people’s lungs, and it’s trying to lock us into this expensive practice for decades to come.

Any effort to slow it down is met with massive resistance. In Colorado, for instance, some towns have tried to prevent gas hookups in new buildings, requiring them to go all-electric. The industry has responded by organizing on behalf of a constitutional amendment called the “Right to Natural Gas,” which will go on the November ballot. As Maya McDaniel writes:

The proposed amendment states that “producers and utilities have the right to sell natural gas to homes and businesses.” That could force changes to building codes that encourage electric heating and cooking, undoing progress toward electrification.

“Really, it’s just a cynical attempt to lock fossil fuel industry profits into the state constitution,” said Kelly Nordini, CEO of Conservation Colorado, an environmental nonprofit. “That’s bad for people’s pocketbooks, for clean air, for clean water; it has no provisions for public health or safety.”

Really, the first lucky break for natural gas came back in the 19th century, when it acquired that moniker, to differentiate it from “manufactured” or “town” gas, made by burning coal in the absence of air, and then piped through municipalities for street lighting and other tasks. These gasworks shut down as big deposits of naturally occurring gas were discovered, hence the name.

I’ve taken to calling it ‘fracked gas’ in recent years, since that industry term for the new methods of liberating the fuel from tight rocks makes it sound almost as disgusting as it is. “Fossil gas” works too, or perhaps “asthma gas.” But our job is to make it a dirty word of some kind. The future depends on it.

During a military raid on the small town of Tell, southwest of Nablus, a moment of direct defiance shattered the illusion of total Palestinian submission.

Faced with relentless military incursions, land confiscation, and settler harassment and violence, local villagers and farmers refused to retreat.

In the confrontation that followed, a single Palestinian disarmed an Israeli soldier and opened fire on the invading forces near the illegal Havat Gilad settlement outpost, killing two soldiers and wounding three others.

What followed was the predictable, unyielding fury of the occupation: Israeli forces and state-backed armed settlers immediately launched a series of raids across Tell and neighboring communities, killing four Palestinians, setting fire to homes, and converting residential buildings into field interrogation centers.

The rebellion did not start where standard military analysts expected it to—it ignited in a small farming town among people who decided that fighting back was the only response left to quiet, gradual annihilation.

In a swift collective punishment campaign, Israeli occupation troops detained over 70 Palestinians—including more than 40 in Tell alone—while expanding military incursions into Jenin, Tubas, Tulkarm, Ramallah, Hebron (Al-Khalil), Bethlehem, and Jericho.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz promptly ordered a "wide-scale military operation," while United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese unequivocally condemned the combined army-settler assaults as "pogroms against defenseless civilians," reiterating calls for an immediate arms embargo and trade sanctions against Israel.

Yet to understand the spark in Tell, one must understand the explosive pressure cooker that the occupied West Bank has become.

Netanyahu’s Primitive Calculus

Netanyahu’s immediate response to the incident in Tell was not a departure from policy, but the activation of an old, entrenched doctrine: Every act of Palestinian resistance—no matter how localized—must be weaponized to accelerate the state-sponsored theft of Palestinian land.

For decades, Israel’s security apparatus has used local resistance as cover to achieve long-standing demographic and territorial ambitions. Under the current far-right coalition, this strategy has reached unprecedented levels of speed and brutality.

The Scale of Destruction

Since October 2023, while global media attention focused primarily on the horrors in Gaza, Israel systematically expanded its offensive across the occupied West Bank:

• Over 1,090 Palestinians—including at least 239 children—have been killed by Israeli forces and state-backed armed settlers.
• Over 6,800 Palestinians have been injured by live ammunition, shrapnel, and physical assaults, with settler attacks alone accounting for a surging majority of recent civilian injuries.
• More than 10,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced due to home demolitions, violent settler rampages, and severe access restrictions. Entire Bedouin and rural communities across the South Hebron Hills and the Jordan Valley have been systematically depopulated and cleansed.
• Over 11,000 Palestinians have been swept into detention through military night raids, held under arbitrary administrative detention without charge or trial.
• Under Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—who was granted official authority over civilian affairs in the West Bank—the Israeli government declared tens of thousands of dunams of Palestinian territory as "state land," marking the largest continuous land grabs since the Oslo Accords. Concurrently, dozens of illegal settler outposts were retroactively legalized, and thousands of new settlement housing units were advanced.

Strategic Purpose Behind the Escalation

Israel’s systematic campaign in the West Bank serves three distinct political and military objectives for Netanyahu and his cabinet:

1. Preempting a Second Front: Israel recognized that if the West Bank rose up in full-scale, organized rebellion while its military was locked in a grueling, unending genocidal campaign in Gaza, containing both entities would prove virtually impossible. Having failed to crush the Palestinian resistance in Gaza despite its overwhelming military force, Israel applied heavy-handed, preemptive violence in the West Bank to terrorize the population into total submission.
2. Shielding Netanyahu Through Far-Right Leverage: To survive the internal political fallout of October 7 and his military's failure to achieve its stated war aims, Netanyahu needed to keep his coalition intact. He granted far-right ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir absolute freedom to execute their ideological agenda: expanding illegal settlements, annexing Area C, arming settler militias, and repeatedly invading and altering the status quo at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem.
3. Masking Failure with Offensive Posturing: Desperate to avoid appearing as a helpless leader trapped in a multi-front war of attrition, Netanyahu used military raids, aerial drone strikes, and armored incursions into West Bank refugee camps (from Jenin and Tulkarm to Nablus) to project an image of strength and control to his right-wing domestic constituency.

Settler Terror and the Bankruptcy of the PA

This campaign of state-sponsored expansion was smoothed by two major factors on the ground:

1. Unchecked Settler Paramilitarism: Armed by Itamar Ben-Gvir’s National Security Ministry, violent settler gangs have been fully integrated into state-sanctioned paramilitaries. Settlers launch routine, organized pogroms against Palestinian villages—burning homes, destroying olive groves, stealing livestock, and firing live ammunition at civilians—with the direct protection and active participation of the Israeli military.
2. The Subjugation and Inaction of the PA: The Palestinian Authority (PA) has completely abandoned its fundamental duty to protect its people. Rather than formulating a national defense strategy or providing at least symbolic leadership to resist land theft, the PA security forces continued security coordination with the occupation. The PA actively cracked down on local resistance fighters, confiscated weapons, and suppressed public demonstrations, acting as a sub-contracted administrative force managing Palestinian subjugation on Israel's behalf.

Why Mainstream Analysis Fails

Most media and political analysts will inevitably frame the current escalation around narrow parliamentary metrics. They will point to upcoming Israeli elections, arguing that Netanyahu is provoking violence purely to consolidate the far-right vote, satisfy Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and outflank his political rivals.

International human rights bodies will issue familiar warnings, humanitarian organizations like MSF will voice alarm over raids on medical facilities like Nablus Specialized Hospital, and political blocs like the European Union will issue toothless calls for "all parties to de-escalate."

Meanwhile, the United States government continues to funnel billions of dollars in heavy weaponry to Israel, reinforcing an episode of historical complicity.

What these analyses consistently fail to grasp is the reality of Palestinian agency.

They treat Palestinians as passive victims waiting for international intervention or political shifts in Tel Aviv and Washington. But the explosion in Tell proved that the status quo of total encirclement, daily humiliation, and existential dispossession is inherently unsustainable.

The rebellion did not start where standard military analysts expected it to—it ignited in a small farming town among people who decided that fighting back was the only response left to quiet, gradual annihilation.

The West Bank will not remain silent forever; it will rise at the time and place of its people's choosing, rendering conventional political forecasts useless.

LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Conflict reporter/writer/cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM ET.

Today we discuss:

• The Trump administration’s deadly military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Pacific have not reduced the amount of cocaine entering the US, but they’re prompting criminal organizations to develop new strategies and tactics and undermining traditional investigative methods, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

• Russian entrepreneurs have been devastated by Ukrainian drone strikes targeting warehouses belonging to Wildberries, Russia’s largest e-commerce company and the country’s answer to Amazon. At least nine Wildberries warehouses have been struck in the last week, as well as logistics centres from southern Russia to the outskirts of St Petersburg, killing at least nine people and destroying inventory worth billions of dollars.

LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow

https://x.com/tedrall

https://x.com/JamarlThomas

#tedrall #jamarlthomas #news #politics

The post Deadly U.S. Boat Strikes Have Not Reduced Drug Smuggling | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The US is the richest country in the world, yet an international outlier on many measures. Among industrialized nations, the US spends a lower percentage of its GDP on public social expenditure, has no universal healthcare system, union density is at an all-time low, and the average American's standard of living is in decline, as "nearly half of US households can't make ends meet." Of course, delusional President Donald Trump continues to say that the US is the "hottest country in the world." Is the US, however, ready for radical change? After all, isn't there evidence that Americans are losing faith in capitalism and that socialism is gaining ground among voters?

Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou shares provocative thoughts on these issues in an interview with the French-Greek writer and journalist Alexandra Boutri. Polychroniou believes that radical change is difficult but still possible in today's United States, even though he realizes there is a strong anti-democratic tradition standing in the way and regards the Democratic Party itself as the graveyard of radical change undertakings.

Alexandra Boutri: Recent polls indicate that capitalism is in trouble in the US, as there is a growing loss of faith in the system, apparently even among Republicans, while socialism is gaining mainstream appeal. So, I want to start this interview by inquiring about your own impression regarding political and ideological trends in the United States. Indeed, is the country on the verge of radical change?

C. J. Polychroniou: I am now old enough to take any talk of radical political change with a grain of salt. That being said, there is no doubt that the US version of capitalism has been an utter failure for the majority of Americans. In contrast to European or Asian versions of capitalism, capitalism in the US has always been structured around what we might call the Sopranos version of doing business, which is the Trump administration’s way of actually running the whole country today. But Trump aside, what kind of civilized society denies its citizens access to universal healthcare, tuition-free higher education, guaranteed long-term parental leave, 4-6 weeks of guaranteed paid vacation, and robust unemployment benefits? The US does!

Only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.

The younger generations in the US seem to have awakened to the realization that the US economic system is brutal and thus detrimental to their well-being, even if they may not have an alternative socioeconomic system in mind that they would like to see instituted. They have indeed taken notice of the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world without a universal healthcare system and that the standard of living has declined to the level of developing countries. Truth be told, even if North America remains the wealthiest on average, the quality of life in many European countries, which are, of course, still fully capitalistic, is superior to the US. There are stronger social safety nets and greater work-life balance in capitalist Europe than there are in the capitalist United States of America.

Which countries are best on women’s well-being? According to the latest Women, Peace and Security Index, European countries occupy all nine of the top positions while the US ranks 31st, below countries like Serbia and Malta. So, we do need to take into account different versions of capitalism. In that context, it is safe to say that many Americans have finally awakened to the realization that the US version of capitalism sucks! Anything more than that, however, is open to speculation. Socialism is gaining ground, but the challenges of building a unified socialist movement on a national scale and having a socialist political party that can contest power at the federal level are enormous in the United States of America.

Alexandra Boutri: Is the rise of socialism in the US the reason why Trump is reviving the boogeyman of communism?

C. J. Polychroniou: Absolutely. However much of a shallow man Trump happens to be, he is nonetheless a mastermind politician who has the pulse of today’s Republican voters. He is the greatest bullshitter of the modern age, but that’s only because of his audience. He knows how to stir fear. He also knows that he can normalize cruelty because his fanatical and racist fanbase simply loves it. Have his policies worsened economic conditions in the country to the point that even some of his own followers are beginning to doubt him? He only has to raise the volume on culture wars and then becomes again, in the eyes of his own supporters, the nation’s savior. Of course, such tactics have an expiration date even for the most popular authoritarian leaders. Look, for example, at what happened to Viktor Orbán in Hungary. After 16 years in power, even his own core supporters grew tired of his cronyism and corruption. I believe we will see something similar happen to Donald Trump and to the Republican Party, perhaps as soon as this coming November, in spite of how deeply the anti-democratic tradition has entrenched itself in all branches of government. In the end, only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.

Alexandra Boutri: Are you also saying that the Democrats have been responsible for Trump’s rise to power?

C J. Polychroniou: Of course, and it was the Democrats, with their ability to destroy trust in government by siding themselves utterly and shamelessly with major corporate and financial interests, that rolled out the red carpet for Trump’s arrival on the nation’s political scene. The country had been moving further and further to the right since the early 1980s. In fact, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as moderates had been declining since the Clinton years. Democrats still talk about Bill Clinton’s achievements, such as turning deficits into surpluses and making the economy more globalized, but his policies ushered in a new era of inequality while he transformed the welfare state by ending social policy. Essentially, the welfare state was dismantled under the Clinton presidency and was largely replaced in turn by volunteerism.

Neoliberalism (embraced by both parties in the US) and cultural relativism (a late obsession of liberals and segments of the left) have been at the core of the political turn to the far right in the US. The main point, though, is that the Democrats failed to advance a meaningful alternative whenever they found themselves in power. The Obama administration also had the chance to make a meaningful impact on the future of the country but opted, instead, to align itself with the status quo on all major issues, both on the domestic and foreign front. The Biden administration did make some progress on economic policy, mainly thanks to pressures from the progressive wing of the party, but failed miserably on foreign policy. As to why Kamala Harris lost to Trump, that's an issue that will forever be debated.

Alexandra Boutri: In a recent campaign speech in Michigan, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that the Trump administration is “hellbent on tearing down in four years what it took this country 250 years to build.” What did she mean by that, and how likely is it that she will be the Democratic 2028 nominee?

C. J. Polychroniou: Naturally, the country has made progress over the past 250 years. Don’t you think it would have been unnatural if it hadn’t done so? But how do we measure progress? Wars existed in the past, and it appears that war will never end. By the same token, we have taken major steps toward protecting individuals against discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, but economic inequality is greater today than it has ever been in the modern era, while women, people of color, and minorities continue to face economic disadvantages. In any case, it is beyond dispute that Trump is destroying whatever social and economic progress has been made so far. He is a wrecking ball, an unhinged sociopath, but one who is still being treated as America's savior by something like close to 40% of voters. That’s simply mind-boggling, but it says something noteworthy about the persistence of a particular component of American political culture—one that rests on possessive individualism, anti-intellectualism, and the paranoid style. Richard Hofstadter addressed some of those aspects of American political life long before the rise of Trumpism. But we need to add racism, as it also remains a profound component of American political culture.

If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens.

I don’t know if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will decide to run for president in 2028. I hope she does. Recent polls indicate that she is more popular with Democratic voters than the likes of Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris, none of whom offers hope for a brighter future, although any one of them would be an improvement over Trump. What I do know, though, is that if AOC does decide to run for president in 2028, not only will she have at least half of the country react with extreme fear and paranoia attacks, but she will encounter massive opposition from the Democratic establishment itself. In 2016, the Democratic National Committee derided the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) campaign. I expect something similar will happen to AOC. The current leadership of the Democratic Party is the graveyard of radical change in the US.

Alexandra Boutri: What would constitute radical change in today’s United States?

C. J. Polychroniou: That’s a very important question, and I’m glad you raised it. Political, economic, and even sociocultural settings must be taken into account whenever we speak of demands for radical change. Take something like universal healthcare. Almost every country in Europe has universal coverage, and it can also be found in many countries around the world. But in the US there has always been staunch opposition to universal healthcare policies by powerful private entities like the health and insurance industries. If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens. No question about it. Radical change should not imply the transformation of a country’s entire system of government. That would constitute a revolution. Even then, we would need to distinguish between a political revolution and a social revolution. For instance, the American Revolution was a political, not social revolution. It did not alter the fabric of society; it did not change wealth distribution and left the class system intact. On the other hand, the French Revolution that began in 1789 and the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia were truly social revolutions in that they transformed property relations and changed radically the class systems in both countries.

Alexandra Boutri: Today’s left focuses too much on cultural issues without really challenging capitalism. Indeed, in the recent past, issues like multiculturalism and even certain variants of feminism have functioned like ideologies of capitalism. In addition, some segments of the left have a knack for spreading ideas that are either not well thought out or simply impractical. For instance, and I believe this also captures your own sentiments, I find talk about “degrowth” and “wealth tax” schemes that fail to address the dynamics of unfettered capital accumulation while making in addition ludicrous claims that their implementation would solve the climate crisis as rather wishy-washy responses to capitalist crises and thus by no means game-changing strategies. My question then is this: What sort of new ideas would qualify, in your view, as game changers for the contemporary capitalist environment in the United States?

C. J. Polychroniou: I have already mentioned universal healthcare. In any case, it would be rather easy for anyone, I think, to simply suggest ideas to improve the state of the US economy and to create a better society but that would be meaningless if the ideas themselves weren't accompanied by concrete steps and specific policy proposals on how to erect alternative socioeconomic arrangements. But we need expertise for that to happen. That being said, a new project has been launched by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst called Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America. It’s a project that was conceived of and is being directed by Gerald Epstein, a world-leading progressive economist who also happens to be PERI’s co-director. The issues addressed range from health and the environment to trade and finance. The policy briefs produced by different economists contain the sort of policy proposals that are desperately needed for rewriting the rules of the US economy in a manner that caters first and foremost to the needs and interests of American workers. I recommend everyone interested in progressive ideas on how to create a fairer, greener, and sustainable US economy to study some of the policy briefs that have been posted on PERI's website.

The United States should not roll out the red carpet for a foreign leader who has systematically starved and slaughtered thousands of people, including children.

This simple principle is what led New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to declare that Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in the Big Apple and call on the federal government to honor the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.

By publishing this speech, which is now the most popular video he has ever posted on social media, Mayor Mamdani did what no mayor before him dared: speak the truth about American complicity in the Israeli government's human rights abuses.

For decades, New York City's leaders have gone out of their way to embrace all things Israel. From Eric Adams to Rudy Giuliani and beyond, past mayors have praised Israeli leaders, traveled to Israel, encouraged the purchase of Israeli bonds, and supported policies designed to suppress criticism of the Israeli government, including unconstitutional anti-boycott orders.

Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him.

Rather than engage honestly with the substance of Mayor Mamdani's change in course, most Israel advocacy organizations responded to his speech by effectively claiming that criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu is somehow equivalent to criticism of Jewish people. The Anti-Defamation League and other prominent pro-Israel groups even tried to blame the mayor, without any evidence whatsoever, for an attack on an Asian man and Jewish man that occurred in the days after the speech.

The argument that criticizing Israel is inherently antisemitic—which has been used to silence college students, elected officials, and other critics of the Gaza genocide—is both dishonest and dangerous.

It should go without saying, yet must apparently be said again, that Benjamin Netanyahu is not the Jewish community.

Conflating Netanyahu with Jews around the world undermines the fight against real antisemitism. It also insults the many Jewish Americans who have vocally criticized Netanyahu's war crimes in Gaza and called for an end to US support for those crimes.

What the Israeli government's worst enablers have revealed through their hysterical response to Mayor Mamdani's speech is that they simply cannot tolerate any criticism whatsoever of the Israeli government, even criticism focused exclusively on Benjamin Netanyahu, and that they are willing to conflate the entire Jewish community with Netanyahu in a bid to protect Israel from legitimate criticism.

As for those who try to justify the antisemitism smear by claiming that Mayor Mamdani gives an inordinate amount of attention to Israel, this claim ignores three important points.

For one thing, Israel is actively committing its crimes with billions in American taxpayer dollars and weapons, which is why it warrants so much attention from the American people.

Second, the Israeli government's supporters are the ones who insisted that mayors of New York City embrace Israel's policies, defend Israel from criticism, and make Israel their first foreign visit. Mamdani has given Israel far less attention than Eric Adams, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudy Giuliani.

Third, national and local reporters keep asking Mamdani about Israel, sometimes the exact same questions about whether Israel has a right to exist. Don't blame Mamdani for answering the questions

Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him. So do many Americans; a recent poll showed 46% of Americans believe Netanyahu should be arrested if he comes to the United States. Another poll showed that Mamdani has a higher favorability rating among Jewish Americans than Netanyahu.

The claim that criticizing Israel's human rights abuses is antisemitic no longer works on the American public, and it is long past time for Israel's supporters to stop telling it.

It would seem that the Israeli settlers are out of control. Their violent actions have either been encouraged by the Israel Defense Forces or Israeli government, or protected by the former and quietly supported by the latter. This support exists as they set homes on fire, attack Palestinian residents, and destroy their olive trees in the West Bank. Such terrorist activity is rarely penalized in the country’s justice system because the state supports the policy of mass expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank.

Last Friday in Tal, four Palestinians and two Israelis were killed after there was an ISIS-like incursion into the Palestinian village. A Palestinian living in one of the attacked homes grabbed a settler’s rifle and shot two Israelis before being killed by the IDF. In response to this act of self-defense, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has advocated for turning the West Bank into Beit Hanoun, a city in Gaza that Israel destroyed during its genocide. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for “intensive counterterrorism operation[s]” and for settler outposts to expand in the West Bank.

The ISIS-KKK-like terrorist settlers reacted by torching mosques and setting fire to homes in villages, attacking an ambulance transporting a patient, and firing live ammunition at Palestinian residents. This comes on the heels of Israeli settlers detaining US Rep. and 2028 presidential hopeful Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in early July when he visited a Palestinian village that had been destroyed by settlers.

In the wider context, Israeli settlers and the IDF have killed nearly 1,200 Palestinians, including 250 children, in the West Bank since the genocidal war on Gaza after October 7. Making matters worse, Israeli terroristic violence by settlers has increased by 63% in the first half of 2026 compared with the second half of 2025. They may seem unhinged, but it is the far-right government that has fueled this level of violence.

The appearance of the Israeli settlers being out of control is a sleight of hand. They are working, like the KKK did under state governments in the American South, under the auspices of the Israeli government.

With horror, in the ashes of the failed Iraq War, ISIS drove masses of people from their homes across wide swaths of Iraq and Syria during the mid-2010s in the hope of reestablishing an Islamic state that was far more brutal than any Islamic caliphate throughout history. The creation of Israel was similar, in the hope of establishing a long-lost Jewish state in historic Palestine via ethnic cleansing of roughly 750,000 people. Both ISIS and Zionist-Israeli forces and settlers have, over time, driven millions of residents from their homes using genocide, terror, and mass murder to recapture an imagined past. ISIS was defeated thanks to Iran, the United States, Syria, and Iraqi forces working together. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Israeli version of ISIS reawakened from its post-Nakba lull, but at a slower pace until the 21st century. It was in this century that we have seen vast, state-backed settler expansion, land theft, and the destruction of Palestinian livelihoods, usually under the approving eyes of the IDF and the Israeli government. We have also seen over 73,000 Gazans killed by the IDF in the past three years during the genocidal war; the dead were mostly civilian, including about 21,000 children. Now the Israeli army, reneging on ceasefire terms, controls 70% of the Gaza Strip and already has plans for three Israeli settlements in Gaza where 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced.

But as Zionists-cum-Israelis have used violence and dispossession for well over a century in attempts to drive Palestinians out of Palestine, do they really think that they will ever fully succeed? They certainly have the US superpower’s blessing.

Yet the people of Palestine have time and perseverance on their side. They have a history that has seen the Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, and Greek empires come and go. They have seen the uncouth Crusaders’ relatively brief attempt to occupy the Holy Land. They’ve borne witness to the Byzantine, Umayyad, and Abbasid regimes. But they are still resisting in Gaza and the West Bank.

The appearance of the Israeli settlers being out of control is a sleight of hand. They are working, like the KKK did under state governments in the American South, under the auspices of the Israeli government’s goal of annexing and depopulating the West Bank of its Indigenous Palestinians.

However, they will not succeed.

The Palestinians have resilience and justice on their side. They have the support of people around the world, particularly in developing countries, and increasingly in Europe and even the United States. For example, this month Democrats in Congress followed the will of the American people and voted overwhelmingly to block military assistance to Israel.

This is only a start.

Despite the odds, Palestinians have always shown courageous resilience during famine, genocide, and land theft. Having more international support will ensure that they are not removed from their land.

This is the hardest article I’ve ever had to write.

On Sunday July 19th we lost our kind, brilliant friend and colleague, Richard Heinberg.

The world has lost a voice of clear, truth-telling wisdom—a man whose work reached millions of people and fundamentally changed the lives of thousands. Perhaps that includes you. It certainly does me.

Richard died after a short, brutal illness. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer just two weeks before his passing. As you can imagine, we’re reeling and gutted.

In ways big and small, Richard displayed humility, gentleness, and joy—especially for someone grappling with such complex and difficult subject matter.

If Richard’s contributions impacted you in any way, we’d love to hear your reflections. Please visit his memorial site to share your own stories or learn more about Richard.

Countless people came to know Richard only through his books, articles, lectures, and interviews. Yet many felt as though they knew him personally. That was one of his remarkable gifts. He challenged people to face difficult truths without giving up on beauty, community, or the possibility of living well within Earth’s limits.

There’s so much I can and simply cannot say about Richard as a person and as a writer and teacher. Working alongside Richard for the last 18 years has been one of the biggest gifts in my life. In ways big and small, Richard displayed humility, gentleness, and joy—especially for someone grappling with such complex and difficult subject matter. An inveterate introvert, Richard was often quiet in groups but when he spoke it was additive, given with generosity, kindness, and humor, and always with a focus on the greater good.

When he wrote, on the other hand, it was with such powerful clarity, unflinching truth telling, and a talent for presenting complex issues in a brilliantly accessible way. He could weave together ecology, thermodynamics, history, anthropology, behavioral psychology, politics, and more into expansive explorations, as he did with his 14th and final book, Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival, or into succinct storytelling, as he did when narrating the award-winning animation, “300 Years of Fossil Fuels in 300 Seconds.” He could jump from writing about the collapse of industrial civilization to writing about what he learned from chickens. Perhaps the best example of Richard’s breadth is this recording of him playing the violin and giving a talk on “Post-Carbon Music” at the New England Conservatory of Music.

I’ll miss Richard’s smile, his laugh. I’ll miss the few times when I got to see him get mad at the stupidity or cowardice of those in power. I’ll miss hearing him talk about trying to conquer an early jazz tune or the simple joy he got from his afternoon chocolate or shot of espresso. I’ll desperately miss the way he could take my meandering ideas for topics to explore and turn them into brilliantly cogent essays in a matter of hours or days. I simply loved our collaborations.

While grieving and in shock, and frankly a little lost about how Post Carbon Institute will find its voice without him, I think what Richard would want is for each of us to redouble our efforts toward his vision of people and nature thriving within ecological limits. One full of bird song, music, and laughter.

We would love to hear from you. Please share your remembrances of Richard here.

With a heavy heart,

Asher Miller

On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security regarding Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, are not subject to judicial review. As the American Immigration Council notes, because of the Supreme Court’s procedures, that decision will not formally go into effect until 32 days after the ruling was issued. This small window has allowed the lower courts to continue blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to prematurely end humanitarian protections for Haitians and other groups.

That all ends on July 27—today, 32 days after Mullin v. Doe, hundreds of thousands of TPS recipients from Haiti and several other countries are expected to lose their work permits. More terminations will follow in the upcoming months. This includes protections for people from Somalia (August 20), El Salvador (September 9), Sudan (October 19), Ukraine (October 19) and Lebanon (November 27). The latter of which are currently facing violent military invasions from Russia and Israel respectively.

With the Supreme Court’s mandate now going into effect, there will be little, if anything, the lower courts can do to block these terminations.

To be frank, the situation is bleak. While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contends that conditions in Haiti have “improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home,” the State Department actively advises Americans to avoid traveling to Haiti “for any reason due to the risk of crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, and limited healthcare.” Similar travel advisories have been issued for Syria, Burma, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Ukraine, and Yemen.

This is what passes as “generosity” in President Donald Trump’s “Christian nation”: intentionally putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of hardworking, law-abiding people in danger while offering them a pittance to leave their lives and loved ones behind.

The Trump administration knows these countries are not safe. It knows that deporting TPS recipients to these places puts their lives at risk. It simply does not care.

On July 17, DHS General Counsel James Percival posted on Twitter-X: “For those with an expiring TPS designation, these final days provide one last opportunity to accept $2,600 and a free flight home. We strongly suggest you take advantage of this generous offer.” This is what passes as “generosity” in President Donald Trump’s “Christian nation”: intentionally putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of hardworking, law-abiding people in danger while offering them a pittance to leave their lives and loved ones behind.

Thus far, congressional efforts have failed to stop this blatant cruelty. On July 23, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt to extend TPS for Haitians.

To make matters even worse, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has reportedly made plans to ramp up operations to arrest and deport Haitian migrants. Documents obtained by CBS News suggest that these operations could start as early as this week—not even a month after ICE agents murdered Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Joan Sebastián Durán Guerrero.

These plans include targeting migrants in Ohio, home to one of the nation’s largest Haitian communities. These are the same communities that, in 2024, then-candidates Trump and Vice President JD Vance targeted with their racist lies about “they are eating the dogs” and “eating the cats.” And to be clear, even Vance admits that they were lies: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do.” This is the same vile bigotry that Justice Samuel Alito and the other conservatives on the Supreme Court found to be not “overtly racial.”

Importantly, this is not the first time that ICE has reportedly made plans targeting Ohio. In late January, news outlets reported that ICE was preparing to launch an operation in the state lasting at least 30 days. That operation would have started sometime after TPS for Haitians were slated to end on February 3. Fortunately, a district court intervened and extended those protections, thereby preventing this Minnesota-style raid from occurring.

This is the reality that TPS recipients now face: either they willingly self-deport to an unsafe country or remain in the US and be hunted by ICE agents.

While there is still time (and to be clear, and it’s quickly running out), I urge everyone to call their representatives and senators and demand that they extend TPS for Haitians, Syrians, and others whose protections are at risk.

What few legal options they may have had are quickly disappearing. The Supreme Court’s decision bars review of any non-constitutional claim. Any challenge regarding racial discrimination “will likely fail.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration has indefinitely paused visa processing for nationals from 75 countries, including Haiti, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan. On February 2, the National Immigration Law Center and several other advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of this policy. That case—Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) v. Rubio—is currently pending in court.

The administration is also making it harder to obtain a green card, not processing new Deferred Action for Childhood Arivals applications (while also intentionally delaying the processing of renewals), and severely restricting refugee and asylum programs. As the CATO Institute notes, the Trump administration’s policies have significantly cut legal immigration far more than unauthorized entries. Their analysis found that these cuts are harming US citizens, undermining US prosperity, and increasing the US deficit.

Ending TPS for Haitians and other groups will only worsen these problems. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), for instance, remarked that this decision will “create a crisis in our hospitals, nursing, and in the I/DD [intellectual and developmental disabilities] community” where roughly one-third of Haitian TPS holders work. Gov. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) has warned, “If [Haitians] lose temporary protected status and they no longer can work and the companies can’t employ them, that’s a blow to the economy, that’s a blow to the state.”

The tragic irony in all this is that the Trump administration’s policies serve no one. TPS is helping people in dire need—people who are contributing to the US. Deporting them only makes the country poorer. If ending those protections leads to more ICE agents flooding our cities, then all of us will be less safe.

As things stand now, Congress remains the most—and perhaps only—viable option for helping TPS recipients. While there is still time (and to be clear, and it’s quickly running out), I urge everyone to call their representatives and senators and demand that they extend TPS for Haitians, Syrians, and others whose protections are at risk.

Helping these people is the morally right thing to do. It is also politically and economically in the best interest of the country and international community. For their sake and our own, we must extend TPS.

When House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent out a recent “dear colleague” letter, its second sentence cited “the position articulated by… pro-peace organizations like J Street.” The congressman and J Street were opposing an amendment to block $3.3 billion in military shipments and other aid to Israel.

Jeffries (NY) contended that the measure was “overly broad.” On the same day, using the same phrase “overly broad,” J Street issued a statement declaring that “we support Leader Jeffries’ decision to oppose the amendment.”

Both Jeffries and J Street respectfully noted that many members of Congress had understandable reasons to back the measure. The next day, July 15, a record 103 Democrats voted in favor of blocking weaponry to Israel.

While attempting to prevent a high number of yes votes, Jeffries and J Street had emphasized mutual agreement to validate a position that amounted to support for arming genocide.

After the House vote, J Street said that “we welcome House Democratic leadership taking a stronger stance on using US leverage to pressure the Israeli government to change course.” But there are no credible reasons to believe that J Street or the “House Democratic leadership” are serious about using US leverage to “change course” in ways that would really impede the genocidal state of Israel.

Last month, a United Nations commission concluded that genocide is continuing, as Israeli forces intentionally target children in Gaza. “A significant body of research by legal and rights experts has concluded that Israel is intent on destroying Palestinians, including analyses by UN investigators, rights bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and genocide scholars worldwide,” The Guardian reported this summer.

Jeffries, a seven-term representative from New York City, has received upwards of $1.7 million from pro-Israel donors. He is now third from the top of such recipients among the thousands of House members since 1990.

During the 34 months since the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, J Street has evolved from unequivocally supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza to fervently criticizing them and calling for an end to restrictions on humanitarian aid. Yet the organization has never responded adequately in ways commensurate with the actual horrific events.

Early last year, while writing an article for The Nation, I researched J Street’s public statements ever since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza. I found that “none of J Street’s 132 news releases between October 7 [2023] and the start of the [temporary] ceasefire in late January 2025 called for an end to shipments of the US bombs and weapons that were killing those civilians while enforcing Israel’s policy of using starvation as a weapon of war.”

Throughout the 16-month period, as I pointed out: “J Street news releases echoed pronouncements coming from the White House and State Department, becoming grim parodies of wishful thinking and empty warnings. The headlines of J Street releases were largely contoured around hollow claims from the Biden administration that it was diligently striving to end the death and agony in Gaza.”

Only gradually has J Street expressed support for—minimally—curbing US military aid to Israel. Meanwhile, as has been the case since J Street’s founding nearly 20 years ago, many members of Congress have hidden behind J Street to legitimize their support for Israel, while often repeating the expedient “two-state solution” fantasy.

Describing itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy,” J Street has long been widely seen as a liberal Jewish-led alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s right-wing politics. But J Street’s record shows that it has gone out of its way to trumpet denial.

On January 16, 2024, the organization put out a news release with this headline: “J Street Rejects Allegation at International Court of Justice of Genocide in War Against Hamas in Gaza.” Four months later, another J Street news release was equally emphatic, making clear that “J Street continues to reject the allegation of genocide in this case.”

In December 2024, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports unequivocally stating that Israel was engaged in genocide.

At last, in August 2025, J Street’s president and driving force since its founding, Jeremy Ben-Ami, finally acknowledged the reality of Israeli genocide. “Until now, I have tried to deflect and defend when challenged to call this genocide,” he wrote in a blog post. “I have, however, been persuaded rationally by legal and scholarly arguments that international courts will one day find that Israel has broken the international genocide convention.”

J Street’s leader wrote those words a year ago. Yet he and his organization just teamed up with Hakeem Jeffries in support of continuing massive arms shipments to the genocidal Israeli government.

And so continues the convenient evasion with the absurd motto “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy.”

“Leader Jeffries, President Trump is calling.”

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): “Hello, Mr. President, this is a rare occasion!”

Donald Trump: “Well, Hakeem, I want to have a confidential talk with you on a secure line. Agreed?”

HJ: “Sure, since you made the call.”

DT: “By the way, Hakeem, my Saudi friends tell me that your first name in Arabic means ‘wise.’”

HJ: “I try not to dwell on that, Mr. President.”

DT: “Funny! Here is why I am calling. To thank you for opposing Impeachment. You’ve shown amazing political courage by standing up to the vast majority of Democratic voters who want to impeach me, remove me, and more from my beautifully renovated White House (Trump House, as we call it in our inner circle). The people are screaming at your Democrats in local town meetings because, as you know, the Dems aren’t pushing for impeachment.”

DT: “Even more so, are the real guts you have in shutting down your House Democrats shouting for Impeachment now, especially after my remarks about destroying Iran’s 5,000 years of civilization in April. You also blocked them from signing on to Rep. John Larson’s (D-Conn.) treasonous Articles of Impeachment and shut him up as well. TREMENDOUS exercise of power, Hakeem! You’ve freed yourself from Crazy Nancy, who impeached me twice. I admire that and wanted to tell you that directly.”

HJ: “As you say, Mr. President,” (noncommittedly.)

DT: “Hakeem, I wouldn’t say this publicly, but it looks like you will be Speaker in January and by a comfortable margin. So, we’re going to have to DEAL with each other, right?”

“I assume so,” replied Jeffries, wondering what comes next.

DT: “Not on the big issues, like strong support for Israel and a big military budget. I like what you said a while back that Israel could be the Sixth Borough of New York. And you have happily accepted tons of dough from the AIPAC PACs, as we have.”

DT: “Over the years, you’ve backed bigger military budgets to keep our country strong and NO. 1! Keep doing that, and I’ll go along with a tough audit of the Pentagon budget, which I’m told will take four years… I’m also OK with restoring the cuts to Medicaid, food and energy assistance, and filling the empty seats in the regulatory agencies with the required number of Democrats OK'd by you.”

DT: “Plus, as Ronald Reagan did, I’ll propose a task force to come to a bipartisan agreement to shore up Social Security for our elderly. And Melania wants me to say that I’ll join you with a real child tax credit for 60 million kids.”

HJ: “Sounds good, Mr. President. Can you get your GOP up here to go along?”

DT: “I’ll take care of them. With Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), we’ll keep them in line. As you say to your rebellious Dems, where are they going to go?”

DT: “By now, you’re probably wondering what I want in return to make it a Deal? I want you to stay with your opposition to any drive to Impeach. Explain it how you will—‘too distracting, too divisive, don’t have the two-thirds vote in the Senate, the people’s business is your priority, whatever.’ As you know, the Impeachment articles would bring up the Epstein smears, the so-called ‘Kitchen Table’ issues, and alleged non-enforcement of the laws. Also, the tax stuff with the IRS, the necessary spending directly by me for our great military actions abroad, and so on. I got matters pretty much under control with the backing of six Supreme Court justices, my veto, and pardon powers. What I can’t control, without drastic actions, is the impeachment power in Congress that is final and can’t be sent to the Supreme Court. I’m being very frank, here, Hakeem. And you know the ways I can fight back.”

DT: “Also, I don’t want you to oppose funding my beautiful White House ballroom and the greatest Arch in the world. Pretty modest requests, wouldn’t you agree, Hakeem?”

“It is too hypothetical for any response,” said Hakeem. “While I believe in compromise for the ‘greater good’ to be achieved, we have to wait until after November. Besides, as you falsely say about us, you are really trying every day to steal the elections. We also don’t know how pliable the incumbent Republicans will be to your demands. Many may blame you for their losses. I must stress that any understanding we arrive at has to be open and subject to consultation with our leadership.”

DT: “I’m not surprised by what you just said. Still, I think this exchange was worthwhile as a preview of any deal. Before closing—have my buddy Mike Johnson calling on the line again—I got to praise you for shutting down Rep. Jamie Raskin’s (D-Md.) toying with an ugly rogue hearing on impeachment by the Dems on the Judiciary Committee. That would have set me off BIG TIME! Unlike Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Raskin gets so much fawning press that it’s hard to attack him without the fake news media going bananas.”

DT: “I guess you just told him: ‘Raskin, either you’re part of the leadership or you’re on your own—NO IMPEACHMENT HEARING, you understand.’ And he took it, he took it. Great job, I must say.”

HJ: “No comment Mr. President. Thanks for your call. God Save America.”

LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Conflict reporter/writer/cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM ET.

Today we discuss:

• The Civil War inside the Democratic Party turns spectacularly ugly over the Michigan Primary next week. Desperate to defeat insurgent DSAer Abdul El-Sayed, AIPAC throws $30 million-plus at centrist Haley Stevens in a race that quickly turned to racist Islamophobic slurs, and the involvement of Bernie-shivving North Carolina party boss James Clyburn. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party are far behind Republicans when it comes to money. Trump controls a $400 million super PAC, and the RNC is sitting on nearly $130 million. The DNC is $2 million in debt.

• So much for fleeing the U.S. to Europe. Firefighters in France and Spain are battling wildfires close to the cities of Bordeaux and Madrid. Spanish authorities said fires close to Madrid remain “active and uncontrolled.” The wildfires raging in southwestern France—where 250,000 people have been evacuated—are so intense they have created “fire clouds,” a phenomenon never previously seen in the country. Temperatures in hard-hit areas in both Spain and France are expected to rise in the coming days.

• Ukraine attacked an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea, killing a sailor and injuring others, as the war in the Middle East threatened to overlap with the Ukraine conflict. Ukraine implied that the ship carried Iranian-designed Shahed drones destined for Russia. Meanwhile, the US—low on munitions—unilaterally paused bombing Iran.

LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow

https://x.com/tedrall

https://x.com/JamarlThomas

#tedrall #jamarlthomas #news #politics

The post DSA vs. DNC | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

As Big Tech races to build water-guzzling, energy-hungry data centers for its artificial intelligence, talk of an “AI race” between the United States and China has permeated public discourse. Pundits, politicians, and the media have all joined tech corporations in selling this narrative. And it’s giving license to Big Tech and their political handmaidens to ruin our communities, exploit our every action (both online and via AI-powered surveillance), and steal the wealth of human knowledge for private gain.

But the idea of an AI race between China and the US isn’t grounded in reality. The researchers, companies, and governments behind Chinese and US AI development are pursuing completely different goals.

The discourse in the US assumes that achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI)—computers that mimic human consciousness—would be so momentous and earth-shattering that clearly this must be the goal of anyone pursuing AI development. But that’s not the main goal of Chinese AI development. And a competition in which the competitors are running toward different finish lines isn’t a race.

If we allow the myth of an AI race with China to give Big Tech free rein, we face a more polluted, less equal world.

A Race Doesn’t Have Two Different Finish Lines

While the US is focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), Chinese developers are focused on AI embedded in products. It’s ChatGPT versus robots.

Yes, China is developing LLMs, although largely in an open-source way as opposed to the for-profit competition in the US. Recent news stories report that China is “catching” the US in LLM development. Indeed, the latest Chinese model outperforms leading US models. But this isn’t evidence of an LLM-AGI race. Instead, it shows that without making AGI its main focus, China is capable of developing its own models almost as quickly as US companies.

If every environmental review, every question raised by a community, every issue around water usage and electricity prices can be dismissed or lessened as “helping China,” then meaningful political debate can be silenced.

More to the point, LLM development in China is incidental to the country’s real goal for AI. Its focus remains on products embedded with AI and robots. Or, as AI policy researcher Liang Zheng says, in China, “The first priority is to use it to benefit ordinary people” (debatable, but indicates the kind of AI they are pursuing).

In the US, the first priority is to exploit people so that the tech oligarchs can profit. It’s chatbots all the way down.

This isn’t to argue that China is doing it “right” and the US is doing it “wrong.” Either approach will lead to a future in which citizens become increasingly disempowered. In which work becomes more scarce and less lucrative for most people. And in which a handful of billionaires grow wealthier and more powerful.

But the arguments being hauled out to support the destructive growth of hyperscale data centers are based on a fallacy. There is no need to “beat China.” China and the US are racing on separate tracks, in different races, with different finish lines.

These two separate approaches also explain the mind-boggling scale of the data center invasion we currently face. The massive hyperscale data centers—recent proposals would demand up to 5 gigawatts, enough electricity to power roughly 3.75 million US households—are only “required” because the US is racing toward AGI. Meanwhile, the embodied AI dominating in China does not require the same amount of computational power.

The truth is, we don’t need hyperscale data centers to “beat China.” We aren’t racing China. We’re killing ourselves so Silicon Valley can race itself.

How Big Tech Is Weaponizing the “AI Race” to Build Data Centers

Yet, the “AI race” story is a convenient lie for Big Tech and its political protectors. It is a neat political argument designed to insulate the industry from criticism and regulation.

If every environmental review, every question raised by a community, every issue around water usage and electricity prices can be dismissed or lessened as “helping China,” then meaningful political debate can be silenced. Real regulation—if even possible—can be avoided. Fear becomes a substitute for policy.

We understand why O’Leary and the other Tech Broligarchs don’t understand the grassroots opposition to data centers building across the country. It’s hard to spot the grassroots from the window of a private jet.

At the same time, data center developers and their minions in Washington have tried to weaponize false claims about foreign ties to the anti-data center movement. Kevin O’Leary of Shark Tank fame has explicitly said that our movement is being funded by China. He has no evidence because evidence of a falsehood can’t exist. In fact, Fox News has been forced to retract its coverage of his claims.

We understand why O’Leary and the other Tech Broligarchs don’t understand the grassroots opposition to data centers building across the country. It’s hard to spot the grassroots from the window of a private jet. But the opposition is real and organic, and no amount of disinformation and pushing the “AI race against China” scare tactic will derail the movement.

Big Tech Is Selling Us a Dystopian Future

The myth of an AI race with China threatens to propel us into Big Tech’s vision of the future—one that’s more unequal than ever. Yes, tech leaders suggest their algorithms will cure cancer, but their real goal is and has been to increase their power and wealth at the expense of the rest of us.

Even as American Tech Broligarchs have distanced themselves from earlier prophecies of widespread job loss, their vision of the future will see the vast majority of us out of meaningful work. We’ll be subject to living off whatever meager handouts are created in an attempt to mollify us.

Even if there were an AI race, is it worth running, let alone winning, if the prize is a dystopian future of mass misery with a thin layer of super wealthy tech oligarchs at the top?

At the same time, our movement will be traced whether or not we use the electronic gadgets they sell us. Already, surveillance devices linked to AI can recognize our faces, record our license plates, and report our movements. Companies and governments can buy this data in order to track us.

Meanwhile, “surveillance pricing” allows companies to change prices in an instant so that they can exploit our needs for their profit. Deepfake videos have already added to the rapidly decaying trust in a commonly shared world and a basic set of facts necessary for a functioning democracy. And this is but a scratch of the surface.

Even if there were an AI race, is it worth running, let alone winning, if the prize is a dystopian future of mass misery with a thin layer of super wealthy tech oligarchs at the top?

Big Tech’s Dystopian Vision Isn’t Inevitable

But we should be clear. This dystopian vision is not the inevitable outcome of unstoppable technological “progress” as the Tech Broligarchs would have us believe. Each and every decision being made to advance AI is a political decision. And, for now, we still have the ability to determine our political future.

Across the country, there is a growing resistance to the nightmare being shoved down our throats. Communities are coming together to fight the spread of destructive hyperscale data centers. Already in 2026, more than $130 billion-worth of proposed data center projects have been defeated and canceled.

That’s the real “AI Race.” Not China versus the US, but us versus Big Tech.

Communities are taking control of their futures by placing moratoriums on new data centers. New York enacted a one-year pause on new centers, and there is growing support for a nationwide pause in Congress.

We aren’t destined to live in Elon Musk’s fever dream. We have the power to stop him and his fellow Broligarchs. When we organize, we win. That’s the real “AI Race.” Not China versus the US, but us versus Big Tech. That’s not only a race worth running—it’s one we have to win.

As the US-Israeli war against Iran expands throughout the Middle East, involving the Houthis and resulting in the closure of the Red Sea as well as the Persian Gulf, oil and gas prices are rising.–oil prices have hit a six-week high amid the conflict.

The post Gas Preppers, Activate appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.