One development for 2025 that can be seen clearly in the crystal ball is improving trade ties between China and Europe. The reason this is a virtual certainty is Donald Trump is doing everything he can to convince the world that, under his leadership, the United States is an unreliable trading partner.

He already worked hard to establish this point in his first term when he arbitrarily slapped tariffs on various imports from Canada and the European Union. His ostensible rationale was national defense, but no one outside of Mar-a-Lago could take that one seriously. We worried that we may not be able to get steel from Canada if the US is engaged in a war with another country? Or maybe we’re worried we will be at war with Canada, and they will cut us off.

But Trump is showing that the craziness will get even worse in his second term. Before even taking office Trump made strong demands that Canada and Mexico essentially do things they are already doing (block drug shipments and restrict the flow of immigrants) or he will slap 25 percent taxes on all the goods we import from them.

This is the way Trump has always done business.

This is bizarre from many angles, but most notably because Trump’s proposed import taxes would be a flagrant violation of the trade agreement he negotiated with Mexico and Canada just four and a half years ago. If Trump can just toss into the garbage a trade deal with two of our closest allies — one that he widely trumpeted at the time — then what would be the value of any deal he would strike with European countries? Clearly Trump does not feel bound by his commitments and there is no one in the US political structure who can force Trump to adhere to agreements made by the government, even when it was Trump himself who made the deal.

This is the way Trump has always done business. He routinely reneged on his commitments and often refused to pay contractors after they had done work on his projects. Many contractors would insist on payment in advance from Trump because they knew they would have a tough time collecting after the fact.

If the US is not going to be a reliable trading partner for at least the next four years, and possibly many more years into the future, Europe would be wise to look elsewhere. And there is one obvious elsewhere: China.

China’s economy is in fact already considerably larger than the US economy and growing far more rapidly. This fact is obscured by the tendency in the US media to use exchange rate measures of GDP, rather than purchasing power parity (PPP) measures.

An exchange rate measure simply takes a country’s GDP, measured in its own currency, and then converts it into dollars at the current exchange rate. By contrast, a PPP measure uses a common set of prices to assess the value of all the goods and services produced in each country. This would mean that we apply the same price for a car, a computer, and a haircut, in both the US and China. Economists would usually argue that for most purposes the PPP measure is more useful.

By this measure, China’s economy grew larger than the US economy roughly a decade ago. It is now almost 30 percent larger, and according to I.M.F. projections will be more than 40 percent larger by the end of the decade. It’s not clear why the U.S. media insists on using the exchange rate measure of GDP in reporting that routinely refers to China as the world’s second-largest economy, perhaps it’s just nationalistic chauvinism. In any case, that call reflects political biases not realities in the world.

The larger size of China’s economy makes it a more attractive trading partner in any case, but it is also more likely to stick to its commitments than the United States as long as Donald Trump is in charge. For this reason, we can be fairly certain that Europe will be looking to shore up its trade relations with China as Donald Trump puts on his clown show in Washington and Mar-a-Lago.

The DMZ America Podcast’s Ted Rall (on the Left) and Scott Stantis (on the Right) are joined by David Fitzsimmons, Cartoonist and Columnist for the Arizona Daily Star, to discuss David’s role as a Democratic activist and the future of the Democratic Party following Biden’s dropping out of the race and the defeat of Kamala Harris.

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 187: Interview with Cartoonist David Fitzsimmons first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 187: Interview with Cartoonist David Fitzsimmons appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Happy New Year to everyone but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

On Thursday, this federal court in Cincinnati threw out the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules, rejecting the agency’s authority to protect broadband consumers and handing phone and cable companies a major victory just weeks before the Trump administration returns to power.

The ruling against the FCC by three Republican judges isn’t shocking, but their reasoning is shoddy, a mish-mash of tired industry claims paired with a willful misrepresentation of how the internet actually works.

As Matt Wood, an experienced telecommunications attorney and my colleague at Free Press, explains: “Beyond being a disappointing outcome, the 6th Circuit’s opinion is just plainly wrong at every level of analysis. The decision missed the point on everything from its granular textual analysis and understanding of the broader statutory context, to the court’s view of the legislative and agency history, all the way to its conception of Congress’s overarching policy concerns.”

Our job now is to channel the growing outrage over this appalling decision into the long-term changes we need to keep the internet safe, reliable, accessible, affordable and free from unlawful discrimination.

Under the leadership of Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC moved in April 2024 to restore Net Neutrality and the essential consumer protections that rest under Title II of the Communications Act, which had been gutted under the first Trump administration. This was an all-too-rare example in Washington of a government agency doing what it’s supposed to do: Listening to the public and taking their side against the powerful companies that for far too long have captured and called the shots in D.C.

And the phone and cable industry did what they always do when the FCC does anything good or important: They sued to overturn the rules.

This time, however, the lawyers for the biggest phone and cable companies had two things working in their favor. First, they got lucky: They won the forum-shopping lottery and got their case moved outside of Washington, D.C., where previous rounds of the Net Neutrality fight had been decided.

Second, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in June in the Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo case that overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine that gave deference to expert agencies in complex matters like environmental and telecommunications regulations.

Unfortunately, the lawyers representing massive companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon found an eager audience in Cincinnati for their debunked arguments.

Despite extensive legal and economic analysis provided by Free Press and our allies in the case and at oral arguments in October, the court ruled against the FCC and deemed internet access to be an “information service” largely free from FCC oversight.

In a post-Chevron world where courts no longer have to defer to expert agencies, we’ve replaced years of evidence and argument with revelations like this from Judge Griffin: “The existence of a fact or thought in one’s mind is not ‘information’ like 0s and 1s used by computers.”

In the short term, this decision will let the incoming Trump FCC abdicate its responsibility to protect internet users so it can focus on its new priority of threatening TV broadcasters and social-media sites to carry more pro-Trump views.

I’ll spare you the rest. This court’s warped decision scraps the common-sense rules the FCC restored in April. The result is that throughout most of the country, the most essential communications service of this century will be operating without any real government oversight, with no one to step in when companies rip you off or slow down your service.

This ruling is far out of step with the views of the American public, who overwhelmingly support real Net Neutrality and despise the cable companies. They’re tired of paying too much, and they hate being spied on when they surf (or talk, thanks Siri). Now they’ll have even less recourse to deal with unscrupulous and abusive business practices.

Incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr and his old boss Ajit Pai, who’s part of the Trump transition team, are crowing everywhere about the decision and cheering this strike against “regulatory overreach.” Of course, Carr and his ilk have never been interested in protecting the public interest, only private profits.

In the short term, this decision will let the incoming Trump FCC abdicate its responsibility to protect internet users so it can focus on its new priority of threatening TV broadcasters and social-media sites to carry more pro-Trump views. The hypocrisy of crushing light-touch regulations while aggressively pursuing government censorship is something to behold.

In the weeks ahead, the FCC, as well as Free Press and the other parties who intervened in the case, will consider our legal options and decide whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In Congress, we’ll start laying the groundwork for a future bill that restores Net Neutrality and FCC authority. Meanwhile, we’ll look to the states to hold the line, with laws like California’s strong Net Neutrality regulations thankfully still on the books.

Our job now is to channel the growing outrage over this appalling decision into the long-term changes we need to keep the internet safe, reliable, accessible, affordable and free from unlawful discrimination.

It may have gotten harder, but the fight for the free and open internet is far from over.

By Ralph Nader January 3, 2025 Three years ago, I wrote an article titled, “Eight New Year’s Resolutions for NPR to Consider Now.” Since NPR has done little with these suggestions, I’m reissuing the 2022 column for listeners to review and react accordingly. After all, NPR is using the public’s airwaves. Last year we released…

I love New Orleans, and have been known to hit the jazz clubs on Bourbon Street into the wee hours myself. So what happened there is a gut punch, and I want to express my condolences to the families of the victims and to the community there for its trauma.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump jumped to the conclusion that the New Orleans attacker, who killed 15 people and wounded three dozen more was a career criminal and recent immigrant. In fact, he was an African-American veteran, born and bred in Beaumont, Texas. His conversion to Islam must have happened before 2004, when he tried to enlist in the Navy under that name. Instead, he ended up in the army, and deployed for a year to Afghanistan (2009-2010), as well as getting the training to become an IT specialist. He remained a reservist after his honorable discharge.

He was, in short, a patriotic American who did his part in fighting the war on terror. He was not an immigrant or a member of a foreign criminal gang.

I do know that if a white guy lost his family and his business, went tens of thousands of dollars into debt, and ended up living in a trailer home with livestock in his yard, and then went postal, sympathetic white reporters would be eliciting regrets from his white parents that he was suffering from mental problems.

That Mr. Trump persists in deploying the politics of hate and bigotry is a bad sign for the U.S. Even if Jabbar had been a immigrant, his actions would have said nothing about immigrants, who have low rates of criminality compared to the native-born population and whose productivity has been one key to American economic success. They don’t take jobs from the native-born on the whole, but do jobs that the latter typically won’t do.

Nor is Jabbar’s religion a reason to engage in Muslim-hatred. The NY Post‘s insidious and Islamophobic reporting ominously says that one of his neighbors in the trailer park in which he ended up only spoke Urdu. If that were true it would be because poor people live in trailer parks, including immigrants with limited English. However, it sounds fishy to me, since even poor Pakistanis of the sort who come to the United States tend to know English. It was the colonial language and still an essential language, like French in Tunisia. Then they say ominously that there was a mosque in the area. So what? Mosques are houses of worship where people go for solace when facing rough times.

The Post says ominously that Jabbar referenced the Qur’an, the Muslim scripture. D’oh. He was a Muslim. He also referenced the Qur’an when he was in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. army’s fight against the Taliban.

The Qur’an forbids murder and urges believers to forgive and do good to their enemies. See my study of these peace themes in the Muslim holy book at academia.edu.

If this guy had been a white Proud Boy found with guns and explosives, would the newspapers imply that it is suspicious that he quoted the Bible and that there is a Baptist church near his house? It is 2024, New York Post. Islamophobia is a disgusting form of racism. (Yes, Muslims are racialized in this country.)

I admire the hell out of veterans. I grew up in an army family, just as Jabbar’s children did. Most veterans are admirable citizens who come back and contribute to their communities, building businesses and providing key services. But the job undeniably can lead to trauma and stresses that a small minority deal with in dysfunctional ways. The suicide rate is tragically high. I’ve lost people I knew that way. Some end up homeless. Some are radicalized. It is not an accident that the leadership of the Proud Boys, convicted of sedition, were disproportionately veterans.

Jacqueline Sweet was able to screenshot some of Jabbar’s postings at Twitter / X.

In the first posting, from 2021, he says that a “scarcity mindset” is unhealthy in an environment of abundance, and that if you can’t turn off that scarcity mindset it becomes a kind of trauma. In the second, from the same year, he complains about the lack of Black protagonists in films after Marvel’s The Black Panther (2018) who are not “submissive, immoral or immature/ silly.”

— (@)

Then in 2022, everything went to hell. His wife divorced him, he went deeply into debt, and the Post says he ended up living in a trailer home with chickens and sheep in the lawn.

Everybody goes postal in their own way. White nationalists try to invade the capitol and hang the vice president. Kahanaist Jews in Israel shoot up mosques and commit atrocities in the Occupied Territories. A handful of Muslim Americans have declared themselves ISIL (ISIS, Daesh), even though that organization barely exists and has no command and control. It is like a white supremacist declaring that he is acting in the name of Adolf Hitler even though the Nazi army was long ago defeated and Adolf died in his bunker.

It should go without saying that the fact that a tiny number of disturbed individuals act this way does not reflect on the 4 or 5 million Muslim Americans, who are our physicians, accountants, and local business people. Tarring a whole group with the actions of a few is the definition of prejudice. Likewise, the Proud Boys don’t reflect on all white people.

I’m not a psychiatrist and don’t play one on television. I therefore cannot pronounce on Jabbar’s state of mind. But I do know that if a white guy lost his family and his business, went tens of thousands of dollars into debt, and ended up living in a trailer home with livestock in his yard, and then went postal, sympathetic white reporters would be eliciting regrets from his white parents that he was suffering from mental problems. As I pointed out over a decade ago, however, the U.S. media treat white terrorists differently.

As a reminder, here are my Top 10 Differences between White Terrorists and Others:

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the U.S.? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”
2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.
3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.
4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.
5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.
6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.
7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.
8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.
9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts, or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.
10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

The last time the United States acquired new territory in the western hemisphere was 1917, when it purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark. Now Trump wants to take us back to the 19th century and major acquisitions like Alaska, which we bought from Russia in 1867. He has his eye on Greenland and Canada, which would more than double the size of our country. He’s also threatening to take back the Panama Canal. What do all of these places have in common? Trade between the world’s major oceans, facilitated by a new northwest passage created by the disappearance of the polar ice cap.

“The TMI Show” delves into the politics and realities of Making America Bigger Again with co-hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan and guest Scott Stantis, editorial cartoonist for The Chicago Tribune. 

The post TMI Show Ep 49: “Make America Bigger Again” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 49: “Make America Bigger Again” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Ultra-wealthy elites. Political corruption. Corporate monopolies. Anti-immigrant nativism. Vast inequality.

These problems aren’t new. In the late 1800s, they dominated the country during America’s first Gilded Age. We overcame these abuses then, and we can do so again.

Mark Twain coined the moniker “The Gilded Age” in his 1873 novel to describe the era in American history characterized by corruption and inequality that was masked by a thin layer of prosperity for a select few.

The end of the 19th century and start of the 20th marked a time of great invention — bustling railroads, telephones, motion pictures, electricity, automobiles — that changed American life forever.

But it was also an era of giant monopolies — oil, railroad, steel, finance — run by a small group of men who had grown rich beyond anything America had ever seen.

It seemed as if American capitalism was out of control, and American democracy couldn’t do anything about it because it was bought and paid for by the rich.

They were known as “robber barons” because they ran competitors out of business, exploited workers, charged customers exorbitant prices, and lived like royalty as a result.

Money consumed politics. Robber barons and their lackeys donated bundles of cash to any lawmaker willing to do bidding on their behalf. When lobbying wasn’t enough, the powerful moneyed interests turned to bribery — resulting in some of the most infamous political scandals in American history.

The gap between rich and poor in America reached record levels. Large numbers of Americans lived in squalor.

Anti-immigrant sentiment raged, leading to the enactment of racist laws to restrict immigration. It was also a time of voter suppression, largely aimed at Black men who had recently won the right to vote.

The era was also marked by dangerous working conditions. Children often as young as 10, but sometimes younger, worked brutal hours in sweatshops. Workers trying to organize labor unions were attacked and killed.

It seemed as if American capitalism was out of control, and American democracy couldn’t do anything about it because it was bought and paid for by the rich.

But America reached a tipping point. The nation was fed up. The public demanded reform. Many took to the streets in protest. Investigative journalists, often called “muckrakers” then, helped amplify their cries by exposing what was occurring throughout the country.

A new generation of political leaders rose to end the abuses.

Teddy Roosevelt warned that “a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power,” could destroy American democracy.

After becoming president in 1901, Roosevelt used the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up dozens of powerful corporations, including the giant Northern Securities Company, which had come to dominate railroad transportation through a series of mergers.

Seeking to limit the vast fortunes that were creating a new American aristocracy, Congress enacted a progressive income tax through the 16th Amendment, as well as two wealth taxes.

The first wealth tax, in 1916, was the estate tax — on the wealth someone accumulated during their lifetime, paid by the heirs who inherited it. The second tax on wealth, enacted in 1922, was a capital gains tax — on the increased value of assets, paid when those assets were sold.

The reformers of the Gilded Age also stopped corporations from giving money directly to politicians or political candidates.

Then Teddy Roosevelt’s fifth cousin (you may have heard of him) continued the work through his New Deal programs, creating Social Security, unemployment insurance, and a 40-hour workweek and requiring that employers bargain in good faith with labor unions.

But following the death of FDR and the end of World War II, and after America had built the largest middle class the world had ever seen, we seemed to forget about the abuses of the Gilded Age.

The reforms that followed the first Gilded Age withered.

Starting with Reagan, taxes on the wealthy were lowered. Campaign finance laws were weakened. Social safety nets became frayed. Corporations stopped bargaining in good faith with labor unions.

Now, more than a century later, America has entered a second Gilded Age.

Monopolies are once again taking over vast swaths of the economy. So we must strengthen antitrust enforcement to bust up powerful companies.

Now another generation of robber barons, exemplified by Elon Musk, is accumulating unprecedented money and power. So, once again, we must tax these exorbitant fortunes.

Wealthy individuals and big corporations are once again paying off lawmakers, sending them billions to conduct their political campaigns, even giving luxurious gifts to Supreme Court justices. So we must protect our democracy from Big Money, just as we did before.

As it was during the first Gilded Age, voter suppression is too often making it harder for people of color to participate in our democracy. So it’s once again critical to defend and expand voting rights.

Working people are once again being exploited and abused, child labor is returning, unions are being busted, the poor are again living in unhealthy conditions, homelessness is on the rise, and the gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else is nearly as large as in the first Gilded Age.

So once again we need to protect the rights of workers to organize, invest in social safety nets, and revive guardrails to protect against the abuses of great wealth and power.

Seeking these goals may seem quixotic right now, just weeks before Trump and his regime take power with a bilious bunch of billionaires.

But if history is any guide, they will mark the last gasp of America’s second Gilded Age. We will reach the tipping point where Americans demand restraints on robber-baron greed.

The challenge is the same as it was at the start of the 20th century: To fight for an economy and a democracy that works for all rather than the few.

I realize how frightening and depressing the future may look right now. But we have succeeded before, when we fought against the abuses of the first Gilded Age. We can — and must — do so again now, in America’s second Gilded Age.

"The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of 50 years of neoliberalism,” Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy wrote days after the election. “We cannot be afraid of fights, especially with the economic elites who have profited off neoliberalism.”

Indeed, the results of the 2024 election left many Democrats reeling. Once again, the very real frustrations many American voters have with their place in an increasingly complex and unequal global economy were exploited by a billionaire con man with a horrendous, hate-fueled agenda full of sweeping corporate giveaways.

Voters Wanted Economic Change

With the smoke cleared, we can see that there were a number of factors working against the Harris campaign and numerous pathways to victory that fell short. But it is undeniable that economic policy and messaging played a major role. Countless exit polls showed that dissatisfaction with the economy was the number one deciding issue for voters.

Take the three Rust Belt swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, for instance, where an average of 31% of voters said the economy was the most important factor in determining their decisions. Of these, 76% voted for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. Sixty-six percent felt the economy was in bad shape, and of this group, 70% voted for Donald Trump.

It would be preposterous for Democrats—in the name of fighting Trumpism—to revert back to the corporate-dominated rules of free trade agreements that contributed to the economic damage felt by working people and drove them toward right-wing populism.

And then there’s Trumbull County, Ohio, home of the Lordstown GM plant where Trump had promised thousands of autoworkers he would save their jobs. And though all of those jobs went to Mexico during his presidency and he did nothing to stop it, Trump overperformed his 2020 numbers there by nearly four percentage points, while Vice President Kamala Harris underperformed President Joe Biden’s. Trump also overperformed his 2020 numbers to beat Harris in Racine County, Wisconsin, where he had promised 13,000 manufacturing jobs back in 2017 that never arrived. Worse, Harris underperformed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 total vote percentages in every Rust Belt state except Indiana.

The Rust Belt got its name because of bad trade deals. It’s where a lot of good manufacturing jobs used to be before the era of neoliberal corporate-trade policies arrived in the late 80s. Back then, Republican and Democratic leaders alike pushed the myth of free trade onto a working class that had just endured a wave of skyrocketing income inequality and attacks on unions by Ronald Reagan.

U.S. trade policy plays a central role in these voters’ dissatisfaction. Deep feelings of betrayal left behind by the era of free trade fueled all three of Donald Trump’s campaigns and allowed his litany of lies and false promises about protecting manufacturing jobs to win over many working-class voters.

Recognition of “Free Trade” Harms

President Biden, previously a supporter of traditional free trade deals, learned some important political lessons from 2016, and the 2020 Democratic primary pushed him to incorporate parts of the economic populist platform endorsed by the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren campaigns. Many of the same swing-state voters who went to Trump in 2016 responded to that message and delivered the White House to Biden in 2020.

During Biden’s presidency, thanks to key personnel like U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, the U.S. began moving away from the corporate-dominated deals of the past and made significant progress toward enacting a new “worker-centered” trade policy. And Biden matched this new approach with historic investments in new U.S. manufacturing to counteract job loss caused by past trade deals.

Instead of concluding free trade agreements, the administration promised that U.S. trade policy would serve, rather than undermine, these massive spending programs. There was more investment in new manufacturing facilities in the U.S. under Biden-Harris than at any point in more than three decades.

Trade Progress Uncelebrated

The Harris campaign could have told a powerful story about turning the tables and standing up for workers against corporate greed. They could have built a campaign, like Biden did in 2020, that took seriously the demands of the progressive wing of the party and the voters they inspired. They could have leaned into and promised to expand these progressive economic and trade policies. But the consultants and party strategists who helped guide them chose not to.

Instead, the campaign failed to credibly speak to the economic pain communities have been suffering and missed many opportunities to emphasize the very real progress the Biden administration made on that front. In speech after speech, Harris fell into Trump’s trap, arguing against tariffs that are supported by 56% of all voters, not just those in factory towns.

The campaign repeatedly attacked these popular tariffs, even disingenuously calling them a “sales tax,” despite the fact that the Biden-Harris administration had also strategically used tariffs to protect U.S. industries and manufacturing jobs.

With the Harris campaign not consistently communicating a populist economic agenda, Trump was once again able to sell his hateful brand of right-wing populism, falsely claiming that he alone was looking out for American manufacturing workers.

The Way Forward

It would be preposterous for Democrats—in the name of fighting Trumpism—to revert back to the corporate-dominated rules of free trade agreements that contributed to the economic damage felt by working people and drove them toward right-wing populism.

Instead, they should clearly and passionately outline a progressive, populist vision for trade that they will boldly implement when they retake power. They should demand large-scale changes that transform how our country works for working people.

I remember being filled with excitement when the Paris agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C was adopted by nearly 200 countries at COP21. But after the curtains closed on COP29 last month—almost a decade later—my disenchantment with the event reached a new high.

As early as the 2010s, scientists from academia and the United Nations Environment Program warned that the U.S. and Europe must cut meat consumption by 50% to avoid climate disaster. Earlier COPs had mainly focused on fossil fuels, but meat and dairy corporations undoubtedly saw the writing on the wall that they too would soon come under fire.

Our food system needs to be sustainable for all—people, animals, and our planet.

Animal agriculture accounts for at least 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, over quadruple the amount from global aviation. Global meat and dairy production have increased almost fivefold since the 1960s with the advent of industrialized agriculture. These factory-like systems are characterized by cramming thousands of animals into buildings or feedlots and feeding them unnatural grain diets from crops grown offsite. Even if all fossil fuel use was halted immediately, we would still exceed 1.5°C temperature rise without changing our food system, particularly our production and consumption of animal-sourced foods.

But climate change is just one of the threats we face. We have also breached five other planetary boundaries—biodiversity; land-use change; phosphorus and nitrogen cycling; freshwater use; and pollution from man-made substances such as plastics, antibiotics, and pesticides—all of which are also driven mainly by animal-sourced food production.

The 2023 update is shown to the Planetary boundaries. (Graphic: Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, based on analysis in Richardson et al 2023/ CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

By the time world leaders were ready to consider our food system's impact on climate and the environment, the industrialized meat and dairy sector had already prepared its playbook to maintain the status quo. The Conference of Parties is meant to bring together the world's nations and thought leaders to address climate change. However, the event has become increasingly infiltrated by corporate interests. There were 52 delegates from the meat and dairy sector at COP29, many with country badges that gave them privileged access to diplomatic negotiations.

In this forum and others, the industry has peddled bombastic "solutions" under the guise of technology and innovation. Corporate-backed university research has lauded adding seaweed to cattle feed and turning manure lagoons the size of football fields into energy sources to reduce methane production. In Asia, companies are putting pigs in buildings over 20 stories tall, claiming the skyscrapers cut down on space and disease risks. And more recently, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos started bankrolling research and development into vaccines that reduce the methane-causing bacteria found naturally in cows' stomachs. The industry hopes that the novelty and allure of new technologies will woo lawmakers and investors, but these "solutions" create more problems than they solve, exacerbating net greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, wildlife loss, and freshwater depletion.

Emissions from animal-sourced foods can be broadly divided into four categories: ruminant fermentation (cow burps); manure; logistics (transport, packaging, processing, etc.); and land-use change, i.e., the conversion of wild spaces into pasture, feedlots, and cropland for feed. In the U.S., ruminant fermentation and manure emit more methane than natural gas and petroleum systems combined.

A new report found that beef consumption must decline by over a quarter globally by 2035 to curb methane emissions from cattle, which the industry's solutions claim to solve without needing to reduce consumption. But the direct emissions from cattle aren't the only problem—beef and dairy production is also the leading driver of deforestation, which must decline by 72% by 2035, and reforestation must rise by 115%. About 35% of habitable land is used to raise animals for food or to grow their feed (mostly corn and soy), about the size of North and South America combined.

Thousands of cattle mill about or huddle under shade structures at a large cattle ranch where they spend the last few months of their lives before going to slaughter in Coalinga, California, USA, 2022. (Photo: Vince Penn / We Animals)

Put simply, the inadequate solutions put forth by Big Ag cannot outpace industrialized farming's negative impacts on the planet. While seaweed and methane vaccines may address cow burps, they don't address carbon emissions from deforestation or manure emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas over 270 times more powerful than CO2. They also don't address the nitrate water pollution from manure, which can sicken people and cause massive fish kills and harmful algal blooms; biodiversity decline from habitat loss, which has dropped 73% since the rise of industrialized animal agriculture; freshwater use, drying up rivers and accounting for over a quarter of humanity's water footprint; or pesticide use on corn and soy feed, which kills soil microorganisms that are vital to life on Earth.

Skyscrapers, while solving some land-use change, do not consider the resources and the land used to grow animal feed, which is globally about equivalent to the size of Europe. They also don't address the inherent inefficiencies with feeding grain to animals raised for food. If fed directly to people, those grains could feed almost half the world's population. And while the companies using pig skyscrapers claim they enhance biosecurity by keeping potential viruses locked inside, a system failure could spell disaster, posing a bigger threat to wildlife and even humans.

We need both a monumental shift from industrialized agriculture to regenerative systems and a dramatic shift from animal-heavy diets to diets rich in legumes, beans, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, with meat and dairy as a specialty rather than a staple.

One solution that is gaining traction as an alternative to Big Ag's proposals is regenerative grazing. When done right, regenerative grazing eliminates the need for pesticides and leans into the natural local ecology, putting farm animals onto rotated pastures and facilitating carbon uptake into the soil. Regenerative animal agriculture is arguably the only solution put forward that addresses all six breached planetary boundaries as well as animal welfare and disease risk, and studies suggest it can improve the nutritional quality of animal-sourced foods. While it is imperative to transition from industrialized to regenerative systems, regenerative grazing comes with major caveats. This type of farming is only beneficial in small doses—cutting down centuries-old forests or filling in carbon-rich wetlands to make way for regenerative pastures would do much more climate and ecological harm than good. Soil carbon sequestration takes time and increases with vegetation and undisturbed soil, meaning that any regenerative pastures made today will never be able to capture as much carbon as the original natural landscape, especially in forests, mangroves, wetlands, and tundra. And while regenerative farmlands create better wildlife habitats than feedlots and monocultures, they still don't function like a fully natural ecosystem and food web. Also, cattle emit more methane than their native ruminant counterparts such as bison and deer.

Most notably, however, we simply don't have enough land to produce regeneratively raised animal products at the current consumption rate. Regenerative grazing requires more land than industrialized systems, sometimes two to three times more, and as mentioned the livestock industry already occupies over one-third of the world's habitable land. In all, we have much more to gain from rewilding crop- and rangeland than from turning the world into one big regenerative pasture.

A horned Pineywoods bull watches a white and black spotted Kune Kune pig at a regenerative farm in North Carolina, USA. (Photo: Mike Hansen / Getty Images)

All this brings us to one conclusion—the one that was made by scientists over a decade ago: We need to eat less meat. As Action Aid's Teresa Anderson noted at this year's COP, "The real answers to the climate crisis aren’t being heard over the corporate cacophony."

Scientific climate analyses over the last few years have been grim at best, and apocalyptic at worst. According to one of the latest U.N. reports, limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 57% by 2035, relative to 2023 emissions. However, current national policies—none of which currently include diet shifts—will achieve less than a 1% reduction by 2035. If the 54 wealthiest nations adopted sustainable healthy diets with modest amounts of animal products, they could slash their total emissions by 61%. If we also allowed the leftover land to rewild, we could sequester 30% of our global carbon budget in these nations and nearly 100% if adopted globally.

Our food system needs to be sustainable for all—people, animals, and our planet. Quick fixes and bandages will not save our planet from climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. We need both a monumental shift from industrialized agriculture to regenerative systems and a dramatic shift from animal-heavy diets to diets rich in legumes, beans, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, with meat and dairy as a specialty rather than a staple. As nations draft their policies for COP30, due early this year, we need leaders to adopt real food system solutions instead of buying into the corporate cacophony.

I welcome in the new year with a sense of abstract helplessness, as the headlines continue to bring us dead children, bombed hospitals, torture, rape and, of course, ever more “self-defense” (sometimes known as genocide).

From my safe, secure office space I absorb the daily news—from Gaza, from all across the planet–with a whiplash of guilt and naivete. What the hell do I know what it feels like to have my house, or my tent, bombed, to see my children die, to have no access to water, let alone healthcare? Is it enough to comfortably empathize with the collateral damage of this world at war?

No, no, no, it’s not.

This is just the way things are. It’s OK to kill—you just have to do so within certain rules.

But I empathize nonetheless, and shake to my depths with an incredulity that never goes away: “As if the relentless bombing and the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza were not enough, the one sanctuary where Palestinians should have felt safe in fact became a death trap.”

The words are those of Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, quoted in a recent U.N. report about Israel’s ongoing devastation of Palestinian hospitals and its virtually total destruction of the occupied territory’s healthcare system, including the arrest—the abduction—of hundreds of doctors and other medical professionals, who often wind up being tortured and sometimes murdered.

The U.N. report was released “just days after the last functioning major healthcare facility in northern Gaza, Kama Adwan Hospital, was taken out of service after a raid by Israeli military forces, leaving the population of North Gaza with almost no access to adequate health care,” according to U.N. News:

Staff and patients were forced to flee or were taken into custody, with many reports of torture and ill-treatment. The director of the hospital was taken into custody, and his fate and whereabouts are unknown.

During the period covered by the report, there were at least 136 strikes on at least 27 hospitals and 12 other medical facilities, claiming significant casualties among doctors, nurses, medics, and other civilians, and causing significant damage, if not complete destruction of civilian infrastructure.

It’s virtually impossible to absorb news like this without first reducing it to an abstraction. This is something that’s happening “over there” somewhere, to people I don’t know. And soon enough the world itself—the world in which we all live—is mostly an abstraction... an entity separated by borders. I can read about terrible things going on in distant places, but my sense of actual connection to them is missing.

The U.N. News story proceeded to point out, “The protection of hospitals during warfare is paramount and must be respected by all sides, at all times.”

And here’s where my internal alarm went off. I have no disagreement with the point of the above sentence, but there’s something missing. Something crucial. Its basic point is this: When you’re waging war, hey, you still have to obey certain rules, e.g., don’t bomb hospitals without a really, really good reason. If you do, you’ve done something bad. You’ve committed a war crime.

It’s not simply that acts of war are wrapped snugly in legalese, but that war itself—in the context that births the term “war crime”—is not questioned or morally challenged. War simply exists. It’s a transcultural moral certainty. It’s part and parcel of civilization itself. Various social entities across the planet are bound to disagree or get annoyed with one another from time to time, and when they do—what choice do they have?—they go to war. This is just the way things are. It’s OK to kill—you just have to do so within certain rules. And mostly those rules apply to the loser, not the winner. Certainly this is true in retrospect.

And suddenly the sense of abstraction I was feeling begins to shatter. The concept of war instantly turns life itself into an abstraction. No matter that religions (see Genesis 1:27) all seem to acknowledge the preciousness of human life... of life itself. Most religions are also the first to send their troops—or, nowadays, their tanks and bombers—into battle.

A year ago I wrote:

We—by which I mean most of humanity—are still playing with the so-called ‘just war theory,’ the intellectual justification for war dating back to St. Augustine and the early centuries of the Common Era.

You know, violence is morally neutral—and thus, when the cause is just and sacred, go for it! Kill the non-believers... The neutrality of violence can be used by anyone in a position of power.

And, oh yeah, before you open fire, before you start killing, you have to take a spiritual step directly into the process: You have to define, and then dehumanize, the enemy. Once that happens, let her rip! The only thing stopping you now are the so-called rules of war, which allegedly protect innocent civilians and keep the whole thing reasonable. What a joke. Violence is poisonously addictive and easily expands—anywhere and everywhere.

War, as I have noted, is humanity’s cancer. Its seeming inevitability is ensconced in the global military budget. We have a few thousand nukes ready to go (“if necessary”) and thus the power to destroy all life on Planet Earth, aka, ourselves. Isn’t it time to start rethinking this potential Armageddon?

We are capable of creating peace! Most of us want it, at least for ourselves, our loved ones, our community, and country. We just don’t know what it is—and no, it’s not some cliché of perfect harmony. But it begins with the only rule of war that is necessary: It must never be waged again.

When U.S. President Joe Biden announced last July that he would not seek a second term, left-leaning pundits, politicians, and late-night comics waxed lyrical in elevating Biden to near-mythic status, framing his big choice as proof of sacrificing personal ambition for the salvation of American democracy.

After the presidential elections and as his presidency unceremoniously fades, serious talk about Joe’s legacy has fallen sloppy dead (channeling Grace Slick) and been replaced by disorganized clamor over Vice President Kamala Harris’ decisive defeat.

Still, it remains odd that Biden’s decision to pass the electoral torch to his vice president was ever cast as a salvific moment in modern American politics. Long before the election results, the legacy pillow talk showed an embarrassing blind spot in the internal discourse of the country.

In this moment of horrific violence, veils have been lifted, and, as a result, what America and Americans think about the Middle East has lost its luster internationally.

As the Biden redemption arc threaded through the media logic of the mainstream public sphere, global discourses about Biden’s legacy had pursued a different path. The Biden-Harris-Blinken team, for the most part, has been viewed in much of the world for presiding over what scholars, jurists, courts, members of Congress, and respected human rights groups have called or made adjacent references to being genocide or genocidal violence in Gaza—an “Industrial scale slaughterhouse.”

Despite the populist narratology justifying the American diplomatic shield for Israeli bellicosity and an unending supply of war kits, the legacy curation of the Biden administration in the greater elsewhere of our world will focus on a succession of war crimes and strategic privations in Gaza sponsored by the United States, executed by the Israelis, and underwritten by the epistemic violence of dehumanizing a resolute people who have been killed, displaced, occupied, and politically and economically hamstrung for more than 75 years, if not a century, as historian Rashid Khalidi argues.

The “October 7” signifier, in other words, received little purchase beyond Western milieus.

As for real legacy stakes, they exist and are high. The unchecked violence in Gaza has been described as the “graveyard of liberal values” and “Western ideals.” And “many of the most important principles of humanitarian law,” have also been laid to rest without the dignity of any exequies.

As a consequence, the hegemonic influence of American media narratives on a global scale has unraveled, with the credibility of major Western news organizations tanking and “irreparably damaged.” Even from within, major Western outlets face allegations of journalistic malpractice, by staff from CNN and BBC, for example, protesting editorial impositions on reporters to take an Israel-biased slant in their Gaza coverage.

Such failings have managed to quicken concepts typically locked in academia. For example, New York University professor Miranda Fricker’s theoretical works on “epistemic injustice” hold more active meaning now. The structures of mediation spotlight one perspective, while entire groups are denied credibility as knowers of their own contexts and denied meaningful space in the media ecology.

Likewise, Northwestern’s José Medina’s “epistemic responsibility” is now heard as a call for the dismantling of media structures that amplify one-sided narratives while deliberately silencing others. This unchecked dynamic aligns with what I term the “epistemology of repetition,” where context-stripped narratives gain the veneer of truth for no higher reason than sheer repetition, with any attempt at rigor and fact-checking labeled as antisemitic.

At stake is the fundamental right of Palestinians to be recognized as legitimate sources of their own lived experiences and claims. Denying these rights or covering them with performative both-side-ism silences their histories, aspirations, and love for their land—a love expressed through resistance to occupation and a firm commitment to family, education, and spirituality. Such epistemic violence not only mirrors physical destruction but enables it by erasing the cultural and historical claims of those affected and makes up the narrative scaffolding that typecast Palestinians as forever aggressors and Israelis as perpetual victims, as anthropologist Julie Peteet writes.

From my perch as a media and religious studies academic and a Chicago native teaching in the Middle East for nearly 17 years, I have little hope that American journalism will embrace greater epistemic responsibility toward Palestine. Answering this call would require radical transformations of journalistic premises and praxis. This epistemic responsibility would be considered nothing less than storytelling apostasy.

In this moment of horrific violence, veils have been lifted, and, as a result, what America and Americans think about the Middle East has lost its luster internationally. The distributive imbalances of reportage and the suppression of meaningful counter-narratives have never been so stark. The corporate media giants took a huge gamble with their coverage of Gaza (especially in the early months of the violence), but they lost the bet and injured their credibility abroad, leaving a damning evidentiary trail of blatant bias in news coverage that is “rife with deadly double standards.”

As a result, the American brand has been tarnished, which ultimately is Joe’s legacy.

For years, the U.S. and the West undermined and sabotaged the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Now they’ve succeeded and radical jihadis have taken over. You just know what’s going to happen next.

The post Regime Change a Go Go first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post Regime Change a Go Go appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

A driver runs down and kills 15 pedestrians on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. A man pushes a commuter in front of a New York subway train days after a migrant sets a homeless woman on fire, killing her, on a train in Brooklyn. The FBI says crime is down in every category, especially violent offenses. But urban areas feel lawless and out of control and the latest Gallup poll finds that a majority of Americans believe crime is extremely or very serious.

Are Americans paranoid? What effects are the migrant and homeless crises having? What can the authorities do at the local and national levels to make people feel safe?

“TMI Show” hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan are joined by Michael Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to discuss the state of a scared nation.

The post TMI Show Ep 48: “Mean Streets: Can Anyone Clean Them Up?” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 48: “Mean Streets: Can Anyone Clean Them Up?” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Elvis Presley hardly seems a likely candidate for the pantheon of public health heroes. But in October 1956 the ascending rock idol lent his considerable stardom to helping save lives.

His little remembered role is a cautionary tale as incoming President Trump advances a series of farright and unqualified appointees to major public agencies. The most dangerous is likely to be conspiracy theorist Robert Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, augmented by like-minded, perilous public health heads of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Federal Drug Administration (FDA), and his choice for Surgeon General.

For a century, polio epidemics made it one of the world’s most terrifying diseases. A 1916 outbreak in New York City killed over 2,000 people; another in the U.S. in 1952 claimed over 3,000. Children were especially targeted, over 60,000 infected yearly, facing lifelong severe spinal injuries requiring braces, crutches, and wheelchairs, and the dreaded iron lung, an artificial respirator, or premature death.

Wealth and status proved no barrier, as evidenced by President Franklin Roosevelt who was diagnosed at age 39 in 1921 with polio and endured it the rest of his life. What was a safeguard was the first vaccine, developed by virologist/medical researcher Jonas Salk. The announcement on April 12, 1955 by University of Michigan School of Public Health scientist Thomas Francis, Jr., who declared it “safe, effective, and potent,” was greeted as a national celebration, spread rapidly over radio, television, and wire services.

Parents lined up to vaccinate their young children, plenty did not. Teen immunization levels stagnated at just 0.6 percent. Enter Elvis. He agreed to go on the popular Ed Sullivan TV show, not to sing, but to get publicly vaccinated, viewed by millions. Vaccination rates among American youth soared to 80 percent in just six months. Overall annual cases of polio plummeted within a year from 58,000 to 5,600. By 1961, only 161 cases remained. After an oral vaccine followed, polio disappeared in the U.S. completely.

Yet polio never vanished globally, especially in underdeveloped nations, as in Africa, and in war zones, including in Gaza today—driven by Israel’s decimation of public health protections during its catastrophic and ongoing assault. In 2022, the first U.S. case in decades was reported by the New York State Department of Health.

Defense against dangerous epidemic outbreaks requires constant vigilance, and public support for full embrace of public health safety measures, including vaccinations. The experience of Trump’s first tenure is far from reassuring, especially his abominable failure in the face of Covid-19, the worst global pandemic in a century which ultimately cost the lives of over 1.2 million Americans.

Initial skepticism over the polio vaccine has a long antecedent in the U.S., described early in the Covid pandemic by what Los Angeles Times writer Carolina Miranda aptly termed “toxic individualism” and rugged individualism. It is traceable to a virulent brew of misguided notions of individual liberty that undermine and sabotage the public good, or a commons of national and community interest. Much of its roots are linked to structural racism, as in the resistance to Civil Rights Movement measures, and continuing today in white opposition to reforms such as expansion of health care and other public programs, immigration rights, and other societal benefits.

That history provides context for the eruption of the anti-vax, anti-public health measures that exacerbated and prolonged Covid suffering and death and seeded the ground for opposition to other essential vaccines. It’s true, as medical ethicist Arthur Caplan writes, that much of “the damage to getting Americans to vaccinate has already been done… There are almost no serious state mandates for childhood vaccines. Parents who want to opt out are easily doing so, as can be seen by the resurgence in measles and whooping cough. Nearly 40% of teenagers are not up to date on the HPV vaccine even as Australia and Scotland are on the verge of eliminating cervical cancer thanks to serious immunization campaigns.”

Further, he adds “Democrats avoided vaccination as an issue this election year because they knew that, post Covid, vaccination has become something of a political third rail. Could Kennedy and [CMS nominee Dr. Mehmet] Oz make things worse—absolutely. But are matters already bad—sadly, yes.”

The Kennedy-Trump threat

Yet Kennedy and his coterie of other department heads can make matters much worse. With the imprimatur of a President-elect already lionized by an often-fawning base will likely discourage more resistance to vaccines that can turn schools into major disease vectors and hasten the spread of new epidemics sure to come.

Even in the wake of Covid, Kennedy, with his power as HHS Secretary has said he would pause NIH’s drug development and infectious disease research and shift its focus to chronic diseases that do need attention but not at the expense of combating global epidemics.

Kennedy has also indicated a desire to shutter “entire” FDA departments, which oversee safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs and vaccines. And he has threatened to purge FDA staff for “aggressive suppression” of unsafe products and therapies, such as raw milk, and discredited COVID treatments, including hydroxychloroquine.

There’s his lurid, scientifically refuted linkage of vaccines to autism and other conspiracies, such as his claim that Covid was bioengineered to exempt Chinese people, already targeted by Trump rhetoric that fueled hate crimes, and Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe origin, reinforcing right-wing antisemitic bigotry.

And that’s not including his attack on fluoride in drinking water which promotes oral health, as cited in a letter by 77 Nobel Prize winners opposing Kennedy, or his speculated doubt that HIV causes AIDS and the effectiveness of AZT therapy.

Anti-vax consequences

Still, it is his fanaticism on vaccines that prompts the most alarm.

During the COVID-19 epidemic, Children’s Health Defense, a group Kennedy founded and led, petitioned the FDA to halt the use of all COVID vaccines. In a 2023 podcast, Kennedy proclaimed there is “no vaccine that is safe and effective,” and disputed CDC’s guidelines about if and when kids should get vaccinated.

The implications are alone enough for a mass movement to escalate pressure to block confirmation of Kennedy, and Trump’s nominees to lead the CDC, CMS, FDA, NIH and Surgeon General who mostly share his chilling views on vaccine safety. Multiple studies document what is at stake.

The World Health Organization estimates vaccines have protected 150 million lives over the past 50 years, and that 100 million were infants. About 4 million deaths worldwide are prevented by childhood vaccination every year. More than 50 million deaths can be prevented through immunization between 2021 and 2030. By 2030, it is estimated that measles vaccination alone can save nearly 19 million lives.

In November 2013, University of Pittsburgh researchers issued a similar study. It documented that about 103 million cases of disease had been prevented by vaccination since 1924. The disease with the most cases prevented was diphtheria, 40 million cases. Second was measles, 35 million cases.

Globally, reported Scientific American, measles vaccines, preserved 94 million lives over the past 50 years. It cited a 2024 Lancet study published in October that vaccines against 14 common pathogens protected 154 million people over the past five decades—that's a rate of six lives every minute. They have cut infant mortality by 40 percent globally and by more than 50 percent in Africa. Throughout history vaccines secured more lives than almost any other intervention.

Lancet found that each life defended through immunization contributed to 66 years of full health, without long-term linked to disease. Vaccines impact nearly every measurement of health equity, from improving access to care, to reducing disability and long-term morbidity, to preventing loss of labor and the death of caretakers.

Writing in Forbes, hardly a left-wing Trump critic, earlier this year, ER doctor/health researcher Arthur Kellerman also cited the Pittsburgh study, as well as Johns Hopkins data of nearly 88 million cases of illness. In 1900, he wrote, 30 percent of deaths in the U.S. occurred in children under 5 years of age. In 1999, they accounted for only 1.4 percent. "Vaccines," he concluded, "played a vital role in this progress.”

Measles, a highly contagious childhood disease that can lead to pneumonia and fatal brain swelling, declined rapidly after the first measles vaccine was introduced in 1963. But, the CDC cites 16 measles outbreaks in 2024. Kennedy’s alleged role in promoting vaccine misinformation during a deadly measles outbreak in American Samoa in 2019, which he denies, has also been widely reported. Unvaccinated families, writes Kellerman, “tend to cluster in communities defined by faith, culture or political ideology. When a highly contagious disease gets into such a community, an outbreak can occur. We’ve already seen localized outbreaks of measles, rubella, mumps, and pertussis.”

In 2022, Kennedy’s attorney and close advisor Aaron Siri petitioned the FDA to revoke approval of the polio vaccine for further study despite its long history of success.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who endured polio as a child, has denounced the push “to undermine public confidence in proven cures” like the polio vaccine. Only a “miraculous combination of modern medicine and a mother’s love” saved him from paralysis he said in a statement. “The polio vaccine has saved millions of lives and held out the promise of eradicating a terrible disease. Efforts to undermine public confidence in proven cures are not just uninformed—they’re dangerous,” McConnell said.

Yet McConnell, and similar Republican critics have yet to publicly oppose Kennedy and his similar malefactors of health (to borrow FDR’s “malefactors of wealth” frame).

We can no longer count on Elvis to protect our children, families and communities. It is up to the rest of us.

If climate overheating is the biggest threat to life on Earth, one might expect that progressive platforms would be all over this issue. Of all the great crimes of capitalism—war, imperial conquest, siphoning pocket change from workers into bloated coffers of corporate wealth, shaking down ordinary people for a false promise of healthcare, buying up housing with private equity to spike rents, etc.—the baking of the biosphere stands out as an act of unprecedented, monstrous proportions.

Corporate greed, in its bureaucratic, industrial ability to divorce sentiment from institutional momentum, has entered a realm unique in the half billion year evolutionary history of multicellular life. Corporate humanity, armed with technology, has the ability to fast-track mass extinction. The oligarchs of our species have gained admittance to a dimension formerly restricted to geological processes. If implosion of the biosphere had always been a consequence of rare acts of volcanism—the caprice of plate tectonics unfolding across eons—we now can completely obliterate living systems on a dime.

Climate overheating is an epic story, and we have yet to figure out how to tell it.

Progressive media, thus, has every reason to be utterly riveted and obsessed with the climate—climate extinction is worse than war, worse than racism, worse than colonial expansion, worse than arbitrary police power, worse than union busting, worse than any corporate crimes short of nuclear war. Indeed, climate destruction might be thought of as the pure tincture of capitalism, the compressed essence of all forms of injustice. Climate, however, requires that people grasp a different order of magnitude to seriously address its lethal certainty. While police brutality, war, housing shortages, human rights abuses, and racism can possibly be addressed with reform, there is no wiggle room for climate's destructive trajectory. No series of incremental policy adjustments can placate Mother Nature and her planned revenge.

Climate remediation demands revolutionary change—there is no path forward to, as Jeremy Corbin words it, "turn the Titanic around," under our current political and economic systems. Climate overheating, unlike all the smaller threats plaguing our (and all other) species, requires an almost unimaginable shift in our institutions and ways of thinking—the transitions that might give the planet a hint of optimism have to take place globally within an international community hopelessly addicted to nationalism. A recent piece by Mark Wilson posted at the World Socialist Website (WSWS) encapsulates the gargantuan task—Wilson, referencing the suit by impoverished countries to access climate reparations via The World Court, states:

Whatever the verdict of this case, the major capitalist powers responsible for the climate crisis will continue to base their policies not on science, human rights, or environmental protection. Instead, the ruling elites and big business will make their calculations based on profit and on enriching themselves.

What is required by the working class globally is instead a break from the institutions that defend the capitalist system as it plunges the world into ecological devastation. The conscious political fight to abolish capitalism is the necessary strategic task to which all workers and young people must orient, as the only path to safeguard Earth and its living inhabitants.

As a regular reader of the WSWS, I generally find perspectives that are more pointedly directed toward revolution than incrementalism, but oddly, one has to look hard at WSWS offerings to find climate related analysis. I had to scroll through at least 30 pieces to find the above quote. That is not to begrudge the focus on international labor struggles, worker's rights, Gaza, and Marxist cultural perspectives, but the paucity of climate related reporting is not so much a failure of WSWS as it is a universal problem characteristic of progressive platforms in general.

A quick personal and anecdotal survey of five different online, leftist platforms reveals that fewer than 10% of pieces deal with climate, and only a tiny handful go into detail regarding the more nuanced debates around climate overheating mitigation. For example, the exploration of Degrowth—ubiquitous on niche environmental sites like Resilience—almost never receives detailed unpacking on more general online sites that promote leftist journalism. Unfortunately, we have a poorly informed public with a below threshold investment in civil disobedience, and little familiarity with the prevailing positions—largely emerging from academia—regarding the strategies that will be urgent and essential to transition from a political culture of runaway ecocide. Many have complained that the climate movement does not resonate with poor and working people. The massive mobilization needed to confront the sixth extinction depends on a well-informed public armed with the requisite narrative tools.

The problems confronting climate activism may be uniquely psychological. We don't see the same sort of immediate nexus that binds perpetrators and victims in the manner that a bloodied Gazan child can be traced to a conscious act of colonial expansion. The sort of violence manifest in the gratuitous burning of fossil fuels rather evades the scope of public understanding. We simply don't see the Central American refugee as a victim of corporate designs in the same way that we recognize a murdered Gazan child as a target of Israeli and U.S. military intent. Yet that connection is real and urgently needed to be framed for those who struggle to grasp the storyline. The cause and effect linking industry to extinction ought to be the greatest horror story ever told. Our hands should be sweating as we shakily turn the pages.

The murder of George Floyd pulled at our collective heartstrings. Tens of millions of people cringed at the specific, personal, intimate revelation of police violence. We oddly respond emotionally to a single act of injustice, yet numbly fail to resonate with the onrushing death of billions. Perhaps it is our job as writers to make climate crimes personal and immediate. Climate overheating is an epic story, and we have yet to figure out how to tell it. The enormous bridge linking the planet's greatest global catastrophe to the private suffering of real people may be nearly impossible for writers to span.

At the very least we can picture the suffering of Roger Hallam—sentenced to five years in prison for climate civil disobedience. Perhaps we can also appreciate that John Mark Rozendaal has been threatened with a seven-year sentence for playing a Bach Cello Suite outside of Citibank in NYC as part of the Summer of Heat protest. A man holding an umbrella above the cellist also risked Draconian retribution. Civil disobedience has often been energized by collective outrage toward state violence directed against those who stand up for human rights—think of Rosa Parks who became the iconic symbol of the civil rights movement.

All of the things that make journalism vivid and anxiously relevant ought to drive the climate narrative. The corporate world and their political puppets want nothing more than to see readers on leftist platforms bored with climate coverage.

On the last day of 2024, the deputy general counsel for the House of Representatives formally accepted delivery of a civil summons for two congressmembers from Northern California. More than 600 constituents of Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson have signed on as plaintiffs in a class action accusing them of helping to arm the Israeli military in violation of “international and federal law that prohibits complicity in genocide.”

Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, it conveys widespread anger and anguish about the ongoing civilian carnage in Gaza that taxpayers have continued to bankroll.

By a wide margin, most Americans favor an arms embargo on Israel while the Gaza war persists. But Huffman and Thompson voted to approve $26.38 billion in military aid for Israel last April, long after the nonstop horrors for civilians in Gaza were evident.

Back in February -- two months before passage of the enormous military aid package -- both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International found that, in the words of the lawsuit, “the Israeli government was systematically starving the people of Gaza through cutting off aid, water, and electricity, by bombing and military occupation, all underwritten by the provision of U.S. military aid and weapons.”

When the known death toll passed 40,000 last summer, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights said: “Most of the dead are women and children. This unimaginable situation is overwhelmingly due to recurring failures by the Israeli Defense Forces to comply with the rules of war.” He described as “deeply shocking” the “scale of the Israeli military’s destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and places of worship.”

No one should put any trust in the court system to stop the U.S. government from using tax dollars for war. But suing congressmembers who are complicit in genocide is a good step.

On Dec. 4, Amnesty International released a 296-page report concluding that Israel has been committing genocide “brazenly, continuously and with total impunity” -- with the “specific intent to destroy Palestinians,” engaging in “prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention.”

Two weeks later, on the same day the lawsuit was filed in federal district court in San Francisco, Human Rights Watch released new findings that “Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide.”

Responding to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Thompson said that “achieving peace and securing the safety of civilians won’t be accomplished by filing a lawsuit.” But for well over a year, to no avail, the plaintiffs and many other constituents have been urging him and Huffman to help protect civilians by ending their support for the U.S. pipeline of weapons and ammunition to Israel.

Enabled by that pipeline, the slaughter has continued in Gaza while the appropriators on Capitol Hill work in a kind of bubble. Letters, emails, phone calls, office visits, protests and more have not pierced that bubble. The lawsuit is an effort to break through the routine of indifference.

Like many other congressional Democrats, Huffman and Thompson have prided themselves on standing up against the contempt for facts that Donald Trump and his cohorts flaunt. Yet refusal to acknowledge the facts of civilian decimation in Gaza, with a direct U.S. role, is an extreme form of denial.

“Over the last 14 months I have watched elected officials remain completely unresponsive despite the public’s demands to end the genocide,” said Laurel Krause, a Mendocino County resident who is one of the lawsuit plaintiffs.

Another plaintiff, Leslie Angeline, a Marin County resident who ended a 31-day hunger strike when the lawsuit was filed, said: “I wake each morning worrying about the genocide that is happening in Gaza, knowing that if it wasn’t for my government’s partnership with the Israeli government, this couldn’t continue.”

Such passionate outlooks are a far cry from the words offered by members of Congress who routinely appear to take pride in seeming calm as they discuss government policies. But if their own children’s lives were at stake rather than the lives of Palestinian children in Gaza, they would hardly be so calm. A huge empathy gap is glaring.

In the words of plaintiff Judy Talaugon, a Native American activist in Sonoma County, “Palestinian children are all our children, deserving of our advocacy and support. And their liberation is the catalyst for systemic change for the betterment of us all.”

As a plaintiff, I certainly don’t expect the courts to halt the U.S. policies that have been enabling the horrors in Gaza to go on. But our lawsuit makes a clear case for the moral revulsion that so many Americans feel about the culpability of the U.S. government.

To hardboiled political pros, the heartfelt goal of putting a stop to the arming of the Israeli military for genocide is apt to seem quixotic and dreamy. But it’s easy for politicians to underestimate feelings of moral outrage. As James Baldwin wrote, “Though we do not wholly believe it yet, the interior life is a real life, and the intangible dreams of people have a tangible effect on the world.”

Organizing together under the name Taxpayers Against Genocide, constituents served notice that no amount of rhetoric could make funding of genocide anything other than repugnant. Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson are the first members of Congress to face such a lawsuit. They won’t be the last.

In recent days, people from many parts of the United States have contacted Taxpayers Against Genocide (via classactionagainstgenocide@proton.me) to see the full lawsuit and learn about how they can file one against their own member of Congress.

No one should put any trust in the court system to stop the U.S. government from using tax dollars for war. But suing congressmembers who are complicit in genocide is a good step for exposing -- and organizing against -- the power of the warfare state.

Call him a misguided hero or villain, but the man who killed the United Healthcare CEO struck a nerve, exposing a deep rage shared by many Americans across the political spectrum—anger at an industry that earns obscene profits from the suffering of others. His chilling act shifted the national conversation from immigration to corporate greed. Finally.

For too long, Americans have hesitated to criticize the super-rich. Chalk it up to our tribalist nature that has so many convinced that our financial struggles are caused not by wealth hoarding but by those we view as outside our clan.

History offers many examples. In Nazi Germany, Jews were blamed for a financial depression triggered by the American stock market crash. My parents and grandmother barely escaped; many in my family did not.

Decades later, Ronald Reagan handed the wealthy the largest tax cuts in U.S. history while vilifying the “Welfare Queen” who leached from the feeding trough of “Big Government.”

This racist caricature was meant to distract from policies that began a 40-year transfer of wealth from the 90 percent to the one percent, producing the largest wealth gap in a century. It’s a story about the undeserving poor vs. the deserving rich.

Today, we face a similar narrative. Immigrants are blamed both for stealing jobs and freeloading despite their essential role in propping up our economy given our shrinking workforce. After being fed a steady anti-immigration media diet, it’s not surprising that nearly four out of five Republicans support placing undocumented immigrants in internment camps.

The greater the wealth imbalance, the more the wealthy need to distort the truth. They peddle the long-discredited Trickle-Down theory, claiming that what benefits them benefits us all. But rising tides don’t lift all boats when some people have no boat at all, or when their boats are sinking because the superyachts are capsizing small craft in their massive wake.

We have to stop believing that billionaires have working people’s interests at heart. In fact, they’re mutually exclusive. A gangbuster stock market depends on keeping wages low and unions banished. Outsized campaign contributions ensure that corporate taxes are slashed and regulations meant to keep us healthy, safe, and not impoverished are gutted.

It makes complete sense that the wealth lobby exploits fears of “socialism” to keep people voting against their own interests. It’s no coincidence the U.S. remains the only developed nation without universal healthcare. This is where our anger should be directed.

But redirecting anger is not easy. Six of the richest US corporations control 90 percent of our media and their profits depend on algorithms and news coverage designed to keep us divided, misinformed, and distracted from this billionaire plunder. “You know the media has failed,” says essayist Rebecca Solnit, “when people are more concerned that a trans girl might play on a softball team than that the climate crisis will destroy our planet.”

During the next four years it will be critical to get people to see through this deception. When we start feeling the fallout from a second Trump term, the scapegoating will intensify. Tariffs, more tax cuts for the rich, and the loss of immigrant labor will send prices soaring and balloon the deficit. Many may lose healthcare, Social Security, and worker protections. The wealth lobby will no doubt point fingers elsewhere.

Change is possible though. As a grant writer for 30 years, I’ve seen campaigns shift public opinion on issues like marriage equality, net neutrality, and climate change. Recently, several states won historic economic reforms after decades of trying. In Massachusetts, RiseUpMass won the nation’s sixth millionaire’s tax by debunking claims it would harm retirees.

In Washington state, the Balance Our Tax Code, a coalition of over 80 diverse groups, from home health aide workers to members of the Yakima Nation, was able pass a capital gains tax, calling out Amazon and Microsoft for avoiding their share of taxes. “The biggest lesson we learned,” said campaign communications manager Reiny Cohen “was that when we come together and tell the same story, lawmakers have no choice but to listen.”

In other words, changing minds requires a coordinated echo chamber. The #MeToo movement showed how the right framing, amplified through the media, can shift perspectives and galvanize action. Imagine if we could help more people connect the dots between stagnant wages, failing schools, a burning planet, unaffordable housing, and the greed of the one percent.

But the message must go beyond bashing billionaires. It must present a compelling vision of what is possible if we stand up against the ultra rich. The We Make Minnesota coalition was able to pass a tax increase on the wealthiest one percent by countering anti-Somali rhetoric with a “We’re Better Off Together” message. Instead of using a “Stop the Cuts” framework, the campaign emphasized the subsidized health care, free preschool, and tuition-free college programs the state is now able to offer.

This isn’t about destroying capitalism. A healthy balance between a free market and protective government is essential. But when the richest among us prioritize profit over the well-being of the majority, it’s no longer about politics—it’s about survival.

The murder of the United Healthcare CEO, as horrendous as it was, forced us to confront the injustices we’ve been taught to tolerate. This moment must unite us against the true enemies of the American dream: unchecked greed and exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few. We can either remain manipulated by scapegoating and fear or see the truth and demand change. Only then can we build a society where no one feels driven to such desperate measures again.

The recent Israeli raid on Kamal Adwan Hospital, or KAH, the only partially operating hospital in northern Gaza, is the latest phase of Israel’s egregious disregard for international humanitarian law and the sanctity of medical facilities. This audacious act highlights the alarming impunity with which Israel conducts its war of genocide in Gaza, and further aggravate the suffering in Gaza.

In attacking KAH, Israel resorted to the same discredited lies used to justify its assault on al-Shifa Hospital in November 2023, falsely alleging that Hamas operated a command center beneath the facility. This fabricated story has long been employed as a pretext to target medical facilities across Gaza. During its raid on al-Shifa Hospital in November 2023, Israeli forces found no evidence of a military presence yet proceeded to arbitrarily destroy the hospital without justification.

Eyewitness accounts report that Israeli forces stormed KAH under the pretext of searching for individuals allegedly connected to militant groups. Hospital staff were forcibly removed from their posts, and several patients, including children, were left unattended during the raid. Patients and medical staff faced severe intimidation and arrest, critical care was forcibly disrupted as soldiers combed through wards and operating rooms, ultimately setting the hospital on fire after failing to uncover the alleged military infrastructure.

Western media, in particular, frequently report on Israeli atrocities as though they are inevitable natural disasters, devoid of human accountability or compassion.

Two days after setting KAH ablaze, Israel escalated its attacks on Gaza's medical infrastructure, killing seven civilians in a strike on al-Wafaa Hospital in Gaza City and shelling the nearby Ahli Baptist Hospital. Despite mounting evidence disproving its claims, Israel, unchallenged, repeated the same fabricated justification: that fighters were allegedly operating within the hospitals. This unsubstantiated template has become a routine pretext for targeting healthcare facilities, disregarding international laws designed to protect civilians and medical institutions during conflict.

Israel's disinformation regarding the presence of military targets within Gaza’s medical facilities continues to be reported unquestionably by Western media, despite a well-documented track record of inaccuracies and history of falsehoods. This uncritical reporting not only undermines journalistic integrity but also perpetuates misleading narratives, often downplaying or outright ignoring Israeli crimes. By omitting the broader context of occupation, two-decade blockade, and systemic oppression, these media platforms contribute to a distorted representation of the reality on the ground. Western media, in particular, frequently report on Israeli atrocities as though they are inevitable natural disasters, devoid of human accountability or compassion. This approach not only erases the agency behind these tragedies but also dehumanizes Palestinian lives, reducing them to mere statistics.

The failure to keenly examine and challenge Israel's repeated falsehoods reflects a blatant bias in Western journalism. By granting disproportionate weight to Israeli perspectives while sidelining Palestinian voices, these outlets perpetuate stereotypes and reinforce systemic racism. This one-sided, remote reporting on Gaza undermines the principles of journalistic integrity and fuels global indifference to the plight of the civilians. The lack of accountability for such biased coverage underscores the need for a more equitable and truthful approach by reporting directly from inside the war zone.

The targeting and subsequent destruction of hospitals is not random but part of a broader, systematic pattern of military violence against all aspects of civilian life in Gaza.

The raid on KAH is not an isolated incident but a manifestation of a broader military policy aimed at inflicting maximum pain on the people of Gaza. Already deprived of food, water, power, and adequate medical supplies due to Israel’s blockade, the timing of the raid on the only partially functioning hospital in northern Gaza, is emblematic of a systematic strategy to render the region uninhabitable.

The international community’s tepid response to such blatant violations has emboldened Israel to act with impunity. Despite clear evidence of war crimes, accountability remains elusive. The lack of meaningful action from global powers and institutions undermines the credibility of international law and signals to Israel that it can evade consequences.

Hospitals, including military hospitals, are recognized as neutral spaces under international law, protected from military aggression to ensure the uninterrupted provision of critical care during times of war. The United Nations has both a moral and legal obligation to uphold and enforce Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which explicitly prohibits attacks on medical facilities. Anything less would be a betrayal of the principles that underpin international humanitarian law and a failure to stop war crimes.

The genocidal war on Gaza is not merely a regional issue; it is a moral litmus test for the global community. Every bomb dropped, every home destroyed, and every life lost in Gaza is a stain on humanity’s conscience. The international community must confront this genocide with the urgency and resolve it demands. Failing to act not only condemns Gaza’s population to further suffering but also erodes the very foundations of international law and human decency.

The international community’s response for the Israeli genocide in Gaza has been woefully inadequate. While some countries issue lukewarm condemnations, others, like the United States, provide unwavering support for Israel to “finish the job.” This double standard exposes the hypocrisy of the U.S. and Western powers that, ostensibly, champion human rights and international law in other contexts while turning a blind eye to the injustice in Palestine.

The Israeli attacks on medical facilities reveal a deliberate intent to coerce the population into forced “voluntary” ethnic cleansing. The targeting and subsequent destruction of hospitals is not random but part of a broader, systematic pattern of military violence against all aspects of civilian life in Gaza. This includes hospitals, schools, shelters, religious centers, agricultural infrastructure, water wells, bakeries, and aid distribution networks. These calculated assaults are designed to dismantle the foundations of daily life, exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, and strip the population of even the most basic means of survival.

The international community’s conspicuous silence and failure to hold Israel accountable have emboldened such actions, creating an environment where impunity reigns. By targeting hospitals—essential lifelines in a besieged region—Israel not only deepens the humanitarian crisis but also sends a chilling message: no space, not even those dedicated to saving lives, is off-limits.

Israeli war crimes in Gaza cannot be ignored. The world must respond—not with platitudes or empty gestures, but with concrete actions to ensure that those responsible for this ongoing genocide are held accountable.

Launched in 1913 to counter antisemitism and discrimination, the Anti-Defamation League, or ADL, now resembles a mythological shapeshifter that presents alternately as a civil rights organization and a pro-Israel propagandist.

In its “No Place for Hate” program that caters to both elementary and secondary schools, the ADL’s stated mission is to empower students, teachers, and parents to “stand against bias and bullying... ” with school-wide pledges, projects, and games aimed at celebrating diversity and stamping out hate in the halls, in the cafeteria, in the reading circle, anywhere that hate may manifest.

In Norse mythology, the jealous god Loki is a shapeshifter who appears alternately as a salmon or an old woman. Disguised as the old woman, Loki—the god of darkness—carves an arrow out of mistletoe to trick the blind god Hodr into hurling an arrow at his exalted twin brother, Baldr—the god of light.

The ADL is not a salmon or a singular old woman, but a cunning policy advocate that despite allegations of spying on social justice movements and targeting Arab-led organizations has popularized its “No Place for Hate” lessons in 2,000 schools, reaching 190,000 educators and 1.8 million students—according to the ADL website.

Sure, the program offers banners draped across hallways, pledges and to-do lists, even sage advice now and then, but the pretty package turns ugly once fully opened and scrutinized for its pro-Israel indoctrination.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) of over 500,000 students, No Place for Hate schools either currently or previously included Roosevelt High School, Amelia Earhart Middle School, Benjamin Franklin Elementary School, Mark Twain Elementary School, and others. The LAUSD Office of Student Civil Rights links to the ADL under “Tools for Educators,” which in turn links to an article attacking American Muslims for Palestine for “being at the core of the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist movement in the United States.” In 2022, LAUSD board member Scott Schmerelson, now board president and often a champion of public education, authored a resolution instructing the superintendent to invite the ADL to update and revise curriculum.

While selling schools on activities to bolster respect and community, the ADL—analogous to the shapeshifter in mythology—engineers the death of debate over Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish nationalist state in historic Palestine.

In a No Place for Hate lesson on scapegoating, the ADL writes, “Debates about the legitimacy of Israel’s existence or demonization of Israelis create an unsafe climate for Jewish students and interrupt opportunities for critical thinking for all students.” Notice how the ADL wrongly mixes debate over a nation state’s political ideology with demonization of individuals in that state—all in the same sentence to discourage critical analysis and evaluation.

Schools that subscribe to this sort of speech suppression, ruling out debate over an ethnostate colonizing, annihilating, and terrorizing Palestinians, are like the blind brother who hurls a lethal dart—only this time the weapon of propaganda pierces the institution of education to silence inquiring minds wrestling with the devastation live-streamed on their cell phones.

In Japanese mythology, the nine-tailed kitsune-yako fox can take human form to infiltrate high society, where the yako appears as a seductive woman to level a lethal curse—a scar, a burn—on an unsuspecting yet powerful man.

If only the man had been more observant, he might have noticed a few furry fox tails sticking out of the back of the yako’s dress. Yes, the shapeshifter can be unmasked provided those it targets are willing to look behind the facade.

The Lure of a Packaged Curriculum

The ADL lures schools with its anti-bias No Place for Hate program by claiming to help administrators, teachers, and parents build “inclusive and safe communities in which respect and equity are the goals and where all students can thrive.” It’s hard to resist such a pitch, particularly when it comes with banners, buttons, balloons, and bracelets as part of a polished package that outlines a step-by-step approach to creating community through “I Am” poems; peer-to-peer interviews; school surveys; and collages of diverse, smiling students.

The program, however, warrants deeper analysis, so best to begin with the basics.

How a School Qualifies—Registration

Schools that want to become a “No Place for Hate” school first must register with the ADL, which could be a problem for anyone concerned about allegations of ADL surveillance. The Guardian reports an internal 2020 ADL memo reveals the ADL tracked a Black Indianapolis activist who worked on the Deadly Exchange campaign to expose U.S. police training with the Israeli military.

“It scared the shit out of me,” the activist told the press, adding, “It stopped me from moving forward because I don’t want to put people in my life at risk—I work with youth, so it stopped me in my tracks.”

Decades earlier, The Washington Post reported that police in the 1990s investigated the ADL for allegedly “monitoring the activities of thousands of activists”—allegations the ADL denied. According to the newspaper, San Francisco police confiscated from ADL offices “leaked copies of confidential law enforcement reports, fingerprint cards, driver’s license photographs, and individual criminal histories drawn from police records.”

Next: Committee and Pledge

After registering with the ADL, schools then form a steering committee of faculty and students to guide the work of building community and challenging bias at every turn. No mention is made of centering students victimized by bullying and racism to spearhead the committee, which is charged with encouraging students, staff, and guardians to sign a school-wide pledge. For elementary schools, the pledge reads, “I promise my best to be kind to everyone—even if they are not like me.” For secondary, the pledge is more proactive, “I will reach out to support those who are targets of hate.”

The entire school is expected to sign the pledge which features a logo with the words, “No Place for Hate—An ADL Education Program.” While the words are innocuous enough, the platforming of the ADL raises concerns about elevating an organization with a history of surveillance, complaints against public schools, and unconditional support for Israel. This patronage continues in the wake of the International Court of Justice’s preliminary ruling (1/26/24) that South Africa’s genocide case against Israel was plausibly brought, and Amnesty International’s (12/5/24) scathing report, ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,

There’s another issue, too. While there’s nothing in the wording of the pledge that’s problematic, the fact that virtually everyone is expected to sign it in order for the school to participate can create a coercive environment.

Only ADL-Approved Activities

After students and staff sign the ADL pledge, they then move on to the next criteria required for ADL designation as an official “No Place for Hate” school. Each school must implement three of the ADL’s approved activities, such as discussions around identity, listening journals, and walks against hate.

For middle and high school, one of the recommended activities to lead to school-wide action involves a lesson plan entitled, “Antisemitic Incidents: Being an Ally, Advocate, and Activist,” in which students are to understand and recognize antisemitism based on a troubling definition that includes the marginalization of Jewish people based on myths about Israel.

Among the “materials needed” for the lesson is a link to the ADL’s “Audit of Antisemtic Incidents 2022,” which says, “References to Israel or Zionism were part of 19% of the 219 campus incidents.” The audit includes a section “Anti-Zionism/Israel-Related” in which the ADL smears the organizations Witness for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, charging antisemitic incidents were perpetrated by individuals associated with these groups. The ADL writes, “ Public statements of opposition to Zionism, which are often antisemitic, are included in the audit when it can be determined that they had a negative impact on one or more Jewish individuals or identifiable, localized groups of Jews.”

In No Place for Hate, students are rightfully encouraged to object to racist jokes, yet no one is encouraged to protest Israel’s killing and wounding of hundreds of thousands of Gazans, tens of thousands of whom are children

Does this mean the ADL considers antisemitic any criticism of Israel that offends a Jewish person? What about the thousands of Jews marching in cities, conducting sit-ins in the Capitol, and occupying subway stations with t-shirts that scream, “Cease-fire” or “Stop Arming Israel” or “Not in Our Name”? These Jews are more than offended by Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine; they are outraged.

Jewish Voice for Peace, a fast-growing anti-Zionist national organization, charges the ADL “is not a credible source on antisemitism and racism” because it conflates antisemitism with criticism of a state, adding, “The ADL has consistently targeted advocates for Palestinian human rights in a concerted and coordinated campaign to repress any speech that criticizes Israel’s current war on Gaza or its policy of oppression of Palestinians.”

The ADL has filed civil rights complaints with the Department of Education against Occidental and Pomona colleges, as well school districts in Philadelphia, Santa Ana, and Berkeley. In the complaint against Berkeley, the ADL objects to student protesters of U.S.-Israel genocide walking out of class to shout, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The chant does not call for the elimination of Jews from Palestine but the right of Palestinians expelled from their homeland to return.

Additionally, the ADL, which tells students to be kind and compassionate—never bullying—writes a threatening letter to nearly 200 college presidents, demanding investigations of the nonviolent Students for Justice in Palestine, the campus organization leading protests against Israel’s slaughter in Gaza.

The Kicker

If a school wants to implement its own activity for challenging bias and bullying, it must first appeal to the ADL for approval. Absent ADL approval, the activity cannot count toward achieving official “No Place for Hate” status. One need not be a champion of public education to cringe at the outsourcing of anti-bias education to a private political advocacy organization, particularly one that, according to the website Open Secrets, spent over a million dollars in 2024 to lobby lawmakers to vote for a pro-Israel agenda.

The ADL is, after all, an enthusiastic proponent of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, with examples that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism to open the door for more legal complaints against schools and colleges, even when the speech in question is constitutionally protected free political speech, not hatred of Jews.

School-to-Prison Pipeline via the ADL

The ADL’s No Place for Hate program includes a section on social justice, as opposed to simple acts of kindness, such as offering to help a teacher distribute papers or hold down a fountain faucet for another student. The ADL aptly defines a social justice action as one that involves a group of people who organize to bring about “institutional change” that might solve the problems of gun violence, homelessness, or school-to-prison pipeline.

How contradictory then that the ADL encourages students and teachers to both report incidents of bias and hate to the ADL by completing an incident report form, as well as—in cases of extreme injustice—calling the police, rather than referring those involved to a student-faculty council on restorative justice process that emphasizes making amends, performing school service, or developing empathy through role-plays. Under the subheading, “Best Practices for School Administrators—Act Quickly and Respond,”the curriculum advises principals to “clarify what the role and duties of school resource officers (SRO’s) and (whether) police should and should not be in the process. Contact law enforcement as necessary.”

Given the ADL’s close working relationship with police, it is worth considering whether involving the ADL increases the likelihood of police involvement and a punitive rather than educational approach, potentially creating something akin to the school-to-prison pipeline that the ADL critiques.

Never mind the police for a minute. Reporting incidents—some of which may relate to criticism of Israel—to the ADL could spell legal trouble down the road, should the school’s administration not follow the ADL’s prescription for addressing the situation.

Moreover, despite the No Place for Hate social justice verbiage, it’s hard to imagine the ADL ever approving a school-wide letter-writing campaign to Congress to block weapons to Israel during its genocide in Gaza or testimony before school boards to divest from companies building segregated roads in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Note, the No Place for Hate glossary defines antisemitism as “The marginalization and/or oppression of people who are Jewish, based on the belief in stereotypes and myths about Jewish people, Judaism, and Israel.”

Antisemitism is real—white supremacy at Charlottesville, murders at the Tree of Life Synagogue, Nazi symbols at January 6—but to redefine antisemitism to include criticism of Israel only confuses people while allowing a nation state to act with impunity.

Pyramid of Hate

The ADL’s No Place for Hate program introduces students to the Pyramid of Hate to encourage discussion and analysis of escalating acts of bias and bigotry. At the pyramid’s base is Biased Attitudes of stereotyping; one level higher is Acts of Bias, such as bullying; even higher on the pyramid is Discrimination; and at the top of the pyramid is Genocide, the act or intention to systematically annihilate a people.

Even though the curriculum has been updated since October 7, 2023 there is no mention of Israel’s bombardment and starvation of over 2 million imprisoned Gazans, nor the multitude of experts around the world who have named Israel’s actions genocide.

In No Place for Hate, students are rightfully encouraged to object to racist jokes, yet no one is encouraged to protest Israel’s killing and wounding of hundreds of thousands of Gazans, tens of thousands of whom are children. A 2024 study by the Community Training Center for Crisis Management in Gaza found “96% of children surveyed feel their death is imminent, while 49% have expressed a desire to die.”

In its open letter to educators, the Drop The ADL From Schools campaign—endorsed by 90 organization—writes the ADL “attacks schools, educators, and students with bad-faith accusations of antisemitism in order to silence and punish constitutionally protected criticism of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism.” The organization asks educators to cut ties with the ADL, including use of its No Place for Hate curriculum. Meanwhile, CODEPINK activists are testifying in front of school boards on California’s Central Coast, urging board members to expel the ADL.

Bottom Line

For all its political correctness—the curriculum’s emphasis on pronouns and respect for non-binary identities—at the end of the school day No Place for Hate personifies the mythical character of the shapeshifter as it lures school districts into checking off the anti-bias box while surrendering authority to the controversial Anti-Defamation League. Sure, the program offers banners draped across hallways, pledges and to-do lists, even sage advice now and then, but the pretty package turns ugly once fully opened and scrutinized for its pro-Israel indoctrination.

The Alternative–the Power Within

While it’s tempting for administrators to subscribe to a free, pre-packaged curriculum, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to addressing racism or bullying and bias that seeps into our schools as a result of society’s structural racism: segregation, caste, economic inequality, voter suppression. But this work must be done bottom up, by creating a school community of critical thinkers, principled actors, and life-long learners.

From the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) in Creating a School Community:

Students in schools with a strong sense of community are more likely to be academically motivated (Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000); to act ethically and altruistically (Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 1997); to develop social and emotional competencies (Solomon et al., 2000); and to avoid a number of problem behaviors, including drug use and violence (Resnick et al., 1997).

Rather than ceding control to the Anti-Defamation League for a top-down prescription, schools can exercise their own agency to build community through schoolwide public service projects, murals that reflect students’ ethnic diversity, and cultural events that celebrate acts of resistance to oppression and colonization. Inside the classroom, teachers can address issues of race, bias, and bullying with books and short stories that lend themselves to rich discussion.

In the Final Analysis...

Educators must consider the actual cost of a free program like “No Place for Hate,” whose sponsor conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism, files civil rights complaints against schools, and promotes Israel propaganda in the classroom. The answer to creating a positive school climate is not “out there”—in the hands of an organization with a distinct political agenda—but in here, in the school and in the school-to-community relationship.

I just had a chat with an ATT office manager, a young Black man who is very attentive to his customers. After he learned that I worked with labor unions, he said, “I’ve always wanted to be in a union. My dad was a bus driver, and his earnings and benefits really took care of us. Our healthcare was amazing, $5 co-pay and that was it, no matter what the medical procedure.”

His comments both made me sad and angry. He took me back a few decades, when working people still earned a decent living. That’s the period before runaway inequality and job destruction basically wiped out the American Dream for the working class.

It’s not like we can’t afford to pay people decently. The money is there and then some. In 1980, there were 13 billionaires in the U.S. In 2023 there were 801. The top one-tenth of 1% saw their collective wealth jump from $1.8 trillion in 1990, to $22.1 trillion in 2024. For some context, the U.S. federal budget in 2024 was $6.8 trillion. Or consider that there are 197,500 bus drivers in the U.S. One trillion dollars could pay them $100,000 a year for 57 years.

Have the Democrats learned anything from Trump’s ascendency? The jury is out. Will they actually take on the financial barons? Or will they continue to take in the money that flows so strongly from Wall Street and Silicon Valley?

Meanwhile the average income after inflation of the average worker did not rise at all from 1980 to 2024. And as we all know, during that time healthcare costs have gone through the roof for nearly all of us.

To add to working-class misery there is never ending job insecurity. One in four employed workers fear they will lose their jobs within the next year, according to polling done by Colorado State University.

And there’s a very powerful connection between job loss and enriching the super-rich. In many, if not most, cases, mass layoffs are used to free up cash for companies to pour into stock buybacks—buying back the corporation’s own shares to artificially boost its price. This moves money into the pockets of the largest Wall Street stock-sellers and the companies’ CEOs, who are mostly paid with stock incentives. In a very real way workers are sacrificing their jobs to enrich the richest of the rich. (To see why mass layoffs have little or nothing to do with AI and other new technologies please see my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers.)

In our capitalist economy there has always been a fierce struggle between corporate power and worker power. But when unions represented 25-35% of the private sector, during the post-WWII era, working people had sufficient clout, like that bus driver dad, to provide a good standard of living for their families. Today, with only 6% of the private sector workforce represented by labor unions, the balance has shifted strongly toward corporate power, and wages, benefits, and job security have gone backward.

The power imbalance is so great that our conventional wisdom has changed. Our minds have been warped by corporate power. When unions were strong, runaway inequality was viewed as out and out greed. Today, we are told it’s just the result of entrepreneurial brilliance, that we all benefit from the creation of more and more billionaires, that those left behind simply lack the skills to succeed in our modern economy.

But that bus driver still drives a bus, taking people to work and the doctor or shopping, using much the same skills as generations ago. The difference today is that instead of earning a living wage, as the bus driver once did, workers don’t have sufficient power to gain a decent standard of living. Relegated to gig work or jobs under threat of layoffs, the system is rigged against them.

Historically, working people saw the Democratic Party as the defender of the working-class. Not so today. Instead, they see politicians of both parties as just another group of elites feathering their own nests and protecting the establishment. Very few representatives are seen as willing to take on Wall Street and stop needless mass layoffs, because apart from some occasional rhetoric we don’t see politicians fighting for workers.

The frustration, the resentment, the anger about the rigged system was building long before Donald Trump came on the scene. But there he is, a giant wrecking ball, slamming away at the established order. For those left behind, smashing the establishment feels long overdue.

Have the Democrats learned anything from Trump’s ascendency? The jury is out. Will they actually take on the financial barons? Or will they continue to take in the money that flows so strongly from Wall Street and Silicon Valley?

Looking at the Democrats’ post-election discussions, it could be a long wait until our ATT union-supporter gets a chance to join a union.

Let’s try to have a happy new year, but it is likely to be a tough one for the working class.