Chris Hedges's Blog, page 591

Trump’s Moves on Iran Are From the Iraq War Playbook

I teach a lot of 18-year-olds, so I am keenly aware that a whole generation has come up that did not live through the Bush propaganda campaign against Iraq of 2002-2003. And, of course, a lot of people who did live through it have forgotten its details or how complicit corporate media were in amplifying the campaign. That is, the charge against social media today that it reinforces extremism by its algorithms could be equally well laid against elements of the U.S. press throughout history. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst may have not said things like, “You supply the photos, I’ll supply the war,” but they certainly behaved that way in propagandizing for the shameless Spanish-American War. Bill Keller at The New York Times was their 21st century successor.

Here is how the 2003 war was gotten up against Iraq.

1) Conspiratorial groups were formed, like the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which included then Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney and Israel lobby uber-hawks like Bill Kristol, Bob Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Frank Gaffney, who were known as neoconservatives because they had been Blue Dog Democrats but switched to Reaganism when they assessed that there were no Democratic jobs in government to be had for a long time after 1981. The Project for a New American Century and other cells began trying to put pressure on the Clinton administration to take a belligerent stand against Iraq, in hopes of provoking an Iraqi counterstrike that could then escalate. They used their contacts among billionaires like Rupert Murdoch, to enlist his media, and worked their people in Congress against the president. Kristol is now trying out for Conscience of the Nation because he dislikes Trump.

2) Other governments were enlisted. A 1996 white paper, “A Clean Break,” was prepared by neoconservatives for incoming Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu that urged getting up a war on Iraq, re-installing the Hashemite monarchy there, and then using the Hashemites to influence Lebanon’s Shiites toward a more pro-Israeli stance. Completely weird and unbalanced proposals are not the exclusive province of Trump.

3) Expatriate Iraqis were enlisted for dirty tricks and disinformation campaigns. Someone called “Curveball” was given to German intelligence, who appear to have fallen for him. Ahmad Chalabi, angling to come back to Iraq as its U.S.-installed supreme leader, misled journalists, intelligence officials, State Department officials, Congress and virtually anyone he could get hold of. Chalabi once made doggerel verse to insult me, which means I did my job in exposing him. Multiple disinformation modes were established for various Western intel agencies, so that they all reported these sketchy allegations about an Iraqi nuclear and biological weapons program that did not exist.

4) Once Bush came to power, members of the cell like Douglas Feith (someone with ties to Israeli settlers and ideologically aligned with the Israeli Likud Party) were put in positions of power in the government and used their position to establish intragovernmental black ops units like the Office of Special Plans. Since the CIA and State Department often filtered out the wilder intel reports they were being fed by the expatriate operatives, Feith had his people go back through the raw intelligence and cherry-pick the planted reports, then illegally briefed them to the rest of the U.S. government. I was widely attacked by the neocons for saying that having a Likudnik as the third man at the Pentagon was a nightmare for U.S. national security, and for pointing out that an acolyte of Slobodan Milosevic being given such a position would likewise be troubling. Not sure, in light of all we know, why that should have been a controversial statement.

5) PNAC and other hawks pressured Clinton to bomb Iraq in 1998. Clinton told U.N. weapons inspectors to withdraw before the strikes. They were never sent back in. The U.S, press, whether from incompetence or malice or being secretly bribed, continually thereafter said that Saddam “kicked out” the inspectors, which was an unadorned falsehood. Having deprived Iraq of active inspectors who could serve as on-the-ground eyewitnesses that there were no weapons programs, the Iraq war hawks were in a much better position to do propaganda.

6) The Iraq War clique glommed on to George W. Bush, especially once the latter unwisely made Cheney vice president, and inserted themselves into the 10 key political positions in his government, then gradually pushed him toward a war.

7) The neoconservatives and others who wanted to break Iraq’s legs blamed the al-Qaida attacks of Sept. 11 on the secular socialist anti-fundamentalist government of the Iraqi Baath Party, and managed to convince most Americans of the completely ridiculous charge.

8) They made a case for regime change over Iraq’s human rights record or its regional role, though countries like Saudi Arabia or Israel with similar profiles were exempted from criticism.

9) Bush, Condi Rice, Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld tried to scare Americans [by saying] that Saddam was two years or less from having an atomic bomb (he had no program). This campaign convinced Congress to vote for a war.

Why these networks were so invested in an attack on Iraq isn’t clear. The neoconservatives were probably just acting as capos for the Likud Party, breaking the legs of a rival gang in the Middle East. Cheney and his oil circles likely wanted to lift congressional sanctions on Iraqi petroleum and do bids on Iraqi fields (this was before fracking). Evangelicals wanted to open Iraq as a mission field, fondly imagining that the Shiites of Najaf had been yearning to return to the Christianity Iraqis largely abandoned during the first four centuries of Muslim rule, from the seventh through the 11th centuries. The military-industrial complex wanted to make and sell large numbers of weapons and bombs. Various groups had their own motives and they all came together around Cheney.

I probably don’t need to say that people like John Bolton who were part of the original plot have reemerged, or that the People’s Jihadi Organization (MEK) is an Iranian cell that is playing the role of Chalabi and has Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Rudy Giuliani and others in its back pocket. It has strong connections to Israeli intelligence. I don’t need to point out that Iran is being maneuvered into expelling U.N. inspectors so that a propaganda campaign can be waged. The United Arab Emirates, part of the current plot, even had its house organ Alarabiya do a “documentary” monstrously alleging that Iran was behind 9/11.

The stage is set.

Despite the Administration’s Hype, the U.S. Is Not at Full Employment

There is a general consensus that the U.S. economy is close to full employment, given that one of the most commonly used measures (based on nonfarm payroll data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) indicates an unemployment rate that has fallen to 3.9 percent. As good as that figure appears to be, it is troubling that wage growth for the majority of Americans remains tepid, hardly what an observer would expect if the labor markets were as tight as implied by that number. And in fact, if one digs into the data a bit more closely, it does bring to mind the old expression commonly attributed to Mark Twain about “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

The problem with these employment statistics (or “damned lies,” depending on one’s perspective) is that they could well be overstating the current strength of the U.S. economy, which is problematic given that U.S. consumers are already seeing their discretionary income squeezed by interest rate hikes (higher credit card servicing, more expensive mortgages) and higher energy prices. Additionally, while many economists champion our “flexible, gig economy,” the reality is that for many workers this “flexibility” represents in fact “casualized” labor, that is to say, involuntary part-time work, which is unaccompanied by benefits such as health care. This puts more strains on the economy and exacerbates worker insecurity (hardly propitious in terms of encouraging consumer confidence). And the economy as a whole is still characterized by a large stock of private debt, much of which hasn’t been resolved or restructured (as was the case, for example, during the Great Depression). Therefore, if policymakers continue to lean into this tepid recovery via more interest rate hikes and/or tighter fiscal policy, they could well tip us back into recession (or something worse).

A longstanding problem relating to our economic measurements such as employment is that U.S. policymakers see much of the employment data at the same time that the public does, and they are forced to make decisions based on these estimates. The bottom line is that what most people want to get out of unemployment data is not only what the current number is and if it’s getting better or worse recently, but also what it means for policy. Will interest rates continue to be raised? Will there be more cuts in government spending? As far as the policy response to the current employment situation, policy is largely based on the less comprehensive measures calculated (based on volatile monthly employment data), reported (sent out to the public and policymakers alike at the same time, even though it’s often subject to significant revision later)—meaning that, in spite of the bests efforts of the people working at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), our monetary and fiscal officials are a bit like the proverbial pilot flying without a full complement of engines or navigational equipment.

To dig into the weeds a bit further, the payroll and household surveys are two different samples designed to track the more comprehensive Business Enterprise Dynamics (BED), but which are published earlier than the BED. The payroll is structured around a sample of companies, and the household around a telephone sample of households where employees live. The payroll survey covers a much larger number, but, once set up, suffers from the weakness that it reflects company failures that drop out of the sample, while only guessing at new companies starting up (the so-called “birth-death model” tries to cope with this). The household model is small and very variable month to month (there is no penalty for not answering). Basically, policymakers must use a compendium of measures to get the best picture of what is happening. But the third and most comprehensive measure, the BED, takes several months to compile accurately, which means that policymakers are seldom getting a full picture, which is particularly important if and when the economy hits an important inflection point.

Based on recent publication of the BED data (which currently is only compiled to the third quarter of 2017), there are hints that employment is not as robust as the payroll and household survey measures have hitherto suggested. This disparity might also help to explain why wage growth remains so tepid, in spite of the repeated characterization that we are close to full employment. And the worst thing from a political standpoint is that the Trump administration has essentially discredited the use of additional fiscal policy by directing so much of his tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations, who are more likely to save the money than to reinvest it in the economy, rather than direct them to middle and working classes, who need it most and would do the economy best if they had those resources because they would be more likely to spend the tax dollars. Higher consumption would (as economists like to say) increase the multiplier effect on the economy as a whole. Most worrisome is that because of the Trump policy error, he may well have politically discredited the use of fiscal policy as a lever to combat recession. One can easily imagine that the next time anybody suggests more fiscal stimulus, the deficit scolds are almost certain to argue that this was tried before (by Trump) and proved wanting, and besides, “we can’t afford it,” which is nonsensical.

And of course, the other point to bear in mind is that some 10 years after the great financial crisis of 2008, we still have lower employment participation rates, which is to say we have fewer people who are either employed or are actively looking for work in the economy as a whole (in part because they have become discouraged about their employment prospects), and a higher “casualization” of labor (i.e., the so-called “involuntary part-time” group, who generally work without the security of a long-term contract, and corresponding benefits such as health care). A recent study by the San Francisco Federal Reserve (written before the April employment data became available, but still relevant) highlights that:

“[I]nvoluntary part-time work was running nearly a percentage point higher than its level the last time the unemployment rate was 4.1%, in August 2000. This represents about 1.4 million additional individuals who are stuck in part-time jobs. These numbers imply that the level of IPT work is about 40% higher than would normally be expected at this point in the economic expansion.”

This goes a long way toward explaining why wage pressures remain strikingly subdued, indeed, the most convincing empirical evidence suggesting that the labor market in the U.S. is not nearly as robust as the payroll figures imply.

So the BED report may have much broader ramifications for us, especially as the Federal Reserve continues to raise interest rates and calls mount from congressional deficit hawks, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, to adopt a “more responsible” fiscal posture (for “fiscally responsible,” read: “austerity”). These warnings are based on the same view that the economy is rapidly growing to full capacity and is likely to encounter inflationary bottlenecks.

But this certainly isn’t being borne out by wage growth, which, even though increasing at 2.3 percent year over year, continues to be relatively subdued by historic standards. By way of contrast, the last time the economy experienced an unemployment rate around 4 percent, wages were growing in the range of 3.5-4.0 percent. The SF Fed report suggests that were all the part-timers able to obtain gainful full-time employment, which they estimate to be around 1.4 million people, wage pressures would be significantly higher. But the authors go on to suggest that this involuntary part-time employment is here to stay, which would imply the need for a less hawkish monetary and fiscal policy stance, given that these part-timers in effect create an “army of partially employed,” which can be used by employers to deter aggressive demands for higher wages (using the threat of turning a full-time worker to a part-time “consultant” as a disincentive to strike for better pay). Buttressing the SF Fed study is a research report done by The Liscio Report’s Philippa Dunne (“May 3, 2018, Participation rates, wages, and market power”; TLR on the Economy, full text available with paid subscription) where the author makes clear that “a 1-point rise in the participation rate adds about 0.4 point to the growth in average hourly earnings (AHE).” This is a technical way of measuring how much higher wage growth would be if those with part-time jobs were able to secure full-time employment.

History shows that on its own, the nonfarm payroll report is a lousy statistic. Given the size of today’s labor force, the revisions to the originally reported number, which comes as more information becomes available to the BLS, can be in the hundreds of thousands. This is because the figures are based on extrapolations from a relatively small series, and they therefore tend to miss key inflection points, where the economy might suddenly stall if a major financial shock is encountered (such as was the case in 2008). Therefore, no matter what the underlying economic reality is, policymakers and the markets can get a payroll number in any month or even set of months that is very misleading. We experienced this phenomenon in the summer of 2008, when the payroll and household data was not yet recording the significant deterioration already being experienced in the economy (and which only became apparent when the BED revisions came in almost a year later). As Professor Bill Mitchell notes:

“What is apparent is that there is still no coherent positive and reinforcing trend in employment growth in the US labour market since the recovery began back in 2009. There are still many months where employment growth, while positive, remains relatively weak when compared to the average labour force growth prior to the crisis or is negative.”

Which also explains why wage growth has been so tepid. As economist Paul Krugman has noted in an op-ed for the New York Times: “if you want to boost overall spending, you don’t have to give huge tax breaks to corporations. You could do lots of other things instead—say, spend money on fixing America’s crumbling infrastructure, an issue on which Trump keeps promising a plan but never delivers.” In other words, Trump’s tax bill did not give the economy maximum bang for the buck. So if and when it becomes evident that the economy isn’t as strong as people think, the argument will be that we can’t do additional government spending or tax cuts, as that was tried under Trump without success. Parenthetically, that may have been the plan all along from some of the more Machiavellian members of the GOP, but hardly excuses the Democrats for their incessant focus on the deficit (see here, and here) rather than offering alternative fiscal policies that would generate more robust employment and income growth.

But this certainly isn’t being borne out by wage growth, which, even though increasing at 2.3 percent year over year, continues to be relatively subdued by historic standards. By way of contrast, the last time the economy experienced an unemployment rate around 4 percent, wages were growing in the range of 3.5-4.0 percent. The SF Fed report suggests that were all the part-timers able to obtain gainful full-time employment, which they estimate to be around 1.4 million people, wage pressures would be significantly higher. But the authors go on to suggest that this involuntary part-time employment is here to stay, which would imply the need for a less hawkish monetary and fiscal policy stance, given that these part-timers in effect create an “army of partially employed,” which can be used by employers to deter aggressive demands for higher wages (using the threat of turning a full-time worker to a part-time “consultant” as a disincentive to strike for better pay). Buttressing the SF Fed study is a research report done by The Liscio Report’s Philippa Dunne (“May 3, 2018, Participation rates, wages, and market power”; TLR on the Economy, full text available with paid subscription) where the author makes clear that “a 1-point rise in the participation rate adds about 0.4 point to the growth in average hourly earnings (AHE).” This is a technical way of measuring how much higher wage growth would be if those with part-time jobs were able to secure full-time employment.

History shows that on its own, the nonfarm payroll report is a lousy statistic. Given the size of today’s labor force, the revisions to the originally reported number, which comes as more information becomes available to the BLS, can be in the hundreds of thousands. This is because the figures are based on extrapolations from a relatively small series, and they therefore tend to miss key inflection points, where the economy might suddenly stall if a major financial shock is encountered (such as was the case in 2008). Therefore, no matter what the underlying economic reality is, policymakers and the markets can get a payroll number in any month or even set of months that is very misleading. We experienced this phenomenon in the summer of 2008, when the payroll and household data was not yet recording the significant deterioration already being experienced in the economy (and which only became apparent when the BED revisions came in almost a year later). As Professor Bill Mitchell notes:

“What is apparent is that there is still no coherent positive and reinforcing trend in employment growth in the US labour market since the recovery began back in 2009. There are still many months where employment growth, while positive, remains relatively weak when compared to the average labour force growth prior to the crisis or is negative.”

Which also explains why wage growth has been so tepid. As economist Paul Krugman has noted in an op-ed for the New York Times: “if you want to boost overall spending, you don’t have to give huge tax breaks to corporations. You could do lots of other things instead—say, spend money on fixing America’s crumbling infrastructure, an issue on which Trump keeps promising a plan but never delivers.” In other words, Trump’s tax bill did not give the economy maximum bang for the buck. So if and when it becomes evident that the economy isn’t as strong as people think, the argument will be that we can’t do additional government spending or tax cuts, as that was tried under Trump without success. Parenthetically, that may have been the plan all along from some of the more Machiavellian members of the GOP, but hardly excuses the Democrats for their incessant focus on the deficit (see here, and here) rather than offering alternative fiscal policies that would generate more robust employment and income growth.

Trump Threatens to Remove Press Credentials of White House Reporters

From the beginning of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has not hidden his distaste for the press. He’s called NBC’s Katy Tur “Little Katy,” dubbed CNN “The Fake News Network” and encouraged supporters to yell at journalists during his campaign rallies. Over the 16 months that he’s been in office, according to CNN, he’s been privately telling advisers that he’d like to relieve certain outlets of their White House press credentials.

On Wednesday morning he took those concerns public in a tweet in which he asked, “Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”

The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) responded with outrage. “Some may excuse the president’s inflammatory rhetoric about the media, but just because the president does not like news coverage does not make it fake,” WHCA President Margaret Talev said in a statement.

“A free press must be able to report on the good, the bad, the momentous and the mundane, without fear or favor. And a president preventing a free and independent press from covering the workings of our republic would be an unconscionable assault on the First Amendment.”

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times also tweeted her concern, noting that President Trump lacks “understanding of how news coverage actually works, and unfortunately so do a lot of his supporters.”

Both these statements stood in sharp contrast to many White House reporters’ recent defense of administration officials, especially of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, following comedian Michelle Wolf’s remarks at the annual WHCA dinner. Wolf’s jokes implied that Sanders frequently lied.

“Apology is owed to @PressSec and others grossly insulted by Michelle Wolf at White House Correspondents Assoc dinner which started with uplifting heartfelt speech by @margarettalev – comedian was worst since Imus insulted Clinton’s,” tweeted NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

Haberman even defended Sanders, saying, “That @PressSec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive.”

Perhaps their real concern was Wolf’s comments on their work. She took aim directly at reporters and producers for their Trump coverage, implying that by featuring him and his advisers so often, networks and newspapers are enabling them. “You guys have got to stop putting Kellyanne [Conway] on your shows,” Wolf told a room full of bookers and producers who all routinely feature Conway. “All she does is lie.”

Wolf continued, “If you don’t give her a platform, she has nowhere to lie.”

White House reporters depend on access to do their jobs and boost their credibility with the public. Sometimes they appear to have become too cozy with their sources in order to get that access. Perhaps the issue here is not only losing freedom of the press but losing reporters’ freedom to access White House staff members.

It remains to be seen whether the presidential comment on rescinding press credentials is a true threat or Trump is throwing a Twitter tantrum just because he can.

Israel Accuses Iranian Forces of Rocket Attack on Golan

JERUSALEM — Iranian forces based in Syria fired 20 rockets at Israeli front-line military positions in the Golan Heights early Thursday, the Israeli military said, triggering an Israeli reprisal and further escalating heightened tensions between the two bitter enemies in neighboring Syria.

The Israeli military said its Iron Dome rocket defense system intercepted some of the incoming projectiles, while others caused only minimal damage. There were no Israeli casualties.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, a military spokesman, said Iran’s Al Quds force had fired the rockets at several Israeli bases, though he would not say how Israel had determined the Iranian involvement. The incoming attack set off air raid sirens in the Israeli-controlled Golan.

Israel “views this Iranian attack very severely,” Conricus told reporters. He said Israel had responded, but did not provide details.

“This event is not over,” he added.

Syria’s state news agency said early Thursday that Syrian air defenses had intercepted “hostile Israeli missiles,” and Syrian media later said the missiles were fired over southwestern Damascus.

The pro-Syrian government Al-Mayadeen TV said more than 50 missiles had been fired from Syria toward Israeli forces in the Golan Heights.

Earlier, Syria’s state news agency said rockets suspected to have been fired from Israel had hit southern Syria’s Quneitra province late Wednesday. Activists said it was artillery fire from Israeli positions in the Golan Heights. There were no reports of casualties.

Israel has been on heightened alert in recent days, anticipating an Iranian attack following Iranian vows to retaliate to what it says are recent Israeli strikes in Syria targeting Iranian outposts.

In the latest incident, Syrian state media said Israel struck a military outpost on Tuesday near the capital of Damascus. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the missiles targeted depots and rocket launchers that likely belonged to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, killing at least 15 people, eight of them Iranians.

Last month, an attack on Syria’s T4 air base in Homs province killed seven Iranian military personnel. On April 30, Israel was said to have struck government outposts in northern Syria, killing more than a dozen pro-government fighters, many of them Iranians.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied most of the airstrikes. But for months, it has repeatedly said it will not accept a permanent Iranian military presence in Syria.

In February, Israel shot down what it said was an armed Iranian drone that entered Israeli airspace. Israel responded by attacking anti-aircraft positions in Syria, but an Israeli warplane was shot down during the battle.

Iranian forces moved into Syria after the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011 to back the forces of President Bashar Assad. As that war winds down, and Assad appears to be headed toward victory, Israel fears that Iran, along with tens of thousands of Iranian-backed Shiite militiamen, will carry out attacks against Israel. President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that the U.S. was withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran has triggered uncertainty and threatened to spark more unrest in the Middle East.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Moscow on Wednesday to meet with President Vladimir Putin and discuss military coordination in Syria.

Russia has also sent forces to Syria to back Assad. But Israel and Russia have maintained close communications to prevent their air forces from coming into conflict.

Together with Putin, Netanyahu toured a parade celebrating the anniversary of the World War II victory over the Nazis and then met the Russian president at the Kremlin for consultations.

After 10 hours together, Netanyahu said he conveyed Israel’s obligation to defend itself against Iranian aggression.

“I think that matters were presented in a direct and forthright manner, and this is important. These matters are very important to Israel’s security at all times and especially at this time,” he said.

Israel views Iran as its archenemy, citing Iran’s calls for Israel’s destruction, support for militant groups across the region and growing military activity in neighboring Syria. Israel has warned that it will not allow Iran to establish a permanent military presence in Syria.

Israel’s military went on high alert Tuesday and bomb shelters were ordered open in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights following reports of “irregular activity of Iranian forces in Syria.” After an uneventful night, the military on Wednesday called on residents to return to “full civilian routine,” meaning studies and excursions would continue as usual, although the shelters would remain open.

Amos Gilead, a retired senior Israeli defense official, told a security conference in the coastal town of Herzliya that Iran’s intentions in Syria meant a wider conflagration may only be a matter of time.

“They want to build a second Hezbollah-stan,” he said, referring to the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shiite militant group that last fought a war with Israel in 2006. “They are determined to do it and we are determined to prevent it. It means we are on a collision course.”

___

Associated Press writer Zeina Karam in Beirut contributed to this report.

Tens of Thousands of University of California Staffers Strike

More than 20,000 members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 are on day three of a labor strike, protesting what they characterize as unacceptable wages, health care costs and retirement benefits offered by the University of California system.

During contract negotiations, the union requested a 6 percent annual wage increase, in addition to protections for health and retirement benefits, but the university agreed to only 3 percent, sparking the strike.

“Our Bargaining Team has been negotiating in good faith,” union representatives said in a statement posted on Local 3299’s website, explaining the decision to strike. “UC still has yet to offer real wage increases, benefit protections, job security, safe staffing and ending discrimination in the workplace. Instead, UC wants us to take cuts.”

The strike is expected to end Thursday, according to a Los Angeles Times report. Custodians, gardeners, cooks, truck drivers, lab technicians and nursing aides have been joined in a sympathy strike by 14,000 members of the California Nurses Association, as well as “15,000 members of the University Professional & Technical Employees, who include pharmacists, clinical social workers, physical therapists, physician assistants and researchers,” the newspaper added.

The L.A. Times also reported Tuesday that the strike has caused UC medical centers to reschedule over 12,000 surgeries, cancer treatments and other medical appointments, as well as to cancel classes and cut dining services on some campuses.

These disruptions have so far done little to slow down the strike. The total number of striking workers is expected to reach 50,000.

“The growing divide between UC’s top administrators and the rest of UC’s workforce is far beyond what a taxpayer-funded institution should allow,” AFSCME Local 3299 President Kathryn Lybarger said in a statement released earlier this week. “What we now have is a public university that’s literally becoming a monument to inequality, and workers all over the UC system have had enough.”

The UC system strikes come on the heels of similar actions from public school systems as well as universities across the country.

In April, members of Columbia University’s Graduate Student Union went on strike for a week as Columbia’s top administrators refused to recognize the union and begin bargaining. That strike, as the union’s blog noted, included participation from multiple politicians and political candidates “from New York City Council members to [gubernatorial candidate] Cynthia Nixon to the President of Ireland.”

Another New York City graduate student union, at the New School, went on strike Wednesday morning, protesting multiple elements of the negotiating process for its first contract, particularly health care benefits. The New School strike is just getting started, and has not yet attracted the kind of attention from the media or politicians that Columbia’s strike drew.

Even in the most conservative, anti-labor states, educators have been at the forefront of a resurgence in activism around labor rights. In addition to the strikes at universities on the East and West coasts, elementary and secondary public school teachers in Arizona, Kentucky, Oklahoma and West Virginia have all used strikes to protest inadequate wages, working conditions and health and retirement benefits.

UC was unmoved as of the beginning of the strike, with one spokeswoman on Monday telling CBS News, “A disruptive demonstration will change neither UC’s economic situation nor the university’s position on AFSCME’s unreasonable demands.”

 

Jesuitgate Tells Us Everything We Need to Know About Faith in America

Do you wonder why the proportion of Americans declaring themselves unaffiliated with organized religion has skyrocketed in recent decades?

This trend is especially pronounced among adults under 30, roughly 40 percent of whom claim no connection to a religious congregation or tradition and have joined the ranks of those the pollsters call the “nones.”

To understand how so many now prefer nothing to something when it comes to religion, ponder the news over the last few days.

The same newspapers and broadcasts that were reporting on how President Trump finally admitted that he had indirectly paid a porn star to keep quiet about an alleged affair also offered accounts of what we’ll call Jesuitgate, the controversy over who should be the chaplain of the House of Representatives.

On Thursday, Speaker Paul Ryan backed down from his effective dismissal of Rev. Patrick Conroy, a Jesuit priest, as chaplain. Ryan had said he asked the cleric to quit because he had provided inadequate “pastoral services,” but denied that Father Conroy was ousted because of a mild prayer for justice he delivered during the debate over the GOP tax cut.

That phrase “pastoral services” must inspire a chuckle from your average millennial agnostic. It makes the work of holy men and women sound like the this-worldly tasks of the accountant, the mechanic or the dentist. (As the grateful son of a dentist, I speak with respect for these extremely useful professions.)

Conroy had initially agreed to Ryan’s request to step aside but withdrew his resignation in a quietly stinging letter. The priest noted that he had never been informed of the shortcomings of his “pastoral services.” If he had, he would “have attempted to correct such ‘faults.'”

Conroy also quoted Ryan’s chief of staff, Jonathan Burks, as telling him “something like ‘maybe it’s time we had a chaplain that wasn’t a Catholic.'” Ryan’s office vehemently denied this (the Catholic vote is substantial) but the speaker announced he didn’t want to have a “protracted fight” and that Conroy could stay.

Many of us could have told the speaker that it’s a mistake to mess with a Jesuit. But think about it: The House Republican leadership was more inclined to push out a chaplain than to impose accountability on a president who is a proven liar and trashes the rule of law for his own selfish purposes day after day.

This degree of partisan irresponsibility only aggravates the already powerful skepticism among the young about what it means to be religious. In their landmark 2010 book, “American Grace,” the scholars Robert Putnam and David Campbell found that the rise of the nones was driven by the increasing association of organized religion with conservative politics and a lean toward the right in the culture wars.

Revealingly, Putnam and Campbell found that millennials with tolerant and open views on homosexuality were more than twice as likely to be religious nones as their statistically similar peers with conservative or traditionalist views on homosexuality. Many young people came to regard religion, in Putnam and Campbell’s words, as “judgmental, homophobic, hypocritical and too political.”

If you want a particularly exquisite hypocritical moment, consider that last Thursday, the very day when Trump had to admit his lies on the Stormy Daniels payoff, the president tweeted in commemoration of the National Day of Prayer. “Prayer is the key that opens us to the treasures of God’s mercies and blessings,” he proclaimed in a pious 42-second video set to a sentimental soundtrack of peaceful strings. I guess Trump can use some peace and a lot of mercy right now.

What’s maddening about all this is that religion has a strong case to make for itself—to the young and to everyone else—given its historical role as a prod to personal and social change and the ways in which movements for justice have been inspired through the centuries by the words of Exodus, Micah, Isaiah, Amos and Jesus.

Conroy was getting at this in the most uncontroversial way possible when he spoke in his now-contested prayer of how “our great nation” has created “opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle.” If a chaplain could be rebuked for voicing that simple and undeniable truth, what’s the point of the “religious liberty” that Trump and his GOP allies celebrate?

And when will those who advertise themselves as religion’s friends realize they can do far more damage to faith than all the atheists and agnostics put together?

Meet Rudy the Obfuscator

There is madness in Rudy Giuliani’s incoherence on behalf of President Trump, but there is also method. He’s following the Trump playbook: Confuse, distract, provoke and flood the zone with factoids and truthiness until nobody can be sure what’s real and what’s not.

“We all feel pretty good that we’ve got everything kind of straightened out and we’re setting the agenda,” Giuliani, now the mouthpiece for Trump’s legal team, told The Washington Post. “Everybody’s reacting to us now, and I feel good about that because that’s what I came in to do.”

He’s just messing with us with the bit about getting things straightened out. Let’s just say that it’s a good thing for him that he’s not under oath.

Giuliani revealed that Trump reimbursed his longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, for a $130,000 payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about an affair she says she had with Trump.

That made Trump’s prior claim of total ignorance about the payment a bald-faced lie. So Giuliani changed his story, or embellished it, by asserting that Trump didn’t know about the payment at the time it was made—days before the 2016 election—but found out about it later. When? Who knows?

Giuliani told the Post that the reimbursement came out of a $35,000 monthly retainer that Trump was paying Cohen. But he told Fox News that Cohen was “doing no work for the president” at that time. According to The New York Times, the retainer payments totaled at least $460,000. Giuliani told the Times that the payments began after the election, but he told the Post that Cohen might have used some of Trump’s money before the election, too.

Why would Trump pay so much in hush money to squelch disclosure of an alleged affair? “Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the, you know, last debate with Hillary Clinton,” Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends.”

Oops. That means the payment to Daniels, which Cohen says he made with funds from his home equity line of credit, could be construed as an unreported and probably illegal campaign contribution, since its purpose was to help Trump win the election. So Giuliani pirouetted once more and said the payment was made “to resolve a personal and false allegation” and “would have been done in any event, whether [Trump] was a candidate or not.”

So we’re supposed to believe that Trump paid Cohen $35,000 a month to reimburse him for a hush-money payment that Trump, at least initially, knew nothing about. The money went to a woman Trump barely knew—he can’t claim he never met her, since there’s a photograph of them together—for an affair he says never took place. And Giuliani says there might be other women who also received hush money, but then again maybe not.

“I am focused on the law more than on the facts right now,” he told CNN, without apparent irony.

In terms of his legal skills, I think it’s clear that Giuliani has lost a step. Or two. One day he maintained there was no possible election law violation, the next day he made a circumstantial case that there indeed was a violation. Decades ago, when he was busting up the New York mob, he never would have made such a rookie mistake.

But I also believe his satisfaction with his media blitz is genuine. Following the FBI seizure of Cohen’s files, the whole truth of the Daniels payment—and any others—was likely to come out anyway. Giuliani pre-emptively offered several versions of that truth, allowing Trump’s supporters to choose the one they find least appalling.

Related Articles









The Giuliani News No One Is Talking About



by















Rudy Giuliani Takes Money From an Iranian Terrorist Cult



by

He also managed to voice a confident-sounding, if wholly fictitious, rationale for Trump to stonewall special counsel Robert Mueller. Giuliani knows full well that the Constitution neither states nor implies that “a president cannot be distracted by a criminal investigation.” But some people who heard him make that ridiculous assertion to Sean Hannity probably nodded and said sure, that makes sense.

Giuliani is obfuscating, not clarifying. He’s making it harder to know even what the president claims, let alone what the truth might be. As a legal strategy, this would be insane. But it’s really a political strategy.

Congress poses the only serious threat to Trump, in the form of impeachment. If the president’s loyal base can be flimflammed into thinking this is all a big witch hunt, Republican lawmakers will stay in line. At least for now.

U.S. Hypocrisy Creates Perpetual Enemies and Forever War

In foreign policy, Americans like to keep it simple. Good countries versus bad countries. Democracies versus dictatorships. Of course, as Ronald Reagan reminded Americans, we are a “shining city upon a hill,” one of the goodies. What no one seems to ask is whether idealistic Americans have a clear view of the world as it is, or how their worldview affects the United States’ global image. Surely, as the U.S. enters its 17th year of perpetual war, these might be questions worth pursuing. Problem is, the truth can be disturbing.

So humor me for a moment and join me on a tour of American hypocrisy and naiveté, from Africa to the South Pacific.

Let’s begin with the big boys.

● Russia, with Vladimir Putin at the helm, is considered one of the baddies—even MSNBC thinks so these days. It has allegedly meddled in our election, invaded Georgia, intervened in Ukraine, fought for Bashar Assad in Syria and annexed Crimea. Some of that is true, no doubt, but some perspective is in order. The U.S. has meddled in foreign elections since time immemorial and appeared to back Georgia’s—and Ukraine’s—entry into the anti-Russian NATO alliance. The U.S. also invaded Syria, and, unlike the Russians, we weren’t invited by a sovereign head of state. Finally, the Crimeans wanted to join the Russian Federation.

Russia is by no means guilt-free, and genuine aggression needs to be prepared for and checked, but the American propensity for a Manichaean division between the noble U.S. and abhorrent Russkis is simply obtuse and unproductive.

● China, we are told, is a rising behemoth ready to snatch global leadership out of steadier American hands. And no doubt China’s economy is sizable, its military growing and its form of government fairly authoritarian. China, like all global power-punchers, needs to be balanced. Still, much of the alarmism over China amounts to hysteria and inaccuracy. China is growing its army and navy commensurate with its economy. So did a rising United States in the 20th century.

China expects to wield influence in its nearby seas. Well, the Caribbean has been an American lake for two centuries. Besides, only the U.S. expects to dominate every ocean and sea on the planet. That’s hegemony, not prudence. China’s system of government is illiberal, and Beijing commits human rights abuses. True, but I’m here to tell you that one could say the same—and I will—about a litany of U.S. “allies” and “partners.”

***Now let us move on to the midlevel players and compare and contrast America’s “good partners” and “evil adversaries.”

● Saudi Arabia: good. It sold us oil for decades, still supplies our European allies and balances a nemesis—Iran—in the Mideast. It even buys our advanced weapons and lines the pockets of defense industry CEOs.

But wait: Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s last absolute monarchies. Its women live under medieval patriarchal rules, and over the last four months it has beheaded 48 people, half for nonviolent offenses (we call that terrorism when Islamic State does it). In Syria, it has even backed an al-Qaida affiliate, the Nusra Front.

Oh, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

The U.S. response: We sell it arms, enable its war crimes in Yemen and back its every move in the region, even when it drags U.S. troops a few thousand miles from home to do the kingdom’s dirty work.

● Iran: super evil. It backs proxy forces across the Mideast, is developing ballistic missiles, threatening Israel and leading rowdy chants of “death to America.”

But wait: Iran is, by most measures, far more democratic than Saudi Arabia—it even sets aside parliamentary seats for minorities, including Jews. There are actually elections—albeit flawed—in Iran. Sure, the mullahs are domineering and corrupt, but in Saudi Arabia, these same elements work hand in hand with the royal family to suppress a citizenry that largely doesn’t vote. Iran does back proxies, but to nowhere near the extent or to the effect that exaggerating Iranophobes would have you believe. Besides, the U.S. backs all kinds of proxies in Syria, Iraq, Israel, Yemen, you name it.

As for those “death to America” chants, well, yes, they’re disturbing. Still, those emotions didn’t arise from nowhere. The U.S. fostered a 1953 coup that placed a brutal shah on Iran’s throne, and then proceeded to back Iraq’s eight-year invasive war with Tehran. The U.S. even took Iraq off the state sponsors of terror list, sent Don Rumsfeld to make nice with Saddam Hussein and then sold Hussein key supplies to produce chemical weapons, which, incidentally, he used on Iranians. So, yeah, it’s complicated.

● Israel: good. Infallibly so. Heck, even to question these guys is tantamount to anti-Semitism in the wildly pro-Israel United States. Israel, we are told, is the only democracy in the Mideast—which is empirically false, a bulwark against terrorism and a lonely victim in a hostile Arab world.

But wait: Israel has the most powerful military in the entire region and is the only local country with nuclear weapons (which we turned a blind eye to, ironically enough). Israel also is occupying Palestinian land in violation of international law, colonizing the West Bank, strangling Gaza and, most recently, gunning down unarmed Palestinian protesters along its border. The United States stands all but alone in the United Nations in its unshakeable and inexcusable defense of Israeli actions.

● Syria: bad country, maybe one of the worst. Here, I must—mostly—agree. Assad has, indeed, inflicted most of the casualties in that country’s horrific civil war. His use of barrel bombs, chemical weapons and indiscriminate attacks on civilians are unforgiveable. Period.

But still, that Assad equals evil does not necessarily mean that toppling Assad equals good policy. And for all the regime’s flaws—and they are countless—Syria’s treatment of its Sunni majority is not so different from Saudi Arabia’s (an “ally”) suppression of its minority Shiites or Egypt’s gunning down of anti-coup protesters. Ugly as Assad is, he mostly deplores transnational Islamist terrorists and provides secular protections to minority communities such as Christians, Druze and Shiites.

● Egypt: still a good country. It has made peace with Israel, buys lots of American arms and munitions, sends its military officers to train at our academies and swaps compliments with U.S. president after U.S. president. Donald Trump even told President Sisi that he is doing a “fantastic job.” How nice.

But wait: Sisi is a military dictator who took power in an undemocratic coup. When protesters took to the streets in response, Sisi’s troops gunned down hundreds of them. Tens of thousands of political dissidents and human rights activists are still imprisoned in Egypt. Furthermore, if Egypt is such a steadfast ally, where are its military contingents backing up U.S. forces in Somalia, Iraq, Syria, et al.?

***Sarcasm and cheeky comparisons aside, I am no particular fan of Russia, China, Iran or Syria. These are each flawed states, with less-than-admirable governments and spotty human rights records. But the same may be said of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and, well, the United States.

The value is in the evaluations themselves. As an exercise in critical thinking, a fair assessment of the positive and negative attributes of “partners” and “adversaries” can be instructive.

In the end, Washington must make hard decisions and, potentially, deal with some nefarious characters. But only when it is in America’s vital interests. That term, “interests,” has been stretched beyond recognition. Thus, the U.S. is left with the worst of both worlds—backing many baddies while proclaiming its own righteousness—as the global populace rolls their eyes, and more and more young people sign up for anti-American terror outfits.

One thing that hypocrisy produces is enemies, loads of ’em. Enough to wage a forever war.

When it comes to foreign affairs, American policymakers could stand to learn something (sure, I said it) from the savvier Russians and learn to see the gray. The other option is to live our purported values.

As it now stands, the U.S. does neither.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

Tourism’s Climate Footprint Expands

Previous estimates of tourism’s climate footprint have fallen far below the mark. Between 2009 and 2013 it increased four times more than earlier estimated, according to a comprehensive new study.

By 2013 the worldwide tourism industry was spilling an estimated 4.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and contributing about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. World tourism is now growing faster than international trade.

Scientists from Australia, Taiwan and Indonesia who explored the link between leisure and global warming report in the journal Nature Climate Change how they calculated the carbon footprint of the tourism business, in what must be one of the most complex studies of the global holiday sector ever undertaken.

“Our analysis is a world-first look at the true cost of tourism – including consumables such as food from eating out and souvenirs – it’s a complete life-cycle assessment of global tourism, ensuring we don’t miss any impacts,” said Arunima Malik from the School of Physics at the University of Sydney.

“This research fills a crucial gap identified by the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) and World Meteorological Organisation to quantify, in a comprehensive manner, the world’s tourism footprint.”

Ironically, researchers have identified the cost of global warming to tourism, directly, in the case of winter sports, and in particular to the travel industry.

They have warned that some airfields may become too hot to permit takeoff:  they have warned that more atmospheric turbulence promises bumpier flights; and that stronger headwinds could increase fuel costs. But there has been less focus on the holiday industry’s impact on global warming.

Souvenirs and shopping

To complete the accounting, the researchers looked at data from 160 countries and what they estimate to be around a billion supply chains: that is, they counted among many other things the food grown and animals reared to feed tourists, the building undertaken to shelter tourists, the climate costs of road and air transport and the souvenir-and-shopping trades associated with tourism.

They used two different accounting techniques and some advanced mathematical analysis to predict the growth of the travel and leisure business to 2025. And they find that tourism is growing: travel, they say is “income-elastic and carbon intensive … consumers’ demand for travel has grown much faster than their consumption of other products and services.

“Driven by a desire for exotic travel experiences and an increasing reliance on aviation and luxury amenities, affluence has turned tourism into a carbon-intensive consumption category.”

This is counter to assumptions so far. Economists have tended to see tourism as an industry with a relatively low impact. But the researchers say that in 2016 tourism accounted for one billion international arrivals and cash receipts of around US$1.2 trillion.

No slowdown ahead

The global holiday business is growing at between 3% and 5% a year and is now contributing significantly to global warming and climate change, precisely as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nor do the researchers see any evidence that the appetite for travel to exotic locations and lavish holiday developments – to ski resorts or coral atolls or historic cities – is likely to slow. As affluence increases, so does the appetite for travel. Future international negotiations to limit climate change and reduce the hazards of global warming must confront a carbon-greedy industry.

“Given that tourism is set to grow faster than many other economic sectors, the international community may consider its inclusion in the future in climate commitments, such as the Paris Accord, by tying international flights to specific nations,” said Ya-Yen Sun, of the University of Queensland’s business school and the National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan.

“Carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes – in particular for aviation – may be required to curtail unchecked future growth in tourism-related emissions.”

Obama Blasts Trump’s Decision to Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal

The Iran nuclear deal was signed on Barack Obama’s watch as president of the United States. On Tuesday, he was not happy to see Donald Trump withdraw from the 2015 agreement, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was meant to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Obama wrote a 942-word response on Facebook, calling the decision “a serious mistake” that could lead to war with Iran.

Read Obama’s full post below:

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working—that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest—it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish—its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes—with Iran—the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium—the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust—it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance—the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior—including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior—and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies—is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

Watch Obama announce reaching the Iran deal.

Watch Trump announce walking away from it.

What happens next remains unknown, but the JCPOA may be renegotiated.