Facing the Facts About Gun Violence in the U.S.

We Are All Becoming Cassandras

 "About three decades ago, climate change also became a major public issue, with scientists, politicians, and environmental organizations issuing prophetic statements about the extreme dangers ahead. Today, following a remarkable display of inaction, massive wildfires and floods sweep across nations, the polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and millions of climate refugees are fleeing for their lives."

"Substantial majorities of people polled around the world also feel seriously endangered by climate change. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey of people in 26 nations in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa found that a median of 68 percent regarded climate change as a 'major threat,' 20 percent as a 'minor threat,' and only 9 percent as 'not a threat.' "

"When it comes to nuclear weapons, polls have shown that most people favor eliminating them. A 2018 public opinion survey in 21 nations worldwide found that large majorities in nearly all the nations supported the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Recently, public opinion surveys in Europe, Japan, and Australia reported similar results."

"The COVID-19 pandemic also sparked an exceptionally strong demand for remedial action. In late 2021, an Ipsos survey of people in 15 nations found overwhelming numbers intending to be vaccinated in a variety of nations, including Brazil (89 percent), Italy 85 percent), China (82 percent), Spain (82 percent), Mexico (80 percent), South Korea (80 percent), Canada (79 percent), Australia (78 percent), and Japan (74 percent)."

"Even so, governments have not taken adequate action to stave off the catastrophes of nuclear war, climate change, and disease pandemics. Why?"

"One key factor is the control of public policy by self-interested economic forces. Seeking lucrative military contracts from the U.S. government, giant corporations campaign relentlessly for the building of new nuclear weapons. In 2020. the major nuclear weapons contractors in the United States employed 380 lobbyists and spent $60 million on lobbying, with great success."

"Nor should we forget the immense role that wealthy fossil fuel corporations have played in sabotaging action to avert climate catastrophe. Although ExxonMobil and other oil companies knew decades ago about what their products were doing to the environment, they funded a massive misinformation campaign designed to deny the findings of climate science, subvert public opinion, and block international treaties that could curb greenhouse gas emissions. Thus far, they have been very successful."

"As for the giant pharmaceutical companies, they treat the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to reap vast profits. Public health, of course, is dependent upon the worldwide distribution of antiviral vaccines as quickly as possible. But the corporations manufacturing the vaccines, determined to maximize their income, refuse to waive their patent rights, thus preventing other companies or governments from producing or distributing the vaccine and, thereby, competing with them. In this scarcity, they sell the vaccines to the highest bidders among governments -- overwhelmingly those of the richest nations. Consequently, as if August 30, 2021, 57 percent of people in high-income countries had received at least one dose of the vaccine, while only 2 percent had received it in low-income nations."

"A second key factor behind the inadequate response to these crises is the absence of a system of global governance. Even when the baneful influence of a system of powerful corporate entities is overcome, on occasion, in individual nations, there is no structure that can take remedial action on a global basis."

"Consequently, until corporate influence is curbed and the United Nations strengthened, our modern Cassandras' warnings seem likely to go unheeded."

"Curiously, though, there is a major difference between the Cassandra of the Greek myths and her modern counterparts. In the myths, Cassandra was ineffective because she was simply not 'believed.' By contrast, most people 'do' believe our modern Cassandras and want action taken to avert catastrophe."

(Source: Rearranged excerpts taken from: Lawrence Wittner, "We are All Becoming Cassandras: Leaders Must Heed the People on Climate, Disarmament, and Pandemic ," History News Network.)

Ready, aim, fired: Can Biden rescue the Nuclear Posture Review?

When Leonor Tomero, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 5, 2021, she aroused the ire of Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), by explaining that her job was to coordinate the review process, consider the risks and benefits of current declaratory policy, assess alternative options, and not impose any personal views she might have. Cotton said he was 'now troubled by the direction' of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).The response of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was: "What kind of a 'robust' nuclear posture can supposedly deter World War III but not withstand some hard questions about whether all 3,800 nuclear bombs and warheads in the US stockpile (as well as as the 400 ICBMs, 280 SLBMs, 66 strategic bombers, and 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines that carry them) are vital to that mission, to say nothing of affordable?"

"The writing was on the wall back in January 2021, when Adm. Charles Richard, commander of US Strategic Command, told the Defense Writers Group that the objective of the NPR should be 'validation, that we like the strategy we have. ... [T]nation has had basically the same strategy dating back to the Kennedy administration. It's been repeatedly validated through multiple administrations. It would be useful to do that again. And then to be satisfied that the capabilities we have are able to accomplish that again.' For Richard, the most senior military officer with operational responsibility over the nuclear arsenal , undertaking any kind of serious, thorough evaluation of nuclear requirements, let alone exploring any potentially beneficial alternatives to a strategy that, in his words, hasn't changed for 60 years, was wholly unnecessary. The question now [for Biden] is whether he will accept an NPR that is likely to do far, far less or find a way to ensure he receives actual policy options to pursue, rather than a nuclear fait accompli that changes little or nothing."

"Back to basics. What would an honest and productive NPR look like? Rather than starting with the unquestioned assumption that all the weapons we have and everything we're already doing to upgrade them is essential and effective, it would go back to first principles to identify the fundamental national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States 'before' proposing a strategy for how nuclear weapons can help to achieve some of them. Next the review would identify specific military targets to support that strategy, targets to support that strategy, assess the best weapons for those targets, and determine the precise force posture and deployment numbers to hold those targets at risk. Finally, it would quantify the amount of money required to accomplish all of this -- including designing, building, testing, and maintaining the warheads and all the supporting infrastructure -- both today and well into the future. It would also be managed not just by the Defense Department but jointly with the State Department (to fully assess diplomatic and arms reduction concerns) and the Energy Department (to better include the perspectives of those charged with actually maintaining the nuclear warheads and the facilities that sustain them). And it would allow academics and non-governmental experts (including retired governmental and military officials) opportunities to contribute their knowledge and experience before any drafts are written.  

Failing to do that will continue to perpetuate the so-called nuclear triad based on the longstanding but unsubstantiated (and unprovable) belief it is absolutely necessary to our deterrent posture.

  

House Resolution to Hold Mark Meadows in Contempt

 To fulfill its investigative responsibilities, the Select Committee needs to understand the events and communications in which Mr. Meadows reportedly participated or that he observed.

"Mr. Meadows was one of the relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and with then-President Trump. Mr. Trump was with or in the vicinity of then-President Trump on January 6 as he learned about the attack on the U.. Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could stop the rioters.

In fact, as the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received many messages encouraging him to have Mr. Trump issue a statement that could end the violence, and one former White House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times and told him, '[you] guys have to say something. Even if the president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go to the [cameras] and say, 'We condemn this. Please stand down.' 'If you don't, people ae going to die.'

Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, 'nonstop' throughout the day of January 6, and among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot. 

Mr. Meadows exchanged text messages with, and provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 6th rally on the Ellipse after the organizer told him that '[t]hings have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction. Please.'

Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to protect 'pro-Trump people' and that many more would be available on standby.

Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, a plan which one member of Congress acknowledged was 'highly controversial' and to which Mr. Meadows responded, 'I love it.' Mr. Meadows responded to a similar message by saying '[w]e are' and another such message by saying 'Yes. Have a team on it.'

Mr. Meadows forwarded claims of election fraud to the Acting leadership of DOJ for further investigation, some of which he may have received using a private email account and at least one of which he had received directly from people associated with Mr. Trump's election campaign.

He also reportedly introduced Mr. Trump to then-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. Mr. Clark went on to recommend to Mr. Trump that he be installed as Acting Attorney General and that DOJ should send a letter to State officials urging them to take certain actions that could affect the outcome of the November 2020 election by, among other things, appointing alternate slates of electors to cast electoral votes for Mr. Trump rather than now-President Biden.

Mr. Meadows participated in meetings and calls during which the participants reportedly discussed the need to 'fight' back against 'mounting evidence' of purported voter fraud after courts had considered and overwhelmingly rejected Trump campaign claims of voter fraud and other election irregularities. He participated in one such meeting in the Oval Office with Mr. Trump and Members of Congress, which he publicly tweeted from his personal Twitter account shortly after. He participated in another such call just days before the January 6 attack with Mr. Trump, Members of Congress, attorneys for the Trump re-election campaign, and 'some 300' State and local officials to discuss the goal of overturning certain States' electoral college results on January 6, 2021."

Imagine a World With US-China Cooperation

 "On September 10, 2021, during an important diplomatic meeting that occurred by telephone, U.S. President Joseph Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed the necessity of a better relationship between their two nations. According to the official Chinee summary, Xi said that 'when China and the United States cooperate, the two countries and the world will benefit; when China and the United States are in confrontation, the two countries and the world will suffer.' He added: 'Getting the relationship right is... something we must do and must do well.'

At the moment, however, the governments of the two nations seem far from a cooperative relationship. Indeed, intensely suspicious of one another, the United States and China are sharpening their military spending, developing new nuclear-weapons, engaging in heated quarrels over territorial issues, and sharpening their economic competition. Disputes over the status of Taiwan and the South China Sea are particularly likely flashpoints for war.

But imagine the possibilities if the United States and China cooperate. After all, these countries possess the world's two largest military budgets and the two biggest economies, are the two leading consumers of energy and have a combined population of nearly 1.8 billion people. Working together, they could exercise enormous influence in world affairs.

Instead of preparing for a deadly military confrontation -- one that appeared perilously close in late 2020 and early 2021 -- the United States and China could turn over their conflicts to the United Nations or other neutral bodies like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations for mediation and resolution. Aside from averting a potentially devastating war, perhaps even a nuclear war, this policy would facilitate substantial cuts in military spending, with savings that could be devoted to bolstering UN operations and funding their domestic social programs.

Instead of the two countries obstructing UN action to protect international peace and security, they  could fully support it -- for example, by ratifying the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Instead of continuing as the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, these two economic giants could work together to fight the escalating climate catastrophe by reducing their carbon footprint and championing international agreements with other nations to do the same.

Instead of blaming one another for the current pandemic, they could work cooperatively on global public health measures, including massive production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and research on other potentially horrendous diseases.

Instead of engaging in wasteful economic competition and trade wars, they could pool their vast economic resources and skills to provide poorer nations with economic development programs and direct economic assistance. Instead of denouncing one another for human rights violations, they could admit that they both had oppressed their racial minorities, announce plans for ending the mistreatment, and provide reparations to their victims."

(Source: Lawrence Wittner, "Imagine a World With US-China Cooperation," Common Dreams, October 11, 2021.)

Imagine...

...No 'modernization' of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs);

...No First Use of nuclear weapons;

...No nuclear missiles with their bombs on hair-trigger alert;

...No nuclear war 'football' travelling with the U.S. President all the time;

...The U.S. joining over 50 nations in signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, because nukes are now illegal.

The foregoing is a summary of Peace Action of Michigan's August 6, 2021 Zoom, which included a Power Point presentation.

US Sanctions Policies Desperately Need Accountability

 "In the 20 years since 9/11 and the start of the 'Global War on Terror,' sanctions have become one of the most dominant tools in the U.S. foreign policy tool chest. Yet despite limited evidence of success and abundant evidence of serious consequences, the U.S. government does little to evaluate the impact these blunt instruments have on civilian populations or even on the U.S. foreign policy objectives. Congress has a  chance to change that.

An amendment to the FY2022 National Defense Authorization  Act detailing that role, offered by Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), and passed by the House of Representatives in September, will likely become law if a conference committee decides to retain it in the NDAA's final version. A coalition of humanitarian, peacebuilding, human rights, and other civil society groups have been advocating for impact assessments for years and are now calling on the conference chairs to retain the provision.

The amendment would require the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the president and other relevant agencies, to report to Congress on the humanitarian impacts of comprehensive U.S. sanctions, including the ability of civilian populations to access water, food, sanitation, and public health, and their impact on the delivery of humanitarian aid and development projects. It would also require more transparency around exemption for humanitarian aid, and other exceptions to sanctions as well as an assessment of whether sanctions are achieving stated foreign policy goals.

Until now, only independent assessments have shed light on the true impacts of U.S. sanctions. Human Rights Watch has documented how sanctions have been depriving Iranians of their right to health, deterring financial institutions from facilitating transactions in Iran necessary for importing medicine and medical equipment, and necessary for international NGOs to pay their staff and keep their operations afloat.

Korea Peace Now, a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War, has documented the gendered impacts of sanctions on North Korea, showing that the economic pressure sanctions impose on society 'tends to exacerbate rates of domestic violence, sexual violence, and the trafficking and prostitution of women.'

Particularly concerning is the wide gap between the academic consensus on sanctions and the political reliance on these tools. Empirical studies have shown repeatedly that -- with few exceptions -- sanctions rarely achieve their foreign policy objectives. Sanctions against North Korea failed to prevent it from advancing its nuclear weapons program, while serving its government as a rallying cry against the United States. Sanctions against Iran have yet to compel it to return to the nuclear agreement, unsurprisingly given that the sanctions were reimposed in violation of that accord.

A recent Ipsos poll commissioned by the American Friends Service Committee found that a majority of Americans (53 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they interfere with humanitarian aid, and COVID relief efforts (compared to 26 percent who disagreed, and 21 percent who didn't know). It also found that a plurality (49 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they damage economic activity and livelihoods of ordinary citizens (28 percent disagreed and 23 percent didn't know); and 48 percent agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they violate international legal principles (30 percent disagreed, and 22 percent didn't know)."

(Source: Daniel Jasper and Gabe Murphy, "US sanctions policies desperately need accountability," RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT, October 18, 2021.)

Losing Abortion Rights in Supreme Court Case

"The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade protected a women's right to an abortion without excessive restrictions. But the high court is now considering arguments in another case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, that gives the conservative majority their most significant chance in decades to gut the Roe precedent. In oral arguments, the six conservatives seemed open to allowing a Mississippi law that bars abortions after 15 weeks to stand, undermining the core principles of the Roe verdict.

The court is not expected to rule on the case for months; typically, justice wait to release opinions in their most explosive cases until the end of their yearly term in June.

But the scenario in which justices overturn Roe is one for which conservatives have been preparing for decades, by laying a foundation of laws that either sought to bring a challenge to the high court or snap into effect once abortion laws changed

Twelve states -- Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah -- have passed laws that would bar all or nearly all abortions, written in a way that would bar all or nearly all abortions, written in a way that would allow them to take effect after the Supreme Court overturns Roe, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research institution. 

'Those laws vary by state, but they all have language that describes how they would take effect,' said Elizabeth Nash, director of state issues at the Guttmacher Institute. Some require the state attorney general to certify that the Supreme Court's decision allows that state to ban abortions.

Eight states -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin -- still have abortion bans on their books that were passed years, and sometimes decades, before Roe was decided. Texas has a similar law that is under injunction by a federal court.

But if the precedent is struck down, those laws would be enforceable once again, and the Supreme  Court ruling would likely allow Texas's law to take effect.

'If Roe is overturned, then states with pre-Roe bans could take the steps necessary to implement them,' Nash said.

Those states, some of which have laws that both predate and post-date the Roe decision, are home to a collective 51 million women. Georgia, Ohio and South Carolina, which have each passed restrictions on abortion that were ruled unconstitutional under Roe, but could be reinstated depending on the court's ruling, are home to another 14 million women.

Collectively, the 65 million women who live in states where abortion restrictions would take effect in a post-Roe world represent almost 40 percent of the 165 million women who live in the United States."

Source: Reid Wilson, "65 M women could lose abortion rights in Supreme Court case," The Hill, 12/3/21.