IMPORTANT READS

GUEST COMMENTARY-The Pentagon's long-awaited decision to end its ban on transgender people serving openly in the U.S. military has been widely praised as a move toward equality, full benefits and their right to serve "without having to lie about who they are." In a speech Thursday at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Ash Carter referenced the up to 15,000 transgender people now estimated to be serving silently, calling them "talented and trained Americans who are serving their country with honor and distinction (and) who’ve proven themselves.” 

Though many details of the shift remain to be worked out, advocates generally praised the change as "a matter of principle." Capt. Sage Fox, a U.S. Army Reserve officer who transitioned in 2012: "This is about equality, about civil rights, (about) recognizing the decency of human beings (and) that we are all equal." 

So far, all good. Still, the Pentagon announcement was swathed in troubling language and murky on many details, including its plausibly bloody end goal. Chelsea Manning and other activists rightly questioned the laying down of sometimes random conditions for serving. 

More alarmingly, it's hard not to raise a skeptical eye at the Pentagon's bellicose wording given the likely rise to power of Hillary Clinton, the "hawk's hawk" who never met a U.S.- funded, often-recklessly-rationalized war she didn't like. 

In his speech, Carter cited the military's need "to avail ourselves of all talent possible in order to remain what we are now -- the finest fighting force the world has ever known.” He insisted, “We don’t want barriers unrelated to a person’s qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier (who) can best accomplish the mission" -- without (no surprise here) expressing any interest in questioning that mission, its underlying lies about American exceptionalism, or its last 15 years of disastrous results. Saving the scariest for last, he intoned, "We have to have access to 100% of America's population." 

For what, [[[ https://www.thenation.com/article/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016/ ]]] the attentive among us really should ask. When we do, these "milestones" (a person with a vagina may finally oversee our drone assassination program) can kinda pale.

(Abby Zimet writes for Common Dreams … where this perspective was first posted.) Photo: Sergeant Shane Ortega, 28, one of the military's first openly trans members.

Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams. 

GUEST WORDS--We hear a lot about patriotism, especially around the Fourth of July. But in 2016 we’re hearing about two very different types of patriotism. One is an inclusive patriotism that binds us together. The other is an exclusive patriotism that keeps others out. 

Through most of our history we’ve understood patriotism the first way. We’ve celebrated the values and ideals we share in common: democracy, equal opportunity, freedom, tolerance and generosity.

We’ve recognized these as aspirations to which we recommit ourselves on the Fourth of July. 

This inclusive patriotism prides itself on giving hope and refuge to those around the world who are most desperate -- as memorialized in Emma Lazarus’ famous lines engraved on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” 

By contrast, we’re now hearing a strident, exclusive patriotism. It asserts a unique and superior “Americanism” that’s determined to exclude others beyond our borders. 

Donald Trump famously wants to ban all Muslims from coming to America, and to build a wall along the Mexican border to keep out Mexicans. 

Exclusive patriotism tells us to fear foreign terrorists in our midst -- even though almost every terrorist attack since 9/11 has been perpetrated by American citizens or holders of green cards living here for a decade or more. 

Exclusive patriotism is not welcoming or generous. Since the war in Syria began in 2011, we’ve allowed in only 3,127 out of the more than 4 million refugees who have fled that nation. 

Republicans in Congress reacted to the Orlando massacre with a proposal to ban all refugees to the United States indefinitely. Rep. Brian Babin of Texas wants to place “an immediate moratorium on all refugee resettlement programs … to keep America safe and defend our national security.”

With El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua convulsed in drug-related violence, thousands of unaccompanied children and nearly as many mothers and children have fled northward. But rather than welcome them, we’ve detained them at the border and told others contemplating the journey to stay home. 

Another difference: Inclusive patriotism instructs us to join together for the common good.

We’ve understood this to require mutual sacrifice -- from frontier settlers who helped build one another’s barns, to neighbors who volunteered for the local fire department, to towns and cities that sent off their boys to fight wars for the good of all. 

Such patriotism requires taking on a fair share of the burdens of keeping America going -- including a willingness to pay taxes. 

But the strident voices of exclusive patriotism tell us that no sacrifice should be required, especially by the well off. 

Exclusive patriotism celebrates the acquisitive individual and lone entrepreneur. It tells us that taxes on the wealthy slow economic growth and deter innovation. 

Trump wants to reduce the highest income tax rate to 25 percent from today’s 39.6 percent. No matter that this would result in higher deficits or cuts in Social Security, Medicare and programs for the poor. They’re supposedly good for growth. 

A third difference: Inclusive patriotism has always sought to protect our democracy -- defending the right to vote and seeking to ensure that more Americans are heard. 

But the new voices of exclusive patriotism seem not to care about democracy. They’re willing to inundate it with big money that buys off politicians, and they don’t seem to mind when politicians create gerrymandered districts that suppress the votes of minorities or erect roadblocks to voting such as stringent voter ID requirements. 

Finally, inclusive patriotism doesn’t pander to divisiveness, as does the alternative patriotism that focuses on who “doesn’t belong” because of racial or religious or ethnic differences. Inclusive patriotism isn’t homophobic or sexist or racist. 

To the contrary, inclusive patriotism confirms and strengthens the “we” in “we the people of the United States.” 

So will it be inclusive or exclusive patriotism? A celebration of “us” or contempt for “them”?

Inclusive patriotism is our national creed. It is born of hope. Mean-spirited, exclusive patriotism is new to our shores. It is born of fear. 

Let us hope that this Fourth of July and in the months and years ahead we choose inclusion over exclusion, hope over fear.

(Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley and the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.)  Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ALPERN AT LARGE--I'm hardly the first to get inconvenienced, hurt, and harmed by a United States airline (they've earned quite the reputation, haven't they?), but when it comes to my family, I'm especially incensed. And it's not exactly a shocker that United Airlines is particularly insensitive and downright cruel when it comes to the well-being of their customers ... but you knew that already, didn't you? 

And when it comes to one-stop flights in the Midwest (like Houston), when periodic storms roll in, and customers know they'll have their flights delayed for a few hours (not talking about the major downpours that last half a day or longer), that United Airlines is especially quick to cancel the flights altogether without having the personnel and planes to allow the flights to proceed when it's safe--leaving the travelers without any recourse...but you knew that already, didn't you? 

And when flights are delayed, United Airlines is especially quick to save a few bucks and do the operational and potentially dangerous risk of sending out their pilots and crew just before they're timed out for safety reasons, so it's oopsie, we're timed out, and a reasonable 3-4 hour delay for safety reasons is turned into a cancellation that sends their passengers straight to Hades...but you knew that already, didn't you? 

And when flights are unnecessarily cancelled, United Airlines is particularly unprepared to figure out how to house their stranded passengers in some nearby hotel, or to efficiently transfer luggage and commuters to another flight (even if the customers are willing to pay)...because, well, hey, who the heck else are you going to use on such short notice...but you knew that already, didn't you?

And if you ask if United Airlines can swing over another pilot, plane and crew to accommodate the scheduling/weather snafu, their people will look at you like it's CRAZY TALK!  But you knew that already, didn't you? 

And even when United Airlines unnecessarily cancels their connecting flights, and promises that you should keep your luggage (and Heaven forbid you should transfer to another airline's flight) with them to make it with you on their next flight, they'll--oopsie!--forget your luggage for up to 1-2 days...because that's YOUR problem.  But..you knew that already, didn't you? 

And when you try to contact an airport or United about your precious luggage and property, the only people you'll ever reach are calling center clones from India (who, to be fair, probably shouldn't be expected to know where the heck Knoxville, TN is) who provide catty, evasive, prepared, and confusing non sequiturs for every reasonable question you have...despite the fact that more local operators could be assigned to work with you better to get your luggage promptly.  But you knew that already, didn't you? 

And when the e-mails and texts state that your luggage and property is on their way, and you presume that the local drivers will work 24-7 to get your luggage to you, it shouldn't be that much of a shocker to get some call 24 hours later to learn that a local subcontractor just picked up your luggage and they'll be bringing it to you from the airport (where it's been sitting for about a day, despite what the e-mails and texts stated to the contrary)...yet you knew that already, didn't you? 

Because when United Airlines tell us it's "number one", we really don't have too much of a choice, do we, with respect to certain flight patterns...so we don't pay attention to WHICH FINGER United Airlines gives us when it says we're "number one"! 

...yet you knew THAT already, didn't you? 

But I'll give United Airlines props for being "number one", all right--when it comes to a "civil service mentality", a quasi-criminal disregard for the safety and welfare and consideration of the lives, property and quality of transportation for their paying customers, United Airlines (compared to the other callous and customer-contemptuous United States domestic airlines) is truly "number one". 

But you knew THAT already, didn't you?

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

-cw

CONNECTING CALIFORNIA--Sure, the sit-in in the House of Representatives didn’t deliver the vote on gun control legislation that was the stated purpose of the demonstration.

But that’s a very narrow way of looking at the results of the sit-in. Indeed, Democrats ought to call the demonstration a victory for one reason alone:

No one broke a hip.

Indeed, as I watched via Facebook and CSPAN late into Wednesday night, I must confess that I felt very worried about the Congressional members I saw. My worry was that someone would get hurt – doing all that standing late into the night, and holding up those posters.

I got especially worried when so many California Congressional members started speaking during prime time in California – and after 11p back on Capitol Hill. They looked awfully old, and that was even with the less than HD cell phone camera broadcasting their talks.

Grace Napolitano, who appeared for a while, is 79. Nancy Pelosi is 76. Maxine Waters is 77.

Even the California Congressional members who we think of as young are pretty old. My Congresswoman, Judy Chu, who looked like she was having a little trouble with one of the signs, is 62. Xavier Becerra is 58.

The good news is that I still recognized them. Congress has been so stalemated—and thus irrelevant—that it took a sit-in to get people really paying attention to Congress. It’s been years since many California Congressional members have tasted the limelight.

Of course, being unrecognizable is bad for a politician. But there are worse options. After all, they could be California Republicans.

(Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square ... where this column originated.)

-cw

EDITOR’S PICK--In a major victory for American women, the US Supreme Court sent a powerful message on Monday in its Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt decision: that laws purporting to protect women’s health while limiting access to abortion are an unconstitutional sham.

In a 5-3 decision, the court struck down a Texas law, called House Bill 2, responsible for shuttering more than half of the state’s clinics. The restrictions mandated that clinics become ambulatory surgical centers, adhering to wholly unnecessary hospital-like standards, and that doctors have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital even though hospitalization is almost never necessary after ending a pregnancy. The goal wasn’t to make abortion safer, of course, just impossible to obtain.

Ending a pregnancy is such a safe procedure that doctors would never be able to admit enough patients to a hospital in order to keep admitting privileges, and because abortions are so safe and common, maintaining the standards for a surgical center simply drained clinics of their resources. And anti-choice legislators know as much.

The court’s decision made clear the justices were not fooled, noting in the majority decision that “when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.”

And in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion, she wrote it was “beyond rational belief that HB 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.’” 

Lead plaintiff in the case, Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, released a statement saying that her clinics “treat our patients with compassion, respect and dignity – and today the supreme court did the same.”

She continued, “I want everyone to understand: you don’t mess with Texas, you don’t mess with Whole Woman’s Health and you don’t mess with this beautiful, powerful movement of people dedicated to reproductive health, rights, and justice.”

The ruling represents a significant loss for anti-abortion groups, who have been pushing Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (Trap laws) over the last decade: as of this year, 24 states have some sort of law or policy that restricts abortion access through targeting the way providers work.

But the Whole Woman’s Health decision – which laid bare the way that these mandates constitute an undue burden on women seeking abortion – stands to put that years-long strategy in jeopardy. It will be that much harder for anti-choice legislators to shroud their policies in rhetoric about protecting women when the highest court in the country has essentially called the tactic nonsense.

For pro-choicers, the decision isn’t just a win, but a sticking point in the upcoming presidential election. Pro-choice organizations wasted no time releasing statements that tied the decision to how a Donald Trump presidency would be disastrous for women. Ilyse Hogue, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, says that Trump “is committed to appointing justices who will once again make abortion illegal across the country”. Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List, noted that “extremist Republicans like Donald Trump should take note... women are paying attention and you’ll be hearing our voices loud and clear come November.”

Before November comes, though, American women can do some much-deserved celebrating in the wake of Monday’s decision. A strategy that aimed to limit our rights while invoking our protection has been proven impotent. A law that put tens of thousands of us in danger has been overturned. It is, finally, a good day.

(Jessica Valenti is the author of three books, including The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women, which was recently made into a documentary. This perspective was posted most recently at Common Dreams.) 

-cw

GUEST WORDS--(Note: Both Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, hold former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in high esteem. Kissinger has also been linked to widespread war crimes, alluded to in Stanley Kubrick’s anti-war film, Dr. Strangelove. In that film, Peter Sellers portrayed Henry Kissinger.) 

I offer this follow-up to comments I received in response to a recent CityWatch article on the prospects of fascism in the United States after the November 2016 Presidential election.  

One critic noted that the article made some important points, especially that fascism involves both racism and militarism, but it ignored two other important features of fascism: 

US Government Support for Fascism Abroad: This critic wrote that I failed to mention that the US government has trained and supported many fascistic regimes throughout the world, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Philippines under Marcos, and Chile under Pinochet. In light of these precedents, this critic argued that what has been repeatedly pursued by government officials outside the United States could be readily let loose within the United States.

This comment is well taken, and there are many other examples past and present that confirm it. According to historian William Blum, the long, bi-partisan history of US foreign policy over the past 70 years contains dozens of executive actions and Congressionally funded programs to overthrow democratically-elected governments and support regimes that easily qualify as fascist, authoritarian, or totalitarian.

For example, through the School of the America’s, renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), the United States government has trained and equipped the police, army, and security agencies of many authoritarian regimes in Latin America. This record is readily available, including the identities of government officials who advocated this approach, such as Jean Kirkpatrick, the first US woman ambassador to the United Nations. 

In fact, some of those actors are currently in high-level government positions, such as Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Others, like Henry Kissinger, are waiting for the phone to ring in order to offer advice on how to continue and implement an openly militaristic US foreign policy, whether the next president is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. According to the late writer, Christopher Hitchens, Kissinger’s long foreign policy record is filled with enough blood and mayhem to justify prosecution at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Nevertheless, both presidential candidates hold Kissinger in high esteem and seek his support. 

Authoritarian Work Places in the United States: I was also told that most Americans are already comfortable with a basic feature of fascism at their work places. In Germany Fuhrer means leader, and the organizing principle of the Third Reich was the primacy of the "leader.” In the United States most work places are no different, although we call the leader “the boss.” The constitutional freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights do not apply at work because the boss rules by fiat. This is the same authoritarian leader principle that characterized the Third Reich, unquestioned and unopposed executive authority.

I agree with this comment, too. Nearly all work places in the United States have an authoritarian, hierarchical organizational model. Even in unionized work environments, now employing less than 10 percent of the US work force, unions operate under detailed constraints. Their negotiated labor contracts contain a Management Rights provision in which unionized employees and their bargaining agents acknowledge the authority of management to determine and implement a company or agency’s mission. By their own agreement, unions are restricted to grievances and negotiated contracts related to working conditions only. Their activities at work places are clearly limited and closely monitored so they do not encroach on “the leader principle.”

In practice this means that employees have no right or authority to question any practices of management, other than such mundane categories as overtime pay and sick days.

As for the 90 percent of the work force in the United States that does not have the protection of a union contract, they work at the discretion of management. Such rights, as freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of speech, stop at the work place door. This leader principle (i.e. the boss might be an SOB, but he is always right) is heavily socialized into all of us from an early age. 

False Equivalency of Trump and Clinton: A third criticism of my article was that I was mistaken to call out bi-partisan fascist tendencies and to therefore imply that a Clinton administration would also harbor dangerous fascist practices. Instead, I was told I should have focused my article on Donald Trump because he presents, by far, a much greater fascist danger. These critics then make, what strikes me, as a twisted argument. They argue that we first need to urgently support Hillary Clinton to stop a likely fascist, Donald Trump. But once Hillary Clinton is sworn into office, then we need to immediately build mass movements to oppose the assured military interventions she will unleash, as well as her status quo approach to domestic policy already presented by Clinton surrogates at the Democratic Party’s current Platform Committee. 

I realize my bi-partisan analysis took many readers, like this critic, by surprise because they consider fascism to be an extreme right-wing phenomenon, and they therefore attribute it to Donald Trump, including his successful appeals to white supremacists. No doubt about it, Trump’s racism and xenophobia are important features of fascism, but they are hardly the only ones. 

Fascism, as I previously explained, also includes the brute power of the state, especially the ability to use its police powers to spy on, surveil, and disrupt the political process, up to the point of incarceration, torture, and murder. This is hardly the monopoly of conservative Republicans. In fact, my inventory of fascistic precedents in modern US history included the Sabotage and Espionage Acts initiated by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson during WWI, the development of Cointelpro under FDR, another Democrat, the anti-Communist Cold War and domestic witch hunts that began in 1946 under Democratic President Truman, and authoritarian legislation partially authored by arch-liberal Democrat Hubert Humphrey (The Communist Control Act of 1954), portions of which were opposed by the Eisenhower Administration.  

As for mass and detailed personal surveillance of the US population, it is already extremely advanced, including all-embracing electronic snooping of computers, emails, text messages, voice messages, telephone calls, and snail mail. It is also important to note that much or this spying is not legal, but continues anyway with wide Congressional and Presidential support, despite extensive public exposure of illegal domestic surveillance by Edward Snowden.  

The other element of a fascist program, aggressive, preemptive warfare, is only possible through the Federal Government, although major new US invasions and occupations currently face serious political obstacles. Nevertheless, the neocons once associated with Vice President Cheney are hard at work again. They are making their case for more foreign US military interventions in their latest document: Extending American Power: Strategies to Expand U.S. Engagement in a Competitive World Order.  Furthermore, some of the neo-cons linked to the second Bush Jr. Administration, such as Robert Kagan, are now supporting and fund-raising for Hillary Clinton.

While one of the primary military tactics of the Obama Administration is an executive kill list implemented through drone assassinations, it appears that like bombing campaigns, these aerial military tactics do not lead to political victories. While bombs, missiles, and drones have an extraordinary capacity to maim and kill, assassinated leaders are easily replaced. Furthermore, death and injury to non-combatants, such as relatives attending wedding parties, supports the recruitment of military irregulars to groups like Al Quaida and the Islamic State. Meanwhile, in the United States, to swing the pendulum back from drone warfare to ground invasions and occupations, the Pentagon will demand more cannon fodder. The occupations on Afghanistan and Iraq cost the US military dearly in weaponry (much of grabbed by ISIS in Iraq), morale, and soldiers. This barrier must be overcome in order to have new boots on the ground.

The logical solution to this impasse is military conscription, but it would now come at tremendous political costs. As recently amended, the Selective Service System no longer offers deferments to students and women. It is difficult to imagine a successful ideological campaign to renew conscription among older teenagers and 20-something’s after a 44-year lapse. At present these young adults do not have the slightest motivation to involuntarily join US ground forces in the two most likely military theaters: Russia’s western flank and in Syria, either fighting Isis, the Assad regime, or fighting these two archenemies at the same time. While the Obama Administration’s Pivot to Asia has not yet led to major troop deployments or military conflicts with China, this would be the third military theater that the next administration would gear up for, regardless of who is elected.

But, as we have seen in many previous US wars, major pretexts for military escalation, such as Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, and 9-11, steadily appear. Could such incidents appear again, either by luck or by design, to justify the draft and renewed major wars? Absolutely. Could they again be used to institute heightened domestic political repression? Absolutely. 

Could such a regime prevail more than a few years? Not likely. 

This is why the prospects for fascism in the United States should be taken seriously, but why the prospects for counter-movements must also be taken seriously.

(Victor Rothman lives in Los Angeles. He can be reached at [email protected].)

-cw

PERSPECTIVE--Some popular media outlets have hyped the BREXIT as either the end of western civilization or the dawn of the golden age for the UK (United Kingdom).

But that’s how the media operates. The more sensational the spin, the greater the following.

What counts is how it all plays out in the long-run.

No one is disputing the turbulence in the short-run: what happens to trade agreements, ease of travel among the 28 member states, immigration policies. It is no different from a divorce. Life goes on, only differently, with some friendships extinguished and new ones formed. Some will always remain unchanged. And like a divorce, there will be alimony – but flowing in two directions, in various forms. It will be difficult to project who will pay more.

Even with the UK as a member, the European Union (EU) has an Achilles Heel owing to the sovereignty and nationalistic bent of its member nations, combined with a common monetary unit used by the nineteen members who comprise the Eurozone. The propping up of weaker economies in the union by the healthier ones, without the power to effectively influence legislation in the former, is like supporting your ne’re-do-well cousin Eddy.  

Unemployment is pervasive: 8.9% in the EU and 10.3% in the Eurozone.

Overall, the EU is not only an unhappy family, but a somewhat dysfunctional one.

So one cannot blame the UK for wanting to leave, especially since it has been on its own for over a thousand years.

The patriotic lyrics of “There Will Always be an England” come to mind. 

Well, there might only be England. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted heavily against BREXIT and could consider secession. The Jacobites might finally get their wish! Mel Gibson may apply blue paint to his face once more.

But they should be careful what they wish for. Just as the UK is taking a risk by bailing, Scotland and Northern Ireland would be well-advised to consider the health of the EU. In the next few years, other major players may part company with the EU. The remaining members, aside from Germany, will not be powerhouses. The EU could become a German-centric body. Maybe the Fourth Reich? A German hegemony is what some Europeans have suggested is developing, with or without the UK, certainly more likely without the UK and France.

Despite the urge by BREXIT’s most ardent supporters to break as quickly as possible, it will not be that easy. 52% support for the measure is not exactly a mandate. There will be a donnybrook in Parliament that will make our Congressional battles look like spats.

In the end, we need to respect the UK’s process.

Regardless, there will always be a Europe.

(Paul Hatfield is a CPA and serves as President of the Valley Village Homeowners Association. He blogs at Village to Village and contributes to CityWatch. The views presented are those of Mr. Hatfield and his alone and do not represent the opinions of Valley Village Homeowners Association or CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected].) Graphic credit: Cagle.com

-cw

ELECTION 2016--As we head toward the Democratic National Convention, I often hear the question, “What does Bernie want?” Wrong question. The right question is what the 12 million Americans who voted for a political revolution want.

And the answer is: They want real change in this country, they want it now and they are prepared to take on the political cowardice and powerful special interests which have prevented that change from happening.

"What do we want? We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life."

They understand that the United States is the richest country in the history of the world, and that new technology and innovation make us wealthier every day. What they don’t understand is why the middle class c ontinues to decline, 47 million of us live in poverty and many Americans are forced to work two or three jobs just to cobble together the income they need to survive.

What do we want? We want an economy that is not based on uncontrollable greed, monopolistic practices and illegal behavior. We want an economy that protects the human needs and dignity of all people — children, the elderly, the sick, working people and the poor. We want an economic and political system that works for all of us, not one in which almost all new wealth and power rests with a handful of billionaire families.

The current campaign finance system is corrupt. Billionaires and powerful corporations are now, through super PACs, able to spend as much money as they want to buy elections and elect candidates who represent their interests, not the American people. Meanwhile, we have one of the lowest voter turnout rates of any major country on earth, and Republican governors are working overtime to suppress the vote and make it harder for poor people, people of color, seniors and young people to vote. 

What do we want? We want to overturn the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision and move toward public funding of elections. We want universal voter registration, so that anyone 18 years of age or older who is eligible to vote is automatically registered. We want a vibrant democracy and a well-informed electorate that knows that its views can shape the future of the country.

Our criminal justice system is broken. We have 2.2 million people rotting behind bars at an annual expense of $80 billion. Youth unemployment in a number of inner-cities and rural communities is 30 to 50 percent, and millions of young people have limited opportunities to participate in the productive economy. Failing schools all around the country produce more people who end up in jail than graduate college. Millions of Americans have police records as a result of marijuana possession, which should be decriminalized. And too many people are serving unnecessarily long mandatory minimum sentences.

What do we want?  We want a criminal justice system that addresses the causes of incarceration, not one that simply imprisons more people. We want to demilitarize local police departments, see local police departments reflect the diversity of the communities they serve and end private ownership of prisons and detention centers. We want to create the conditions that allow people who are released from prison to stay out. We want the best educated population on earth, not the most incarcerated population.

The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is caused by human activity, and it already is causing devastating damage in our country and to the entire planet. If present trends continue, scientists tell us the planet will be 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the end of the century — which means more droughts, floods, extreme weather disturbances, rising sea levels and acidification of the oceans. This is a planetary crisis of extraordinary magnitude.

What do we want? We want the United States to lead the world in pushing our energy system away from fossil fuel and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy. We want a tax on carbon, the end of fracking and massive investment in wind, solar, geothermal and other sustainable technologies. We want to leave this planet in a way that is healthy and habitable for future generations.

What do we want? We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life. As Lincoln put it at Gettysburg, we want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what we want, and that is what we will continue fighting for.

(Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), currently a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history. This piece was posted most recently at Common Dreams.) 

-cw

GUEST WORDS--Fourteen county workers in San Bernardino, nine parishioners in a Charleston, S.C., church, 12 military employees in Navy Yard, 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and now 49 members of the LGBT community in Orlando, Fla. The attack last weekend in a gay nightclub has shocked the nation. It is the deadliest in a long and growing list of mass shootings that have become a disturbing trademark of the United States, setting us apart from every other developed nation in the worst way. (Photo above: Congresswoman Hahn with Congressman John Lewis.)

The American people are scared and angry — and they should be. After every attack, a number of my colleagues in Congress have stood in the way of enacting even the most obvious reforms to prevent the next one and protect human life.

There are effective and common-sense solutions that the American people want implemented. We need to reinstate the assault-weapons ban to get mass shooters’ weapon of choice out of our neighborhoods, and implement universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

Would these reforms have saved lives in Orlando? I am not sure, but doing nothing is not the answer. The American people are demanding action, and we must try anything we can to prevent further attacks.

We have a long way to go toward ending gun violence, but we have to start somewhere with something I believe we can all agree on: keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have gone to great lengths to stop terrorist attacks. Travelers must go through a full-body scanner before boarding a plane. Passengers cannot even bring a bottle of shampoo in their carry-on luggage. Federal authorities compile lists of suspected terrorists, and none of those individuals are allowed on a plane.

And yet, the suspected terrorists who have been deemed too dangerous to fly have nothing standing in the way of them buying an AR-15 at their nearest superstore and committing the same atrocity that we saw most recently in Orlando.

Gun violence has terrorized communities in this country for years, but it is time to also address it as a threat to our national security. Our lax gun laws are not a secret. Terrorist leaders know that the military style assault weapons readily available at stores can do as much — if not more — damage than bombs. ISIS and Al Qaeda recruiters know this is our weakness and have been urging lone-wolf attackers to take advantage of it for years.

Yet, many of my colleagues in Congress who have claimed to be tough on terrorism have stood in the way of efforts to close the terror loophole. My message to them: You are not tough enough.

Last year, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and former Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., introduced legislation that would ban individuals on the no-fly list from buying firearms and explosives and empower federal authorities to stop individuals they suspect of having terrorist ties from purchasing guns that may be used for terrorist activities.

The American people are resoundingly behind this proposal. Members of Congress doing the bidding of the gun lobby are the only people standing in the way of its passage. After a 15-hour filibuster by my Senate colleagues, Senate Republicans have agreed to consider holding a vote on gun reform. This is an encouraging step.

I implore you to call your representative and your senators. Urge them to support “No Fly, No Buy.” This is common-sense legislation that can save lives.

(Janice Hahn, D-San Pedro, represents California’s 44th District in the U.S. Congress. This perspective appeared earlier at Congresswoman Hahn’s website and at presstelegram.com.)

-cw 

STANDING FOR SOMETHING--It was almost midnight when I found myself glued to the live video of scores of Democratic congressmembers then about twelve hours into their historic sit-in. They were occupying the House chamber, jerry-rigging a social media-based broadcast when the Republican leadership shut-down the C-Span cameras, rising one after another to speak with passion, reminding the nation that business as usual is no longer okay. They are proud of themselves and each other, as they should be. They are grateful to civil rights icon and Georgia Congressman John Lewis who has been leading them in speaking truth to power.   By late morning Thursday they were continuing to occupy the House.  Despite the Republican leadership announcing that the House is not in session, they are insisting that there be no congressional recess without voting on the proposed bills, and they are demanding that the public, filling the galleries, be allowed to stay.

They are reminding the world that since 1968 more Americans have been killed in gun violence than in all the wars in US history. They are demanding a vote on gun safety laws. It’s a moving, empowering thing to see.  It’s rare, powerful, and should be applauded.

"It’s a moving, empowering thing to see... And yet. There’s a huge problem."

And yet. There’s a huge problem. The two proposals the Democrats are demanding a vote on are very problematic.  One bill proposes only a small, completely insufficient expansion of background checks.  The second would not only be ineffective in preventing gun violence, but would cause a dangerous increase in racial profiling and Islamophobia.  That second bill is the basis for the slogan “no fly, no buy” – which refers to making sure that no one on law enforcement’s so-called “no-fly” lists is ever allowed to buy a weapon. 

If we were talking about actually preventing real terrorists from buying weapons, that would be a no-brainer.  But the “no-fly” lists are not lists of terrorists; they are lists of people –  American citizens, green-card holders, visitors, citizens of other countries – who end up on the FBI’s or other law enforcement agencies’ lists for reasons we and they never know. Maybe they share a name with someone once suspected of knowing someone whose second cousin once skyped with someone thought to be a would-be terrorist. Maybe their college roommate ended up trying to go to Syria. For some few of them, maybe they really do have dangerous intentions. But there are thousands of people on these lists. Most of them can’t even find out why they’re not allowed to fly, let alone succeed at challenging the prohibition.  We should not forget that President Nelson Mandela remained on the US “terrorist” watch-list until 2008. What the American Civil Liberties Union calls our “error-prone and unfair watch-listing system” doesn’t produce a list of terrorists at all. 

If it was up to me, I’d prohibit anyone – anyone, on or off those lists – from buying or possessing these lethal weapons.  But it’s not up to me.  And unfortunately the “no fly, no buy” rule being proposed in the newly militant House tonight is not going to prevent gun violence either.  What it is going to do, unfortunately, is further legitimize these watch lists, now as the basis for a politically more popular version of gun control.  But as the ACLU noted, “Our nation’s watch-listing system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.” 

And we know that those “vague and overbroad criteria” end up being applied disproportionately to Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and others wrongly assumed to be linked to terrorism.  It is terribly sad that some of our most principled, consistent members of Congress – members of the Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress, and the Progressive Caucus, whose members work against racism, against racial profiling, against Islamophobia and hatred, against war and beyond – are among those accepting and urging even greater reliance on this “error-prone and unreliable” system in the name of preventing gun violence.

The Democratic leadership is refusing to allow their now-insurgent party to officially endorse the most sensible (however insufficient) versions of gun control laws:  outlawing assault weapons, removing the prohibition on federal research on the public health consequences of gun violence, and universal background checks.  Those things, lethally opposed by the NRA, would not stop the epidemic of gun violence in this country but unlike the no-fly lists they would certainly help.  Some in the sit-in rejected those restrictions. At 12:35 in the morning, Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, one of those who had set up the live-streaming of the debate after the Republican leadership turned off the cameras, rose to call for all three of those goals.

The congressional sit-in is bringing moral power and renewed urgency to the cause of gun control. Watching the Democrats shout down Republican leaders desperately trying to reclaim control of the House might challenge the partisan bickering that has paralyzed Congress for years. It may mark the beginning of a turn towards the re-legitimation of Congress, long demonized as the least effective, least useful, least popular institution around. That renewed legitimacy, though, would be far more likely achieved if these members of Congress, as they consolidate their new moral credibility, would finally reject the current iteration of “no fly” lists as the basis for gun control – or indeed, as a valid method of counter-terrorism.

The Congressional sit-in protesters should be congratulated for standing up for their principles. And they should be pressured to make sure their plans to act on those principles don’t undermine other principles of civil rights and equality.

(Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.  Her most recent book is Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror.  This perspective was posted first at Common Dreams) 

-cw

POLITICS--As the summer and fall of this election cycle get ever closer, it will be very easy to let ourselves choose sides and be divided--but if we're smart, and if we're truly liberal (open-minded) and if we're truly conservative (common sense) this need not happen.  Furthermore, we MUST NOT let this happen. 

There's a lot of commonality between the many infuriated, disenfranchised and frustrated groups in our nation.  We're in shock and horror about the Orlando shooting, and we're in shock and horror over the incident a toddler being drowned by an alligator, and we're in shock and horror over how the Stanford rapist got such a lenient sentence. 

In other words, if we hate liberals/Democrats, or if we hate conservatives/Republicans, more than we love this nation, then that's a choice.  Some of you may make that choice, but it's still YOUR choice...and one that need not be adhered to. 

And if there is any take-home message from the GOP and Democratic primaries, if you're not angry and fed up about how our leaders have run our nation, then arguably you're one of the "privileged and protected" or you're just not paying attention to how ALL empowered sides have sold the majority of this nation (particularly the rule-abiding middle-class) out. 

So while the majority of Americans polled did not approve of Donald J. Trump's response to the Orlando shooting, the majority of Americans weren't supportive of Hillary R. Clinton's response, either.   

But Clinton's lead over Trump has slipped since Orlando...because virtually all Americans do NOT want these types of shootings to be "the new normal", and they are divided over how to address these shootings. 

But we appear to be united in that most of us do not like either Trump or Clinton.  We are concerned if immigrants (particularly Muslims) are assimilating into American/Western culture, but we refuse to lower ourselves to racist rhetoric. 

We're also concerned about BOTH Bush's AND Obama's screwups that have turned Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria into dangerous and empowered cesspools and terrorist violence.  Clinton's past actions as Secretary of State are part of this problem, but is Trump likely to be any better? 

And has President Obama allowed these types of shootings to be "the new normal"?  

But THIS is the big divide:  while liberals/progressives have focused on gun control over the role of Islamism as the major cause/problem that led to Orlando (and, before that, San Bernardino), it's the other way around for conservatives/pragmatists. 

Yet what if BOTH sides are correct? 

That's right...BOTH.  It would have been best to have better screened the Orlando shooter before allowing him purchase to certain weapons, and SOMETHING has to be done to best screen potential purchasers of weapons not available when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was written.

Yet there are a few caveats here--because very few believe that law-abiding Americans should be denied access to self-protection.  That said, very few of those advocating modified gun control really know what the heck they're talking about when it comes to the guns they want restricted. 

Yet while the NRA opposes some of the gun control restrictions of the Left, they also quickly opposed Trump's statements of the benefits of the rights and ease of a "conceal/carry" permit to any customer going into a nightclub, where alcohol is being consumed. 

Even in the Old West, there were bars, dance halls, and other public venues where guns and other weapons were to be checked in for purposes of public safety. 

And inasmuch as some of us may hate the gun-control advocates or the NRA, their more moderate proposals (better screening, gun show controls, more armed security guards at schools and nightclubs) are probably to be ignored at our collective peril. 

And inasmuch as we don't want to devolve into racism, SOME common sense profiling of potential gun purchasers is in order to prevent more tragedies such as Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, and Orlando...so let's not kid ourselves: 

The "gun nuts" will need to be more carefully screened, but there will probably be a lot of potential Muslim gun buyers who will be screened, as well. 

Because while President Obama might be trying to make the Orlando tragedy into a "gun control thing" it would be better received if he also pleaded for American Muslims to "step up". 

After all, it's not unrealistic to be terrified of BOTH crazies that were responsible for the Sandy Hook, Gaby Gifford and Aurora, Colorado shootings (all Democrats, by the way, and unrelated to Sarah Palin) AS WELL AS Islamist extremists (who apparently had friends, neighbors, and families who could have, and SHOULD HAVE, turned them in before the tragedies occurred). 

The truth will set us all free--because we will ALL need to step up and do the right thing to prevent future tragedies from occurring.  Attorney General Lynch's censoring certain parts of the Orlando shooter's phone calls to remove references to his Islamist extremism won't help anyone, and won't prevent any future tragedies. 

So if you, the reader, just HATE Republican and conservatives more than you love this nation, or if you just HATE Democrats and liberals more than you love this nation, then that is your choice.

But it's a choice that you need not make.  Listen to all sides, and don't dismiss them as being devoid of excellent and moderate and smart compromises. 

Let's let these tragedies unite us, not divide us--we owe it to the memories of the slain and maimed to do the right thing in their name, and in the name of future American generations.

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

-cw

EDITOR’S PICK--In the days following the horrific attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando – one of the worst mass shootings in modern U.S. history, which claimed the lives of 49 people (50 counting the shooter) and left over 50 wounded – evidence began to mount that the gunman likely possessed multiple motives. This evidence is not surprising in light of what research has revealed about the origins of violence, which includes the knowledge that most people who commit violent acts are driven by a complex, multifaceted and intertwined set of factors. The underlying root causes of violence, then, cannot be reduced to one or two sources. To invoke a cliché, the world is not black and white. The nature of violence is no exception, and our individual and collective understanding of it must not be either if we are to effectively address and prevent all forms of it. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that one of the shooter’s perceived justifications for perpetrating the murderous rampage may have been intense psychological and emotional pain over his sexual orientation – a catastrophic blend of deep shame, humiliation and bitterness over his possible queerness. 

Besides his apparent queer inclinations, there were several noteworthy details about the shooter’s life that were omitted during many discussions about motives: his history of domestic violence, both as a victimizer and a witness to it in childhood; his employment with G4S, one of the largest private security firms in the world, for which he rendered services that included the imprisonment and mistreatment of juvenile offenders; and, his fascination with the NYPD, which he apparently idolized as a would-be police officer. 

In addition, based on testimony from eye witnesses and acquaintances, racism could also have influenced his choice of target. What is more, we know from reports that both the ideologies behind and atrocities of the so-called U.S-led “war on terror” and terror groups operating across the world could have contributed to the gunman’s unspeakable act. 

All these factors, plus additional ones that may surface in the days and weeks ahead, may have played a role in the shooter’s toxic thinking and derangement, and ultimately led to the massacre which unfolded that awful night. 

For these reasons, as well as others, the attack in Orlando cannot be explained away by the tired and parochial refrain, “they hate us because of our freedoms,” regardless of the lengths to which some might go to convince people of its validity. 

Yet, almost immediately after news of the nightclub tragedy broke, various political leaders and members of the corporate media, among others, began engaging in selective hate and bigotry against Muslims. They did not ask questions. They did not want answers. They conveniently ignored or discounted credible information regarding the gunman’s background and automatically defaulted in their dogmatic thinking to blaming so-called “radical” Islam. 

Those who spew hate, especially in the wake of a national tragedy, only reveal their bigotry, cowardice and bad character, and, whether they intend to or not, incite further hostility against vulnerable minority groups. Practitioners of such reactionary thinking tend to use the red herring of immigration and foreign “terrorism” to advance their own xenophobic and jingoistic agendas. This careless and irresponsible behavior only fuels Islamophobia and hate crimes against Muslims. 

Demagoguery and fear-mongering about terrorism and the “Other” is extremely lucrative for the multi-trillion dollar war industry. The tragic incident in Orlando could prove to be another opportunity for war profiteers to grow even richer. Islamophobia and racism sells war. A national conversation about homophobia, domestic violence, the security-surveillance state and prison-industrial complex does not. 

We will never stop mass shootings if we continue to fault Islam. Sadly, however, the religion will probably continue to be targeted and exploited by small-minded people to communicate and spread anti-Muslim, ultra-nationalist propaganda. Horrendous violence is sometimes committed in the name of Islam, as it is in the name of other religions. However, this in no way makes religion culpable for it, yet Islam is deliberately and repeatedly scapegoated. 

It is utter nonsense to attribute mass shootings to Islam, particularly when an honest analysis of these incidents provides some concrete albeit complicated answers regarding the pathologies of violence. If it were about blaming or banning a particular demographic to eliminate mass shootings, the statistical data show that religion should not be a candidate. 

The Albany Times Union’s Chris Churchill articulates this point well in a recent column: “…if you look at the long list of recent mass shootings, you can't help but realize that it is entirely dishonest to call this a Muslim or immigrant problem…It would be far more accurate to call it an angry and isolated young man problem. In fact, if the goal is ending mass shootings, it would make much more sense to ban all men under the age of 35 than it would to bar Muslims.” 

Not only is the problem of mass shootings far from being rooted in religion, the policy of sound gun control offers some solid evidence about preventive approaches: In his latest column, Nicholas Kristof, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The New York Times, calls attention to the fact that, “Over the last two decades, Canada has had eight mass shootings. Just so far this month, the United States has already had 20…. Canada’s population is 3.2 percent Muslim, while the United States is about 1 percent Muslim — yet Canada doesn’t have massacres like the one we just experienced at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., or the one in December in San Bernardino, Calif. So perhaps the problem isn’t so much Muslims out of control but guns out of control.” To insist, therefore, that Islam is the problem would be to expose either profound ignorance or explicit and virulent racism regarding the religion. 

The good news is that there is a significant number of antiwar and peace and justice groups working diligently to identify and eliminate the multiple and interconnected forms of violence that could have influenced the mass shooting at Pulse. The #VetsVsHate movement is one example of this work.  

#VetsVsHate was inspired by efforts including the Veterans Challenge Islamophobia campaign, an national initiative of Veterans For Peace launched earlier this year in collaboration with Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). The campaign seeks to confront and stop the verbal and physical targeting of Muslims. Along with on-the-ground nonviolent protest/civil disobedience actions against the vitriol being directed at Muslims, social media has been a vehicle through which veterans and allies have expressed their defense of and solidarity with the Muslim community. 

As an organization dedicated to abolishing war as well as ending violence in all its forms in order to help build a more just and peaceful future, VFP believed it had a responsibility to release a statement on the mass shooting in Orlando. The statement reads, in part: “Tragedies like this often lead people to look for someone or something to blame. Veterans For Peace rejects attempts to perpetuate hatred against the LGBTQ and Muslim communities. We ask all to resist this temptation. We call on all people to challenge the forces of division and hatred, and to stand against all forms of hate; and at this time particularly against homophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry. Let us instead recommit ourselves to working toward a world without hatred and prejudice.” 

IVAW also released a statement about the attack on Pulse which touches on many of the same points that were conveyed in the VFP statement. 

Veterans have a unique perspective on the various ways in which enmity and violence develops and destroys lives, as many of them were thrust into situations where it was inescapable and on full display. Veterans can speak with authority on how and why demonization and persecution of the “Other” can and does produce violence. Frequently, they are eager to share their insights with anyone willing to listen and learn. The aftermath of the Pulse massacre has proven to be one such time when veterans are speaking out. 

Below are the voices of four veterans who offer their perspectives on the Pulse nightclub attack and the hate rhetoric and blame game that followed: 

“Anytime a shooting or bombing occurs around the world, the collective hearts of 1.7 billion Muslims is shattered and the anxious prayer "please don't let them claim to be Islamic" is uttered. This is because all Muslims know that the tenets of Islam proclaim that the unjust taking of one life is equivalent of killing all of humanity in the sight of God, particularly during this time of Ramadan -- when it is forbidden to even engage in an argument with another person much less commit a mass shooting. This is precisely how every single Muslim in the world knows that the Orlando shooter was a fraud, whose only belief system was violence and hatred. But, true to form, in the aftermath of this tragedy, the world is witnessing the charity and goodness of Muslims, who are donating blood (even though they are fasting from food and water), bringing sustenance to those in need, or, like me, standing shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ+ community through tears in solemn vigils of remembrance for the beautiful souls we lost. We know that our bonds of kinship as minority communities cannot and will not be torn asunder by violence because our bonds are made of love and unity and they are everlasting.” –Nate Terani (Navy veteran, VFP member, and Phoenix-based VCI field organizer) 

“Hijab. Allah. These are terms we think of when we come upon the word “Muslim.” People also think “terrorist,” which is a destructive way of thinking. Both the events of 9/11 and the Orlando massacre caused tremendous suffering for many. But we must not forget these tragedies hurt the Muslim community as well. When 9/11 occurred, I like many Americans said we needed to go over there and do something about it. However, I didn’t understand Islam. I ended up meeting a man wanting to explain the beliefs of Islam to people who didn’t know, to strike down the belief that all Muslims are evil. Since that time, I’ve never looked back and even in the Marine Corps (while I never deployed) I stood up for our brothers and sisters, some of whom were Muslim. Two quotes come to mind for me: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” (Santayana) and “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Gandhi). Knowledge is power and if we do not understand Islam we need to educate ourselves in order to dispel Islamophobia.” –Renee Whitfield (Marine Corps veteran, #VetsVsHate supporter) 

“As a Latinx. A Muslim. A Veteran. A serious conversation is necessary to discuss the ways Toxic Masculinity, Militarism, Homophobia, and Islamophobia contributed to the shooting in Orlando, as well as helping shape the narrative told by US media outlets and posturing of U.S. politicians. We live in a society that is homophobic, heterosexist, and is discriminatory towards marginalized people. In communities across the U.S., both children and adults are learning to perpetuate oppressive behavior towards the LGBT+ community. Homophobia like Islamophobia can be fear-driven, but it is also contempt-driven.” –Ramon Mejia (Marine Corps veteran, IVAW member, Texas-based VCI field organizer) 

“A long time ago, I made it a point not to watch the news, listen to the radio or read a newspaper regularly. It felt like ingesting poison. Existing in our society – at times – feels the same way to me; an onslaught of verbal insults or the stare of the unspoken judgement. It has been a long journey of realising my existence is not an embarrassment, the colour of my skin is not some mistake, who I love is not “a sin and I am going to hell” or that my last name does not warrant that I be singled out and labelled. When I step outside my home, I must emotionally and spiritually prepare myself to deal with “the world”. I know I will encounter individuals who believe what mainstream mass media has been feeding them: ready-made summaries consisting of lies and fear and pre-packaged judgements of hate. When I am directly (or indirectly) confronted with someone who unleashes their poison upon me, I must work times over to not mirror their behavior, lest I prove true to that person what the media machine has fed them. I believe we are all truly connected. Admittedly, I struggle with this belief when I encounter another’s fear and hate. Whether in that moment or thereafter, there is a deep realisaton that their anger and hate is a symptom of the insecurity and dis-empowerment syphoning upon the spirit of the many in our country. My responsibility, is to ensure my journey and activism remain genuine and fluid, rooted in from a spiritual connection.” –Monique Salhab (Air Force and Army veteran, VFP board member) 

If more people in the U.S., especially our lawmakers, truly listened to and took voices like the ones shared above seriously, we might be able to make meaningful strides in curbing the sort of violence that took so many innocent lives and devastated so many families last week in Orlando. Hate rhetoric and anti-Muslim sentiments will fail to bring us closer to stopping violence. It will, however, continue to breed hostility and erode the Constitution. This is unacceptable and must be countered by individual and collective efforts to grow diversity, inclusivity and equality and secure civil and human rights for all people, both at home and abroad.

(Brian Trautman is an Army veteran and currently sits on the national board of directors of Veterans For Peace (VFP). He teaches peace studies and economics at Berkshire Community College in western Massachusetts and resides near Albany, NY.)

-cw

PERSPECTIVE--Sunday, I woke up to the news “that someone had shot up a gay club in Orlando and there were many injured and killed.” I then went about my morning getting ready to go to a gay family picnic celebration. There would be a jumping castle and lots of games and fun stations set-up for kids to play. The news hadn’t sunk in yet, and I didn’t look for details.

There was some talk at the event and a couple folks said they were glad this celebration was taking place at a (and this is my description) “gated” park and that reservations were required to attend.

I like to think the reservations were so those organizing the event would know how many to plan for … but now I wonder. Here in New Orleans we still have closed family Facebook groups and operate by rules some of y’all might think are from the days in which social tolerance was much lower.

My initial thought regarding the shooting at Pulse in Orlando was that this was a hate crime planned for Pride. The social psychologist in me guessed some perceived threat had likely led to this event and, indeed, the detail about Omar Mateen’s fury over seeing two men kissing was reported early. It was only after I had returned home that I started to learn the details and that the death toll was rising.

There are so many angles and lessons to learn from this event, but I felt compelled to share my opinions on the symbolic importance of the gay bar to myself and the gay community, spurred by these two tweets from Jeramey Kraatz: 

Growing up a sexual minority means you were most likely raised by the majority script. This means you likely weren’t taught the skills or coping mechanisms to deal with your sexuality and most definitely homophobia. You live in fear that those you love the most may not understand. Moreover, you go from one day being what you thought of as “typical” and having unrecognized privileges to coming out. In the next moments, many of those privileges are wiped away and you have to re-frame expectations for yourself and what you can do and what is possible … just because of a few words you said out loud.

For many non-heterosexual people, gay bars help us find our way. They are often the most accessible safe spaces available. So much so that they have academically been compared to churches for the LGBT community, complete with rituals, a sense of community, and a routine. Religious scholar Marie Cartier wrote a history of life at gay bars before the Stonewall riots. “The only place that you could be a known homosexual — even though you could get arrested there and it was not safe,” she wrote, “was a gay bar.” Even today, just knowing that they are there is powerful. 

I have gone years not really celebrating Pride, but during a week like this you realize why it is there and why we do it and why it is important.

(Lisa Wade is an associate professor of sociology at Occidental College, currently on leave and living in New Orleans. Her newest book, American Hookup, is about the emergence and character of the culture of sex that now dominates college campuses all across the country. This piece was posted first at Pacific Standard Magazine.)

SECURITY WATCH--When I learned that Omar Mateen, the Islamic terrorist who killed 49 Americans at a gay bar in Orlando, Florida and wounded 53 others was a security officer working for a company called G4S I decided to do some research on this company. What I have found is not only disturbing, but downright terrifying. Now, understand that I am not someone who readily subscribes to conspiracy theories, but I am a trained military intelligence officer and I know how to analyze information and draw conclusions based on that information. 

I have found that G4S is a British security firm operating in over 100 countries with over 600,000 employees. It has a checkered past to say the least. It had to pay millions of dollars to the British Government for its failure to provide security to the 2012 Olympics in London. This failure caused the British government to deploy thousands of troops to provide adequate security. There have also been other scandals involving the company. 

G4S acquired a U.S. Security firm named Wackenhut Corp., also with a questionable history, and made it a subsidiary company named G4S Security Solutions USA Inc. This is the company that actually employed Mateen in 2007. The U.S. affiliate initially claimed to know nothing about any FBI questioning of Mateen. However, it finally admitted that it was aware of the first FBI investigation of Mateen, but not the second. 

G4S also claims to know nothing about the terrorist threats Mateen made that had been reported by one of his fellow employees. FOX News interviewed this former employee, Daniel Gilroy, who confirmed these allegations. G4S then refused Fox News’ requests for a response. However, the firm relieved him of duties as a security guard at a Florida courthouse because people complained about Mateen’s negative comments about women and his Jews and his expressions of admiration for the radical Muslim that killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 32 others at Fort Hood, Texas. 

So this where it gets scary: G4S has contracts with numerous federal agencies including the State Department, Departments of Interior, Labor, Justice, Energy as well as the IRS, DEA, Homeland Security. It has also been hired by the U.S. Army, Air Force, and NASA. As a result, G4S has worked on projects at Guantanamo Bay, and provides security services for over 50 American embassies around the world, 90 percent of the nuclear facilities in the United States, as well as numerous prisons and juvenile detention facilities around the country. 

In the case of the contract with DHS, the G4S has a rather unique job. It is to provide secure transport for people who have entered the United States illegally and are OTMs, (from countries other than Mexico) to sanctuary cities in the United States. In other words, people who have already violated U.S. laws by entering our country illegally and who are from Central American countries or from the Middle East and could be gang members, drug dealers, or even terrorists are being provided with a free pass into our cities with no questions asked.

This means that G4S is an active participant in the Obama administration and DHS efforts to violate U.S. immigration laws, the U.S. Constitution, and a federal court order. This is placing Americans around the country in danger of being subjected to criminal activity, and more possible terrorism like what just occurred in Orlando. 

When it comes to providing security for U.S. embassies, G4S had an epic failure in 2011 at the embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan when their underpaid local security guards hired went on strike. They were immediately replaced by new local guards who were not subjected to any background checks. The embassy was severally at risk until the company finally agreed to increase the pay of the strikers.

Now we have an employee of G4S that has committed a major atrocity against Americans by killing and injuring almost 100 innocent people, yet he continued to be employed by this company despite the fact that there had been two FBI investigations of him, a complaint by a fellow employee that he made statements indicating he was a dangerous individual, and there was documentation of his involvement with an American jihadist who ultimately became a suicide bomber in Syria. 

If G4S allowed an obvious security risk like Omar Mateen to continue as an employee it makes you wonder how many others like him are out there guarding prisons, nuclear sites, embassies, and other sensitive government facilities. Why are federal agencies continuing to employ this company and pay it millions of tax dollars, seemingly oblivious to the problem?

This also raises another, more insidious question. Are the actions of G4S just the failure of a private company employed by our government -- or is it the result of political correctness run amok? Was Mateen allowed to continue working for the company and have a license to carry firearms because G4S was prohibited by our government from firing him because he was a Muslim, despite the clear danger he represented?   

Instead of launching an all-out assault on law-abiding American gun owners, Obama and Congress should be investigating why someone like the Orlando shooter was granted a security clearance by G4S that ultimately allowed him to go forward with his radical Islamic terrorist agenda.

Unfortunately, it will not happen. Just today I have learned that a radical female Muslim has recently been granted U.S. citizenship. Her name is Laila Alawa, a Syrian who was appointed last year to the Homeland Security Department’s subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism. 

She has an active Twitter account and I have read some of her posts. She clearly seems to believe that the free speech of anyone opposing radical Islam should be severely restricted; that the real danger to the security of the United States is the “white race.” In addition, she praises the terrorist attacks on 9/11 as a good thing. She is clearly a racist, radical jihadist, and a supporter of radical Islamic terrorism – yet she is now an employee of our very own Federal government. 

See her posts in the article that appeared on ClashDaily.)  

Why isn’t Laila Alawa being investigated by Congress?

(Michael Connelly is a US Army veteran, a retired attorney, published author, freelance writer, and instructor of Constitutional law. He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch. Reach him at: [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

TRUTHDIG-California’s economy has recently surpassed France’s to become the sixth-largest in the world. The populous state grew 4.1 percent in the last year and had a gross state product of $2.46 trillion. The state also outpaced the rest of the U.S. in job growth. 

Although there are numerous reasons for the Golden State’s economic growth, The Washington Post points to a 2012 increase in taxes on millionaires. The newspaper contrasts the economic development of California to that of Kansas, which reduced taxes on income and sales the same year. 

The Post reports:

In 2012, voters in California approved a measure to raise taxes on millionaires, bringing their top state income tax rate to 13.3 percent, the highest in the nation. Conservative economists predicted calamity, or at least a big slowdown in growth. Also that year, the governor of Kansas signed a series of changes to the state’s tax code, including reducing income and sales tax rates. Conservative economists predicted a boom.  

California’s economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, according to new numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, tying it with Oregon for the fastest state growth of the year. That was up from 3.1 percent growth for the Golden State in 2014, which was near the top of the national pack. 

The Kansas economy, on the other hand, grew 0.2 percent in 2015. That’s down from 1.2 percent in 2014, and below neighboring states such as Nebraska (2.1 percent) and Missouri (1.2 percent). Kansas ended the year with two consecutive quarters of negative growth—a shrinking economy. By a common definition of the term, the state entered 2016 in recession. 

Other effects of the Kansas tax cuts, which were meant to spur entrepreneurship, are well-documented.

While state officials anticipated that the reductions would create a shortfall in the state budget, tax revenues have been consistently below even those expectations. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service have signaled that they could reduce Kansas’s credit rating, indicating there is a chance the state cannot pay its bills. 

The shortfalls have forced Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and lawmakers to make additional adjustments. The state canceled the initial reduction in sales taxes, then increased them again, while delaying additional scheduled reductions in the income tax. 

On the whole, Brownback’s policies modestly increased taxes for the poor and working class, who pay more in sales taxes than income taxes, while reducing taxes drastically for the rich.

The poorest 20 percent of households—those making less than $23,000 a year—are paying about $200 more, on average, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington. For the middle class, the changes have been a wash, with less-affluent households paying somewhat more and more-affluent households giving up a little less. 

Meanwhile, the wealthiest 1 percent of households, those making at least $493,000 a year, are saving an average of $25,000. 

Read more here. 

(Donald Kaufman is an L.A.-based producer, composer and mix engineer. He is also the songwriter and frontman of the band Visceral Design. He writes for TruthDig where this was originally posted.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams. 

GELFAND’S WORLD--Bernie Sanders wants the Democratic Party to reform.  I don't think he goes far enough. Think of the following as a wish list. 

The party should show respect for intellectual freedom. Here's one story. I was once the president of a Democratic club in the LA area. We had a new congressman who represented the district. In conversation, he told me he'd like to meet with my club. I said, "Sure, why not." It turns out that there is a "why not" among Democratic Party activists. This congressman was a Republican. 

So even though congressman Steve Horn had a lot of clout that could affect our residents -- congressional offices get involved in everything from helping you find job training to helping you get a new passport in a timely manner -- apparently Democrats aren't supposed to be allowed to get within speaking distance of an actual Republican. I guess I have too much of an academic background for this type of thinking, because it never would have occurred to me that residents of Lakewood shouldn't be allowed to meet and talk with their own elected representatives. 

We went ahead with the public forum, but not without difficulty. There was Hell to pay, to put it mildly. One local Democratic club passed a resolution asking the L.A. County Democratic Party to take away our club's charter. A local activist explained to me that allowing Democrats to hear from a Republican might convince them to vote for the other side. (This didn't show a lot of faith in the power of Democratic values, I must say. And what about the idea that conversation with Republicans such as Horn might bring a little political movement on their part?) 

Here is another example of a constricted intellectual philosophy that ran over into a deranged moral philosophy: Everyone was supposed to support all Democrats, even those who were out and out crooks like Paul Carpenter. Another: Democratic organizations have endorsed judicial candidates who are demonstrably inferior to other candidates, just because the opponent is registered as a Republican. 

This policy strikes me as the sort of attitude that pushes a lot of people away. Intellectual freedom should be one element in Democratic Party philosophy. If we expect honorable Republicans to repudiate the candidacy of Donald Trump, then we have a right to expect the Democratic Party to support integrity within its own ranks. 

There are legitimate reasons that lots of liberal people choose to register as independents. They support the Democratic Party's principles and vote for non-criminal Democrats in elections, but refuse to give up their sense of political autonomy. They should be embraced by the party. Perhaps Bernie Sanders is just being opportunistic when he calls for the primary system to be universally opened to independent voters, but there are people who have legitimate reasons of their own. Opening primary elections to independent voters isn't a deep philosophical question. People who don't state a party preference are a significant fraction of the electorate, and they have a right to participate in the selection of the president. 

Bernie's idea of getting rid of superdelegates makes some sense. Reserving one vote out of each five at the convention for unelected delegates is ridiculous. Even using the term superdelegates to describe these voters makes little sense. The party should rid itself of the problem by taking away superdelegates' votes or requiring them to vote in accord with their states' primary election totals, turning them in effect into pledged delegates. 

By the way, it makes sense to allow elected members of congress and state governors to attend the convention. That's the idea behind the superdelegate system. They just shouldn't be given convention votes automatically. 

One reform Sanders seems to have failed to think about is the order the states go in the primary system. As I've written previously, New Hampshire and Iowa were not awarded primacy in the system through any virtue of their own, and certainly not as a result of a decision by the rest of the country. They just took it. And they enforce their power by rejecting candidates who don't kiss up to them. This is why we don't hear much about water rights out west, or big city issues for the first year or two of the presidential election cycle. The candidates are too busy promising Iowans that they really do believe in ethanol subsidies and promising New Hampshire voters that they get to have first pick in the primaries forever. 

There are a lot of possibilities for reforming the primary system, ranging from a lottery system to a simple reversal of the current order for the next couple of elections. Let California go first and Iowa go last. This is a reform suggestion I'd like to hear coming from Bernie Sanders. Let him show that he is as honest and independent as his supporters think he is. 

Here's another big idea that will be hard to accomplish, but belongs as a central element of any future Democratic Party that is worth its salt. Make unionization a top priority, not only for the trades but for part time workers and for the tens of millions of white collar workers. Make it a long term Democratic Party priority to make it easy for workers to create unions, and make it a serious crime to interfere with this process. Perhaps the state of California could potentiate the process of creating white collar associations and protecting workers who choose to participate. The rest of the country could follow. 

Bernie Sanders wants reform and restructuring of the Democratic National Committee. It's actually a useful goal, even if most voters don't have the least idea what the DNC does. Most party activists have never been near a DNC meeting. The DNC organizes the national convention. Since the convention has ultimate power over accepting or rejecting delegates, the DNC has a lot to say about what happens in primary elections. Anybody remember the credentials fight over the Michigan delegation in 2008?  There are lots of other DNC powers such as raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Most of all, the DNC members are superdelegates. This doesn't make a lot of sense. At least the congressmen and senators who are superdelegates had to win elections and might therefore be said to represent the reality of the party at some level. As far as the DNC is concerned, not so much. The DNC has a lot of power, and there ought to be checks and balances. 

Finally, the biggest idea of all. The Democratic Party ought to wean itself away from the big corporate money that funds campaigns. The idea isn't as farfetched as it sounds, because the Democrats used to accept union money and spurn management money. The Democrats held control over the congress for most of half a century under this system. But somewhere along the line, they figured that since they had control of the congress and business lobbyists had to come to them anyway, they might as well start taking the money. 

When the system broke down under Newt Gingrich, the Democrats were left trying to represent Democratic Party values but having become beholden to big money contributors. The current situation for the Democrats is sort of Catch 22, since they want to take back control of congress, and this takes money. 

One possible solution is to bring back the idea of public financing of elections. Los Angeles is partway there, as are other places. If it weren't for a particularly annoying Supreme Court decision from a few years ago, we might be moving down that road. A more honest Supreme Court may be more accepting of public financing. 

Another approach that may build by itself is the movement into internet mediated political contributions. I get email requests for money several times a week from DailyKos and several party organizations. When politicians in strongly Democratic districts win congressional seats by relying on cleaner money, we will be making progress. This is something that goes to the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. It's a long overdue reform.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for City Watch. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

-cw

JUDGING THE JUDGES-Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky has been blocked by prosecutors from hearing an upcoming sex crimes case. The judge has been taking heat for sentencing former Stanford student Brock Turner to six months in jail for three felony counts of sexual assault. The removal from the case is “a rare and carefully considered step,” according to a statement made by prosecutors. The district attorney had removed the judge after he had dismissed a non-sex crimes case prior to the jury’s deliberation. 

District Attorney Jeff Rosen said, “We are disappointed and puzzled at Judge Persky’s unusual decision to unilaterally dismiss a case before the jury could even deliberate. After this and the recent turn of events, we lack confidence that Judge Persky can fairly participate in this upcoming hearing in which a male nurse (allegedly) sexually assaulted an anesthetized female patient. In the future, we will evaluate each case on its own merits and decide if we should use our legal right to ask for another judge in order to protect public safety and pursue justice.” 

Per California court procedure, prosecutors and defense attorneys may file a motion in order to remove a judge from a case for reassignment. Prosecutors in the new case brought a motion to remove the judge after several jurors refused to serve in his courtroom following the outcome of the Turner case. One of the jurors in the Turner case had written a letter to the judge, stating that he was “absolutely shocked and appalled” at the sentence. 

Judge Persky’s sentencing in the case has led to efforts to recall the judge with several political groups promising to raise money for the campaign to recall the judge. To date, almost a million people have signed online petitions, calling upon the California Commission for Judicial Performance to remove Persky, who was appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and faces reelection in November.

Prosecutors had asked the judge to sentence Turner to a six-year prison term for three felony counts of assault with the intent to commit rape of an unconscious person, sexual penetration of an unconscious person, and sexual penetration of an intoxicated person, which carry a maximum sentence of 14 years. However, the judge seemed to have sentenced Turner according to the recommendations of Turner’s chief probation officer Monica Lessettre who recommended the six months sentence in county jail, along with three years of proba tion and sex offender treatment. 

Recalls of judges are rare in California and there is support in Santa Clara County for the judge from those who say the sentencing is within his rights, as legal experts say the sentence falls within the law but is lighter than for most similar cases. 

Recalling judges may be a slippery slope, compelling judges to rule to accommodate the greater public. However, as prosecutors may continue to motion for the judge’s dismissal from cases, his role will be diminished. To date, no one has submitted paperwork to challenge Persky in November or for a recall.

(Beth Cone Kramer is a successful Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.)Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

FIRST PERSON-The weekend of June 12 sent me on a rollercoaster of emotions I never thought possible. The previous Friday, I was an invited participant in the first-ever White House Summit for African American LGBTQ Youth. I felt amazingly supported, empowered, and valued — by my school, by my family and friends, by President Obama, and by my LGBTQ community. 

I was inspired. 

On Saturday, I marched in the Pride Parade in our nation’s capital. I sang and danced with neighbors from every race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. We celebrated ourselves, each other, our allies, and our bright futures. 

We were so beautiful and full of promise. I was so proud to be an Afro-Latina-Anglo transgender teen.

Then came Sunday. 

I woke up to find that a hatred-filled assassin in Orlando had brutally murdered 49 members of our young, innocent, beautiful, and beloved community, and injured over 50 more. 

They say the murderer was a U.S.-born Islamic terrorist. But Omar Mateen’s hatred for my community echoes the headlines I see about right-wing fundamentalists of other faiths who call for discrimination against people like me — and for the erasure of my rights as a human being. 

His hatred echoes the oppression, arrests, and killings of my black and Latino brothers and sisters on the streets, in schools, and in our prisons. It reflects the cruelty of those who want to keep Muslims and Latinos away from our country — by force — and who still want to keep LGBTQ people from marrying each other. 

They’ll even deny us the right to pee in peace, if that’s what it takes to dehumanize and humiliate us.

I’m not trying to be partisan. But it’s hard not to notice that President Obama held a summit to tell us how valued we are, while Donald Trump and many conservative lawmakers want to erase us. 

Many Republicans invoked fears of international terrorism, but most said nothing about the members of our LGBTQ communities, who were the very targets and victims. They vow more Islamophobia, but make no mention of the ease with which the killers get and use assault weapons. 

I’m only 15 years old, but I know what it’s like to have deep love and support, and I’ve witnessed and been the object of deep hatred and ignorance. I feel angry and heartbroken by this massacre. 

A culture of fear and bigotry is again taking hold of this country. But my generation demands our equality and our human rights. We want to lead, and to determine our own future. We want you not just to love us, but to support us and to listen to us. 

So if you don’t understand who we are and what we need, ask us. 

To start, you can fight back against laws aimed at hurting us or erasing us, like those bigoted and ridiculous bathroom bills. Punish politicians who block sensible gun control. Stop supporting lawmakers who want to exploit and exclude immigrants. Stop the people who are expelling and suspending and arresting and incarcerating us. 

They’re killing us. Help us stop them. 

We’re stronger than you think. We’re Generation Z, and we come of age in 2018. Our future is majority black and brown, and more openly queer than any before us. 

We know that many of you are allies. We need you, and you need us. Together we can stop the rollercoaster of fear and terror and start the climb to the mountaintop of love and liberation.

(Grace Dolan-Sandrino is a transgender teen activist. An earlier version of this piece appeared at Common Dreams. Distributed by OtherWords.org)  Photo: Ted Eytan / Flickr. Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

WHAT YOU SEE, NOT WHAT YOU GET--Who does the biggest lobbying force in the United States represent? Not its members. 

That's according to a new investigation (pdf) by a group of U.S. senators, which found that on the issues of tobacco use and climate change, there's a profound disparity between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's positions and those of the companies it supposedly speaks for.

The investigation, which comes on the heels of leaked polling results showing how the group attempts to suppress the "empathy" of its members on pro-worker positions, is based on research and correspondence with 108 private sector members of the Chamber's Board of Directors. 

Led by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), it was triggered by a series of 2015 New York Times articles exposing how the group was working to thwart global anti-smoking efforts and fight President Barack Obama's plan to limit power plant emissions of greenhouse gases. 

The findings, the report states, "[call] into question the Chamber's allegedly transparent decision-making process, and [suggest] that the Chamber does not accurately represent the positions of its member companies." As noted in the report:

• Approximately half of the companies on the Chamber’s Board of Directors have adopted anti-tobacco and pro-climate positions that contrast sharply with the Chamber's activities.
• Not a single Board member explicitly supported the Chamber's lobbying efforts.
• Despite the Chamber's description of the Board as its "principal governing and policy-making body," not one Chamber Board member explicitly indicated that they were fully aware of and able to provide their input and views to the Chamber regarding its actions on tobacco and climate.

In fact, "We found a corporate America far more concerned about public health and the environment than the Chamber's efforts would suggest. We identified dozens of companies investing heavily to get their employees to stop smoking because they realize a healthy workforce is a productive one.  We identified companies from all corners of the economy working to reduce their carbon footprints and affirmatively supporting the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan and its international efforts at the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris," the senators write in their cover letter to Chamber Board members accompanying the report.

Yet these members "undermine their own efforts by affiliating with an organization that actively and aggressively undermines efforts to reduce tobacco use and tries to prevent action to address climate change," the letter continues. "By lending tacit support to an organization that has spearheaded a decades-long effort against policies to address both problems, member companies become de facto promoters of tobacco and adversaries of climate action."

The letter goes on to urge the members to reflect upon "the effects in Congress of your continued affiliation with the Chamber on these issues."

Expounding on the influence the Chamber wields, Dan Dudis, director of Public Citizen's U.S. Chamber Watch Program, writes in an op-ed at The Hill this week:

While the Chamber is well known in Washington as a big-spending mouthpiece for Big Business, even seasoned observers of the D.C. political scene might be surprised at just how far and wide the Chamber has spread its tentacles.

Dudis also writes that it has a "central role [...] in corrupting our political system through more than $1 billion in lobbying and more than $100 million in election spending."

And that speaks to the campaign spending issues that followed the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.  As Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote last year:

If its own board members aren't standing with the Chamber on climate change, who is? Who is supporting the Chamber's anti-science position on climate and other issues? And who is funding its work to undercut efforts to promote clean energy and reduce our emissions? We need greater transparency in our political system to hold accountable those blocking efforts to address climate change.

(Andrea Germanos writes for Common Dreams  … where this piece was first posted.)

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW-Stanford University is known for many accolades. Until Brock Turner put the Palo Alto University on the media radar, Stanford was primarily known as a breeding ground for Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and as one of the nation’s most competitive universities. Now, Stanford ranks high on a list that isn’t quite as impressive. 

Using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s campus safety and security website, a San Diego law firm assembled a ranking of the crime rate at four-year colleges in California and Stanford came out on top. According to criminal defense attorney George Gedulin, Stanford’s rate of crime is more than double the closest California university. 

The attorney’s office notes, “While the vast majority of schools comply with the law that requires them to report crimes on campus, some schools have underreported campus crimes…Other schools have made honest mistakes in their reporting. Schools that are honest and accurate with their reporting may have higher numbers than other institutions that are not.” 

The office also reminds that crimes that are never reported to the institution aren’t included in the data and that the statistics provided by the U.S. Dept. of Education website represent alleged criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities and/or local law enforcement agencies, which does not necessarily reflect prosecutions or convictions. 

Limiting the ranking to a higher volume of crime may not be a fair evaluation, as larger schools typically have more overall crimes, the law office looked at crimes per capita or in this case, per 1,000 students, based on reported crimes from 2012-2014. 

Stanford University (Student Population, 16,963) had an effective crime rate of 7.94 per 1,000 student during the reported period. The next closest campuses are UC Berkeley (Student Population, 37,565) with an effective rate of 3.2 per 1,000 and UCLA (Student Population, 41,845) with an effective rate of 2.84 per 1,000. Most California universities had an effective rate between 1 and 2.5 per 1,000. 

Other Southern California schools and rankings include USC with an effective rate of 1.25 per 1,000; UC Santa Barbara (2.26 per 1,000); California State University Northridge (1.13 per 1,000); and California State University Los Angeles (1.08 per 1,000.) 

An effective crime rate does not need to set off alarms and fears, especially since the reporting rates of schools may impact rankings. While many schools have relatively low effective rates of crime, the reporting is still an eye-opener. As parents prepare for their kids to leave for (or return to) campus later this summer or fall, it’s important to remind students to be aware of their surroundings and to take safety precautions.

(Beth Cone Kramer is a successful Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.)Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

NEW GEOGRAPHY--With Bernie Sanders now dispatched by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party machine, Donald Trump has emerged as the unlikely populist standard-bearer. Not since the patrician Julius Caesar rallied the Roman plebeians, or the aristocratic Franklin Roosevelt spoke for the “forgotten man,” has someone so detached from everyday struggles won over such a large part of the working and middle classes.

Crass, superficial and materialistic to a fault, Trump, sadly, shares little of the virtues of either Caesar or Roosevelt, more resembling another creepy billionaire, the former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Yet, like his wealthy political counterparts, Trump has crafted a message, however crude, that has demolished the Republican corporate establishment and turned conservative intellectuals into virtual irrelevancies.

The great tragedy for Trump is that the basis for a grass-roots-led Republican victory lay within his grasp. He could have been, like Ronald Reagan in 1980, the instrument of populist revolt had he shown the same wit, self-control and positive eloquence. Instead, his crudity, his barely disguised racial stereotyping and his obsession with himself has taken from the GOP, at least for this election cycle, the possibility of reaping an enormous windfall from the widespread alienation of the populace from the political and economic ruling class.

Racially tinged issues, notably immigration, propelled Trump’s rise. This reflects the sad reality that race relations in this country have been headed in the wrong direction the past several years. His opposition to illegal immigration – including his absurd, shock-jock-style advocacy of a southern border wall – resonates with a large part of the Anglo population, some African Americans and even some Latinos, a group whose mass desertion from the party may now seal its demise.

If negotiated with grace and some sensitivity, illegal immigration could have proven a winning issue this fall, as it was in the spring. The killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant felon, who was protected by that city’s “sanctuary” status, followed by terrorist massacres in Paris and San Bernardino, all played into this theme. Recent revelations about higher-than-reported criminal recidivism among undocumented felons aid the Trump cause.

Although most Americans don’t favor Trump’s cruel talk of mass deportations, the vast majority, around 60 percent, favor tighter border controls as an immigration priority. Most are not likely to look favorably on “sanctuary cities” and the essentially open-borders approach that now dominates progressive thinking.

But rather than assault the political correctness of open borders and sanctuary cities, Trump’s approach to immigration policy has been both shortsighted and mean-spirited. That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant or incomprehensible, or could not resurface again. There is a future in challenging a progressive mindset that regards the majority of the country as fighting, as Salon recently put it, “white America’s sad last stand.” There also is something ironic in that much of the anti-Trump fever comes from such increasingly white bastions as Portland, Seattle and San Francisco.

In fact, the increasingly strident progressive multicultural agenda could have bolstered the GOP, if that opposition was not championed by someone who at times seems a buffoonish lout.

The recent resurgence in crime could have been another gift to The Donald and the GOP. Crime has always been a racially charged issue, and it propelled the rise of both Richard Nixon and George Wallace, who, between them, won close to 60 percent of the presidential vote in 1968. In contrast, Barack Obama’s presidency was aided by what had been a decades-long reduction in crime that undermined this classic conservative campaign issue.

Now the drop in violent crime seems over. The homicide rate is ticking up, in cities as diverse as Chicago, Dallas, Jacksonville, Fla., Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Memphis, Tenn. The impact of the “Ferguson effect” on policing and the often violent, anti-police rhetoric of some Black Lives Matter activists is putting law enforcement on the defensive, with arguably disastrous results.

Another potential gift to Trump and the GOP – the left-wing violence aimed at Trump events, often spilling over to attacks on police – will likely be squandered. Some left-wing journalists, such as a since-suspended editor at Vox, actually have urged readers to riot against the Trumpites. Rising crime and scenes of public disorder, notably at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention, proved critical to Nixon’s success, but Nixon, for all his faults, knew how to package his message so that moderates could embrace him. Not so with the GOP’s crass Captain Ahab.

The Democratic Party has evolved primarily into an organ of core cities, a shift that increasingly defines its politics. Although core cities are home to, at most, 20 percent of the population, they have become so overwhelmingly Democratic that they represent the party’s largest electoral base. This slant, however, could have provided Trump, himself a luxury urbanite, an opening to win over the suburbs. These unheralded areas remain the nation’s dominant geography and the likely “decider” of who wins in November.

Democrats, who once supported suburban aspirations, now often regard suburbia as a giant mistake, while consigning the countryside, except for vacation locales, as the regressive abodes of what President Obama labeled as “clingers.” Measures now being pushed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to transfer large numbers of poor people, including felons, into middle-class communities, could prove a political time bomb for Democrats. Trump, however, a longtime beneficiary of government largesse through expropriation of homes and businesses, is ill-suited to even comprehend the issue and grasp this opportunity to win over the vast majority of Americans who don’t live in core sites.

When Trump took on the Environmental Protection Agency and the Obama energy agenda while campaigning in North Dakota recently, he touched a potentially rich vein of support. As the Democrats have locked up most of the software, design, entertainment, media and financial oligarchy, they have become increasingly opposed to all fossil fuels – including natural gas – that drive much of the industrial economy.

The assault on coal has already cost the Democrats virtually all of Appalachia, and could also begin to weaken Democrats even among union members. Nationally, this can be seen in a growing rift between greens, and their oligarchic and public sector allies, and traditional construction and industrial unions, who are furious about the party’s close coordination with environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer’s For Our Future super PAC.

The conflicts here are based around those policies – for example, on energy and roads – that directly impact middle- and working-class voters on the periphery. Trump could have made hay by pointing out that green San Francisco elites and Hollywood stars enjoy lives of almost absurdly conspicuous consumption, while urging everyone else to cut back their carbon footprints.

The real-versus-ephemeral split could still work to Trump’s favor in areas, like Ohio and western Pennsylvania, where the energy revolution promised real economic gains. Voters in these regions, even if they don’t work in factories or oilfields, are aware of how critical these industries are for their economies. Trump’s alienation of large parts of this political base – which also includes many minorities – will limit his electoral harvest.

The idea of the loquacious and status-obsessed Trump leading the ignored “silent majority” provides something of a theater of the absurd. The country was ready for a real GOP populist to run against Hillary Clinton, who epitomizes the almost complete capture of the Republic by the oligarchs, their media messengers and the governmental apparat. Desperate to hold onto Obama’s base, she embraces policies that have failed to deliver improved incomes for the middle class and reinforced the deep pessimism felt across the country.

In the end, Trump has mastered the art of the political “deal,” but largely for the benefit of his opponents. Given the deep grass-roots disgust with the power structure, he could conceivably have won over many of the “Bernie Bro’s” this fall. But his resplendent awfulness likely will prevent him from transforming the GOP into the voice of nationalistic populism and expanding its electoral base. Ill-suited as a populist icon, Trump seems destined to leave the country even more in the hands of the oligarchy while leaving his own party, for the near future at least, lurching toward oblivion.

(Joel Kotkin is a R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism in Houston. His newest book is “The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us.” This was first posted at newgeography.com.)

-cw