rss

joined 1 month ago
MODERATOR OF
 

Image by Imkara Visual.

Sometimes I dream — in the sense of a nightmare — about bringing my parents back to this all too strange world of ours to tell them about… yes, of course, Donald J. Trump. They died long before The Apprentice even made it onto TV early in this century, so — best guess — though they also lived in New York, they undoubtedly had never heard of him.

My mother died in 1977 when Donald Trump was 31 and Jimmy Carter was president; my father in 1983 when Trump was 37 and Ronald Reagan was president. But nothing, not even Richard Nixon, could have prepared them for a Trump presidency, not once but (yes!) twice.

Mind you, my father was a salesman and, in that sense, he might have understood something about Trump, including his ability to sell himself to all too many of the rest of us so damn successfully, again not once but twice — and if he has anything to do with it, maybe (but “probably” not) a third time, too. My parents could never have imagined, however, that the country which, at my mom’s birth, had Theodore Roosevelt as president and, in the years to come, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, among others, would have elected a madly self-referential ex-salesman with six bankrupt businesses in his past to the White House not once, but — yes, again! — twice.

I think my mother, a professional political and theatrical caricaturist, might have grimly laughed and then gone to her easel to turn him into her caricature of the ages. She would undoubtedly have caught his strange essence, as she did that nightmarish Trumpian figure of her moment (though he never had the same power to devastate our world), Senator Joe McCarthy.

And believe it or not, there is indeed some appropriate history here. Great powers — and after the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended in 1991, this country seemed to be a great power like no other, possibly ever — do come and go. Indeed, the going can be bizarre and disorienting. But when they come, it often seems as if they might be here forever and a day. And of course, in that now distant moment when the Soviet Union suddenly unraveled and China had not yet risen, the U.S. did appear to be The Great Power (and capitals and italics are indeed appropriate), the only one left on Planet Earth.

At the time, in fact, it felt as if this country might actually prove to be the Ultimate Great Power, the Greatest of All. Who then could have imagined that, not quite a quarter of a century later, the U.S. would, in its own fashion, have gone to the dogs, that it would be ever more — and yes, we do need some new words to describe this increasingly stranger, more disturbing world of ours — tariffyingly alone on an increasingly resentful and hostile planet? And mind you, I’m not just thinking about countries like Brazil, India, and Switzerland that are deeply ticked off by Donald Trump’s soaring tariffs and so much else. Who then could have imagined that we were already heading for the historical edge of what may prove to be the ultimate cliff of history? Who, then, could have imagined that Donald J. Trump — that living, breathing symbol of ultimate decline — would indeed become this country’s president, not once but — yes, again (and again)! — twice?

Honestly, in those nearly 25 years, how did the seemingly greatest power in history become something like an all-too-grim planetary laughing-stock — or do I mean totally frightening-stock?

Of course, in a fashion my parents couldn’t have imagined once upon a time, Donald Trump may be the ultimate… Wait, what word or words am I searching for here? I wonder if it or they even exist. He’s almost too strange for the ordinary language we’re used to, while — though who yet knows? — it’s at least possible to imagine that he might prove to be the personification of the end of history. The last president, so to speak.

After all, though in my parents’ time humanity already had the ability to do this planet in, thanks to the atomic weapons that ended my father’s war, who would have imagined then that we humans had already come up with a second, slow-motion way to do the same thing — I’m thinking, of course, about climate change — while essentially not noticing for decades. Nor could they have imagined that, once the long-term destructiveness of global warming became more apparent, the American people would elect a president dedicated to the very substances, fossil fuels, that are slowly transforming this planet into a giant fire hazardheat condominium, and flooding nightmare first class.

The Final Act?

I mean, imagine this: even if the atomic weaponry that has spread to nine countries is never used again — and don’t count on that when the Russians and the Americans have only recently implicitly or explicitly threatened to employ just such weaponry, while the last nuclear treaty between those two countries is scheduled to run out in February 2026 (oh, and my country is also planning to invest another $1.7 trillion in “modernizing” its nuclear arsenal in the decades to come) — the burning of fossil fuels, a slow-motion version of atomic warfare, has now become the heart and soul(lessness) of the potential devastation of planet Earth. After all, last November, Americans reelected a man who, in a fashion that could hardly have been blunter, ran his third campaign for president as a “drill, baby, drill” candidate. It was, in fact, his main election slogan. And since retaking the White House, he has indeed backed to the hilt the idea of increasing this country’s production of coal, oil, and natural gas. In fact, he only recently reached a tariff deal with the European Union in which he forced the EU to agree to purchase $250 billion worth of American natural gas and oil annually in the years to come. Who cares that U.S. energy exports to all buyers globally in 2024 added up to (and what a word to use in this context!) only $318 billion?

As John Feffer recently put it all too accurately, “Trump uses tariffs like a bad cook uses salt. It covers up his lack of preparation, the poor quality of his ingredients, the blandness of his imagination. It’s the only spice in his spice rack.” Indeed, that couldn’t be more on target, unless, of course, you start to think of climate destruction as a kind of spice, too.

Worse yet, he has proven all too grimly a man of his word. Under him, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is being turned into an outfit that will essentially protect nothing whatsoever. As David Gelles and Maxine Joselow of the New York Times reported recently, “Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, this week proposed to repeal the landmark scientific finding that enables the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. In effect, the EPA will eliminate its own authority to combat climate change.”

The only thing that the Trump administration now has to do is change that outfit’s name to the Environmental Destruction Agency, or EDA, since it’s already doing everything it can to halt wind and solar power projects of any sort in this country. And as Gelles and Joselow also report, it has recently “dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country. In May, Mr. Trump proposed to stop collecting key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part of his 2026 budget plan.”

In short, right now the very idea of a “great” power seems to be heading for the dustbin of history, and that Cold-War-ending moment in 1991 appears ever more like a fantasyland of the first order. Yes, much that’s all too familiar is still ongoing on this planet of ours, including endless wars. But what a time to have made Donald J. Trump president of the United States again. Under the circumstances, here’s my new phrase for this global moment of ours: We — and I mean all of us on Earth — are in Trumple deep.

In truth, the very phrase “great power” might as well now be “grape power.” And mind you, given the strange ingenuity of humanity, don’t for a second assume that there isn’t a third way of doing us all in as well, even if we don’t yet know what it is.

Worse yet, don’t for a second imagine that President Trump is alone on planet Earth. Just consider Vladimir Putin, the Russian ruler who decided that the best way to go in 2022 was to invade a neighboring country and simply never stop fighting there. (Yes, I know, I know… NATO did seem to be creeping up on Russia in those years, but still…) And what about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who simply can’t stop slaughtering Gazans and utterly devastating that microscopic 25-mile strip of land — with American weaponry no less — while potentially starving thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of Gazans to death? (And while you’re at it, don’t forget that war itself is one of humanity’s most effective ways of putting yet more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and heating this planet further!)

Putting a Tariff on Planet Earth?

It’s not exactly a pretty picture, is it? And mind you, I haven’t even mentioned the ongoing disasters in Sudan or Somalia, or so much else on this unsettled and unsettling planet of ours. Nor have I mentioned the one major country that seems to fit none of the above categories, being neither at war, nor in decline, nor headed by some distinctly strange and unnerving version of humanity, and that, of course, is China. There can be no question that it is indeed a significant power and, once upon a time, would undoubtedly have been considered the nextgreat power to loom over Planet Earth.

And give the Chinese some credit. While not acting globally in the usual fully imperial fashion, they have been moving to create ever more green energy — in fact, installing more wind and solar power than the rest of the world combined. And yet, that country is also a carbon disaster, using more coal than almost all the other countries on this planet put together and still planning to install startling numbers of new coal power plants. So, a “great” power? Not exactly, not on this ever-less-than-great planet of ours.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is sending the U.S. down the tubes in double time (and, in the process, potentially taking much of the rest of the world with him). He has, in short, brought us to what might be considered the ultimate cliff of history and is, in essence, putting a potentially devastating tariff on Planet Earth.

Under the circumstances, the question, of course, is: Why can’t we humans seem to learn what truly matters on this increasingly endangered planet of ours?

I sometimes feel like a bewildered child when I think about what we’re now doing to our world — a child with no parents around to explain what’s happening. And 79-year-old Donald Trump catches that mood of mine exactly as, having just turned 81, I watch him visibly begin to move into an altered state of personal decline, while ensuring by his acts (and those of his minders) that this planet continues to head for hell in a handbasket.

In the past I’ve suggested that his middle initial J should be changed to a D for decline. But now that seems almost too mild to me as we face what could — not even a quarter century after the United States appeared to stand alone and all-powerful on this planet of ours — be something like the last act in the drama (the tragedy?) of human history.

And yes, I still do have the urge to call my parents back from the dead, hoping they might be able to explain us humans and our ever-stranger ways to their son. I suspect that, on returning to this eerie world of ours so many decades later, my mother might find it to be the ultimate caricature.

This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

The post Donald Trump, My Parents, and the Potential Last Act appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed

1
Any Questions? (www.counterpunch.org)
 

The way a question is asked limits and disposes the ways in which any answer to it-right or wrong-may be given.

– Susanne K. Langer

The President has a defensive skill in handling Q&A. He often asks “Who are you?” Let the questioners identify themselves. As these questioners are most often members of the Press and the President has vilified the Press in the eyes of his followers, the question is then “rigged,” coming from a “Trump Hater.”  He doesn’t fear questioners or their questions because he can brazenly refute and shut down what is or might be a question that scores a point against what he is saying, which very often are contrary to facts, evidence and our human factual knowledge base. 

This prompts the question “How did we get here, from George Washington to Donald J. Trump?” How indeed did we wind up with Donald J. Trump, not once but twice?

 I have no answer to that one. Certainly, we’ve had some rehearsals leading to Trump: Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn are in there, as is Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, Ralph Reed, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, all on the road to the mean, loudmouth, grifter politics Trump perfected. But now they look like Pollyannas compared to our Trump. 

Our Trump has been beaten up in the courts and in elections; he’s suffered the attacks of House Democrats, the Fourth Estate, the Deep State, and the Woke.  That’s what about half of Americans believe. He may grope women on his way to treasonous insurrection, cut off international food aid and medical relief, send 19 year old Big Balls in to tear down government agencies, send the military into cities based on false charges, remove habeus corpus because you can’t give it to everybody, and so on and on. BUT, he brings the needed voters to the Republican Party so they can win elections and keep the maybe one day “redistributive” Democrats offline. 

This crew will never leave Trump as long as unenlightened self-interest lives. The MAGA crew has a cult-like attachment to Trump. He has the magnetism of Jonestown Jim Jones, Branch Davidian David Koresh, Hale Bopp’s Marshall Applewhite, and has his own Trump Family, violent on January 6th as the Manson Family was on August 8th.

For both these Trump crews, Q&A is either always already weaponized, or just another way to preach to the choir. 

I need to mention another weapon in his Q&A arsenal. It’s what Cyrano called the aggressive attack in which slurs, invective, insults and expletives fly against those who cross him. Trump also uses the “Common sense, Everyman” response,” very engaging and undeterred by spouting claims publicly debunked for months or even years. 

Because I believe, as Langer does, that the question raised is the hard task, I offer my questions in a search to find the questions we should all be asking now. I offer likely answers as stimulating, not definitive. This goes beyond AI’s relating what is known; answers here are interpretive/hermeneutical and not expository.

Question: Can truth ever lay a glove on our President?”

A: If truth can reach the minds of Trump’s followers, then he’d vaporize. We wouldn’t within any rational calculus have such a president. 

We have been putting up with a mockery of truth since Trump was first elected. How to know anything based on facts and evidence in order to reach common understanding has already vaporized in the ranks of enough voters to elect Donald J. Trump president twice. 

Removing what mocks how to know what is true in the absence of those ways of knowing describes where we are at with Donald J. Trump. We are without a path of knowing, lost in a state of aporia. 

Q: When Trump goes, will MAGA go with him?

A: MAGA as a cult can’t go on headless. See Branch Davidians et al.

Project 2025 can only go on if its manifesto occupies executive and Congressional power after Trump’s departure. It’s a manifesto more pataphysics than neither Capitalism nor Democracy can live with. 

Q. What was the vacuum in American politics that Trump filled?

Firstly, Nature didn’t create this vacuum. Thievery and compliance engineered deliberately were at play:

Liberals hadn’t attended to the working class and their kitchen table issues since LBJ’s Great Society, except for ACA of Obama. They abandoned the Labor side in the Labor vs. Capital struggle.

Wealth and political leverage moved away from the middle class while at the same time solidifying a top 20% or so who enjoyed and used such leverage. A slow creeping frustration and anger developed as life for many was like lived in the shadow or memory of better times, or times in which pensions, benefit and long employment tenure was what parents and grandparents had. There was and is no way for Market Rule/Profit to Shareholders to relieve this immiseration. 

Not declaiming or comprehending Market Rule politics, but still entrenching them, Trump found a different path into the minds and hearts of those who filled the ranks of MAGA. Trump played their anger into fear and hate, positioning himself as the People’s Justice. A sense of great loss from what America had been was accommodated by Trump, not by recouping what had been lost, but vituperatively pointing to who had stolen America from them. He gave names. Ironically, he’s put a stopper on naming names in the Epstein degeneracy.

A vacuum created by theft had occurred, Democrats abandoning the working class wage earner, and Republicans thieving the fruits of that work, transferring it to the wealthy, where it compounds and continues to do so. 

+++

Q. Why do so many voters of religious persuasion support a man who has been divorced twice, married three times, found liable for sexual abuse, and guilty of 34 felony accounts?

A. In a proudly self-declared Christian nation, a nation that had three or four Great Awakenings of evangelical spirit, the Democratic Party went solid behind heterodox issues. Although liberal causes claim a moral sense, it seems distasteful to any flavor of Western Christianity. 

Trump, however, is recognized as a sinner, perhaps repenting and seeking forgiveness. Secular agnostic Liberals do not see themselves as sinners needing forgiveness. They vow under Reason, not God. Thus, they are outside a Christian frame while Trump is not, although Liberals defense of victims of prejudice and hate, a list Trump adds to every day, reveals a moral purpose in their politics. That is absent in Republican and Conservative Right Wing politics. Trump exhibits a vile meanness toward others that should horrify his religious supporters but does not. He does unto others who cross him. Moral integrity unfortunately  is not a sine qua non of religious faith. 

Q. Are post-Trump conservatives engaged in holding on to Trump’s MAGA supporters?

A. Claimants to the throne are finding varying ways of maintaining a Market Rule/Profit to Shareholder world while at the same time offering sops to the many who have not benefited from Market Rule. This is a mission that can only succeed if lies and bullshit continue to hold the stage.

So, we have Oren Cass of American Compass, or Dark Enlightenment adopting the disingenuous family and worker focus of a post-Trump Conservatism. 

We have Curtis Yarvin who holds that American democracy should be replaced by an accountable monarchy similar to the governance structure of corporations.

We have Patrick Deneenwho in his latest book, “Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future,” proposes replacing the current liberal order with a “postliberal” one that would prioritize conservative and religious values over individual rights and liberties

Most likely, none of these will snare MAGA, mostly because it’s discourse and not personality and passion. MAGA will either burn out or blindly burn what angers them. A politics of passion far removed from anything reasonable follows the mercurial path of passion. Such a politics tied to an iconic leader who dies, dies with him. I see no St Paul ready to make clear on social media the miraculous post-Trump redeeming message for us all.

Q. What recourse is there if Trump orders his Justice Department to suspend 2026 Congressional Election results and initiate investigations of the Democratic Party’s involvement in what he will declare a rigged election?

A. If the House is retaken by Democrats by wide margins, but those results are declared rigged by Trump, certain angry backlash will be met with the declaration of the Insurrection Act. 

No doubt, future domestic war planning strategies are now being modeled by all in the event of such. Far too many possibles and probables to venture further. Trump has an attack plan; let’s just hope some will have counterattack plans. 

Q. Is the Worker Co-operative Movement a challenge to Market Rule and Profit to Shareholders?

A. Yes, it is but it’s not represented or supported by the Duopoly.  This is understandable with the Republican Party but incomprehensible with the Democratic Party. 

Worker co-operatives diminish the power of Capital in the Labor/Capital divide by elevating workers to ownership status. In no way does this economic arrangement undermine electoral democracy or inevitably slip into some form of State control. Start-up capital can be invested in one co-operative by another. Mondragon, a federation of worker co-operatives, is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover  and the leading business group in the Basque Country.

Q. Will the Republican Party reconstruct after Trump, and will the Democratic Party reconstruct after Woke?

A. First to consider is that the Republican Party is clear in its upholding of Market Rule with limited intrusion by the Federal Government. Trump is not a break from that. Globalized financialized capitalism as well as a burgeoning Simi Valley tech AI crypto capitalism will fit nicely within the Republican Party tent. There’s an attractiveness to this burgeoning tech and crypto that will attract voters on MAGA levels.   

Democrats on the other hand may go back to issues Zohran Mamdani has brought up, and Sanders before him, and FDR’s Bill of Economic Rights before them,  basically New Deal issues leaning toward social democracy, and thus hope to recapture wage earners who Trump and Republicans, oddly enough, now own. Unless the techs co-opt Democrats on global warming issues, conservative Right denial of these matters will put them offline while pushing environmentally concerned Dems forward. 

Q. What charges could be made against President Trump if a third impeachment was begun by the House?

“The evidence is clear that the second Trump administration is a powder keg of corruption scandals, influence-peddling, and profiteering from public service. The American people are the ones bearing the costs of Trump’s self-enrichment and selling of access and influence to the highest bidder.” Issue One

“When a president acts beyond the scope of his constitutional powers, members of his administration and the other branches of government must step in to stop him, lest the nation face not just a constitutional crisis but also the dismantling of American democracy. Congress has thus far failed to serve as a check on executive overreach, perhaps out of fear of political retribution. Thus, it is falling to the courts to robustly fulfill their constitutional role in policing the executive branch when it violates the Constitution and the laws as enacted by Congress.”

Center for American Progress

If the House is won by Democrats in 2026 but not the Senate, no charges brought against Trump will lead to a conviction in the Senate. However, if Trump’s voter support dwindles, his power over the Senate also dwindles. Without fear of his leverage among voters, cowed Republican Senators might follow the evidence and convict. Some, as Trump would say, might like Trump’s destruction of their legislative powers.

Q. In a post-Trump era can Americans expunge conspiracy theories?

A. Conspiracy fabrications, like viruses, catch hold in a compromised immune system culture. Our defenses against lies and bullshit, conspiracies and fantasies are now daily assaulted without being decisively dismissed. Alongside a Trump era we are in a post-Truth era and how that is amended/rectified has yet to be written.

 When Pandora opened the jar and evils and miseries were released, hope only remained captured inside. Today what has been released is distrust and skepticism regarding what is real, what is true, what words mean, and so, the path to common understanding is branching into every corner of cyberspace, what is fast become total Dark Web.

A practical solution would be educating competent readers and grading that competence from primary to advanced levels. If you start with “Tony Has a Pony” and ask what Tony has, you have an answer based on fact, not opinion. Proceed to the U.S. Constitution and all Amendments to it. 

+++

Q. In seeking a peaceful end to the Ukraine/Russia war can there be any justification in conceding to what the invader, Russia, demands because it is winning on the battlefield?

A. Ukrainians have made it clear that they will not accept peace at the price of sovereignty, which is the price to be paid to Russia in all territory that would be conceded to it. 

The EU sees nothing good coming out of rewarding the invasion of a sovereign country because the invader is winning on the battlefield. The precedent here, not only in regard to Putin’s Russia which retains the ambitions of Stalin’s Soviet Union, but in regard to China which can invade Taiwan and win on the battlefield. 

Trump’s U.S., by which I mean Trump’s will is presently unopposed by any prior checks and balances, has no fear of the precedent the EU fears. For the strong to subjugate the weak is not a problem to Trump’s U.S. as he goes along with a strongman view in which strong leaders get their way and the weak in the natural order of things are crushed. And so, Putin has all the cards and Zelensky must be pounded in the Oval Office to understand he is holding no cards. The dying in Gaza or in the Ukraine do not urge Trump to push hard against Netanyahu or Putin. In the U.S. the weak and powerless are shuffled off to Alligator Alcatrazes. The innocent are presumed guilty, immigrants and the home-grown.

Wrapped up in this profile is also Trump’s attention to his MAGA base. Being instrumental in bringing about a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia would assure him, in his mind, of a Nobel Peace Prize. That prize would appease MAGAs who are opposed to any entanglement in anything “foreign,” including Ukraine, and also deflect attention from the “Epstein Matter,” which Trump is running from as hard as Oedipus running from Corinth. Tragedy awaited. 

By selling weaponry to the Europeans who can then pass them on to Ukraine, Trump can also demonstrate his “transactional” art, (read: make a profit) to his MAGAs. The fact that U.S. foreign policy is now embedded not in progressive, humanitarian values but profit and “we need to be paid first” is just part of the deterioration of the U.S. image worldwide. 

If the Europeans get Trump to take a hard line with Putin, which means Trump would be identifying not with the Strongman Putin, whom he admires, but with the EU, founded in Trump’s view, to “screw with the U.S.,” Putin’s wining position on the battlefield as well as at home, where angry veterans of the Ukraine war as well as disappointed oligarchic elites, may amend a peace plan Ukraine and the EU could accept. A hard line against Putin may push him to nuclear response but more likely a hard line would push Putin toward threatening to expose Trump with whatever Putin has on him. Michael Wolff conjectures what Putin knows about Trump he got from a meeting with Epstein. Putin may also be pushed out of power if the U.S. and the EU muster overwhelming superiority on the battlefield.

Q. What is in the Epstein files that Trump fears?

 “…a handful of dust.”

The post Any Questions? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed

 

In this 1939 map prepared for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, redlining separated New Orleans into grades. Green is an A, or first grade; followed by blue, yellow and red, which is last as a D, or fourth grade. The Lower Ninth Ward is the red block farthest to the right. National Archives via Mapping Inequality/University of Richmond

Ivis García, Texas A&M University; Deidra Davis, Texas A&M University, and Walter Gillis Peacock, Texas A&M University

Twenty years after Hurricane Katrina swept through New Orleans, the images still haunt us: entire neighborhoods underwater, families stranded on rooftops and a city brought to its knees.

We study disaster planning at Texas A&M University and look for ways communities can improve storm safety for everyone, particularly low-income and minority neighborhoods.

Katrina made clear what many disaster researchers have long found: Hazards such as hurricanes may be natural, but the death and destruction is largely human-made.

How New Orleans built inequality into its foundation

New Orleans was born unequal. As the city grew as a trade hub in the 1700s, wealthy residents claimed the best real estate, often on higher ground formed by river sediment. The city had little high ground, so everyone else was left in “back-of-town” areas, closer to swamps where land was cheap and flooding common.

In the early 1900s, new pumping technology enabled development in flood-prone swamplands and housing spread, but the pumping caused land subsidence that made flooding worse in neighborhoods such as Lakeview, Gentilly and Broadmoor.

Then redlining started in the 1930s. To guide federal loan decisions, government agencies began using maps that rated neighborhoods by financial risk. Predominantly Black neighborhoods were typically marked as “high risk,” regardless of the actual housing quality.

This created a vicious cycle: Black and low-income families were already stuck in flood-prone areas because that’s where cheap land was. Redlining kept their property values lower. Black Americans were also denied government-backed mortgages and GI Bill benefits that could have helped them move to safer neighborhoods on higher ground.

Hurricane Katrina showed how those lines translate to vulnerability.

When history came calling

On Aug. 29, 2005, as Hurricane Katrina battered New Orleans, the levees protecting the city broke and water flooded about 80% of the city. The damage followed racial geography − the spatial patterns of where Black and white residents lived due to decades of segregation − like a blueprint.

About three-quarters of Black residents experienced serious flooding, compared with half of white residents.

Between 100,000 and 150,000 people couldn’t evacuate. They were disproportionately people who were elderly, Black, poor and without cars. Among survivors who did not evacuate, 55% did not have a car or another way to get out, and 93% were Black. More than 1,800 people lost their lives.

This lack of transportation — what scholars call “transportation poverty” — left people stranded in the city’s bowl-shaped geography, unable to escape when the levees failed.

Recovery that made things worse

After Hurricane Katrina, the federal government created the Road Home program to help homeowners rebuild. But the program had a devastating design flaw: It calculated aid based on prehurricane home value or repair costs, whichever was less.

That meant low-income homeowners, who already lived in areas with lower property values due to the history of discrimination, received less money. A family whose US$50,000 home needed $80,000 in repairs would receive only $50,000, while a family whose $200,000 home needed the same $80,000 in repairs would receive the full repair amount. The average gap between damage estimates and rebuilding funds was $36,000.

As a result, people in poor and Black neighborhoods had to cover about 30% of rebuilding costs after all aid, while those in wealthy areas faced only about 20%. Families in the poorest areas had to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to complete repairs, even after government help and insurance, and that slowed the recovery process.

This pattern isn’t unique to New Orleans. A study examining data from Hurricane Andrew in Miami (1992) and Hurricane Ike in Galveston (2008) found that housing recovery was consistently slow and unequal in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Lower-income families are less likely to have adequate insurance or savings for quick rebuilding. Low-value homes with extensive damage still had not regained their prestorm value four years later, while higher-value homes sustaining even moderate damage gained value.

Ten years after Katrina, while 70% of white residents felt New Orleans had recovered, only 44% of Black residents could look around their neighborhood and say the same.

Community-led solutions for climate resilience

Katrina’s lessons in the inequality of disasters are important for communities today as climate change brings more extreme weather.

Federal Emergency Management Agency denial rates for disaster aid remain high due to bureaucratic obstacles such as complex application processes that bounce survivors among multiple agencies, often resulting in denials and delays of critical funds. These are the same systemic barriers that added to the reasons Black communities recovered more slowly after Hurricane Katrina. FEMA’s own advisory council reported that institutional assistance policies tend to enrich wealthier, predominantly white areas, while underserving low-income and minority communities throughout all stages of disaster response.

The lessons from New Orleans also point to ways communities can build disaster resilience across the entire population. In particular, as cities plan protective measures — elevating homes, buyout programs and flood-proofing assistance — Hurricane Katrina showed the need to pay attention to social vulnerabilities and focus aid where people need the most assistance.

The choice America faces

In our view, one of Katrina’s most important lessons is about social injustice. The disproportionate suffering in Black communities wasn’t a natural disaster but a predictable result of policies concentrating risk in marginalized neighborhoods.

In many American cities, policies still leave some communities facing a greater risk of disaster damage. To protect residents, cities can start by investing in vulnerable areas, empowering a community-led recovery and ensuring race, income or ZIP code never again determine who receives help with the recovery.

Natural disasters don’t have to become human catastrophes. Confronting the policies and other factors that leave some groups at greater risk can avoid a repeat of the devastation the world saw in Katrina.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post One of Hurricane Katrina’s Most Important Lessons Isn’t About Storm Preparations – It’s About Injustice appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed

 

I originally wrote about the scale and impacts of this Genocide by Air in Gaza, in October 2024. Since then, the same pattern of complete destruction from the air has continued, murdering at least dozens of Palestinians every single day, hour-by-hour, and destroying every means of survival; homes, tents, food production and delivery, water supplies, hospitals, sanitation, jobs, banks, roads….Everything.

It is difficult to place in to any historical context what we are continuing to witness through this gigantic use of the most advanced aerial weaponry and AI systems, upon a defenseless and now completely impoverished, occupied and ethnically cleansed civilian population, who are simply trying to survive within a completely annihilated physical and starved environment.

I will just repeat the paragraph from my first piece, to provide at least some context to what is being done. There has never been a comparable amount of bombs dropped, on an overwhelmingly civilian population, in such a small area, in this short a time period. In October 2024, the estimated tonnage dropped stood at 75,000-80,000 tonnes. Estimates now have the tonnage of dropped munitions upon Gaza of beyond 100,000 tonnes. Between 1940-1945, U.S. and British air forces dropped an estimated 2.7 million tons of bombs on Europe, half of that amount on Germany. Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam were all heavily saturated from the air in America’s genocide in South East Asia during the 60s and 70s. Iraq was bombed for over 20 years by American and allied forces with different periods of heightened bombings. These were huge areas of land in comparison to Gaza, which is the most densely populated living space in the world.

These deadly weapons and their aerial delivery systems are majority western designed, built and delivered; the F-35s, F-15, F-16s and Apache attack helicopters, as well as a huge drone fleet. The resupply of the armed forces carrying out this aerial genocide of the Palestinian people, has also been carried out by the UK/US/Other Western allies, and delivered through our key RAF base in Cyprus.

The use of hundreds of RAF spy flights to provide the armed forces which are carrying out this genocide of the Palestinian people, with real-time and operational intelligence, is also now widely known, after being covered-up by the British mainstream media for over 21 months.

There were two video leaks of the use of this mass aerial violence upon the Palestinian people over the weekend, which captures only a tiny fraction of the scale of this violence. The first video, leaked to Al Jazeera, documented the obliteration of three Palestinian men in Gaza City on 18th May 2025, as they attempted to retrieve the body of another victim of this crime of the century. Given the size of the explosion, it was likely that this was a targeted attack via the occupations huge and deadly drone fleet, many of which will have been either built/researched or had parts supplied for by UK/US based companies.

The second video, also obtained by one of the occupation’s other prime targets, Al Jazeera, documents the murder of a 12 year old girl, Amna, pictured carrying a water can, in destroyed Jabalia, northern Gaza, date unclear. This was ‘achieved’ through another suspected targeted attack by an occupation drone.

Read those two paragraphs back, watch the videos, and ask yourself again why people in the UK have been moved to take to the streets and to take direct action against those companies involved in the genocide, or perhaps ask yourself why you have not.

The explanation, and the only explanation there has ever been, for this level of use of targeted death and destruction upon a civilian population is to commit genocide and annihilation, to destroy Palestinian existence within Gaza, completely. This targeted and literal destruction of Palestinian life and bodies, is the entire point of the violence. It is a complete extermination attempt, being watched, and supported, by the western world’s establishment, whilst being openly admitted to and bragged about by the perpetrators, again, and again, and again.

Under international law, the occupying colony, which is what it is, has zero right, ZERO right, to use ANY violence upon the people they occupy, let alone to this extreme and sadistic level. They simply have the responsibility to end the genocide and to end the foundational military occupation and apartheid of Palestinian land and life.

This genocide will only be stopped, by being stopped.

A regional or international military intervention to protect the Palestinian people should have been launched a very, very long time ago, decades before October 7th 2023.

Now it is simply an imperative action if the world wishes to see the continuation of the existence of a Palestinian people on their indigenous lands, in Occupied Palestine.

The post Geonocide by Air, Committed by the West appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed

 

Black and white photo of Black boys and adults sitting in the stands at a baseball stadium.

The Cannon Street All-Stars watch from the stands at the 1955 Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pa. 1955 Cannon Street All-Stars/Facebook

John Rivers, John Bailey, David Middleton, Leroy Major and Buck Godfrey – all teammates from the 1955 Cannon Street YMCA Little League All-Star team – left Charleston, South Carolina, on a bus on Aug. 18, 2025.

After a stop at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, for a couple days – where their story is included in an exhibit on Black baseball that opened in 2024 – they’ll head to Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

There, they’ll be recognized before the Little League World Series championship game on August 24, 2025 – 70 years after the players, then 11 and 12 years old, watched the championship game from the bleachers, wondering why they weren’t on the field living out their own dreams instead of watching other boys live out theirs.

When the Cannon Street team registered for a baseball tournament in Charleston in July 1955, it put the team and the forces of integration on a collision course with segregation, bigotry and the Southern way of life.

White teams refused to take the field with the Cannon Street team, who represented the first Black Little League in South Carolina. The team won two tournaments by forfeit. They were supposed to then go to a regional tournament in Rome, Georgia, where, if they won, they’d advance to the Little League World Series.

But Little League officials ruled the team ineligible for the regional tournament because it had advanced by winning on forfeit and not on the field, as the rules stipulated.

A 4-team Black league is born

The Civil Rights Movement is often told in terms of court decisions, bus boycotts and racist demagogues. It’s rarely told from the point of view of children, who suffered in ways that left physical and emotional scars.

When I was a journalism professor at the College of Charleston, I learned how the presence of a single Black all-star team was enough to cause one of the biggest crises in Little League history. In 2022, I wrote the book “Stolen Dreams: The 1955 Cannon Street All-Stars and Little League Baseball’s Civil War.”

The team’s story begins in 1953. Robert Morrison, president of the Cannon Street YMCA, petitioned Little League Baseball to create a league for Black teams, and Little League Baseball granted the charter. Dozens of Black 11- and 12-year-old boys were selected for the four-team league before the 1954 season.

They played on a diamond of grass and gravel at Harmon Field in Charleston, a city with a long history of racial strife. In 1861, the Civil War began in Charleston harbor, where hundreds of thousands of slaves had been brought to the U.S. from the 1600s to the 1800s. The field also wasn’t far from Emanuel AME church, where nine Black parishioners were murdered during a prayer meeting in 2015.

Little League Baseball barred first-year leagues from the postseason tournaments. At some point during the 1955 season, the best players were selected for the league’s All-Star team. Cannon Street YMCA officials then registered the team for the Charleston city tournament, which included all-star teams from the city’s all-white leagues.

Little League Baseball officially prohibited racial discrimination. But in South Carolina, racial discrimination was still legal.

Dixie fights back

A baseball with an American flag superimposed over it, surrounded by four stars.

The official logo for Dixie Youth Baseball, which was originally established as an all-white league. Dixie Youth Baseball.

The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled a year earlier that segregation in schools was unconstitutional in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, paving the way for racial integration.

Few states resisted integration as fiercely as South Carolina, and no politician fought harder against racial equality than the state’s junior U.S. senator, Strom Thurmond.

So when the Cannon Street YMCA All-Stars registered for Charleston’s citywide tournament in July 1955, all the white teams withdrew. The Cannon Street team won by forfeit and advanced to the state tournament.

Danny Jones, the state’s director of Little League Baseball, petitioned the organization to create a segregated state tournament. Little League Baseball’s president, Peter McGovern, denied Jones’ request. He said that any team that refused to play the Cannon Street team would be banned from the organization.

Thurmond let it be known to Jones that an integrated tournament could not be permitted. In the end, Jones urged all the white teams to withdraw from the state tournament. He then resigned from Little League Baseball, created the Little Boys League and wrote the league’s charter, which prohibited Black players.

The Little Boys League – which was rebranded as Dixie Youth Baseball – soon replaced Little League in other Southern states; within six years, there were 390 such leagues spanning most of the former Confederacy. It would be decades before Little League Baseball returned to South Carolina.

Having won the South Carolina tournament by forfeit, the Cannon Street YMCA All-Stars prepared for the regional tournament in Rome, Georgia, where the state’s governor, Marvin Griffin, objected to integration. If youth baseball could be integrated, so, too, could schools, swimming pools and municipal parks, he said.

Let them play!

Little League rules said that teams could advance only by playing and winning, so the Cannon Street’s state championship was ruled invalid because it had come by forfeit.

McGovern decided against making an exception for the Cannon Street YMCA All-Stars.

Most white-owned newspapers, whether in the South or North, had long stayed silent on the topic of racial discrimination. But the story of the Cannon Street All-Stars broke through. Editors and reporters may have wanted to avoid the topic of racism, but boys being denied the opportunity to play in a baseball tournament was too objectionable to ignore.

On July 31, 1955, New York Daily News columnist Dick Young asked Brooklyn Dodgers star Jackie Robinson, who had broken Major League Baseball’s color barrier eight years earlier, about the white teams that had quit the tournament rather than play against a Black team.

“How stupid can they be?” Robinson said. “I had to laugh when I read the story.”

Perhaps pressured by criticism, McGovern, Little League’s president, invited the team to be Little League’s guests for the championship game. So the team boarded a bus for Williamsport. They arrived the night before the championship game, which pitted Morrisville, Pennsylvania, against Delaware Township, New Jersey, an integrated team.

The Cannon Street YMCA All-Stars and their coaches were introduced before the game, and the players recall hearing a loud voice from the bleachers.

“Let them play!” it boomed.

Others in the crowd joined in, the players said.

“Let them play! Let them play!”

John Rivers, who played second base for the team, told me he can still “hear it now.”

After their brief moment on the field, the Cannon Street All-Stars returned to their seats and watched other boys live out their dreams. A photograph of the team in the stands reveals the disappointment on their faces.

On the following day – Aug. 28, 1955 – the team boarded its bus to return to Charleston. It was the same date that Emmett Till, not much older than the players on the team, was brutally murdered in Money, Mississippi, for reportedly whistling at a white woman.

The boys and girls who play in the 2025 tournament will forever remember the experience. The surviving members of the Cannon Street All-Stars, who are all in their early 80s, never forgot what they were denied.

Rivers, who went on to become a successful architect, says this is the moral of their story.

“It’s a tragedy to take dreams away from a youngster,” Rivers told The Washington Post in 2022. “I knew it then. I know it now, and I’ve seen to it that no one takes dreams away from me again.”

Now there are some on the political right who want to bury America’s ugly racial history.

America has never fully reckoned with slavery or the decades of segregation, Rivers recently told me. “It just decided to move on from that ugly period in its history without any kind of therapy,” he said. “And now they are trying to sweep it all under the rug again.”

Portions of this article first appeared in an article published on Aug. 19, 2016.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post How Bigotry Crushed the Dreams of an All-Black Little League Team appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed

 

White House photo by Daniel Torok.

On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease nearly all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order prohibited local public radio and television stations, and any other recipient of CPB funds, from using federal grants to purchase programming from these public media organizations and mandated a review of existing grants for compliance with the administration’s ideological priorities. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut public media funding is part of their “rescission” strategy—a process to roll back previously appropriated budgets.

The House gave final approval on July 18, 2025, to the Trump administration’s plan to rescind approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funds. This measure included a $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, effectively eliminating all federal support for NPR, PBS, and their member stations. Following this, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that it would begin an orderly shutdown of its operations after the Senate-Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill excluded its funding for the first time in nearly sixty years. These actions are part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline the federal government, eliminate programs deemed unnecessary by the administration, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency.

While the administration claims its efforts are motivated by fiscal responsibility and safeguarding taxpayer dollars, critics argue that these moves are politically motivated attempts to silence dissent and reshape the media landscape to favor partisan narratives. Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told Project Censored, “The administration frames the cuts as ‘efficiency cuts,’ but that is not necessarily the case. They frame it that way because they decided that’s a more palatable way to sell it to the American people. But at the end of the day, public media broadcasting costs the American taxpayer, on average, $1.60 per year, and the level of value that Americans get out of that $1.60 per year is tremendous.”

The CPB, established in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation, was specifically designed to insulate public broadcasting from political interference, with its charter expressly forbidding government control over broadcasting content while ensuring that over 70 percent of federal appropriations flow directly to more than 1,500 local affiliate stations rather than centralized bureaucracies.

“It’s really important that people understand how public media is funded in this country,” Weimers shared with Project Censored. Local affiliates have the freedom to purchase programming from NPR and PBS that caters to their audiences’ preferences. He explained how Trump’s executive order essentially bans affiliate stations from buying this programming, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights. Weimers emphasized that “it is up to the individual local independent stations what they want to show their audience on air, and they should make that decision based on what their audiences want to see and what their audience wants to hear, not based on what politicians in Washington think they ought to hear.” He challenged the Trump administration’s claim that public media is a biased tool of his political opponents, “Some of the editorial coverage might lean left and the audience might lean left, but it’s a complete mischaracterization. Public media in this country has over a thousand different broadcast, television, and radio stations. It’s not just any one thing. There isn’t one political line across all of public media.”

Other voices in the media industry echo Weimers’s statements regarding the motivations behind the Trump administration’s CPB rescissions. Victor Pickard, Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, explained to Project Censored that public media was created to address gaps in commercial broadcasting and to ensure that all audiences, especially low-income communities and communities of color, would have access to high-quality, trusted content. Pickard warned that defunding public media will force communities to “learn that lesson once again” about the limitations of commercial broadcasting, which “will never provide all of the information and communication needs of a democratic society.”

Lisa Graves, founder and Executive Director of True North Research, told Project Censored that the Trump administration’s cuts to the CPB are a systematic effort to undermine independent journalism, not address legitimate concerns about bias or fiscal policy. Graves explained that the targeting of NPR and PBS stems from coordinated and widespread disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated by the Trump administration. “These entities are important public investments that help bring national, international, as well as local news into our communities,” Graves told Project Censored. “The administration claims that there is political bias or partisan bias at these outlets, when in fact they are just covering the news. … The attack on public broadcasting is an attack on facts, truth, and journalistic independence. It has to be seen as such.”

This strategy poses an Achilles’ heel: While the rhetoric employed by the Trump administration targets elite, national outlets, the most damaging impact will fall on the hyperlocal media infrastructure already struggling to survive. Many small-town, rural, and tribal affiliates rely on CPB funding and syndicated content from NPR and PBS to fill gaps in local coverage, provide educational programming, and serve communities with little to no other media access, otherwise known as news deserts. Eliminating this support could crater regional journalism ecosystems—leading to programming losses, station closures, and widespread layoffs that ripple down the media supply chain. In many conservative and underserved communities, where public broadcasting often remains the only consistent source of local and noncommercial news, the cuts could unintentionally harm the very constituencies that the defunding narrative claims to serve.

Noting that public media receive only paltry funding from federal sources, Pickard called the defunding of the CPB a “tragic irony,” because it will “hurt individual stations, especially in rural and conservative areas in states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas.” He explained to Project Censored that some stations depend on CPB funding for 25–50 percent of their budgets and “will likely go under if federal subsidies are entirely cut, leaving news deserts in their wake.”

The Trump administration frames these funding cuts as fiscal responsibility, but smaller local news outlets view them as politically motivated attacks and part of a campaign to delegitimize public media and the services they provide. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed a lawsuit alleging that the May executive order is “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. PBS, along with Lakeland PBS in rural Minnesota, also filed a similar lawsuit, disputing claims of bias and asserting that the Constitution forbids the President from arbitrating content. These lawsuits suggest Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping congressional prerogatives and eroding free speech rights.

Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Project Censored that the Trump administration has adopted what he calls a “throw-it-at-the-wall approach,” where they challenge the Constitution despite knowing most cases will fail on constitutional grounds. However, Stern explained that the strategy behind this approach is to find any legal opening the administration can exploit. “They are looking for the case they win, looking for the one instance where the courts give them an opening, and once they have that opening, they are going to barge through it.”

The Trump administration has adopted a multifaceted strategy to politicize public media by portraying these institutions as adversaries rather than recognizing them as informational resources or allies. Through rhetorical attacks, the administration frames public media and their content as ideologically biased, financially irresponsible, and increasingly unnecessary. This approach is implemented through executive orders and policies that employ loaded language such as “woke propaganda,” citing questionable fiscal justifications like “cost efficiency,” downplaying societal value, and implementing disruptive measures that create instability for essential broadcasting programs, ultimately exploiting public media rather than leveraging its potential for effective public communication.

Experts like Reporters Without Borders’ Weimers contend that the Trump administration has “shown a very strong disposition towards using whatever levers of power they have to punish those who oppose their agenda in any way.” Weimers emphasized to Project Censored that this targeting can affect public media outlets simply for “accurately reporting on what they’re doing.” The implications of these executive actions extend far beyond public media, he cautioned. “There is no reason that that would not also impact nonprofit media that publish content that the Trump administration does not like, even for-profit media.”

Weimers warned of a troubling escalation, characterizing the Trump administration’s campaign against public media as “a slippery slope.” Once the government gains control over public media and broadcast licensees, he argued, “they are one step closer to getting their hands on the rest of the media as well.”

Pickard told Project Censored that while the federal funding cuts will have a “chilling effect” on an already compromised media system, they also open the possibility of “building something entirely new out of the wreckage.” That wreckage is not merely financial—it is the collapse of a decades-old compact between government, media, and the public.

But from that imminent destruction comes a rare opportunity to reimagine public media not as a government-funded institution vulnerable to political whims, but as a truly community-owned resource, insulated from both partisan interference and commercial pressures. Rebuilding cannot depend on Washington reversing course or a future administration restoring support. Instead, citizens must take action: establishing community-supported journalism cooperatives, developing hyperlocal news networks sustained by their audiences, and building media infrastructures accountable to neighbors rather than distant politicians or corporate shareholders. The Trump administration may have dismantled decades of public media investment, but it cannot destroy the fundamental human need for trustworthy, bipartisan information and community connection.

This originally appeared on Project Censored.

The post How the Trump Administration Hijacked Public Broadcasting appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed

view more: ‹ prev next ›