If we are to endure as a nation and a species, we will need to come to terms with damning realities of both US militarism and imperialism. The recent 2022 Pentagon budget is jaw-dropping $753 billion. $44.5 billion has been proposed to maintain the 30-year, trillion-dollar “nuclear modernization” plan which includes new nuclear bombers, submarines, ICBMS, air launch missiles and much more.
As a sentient species we need to meet two looming realities head on.
One, the greatest contribution worldwide to climate catastrophe is the US military-industrial war machine. Our military juggernaut has surpassed in size, scope and influence President Dwight Eisenhower’s worst nightmares.
Two, the threat and growing reality of nuclear war may in face become irreversible if this new generation of nuclear weapons comes to pass. Keep in mind that just one of the nuclear weapons being funded has 20 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
As a nation we spend more annually on war, death and global genocide planning then our 10 closest rivals. Worse the global instability and chaos caused by human caused climate catastrophe will dramatically increase international conflict, war and the growing likelihood of nuclear war. To say that the fate of the species is at risk is an understatement that belongs in block letters on page one.
This is not an issue of “left” or “right” or Democrat versus Republican. We the people need to awaken and come to terms with what Dwight Eisenhower warned us about in his the most important presidential farewell address in human history. We have to meet the realities and influence of U.S. militarism, imperialism and nuclear war planning head on. There’s never been a greater challenge.
JIM SAWYER, Edmonds, Wash.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts is well-aware that the Court is earning the reputation of a pro-GOP institution, and rightly so, because the Republican-dominated Court has been routinely handing down rulings that greatly strengthen the GOP’s position. This is a cancer, both to our democracy and to the reputation of the Court.
Roberts wants the country to view the Court as serving the needs of all of our citizens, not just Republicans. So he has been working feverishly to effectuate rulings that show the good side of the Court.
But now the Court has once again issued two rulings that give Republicans another big boost, and the calls are getting louder to “rebalance” the Court or reform the Court. Biden has already appointed a committee to explore ways to reform the Court, a clear sign that some sort of action is coming to counter this Republican favoritism, which has been going on for far too long. Let’s hope action is taken soon.
LEE KNOHL, Evanston Ill
Well, there you have it; the corporatist “Republicans” can manicure the vote all they want now, if they are not too bold or sudden in their thieving. We no longer can claim to have a republic, and certainly not a democracy. We have what is called “competitive authoritarianism,” and since the point of any competition is to eliminate competition, then authoritarianism it will be.
When the Supreme Court, along its obvious party lines, took the side of the Arizona legislature in Brnovich v DNC, it constructed a wall between prejudicial effect and prejudicial intent. This wall is so high that only the most egregious vote stealing might be—might be—able to be noted and struck down. Thus, electoral-based prejudice is kept safe behind this wall.
But this wall doesn’t exist. What party, through the legislature it controls, would ever pass an election law wherein they did not realize (or care) how it would affect the vote? In an ideal world, sure, it could happen. But Arizona is far from ideal, as is Georgia, and everywhere else. Thus, effect in election law is an accurate depiction of intent. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.
I hope we can dilute the power of corporatists to reward the rich and punish the rest of us, as they are wont to do, by expanding the court to 13, or 15, or for that matter 435, since all legislation seems to come from the bench these days.
JEFFREY HOBBS, Springfield, Ill
I wish to express my dismay at the one-sided coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict in the June 15 issue. Your contributors would have us believe that fault lies only with Israel or its government for the recent tragic destruction in Gaza. They would also have us believe that Hamas is some sort of freedom-fighter organization, and that the struggle of Palestinian Arabs is comparable with civil rights struggles in America and elsewhere. The situation is far more complicated than that.
To be sure, the right-wing government of Netanyahu engaged in abusive treatment of Arabs in Israel and in the occupied territories. However, your writers do not seem to accept that Israel is entitled to a sovereign existence with the right of self-defense, in accord with such UN declarations as General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), acknowledging the desirability of two states in historical Palestine, and Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), confirming Israel’s right to exist within secure borders. Nothing in your articles would suggest that Hamas is a terrorist organization founded on fundamentalist extremist religion, committed to the destruction of Israel. They certainly do not acknowledge that it was the barrage of rockets sent by Hamas into Israel which killed and otherwise threatened innocent civilians, that led directly to Netanyahu’s recent bombardment of Gaza. They do not note how Hamas has set itself up among the people of Gaza and its civilian institutions, and held them as virtual hostages for their war of terror. Nothing in your articles suggests an awareness that most of the Arab world unabashedly advocated and sought Israel’s destruction for years.
Knee-jerk Left rejection of Israel, treating it worse than clearly evil and tyrannical states like North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, is at least as pernicious as the right-wing propaganda that has defended all the excesses of the Netanyahu government. We must all strive for the right of two peoples in historic Palestine to live peacefully and cooperatively, pursuant to a two-state solution.
STEPHEN E. APPELL, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Thank you, Ted Rall, for cutting through the bulls**t of conventional understanding regarding the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.
ROBERT McALLISTER, Lantana, Fla.
To TPP readers: Do not listen to Ted Rall (“Your Opinion Doesn’t Matter. Protests Matter,” 7/1-15/21 TPP)! nnTo express your opinion, please vote. Always. And write to TPP or other newspapers (relatively trustworthy MSM). Give a bit of early money to promising candidates. Display advocacy T-shirts and decals. Gather at peaceful protests.
But — and this is critical — no violence. Violent protesters, whether of the BLM or 1/6/21 type, are not serving a higher good. They are criminals. With enough street cameras most of them will be jailed. Months and years after their violence they will be largely forgotten and that is as it should be.
This letter is coming to you from Manchin country (W.V.). I doubt he can be effectively primaried (but we can try). And if he runs again I would be loathe to vote for him (but may feel obliged to if he seems the lesser of two evils).
What i am advocating for is real democracy.
JOHN D. PALMER, Huntington, W.V.
The challenges of climate, pandemic and social unrest have become fatal only because government over the last 50 years has become an instrument for donors rather than a respected mechanism of resolution. People are rightfully suspicious as regulatory calls are based on a donation rather than good practice. The Trump presidency was only possible because previous lesser corruptions had already compromised our government’s function and credibility.
A well-governed society will never have extreme prices for medicine and medical service, but lag the field in results. A prudent administration would not allow wealth distribution to tilt to the point of festering a revolution. Particularly when the labor and tax laws advocated by the best donors show to be the cause of the imbalances.
PAUL BENSON, Hawarden, Iowa
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Ratified Dec. 15, 1791)
Although that initial phrase is never uttered by the gun lobby, we do have a “well regulated militia” in the form of the National Guard and armed forces Reserves. Any of “the people” who join or assist the militia must meet stringent requirements for both enrollment and training. Indeed, it was a well-regulated militia that helped win the War of Independence.
Then we have “the people” who believe their right to keep and bear arms means they can shoot up public places or commit acts of sedition, and they aren’t regulated much at all.
Laws with expiration dates are folly. Congress needs to stop squabbling and make a real gun-control law that lasts as long as the Second Amendment. Better yet, give back to their people their rights to participate in their country, but voting for its leaders and holding jobs that pay a living wage. Maybe then, they wouldn’t need all those guns.
BETTY CROWDER, Honeydew, Calif.
From The Progressive Populist, August 1, 2021
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652