Thanks to Joel D. Joseph for his article, "Proposed California Reparations are Not Justified" in the 9/1/23 TPP. His writing is to the point and well thought-out. We need to be careful about how we make national amends for past social misdeeds.
In my commentary on the same issue in The Daily Kos, I concluded that justice must be done. A nation founded on the self-evident truth of human equality cannot continue to practice inequality, and long endure. We must enforce existing laws protecting equality, and enact new laws as needed to advance equality. We need to reform the police, partnering law enforcement with mental health and social work. We must restore voting rights, and enforce laws prohibiting discrimination in housing and hiring. We need to end the prison-industrial state, rearranging law enforcement goals toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. We need to reform education, so that all Americans can go into the world equipped to function comfortably in it. We must re-invent the economy to provide real opportunity, in this wealthy nation, for everyone. We have been making slow progress on these fronts, and things seem stalled right now. We need to reinvigorate our efforts, working together as true partners having the same goals. These, and others, are reparations that just might stick.
Dr. King and his followers did not march, get jailed, beaten up, and even killed, for money. They sacrificed to change the conscience of the country so that America would live up to its original intentions, to recognize our brotherhood. As corny as it sounds, brotherhood is the only emotion that can save this country. We can achieve brotherhood only when all of us become aware of how much in common we all have. The project is tortuously difficult, and judging by how far we have come, it will take a long time. But we must redouble our collective efforts to accomplish this goal. The alternative is to foolishly protect the status-quo of several nations inside of one, on a trajectory of destruction. Cash reparations will only hasten the destruction. I hate having to call out people on the same side I am on. Still, I must warn my fellow progressives against making a terrible, perhaps irrevocable, mistake.
GREGG MATSON, Elk Grove, Calif.
Hank Kalet’s “The Nuclear Debate” [8/15/23 TPP] had me gritting my teeth. Small, modular nuclear power plants are the latest harebrained idea of the “peaceful atom” promoters. These nuke plants are endorsed by Bill Gates and others whose incomes depend on ever more electric-powered interconnected gadgets as T.E.N.A’s — There Is No Alternative. Male bovine excrement!
Always sidestepped is the issue of the radioactive waste. Such a “small” amount could simply be stored on site, it was claimed on an NPR Science Friday program with no pushback from the host. Stored safely for the thousands of years it will take to be marginally non-toxic?
The mini-nukes (So cheap! So useful! So benign!) simply proliferate as targets for terrorists, increase sites for the inevitable human errors, and create more sources for the contamination of the air, water and soil.
Remember, we have yet to clean up the mess of radiation pluming from the Hanford site, or the mines and tailings, radioactive, on indigenous lands, or even helping the families still suffering from exposure to bomb testing. We are told to forget all that history, ignore the nuclear industry’s corruption, because it will all be hunky dory this time.
I may have been born at night, but not last night!
The real problem is our highly profitable addiction to using ever more energy: driving more, plugging in more devices, ignoring the electric gluttony of crypto currencies, and refusing to live a lifestyle that respects the interactive reality of life on Earth. The only nuclear power plant that I’m happy with is the exact distance from my home to be safe — the Sun.
KALI M. KALICHE, Williams, Ariz.
In regard to China and Taiwan, has anyone discussed or even proposed a settlement in which Taiwan buys it's full independence and sovereignty, instead of fighting for it? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm hoping The Progressive Populist will know, or can find out from some expert on the subject. China has made no secret of it's intention to restore Taiwan to the mainland by force, if necessary, and it will be necessary. If that happens, it's going to be a very costly, bloody affair, in which Taiwan has no chance of success, regardless of whether the United States intervenes directly (unlikely). Meanwhile, Taiwan is arming itself to the teeth and spending billions to do it. China isn't under any obvious military threat, and can afford a more leisurely build up of it's offensive capabilities, but the financial expenditure must still be huge. I have no idea what it's costing the US to shore up Taiwan's ability to defend itself, but it could be rather large - assuming Taiwan isn't just a good customer for the weapons we sell them. Politically, it isn't going to make the US look very good when it turns out that we are impotent (short of nuclear war) to prevent China from taking over Taiwan.
The solution I'm postulating makes everyone a winner! China gets a huge payment from prosperous Taiwan (and the US), saving face, and Taiwan gets full diplomatic recognition and independence. Trade between them is maintained and enhanced, both countries will be able to reduce military expenditures, and the world will be saved from an immensely disruptive conflict, if not World War III.
So that's my question, why not buy China off? And is anyone working on this?
MICHAEL McCARTY, Nashua, N.H.
Remember when Lehman Bros. collapsed in 2008? Who could forget? nnThat sparked Federal bailouts to banks and insurance companies that were deemed "Too Big To Fail."
It looks like The Donald is making a similar page in history, by earning 91 criminal charges in four indictments.
Legal pundits are wondering how so many trials can even be scheduled? And, how would an ex-president serve prison time if convicted?
The Orange-faced Loser's strategy is becoming "Too Corrupt To Be Convicted."
BRUCE JOFFE, Piedmont, Calif.
“Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack just dropped $25 million on a new cattle slaughtering facility in southwest Iowa” [“Get Me Some More Duct Tape” by Art Cullen, 8/15/23 TPP]. The grant for the Cattlemen’s Heritage Beef Company in Mills County is part of a $1 billion initiative from President Joe Biden’s effort to make the meatpacking industry more competitive, as currently four corporations process 85% of the nation’s beef supply.]
That means taxpayers own it, or it’s already been built and we buy it, or we get the money back if they don’t build it?
Sounds shady to me.
ANTHONY TOMASHESKI, Texarkana, Texas
As a longtime subscriber to TPP, I continue to appreciate its many informative columns addressing a wide range of topics. In the 8/15/23 issue, the journal’s managing editor shared some agricultural viewpoints in “Get Me Some More Duct Tape,” which should not stand alone, notably his appreciation for a new cattle slaughter facility in Iowa.
While the editor understandably and primarily appears to be concerned about the economic security of farmers, the health of slaughterhouse workers (most often exploited migrants) and of course the well-being of animals tormented and misused in the food industry suffer in the process. Farmers, as well as the rest of us, would do better focusing on regenerative agriculture with an emphasis on plant-based foods and abolishing factory farming.
The editor as well as those not yet convinced of the unhealthy and inhumane aspects of consuming meat would do well to read “Slaughterhouse” by Gail Eisnitz. She risked her life in more ways than one to help expose the shocking story of greed, neglect, and cruelhearted treatment inside the US meat industry.
RICHARD LAYBOURN, Bloomington, Minn.
To get the Trump trials televised, some federal rules forbidding cameras in the courtroom will have to be suspended. The US Judicial Conference, Chief Justice Roberts, all the chief judges from each of the country's appellate circuits and the Court of International Trade should vote, as soon as possible, to suspend the rules to allow the public access to the Trump trials to be held in federal courts. The need is great and hopefully, the country's judicial leaders recognize the need for some consensus on facts so that arguments can be made and heard, and recorded for posterity and while the jury deliberates in court, the country can have some common set of facts. History is watching.
STEVEN ROSENZWEIG, Brooklyn, N.Y.
1. Suppose a high-level person in Russian foreign intelligence operations had a top-priority goal of his “things to do” list, which put a person in a position that was able to delay the promotions of offices of the US military, especially in the highest-level positions. Done long enough, the disruption this would cause could do real damage to US military readiness and operations.
2. Upon seeing this happen, suppose the FBI, the CIA or some other appropriate intelligence agency would start to investigate that person to determine if the reason for the delay tactics was that the person was acting as an intelligence operative for a foreign agency.
3. Should that person’s thought every morning be to wonder if that day would bring a meeting with several people, resulting in arrest, questioning, a trial which results in a conviction and a prison sentence or worse?
Does this sound familiar to you?
JOHN G. RUFF, Logan, Kansas
From The Progressive Populist, September 15, 2023
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us