26 Jan 2022

More than 1,000 COVID deaths in Australia since January 1

Martin Scott


In the first 26 days of 2022, 1,073 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported across Australia. The macabre four-digit milestone was reached with the announcement today of 87 fatalities in the past 24 hours.

At an average of more than 40 deaths each day since the beginning of the year, COVID-19 is now killing Australians more than ten times as quickly as it did between March 2020 and December 2021, and five times as fast as at the height of the Delta outbreak, between July and November last year.

Victoria reported 35 COVID-19 deaths today, while New South Wales (NSW) recorded 29, South Australia 13, Queensland 9 and Tasmania 1. Throughout the country, 5,240 people are hospitalised for the virus, with 373 in intensive care and 135 on ventilators.

A nurse holds a phone while a patient affected with COVID-19 speaks with his family from the intensive care unit. (Image Credit: AP/Daniel Cole)

In NSW, the only state which reports this information daily, two of the deaths reported today were people in their 50s, three in their 60s, two in their 70s, 16 in their 80s, and six in their 90s. Seven were unvaccinated, while 16 had received two doses and six had received three doses.

As of January 23, 71.8 percent of NSW patients hospitalised for COVID-19 had received at least two vaccine doses, up 1.6 points from the previous week. With only 79.8 percent of the state’s population (including children) double-vaccinated, the convergence of these figures makes clear that vaccination, as critical as it is, cannot prevent mass illness and death alone.

Of the country’s overall COVID-19 death toll of 3,299, more than one-quarter have occurred in the past two weeks, more than one-third in the past four weeks, and almost half in the past three months.

The leading cause of death in Australia is ischaemic heart disease, which in 2020 killed an average of 45 people each day, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. Were the COVID-19 death rate to continue at the rate seen since January 1, the disease would displace dementia (including Alzheimer’s disease) as the country’s second-highest killer.

Yet the position of the Australian ruling elite is to pretend these deaths are not occurring. Having repeatedly told the public “infections don’t matter,” the country’s leaders now point to daily fluctuations in case numbers as evidence that Omicron has “peaked,” making virtually no mention of the mounting fatalities.

They are covering up the reality of “living with the virus,” under conditions where the supposedly “mild” Omicron variant is dominant. This is Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly’s “number one Christmas present,” as he described the prospect of mass infection with the new strain in late November last year.

At least 163 of the deaths recorded in the first three weeks of this year occurred in aged care, where the virus is rampant. According to Department of Health data, on January 20, 7,861 residents and 11,198 staff were infected with the virus, up from 3,208 and 3,806 just six days earlier.

As of January 20, there were 1,198 active outbreaks across the sector, more than half the total number since the start of the pandemic, meaning the death toll is likely to soar in the coming days and weeks.

Aged care facilities continue to report difficulties acquiring rapid antigen tests (RATs), and, according to the Guardian, some centres are requiring visitors to bring their own.

Richard Colbeck, the federal aged care minister, claimed “delivery of rapid antigen test kits is currently being prioritised to facilities in outbreak or recent exposure.” Despite this, St. Basil’s Homes Chief Executive Michelle Church said that at one of the organisation’s facilities, which is currently experiencing an outbreak, only 600 of 1,300 RATs ordered three weeks ago from the national stockpile have arrived.

Church said she had “no faith in the Commonwealth delivering on their promise made on the 23 December 2021 that they would supply free of charge RAT kits to all aged care providers.”

It is against this backdrop of mounting deaths that Australia’s state, territory and federal governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, are forcing teachers and students back into unsafe schools in the coming days and weeks.

The bipartisan attack on the working class throughout the pandemic was exemplified by the united front presented by Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews and his NSW Liberal-National counterpart Dominic Perrottet in announcing “pretty much identical” back-to-school plans on Sunday.

The reckless reopening drive has nothing to do with concern for the education of children, but is entirely bound up with the need to drive parents back to work, under conditions where vast numbers of workers are infected with COVID-19 or in isolation.

Opposition to the campaign to herd teachers and children back to school is growing. Teachers in South Australia voted by a two-thirds majority Monday for strike action against the planned resumption of in-person schooling next week.

The Australian Education Union, well aware that teachers around the country are equally hostile to the return, is working to shut down the strike.

An early indication of what is about to take place in schools can be seen in the childcare sector. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, in the first week of January, 18,720 children were unable to attend childcare in NSW because hundreds of facilities were closed due to COVID-19 infection and exposure among staff.

Julia Davison, chief executive of Goodstart Early Learning, told the Herald: “Hundreds of children are absent from centres and hundreds of staff are isolating each day.”

She continued: “Families are telling us they are very worried and are keeping children home.” According to the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, childcare attendance has dropped by half.

The current wave of infection, illness and death is a direct result of the “let it rip” policies of Australia’s state, territory and federal governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike. In line with the demands of big business, governments responded to rising infections by abandoning virtually all public health measures, slashing testing and contact tracing, and reopening domestic and international borders.

Perhaps the sharpest expression of this is in Queensland, where mandatory quarantine for domestic travelers was abolished by the state Labor government on December 13. Until that date, the state had recorded 2,176 COVID-19 infections. Now, just over six weeks later, Queensland has recorded 358,336 cases.

Prior to January 7, only seven people had died from COVID-19 in the state. Queensland reported just one death from the disease in 2021. Today, the cumulative toll stands at 138.

Despite daily new cases still averaging more than 13,000, Queensland’s Chief Health Officer John Gerrard claims the outbreak has “peaked” on the Gold Coast, in the states’s south east, and the capital Brisbane will soon follow.

Gold Coast Health’s medical director of infectious diseases, Kylie Alcorn said: “We’re not sure that we’re at our peak, hopefully we are, but we’re very cautious about that and also even if we have reached our peak we expect the tail to be very long.”

Alcorn emphasised that “COVID is not going away and we just don’t know how many patients we’ll have.” There are currently 889 hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the state, with 47 in intensive care and 15 on ventilators.

Claims that Omicron has peaked, or will soon peak, are utterly unscientific, given declining testing rates around the country.

The reality is, virtually every action taken by Australian governments in response to the pandemic in recent weeks is creating the conditions for future waves to be even larger and more deadly.

Reopening schools will lead to a surge in cases. This has been openly acknowledged by every leader responsible for the murderous plan. Redefining close contacts to exclude transmission in workplaces and schools, and reducing isolation periods or removing them entirely, will guarantee that the next variant spreads even more rapidly.

The emergence of new variants is itself the product of the “let it rip” policies of capitalist governments internationally. In the interests of maintaining the profitable operations of big business, vast swathes of the world have been turned into a giant petri dish for the continued mutation of the virus. China, where a highly-successful zero-COVID policy continues to quash small outbreaks, is the notable exception.

As pandemic rages across the EU, WHO Regional Director for Europe proclaims pandemic “endgame”

Benjamin Mateus


During an interview on Sunday with Agence France-Presse (AFP), the French international news agency, Dr. Hans Kluge, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Regional Director for Europe, declared that the Omicron variant had pushed the COVID-19 pandemic into its final phase, implying that the emergency phase to the COVID-19 pandemic could come to an end this year in Europe.

“It’s plausible,” Kluge said, “that the region is moving towards a kind of pandemic endgame.” He expects Omicron to infect 60 percent of Europeans by March, based on modeling by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) based at the University of Washington. In less than two months from its discovery, Omicron now dominates Europe.

IHME estimates also found that as of January 10, 2022, two-thirds of the population in Europe has been infected with COVID-19 at least once. Officially, more than 123 million cases have been confirmed in Europe, accounting for one-third of all infections globally. With 1.74 million official COVID deaths, Europe accounts for 31 percent of all global deaths. There were 10 million COVID cases and 21,000 deaths last week.

World Health organization Director for Europe Hans Kluge stands in the Greek parliament next to the Greek Health Minister Vassilis Kikilias, on Thursday, April 15, 2021. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)

Kluge added that once the Omicron surge across the European continent retreats, “there will be for quite some weeks and months a global immunity, either thanks to the vaccine or because people have immunity due to the infections and also lowering seasonality.”

However, he quickly backtracked his rosy assessments by cautioning that it was too soon to declare COVID-19 endemic as new variants could emerge. “There is a lot of talk about endemic, but endemic means that it is possible to predict what’s going to happen. This virus has surprised [us] more than once, so we have to be very careful.”

Kluge offered the following summary in a statement addressing the ending of the COVID pandemic “emergency phase”:

But with strong surveillance and monitoring of new variants, high vaccination uptake and third doses, ventilation, affordable equitable access to antivirals, targeted testing, and shielding high-risk groups with high-quality masks and physical distancing of and when a new variant appears, I believe that a new wave could no longer require the return to pandemic-era, population-wide lockdowns or similar measures.

Reading these words, one must ask why such measures were not implemented in the first place and what is the impetus now to instituting them? Kluge’s promises to shore up Europe’s public health infrastructure are baseless and deceptive. Placing his comments into perspective, they come on the heels of the push by many member states within the European Union to begin treating the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus like the flu, which is a direct proposal for “living with the virus” and allowing it to spread unhindered.

On January 9, British Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi told the BBC that “the UK is on a path towards transitioning from pandemic to endemic.” On January 10, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said during a radio interview, “We have to evaluate the evolution of COVID from pandemic to an endemic illness.”

These comments by government leaders are only the earliest vocal assertions and demands for a dramatic change in policy towards the pandemic to which Kluge is acquiescing. The shift to more lax isolation protocols to ensure the function of schools and businesses remains undisturbed is only the first in a series of loosened public health policies.

However, an approach which treats COVID-19 as endemic promises to be catastrophic. As Dr. Aris Katzourakis, a professor of viral evolution and genomics at the University of Oxford, UK, recently wrote in Nature on COVID-19 and endemicity, “Stating that an infection will become endemic says nothing about how long it might take to reach stasis, what the case rates, morbidity levels or deaths rates will be or, crucially how much of a population – and which sectors – will be susceptible. Nor does it suggest guaranteed stability.”

The effort to “normalize” COVID-19 infections and deaths in Europe and the US is driven, not by science or public health, but by economic considerations. In a recent survey conducted by data firm IHS Markit, chief business economist Chris Williamson told the Wall Street Journal, “Soaring virus cases have brought the US economy to a near standstill at the start of the year.”

As the WSJ noted, “The rapid spread of the new variant has led to a surge in infections around the world, prompting increased consumer wariness of activities that involve physical proximity to others, while quarantine requirements have sidelined many workers.”

A glance at the world metrics on daily COVID cases underscores the rapid rise in infections across most regions of the world. The week beginning January 17, 2022, recorded almost 21.4 million infections with nearly 50,000 deaths. And as Omicron continues to surge in low- to middle-income nations, the disruption in supply chains from vast labor shortages caused by infections is providing an impetus to the drive to declare the pandemic endemic.

Rory Fennessy, an economist at Oxford Economics, predicted that “after a slowdown in growth [for the Eurozone], we expect economic activity to pick up later in the year. Ultimately, Omicron should not significantly alter the overall growth outlook for 2022.”

However, the optimistic outlook for the pandemic promoted by Kluge is not shared by the Director-General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, during his opening remarks at the 150th session of the Executive Board on January 24, 2022.

Ghebreyesus noted, “Since Omicron was first identified just nine weeks ago, more than 80 million cases have been reported to WHO – more than were reported in the whole of 2020. So far, the explosion in cases has not been matched by a surge in deaths, although deaths are increasing in all regions, especially in Africa, the region with the least access to vaccines. So, where do we stand? Where are we headed? And when will it end?”

Answering these questions, “It’s true we will be living with COVID for the foreseeable future, and that we will need to learn to manage it through a sustained and integrated system for acute respiratory diseases, which will provide a platform for preparedness for future pandemics. But learning to live with COVID cannot mean that we give this virus a free ride. It cannot mean that we accept almost 50,000 deaths a week from a preventable and treatable disease. It cannot mean that we accept an unacceptable burden on our health systems, when every day, exhausted health workers go once again to the front line. It cannot mean that we ignore the consequences of Long COVID, which we don’t yet fully understand. It cannot mean that we gamble on a virus whose evolution we cannot control, nor predict.”

He then warned, “There are different scenarios for how the pandemic could play out, and how the acute phase could end – but it is dangerous to assume that Omicron will be the last variant, or that we are in the endgame.”

Central to his speech was the need for the COVID vaccine’s fair distribution and global health equity. The pandemic has impoverished millions and it has reignited infectious diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. Sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and hepatitis B and C are reemerging as threats. “When health is at risk, everything is at risk. The pandemic is a brutal reminder that health is not a by-product of development. Not an outcome of prosperous societies; not a footnote of history. It is the heartbeat, the foundation, the essential ingredient without which no society can flourish.”

At an earlier news conference, he said, “The COVID-19 pandemic is now entering its third year, and we are at a critical juncture. We must work together to bring the acute phase of this pandemic to an end. We cannot let it continue to drag on, lurching between panic and neglect.”

However, the WHO relies on voluntary funding by member states and various charities that disarm its ability to critique member states, limiting its authority to an auxiliary consultant. Dr. Ghebreyesus told the member states an overhaul of the organization's funding would be required if the agency continued to remain effective in its mission.

After President Donald Trump withdrew US support and accused the WHO of a pro-China bias, Germany has assumed the role of the largest donor, giving $1.235 billion in total. In contrast, the US gave only $660,000 for the same period. The Biden administration is resisting a financial proposal that would “make the UN health body more independent,” according to Reuters. Instead, “It [the US] is pushing instead for the creation of a separate fund, directly controlled by donors, that would finance prevention and control of health emergencies,” or, in essence, privatize global health initiatives.

Meanwhile, there have been more than 8,000 cases of a subvariant of Omicron, designated BA.2, reported across 40 countries. Defined as a variant of interest, it is highly contagious, and some have gone as far as dubbing it the “son of Omicron.” Dominant in Denmark, it is spreading rapidly across India (5 percent of sequenced cases), the UK (4 percent), and Sweden and Singapore with 2 percent. The subvariant has also been detected in the United States.

Macron calls to introduce massive US-style university tuition fees in France

Anthony Torres


Last week at the closing of the 50th anniversary of the Conference of University Presidents, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke about his possible second five-year term. He proposed to end quasi-free university education in France, with the emergence of “American-style” paying institutions. Macron is proposing a fundamental attack on the democratic right to education, especially targeting children from working class or low-income families.

In front of university presidents, he began by congratulating himself on the “giant leap” University of Paris-Saclay has made, “directly climbing to thirteenth place this year' in the Shanghai ranking of universities, moving up one place. He called for “redoubling our efforts so that in ten years, our university will be stronger, attracting the best international students and talent.”

Macron spoke of the need to professionalize universities in conjunction with businesses, which should lead to the opening of places in short courses, even though it is more advanced degrees that provide the most protection against unemployment. He proposed to review university governance to aim for “more excellence for universities,” adding, “Yes, we must move towards more autonomy in terms of organization, financing, human resources.”

French President Emmanuel Macron [Sebastien Nogier, Pool via AP]

To do this, Macron warned that the quasi-free status of French universities, in which most tuition fees for most students amount to a few hundred euros, must come to an end. “To meet international competition, we cannot remain for long with a system where higher education has no price for almost all students; where a third of students are on scholarship; and where, however, we have so much student insecurity and a difficulty in financing a model that is much more financed on public money than anywhere else in the world.”

In France, after the May 1968 general strike, the organization of universities was significantly modified by the Faure law: it abolished faculties, democratized university governance and created several universities in large cities. But over the past 15 years, with the “law on the freedoms and responsibilities of universities” brought in by Valérie Pécresse in 2007, a series of reforms have followed one another. These reforms aim to diminish democracy and collegiality in the governance of institutions and give businesses greater power and influence in universities.

These reforms have been accompanied by the employment of staff working under precarious status, which led in 2018 to a movement protesting against the “research programming law” voted the same year and put into place by the Macron government.

Macron wants to go further and break what remains of social and democratic advances established by workers’ struggles in the 20th century, especially after the defeat of fascism in World War II. Targeting the ability of working class families to access higher education—which provided technicians and engineers for new industries that were created in France after the war— his proposals seek to pave the way for a vast increase in social inequality.

Higher Education and Research Minister Frédérique Vidal has already made foreign students pay tuition fees, slashed benefits for teacher-researchers, and institutionalized selection at the entrance to Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. Now Macron wants to generalize these fees.

This attack on the right to higher education is an integral part of the response of the ruling class to the pandemic, which is to enormously deepen social inequality and return to a society of naked class privilege.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments in France and Europe spent trillions of euros in public funds. This was done not to save lives—over 1.5 million people died in Europe—but to strengthen the banks and major corporations at the expense of massively increasing European states’ public debts.

After the 2008 stock market crash, Greece’s public debt was 125 percent of its GDP, at which point the European banks declared this to be an unsustainable level of debt requiring devastating attacks on wages and social conditions. These debt levels then rose to 180.5 percent of GDP in 2019, before the pandemic and 206.30 percent today. Now, with the pandemic, public debt has exploded to 115.3 percent of GDP in France, 122.1 percent in Spain and 155.6 percent in Italy.

Financing these bailouts for the financial aristocracy requires making the working class pay in the form of reduced pensions and social spending. Universities are now a target of this cost-cutting logic. Macron’s proposal for the emergence of “American-style” institutions is a shocking provocation against working class and youth.

The American model that Macron refers to is a social catastrophe for students. Tuition fees often amount to $40,000, to which must be added housing and living expenses. The annual cost is therefore estimated to be between $50,000 and $55,000, or 42,500 to 46,750 euros annually.

There is a system of low interest loans, some of which are not repaid until the student enters the workforce. This system often leaves students with large debts. In 2019, student debt in the United States totaled $1.6 trillion, an amount that has nearly tripled in 12 years. A student who finishes his or her studies can find himself or herself in debt to the tune of several hundred thousand euros to be repaid over decades.

The example of Britain gives us an idea of how Macron envisages the evolution of tuition fees on the European continent. Tuition fees were introduced in the UK in 1997. They rose from $1,442 in 2001 to $4,421 as of the 2009 academic year. In 2012, they rose to $12,770, following a decision by the Cameron cabinet to triple tuition fees between 2009 and 2012. Students pay the tuition fees once they have completed their studies and their salary reaches an annual amount of $29,965.

Given that the median salary in France is $2,202 per month and that 8 out of 10 wage earners have a net monthly salary of between $1,367 and $3,632 per month, such fee increases would make so-called “excellent” universities unaffordable. Large sections of the 10.9 percent of university students from the working class would be discouraged from studying at universities. They would go into short courses at the lesser-rated institutions where they are currently most represented.

An irreconcilable political conflict emerges between the right to higher education through almost free-tuition that is supported by students and workers and the desire of the ruling elite to create a two-tier university system, where only the children of wealthy families will be able to afford higher education.

25 Jan 2022

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships 2022

Application Timeline: 1st March 2022

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizenship of a non-European threshold or developing country (see list of countries in the Program Webpage Link below) which is also the fellow’s habitual abode and place of work;

To be taken at (country): Germany

Subject Areas: Climate Protection

About the Award: The International Climate Protection Fellowships enable prospective leaders to conduct a research-related project of their own choice during a one-year stay in Germany. Submit an application if you are a prospective leader from a non-European threshold or developing country working in the field of climate protection and resource conservation in academia, business or administration in your country.

Type: Fellowship

Selection Criteria:

  • First academic degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent), completed less than 12 years prior to the start of the fellowship
  • Extensive professional experience in a leadership role (at least 48 months at the time of application) in the field of climate protection and resource conservation or a further academic or professional qualification;
  • Initial practical experience (at least 12 months at the time of application) through involvement in projects related to climate protection and resource conservation (possibly already during studies);
  • Leadership potential demonstrated by initial experience in leadership positions and/or appropriate references;
  • A detailed statement by a host in Germany, including a confirmation of support; details of the proposed project must be discussed with the prospective host prior to application;
  • Very good knowledge of English and/or German, documented by appropriate language certificates;
  • Two to three expert references by individuals qualified to comment on the candidate’s professional, personal and, if applicable, academic eligibility and his / her leadership potential.

Benefits of Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships

  • Fellowship amount according to qualifications between €2,150 and €2,650 per month
  • Two-month intensive language course in Germany
  • Lump sum for travel expenses
  • Allowances for visits by family members lasting at least three months
  • Allowance of €800 per month for the host in Germany for projects in the natural and engineering sciences, and €500 per month for projects in the humanities and social sciences

Number of Awards: 20

Duration: One year

How to Apply for Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships: Apply online until 1 March 2022

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Important Notes: Potential applicants who have spent more than six months in Germany or more than 12 months in a country that is not on the list of countries at the time of or shortly before application should contact the Humboldt Foundation (info@avh.de) before submitting an application as they may be ineligible on formal grounds.

Ashden International Awards in Sustainable Energy 2022

Application Deadline: 15th March 2022 at 11.59pm GMT.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): London, UK

About the Award: World’s leading green energy awards, seeks to reward innovative enterprises and programmes that deliver, or play a key part in enabling the delivery of sustainable energy systems and through this bring social, economic and environmental benefits.

In 2021, we’re uncovering and supporting the world’s next climate champions to help them grow faster and spread further. Are you one of them?

This year’s award categories include greener communities, energy access, green skills, natural climate solutions, sustainable cooling and more. Some categories focus on the UK, and others cover work in low- and middle-income countries. Businesses, public bodies and charities can all apply.

Type: Entrepreneurship, Contest

Who can apply for an Ashden International Award?

  • Businesses, NGOs, social enterprises and government organisations are all eligible.
  • The work must be delivered in at least one of the UN’s developing regions of Africa, Caribbean, Central America, South America, Asia (excluding Japan) and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand) and can be in rural or urban areas. High-income countries in these regions, as defined by the World Bank, are not eligible to apply

What happens if you win an Award As an Ashden Award winner? You will:

  • Be invited to London at Ashden’s expense to take part in the Awards Ceremony as well as other events during that week. Winning an Ashden Award is contingent on taking part in Awards Week activities.
  • Participate in media interviews that we may be able to arrange.
  • Agree with Ashden what you will spend the prize fund on and any business support you may receive.
  • Provide and update monitoring data about the progress of your work after one year, two years and three years

Number of Awardees: 10

Value of Contest: 

  • The winners will receive prize funds of £20,000 each
  • As well as this cash fund, winning an Ashden Award brings many other benefits, such as:
    • Local, national and international publicity, through the work of our specialist media team.
    • Support to grow or replicate your work: this can include professional mentoring, training and introductions to investment and other finance providers.
    • Opportunities to present your work to large and influential audiences at the Ashden Awards Ceremony, International Conference and other Ashden events.
    • Membership of the Ashden Alumni network of Ashden Award-winners, which facilitates opportunities to create productive partnerships and learning.
    • The acclaim of winning a prestigious Ashden Award. Our application and assessment process is known for being rigorous.

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Liberty Includes the Right to Possess and Consume Drugs

Jacob Hornberger


By now, even the most ardent of drug warriors has to admit that the drug war has been a manifest failure, at least if the goal was to eradicate drug use in America. At the same time, most everyone must now acknowledge the widespread violence, death, suffering, mass incarceration, infringements on civil liberties, asset forfeiture, and racial bigotry that have come with the drug war.

But we also must never forget that America’s drug laws have helped to destroy the liberty of the American people. That’s because liberty necessarily entails the right to possess, distribute, and ingest anything you want, including dangerous and damaging drugs. Anyone who lives in a society that criminalizes such things cannot possibly be considered to be living in a free society.

Consider alcohol and tobacco. They both can be damaging to one’s health. But liberty necessarily entails the right to drink booze and smoke cigarettes. Sure, people might approach a beer drinker and a smoker and warn him about how he’s harming himself, but no one has the right to initiate force, either directly or indirectly through the state, to stop someone from drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. 

When alcohol was made illegal, the results were much like they have been with drug illegality — massive violence and official corruption. When Prohibition was repealed, the violence and official corruption from Prohibition disappeared too. 

The principal is the same with marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opioids, or any other type of drug. No matter how harmful they might be considered by some people, no one has the right to initiate force, either directly or indirectly, to prevent a person from possessing, distributing, or ingesting such substances. 

Thus, the restoration of liberty to the American people necessarily entails bringing the drug war to an end. Not only would it be a good first step toward restoring freedom to our society, it would also mean an end to the violence, death, suffering, mass incarceration, infringements on civil liberty, asset forfeiture, and racial bigotry that come with drug laws.

Why 30 Out of 32 NFL Head Coaches are White: Pro Football’s Abysmal Record on diversity

George B. Cunningham


A couple of weeks after the close of the National Football League’s regular season, there is just one Black head coach and one Latino head coach left in the League – Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers, and Ron Rivera of the Washington Football Team, respectively. This follows the firing of Brian Flores by the Miami Dolphins and David Culley by the Houston Texans.

In other words, in a league in which most of the players are Black, 30 of the 32 NFL head coaches are white.

I have studied diversity and inclusion in sport for more than two decades, including the ways in which race and gender intersect to affect leadership opportunities for women and men. My research shows that biased decision-making, organizational cultures that value similarity, and societal forms of bias and discrimination are all to blame for the lack of diversity among NFL head coaches.

History of exclusion

The dismal numbers are nothing new. In 1989, Art Shell became the first Black head coach of an NFL team in the modern era. But his hiring did not break down the barriers other minority coaches face in the NFL.

Seeking to address its diversity problem, the NFL adopted the Rooney Rule in 2003, requiring teams to interview at least two minority candidates for their head coach openings. In 2021, the league expanded the rule to include general managers and offensive and defensive coordinators.

The policy had positive short-term effects, as the league saw an increase in Black and Latino coaches. The gains have since diminished, though, and the number of Black head coaches at the start of the 2021 season, three, was the same as in 2003.

In short, the NFL is back to where it started.

When looking for explanations, it is helpful to explore factors at the individual, organizational and societal levels. Research evidence shows some of these explanations are better than others.

Individual factors

At the individual level, people might not obtain a job if they lack skills or experience, don’t have contacts or don’t apply. There is no consistent evidence, though, that any of these explanations describe Black coaches.

For example, scholars have found that Black assistant coaches in college football were less likely to be promoted and had less career satisfaction than their white counterparts, but neither was a function of the coaches’ experience, skills or social networks. This is the case in the NFL, too, where sports economists have also shown that Black assistant coaches are equally as skilled as their white counterparts.

Other researchers have analyzed NFL data from 1985 to 2018 and found no racial differences in the performance of head coaches.

In short, there is no evidence that Black coaches are unqualified.

Organizations and leaders

On the other hand, research does show that leaders and organizations make a difference in who gets hired. For example, an analysis from Arizona State University’s Global Sports Institute shows that seven NFL teams have hired only white head coaches.

The types of positions Black coaches have access to also matters. Offensive and defensive coordinators are frequently in line for head coaching opportunities. But research at the NFL and NCAA levels reliably shows that white coaches are overrepresented in these coveted coordinator positions.

What’s referred to as “the glass cliff” offers another organizational explanation. This theory suggests that members of underrepresented groups are most likely to be hired by organizations that have a history of poor performance or that are in crisis. When performance continues to wane, the leaders are likely to be replaced by majority group members. Researchers have shown that race and racism also affect the glass cliff, including leaders in sport. Relative to white coaches, minoritized men’s basketball coaches were more likely to be hired to teams with a history of losing, and if they were unable to turn things around, they were likely to be replaced by white coaches.

These examples show that leaders clearly make a difference. A study of the Las Vegas Raiders further illustrates the point. Under former general manager Reggie McKenzie, who is Black, the Raiders had the highest share of Black players in the league, at 79.2%. In 2016, when McKenzie won NFL executive of the year, the Raiders also had the highest share of Black coaches, at 82.3%.

Following the 2018 season, the Raiders fired McKenzie and brought in a white head coach, Jon Gruden, and a white general manager, Mike Mayock. The percentage of Black players has decreased every year since. In 2021, in one of the most damaging blows to the NFL in recent memory, Gruden was fired for making racist and homophobic comments after an analysis of thousands of emails sent to NFL executives and others. McKenzie was fired after the season, too. At the same time, the percentage of Black players on the Raiders roster dropped to 67.2%.

Though the study on the Raiders focuses on players, organizational scholars have consistently shown that people are most likely to hire others who are of the same race. Bias among decision-makers can affect the diversity of the organization.

Systemic racism

Finally, societal factors make a difference, the most prevalent of which are systemic forms of racism, meaning racial bias at the community, state and national levels. Societal factors reflect people’s collective racial biases, as well as the racially tinged laws, policies and norms embedded in societies’ institutions.

A focus on systemic racism moves beyond individual actors and prioritizes the societal patterns of prejudice and discrimination. For example, my colleague and I have shown that county-level racism is predictive of fans’ reactions to Black Lives Matter protests by NFL players.

Systemic racism has an enduring impact that can affect people years later. Researchers have shown that counties most dependent on slavery in 1860 also have high levels of racism today. As systemic racism increased in these counties, Black residents’ poverty rates increased and their social mobility decreased.

Given the impact of systemic racism across all elements of society, it is hardly surprising that NFL coachesanalysts and scholars – including those in media studiessport studiessociologysport management, and behavioral science – point to systemic racism as a reason for the lack of Black coaches in the league.

The evidence is clear: Organizations, their leaders and systemic racism all contribute. Until structural change occurs, the pattern will continue.

Johnson government mounts warmongering campaign of lies and threats against Russia

Chris Marsden


The UK is acting as an attack dog for the Biden administration in justifying military conflict with Russia. Its latest provocation was a transparent attempt to provide a casus belli, blaming Moscow for an escalating drive to war that is being provoked by the United States.

On Saturday evening, the Foreign Office issued a press release, signed by Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, claiming that Vladimir Putin’s government is “looking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv as it considers whether to invade and occupy Ukraine.”

On Saturday evening, the Foreign Office issued a press release, signed by Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, claiming that Vladimir Putin’s government is “looking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv as it considers whether to invade and occupy Ukraine.” (screenshot: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office)

The former Ukrainian MP Yevhen Murayev was cited as “a potential candidate,” with links to Russian intelligence, along with Serhiy Arbuzov, a former deputy prime minister and later acting prime minister of Ukraine, Andriy Kluyev, another deputy prime minister and chief of staff to former President Viktor Yanukovich, Vladimir Sivkovich, former deputy head of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council, and Mykola Azarov, a former prime minister.

Most of those named reside in Russia, which the Observer was forced to note makes “their ties to Russia’s leadership less a matter of subterfuge than public record.” Murayev, Moscow’s putative president of Ukraine, told the newspaper, “I’m banned from Russia. Not only that but money from my father’s firm there has been confiscated.”

History has proved that anything that emanates from Britain’s government and security services regarding the danger of war and who is responsible should be assumed to be a pack of lies.

In 2002-3, Tony Blair’s Labour government provided its services to the Bush administration in preparing war against Iraq. In March 2002, Blair met with Bush in Crawford, Texas, having promised he would support war against Iraq and, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell, “suggest ideas” on how to “make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace”, and “handle calls for a [United Nations Security Council] blessing that can increase support for us in the region and with UK and European audiences.”

MI5 and MI6, with the support of the CIA, then assembled evidence they knew to be false to further war aims already decided upon—the September 2002 dossier asserting that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and the February 2003 “ dodgy dossier ”, mostly plagiarised from a thesis by a graduate student.

Once more a monstrous lie is being crafted to justify an act of imperialist violence with potentially unimaginable consequences. The same filthy alliance is in play, with the UK seeking to reinforce the Biden administration’s claim on January 20 that Russian intelligence was recruiting current and former Ukrainian government officials to take over government following an invasion.

British imperialism has consistently sought to capitalise on its relationship with the US in order to project its own interests globally. This criminal policy took on even greater importance post-Brexit, as a means of countering Britain’s declining world position and meeting the challenge of its European rivals.

Today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government, battered by a raging economic crisis, widely hated for its murderous herd immunity policy and intent on ending all measures to even ameliorate the pandemic, is seizing on a war drive as a means of rescuing itself. The aim is not to strengthen a supposedly “defensive” struggle by Ukraine, but to create the conditions for an aggressive anti-Russian offensive by the NATO powers.

To make this clear, the Foreign Office press release was accompanied by another portraying Johnson as fighting to establish a new version of Blair’s “coalition of the willing”, this time an anti-Russian alliance.

It was centred on criticisms of France and Germany, along with boasts of Britain’s greater determination to confront Russia. Advancing Johnson as the defender of a unified NATO, the press release attacked French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion of an independent response to the Ukraine crisis by a stronger European defence pillar as a form of appeasement. “The prime minister has been clear to counterparts in recent days that now is not the time in the face of spiraling aggression on the border to start a conversation about Europe’s strategic autonomy,” it stated. Also noted was Johnson’s declared opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline transporting Russian gas to Germany as “a major strategic problem for European security”.

“The theatrical timing and cloak-and-dagger nature of the intelligence disclosure, which came in the midst of a roiling political scandal at home, raised a more cynical question,” wrote the New York Times, “whether some in the British government were simply eager to deflect attention from the problems that threaten to topple Prime Minister Boris Johnson… Some Conservative lawmakers warn that Britain cannot afford a messy leadership battle at a time like this. Tough talk about Russia also appeals to the Tory right, and critics say some ambitious officials are taking advantage of the tensions.”

Among such ambitious officials, the Conservative chair of the Commons Defence Select Committee, Tobias Ellwood MP, told the BBC, “This is more than just about Ukraine, this is about Putin wanting to establish, absolutely, a sphere of influence way beyond Ukraine itself…. Nato needs to develop a fresh sense of purpose.” Defence Secretary Ben Wallace wrote in the Times that Russian “aggression” in Ukraine was driven by the “ethno-nationalism at the heart of his ambitions… Not the straw man of Nato encroachment.”

All efforts to portray Russia as the aggressor are disproved by an official UK government research briefing, “Military Assistance to Ukraine,” issued January 18.

This noted the major extension of military relations with Kiev by the UK, the US and NATO, beginning with Operation Orbital in 2015, when the UK began training the Ukrainian Army, and now encompassing “enhanced defence cooperation”, a Memorandum of Intent on developing Ukraine’s naval capabilities and the release of a massive £1.7 billion of financing.

Royal Navy vessels have been regularly deployed to the Black Sea region “to conduct joint training exercises with the Ukrainian Navy, most recently in summer 2021 as part of exercise Cossack Mace and as part of NATO’s annual Sea Breeze exercise”—leading in June 2021 to an altercation between HMS Defender and Russian jets.

Britain is already leading a 1,200-strong battle group in Estonia, involving 830 UK troops, alongside 300 French troops, and has 140 British soldiers in Poland as part of NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence mission.

Britain’s largesse, however, pales before the $2.6 billion provided by Washington between 1990 and 2000, and around $5 billion during the US orchestrated campaign to install an anti-Russian government in 2014 that precipitated Russia’s defensive annexation of the strategic Black Sea port of Crimea. NATO has in addition stepped-up maritime cooperation with both Ukraine and Georgia, in an extensive list of exercises including Exercise Joint Endeavour in 2020, with British, US and Canadian troops.

This is a policy of encirclement of Russia, focused on the expansion of NATO membership and the stationing of military forces and equipment directly on Russia’s borders or within striking distance.

This past week, the UK sent an additional 30 troops from the Ranger Regiment to Ukraine and delivered 2,000 anti-tank missile launchers. More broadly, the UK is considering sending hundreds more troops to Ukraine’s NATO neighbours to act as a “deterrent” to Russia, according to defence sources. Other NATO member states are considering similar moves, a source told the Times .

This follows Sunday’s report in the New York Times that the Biden administration has discussed deploying 1,000 to 5,000 troops to Romania and the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with the possibility of increasing this to 50,000 troops. Yesterday 8,500 US troops were placed on standby. The US navy has sent the USS Georgia guided-missile submarine to the eastern Mediterranean, where it joins the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier battle group. A US shipment of 90 tonnes of “lethal aid” arrived in Kiev Saturday, as part of a $200 million security support package approved in December.

This is the massive campaign of military provocations the Tory warmongers are complicit in, and which must be resolutely opposed by workers and young people.

As always, Johnson and his criminal clique are being backed to the hilt by the Labour Party. Sir Keir Starmer wrote an opinion piece in the Tory Party’s house organ, the Telegraph, headlined, “Britain must stand firm against Russian aggression”.

“Not only does Labour understand the threat posed by Putin’s Russia, we stand resolute in our support of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity,” he fulminated. “For too long the implicit message to Moscow has been that Putin can do what he likes and the West will do little to retaliate.”