HIV epidemic in rural Indiana exposes social crisis in US

Zaida Green

Five rural counties in southeastern Indiana have reported 150 cases of HIV since December. The epidemic, which is one of the worst documented outbreaks of HIV among intravenous drug users in the past two decades in the United States, is being driven by conditions of poverty and social devastation that are found in cities and towns throughout the country.

William Cooke, the only doctor in the small city of Austin, Indiana, had been warning about the emergence of such an epidemic for years. “If there is a silver lining to the HIV crisis, it’s that it’s brought attention to the underlying problems of addiction, lack of economic development and opportunity for people. I worry about the surrounding people across North America that are living similar lives as here,” he told CBC News.

The HIV outbreak has been linked to the prescription painkiller addiction ravaging impoverished, rural areas across the US. At the center of southeastern Indiana’s HIV epidemic is oxymorphone, a prescription drug with the tradename Opana, an opioid that is comparable to heroin when injected into the veins.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), prescription drug abuse led to more deaths in the United States than heroin and cocaine combined, causing nearly 23,000 deaths in 2013. The number of deaths from prescription drug overdoses has more than quadrupled nationally since 1999. The abuse of opioid painkillers, such as Opana, is responsible for 16,000 of those deaths, an average of 44 per day.

Ten percent of all new HIV cases in the United States are contracted through the use of contaminated syringes during intravenous drug use. Eighty percent of the people infected with HIV in Indiana’s current epidemic are also infected with Hepatitis C, another disease frequently spread through the use of contaminated syringes.

Scott County, which has a population of barely 24,000 and an official poverty rate of 19 percent, has been the hardest hit of the five counties. Since 2011, half of all deaths referred to the county coroner were caused by prescription drug overdoses, most of them young people. The county has seen well over twenty times its annual average of HIV cases since December.

Indiana’s epidemic was first officially reported in late February, after the confirmation of twenty-six HIV cases in Scott County. The following month, Republican Governor Mike Pence declared a state of emergency, temporarily suspending state laws to permit clean syringe exchange programs to be operated in Scott County. Over 10,000 clean syringes have been distributed since March.

The efforts of the syringe exchange program were initially hindered by residents’ fears of being arrested or tracked by the police. “Some people were scared to come to the needle-exchange because they were afraid that either the cops were there waiting to arrest them or that we had video cameras to videotape them for later,” said Scott County Public Health Nurse Brittany Combs.

Almost half of all inmates incarcerated in federal prisons, some 94,474 people, are in prison for drug offenses. Across the US, the facilities that house most of the country’s drug users are not rehabilitation centers, but prisons and jails. Only one in ten Americans with drug addictions receives any treatment, according to a report by the Trust for America’s Health.

Health workers from the CDC and other states have been sent to Indiana to administer free HIV tests and set up mobile syringe exchanges. The not-for-profit AIDS Healthcare Foundation, in conjunction with local officials, has established a permanent HIV clinic in the town of Austin to provide free treatment to patients without health insurance.

Though the rates of new HIV cases have subsided over the last two weeks, health officials are still worried that the current epidemic could spread outside of rural southern Indiana, or that outbreaks are developing elsewhere undetected.

“We know the factors that predispose this community to this outbreak exist throughout Indiana and throughout the country,” said Indiana’s State Health Commissioner Jerome Adams. “And quite frankly, I don’t expect this will be the last time we see an outbreak like this.”

Between 2010 and 2013, the CDC recorded a 150 percent increase in acute Hepatitis C cases. High rates of Hepatitis C infections are correlated with syringe sharing and are a key indicator of potential HIV outbreaks. In the midst of Indiana’s growing HIV epidemic last month, the CDC put out a national alert urging health departments to track Hepatitis C cases.

Propping up the rates of opioid addiction in the United States are the skyrocketing sales of pharmaceutical companies marketing the drugs and the growing chasm of social inequality. Over the past fifteen years, while living standards and social programs have been subjected to a relentless assault, the sales of prescription painkillers have quadrupled.

Prescription drug abuse is most prevalent in the northeastern Appalachian region, where decades of deindustrialization have left the region’s mining communities with few economic opportunities outside of drug trafficking. Appalachia is home to approximately 25.3 million people, 4.18 million of whom live under the poverty line. The per capita income in the region is $36,608 annually, almost twenty percent below the national average.

Just 36 miles south of Scott County and sitting west of the Appalachian Mountains is the city of Louisville, Kentucky. The state of Kentucky has the third highest rate of prescription drug overdose deaths in the United States and is also facing an epidemic of heroin abuse.

The last HIV epidemic outside a metropolitan area in the United States occurred in the poverty-stricken town of Belle Glade, Florida, in the 1980s. The rural town of 16,400, just 44 miles west of Palm Beach, had one of the highest AIDS prevalence rates in the world. Over 400 residents died from AIDS. Two decades later, the town has a staggering poverty rate of 36.3 percent and its residents are still struggling with HIV.

European powers seek to bomb Libya to stop migrants

Patrick Martin

The European Union is preparing to bomb targets in Libya to stop migrants from attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea in small boats. EU foreign policy coordinator Federica Mogherini is to brief the United Nations Security Council Monday on plans for a “Chapter VII” resolution that would give a UN green light for the use of force.

The plan is the outcome of several weeks of high-level consultations among the 28 EU members, including a foreign ministers’ meeting, held in response to a series of incidents of mass drowning of refugees. The worst such tragedy took place April 19, when some 900 drowned when their small boat capsized after colliding with a freighter.

The wreck of that boat, only 25 meters long, was found last Thursday by the Italian Navy at a depth of 375 meters, 190 kilometers northeast of the Libyan coast. Many bodies were seen in or near the wreckage, according to Giovanni Salvi, prosecutor in the Sicilian town of Catania, who is interviewing the relative handful of survivors.

The “bomb the boats” plan is driven, however, not by the number of deaths by drowning, but by the even larger number of refugees who have successfully reached the Italian island of Lampedusa, south of Sicily, or have been picked up by merchant ships or the Italian coast guard and navy.

In the most recent tragedy, 40 migrants drowned May 3 when their rubber boat deflated and sank before an oncoming merchant ship could reach them. But another 160 were rescued from the sea. Over that weekend, a total of 4,800 refugees were rescued or reached Lampedusa, while another 2,000 were detained by the Libyan coast guard before their boats left the shore.

EU military intervention would be aimed at stopping the vast majority of refugees now seeking transport across the Mediterranean from even setting foot on board a ship. As for preventing deaths by drowning, it would merely assure that future atrocities would take place along the Libyan shoreline or in the country’s coastal waters, rather than further out in the Mediterranean. “Precision” bombing would not be restricted to empty boats, but would strike Libyan fishermen or even boats fully loaded with refugees.

Italy is to have command of the operation, while at least 10 EU countries would contribute military assets, including Britain, France and Spain. NATO would be kept informed of the military actions but would not initially be directly involved.

EU ships would enter Libyan territorial waters, along with aircraft and helicopter gunships, to identify ships and help “neutralize” them, i.e., blow them to bits. These would reportedly include HMS Bulwark, a helicopter carrier that is the flagship of the British Royal Navy, now deployed at Malta.

In the event that any of the myriad warring factions in Libya fires on EU vessels or aircraft—the country has two governments and multiple militias, many heavily armed by the CIA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other countries—NATO forces, including those of the United States, could then become involved.

This would be carried out under Article Five of the NATO Charter, the same provision invoked by President Obama during his visit to the Baltic States last year, mandating action by the entire alliance when any individual member or its armed forces come under attack.

Libyan ambassador to the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi told the Associated Press that the EU had not consulted his government, which has been driven from the capital Tripoli and reconvened in the eastern city of Tobruk. Neither the parliament in Tobruk nor its Islamist-dominated rival in Tripoli has agreed to the entry of EU forces into Libyan airspace, coastal waters or territory.

It is not clear whether the UN Security Council will endorse an EU military mission in Libya without some Libyan entity giving its approval. Russia and China, which have veto power, have publicly suggested that they regret their actions of March 2011, when they did not block a Security Council resolution that became the basis of the US-NATO bombing campaign against Libya.

On May 7, Lithuanian Ambassador Raimonda Murmokaite, the current Security Council president, said the Tobruk-based government would back the EU operation, and even request it, but Dabbashi poured cold water over that suggestion. “They never asked anything of us. Why should we send them this letter?” he asked, adding, “We will not accept any boots on the ground.”

The Libyan ambassador suggested that instead of EU military forces, the Security Council should lift its embargo on weapons shipments to Libya and let the Tobruk government build up sufficient military forces to retake Tripoli and the western half of Libya, where most of the refugee boats to Europe originate.

The Tobruk government has named General Khalifa Haftar as commander of the Libyan Army. A former Libyan chief of staff who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s, Haftar spent a quarter-century on the CIA payroll, living near Langley, Virginia, before returning to Libya during the US-NATO bombing campaign.

EU officials have presented the plan to bomb small fishing boats as an effort to attack so-called people smugglers rather than the migrants themselves. The resolution drafted by Great Britain speaks of the “use of all means to destroy the business model of the traffickers.”

But the real attitude of the EU leaders towards the refugees is demonstrated by the conflicts that have broken out over what to do with the relative handful of refugees who have succeeded in reaching European soil—a few hundred thousand people on a continent of 740 million.

All 28 EU members support the military intervention. However, there are sharp disputes over rules being drafted by the European Commission to set quotas for each of the countries to share refugees who survive the perilous sea voyage. Germany is the main force behind the quotas, which have been rejected by Britain and many east European countries, where right-wing parties are whipping up anti-immigrant racism.

Germany and Sweden have taken nearly half of all the current wave of refugees, and want to offload many of them onto the other EU member states.

The death of British Labourism

Chris Marsden & Julie Hyland

It is a measure of how right-wing the Labour Party is that the rout it suffered in Thursday’s UK general election has prompted a chorus of demands for a return to “New Labour” and the legacy of its former leader Tony Blair.

Both Blair and his chief strategist Peter Mandelson have intervened to reinforce the message that Labour lost because it failed to make an appeal to the aspirant middle classes. Worse still, according to Mandelson, was that it gave the impression that it was “for the poor, and it hated the rich.”

Following the resignation of Ed Miliband, a leadership contest is underway in which there are already seven potential candidates, with more likely to follow. All are careerist nonentities, strident defenders of unregulated capitalism, privatisation and militarism. They insist that Labour’s defeat was because Miliband was too left-wing and focussed his strategy on mobilising its “core” working-class vote. Instead, Labour must return to Blair’s strategy of the “big tent” and efforts to win over Conservative voters.

Talk is of a 10-year process to rebuild Labour, underscoring the fact that no one can expect even the feint of opposition from this discredited party of the state.

The election does indeed prove that Labour’s core constituency has been eaten away. But workers have deserted it because they already view it as a Conservative Party Mark Two, with almost one-third of the electorate seeing no point in voting at all because no party has anything to offer them.

Miliband’s feeble tack to the left was entirely unconvincing, coming from a party that was pledged to austerity and that is incapable of putting behind it the actual record of Blair and his successor Gordon Brown as a tool of big business and architect of the Iraq war.

For this reason, there is barely any reference to the fact that Labour’s most significant losses came in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party (SNP) falsely declared itself to be opposed to austerity.

The SNP were able to successfully deflect class anger against Labour in a nationalist direction. It meant that the Conservatives were successful, in part, due to their whipping-up of British, and even English, nationalism. It also helped the UK Independence Party to make significant inroads into Labour’s former strongholds.

The pseudo-left organisations bear chief political responsibility for sowing divisions in the working class and strengthening the hands of the nationalists on both side of the border.

For years, they have championed the SNP and Scottish separatism as a progressive alternative to rule from Westminster. In the run-up to the election, they attacked Labour not for its betrayal of the working class but for its defence of the Union.

In the aftermath of the SNP’s victory, their perspective centres on some form of alliance with this party of the Scottish bourgeoisie, or, failing that, pressuring it to “deliver on its promises” to oppose austerity and fight for independence.

South of the border, the pseudo-left gave a howl of despair at Labour’s defeat. But again they offer nothing to the working class other than bankrupt pleas to push the Labour Party and the trade unions to the left.

Left Unity speaks of another Tory victory in 2020 and urges efforts to be directed towards helping “unpick the Tory lies.” The Socialist Workers Party states that “trade union leaders…have to be pressured to start fighting.” The Socialist Party, which constitutes most of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, puts its hope in “Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite, [who] suggested that if Labour could not even defeat the Tories, the time had come to look at a new party.” The “trade union movement as a whole” should begin discussing this, it states.

None of these tendencies speak for the working class. They are wholly integrated into the structures of bourgeois politics. They represent a privileged layer of the middle class, anxious only to secure positions for themselves as political advisers to the major parties, leading trade union functionaries and the developers of bourgeois policy within academia.

Their particular role is to oppose the development of a revolutionary socialist movement and subordinate workers and youth to the political representatives of capital.

The events of May 7 were long in gestation and do not lend themselves to a quick fix.

Decades of political betrayals by the Labour and trade union bureaucracy in the UK, and social democracy and Stalinism internationally, have taken their toll. At every turn, they have blocked the class struggle while waging a relentless ideological offensive against any socialist political consciousness in the working class.

Indeed, Labour’s rout is far more than the failure of just one party. It is the failure of an entire political perspective and of all the parties and organisation based on it. Across Europe, the former social democratic organisations are disintegrating. Having long ago abandoned their reformist pretentions in response to economic globalisation and capitalist breakdown, whether in Britain, France, Greece or elsewhere, they have become the ruthless exponents of austerity and war.

This presents workers and young people with grave dangers. They face a government that has already pledged billions of pounds in additional cuts and to rush through a new “snoopers charter” to strengthen the powers of the state and security apparatuses. It will seek to step up nationalist tensions, not only in the UK, but on the issues of immigration and Europe.

Moreover, this takes place under conditions in which capitalism is teetering on the brink of another financial crash and in which military aggression by the US, Britain and other major powers threatens to plunge the world into a bloody conflagration.

A road out of this nightmare depends on the building of a genuinely socialist party. There is no way forward through a return to national reformism, only a shift to a new axis of struggle—that of socialist internationalism. The productive forces of society must be freed from the fetters of the profit system and the division of the world into competing nation states. World economy must be run on the basis of planned production to meet social need, not private profit.

Only the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International advance such a socialist programme and offer a means through which the working class can be unified internationally in a struggle against capitalism, which is the root cause of austerity and war.

The building of the SEP must proceed through the clarification of the most politically advanced and selfless workers and youth in the crucial historic experiences of the workers’ movement, above all the decades-long struggle waged by Leon Trotsky and the Fourth International against Stalinism and of the ICFI up until today for the perspective of world socialist revolution.

Finding a Path to True Democracy in Sri Lanka

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera


“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln.

Through historical narratives and human experiences mankind witnesses the shift from the power of one individual to a wider representational body. As colonial empires imposed draconian rules, it became impossible to govern the natives as the public believed in strengthening the representative system for their economic freedom and further political rights. Sri Lanka experienced historical political achievement with the passing of the 19th Amendment with a parliamentary majority. Such political progress will cut down the centralised power of the executive and moved towards the Prime minister and Parliament. At the memorial oration at the four-time Sri Lankan Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake, Dr. Karunasena Kodithuwakku noted that Senanayake, seeing it as early as 1972, was aware of the consequences of transferring a significant power to one person, thus objecting to the executive presidency. 

Former presidents promised but failed to deliver. Incumbent Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena factors in Sri Lankan political history as a leader who strengthened local democratic institutions at the expense of his own power, a first in post-independence Sri Lankan politics. It is our opportunity to strengthen independent institutions and depoliticise them. The Bribery Commission, a place which should be equal to all citizens without political interference will have a massive local and global impact on our nation to improve the Corruption Perception Index. Tackling political corruption among all politicians should be done without any interference as the urban councilors, provincial councilors, members of parliament or former heads of state are all representatives who represent us; there shouldn't be a difference in the process. Equality as a clause engraved in our constitution leaves the author questioning as to why the commissioner was summoned by the speaker. We should ask as to who must be summoned in an event of the speaker having an allegation.

For the 19th amendment to function smoothly, Sri Lanka requires representatives with the highest standards within a functional meritocracy in the State system. A majority of elected members lack basic education, a criteria that has to be looked at in the modern day world, unlike the past. The next parliamentary elections should bring in more statesman-like people who could contribute for the economic prosperity and to create a decent political culture. This could be done by the powerful ballot only and if this change is done we are looking at a brighter Sri Lanka; else it will be a repeat of the past. 

A significant strength of our nation was taken away by the three-decade war. Recently, over a session at the Harvard Kennedy School, this author emphasised the grievous political loss to the country in the assassination of Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvan, Lalith Athulathmudali both Harvard scholars, Lakshman Kadirgamar, President R. Premadasa and many other leaders. These carefully planned assassinations weakened our State. It's time we strengthen our governance structure by bringing the right people for the top jobs. 

We will face many more challenges in the coming months and years specially after ending insurgency and terrorism, especially to deal with the many clusters of the LTTE core group still in operation. To bring them to the reconciliation process to give up their idea of the Tamil Eelam will be challenging. The Tamil National Alliance should support the government’s reconciliation process and ensure other groups could engage with us.

A fault in the local decision-making at the policy level is its lack of consideration of research input from think tanks and research material, leading ad hoc decisions. Research input should be a priority and we should develop our research capability as a nation. National think tanks and others should welcome public opinion and ideas before policy decisions are implemented in the parliament.

It is important to consider the foreign migration of our talented youth to Australia, the US and many developed nations. A talented youth force is a necessity for nation-building. They need to be engaged in this important moment in time. It is important to look at mechanisms to attract expat Sri Lankan professionals back to our country, reverse the brain drain, like in India. 

The 150th death anniversary of one of the greatest leaders through time, President Abraham Lincoln, was commemorated over the last month. President Lincoln ended a bloody civil war, which claimed over 600,000 lives, and ended slavery, while uniting a nation to ensure freedom for all. Resultantly, a greater nation emerged. We could draws lessons from Lincoln’s political will for our present day constitutional reform. As John Kerry said in his brilliant remarks during his recent visit to Sri Lanka, “…what my country discovered to our own anguish during our civil war there were no true victors only victims. You saw, I trust, that it is obvious the value of ending wars in a way that builds foundation for the peace to follow.”

World's Richest 80 People Own Same Amount As World's Bottom 50%

Eric Zuesse

Oxfam's recent report, "WEALTH: HAVING IT ALL AND WANTING MORE” contains shocking figures that the press haven't sufficiently publicized; so, the findings and the reliability of their sources will be discussed here. The results will then be related to the central political debate now going on in the U.S. Presidential contests for 2016, which is about equality and inequality.

First, the findings:

1. The richest 80 individuals own as much as do all of the poorest half of humanity.

2. During 2009-2014, the wealth of the 80 richest people doubled, yet the wealth of the bottom 50% declined slightly.

Now, the sources:

These data are calculated from Forbes magazine, regarding the world's richest individuals, and from the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014, regarding the global wealth-distribution.

The source on the richest 80:

The Forbes list is one of two such lists, the other being Bloomberg. The two are generally in rather close agreement, but sometimes disagree enormously. For example, as of 8 May 2015, Forbes shows Sweden's Ingvar Kamprad, the owner of Ikea, as #8 owning $43.1B, but Bloomberg shows him as #497 owning $3.5B.

Furthermore, Newsweek on March 2nd headlined “Why Putin Isn't on ‘Forbes' Billionaires List,” and reported that,“Forbes excludes members of royal families and ‘dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power.' Although it details this caveat, the magazine offered limited insight into the exact reason Putin was left off. When asked about Putin, a spokeswoman for Forbes told Newsweek: ‘Vladimir Putin is not on the list because we have not been able to verify his ownership of assets worth $1 billion or more' and cited the methodology. The spokeswoman and [Assistant Managing Editor Kerry] Dolan did not comment directly as to whether the magazine considered Putin a dictator, and thus exempted him from the list by this classification. A reporter who worked on the list did not reply to a request for comment.” So: royals, and “dictators,” are both left off the list. Also: Dolan said that the magazine attempts to obtain the cooperation of listees but that “some cooperate; others don't.”

Forbes itself says that, “We do not include royal family members or dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power, nor do we include royalty who, often with large families, control the riches in trust for their nation. This means the wealthy royal families of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are not eligible for our global wealth ranking. (These monarchs, like Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan and Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, land on our list of The World's Most Powerful People.)”

Consequently, the Forbes ranking is quite unreliable; and, on top of that, it is methodologically opaque. Leaving royalty off of their list is automatically excluding the royalty in England, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, where those people might well be the richest ones in their nation, if not the richest people in the entire world.

The Forbes ranking is thus untrustworthy, because it automatically excludes entire groups of people which might include many who are wealthier than any who are on their list. However, all that this means is that many people might exist who are even wealthier than the ones that show up as being among the top 80 on the Forbes list. Consequently, the Forbes list systematically under-states the wealth of the people who are actually the world's 80 richest. The richest 80 could conceivably even be an entirely different list. Therefore, perhaps the richest 80 own far more than do the poor half of Mankind. But they almost certainly don't own less than do the poor half of Mankind. In any case, they own at least as much as do the lower half.

The source on the global wealth-distribution:

The source that's used to calculate the amount of personal wealth in the entire world and its nation-by-nation distribution, Credit Suisse, is overwhelmingly regarded as the most thorough that exists on this subject. Its research-team was selected by Anthony Shorrocks, who had long headed the UN's World Institute for Development Economic Research, which is the leading research institute on global wealth-distribution.

However, yet again, the available data exclude a lot at the very top. For example, since the Saudi and other royals and dictators are disappeared from even the pretense of being calculated for possible inclusion into world's-richest lists, the wealth-distributions for many Arabic and other totalitarian countries — and for constitutional monarchies such as in Norway, Netherlands, UK, Morocco, and Jordan — are necessarily based on much guesswork. Consequently, global wealth-inequality is being systematically underestimated, even in the best available source. Yet, even so, what can be publicly determined about global wealth-inequality is staggering:

The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014 presents on its page 98, a global wealth pyramid, which indicates that the world's richest 0.7% (35 million people) own $115.9 trillion, while the poorest 99.3% (4,665 million people) own $147.3 trillion. It also shows that the richest 8.6% own $224.5T (trillion), while the poorest 91.4% own only $38.7T. (Or, in other words: the richest 8.6% own 5.8 times as much as do the poorest 91.4%.)

Consequently, if the transfer of wealth from the many to the few is to continue, then the main way for that to happen will need to be by the super-rich receiving their added wealth from the lesser-rich, because the percentage of wealth that exists amongst the non-rich — the lower 91.4% — is only 17% of the globe's total wealth, which isn't much; and, even if all of that were to go to the richest 8.6%, it still would increase their current $224.5T to $263.2T, a 17% rise. However, from 2009 to now, the wealth of the richest 80 humans has actually more than doubled; so, even a 17% rise would be far less than the 80 richest are accustomed to — especially over such a multi-year time-period as was 2009-2014. Those 80 people would then be feeling shortchanged.

This is why the richest 80 people will need to be getting their increases, in the future, mainly from the richest 8.6%. Wall Street and other major financial centers are perhaps in the best position to achieve that.

The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014 presents, on page 124, its categorization of countries according to equality-inequality, and they apply for this purpose a methodology that minimizes the distortive influences such as have been mentioned here. Here is their resultant listing:

As is clear there, the United States is listed in the highest-inequality category; and, so, no reasonable question exists that inequality is even more extreme here than it is in most of the world's countries.

The way that U.S. President Barack Obama and his economic advisors have dealt with this is to say that what needs fixing in the U.S. isn't economic inequality itself but instead inequality of economic opportunity — as if the latter doesn't depend upon the former. It's impossible to increase equality of economic opportunity unless economic equality is increased. America's politicians lie through their teeth, because they're financed — in both Parties — by the super-rich. The only difference between the two Parties is that the Republicans lie by saying that America's extreme economic inequality is okay and that government action to reduce it merely increases inequality of economic opportunity — something that presupposes what it pretends to be concluding, which is that government has no constructive role to play in this matter. They're all hoaxters. But the American public senses this, even if only vaguely. They sense that the problem is real, but they don't know that the Democratic Party's approach to the problem since the time when Bill Clinton became President in 1993 is itself fraudulent and a sell-out to the super-rich.

The resultant political debate in the U.S.:

On May 4th, Gallup headlined "Americans Continue to Say U.S. Wealth Distribution Is Unfair,” and reported that, in response to the question, “Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in this country today is fair?” 63% say no, and in 1985 it was 60% saying no to that question. The highest percentage saying no was 68% right before the 2008 crash, and the lowest was 58% immediately after that crash. By 56% to 34%, Republicans right now are saying that the wealth-distribution is fair. By 86% to 12%, Democrats say that it's not. (Among the overall population, 63% say it's unfair, and 31% say it's fair. That's a two-to-one margin.) The poorer a person was in Gallup's study, the likelier he or she was to say it's “unfair.” The richer he was, the likelier to say “fair.” In other words: only at the very financial top is the belief commonly held that the existing wealth-distribution is “fair.” However, Republicans, of any amount of wealth, think that it's “fair”: virtually all Republicans agree with the very rich about the fairness of the wealth-distribution, and virtually all non-Republicans don't agree with that. (The only problem for non-Republicans is how to solve it.)

The only U.S. Presidential candidate who focuses, and stands clearly, on the side of this issue that says it's “unfair” (which, as was just pointed out, Gallup finds to be by two-to-one, the norm) is Bernie Sanders, who is running in the Democratic Party. Unlike Obama and the Clintons, he acknowledges that it's the basic problem, and that shunting it off onto “equality of economic opportunity” is essentially fraudulent. All of the other candidates are raising their campaign-funds from the top 1% of America's wealth-pyramid, who are the very people the likeliest to believe that the present wealth-distribution is fair. Those candidates are raising their campaign-funds from the few people who own almost everything that there is to own, and these are also the people who have the most to lose. Senator Sanders is raising his campaign-funds from the many people who own almost nothing. While other candidates need to serve the rich, Sanders needs to run an authentically grass-roots campaign, which can defeat far-better-financed opponents, or he otherwise stands no real chance of winning.

This situation is called ‘democracy' in the United States, but other terms are used for it in other countries. The only scientific study that has been done of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy has found that it definitely is not. In order to make it one, profound change would be required. However, America's richest need to convince America's public that the nation already is a democracy, because, otherwise, America's public won't continue to accept rule by the super-rich — the people who finance almost all major politicians and who benefit from the current dictatorship. And that would cause the public to vote against any candidate who is receiving most of his financial support from the super-rich, which is almost all candidates. So: the only possible way to overcome any such tendency of the public to vote against the interests of the rich is to distract the public from that entire issue, onto personalities and other such distractions.

Consequently, it is to be expected that, in the 2016 contests, the best-financed candidates will be promoted by advertisements and issues that distract and deceive, instead of inform or educate, the public. That will be a contest between well-financed lies, and poorly financed truths. Perhaps by Election Day, the poorly financed truths will have been totally drowned-out. That way would lead to hellish future for the United States.

The 2016 contests will be of major historical importance: if the movement into democracy doesn't win in 2016, then its likelihood of succeeding in the future will be virtually nil (since the current direction is toward increased dictatorship by the super-rich). The 2016 elections will be do-or-die for future democracy in the U.S. If for no other reason than this, the 2016 Presidential contests will be hugely important. If the poor come out in record numbers in the Democratic primaries and then, if Sanders wins the nomination, in the final election, then economic inequality in the U.S. will be reduced and equality of economic opportunity in the U.S. will increase, and so the future for the United States will be improvement. Otherwise, America's future will be grim, no matter how well America's top 0.1% will be living.

America has a huge problem; and, if it's ignored in 2016, as it has been ignored ever since Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980, then America will, virtually certainly, spiral down into hell.

The problem is real; it has to be grappled-with, now, or else. It's now, or it's never. That's the 2016 choice, for Americans — and, then, perhaps, for the rest of the world, and for all of the human future. That's what is at stake, in the 2016 U.S. elections. The data make this clear.

Israel-Palestine: Speeding Up The Countdown To Catastrophe

Alan Hart

Naftali Bennett

The man now calling the shots for Israel’s Palestine policy is not Prime Minister Netanyahu but Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Jewish Home party, who has declared and means that there are no circumstances in which he would ever agree to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Without the Jewish Home party’s participation Netanyahu would not have been able to construct a fragile and unstable coalition government with a majority of one in the Knesset. In other words it was Bennett who made it possible for Netanyahu to have a fourth term as prime minister and that gives him, Bennett, and the deluded and demented settlers he represents, a great deal of bargaining and blackmail power.

When Bennett presented his own plan for “managing” the Israel-Palestine conflict in 2012, he said, “I will do everything in my power to make sure they (the occupied and oppressed Palestinians) never have a state.”

In addition to pressing ahead with more and more illegal settlements, the essence of Bennett’s plan was the following.

* Israel annexes 62% of the occupied West Bank (Area C) and the Gaza Strip is transferred to Egypt.

* The remaining 38% of the occupied West Bank (Areas A and B) stays with the Palestinian Authority but under the security umbrella of the IDF and Israel’s other security services, this “to ensure quiet, suppress Palestinian terrorism and prevent Hamas from taking over the territory.”

* The Palestinians living in the annexed 62% will be offered Israeli citizenship or permanent residency status.

* Palestinians living outside the West Bank will not be allowed to move to it and there will be no connection between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

What the wheeling and dealing over seven weeks to form the latest coalition government tells us about the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Greater Israel was put into words by Ari Shavit in an opinion piece for Ha’aretz. His comments included the following.

QUOTE

Do we have a governance problem? We have a complete absence of governance. Is the administration weak? We have a vacuum, not an administration. Our political culture is sick and incapable of translating the popular will into a steady, functioning rule of the people that strives toward some horizon of hope… The situation of acute instability is appalling. The way things were run by the previous government and the way they’re run now – nothing can be done here… The way things have been run and are being run, it’s impossible to make peace or endure a war. It’s impossible to foment a social revolution, but also impossible to ensure economic growth. Our inferior political system has deteriorated even further, losing control.

UNQUOTE

Despite his recognition of the fact that control of Israel’s political system is now in the hands of Bennett and others who are at one with the settlers and their commitment to keeping most if not all of the occupied West Bank for ever, Shavit is not without some optimism for the future. The headline over his article was Israeli society isn’t extreme, so the center can still prevail.

The optimism reflected in that headline was based on Shavit’s analysis of how Israeli Jews had voted. He put it this way. “The unadulterated nationalist camp gained less than one-third of the vote, and the split ultra-Orthodox camp gained little more than one-tenth of the vote. So the majority in Israel apparently is still one that can be negotiated with. Maybe it’s still one with which one can build – or save – a country.”

The conclusion, he added, is clear. “Israel needs a sane, strong, worthy center like the air it breathes. Since Israeli society is not that extreme, it’s possible to establish a new center. Since Israel is already in crisis, it’s crucial to establish a new center.”

I agree 100% and then some with Shavit’s comment that Israel’s political culture is “sick”; but looking in from the outside I don’t share his optimism that if a new center was created it could succeed in generating majority support for peace on terms the Palestinians could accept with security for all.

Shavit may well be correct when he states that a majority of Israel’s Jews are not as extreme as Bennett and the others who are committed to keeping most if not all of the occupied West Bank for ever; but that is not the issue.

It is that most Israeli Jews, the vast majority of them, have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda to believe a version of history about the making and sustaining of the conflict which is simply not true. And the consequence of this brainwashing is that the vast majority of Israel’s Jews have closed minds on the matter of justice for the Palestinians and are beyond reason.

The proof that this is so is in the fact that the vast majority of Israel’s Jews cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that a terrible wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism and that this wrong must be righted if there is ever to be peace and security for all.

It follows that if a new political center for which Shavit is pleading was to be created, it would serve no purpose, change nothing, unless the policy it was advocating was constructed on an acknowledgement of the wrong done to the Palestinians by Zionism and the need for that wrong to be righted.

I can’t see that ever happening and my own conclusion is that change will not come, cannot come, from within Israel.

And that puts me in complete agreement with Mitchell Plitnick who concluded his latest article in the following way.

QUOTE

It has never been clearer that positive change in Israel is going to require some sort of meaningful action by the United States and/or Europe. If that does not come and it does not seem to be on the horizon, disaster looms.

UNQUOTE

As I have written and said on numerous occasions, the disaster waiting for its time to happen will most likely be in two phases – a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine followed by Holocaust II, my shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere. The latter will be the consequence of the transformation of the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism provoked by the Zionist state’s policies and actions into anti-Semitism.

Mitchell Plitnick and other Jewish critics of Israel’s policies and actions seem to believe that meaningful pressure by America and Europe would cause a majority of Israel’s Jews to open their minds to the need for peace on terms the Palestinians could accept. It might but it could also be counter-productive. How? By re-confirming most brainwashed Israelis in their belief that Zionism has always been correct in its assertion that the world hates Jews and everything and anything must therefore to be done to preserve Israel as a refuge of last resort for all Jews everywhere. And that, of course, would be a mandate for Israel’s leaders to tell the whole world to go to hell.

At the time of writing I see no reason for optimism. And that’s why I believe my headline for this article is appropriate.

A Thirst For Economic Change?

Erik Alm

I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it. –John Stuart Mill, On the Stationary State

In the face of global resource shortages and the alarming rate at which we are losing species, many of us share the hope that J.S. Mill so ominously communicates in one of his better-known quotes. But what will it take to catalyze the shift to an economic state that respects our natural boundaries? Perhaps the catalyst could be a life-altering dearth of a critical resource that, until recently, most of us in the United States have taken for granted: water.

The idea that a water shortage like the one California is currently facing could cool the economic engines that have elevated the state to the eighth-largest economy in the world has been discussed in local media and state government offices alike. The Desert Sun, a paper serving the rapidly-growing Coachella Valley in the southern part of the state, recently posed the question of whether water worries will slow development in the valley. The New York Times expressed its worries about California’s continuing economic vigor by stating the drought “. . . is forcing a reconsideration of whether the aspiration of untrammeled growth that has for so long been this state’s driving engine has run against the limits of nature.”

Replying to questions like these, the head of the State Water Resources Control Board, Felicia Marcus, says “We have a long way to go before we have tapped out our resources,” and prospects for economic growth are still as bright as ever. The non-partisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office reinforces this view in a brief report released in mid-April. Citing a recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists, the report concludes “. . . we currently do not expect the drought to have a significant effect on statewide economic activity or state government revenues.”

Many of these rosy economic predictions rely upon hopeful qualifiers such as assuming the drought will be short-lived, that the recently imposed water restrictions will not be expanded, or that water districts will continue to receive adequate allocations from the State Water Project. These assumptions may prove to be overly optimistic.

Surface water, which normally covers 60% of the state’s demand, is predicted to be in even worse shape this year due to the lack of snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. California’s State Water Project, which distributes this water throughout the state, supplying drinking water to more than 23 million people and helping to irrigate agricultural lands in the Central Valley, was able to deliver to water districts only 5% of their contracted amounts in 2014. Another important source of surface water, the Colorado River, is also showing the effects of extreme drought with Lake Powell, the system’s biggest reservoir, below 45% of its capacity.

Groundwater, which is used to supply the other 40% of the state’s demands, and up to 60% during times of inadequate surface flows, faces similar stresses. “The withdrawals far outstrip the replenishment. We can’t keep doing this” says Jay Famiglietti, a NASA scientist who studies water supplies in California. The recent well-drilling boom that is providing California farmers with at least a temporary solution to their water woes seems to be adding urgency to his words.

As the search for additional water becomes more desperate, some have been thirstily eyeing the amount allocated to ecosystems. California’s Department of Water Resources estimates that 50% of the state’s water is used by the environment, 40% by agriculture, and 10% by urban users. Even with a quarter of the state’s native freshwater fishes being listed as either threatened or endangered and many more headed in the same direction, some interest groups have advocated reducing environmental water allocations, even at the peril of critical habitats.

This “people versus fish” debate is largely due to a misunderstanding about the way the environmental use statistic is calculated. Most of the water “used by the environment” flows in state and federally protected rivers in the sparsely populated North Coast where there are few alternative uses. In the majority of the state, environmental use of water is far from dominant at 33%, with agriculture accounting for 53% and urban users at 14%. Noting the dramatic devastation that California wetlands have suffered over the last 150 years, including the loss of Tulare and Owens Lakes and the removal of 95% of the native vegetation along Central Valley creeks and rivers, the state appears determined to allocate more water to natural systems. A 2014 bond measure approved up to $200 million to acquire water rights for environmental use and funding mechanisms for restoration of wetlands are also being sought.

Another hope for increased water security is desalination. Plants similar to the one in Santa Barbara, CA, which is being restarted after years of laying idle, have been used to provide a technological solution to water shortages in some parched and energy-rich parts of the world. However, due to high initial capital costs, stringent permitting requirements, huge energy demands, potential environmental harm, and a final product that is more than four-times as expensive as surface water (and nearly double the cost of building a water recycling system), it seems unlikely that desalination will be able to make up for the increasing shortfalls that our current trajectory of growth will bring.

In an apparent public admission that the state has no viable ideas for increasing supply, on the first of April, like a bad joke, Governor Brown called for the state’s first ever mandatory water use restrictions. “Folks realize we have now reached the limits of supply, so the focus is on demand.” says Heather Cooley, water program director for the Pacific Institute, a water-resources research group in Oakland, CA. Proposals for reducing demand range from increasing water efficiency to $10,000 fines for residents and businesses caught being wasteful. However, some people have pointed out the hypocrisy of the water restrictions. Craig Ewing, president of the Desert Water Agency which serves Palm Springs and other communities, has heard it often, “The public is faster to react to these things than governmental institutions, and so the public is already saying, ‘Why are we seeing new development when we’re being asked to cut back?’ And the governments are going to be slower to figure out, ‘Well, how do we deal with all of this?’”

Currently, many proposed policies that could effectively stem our water problems are immediately discarded as unworkable because they are seen as anti-growth. Temporary building moratoria for areas without a secure water source are a case in point. However, if the public were better informed about the negative consequences to their quality of life from policies that support continued growth even in the face of critical resource shortages, perhaps they would favor policies with growth-curbing corollaries instead. Unfortunately, for some in the state, like those in East Porterville whose homes are currently without any running water at all, the choice of whether or not to grow their community has been obviated. Their focus now is firmly fixed on survival.

Shangal, The Land Of Legends In Chains

Zanyar Omrani

Shangal city from over the mountains

Today I came across a sort of wild plant in a local bazaar in Dirik, a plant frequently seen in every corner of Shangal. Before heading toward Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan), I spent some days in the heart of Mesopotamia among endless legends. Here is Shangal, a city which has seen many previous assaults by jihadists, according to its people.

Legends permeate every aspect of Yezidi people’s lives, be it in the town or in the front lines fighting ISIS. They have a legend for every event, but what drew my attention was a plant called ‘komi’, which is holy for Yezidis.

There was heavy rain on my first night in Shangal Mountains, accompanied by the storm before long. There were Guevara, Berxodan, and I huddling in a white 3-person tent which was part of the training camp of the newly established Shangal Protection Units (YBŞ). Guevara joked with Berxodan, “Please telephone God and tell Him we’re trapped by heavy train in Shangal Mountains, and we cannot stand more disasters to come.” Berxodan did not seem to be very upset about the rain, “I hope it goes on raining, so we can have komi tomorrow.” Besides Shangal Mountains, komi can be found in some limited parts of Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan), where it is called ‘dimblan’.

Cooked komi

I got to know that the season for komi is approaching its end when I saw this delicious food again in the bazaar of Dirik, so I decided to document my observations in Shangal before the end of komi. This plant looks like potatoes in color but it is smaller in size, and it gets as soft as mushrooms after it is cooked. Depending on the weather, it usually starts to sprout in late February, and it can be collected for a period of one month. Komi is usually boiled, toasted, or mixed with oil from farm animals and served with fried tomatoes. Tirizh, a Yezidi teenaged from Shangal, believed that Komi was “healing food”, and it strengthened eyesight. This wild plant is a great source of nutrition for the Yezidis and, in case of rainy seasons, it will lay claim to the bazaars of the Kurdish Region cities and towns, too.

On a rainy morning, Kamal Jundi and I headed toward Shangal Mountains to find some komi. This time, an AK 47 had replaced 25 friends who used to accompany him on such day trips. Kamal used a sharp knife-like device to uproot the Komi without hurting it. He believed that success in finding Komi depended on the person’s “risq”, their quota designated for them by divine providence”, rather than skill or good eyesight. It seemed that Kamal’s risq was a big share, as he collected 2 klios of komi. He said, “There is more komi in mountainous areas with little fertility compared to the fertile areas with lots of trees and plants, where it is more difficult to spot.” Komi, if large in size, can be sold for 12 thousand Iraqi dinars for each kilo, and the small ones 6 to 8 thousand for each kilo.

Yezidis love komi, and even the last year atrocities have not made them give up on this plant. Dersim Rojhelat, a member of the PKK training team, joking on their love for komi, said, “We have to try for one week to have them attend a short session, but if the rain lingers on for some time, you can’t find a soul in the mountain skirts.” Dersim added that some people got injured while collecting komi this year because ISIS had mined some parts of the mountains.

It’s not clear why this plant has been named “komi”, although there are some stories about this in the local oral tradition. Faqir is the second level of importance in the Yezidi religion hierarchy, and Faqir Jardo told me about a legend regarding the origin of komi. “According to a Yezidi myth, Mir Ibrahim Adma, a high-ranking cleric, would say the Qawls (Yezidi prayers) every early morning while facing the sunrise. One day a gazelle passed by when he was saying prayers. Mir Ibrahim was going to hunt the gazelle, but suddenly the gazelle spoke to him and asked him to let her go to the valley, where her babies were waiting to be fed, promising she would be back soon. The gazelle asked for 3 hours, one to get to her babies, one to feed them, and one to come back to Mir Ibrahim.

Mir Ibrahim agreed. The gazelle starts running toward the valley with breasts full of milk, which is leaking on the ground. She tells the story to her babies and they refuse to drink from the milk, insisting that the mom should not keep Mir Ibrahim waiting. The mom dashed to where Mir Ibrahim was waiting, who was surprised at the gazelle’s hurried return. Realizing the reason for the gazelle’s return without feeding the babies, Mir Ibrahim changed his mind about hunting the gazelle, telling the gazelle he would not hunt her, since the babies had understood and appreciated the true nature of his character. Thus, due to the milk drops from the gazelle on Shangal’s land, and God’s making a miracle out of it, there came into being a plant bestowed to Yezidis, which did not need seeds to grow.”

Now it was time for me to try this mysterious food. One by one they entered the tent used at eating times. The last one to join the komi lovers was a tall guy from the Shangal Protection Units. He said he joined in with people collecting and eating komi every year. He laid his gun and when he had the first parcel in his hand, I asked him what he thought of komi, the answer to which was short and quick, precluding any details, “Delicious.” I asked for details and he abruptly said, “Why are you stuck in komi and not talking about the catastrophe that happened to the people of Shangal?”

Before the Farman or after the Farman?

Whatever they may be talking about, a question follows, “Before the Farman or after the Farman?” Two mainly Kurdish populated towns, Shangal and Zumar, fell into the hands of ISIS in their quick advances in Iraq. 6000 Yezidis were killed by ISIS and 12000 more are missing, and the rest fled to safer cities. “Farman” is the word Yezidis use to refer to a genocide committed against them, and their history talks of more than 70 Farmans. Thousands of them were saved by YPG and YPJ forces, Kurdish military forces who have been fighting ISIS in Syria. After the Shangal massacre, YPG (People’s Protection Units) the military wing of the Democratic Union of Syrian Kurdistan, together with PKK guerrillas and the Peshmerga opened a new front against ISIS to liberate Shangal.

Some Yezidis fled to the Shangal Mountains to escape from the ISIS attacks. Many died on the mountains due to hunger, thirst, and lack of hygienic and medical facilities. Khodida, a Yezidi from Shangal, told me that, “The majority of the Arab tribes of the region consider us to be ‘najis’ (dirty), and they joined ISIS against us the moment ISIS took in.” Khodida said that ISIS forces had destroyed the important buildings of every town and city they had set foot in, and mined the important roads and especially the bridges.

PKK's Guerrilla in Frontline

I talked to many Yezidis during my stay in Shangal , and what they all agreed on as to the ISIS attacks was they all believed that Islamists attacking Yezidis is not something new. I asked Barakat for more explanation, “All of the four Rashudin Caliphs have attacked the Yezidi land and the traces of these attacks can be seen in our legends.” It is also recorded in Yezidis’ legends that “Gilgamesh and Sassanid kings have committed farmans, too.” According to the people of Shangal, they have once had a population of 84 millions, which has declined due to 74 farmans during the course of history. Most of the people of Shangal, both those I met in Erbil and those whose stories I listened to in Shangal, had a one common complaint. They said that the Peshmerga did not feel impelled to defend the Yezidis, but the timely interference of the YPG and the PKK to open a human corridor to save a great number of them had enormously increased the popularity of these two parties among Yezidis.

There is no end to stories and legends here. Rasho, a member of the Shangal Protection Units, who, like his fellow-believers, has a strong faith in legends, especially those told in the Mushaf Rash (the Black Book), a holy book for Yezidis, says, “It is predicted in Yezidis’ book that one day a group of people similar to the early Islam muslims will attack the Yezidis and some people from the mountains will rush to Yezidis’ rescue. Now we can believe that the people from the mountain, which have been referred to in our ancient scriptures, are the PKK guerrillas who came from the Qandil Mountains.

Interestingly, most Yezidis have problem pronouncing ‘PKK’, and they say it like ‘PPK’. The ISIS attacks facilitated the military presence of different Kurdish parties in the region. While looking for komi in Shangla mountains, we had time to have a bird’s-eye view over the green mountain skirts and the meadows. Each party’s flag shows the area they control; we can say the PDK (Kurdistan Democratic Party) and PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) Peshmerga control areas from Duhok to Shangal, and PKK guerrillas are in the mountainous areas of Shangal.

Contrary to claims made by PDK and PUK media, the majority of Shangal is still controlled by ISIS, and only the older part of the town, which makes 20 percent of it, is controlled by Kurdish forces. When I talked to Yezidis about the presence of different Kurdish forces, you could notice some distrust toward the Kurdish parties. They said, “We have fallen victim to their conspiracies.” The town seems calm from afar. Kamal, a young man from Shangal, is viewing the town with eyes full of regret, saying “There is no risk greater than returning to your hometown.”