On 2 November 2008, the New York Times Magazine headlined “Questions for James K. Galbraith: The Populist,” which was an “Interview by Deborah Solomon” of the prominent liberal economist and son of John Kenneth Galbraith. She asked him, “There are at least 15,000 professional economists in this country, and you’re saying only two or three of them foresaw the mortgage crisis” which had brought on the second Great Depression?

He answered: “Ten or twelve would be closer than two or three.”

She very appropriately followed up immediately with “What does this say about the field of economics, which claims to be a science?”

He didn’t answer by straight-out saying that economics isn’t any more of a science than physics was before Galileo, or than biology was before Darwin. He didn’t proceed to explain that the very idea of a Nobel Prize in Economics was based upon a lie which alleged that economics was the first field to become scientific within all of the “social sciences,” when, in fact, there weren’t yet any social sciences, none yet at all. But he came close to admitting these things, when he said: “It’s an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.” His term “useless” was a euphemism for false. His term “blot” was a euphemism for “nullification.”

On 9 January 2009, economist Jeff Madrick headlined at The Daily Beast, “How the Entire Economics Profession Failed,” and he opened:

At the annual meeting of American Economists, most everyone refused to admit their failures to prepare or warn about the second worst crisis of the century.

I could find no shame in the halls of the San Francisco Hilton, the location at the annual meeting of American economists. Mainstream economists from major universities dominate the meetings, and some of them are the anointed cream of the crop, including former Clinton, Bush and even Reagan advisers.

There was no session on the schedule about how the vast majority of economists should deal with their failure to anticipate or even seriously warn about the possibility that the second worst economic crisis of the last hundred years was imminent.

I heard no calls to reform educational curricula because of a crisis so threatening and surprising that it undermines, at least if the academicians were honest, the key assumptions of the economic theory currently being taught. …

I found no one fundamentally changing his or her mind about the value of economics, economists, or their work.”

He observed a scandalous profession of quacks who are satisfied to remain quacks. The public possesses faith in them because it possesses faith in the “invisible hand” of God, and everyone is taught to believe in that from the crib. In no way is it science.

In a science, when facts prove that the theory is false, the theory gets replaced, it’s no longer taught. In a scholarly field, however, that’s not so — proven-false theory continues being taught. In economics, the proven-false theory continued being taught, and still continues today to be taught. This demonstrates that economics is still a religion or some other type of philosophy, not yet any sort of science.

Mankind is still coming out of the Dark Ages. The Bible is still being viewed as history, not as myth (which it is), not as some sort of religious or even political propaganda. It makes a difference — a huge difference: the difference between truth and falsehood.

The Dutch economist Dirk J. Bezemer, at Groningen University, posted on 16 June 2009 a soon-classic paper, “‘No One Saw This Coming’: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models,” in which he surveyed the work of 12 economists who did see it (the economic collapse of 2008) coming; and he found there that they had all used accounting or “Flow of Funds” models, instead of the standard microeconomic theory. (In other words: they accounted for, instead of ignored, debts.) From 2005 through 2007, these accounting-based economists had published specific and accurate predictions of what would happen: Dean Baker, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Stephen (“Steve”) Keen, Jakob B. Madsen, Jens K. Sorensen, Kurt Richebaecher, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Robert Shiller.

He should have added several others. Paul Krugman, wrote a NYT column on 12 August 2005 headlined “Safe as Houses” and he said “Houses aren’t safe at all” and that they would likely decline in price. On 25 August 2006, he bannered “Housing Gets Ugly” and concluded “It’s hard to see how we can avoid a serious slowdown.” Bezemer should also have included Merrill Lynch’s Chief North American Economist, David A. Rosenberg, whose The Market Economist article “Rosie’s Housing Call August 2004” on 6 August 2004 already concluded, “The housing sector has entered a ‘bubble’ phase,” and who presented a series of graphs showing it. Bezemer should also have included Satyajit Das, about whom TheStreet had headlined on 21 September 21 2007, “The Credit Crisis Could Be Just Beginning.” He should certainly have included Ann Pettifor, whose 2003 The Real World Economic Outlook, and her masterpiece the 2006 The Coming First World Debt Crisis, predicted exactly what happened and why. Her next book, the 2009 The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers, was almost a masterpiece, but it failed to present any alternative to the existing microeconomic theory — as if microeconomic theory isn’t a necessary part of economic theory. Another great economist he should have mentioned was Charles Hugh Smith, who had been accurately predicting since at least 2005 the sequence of events that culminated in the 2008 collapse. And Bezemer should especially have listed the BIS’s chief economist, William White, regarding whom Germany’s Spiegel headlined on 8 July 2009, “Global Banking Economist Warned of Coming Crisis.” (It is about but doesn’t mention nor link to https://www.bis.org/publ/work147.pdf.) White had been at war against the policies of America’s Fed chief Alan Greenspan ever since 1998, and especially since 2003, but the world’s aristocrats muzzled White’s view and promoted Greenspan’s instead. (The economics profession have always been propagandists for the super-rich.) Bezemer should also have listed Charles R. Morris, who in 2007 told his publisher Peter Osnos that the crash would start in Summer 2008, which was basically correct. Moreover, James K. Galbraith had written for years saying that a demand-led depression would result, such as in his American Prospect “How the Economists Got It Wrong,” 30 November 2002; and “Bankers Versus Base,” 15 April 2004, and culminating finally in his 2008 The Predator State, which blamed the aristocracy in the strongest possible terms for the maelstrom to come. Bezemer should also have listed Barry Ritholtz, who, in his “Recession Predictor,” on 18 August 2005, noted the optimistic view of establishment economists and then said, “I disagree … due to Psychology of consumers.” He noted “consumer debt, not as a percentage of GDP, but relative to net asset wealth,” and also declining “median personal income,” as pointing toward a crash from this mounting debt-overload. Then, on 31 May 2006, he headlined “Recent Housing Data: Charts & Analysis,” and opened: “It has long been our view that Real Estate is the prime driver of this economy, and its eventual cooling will be a major crimp in GDP, durable goods, and consumer spending.” Bezemer should also have listed both Paul Kasriel and Asha Bangalore at Northern Trust. Kasriel headlined on 22 May 2007, “US Economy May Wake Up Without Consumers’ Prodding?” and said it wouldn’t happen – and consumers were too much in debt. Then on 8 August 2007, he bannered: “US Economic Growth in Domestic Final Demand,” and said that “the housing recession is … spreading to other parts of the economy.” On 25 May 2006, Bangalore headlined “Housing Market Is Cooling Down, No Doubts About It.” and that was one of two Asha Bangalore articles which were central to Ritholtz’s 31 May 2006 article showing that all of the main indicators pointed to a plunge in house-prices that had started in March 2005; so, by May 2006, it was already clear from the relevant data, that a huge economic crash was comning soon. Another whom Bezemer should have listed was L. Randall Wray, whose 2005 Levy Economics Institute article, “The Ownership Society: Social Security Is Only the Beginning” asserted that it was being published “at the peak of what appears to be a real estate bubble.” Bezemer should also have listed Paul B. Farrell, columnist at marketwatch.com, who saw practically all the correct signs, in his 26 June 2005 “Global Megabubble? You Decide. Real Estate Is Only Tip of Iceberg; or Is It?”; and his 17 July 2005 “Best Strategies to Beat the Megabubble: Real Estate Bubble Could Trigger Global Economic Meltdown”; and his 9 January 2006 “Meltdown in 2006? Cast Your Vote”; and 15 May 2006 “Party Time (Until Real Estate Collapses)”; and his 21 August 2006 “Tipping Point Pops Bubble, Triggers Bear: Ten Warnings the Economy, Markets Have Pushed into Danger Zone”; and his 30 July 2007 “You Pick: Which of 20 Tipping Points Ignites Long Bear Market?” Farrell’s commentaries also highlighted the same reform-recommendations that most of the others did, such as Baker, Keen, Pettifor, Galbraith, Ritholtz, and Wray; such as break up the mega-banks, and stiffen regulation of financial institutions. However, the vast majority of academically respected economists disagreed with all of this and were wildly wrong in their predictions, and in their analyses. The Nobel Committee should have withdrawn their previous awards in economics to still-practicing economists (except to Krugman who did win a Nobel) and re-assigned them to these 25 economists, who showed that they had really deserved it.

And there was another: economicpredictions.org tracked four economists who predicted correctly the 2008 crash: Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Med Jones, the latter of whom had actually the best overall record regarding the predictions that were tracked there.

And still others should also be on the list: for example, Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider headlined on 21 November 2012, “The Genius Who Invented Economics Blogging Reveals How He Got Everything Right And What’s Coming Next” and he interviewed Bill McBride, who had started his calculated riskblog in January 2005. So I looked in the archives there at December 2005, and noticed December 28th, “Looking Forward: 2006 Top Economic Stories.” He started there with four trends that he expected everyone to think of, and then listed another five that weren’t so easy, including “Housing Slowdown. In my opinion, the Housing Bubble was the top economic story of 2005, but I expect the slowdown to be a form of Chinese water torture. Sales for both existing and new homes will probably fall next year from the records set in 2005. And median prices will probably increase slightly, with declines in the more ‘heated markets.’” McBride also had predicted that the economic rebound would start in 2009, and he was now, in 2012, predicting a strong 2013. Probably Joe Weisenthal was right in calling McBride a “Genius.”

And also, Mike Whitney at InformationClearinghouse.info and other sites, headlined on 20 November 2006, “Housing Bubble Smack-Down,” and he nailed the credit-boom and Fed easy-money policy as the cause of the housing bubble and the source of an imminent crash.

Furthermore, Ian Welsh headlined on 28 November 2007, “Looking Forward At the Consequences of This Bubble Bursting,” and listed 10 features of the crash to come, of which 7 actually happened.

In addition, Gail Tverberg, an actuary, headlined on 9 January 2008 “Peak Oil and the Financial Markets: A Forecast for 2008,” and provided the most detailed of all the prescient descriptions of the collapse that would happen that year.

Furthermore, Gary Shilling’s January 2007 Insight newsletter listed “12 investment themes” which described perfectly what subsequently happened, starting with “The housing bubble has burst.”

And the individual investing blogger Jesse Colombo started noticing the housing bubble even as early as 6 September 2004, blogging at his stock-market-crash.net “The Housing Bubble” and documenting that it would happen (“Here is the evidence that we are in a massive housing bubble:”) and what the economic impact was going to be. Then on 7 February 2006 he headlined “The Coming Crash!” and said “Based on today’s overvalued housing prices, a 20 percent crash is certainly in the cards.”

Also: Stephanie Pomboy of MacroMavens issued an analysis and appropriate graphs on 7 December 2007, headlined “When Animals Attack” and predicting imminently a huge economic crash.

In alphabetical order, they are: Dean Baker, Asha Bangalore, Jesse Colombo, Satyajit Das, Paul B. Farrell, James K. Galbraith, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Med Jones, Paul Kasriel, Steve Keen, Paul Krugman, Jakob B. Madsen, Bill McBride, Charles R. Morris, Ann Pettifor, Stehanie Pomboy, Kurt Richebaeker, Barry Ritholtz, David A. Rosenberg, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, Robert Shiller, Gary Shilling, Charles Hugh Smith, Jens K. Sorensen, Gail Tverberg, Ian Welsh, William White, Mike Whitney, L. Randall Wray.

Thus, at least 33 economists were contenders as having been worth their salt as economic professionals. One can say that only 33 economists predicted the 2008 collapse, or that only 33 economists predicted accurately or reasonably accurately the collapse. However, some of those 33 were’t actually professional economists. So, some of the world’s 33 best economists aren’t even professional economists, as accepted in that rotten profession.

So, the few honest and open-eyed economists (these 33, at least) tried to warn the world. Did the economics profession honor them for their having foretold the 2008 collapse? Did President Barack Obama hire them, and fire the incompetents he had previously hired for his Council of Economic Advisers? Did the Nobel Committee acknowledge that it had given Nobel Economics Prizes to the wrong people, including people such as the conservative Milton Friedman whose works were instrumental in causing the 2008 crash? Also complicit in causing the 2008 crash was the multiple-award-winning liberal economist Lawrence Summers, who largely agreed with Friedman but was nonetheless called a liberal. Evidently, the world was too corrupt for any of these 33 to reach such heights of power or of authority. Like Galbraith had said at the close of his 2002 “How the Economists Got It Wrong“: “Being right doesn’t count for much in this club.” If anything, being right means being excluded from such posts. In an authentically scientific field, the performance of one’s predictions (their accuracy) is the chief (if not SOLE) determinant of one’s reputation and honor amongst the profession, but that’s actually not the way things yet are in any of the social “sciences,” including economics; they’re all just witch-doctory, not yet real science. The fraudulence of these fields is just ghastly. In fact, as Steve Keen scandalously noted in Chapter 7 of his 2001 Debunking Economics: “As this book shows, economics [theory] is replete with logical inconsistencies.” In any science, illogic is the surest sign of non-science, but it is common and accepted in the social ‘sciences’, including economics. The economics profession itself is garbage, a bad joke, instead of any science at all.

These 33 were actually only candidates for being scientific economists, but I have found the predictions of some of them to have been very wrong on some subsequent matters of economic performance. For example, the best-known of the 33, Paul Krugman, is a “military Keynesian” — a liberal neoconservative (and military Keynesianism is empirically VERY discredited: false worldwide, and false even in the country that champions it, the U.S.) — and he is unfavorable toward the poor, and favorable toward the rich; so, he is acceptable to the Establishment.) Perhaps a few of these 33 economists (perhaps half of whom aren’t even members of the economics profession) ARE scientific (in their underlying economic beliefs — their operating economic theory) if a scientific economics means that it’s based upon a scientific theory of economics — a theory that is derived not from any opinions but only from the relevant empirical data. Although virtually all of the 33 are basically some sort of Keynesian, even that (Keynes’s theory) isn’t a full-fledged theory of economics (it has many vagaries, and it has no microeconomics). The economics profession is still a field of philosophy, instead of a field of science.

The last chapter of my America’s Empire of Evil presents what I believe to be the first-ever scientific theory of economics, a theory that replaces all of microeconomic theory (including a micro that’s integrated with its macro) and is consistent with Keynes in macroeconomic theory; and all of which theory is derived and documented from only the relevant empirical economic data — NOT from anyone’s opinions. The economics profession think that replacing existing economic theory isn’t necessary after the crash of 2008, but I think it clearly IS necessary (because — as that chapter of my book shows — all of the relevant empirical economic data CONTRADICT the existing economic theory, ESPECIALLY the existing microeconomic theory).

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

Mothers’ Day is rarely more than the draw and pull of extracted business and mined guilt. This is the worshipped and leveraged, the human breeder elevated and remembered, if only for one day. It resembles, in some ways, the link between poverty and the church box of charity. Give a few coins and save the child. Your conscience can rest easy.

The day itself denigrates the mother in false respect and guilts the family for ignorance of that fact. It sanctifies a family relation for reasons of commercial worth. Suddenly, Mummy escapes her metaphorical sarcophagus, the nursing home, the flat, and finds herself seated at the end of a table with regrets. The hideous spectacle follows. The grumbling, the sneers. Mummy wonders what she is doing there. Monument? Reminder? A disgusting reminder to die off? Thoughts turn to the will.

It was not necessarily intended that way. In the aftermath of the American Civil War (1861-65), Julia Ward Howe, author of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, proposed that women unite in common cause and promote peace. In time, it would become the Mother’s Day Proclamation. In 1908, the idea became more concrete with West Virginian Anna Marie Jarvis’s church memorial in honour of her mother, Ann Reeves Jarvis.  Ann Jarvis had been a committed peace activist, aiding wounded soldiers during the Civil War.

On May 9, 1914, US President Woodrow Wilson officially announced the establishment of Mother’s Day as a national observance to be held annually on the second Sunday of May. Such observance was to involve the display of the American flag on government buildings and private residences “as a public expression of our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.”

Mother’s Day in Australia only took off with Sydney’s Janet Heyden, who insisted in 1924 on remembering the aging mothers at Newington State Hospital, many of whom had been widowed by the calamitous slaughter of the First World War.  As an activist, she encouraged local schools and businesses to furnish the ladies with donated gifts.  In its more modern iteration, it has evolved into a family affair.  As Australian historian Richard Waterhouse benignly describes it, “It’s not just about recognising the role of mothers, though that’s still there, but it’s really recognising Mother’s Day as a day in which families can get together.”

As with other days of elected memory, Mother’s Day draws in the retail and restaurant dollars.  Guilty emotions are easy fodder for the capitalist impulse.  Unremarkably, it was the United States that propelled its commercialisation, beginning with card companies like Hallmark and enterprising florists keen to make a profit.  Jarvis, so instrumental in establishing the tradition, took to loathing it, attacking such marketing gimmicks as “Mother’s Day Salad”.  For years, she harangued politicians, organised protests, and sought audiences with presidents to arrest the trend towards commodification.  Such efforts eventually exhausted her, leading to a lonely, poor death in a sanatorium.

Even as the Second World War raged, the scope of merchandise in anticipation of the day burgeoned.  An April 1941 issue of New York’s Women’s Wear Daily notes how “Mother’s Day as a gift event has continued to grow in importance, and is now second only to Christmas”.  In Dallas, one Margaret Evans, promotion manager of A. Harris & Co., enthused at the growing number of departments offering gift choices for the occasion.  These included bags, gloves, hosiery, handkerchiefs, toiletries, and jewellery.

Eventually, women’s libbers cottoned on to the idea that a commemorative occasion supposedly emphasising the importance of mothers had been hijacked and shamelessly exploited.  In 1971, a pamphlet issued by the Adelaide women’s liberationists suggested that the woman remained invisible, a chained martyr to the home, a slave to domestic chores, and the cult of domesticity.  Mother’s Day was that one occasion of the year that a woman’s invaluable role in the home was acknowledged, and even then, only imperfectly.  Such a mother’s “basic needs”, including a degree of independence from their children, remained unmet.  But the pamphlet went further, arguing that women “renounce [their] martyrdom” and reenvisage themselves as human beings and “not just ‘mum’.”

The nexus with children was also a point of comment in that decade.  Radical feminist Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution took solid aim at the distorting role played by parenting and mothering in the formation of children. Implicit in her argument was that both the mother and the child needed emancipation.  It remains a pertinent point, even as the swamp of commercialisation looks deeper than ever.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The lawsuit, which also includes pollster J. Ann Selzer and her polling firm, alleges that the poll amounted to “brazen election interference.”

“The lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and Gannett is the latest in a series of legal attacks that President-elect Donald Trump has filed against media organizations,” said CPJ U.S., Canada, and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Using the courts to go after political enemies and silence what he perceives as unflattering narratives is concerning behavior from the president-elect. Journalists and news organizations must be free to do their jobs and cover the news without constant fear of legal retaliation from those they are covering.”

Trump has repeatedly stated that he intends to use the courts to go after those who he believes have wronged him, including journalists and media outlets. ABC News last week agreed to pay a $15 million settlement in a defamation suit Trump filed against the network, along with an additional $1 million in legal fees.

The president-elect has previously filed suit against major news outlets in retaliation for coverage he views as unfair. In October, Trump filed suit in a Texas court against CBS over an interview the network aired with then-Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. He has also sued the Pulitzer Board in relation to a prize it issued for reporting on the 2016 election.

CPJ has detailed what’s at stake with Trump’s litigious approach to silencing journalists and outlets whose coverage he does not like in its recent U.S. election report.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The Arakan Army, or AA, is fighting for self-determination in Myanmar’s western-most state and has made unprecedented progress over the past year, pushing forces loyal to the junta that seized power in 2021 into a few pockets of territory.

Residents of Ann, which is 220 km (135 miles) west of the capital, Naypyidaw, said the AA had seized the junta’s last posts in the Myo Thit, Lay Yin Kwin, Aut Ywar and Ah Hta Ka neighborhoods by Saturday, taking complete control of the town.

“The Arakan Army has captured the entire town except the Western Command headquarters,‘’ one resident told Radio Free Asia.

“Junta forces from their battalion areas captured by AA have gone to gather at the headquarters and are defending there,” said the resident, who declined to be identified for safety reasons.

The military had fired at the advancing insurgents, setting fires in some of the town’s neighborhoods but the extent of the damage was not known, said the resident, adding he had no information about casualties in the fighting.

AA fighters were now trying to seize the military headquarters on the southern side of Ann, where the defenders were being supported by extensive airstrikes, residents said.

“The junta is protecting the Western Command day and night with massive firing from the air,” said the resident, who declined to be identified for safety reasons.

Only a few civilians had remained in Ann and the AA had taken them to safety so the town was now empty, the resident said.

“There are people staying in the forest in shelters they’ve made waiting to go home if the situation improves,” the resident said.

RFA tried to telephone AA spokesperson Khing Thukha, as well as military council spokesman Hla Thein to ask about the situation but neither of them answered phone calls.

RELATED STORIES

EXPLAINED: What is Myanmar’s Arakan Army?

A year after offensive, rebels control most of Myanmar’s Rakhine state

Myanmar rebels capture town on main road to Chinese-built port

The AA, which largely draws its support from the state’s Buddhist majority, has made steady advances over the past year, from the state’s far north on the border with Bangladesh, through central areas to its far south, and it now controls about 80% of it.

On Nov. 20, the insurgents captured the town of Toungup in the centre of the state, which is on a road hub including a link to the the Kyaukpyu economic zone on the coast, where China is funding a deep-sea port, and has energy facilities including natural gas and oil pipelines running to southern China.

Residents said that AA was attacking the military’s Number 5 Operation Command headquarters, to the south of Toungup on the road to the town of Thandwe.

In the far south of the state, fighting is getting closer to the junta-controlled town of Gwa township, residents there said.

The AA has fully captured 10 of Rakhine state’s 17 townships as well as Paletwa township in neighboring Chin state.

Edited by RFA Staff

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese.

“I have been walking the halls of Congress every day since October, going to rallies every weekend, writing letters of outrage to President Biden every night–and nothing has worked to stop Israel from murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent people. What more can I do? I can go on this flotilla to try to break the criminal siege that Israel has imposed on Gaza,” said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin.

“President Biden waited six months, waited until 33,000 had been killed, mostly women and children, before picking up the phone and demanding that Netanyahu reduce civilian harm, allow more aid in, and protect aid workers,” said CODEPINK Ret. Army Colonel and former U.S. Diplomat Ann Wright. “But even if Israel allows more humanitarian aid in, it is still bombing Gaza with U.S. bombs, shooting innocent people and imprisoning the 2.2 million people that live in Gaza. Getting humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza is urgent, but it is not sufficient. We must end Israel’s unlawful, deadly blockade as well as Israel’s overall control of Gaza. That’s why we need this flotilla, filled with unarmed civilians, human rights observers from 30 countries, to challenge Israel’s brutal grip on the Gaza strip.”

Israel's longstanding neglect of its responsibility as an occupying power to safeguard the health and wellbeing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank has escalated into genocidal actions, including using starvation as a weapon of war. Israeli leaders have openly declared intentions to collectively punish Gaza's population. The Freedom Flotilla opposes Israel's authority over aid and will refuse any inspection of our cargo. For safety and effective aid distribution, the flotilla will deploy numerous international humanitarian observers from diverse backgrounds and countries.

Despite air drops of food and temporary docks, Israel continues to block thousands of aid trucks from entering Gaza through land crossings. The International Court of Justice's rulings on January 26 and March 28 emphasize Israel's obligation to ensure the safety and security of Palestinians in Gaza, including facilitating humanitarian assistance without obstruction.

"The International Court of Justice's preliminary measures ordered against Israel are very clear," comments Ismail Moola of South Africa's Palestine Solidarity Alliance, which is part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition. "The court's ruling requires the whole world to play their part to stop the genocide unfolding in Gaza, including unobstructed access to vital aid. While our governments fail to lead in these urgently required humanitarian responses, people of conscience and our grassroots organizations must act to take leadership. When governments fail, we sail!"

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition is a non-partisan international coalition of campaigns that stand for freedom and human rights in Palestine. They have sailed since 2010 with the goal of breaking the blockade of Gaza, and in solidarity with Palestinians cries for freedom and equality. Their non-violent direct action missions support the dignity and humanity of Palestinians, working with civil society partners, rather than any party, faction or government.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

While various briefers and delegates presented conflicting perspectives, CODEPINK member Ann Wright, a retired United States Army colonel and former diplomat, took a different stance. As a civil society representative, she introduced herself as a concerned citizen and taxpayer who resigned from the U.S. Government in 2003 in protest against the Iraq War.

Wright emphasized her opposition to the continued supply of weapons, asserting that it only serves to prolong conflicts. The United States and its European allies have provided tens of billions of dollars in aid to support Ukraine over the past two years. With the war at an indefinite stalemate with the death toll rising, Wright argued that fueling conflicts with substantial amounts of weapons ultimately profits corporations and politicians, but not the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. A position that antiwar groups like CODEPINK has held since the beginning of this deadly war.

Highlighting the lengthy process of conflict resolution, Wright drew parallels with historical conflicts, such as the Korean War, which required 575 meetings before reaching a ceasefire agreement. She underscored the devastating toll on human lives during U.S. funded wars, referencing the significant casualties in the Korean War.

Drawing attention to not only the lack of diplomacy but also an attempt to stop any form of negotiations from happening, she expressed concern along with the historical fact that the supply of weapons prevents the possibility of peace. Wright referred to the reports that informed Washington, D.C., and London had pressured the Ukrainian Government to avoid peace negotiations with Russia, emphasizing the importance of preserving diplomatic efforts.

In a powerful conclusion, Mary Ann Wright shared a poem depicting a plea in Gaza for children’s names to be written on their legs as a means of identification in the event of death due to Israeli bombings. While specifically referencing Gaza, she asserted that the sentiment applies universally to children in conflict zones, including Ukraine, Russia, Palestinel, or Yemen.

As the Security Council debates the “complexities’ ‘ of arms transfers and their impact on international peace and security, Wright’s testimony emphasizes the importance of addressing the root causes of conflicts and fostering meaningful resolutions. She makes the case that this is not, in fact, a complex issue nor should it be a debate. It is quite simple, more weapons only create more war and prohibit lasting peace.

You can watch her full testimony here.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Melissa Garriga.

During the  weekend of June 10-11 in Vienna, Austria, over 300 people representing peace organizations from 32 countries came together for the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine to demand an end to the fighting. In a formal conference declaration, participants declared, “We are a broad and politically diverse coalition that represents peace movements and civil society. We are firmly united in our belief that war is a crime against humanity and there is no military solution to the current crisis.”

To amplify their call for a ceasefire, Summit participants committed themselves to organizing Global Weeks of Action–protests, street vigils and political lobbying–during the days of September 30-October 8.

Summit organizers chose Austria as the location of the peace conference because  Austria is one of only a few neutral non-NATO states left in Europe. Ireland, Switzerland and Malta are a mere handful of neutral European states, now that previously neutral states Finland has joined NATO and Sweden is next in line. Austria’s capital, Vienna, is known as “UN City,” and is also home to the Secretariat of the OSCE (the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which monitored the ceasefire in the Donbas from the signing of the Minsk II agreement in 2015 until the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Surprisingly, neutral Austria turned out to be quite hostile to the Peace Summit. The union federation caved in to pressure from the Ukrainian Ambassador to Austria and other detractors, who smeared the events as a fifth column for the Russian invaders. The ambassador had objected to some of the speakers, including world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs and European Union Parliament member Clare Daly.

Even the press club, where the final press conference was scheduled, canceled at the last minute. The Austrian liberal/left newspaper Der Standard piled on, panning the conference both beforehand, during and afterwards, alleging that the speakers were too pro-Russian. Undaunted, local organizers quickly found other locations.The conference took place in a lovely concert center, and the press conference in a local cafe.

The most moving panel of the conference was the one with representatives from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, who risked their lives to participate in the Summit. Yurii Sheliazhenko, secretary treasurer of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, is unable to leave the country and therefore spoke to attendees from Kyiv via Zoom.

Like many Ukrainians, I am a victim of aggression of Russian army, which bombs my city, and a victim of human rights violations by the Ukrainian army, which tries to drag me to the meat grinder, denying my right to refuse to kill, to leave the country for my studies in University of Münster … Think about it: all men from 18 to 60 are prohibited from leaving the country, they are hunted on the streets and forcibly abducted to the army’s serfdom.

Sheliazhenko told the Summit that the Armed Forces of Ukraine had tried to deny conscientious objector status to Ukrainian war resisters, but relented when international pressure demanded that the Ukrainian military recognize rights secured under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Several groups at the Summit pledged to provide support for conscientious objectors from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, and also took up a collection for Ukrainian families lacking access to clean water following the recent destruction of the Kakhovka dam.

Highlights of the Summit also included remarks by representatives from the Global South, who came from China, Cameroon, Ghana, Mexico and Bolivia. Bolivia’s Vice President David Choquehuanca inspired the crowd as he spoke of the need to heed the wisdom of indigenous cultures and their mediation practices.

Many speakers said the real impetus to end this war will come from the Global South, where politicians can see the widespread hunger and inflation that this conflict is causing, and are taking leading roles in offering their services as mediators.

Almost all of Europe was represented, including dozens from Italy, the country  mobilizing the continent’s largest peace demonstrations, with over 100,000 protesters. Unlike in the United States, where the demonstrations have been small, Italian organizers have successfully built coalitions that include trade unions and the religious community, as well as traditional peace groups. Their advice to others was to narrow and simplify their demands in order to broaden their appeal and build a mass anti-war movement.

The eight-person U.S. delegation included representatives from CODEPINK, Peace in Ukraine, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Veterans for Peace. U.S. retired colonel and diplomat Ann Wright was a featured speaker, along with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who joined remotely.

Despite the uniform bottom line of the participants, which was a call for peace talks, there were plenty of disagreements, especially in the workshops. Some people believed that we should continue to send weapons while pushing for talks; others called for an immediate end to weapons transfers. Some insisted on calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops, while others believed that should be the result of negotiations, not a pre-condition. Some put more blame on the role of NATO expansion and the interference of the U.S. in Ukraine’s internal affairs, while others said the blame belongs exclusively at the doorstep of the Russian invaders.

Some of these differences were reflected in discussions surrounding the final declaration, where there was plenty of back and forth about what should and should not be mentioned. There were strong calls to condemn NATO provocations and the role of the U.S./UK in sabotaging early attempts at mediation. These sentiments, along with others condemning the West, were left out of the final document, which some criticized as too bland. References to NATO provocations that led to the Russian invasion were deleted and replaced with the following language:

“The institutions established to ensure peace and security in Europe fell short, and the failure of diplomacy led to war. Now diplomacy is urgently needed to end the war before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.”

But the most important segment of the final document and the gathering itself was the call for further actions.

“This weekend should be seen as just the start,” said organizer Reiner Braun. “We need more days of action, more gatherings, more outreach to students and environmentalists, more educational events. But this was a great beginning of global coordination.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin.

The neighborhood of Bryant sits in Ann Arbor, between the hills and valleys that surround this city in eastern Michigan. Its 262 homes are perched across from the city’s largest landfill and stand on a floodplain, so residents grapple with mold, mildew, and water damage. Outdated infrastructure subjects them to high utility costs, and Interstate 94 long ago isolated the community, one of the city’s most densely populated, prompting decades of neglect. 

More than half of the people in this frontline community identify as people of color. About the same number are renters. Three in four families, many of whom have been in the neighborhood for three generations, live in poverty. The help that does come from the government is too often offered by bureaucrats with good intentions but little idea what residents want — or need. 

“A lot of programs, specifically ones that are focused on energy conservation, just get designed and brought into these communities,” says Hank Love, director of municipal and community programs at the energy equity organization Elevate, which works in cities nationwide including Ann Arbor. “People would say, ‘Look at what we made for you and are going to implement,’ without getting adequate input on the front end.” 

That dynamic began to change when Ann Arbor vowed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. The city is beginning in Bryant, where it has enlisted residents and nonprofits to help decarbonize the entire community. Renovations to the first homes began in May 2022, funded through a state grant to repair and electrify homes, plant trees, and install solar panels.

“It’s resident-designed and resident-centered,” says Missy Stults, the city’s sustainability director and a 2022 Grist 50 honoree. “We are trying to correct for market failures by working directly with a frontline community to determine how best to collaboratively create the nation’s first fully decarbonized low-income neighborhood. There’s a layering of so many elements, and it is literally changing lives.”

In 2020, Ann Arbor announced the A²Zero initiative, an audacious plan to achieve carbon neutrality citywide within a decade. City officials formed a broad coalition of nonprofits, for-profits, and community organizations to answer the question, “How do we make it happen in just 10 years?” 

Stults saw an opportunity to engage the community in an effort to address the complex and intertwined issues of gentrification, disinvestment, and environmental racism.  She and her team had been mapping socioeconomic vulnerability within the city, and “Bryant popped up for us as an area of opportunity,” she says. “We made a really strategic decision to focus on those who have been hurt first and worst by climate change and systemic racism. We thought, ‘Well, why don’t we try? Let’s go talk to the residents and see if this is of interest.’”

Although she found plenty of interest, she also found apprehension — many of Bryant’s residents had lived for generations under a legacy of institutional disregard and neglect. To earn their confidence, Stults and her colleagues knocked on doors to chat with residents about the program and gauge interest, and hosted community events like tree plantings.

“Our biggest obstacle was to gain that trust, to help people believe that we were actually trying to do something for them without taking from them,” says Krystal Steward, a Bryant resident and outreach specialist for Community Action Network. “And now, they’re seeing that things are actually happening. Because I’m their neighbor, there’s a greater sense of trust in the project. It’s an amazing feeling to be helping my community.”

* * *

In spring 2022, nearly two years of planning finally began to yield results. Through a $500,000 state grant to Community Action Network, decarbonization of the first 19 homes — selected through an energy assessment that considered the extent of needed repairs — began.  

Every project begins with an energy assessment to determine how best to rehabilitate and retrofit each house. Most homes use gas to power furnaces and other appliances, making the transition to clean tech as much about increasing comfort as it is about reducing emissions, says Hank Love. There’s no point in, say, replacing a gas furnace if the roof has holes or the attic lacks insulation. “It’s going to feel cold no matter how much you heat it, and you’re going to spend a ton of money just trying to feel comfortable,” he says.

Once repairs are made, crews swap gas appliances for electric ones before installing solar panels. “What I’m most excited about is that we are already solarizing households in the neighborhood and essentially fixing affordability issues that some residents are having,” says Derrick Miller, executive director of Community Action Network.

Bryant resident Deborah Pulk, who lives on a fixed income and has been in Ann Arbor since 1986, was among the first to benefit from the program. She needed a new roof, and an inspection revealed that her stove was emitting dangerous amounts of carbon monoxide. The switch to electric appliances and renewable energy has saved her money, too.

“Krystal had told me that they were trying to start putting up solar panels,” she says. “I said, ‘Sure! I’d love to have solar panels on my house.’ My gas and [electricity] bill is already much lower. I used to pay $145 per month on a budget plan. Last month my bill was $39.” 

As in any neighborhood, some people support the project, others are indifferent, and a few are opposed — because they remain leery of City Hall, question whether there will be enough money to continue the program, or don’t believe climate change is a problem. Stults concedes the city has not yet lined up additional funding, but notes, “We are making progress.” City officials are hopeful that the work done on the first 19 homes, and the lessons they’ve learned working with residents, homeowners, and landlords, will provide a blueprint for decarbonizing other neighborhoods and, perhaps, other cities. 

“This project really lights me on fire and keeps me going — it’s so transformative for everyone who touches it,” says Stults. “It’s certainly transforming me. I hope that it actually transforms our system by creating new tools and mechanisms for everyone to be able to engage in the clean energy and decarbonization movement. If we don’t create space for everyone as a part of this movement, we will fail.”

Explore more Cities + Solutions:

• New Orleans lost its bike share. Residents stepped up to rebuild it with a focus on equity.
• How a California town’s wastewater is helping it battle drought
• Can cities eliminate heat-related deaths in a warming world? Phoenix is trying.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Ann Arbor’s big decarbonization bet on Jan 25, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Avery Schuyler Nunn.

Missouri state lawmakers can bear arms in the legislative chamber but if they're women, they can no longer show their bare arms under new dress code rules passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Friday.

State Rep. Ann Kelley (R-127) is behind the new regulation, which passed by a 105-51 vote as part of a rules package. Rule 98 states that "at all times when the House is seated, proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots. Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots."

"Do you know what it feels like to have a bunch of men in this room looking at your top trying to determine if it's appropriate or not?"

Defending the policy during floor debate on Wednesday, Kelley said: "Men are required to wear a jacket, a shirt, and a tie, correct? And if they walked in here without a tie, they would get gaveled down in a heartbeat. If they walked in without a jacket, they would get gaveled down in a heartbeat. So, we are so interested in being equal."

However, Democratic state lawmakers pushed back against the policy, with Rep. Maggie Nurrenbern (D-15) tweeting that "it is mind-boggling that members of the Missouri House have the right to bear arms on the floor of the chamber, but women legislators are forbidden from showing bare arms."

Rep. Peter Merideth (D-80) refused to vote on the measure, telling colleagues, "I don't think I'm qualified to say what's appropriate or not appropriate for women and I think that is a really dangerous road for us all to go down."

"Y'all had a conniption fit the last two years when we talked about maybe, maybe wearing masks in a pandemic to keep each other safer," he added. "How dare the government tell you what you have to wear over your face?"

Also speaking on the House floor, Rep. Ashley Aune (D-14) asked, "Do you know what it feels like to have a bunch of men in this room looking at your top trying to determine if it's appropriate or not?"

Reacting to the new rule, human rights attorney Qasim Rashid tweeted that "the Missouri GOP banning women from showing their bare arms isn't a sign of Shariah or Taliban—it's a sign of right-wing 'Christian' extremism."

"Stop deflecting extremism in America as something foreign," Rashid added. "It's 100% American. Admit it. Own it. Work to stop it."

Speaking to CNN Friday, Aune noted that "in 2019 House Republicans passed the abortion ban that went into effect this summer after the Dobbs decision came down, fully restricting a women's right to choose in this state, and on day one in our Legislature they're doubling down on controlling women."

Under the state's abortion ban, pregnant Missourians are forced to travel to other states for the medical procedure. Last year, Republican state lawmakers unsuccessfully tried to punish them for doing so via a measure that would have allowed private citizens to sue anyone who "aids or abets" abortions violating Missouri's ban—no matter where they are performed.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.