The Legacy of Believing Coal Mining Can Come Back

 

The only constituency that cherishes coal production, and it is still a powerful group, is in coal producing states. The above chart reflects not just the numbers from the United States but an international trend as well. What the numbers above do not show is the earlier, decades-long decline in US coal extraction and its concomitant impact on coal-industry employment. Despite campaign promises to the contrary, Donald Trump’s presidency, as the above graph illustrates, generated the largest number coal mine closures in history. The world has slowly come to the realization that “King Coal” has been dethroned. We know that “clean coal” is nothing more than pumping effluents from coal extraction and usage underground, and while coal-fired electrical plants can be “scrubbed,” that process is at best a partial solution.

Even as the Ukraine war has put pressure on keeping coal-fired production alive a bit longer, in truth, except for the coal-favored constituency noted above, coal usage will continue to decline. It is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels and one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of these macroeconomic and environmental concerns, investments in coal production and usage are falling, maintenance and upgrades to existing facilities are not financially justified and serial, large scale bankruptcy of coal-related businesses is leaving massive vestigial pollution with no responsible funding for the needed clean-up of toxic remains.

The EPA Super Fund is overwhelmed with serious pollution challenges. Taxpayers foot the bill of misleading and futile efforts to keep coal mines and electrical plants going, without maintenance, until that misplaced belief leaves crumbling facilities and their toxic remains “relieved” by a filings in federal bankruptcy court. Congress anticipated this issue, but not on the scale that would ultimately be required to contain the expected damage.

“When Congress passed surface mining regulations in 1977, federal and state rules included bonding requirements to ensure that mines would no longer be abandoned without sufficient cleanup funds. Ever since, mine operators have been required to post bond money upon opening a new mine to ensure that regulatory authorities can reclaim the land if the operator is unable to, typically due to bankruptcy. The 1977 law requires companies to reclaim the land in order to get their bonds back, which happens in phases as reclamation proceeds and inspectors sign off on the results.

“Now that the coal industry is in its twilight years, a few companies have been unable to fulfill their reclamation obligations. If this continues, Kentucky and Virginia are among those that could face massive cleanup costs that outweigh the millions of dollars set aside for reclamation.” Kevin Ridder writing for The Appalachian Voice (2/24/20). There was an active trade in permits and reclamation rights, once a viable way for cash-strapped coal operations to survive, even in bankruptcy reorganization (Chapter 11). But with the entire notion of coal production fading fast, bankruptcy these days is more likely to be full liquidation (Chapter 7)… and that trading practice is no longer viable. We could have suffered less if realism had played a bigger role in our policies.

The damage from uncontained effluents extends well beyond surface mining damage. Lakes, streams and aquifers in coal regions are often so polluted and toxic that without severe governmental intervention, that damage can linger for decades. Toxins leach into the surrounding land, settle at the bottom of these waterways, and often spread that risk to drinking water and water used for irrigation. Aside from what most people assume about coal effluents, coal waste also contains high levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic, which are highly toxic both to plant and animal life.

There are small silver linings to all this, hardly enough to offset the damage, but a nascent level of hidden value. Writing for the May 19th Washington Post, Austyn Gaffney and Dane Rhys explain: “On the site of a shuttered and bankrupt coal mine near the headwaters of the Potomac River, the state of West Virginia is building a demonstration plant that researchers say could help spur efforts to clean up thousands of miles of waterways contaminated by coal-mining waste.

“After decades when coal states struggled to pay for the costs of cleaning up contaminated rivers and lakes, recent scientific advances and new technology make it far more feasible to recycle the highly acidic and mineral-rich liquid coal waste known as acid mine drainage (AMD), these researchers say.

“And on the site of what was once the Buffalo Coal Company’s A34 surface mine, there is an additional financial and strategic incentive. When it’s fully operational — in late summer or early fall, according to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection — the Buffalo Coal A34 plant will recover critical metals including cobalt and nickel and the rare earth elements used in cellphones, electric cars and other technology from those toxic waters…

“The recovery of those elements could help reduce the ongoing cost of mine cleanup and lessen America’s reliance on China for materials critical to the shift to a clean energy economy. While these initiatives don’t currently pay for themselves, they are gaining traction for their role in tackling the legacy of dirty energy while trying to minimize the environmental impact of the new energy that’s replacing it. ‘If your sludge has value, why throw it in the garbage can?’ said Paul Ziemkiewicz, director of West Virginia University’s Water Research Institute, which has pioneered research into recycling acid mine drainage.” Reclaimed surface mines can also be used as sites for solar and wind farms, adding jobs to coal-producing regions where unemployment is reaching record levels despite a national shortage of qualified workers.

What false prophets and mendacious candidates have wreaked by pledging to restore coal mining and electrical power generation, a promise global market forces are rendering impossible to achieve, is coal workers’ expecting to get their jobs back… refusing to enter alternative employment opportunities. You can see, firsthand, where such false promises have led in the voting record of Joe Manchin (D, WVa), a man whose family is heavily financially invested in the coal industry. See my February 13th Manchin-ian Heresy, Part 2 blog for specifics of his horrific conflicts of interest. The clock of climate change is ticking. Greed and games notwithstanding.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the impossible notion of keeping a dying industry alive combined with a “Let’s not spend money containing climate change” just might kill us… or our children.

Bullets for God and Country, But Not for Hunting?

 

"There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons”

Then California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967

"We will not allow anti-gun politicians and elitist billionaires to jump on the back of a horrible tragedy and blame good people for an act of pure evil… We will always defend our right to defend ourselves. And no one is going to take that away on my watch. No one is going to take that away as long as NRA stands and fights for freedom."

NRA CEO, Wayne LaPierre, August 2019

Funny how numbers show the opposite of NRA claims. Let’s look beyond the statistic that tells us that of 35 civilian shootings in the United States, only one on average is deemed legally justifiable. Here is what a government sponsored study by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH) tells us about keeping a firearm in the home (ostensibly for self-defense):

“Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.”

Every time there is a mass shooting, you get quotes from the NRA and the politicians who fear them (or cherish their campaign contributions) that mirror the above LaPierre remark. Indeed, the NRA not only champions weapons everywhere for “self-defense,” has successfully lobbied Congress to defund gun homicide research (e.g., the 1996 Dickey Amendment which is still law to this day), but it maintains that citizens are justified in taking up arms against what they believe is a repressive government. Since 2008, accelerating during the Trump years, red state gun laws have relaxed any notion of gun control, and recent Congressional efforts in response to the Buffalo and Uvalde killings – see my recent Small Band Aids for Massive Hemorrhaging blog for the details – are pitifully underwhelming.

What is sorely lacking in existing and proposed federal gun control legislation is the removal of unpermitted concealed carry laws, ending general open carry laws and the “too easy” excuse of “stand your ground” statutes to justify what would otherwise be criminal homicide and, most of all, the complete ban of military-grade assault weapons and oversized magazines (of which AR-15s are the architype… with an estimated 15 million such firearms in civilian homes). These latter weapons, easily converted into fully automatic long guns, have absolutely no justifiable use as hunting guns… unless you are slaughtering an entire herd.

A normal AR-15 clip holds thirty rounds, when even without the fully-automatic-add, can fire the entire magazine in well under a minute. It can be replaced in seconds with a second clip… or you can save the effort and just use a heavier 250 round magazine. Semiautomatic means the trigger needs to be pulled for each shot, while fully automatic allows the shooter to hold the trigger and unleash a full spray of bullets.

The bullets for assault weapons are designed for a maximum kill zone. They carry a larger charge in the cartridge, which make them accelerate faster, go farther and much more powerfully. The bullet itself is intended to roll over, end-over-end, to ensure that the target is either killed or totally debilitated, a defined military goal. Most ordinary firearms do not carry that impact… and their bullets, while deadly, fire in a straight line. The above chart shows bullet action (relative explosive power) from a normal gun at the top, an AR-15 in the middle and a shotgun at the bottom. The differences to the human body are alarming.

Laura Ramirez-Feldman, writing for Yahoo! News (June 9th), explains why such assault weapons, with those bullets designed specifically to kill people, are particularly and gruesomely deadly: “‘This is a gun whose purpose it is to shoot a lot of high-caliber bullets very, very quickly and do a lot of damage,’ Joyce Vance, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said on MSNBC earlier this month.

“Dr. Bindi Naik-Mathuria, a pediatric trauma surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, told Yahoo News that injuries from this type of weapon are ‘almost unsurvivable, essentially,’ because of the significant damage the bullets cause to the victims… Naik-Mathuria, who is also a fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, told Yahoo News that some of her colleagues treated patients of the Uvalde school shooting, but that few of the victims survived. ‘They received very few patients, because unfortunately, this is what happens with assault weapons,’ she said.

“She explained that ‘the blast effect, or the cavitation effect’ that a handgun shot causes is not as wide and devastating to internal organs as the one inflicted by high-velocity weapons such as the AR-15 and similar rifles. ‘When you see handguns, you often just see a little hole on the outside on both sides; shotguns, which are a little bit higher velocity, a little bit bigger. But assault weapons, it's much bigger,’ she said, adding that as a bullet from this type of weapon penetrates the body, it typically creates a large cavity that can cause significant bleeding from vessels and completely destroy soft tissue, as well as organs.

“‘The organs, for example, like the liver or the spleen, that aren't very elastic, they can't handle that. They would basically rupture,’ Naik-Mathuria said… She added that the reason the AR-15 is so deadly is that victims are hit by more than one bullet, with multiple injuries at a time.” Smaller victims, like children, do not stand a chance, as Uvalde evidences. To the argument that an assault weapon ban would only leave such guns in the hands of criminals, I have to remind us all that every single jurisdiction (state and country) that has introduced meaningful gun control has experienced a significant reduction in violent criminal activity.

In 1996, after a mass shooting, Australia banned most guns (paying owners when they turned in their weapons)… and the gun homicide rate plunged. We need to stop the insanity… not of the mentally ill with guns… but a society that believes assault weapons in civilian hands is a benefit to our entire nation. Or we can just watch more children mowed down, bystanders picked off and political radicals justify mass killings (often suicide message) with little or no change. If there are AR-15s out there, shooters will find them… one way or other.

I’m Peter Dekom, and we are not going to reduce the explosion of innocents dying from gun violence unless we backout the recent spate of progun laws and purge assault weapons and oversized magazines from our nation… it can and must be done!

If You Lie Enough with Persistent “Passion” The Environment Becomes Irrelevant

 

“Higher taxes on plastic products will enrich corporate interests with no guarantee of reducing plastic waste… [and] will have a devastating impact on working families.”

A California flier from the Environmental Solutions Coalition, a false flag message funded by the plastics industry and other business interests.

America now faces the ability of well-funded special interests to explode through social media, paint the innocent as malignant forces bent on evil, and convince the “conspiracy theory” susceptible, searching for new scapegoats, that there is truth in the lie… by persistence, never deviating from the message, making lots of accusations (founded or not), to spread that message wherever it needs to go. The entire Trump era is clearly defined by that reality. Now!

So why wouldn’t toxic polluters or businesses, watching the wild success of that practice and seeking to avoid obvious and necessary regulation, simply adopt that ploy to advance their agendas? Well-placed false narratives can avoid expensive regulation and allow those corporate miscreants to keep all that gold for themselves. More than their same-old/same-old “job loss” mantra that is tired, uninteresting and getting to be way too repetitive? Public relations, with an entirely new set of lies, attaching blame to innocents – the new scapegoats – is catching on.

Plastics may be useful, but they have created microplastics embedded in our bodies, are piling up with long, non-biodegradable life expectancies, killing wildlife and shoving garbage on land, sea and air and generally creating a gigantic mess for taxpayers to clean up. California, a consumer-friendly state tired of paying for the rising cost of cleaning up and disposing of plastic waste, particularly single use containers, has proposed a November ballot initiative banning such single use plastics. Of course, the plastics industry wants that regulation gone or watered down.

Susanne Rust, writing for the May 23rd Los Angeles Times, explains: “The initiative, the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, would require all single-use plastic packaging and food ware used in California to be recyclable, reusable, refillable or compostable by 2030. Single-use plastic production would have to be reduced by 25% by 2030. The costs of the program are to be borne by the producers and distributors of single-use plastics, and the language explicitly states the costs cannot be passed on to the consumer.

“U.S. industries for decades have formed seeming ‘grass-roots groups’ to push agendas such as lower taxes and fewer restrictions on tobacco and pollution. The groups behind the Environmental Solutions Coalition include the California Business Roundtable and the American Chemistry Council, which includes plastics manufacturers and oil companies. Members of the coalition have stated they’d prefer to see the issue settled in the Legislature.” The reason is simple: legislators take campaign contributions; voters do not. So, these groups are throwing tons of cash in a massive marketing effort to kill that initiative, because initiative are people driven.

Yet, as Rust points out, there are some solid reasons to pass this and even broader plastics limiting laws: “Plastics never fully degrade. They just break down into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics. These particles often contain harmful chemical additives such as flame retardants or plasticizers. Reports suggest that humans consume roughly a credit card’s worth of microplastic each week.

“Over the last year, research has shown the presence of these particles in human blood, healthy lung tissue and meconium — the first bowel movement of a newborn. They are also found in marine organisms, ocean water, air and soil… Some researchers project that by 2050, there may be more plastic by weight in the world’s oceans than there are fish.” Still, imposing reasonable limitations on plastics manufactures will both make them accountable, at least in part, and cost them money. It’s cheaper to oppose the regulation than learn to live with it.

The problem is that so many of these corporate and political media blitzes are driven by obvious falsehoods, scapegoating, in a way that seems to be increasingly just a “that’s just the way America runs” belief. Some hide behind the First Amendment, some states (like Texas) try to force social media to carry knowing lies, but there is always someone trying to nip any form of business responsibility in the bud. Almost always with GOP backing. Invigorated by Citizens United vs FEC.

Indeed, if lying is condoned by legal inaction, it is most certainly enabled by mass and social media in search of ad dollars. As the Federal Communications Commission struggles over the scope of its jurisdiction, the business community has long fought to keep genuine regulators out of power in that agency. Republicans, trying to enable the spread of conspiracy theories and the Big Lie every chance they get, are also ready to keep that regulatory agency from clamping down on false advertising, in business and politics. Thus, keeping the FCC from regulating is a clear Republican goal.

As LA Times OpEd writer, Michael Hiltzik notes in the May 25th edition: “Riding high after killing off President Biden’s nomination of a pro-labor regulator for a key post at the Department of Labor, big business has been sharpening its knives for a noted consumer advocate nominated to join the Federal Communications Commission.

“The target this time is Gigi Sohn, whose credentials as a critic of the monopoly power of big telecommunications companies and a defender of the public interest are unassailable. So the telecom industry and big business in general have chosen to smear her with misrepresentations and outright lies… So far they’ve succeeded in hobbling Sohn’s progress toward confirmation. That’s placed a whole raft of telecom reforms on hold because without her confirmation, the FCC is stuck with a 2-2 split between Republicans and Democrats… The campaign against Sohn has falsely painted her as a foe of diversity in telecommunications and an advocate of suppressing conservative viewpoints.”

Lying, always a part of political excess, has achieved a new level of official legitimization, a legacy from the Trump administration that simply will not go away. Are Americans so inured to this slimy mass mendacity that they just do not care? Do so many Americans simply avoid thinking about these issues, choosing instead blindly to outsource their opinions? Whatever Mitch, Kevin, Donald, Ron and Greg… or Fox News hosts say?

I’m Peter Dekom, and whenever people give up on democracy, outsource their opinions to special interests and “bought and paid for” politicians placing party over country, everyone loses… and democracy unravels.

Apathy & Awareness - Voters Reading Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Bios?__ LOL, LOL, LOL

 

Facing stagflation at a level not experienced in this country in almost half a century, Americans are scared. Low voter turnouts (discussed further below) – a reflection of confusion, apathy and fear – combine with ignorance and a massive proclivity to outsource political decisions to slogan/label-driven politicians and special interests, often supported by false narratives (“fake news,” conspiracy theories, “replacement” and “CRT” platforms as well as “alternative facts”) to pin blame and find simple solutions to complex issues. A minority right-wing constituency, many with strong fundamentalist beliefs, has used the constitutional bias favoring rural districts to control the Senate and usurp the Supreme Court. The result is self-fulfilling pessimism that threatens the existence of our nation to its core:

Writing for the June 15th Yahoo! News, Andrew Romano reports some chilling results from a recent survey of a cross section of American voters: “A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that most Democrats (55%) and Republicans (53%) now believe it is ‘likely’ that America will ‘cease to be a democracy in the future’ — a stunning expression of bipartisan despair about the direction of the country.

“Half of all Americans (49%) express the same sentiment when independents and those who do not declare any political affiliation are factored in, while just a quarter (25%) consider the end of U.S. democracy unlikely and another quarter (25%) say they’re unsure.

“At the same time, however, a large number of Americans seem indifferent to the high-profile hearings by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — an effort to get to the bottom of one of the most dramatic assaults on the democratic process in U.S. history.

“In fact, the new survey of 1,541 U.S. adults — which was conducted from June 10 (the day after the committee’s first hearing) to June 13 (the day of its second) — found that fewer than 1 in 4 (24%) say they watched last Thursday’s initial primetime broadcast live. Only slightly more (27%) say they caught news coverage later. Nearly half (49%) say they did not follow the hearings at all.”

In short, a vast pool of Americans just do not know what to do, are burned out on conflicting news and no longer believe that the future will be better. Persons assumed to be credible in the highest offices in the land tell them of non-existent fraud in an effort, with admissions and well-documented footage including unambiguous violence, to reverse the electoral process and attempt a coup to impose an autocracy as the law of the land. What is the truth? Does it matter?

Look at California, which remains among the most liberal states. Despite rumors of its collapse, it has a large budget surplus, and if it were a standalone country, it would be the fifth largest economy on earth, bigger than the economies of Texas and Florida… combined. With all the controversies and political conflicts, the massive railing against the possible reversal of Roe v Wade, you’d think Californians would be rushing to the polls to make sure their voices were heard. But they are as pathetic and prone to outsource their opinions and votes just like the rest of the nation, especially with down-ballot candidates and measures.

Los Angeles Times writer, George Skelton (June 13th) dug into voter motivations for some answers: “When running for partisan political office, what usually counts most are simple things campaigns often can’t control — especially in a low-profile statewide race… Take an office like state controller or insurance commission, for example. Or even a slightly higher-profile post such as attorney general.

“Regardless of all the analyses we’ve seen about last week’s state elections [6/7], the outcomes mostly can be explained quite simply. They were determined by basic factors that are so obvious they hardly get mentioned… The candidates’ positions on issues usually have little to do with the results because voters aren’t even aware of them. That’s especially true in a primary election.

“When a voter doesn’t know squat about the candidates — which is usually the case — the first thing that’s looked for on the ballot is party affiliation. Is the candidate a Democrat or a Republican? That’s the most important factor, particularly these days when politics are so polarized.

“Voters may also glance at a candidate’s listed profession. Incumbents hold a huge advantage, assuming they’re not linked to scandal… Has the candidate been endorsed by the party? By a major labor union or other familiar interest?... What’s the person’s gender? Or ethnicity?... These are the cues that ordinary voters look for if they haven’t done their homework on the candidates’ positions and records. And few voters do.

“Also, if candidates can’t raise enough money — or aren’t rich enough to spend their own — they aren’t able to pitch voters on TV and radio to get known… This isn’t exactly breaking news. But it often gets overlooked in punditry.

“In California, the Democrat label is a badge of acceptance. Conversely, a Republican nameplate is suspect. But if a candidate has ‘no party preference,’ it’s often a nonstarter. Voters probably will look for someone else — as they did in the attorney general’s race.” It’s the same everywhere. Even our idealistic youth, more tolerant, better educated and terrified by guns and climate change are disillusioned. They voted with a two-thirds majority for Biden… who promised the world… but was unable to deliver much at all, even after mass shootings. See my May 4th Is Politics a Solution or Disease - Ask the Rising Generation blog for a more in-depth look at younger voters. And if those younger voters stay away from the polls in droves, those horrific predictions of America as an autocracy are destined to come true… sooner rather than later. Despite the title of this blog, I’m not laughing!

I’m Peter Dekom, and all that voter suppression, gerrymandering, top-level blame and lying are actually working for those who no longer want democracy in this nation.

Even with Low of No Tuition, Higher Education is Still Often Unaffordable

 

Post-high school education is expensive no matter how you look at it: “The cost of college has steadily increased over the last 30 years. In that timeframe, tuition costs at public four-year colleges grew from $4,160 to $10,740 and from $19,360 to $38,070 at private nonprofit institutions (adjusted for inflation). As costs have risen, so has the need for student loans and other forms of financial aid… Today, more than half of students leave school with debt… $1.75 trillion in total student loan debt (including federal and private loans) – [more than our aggregate credit card debt]… $28,950 owed per borrower on average.” Forbes.com, June 9th.

Students with advanced professional degrees (law, medicine and business) fare much worse. “[Such debt is] $66,300 for an MBA, $71,000 for a master’s degree, $145,500 for a law degree and $201,490 for a medical degree… It is regularly argued that graduate students take on more loans because they can expect to earn more, which is often true. Workers with master’s degrees earn $1,545 per week on average and workers with a professional degree (such as a JD or a MD) earn $1,893 per week on average, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates… However, those with a just bachelor’s degree earn closer to $1,305 per week and those with a just high school degree earn closer to $781 per week on average. Workers with advanced degrees also have significantly lower unemployment rates.”

However, high student debt is a disincentive to those willing to go into lower-paying jobs targeting aid to lower or impoverished Americans. The notion of forgiveness of student loans for those holding public service jobs for a decade or more vaporized under the Trump era, where Education Secretary Betsy DeVos simply disallowed that provision. We need more doctors, but with staggering debt, they are often forced to pursue money over service. Half the collective student debt is attributed to post-undergraduate studies.

Yet higher education, across the board, is one of the most significant foundation building blocks for innovation and higher-end, higher-paying jobs. Advanced education yields advanced technology which generates the jobs. We simply cannot remotely produce enough STEM students to meet the needs of hi-tech companies. They have come to rely on immigrants who account for the creation of a disproportionate number of the best jobs in the country, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary.

“‘The idea is that immigrants come to your community and they take jobs,’ says Ben Jones, a professor of strategy at Kellogg [School of Business, Northwestern University]. ‘That could mean that people already in the community could have more trouble finding a job or, by having to compete with immigrants for jobs, could get paid a lower wage.’… The logic is straightforward. Yet curiously, the economic data have not generally borne this out. Previous studies have not found lower local wages after influxes of immigration. In fact, regions of the U.S. that have historically seen more immigration have actually experienced higher gains in per-capita income. ‘They seem to be the outperformers,’ says Jones.

“So what is going on?... Jones and his colleagues wondered if economists and policymakers had been focusing too much on immigrants as employees in the labor pool—and not enough on the role they also play as job creators: entrepreneurs who might start and grow lucrative companies, ultimately employing large numbers of people. The conspicuously high number of immigrant founders in Silicon Valley, including prominent examples such as Sergei Brin and Elon Musk, suggests the potential importance of this view… ‘Ironically, the result [of immigration] is exactly the opposite of the usual narrative. It seems like immigrants actually improve the economic outcomes for native-born workers,’ [said Ben Jones.]” KelloggInsight.Northwestern.edu, October 5, 2020. Bottom line, if you want better jobs with higher pay, seed that reality with affordable higher education.

Germany, the European Union economic powerhouse, provides a model for us to examine: “In 2014, Germany’s 16 states abolished tuition fees for undergraduate students at all public German universities. This means that currently both domestic and international undergraduates at public universities in Germany can study for free, with just a small fee to cover administration and other costs per semester… [One state, In autumn 2017 the south-west state of Baden-Württemberg reintroduced tuition fees for non-EU students]..

“While many students can study in Germany for free, living expenses are unavoidable. The cost of living in Germany is more expensive in some areas than others – Munich, for example, is considered the most expensive German city to live in, with living costs averaging about €12,000 (~US$13,900) per year. By comparison, the average annual living costs in Germany are around €10,200 (~US$11,800).” TopUniversities.com, December 20, 2021

The sharpest blade in that cutting edge of technological growth is graduate school. As the above suggests, tuition is only part of the cost of higher education. For those in grad school, even with tuition subsidies, the mere cost of living plus mega-expensive textbooks, is often softened by a paid engagement as instructors and teaching assistants, which is even more important for students (usually in STEM fields) from countries with very low levels of disposable income.

Writing for the June 13th Los Angeles Times, Parth M.N. and Liam Dillon, provide a common example: “When Sally Ireri moved to California from Nairobi, Kenya, five years ago, she didn’t expect life to be this difficult. Studying for a doctoral degree in mosquito genetics at UC Riverside, Ireri has had to borrow money and car rides from friends because she makes less than $30,000 a year from teaching.

“She lives in a three-bedroom home with two roommates for $750 a month, a rent that’s well below average for the region but still one that eats up a sizable portion of her paycheck. After she graduates, Ireri wants to remain in California to be at the forefront of research that could assist Kenyans in fighting mosquito-borne diseases… But what she’ll need to pay every month to keep a roof over her head is holding her back… ‘I don’t know if I can afford to stay here,’ said Ireri, 28. ‘I’ve made a community in the past five years, and if I have to leave, it’ll be sad.’”

The Guardian (UK), March 30, 2022 adds: “For international students, they legally cannot work additional jobs while working as a graduate student worker. Simon Luo, a PhD candidate in political science at Indiana University Bloomington and international graduate worker, is paid just $19,000 a year… ‘This is thousands of dollars below the minimum living wage in Bloomington, Indiana. I’m constantly unable to make ends meet,’ said Luo. ‘Not being able to support myself financially means constantly confronting the financial anxiety brought by low income.’ [This fate applies to native born grad students, the bulk of such students.]

“Salaries for graduate student workers vary widely around the US. In January 2022, Princeton University announced raises for graduate worker stipends of 25% to about $40,000 annually and Brown University recently raised base annual stipends to over $42,000 annually, while many colleges and universities pay stipends of far less than $20,000 annually… Pay can often vary for graduate student workers depending on academic departments and alternative sources of funding and grants. This pay has remained low at universities and colleges around the US, despite university endowments soaring in 2021, with an average return of nearly 31%, the highest average returns since 1983. About 19% of colleges and universities that reported endowment returns in 2021 had endowments worth more than $1bn each.

“At the University at Buffalo in New York, pay for some graduate workers can be as low as $10,500 annually, noted Lawrence Mullen, a PhD student worker in the English department at the University at Buffalo and president of UB graduate student employees union. He cited an internal survey of graduate workers at UB conducted by the union, which found around 20% of graduate workers at the school were making less than $15,000 annually… ‘They are paying our graduate workers less than a living wage and in some cases, a third of what is the living wage in Erie county, which, according to the Economic Policy Institute, is about $35,000,’ said Mullen. ‘At UB, we have a food bank, and last semester, fall 2021, 80% of the people who used that food bank were graduate students.’” With the recent rising outright populist antagonism toward educated elites, we are shooting ourselves in the foot (and more) by not emphasizing higher education… if sustainable long-term economic success is our collective goal.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if the United States won’t invest in higher education, it will not generate the desperately needed return on that investment.

Seawalls for a Distracted Planet

 

Nature doesn’t care if war rages in Ukraine, Myanmar continues its genocide against Rohingya, massive violence and starvation continue in Yemen and Somalia or that cartels and gangs continue to decimate El Salvador and Mexico. Climate change keeps getting worse. These conflicts are sending toxins into the air, accelerating greenhouse gasses, all justifying allowing corporations to return to greater dependence on fossil fuels… and the world is distracted. A February 27th Report from the World Resources Institute admonishes us: “Climate change is already causing widespread disruption in every region in the world with just 1.1 degrees C (2 degrees F) of warming.

“Withering droughts, extreme heat and record floods already threaten food security and livelihoods for millions of people. Since 2008, devastating floods and storms have forced more than 20 million people from their homes each year. Since 1961, crop productivity growth in Africa shrunk by a third due to climate change.”  

Experts predict that by the end of the century, even forgetting about the fires, floods, desertification and searing temperatures, seas in some coastal communities may rise by 18 feet projecting a 1.5C degree rise (2.7F) by then. The rise will happen gradually, as we are already witnessing here in the United States in the most obvious reality now facing southern Florida, where even normal rains and higher surf flood city streets all the time.

We have all kinds of “clever solutions,” many posited by politicians without any scientific basis and less engineering experience. Stuff like “raise the streets” or build seawalls like the ones in the Netherlands. There are just too many valuable coastal areas to believe that mankind can “simply build seawalls,” a high cost to be sure, but one that too many believe will save important coastal cities. Possible? Sure. Money would have to come from somewhere, and a whole lot of needed infrastructure and social needs would have to be diminished. We would also have to deal with wars over resources, like water, food (desertification will remove a lot of arable land) and others of earth’s valuables.

The big question is exactly what would be used to build those massive containment walls? The natural answer to that seemingly common construction problem is “concrete.” What few people know is that the use of concrete has always been a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In a study (Concrete fuels climate change – but there’s a nature-friendly way to defend coasts from rising seas) report in the March 22nd TheConveresation.com, Ravindra Jayaratne, Reader in Coastal Engineering, University of East London, and Ali Abbas, Associate Professor of Structural Engineering, University of East London, explain this concrete conundrum and possible ways to use alternative building materials:

“Paradoxically, these [sea]walls which are designed to protect people from the consequences of global heating also contribute to it. We estimated the emissions involved in creating north-eastern Japan’s concrete breakwaters [Fukushima and Iwate prefectures, including the new wall pictured above] at around six million tonnes of CO₂ by taking into account their size and length and using industry-standard tools…

“Concrete is the most common material for making breakwaters. Cement, the main binder in a concrete mix, is primarily made of clinker – a residue produced by firing limestone and clay in a furnace heated to 1,450°C. Creating that much heat is typically done by burning fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases in the process.

“Cement making is responsible for about 7% of annual CO₂ emissions. But without concrete, many of the world’s most impressive buildings and structures – such as Australia’s Sydney Opera House and the Hoover Dam in Las Vegas – wouldn’t exist. One of the biggest challenges facing the construction sector is reducing concrete’s carbon footprint while keeping the benefits of a cheap and durable building material.

“One way to achieve this is by replacing cement with recycled industrial waste, such as granulated slag from steelworks and pulverised ash from coal power plants (essentially, the residue that can be scraped out of the bottom of furnaces)… Our newly designed low-carbon concrete mixes use both of these recycled materials. In fact, it was possible to use up to 60% steel furnace waste in the mixes without the concrete losing its compressive strength, which is crucial for ensuring the structure holds up. The resulting mixes had a 40% smaller carbon footprint than traditional concrete.

“Our designs also use steel fibres akin to hairpins that can be added to the concrete mix, eliminating the need to assemble vast steel mesh grids. The costs and emissions of construction are lower as a result, and the final product is just as strong as a traditional breakwater… Concrete breakwaters can even stimulate biodiversity. Some are textured in such a way that they mimic reef habitats, encouraging the settlement and growth of marine plants and animals in their grooves and protruding surfaces.” A reduction in concrete’s carbon footprint but hardly zero emissions solution. That would take a vastly more serious concerted global effort to contain emissions. And exactly how does a world at war, involving world powers which are major emitters of greenhouse gasses, do that? Exactly.

I’m Peter Dekom, and even when we have excused to slow down on using fossil fuels and containing greenhouse gases, remember that nature doesn’t care about excuses and justifications; the laws of physics and chemistry simply continue.

Is the Sun Finally Setting on the British Empire?

 

 

The United States was born of British Colonial rule. Even after the Revolutionary War, the Brits were still not finished with trying again with the failed War of 1812. The unraveling of the British Empire, which continues into this very day, has struggled (often violently) for centuries. Many believe that he old “the sun never sets on the British Empire” adage ended with the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to the Peoples Republic of China. Not exactly, but almost, as David Henderson wrote for Quora.com last December 10th: “Because of its position, the Pitcairn Islands are always in the sun even when night falls over the British Mainland and all other British Overseas territories. Should the U.K. ever lose Pitcairn, the sun will set on all British territory for the first time in almost three hundred years.

“On the question of ‘Empire’, it had become clear by the early years of the 20th century that the time of massive overseas Empires had passed. They were too expensive and difficult to maintain, the British started the process of dismantling its Empire in the late 19th and early 20th century, with varying levels of independence granted to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and (almost) Ireland.

“The British Empire ‘cashed in its chips’ as a major power with the two World Wars. The Empire reached its greatest geographical peak in 1921 when it inherited the territories of the now broken German and Ottoman empires.” As Queen Elizabeth enjoys her Platinum Jubilee — 70 years on the throne — with pageantry and parties, that pomp and circumstance is producing a different response in an increasing number of Commonwealth nations. A whole lot worse than “taxation without representation.”

That opulence plus the painful (often brutal) colonial history of the British crown are nothing more than sad reminders, pushing more nations to break their official relationship with the British crown. They recall the legacy of slavery, military conquest and suppression, a fierce white-vs-native caste system and the raw extraction of natural resources and agricultural goods for what has to be called “chump change.” It made Britain rich but kept a huge number of people in a painful and humiliating subsistence existence.

There is a lot of continuing anger in the Commonwealth, particularly among the impoverished segments, even as royals make token visits with a seeming blindness to that apparent vestige of remaining noblesse oblige. So, while the U.K. is celebrating the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, some in the Commonwealth are using the occasion to push for a formal break with the monarchy and the colonial history it represents. As the Associated Press notes (June 1st): “[The Queen] is head of state in 14 other nations [beyond the UK], including Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea and the Bahamas. Until recently it was 15 — Barbados cut ties with the monarchy in November, and several other Caribbean countries, including Jamaica, say they plan to follow suit…

“‘When I think about the queen, I think about a sweet old lady,’ said Jamaican academic Rosalea Hamilton, who campaigns for her country to become a republic. ‘It’s not about her. It’s about her family’s wealth, built on the backs of our ancestors. We’re grappling with the legacies of a past that has been very painful.’…

“A trip to Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas in March by the queen’s grandson Prince William and his wife, Kate, which was intended to strengthen ties, appears to have had the opposite effect. Images of the couple shaking hands with children through a chain-link fence [pictured above] and riding in an open-topped Land Rover in a military parade stirred echoes of colonialism for many… Cynthia Barrow-Giles, professor of political science at the University of the West Indies, said the British ‘seem to be very blind to the visceral sort of reactions’ that royal visits elicit in the Caribbean.

“Protesters in Jamaica demanded Britain pay reparations for slavery, and Prime Minister Andrew Holness politely told William that the country was ‘moving on,’ a signal that it planned to become a republic. The next month, Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne told Prince Edward that his country too would one day remove the queen as head of state… William acknowledged the strength of feeling and said the future ‘is for the people to decide upon… We support with pride and respect your decisions about your future,’ he said in the Bahamas. ‘Relationships evolve. Friendship endures.’

“When then-Princess Elizabeth became queen on the death of her father, King George VI, in 1952, she was in Kenya. The East African country became independent in 1963 after years of violent struggle between a liberation movement and colonial troops. In 2013, the British government apologized for the torture of thousands of Kenyans during the 1950s Mau Mau uprising and paid millions in an out-of-court settlement… Memories of the empire are still raw for many Kenyans…

“U.K. officials hope countries that become republics will remain in the Commonwealth, the 54-nation organization made up largely of former British colonies, which has the queen as its ceremonial head… The queen’s strong personal commitment to the Commonwealth has played a big role in uniting a diverse group whose members range from vast India to tiny Tuvalu. But the organization, which aims to champion democracy, good governance and human rights, faces an uncertain future.

“As Commonwealth heads of government prepare to meet in Kigali, Rwanda, this month for a summit, some question whether the organization can continue once the queen’s eldest son, Prince Charles, succeeds her.” AP. In the surging tide of rising super-powers, most notably China and perhaps Russia, the clash of religions and cultures all over the globe, is there a major transition away from Western domination? Is the devolution of the British Empire just one more piece of evidence of that tectonic shift?

I’m Peter Dekom, and political and global mega-power seems to have one constant: massive change, some slow and some very fast.

Is American a Faith Based Voting Constituency?

 

“If the unaffiliated were a religion, they’d be the largest religious group in the United States.”

Elizabeth Drescher, adjunct professor at Santa Clara University

The vast majority of Americans, in every credible state and national poll, does not want the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v Wade. Most educated Americans, and the rising generations are best educated we’ve ever had, believe in tolerance and inclusion, which definitely includes racial, ethnic and gender diversity. Yet given the distinctly rural bias baked into our Constitution – the according of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population, a product of the 94% of our nation being agriculturally based in 1789 – rural still rules in 2022. The Senate filibuster adds the anomaly making the United States the only purported representational democracy on earth where a simple majority of our federal legislature (Congress) cannot pass most legislation.

As evangelicals have coopted MAGA, and as MAGA has coopted virtually the entire formal/elected Republican Party, I wondered exactly how far away from majority rule this new religious control has taken the nation. When you realize that the nation is getting less religious, the answer is far, very far. First and foremost, evangelicals comprise about 22%-25% of all Americans, according to Gallup and Pew research, but religious values are changing… declining to be precise. They operate in undivided unison under that rural bias. But the nation is now mostly urban (85%+).

“A Pew Research Center poll published [12/14/21] indicates that the number of people in the U.S. who describe themselves as unaffiliated with a religion increased by 6 points in the last five years and 10 points in the last decade... When asked about their religious identity, 29% of respondents, or about 3 in 10 U.S. adults, said they had ‘none,’ meaning they were atheists, agnostics or ‘nothing in particular,’ according to the Pew Research Center survey.

“Christians, including Protestants, Catholics, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Orthodox Christians, still make up a majority of the U.S. population, the survey indicates… Specifically, they account for 63% of the adult population, a 12 percentage point decrease compared with data from 2011... While the percentage of Catholic U.S. adults has remained relatively steady, accounting for about 21% of the population since 2014, the population of Protestant adults declined to 40% this year, down 4 points in the last five years.” The Hill, December 14th.

We’ve had two Roman Catholic presidents, several Catholic Supreme Court Justices, a few Jewish Justices, and a whole lot of Protestant “any and all of the above.” The closest we ever got to an evangelical president in recent times was very liberal Jimmy Carter and maybe a born-again George W Bush. Yet, given that rural bias and the filibuster rule at a national level, evangelical voters control everything from abortion rights and gun control to religious freedom in the United States. Christian nationalism is rising, and if you realize that “nationalism” in a political sense means “we’re better than you are,” you can understand how so many dictatorial regimes began on that note.

One major example of that sentiment is the Republican nominee for Governor of Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano. Aside from his replacement theory and big lie conspiratorial views about the 2020 election, he is an unabashed Christian nationalist who argues that his version of Christianity should play a greater role in state government. Mastriano says he is "reclaiming" the state of Pennsylvania, which he calls the “promised land” "for Christ" and if he wins will restore "God's kingdom" in the state. Indeed, despite the First Amendment, he is one of many who believe that Christianity should be the official state religion. He is one of dozens of GOP officeholders and seekers who have very openly voiced this sentiment. Evangelicals, even as they fall in the percentage of the population, are cementing control over their flock and the GOP – their pastors are often instructing their followers on how to vote – as Catholicism seems to be losing its flock.

David Crary, writing for the June 7th Associated Press, observes: “The hard-line stances of many conservative Catholic bishops in the U.S. are not shared by a majority of lay Catholics. Most of them say abortion should be legal, favor greater inclusion of LGBTQ people, and oppose the denial of Communion for politicians who support abortion rights, according to a new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research… The poll, conducted in mid-May, shows a clear gap between the prevalent views of American Catholics and some recent high-profile actions taken by the church’s leaders.

“For example, leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently called on Catholics nationwide to pray for the U.S. Supreme Court to end the constitutional right to abortion by reversing its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. According to the new poll, 63% of Catholic adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 68% say Roe should be left as is… On May 20, the archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, announced that he will no longer allow House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to receive Communion because of her support for abortion rights… According to the poll, only 31% of lay Catholics agree that politicians supporting abortion rights should be denied Communion, while 66% say they should be allowed access to the sacrament.

“An even larger majority — 77% — said that Catholics who identify as LGBTQ should be allowed to receive Communion… That contrasts sharply with a policy issued by the Diocese of Marquette, which encompasses Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, saying pastors should deny Communion to transgender, gay and nonbinary Catholics ‘unless the person has repented.’

“Natalia Imperatori-Lee, a professor of religious studies at Manhattan College, said the rift between rank-and-file Catholics and the bishops ‘reveals a breakdown in communication and trust — shepherds who are far removed from the sheep… This is a precarious time for the U.S. Catholic Church,’ she added in an email. ‘U.S. Catholics are, on the whole, accustomed to living and working in a pluralistic society, and this poll reinforces the notion that they want the public square to remain pluralistic, free from coercion, and oriented toward care for the vulnerable populations among us.’” The disdain shown liberal and tolerant Pope Francis by a number of senior American clerics suggests that the Church is losing it grip… a fact that should have been evident from the decades of priestly sex scandals and the resulting cover-ups.

In the end, democracy is deeply and perhaps fatally challenged by members of a large minority with disproportionate political power, feeling morally superior, attempting to force their vision of God on the rest of us. The only way for that minority to succeed is via autocratic rule.

I’m Peter Dekom, and this nation was founded by people who fought hard against religious bigots trying to force the world to accept their version of faith.

Small Band Aids for Massive Hemorrhaging

 

Congress just produced a bipartisan bill that makes it slightly more difficult for a few (the young, mentally ill and the obviously violent) to buy guns, but it is pretty clear, given the free trade of almost any kind of weapon almost anywhere (but particularly in red states that have loosened gun ownership over the last ten years), that anyone who really wants just about any weapon can get one. The June 12th Associated Press summarizes the proposed legislation: “The compromise would make the juvenile records of gun buyers under age 21 available when they undergo background checks. The suspects who killed 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo and 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde were both 18, and many of the attackers who have committed mass shootings in recent years have been young.

“The agreement would offer money to states to implement ‘red flag’ laws that make it easier to temporarily take guns from people considered potentially violent, and to bolster school safety and mental health programs… And it would take other steps, including requiring more people who sell guns obtain federal dealers' licenses, which means they would have to conduct background checks of purchasers.” Do you really believe that officials in red states will enforce even these minimal restrictions?

Perhaps serendipitously, on June 11th, Idaho police officers arrested 31 people (pictured above) who are affiliated with the White nationalist group called Patriot Front, after they were seen gathering near a Pride parade in the city of Coeur d’Alene. Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene and points north are increasingly gathering/training areas for right-wing militias hell-bent on autocratic change. White Christian rule. Guns, particularly military-grade semiautomatic assault weapons with oversized magazines, are badges of “patriotism” for uniformed, bullet-proof-vest-wearing right-wing White supremacists. To them, replacement theory is their driving motivation, Fox News is the source of truth, Donald Trump won the 2020 election by a landslide and the nation is falling victim to Democrats’ proselytizing socialism. They don’t even know what “socialism” means.

If you do not have easy access to an assault weapon because you live in a blue state and do not know how to access the underground sale of guns, you can drive into a red state… or even find what you want online. As long as those estimated 15 million American civilian-owned semiautomatic weapons remain legal on any basis, with or without oversized magazines (the regular, 30-bullet magazine can be changed in a couple of seconds anyway), those people-killing guns will still be the weapons of choice for right-wing militia and mass shooters. And about that “semiautomatic” function, you can order the part needed to make it fully automatic online. And as Australia learned after a mass shooting in 1996, you can ban certain weapons from a civilian population – as a buyback or a simple ban.

Writing for the June 12th Los Angeles Times, Brian Contreras tells us how easy it is to get guns and the necessary parts to go fully automatic: “AR-15s are largely illegal to sell in California. So are high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets. But should you manage to get your hands on both, you can reload them faster than ever with just $10.99 and a few clicks on EBay.

“That’s the promise of the ‘Universal Magazine Speed Loader for Rifle,’ a product meant to cut down on how long it takes to slot ammunition into a gun magazine… Until quite recently, the speed loader was available for purchase on the e-commerce platform, with free shipping from Shanghai. Fifty-nine units had already been sold.

“Although it advertised the product as universal, the post helpfully included a list of firearms it could be used to load. That list consisted overwhelmingly of assault rifles, including the AR-15, AK-47, M-16, AK-74, HK33, G36 and Steyr AUG. The main photo also showed the loader being used to fill a high-capacity magazine.

“This is all despite EBay rules that forbid the sale of ‘parts and accessories for assault weapons’ — a policy that a spokesperson said extends to ‘parts designed for assault weapons … even if they can also fit non-assault weapons’ — as well as all high-capacity magazines and any firearm components that are banned in California… EBay subsequently changed its rule from banning ‘products that mention capability with an assault weapon’ to the current, more expansive prohibition on ‘parts and accessories for assault weapons.’

“Yet almost three years later, the site still hosts numerous listings that appear to violate this stricture… Some sellers are brazen about it… One, the ‘AR-15 Super Slim Fixed Rear Sight - Black,’ is featured on EBay’s landing page for ‘Hunting Scope Mounts & Accessories’ as one of the top-rated products in the category… Another, a Thordsen-brand ‘Featureless AR15 Rifle Stock,’ had a starting bid of $79 and free pickup available in Redwood City [California]. (It has since been removed.) According to the Thordsen listing for the same product, ‘featureless’ gun parts modify assault weapons to be compliant with state laws, such as by replacing an adjustable stock with a fixed one. In 2019, EBay said that featureless parts were banned…

“A product called the ‘Lets Go Brandon AR magazine coupler’ ships from Costa Mesa [California] for just under $20. EBay’s rules require listings for firearm parts and accessories to specify the type of gun they fit, but the seller of the ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ [an inside political slam to Joe Biden] coupler appears to have avoided this requirement by listing the item in the category for comics and graphic novels. (Contacted by The Times, the seller said EBay’s system had auto-generated the erroneous category. He deleted the listing.)” And that’s mainstream EBay! With Bitcoin, social media and the dark web, you can still buy anything a shooter wants.

The online universe has ended the notion of “lone wolf” shooters, even those mass shooters seeking notoriety as part of a planned suicide. Right-wing radicalization, accelerated by the Trumpian perpetration of serial lies supported both by social media and Fox News, is no longer the single journey of a single angry soul. It is the result of online communication and gatherings. They are instead rising and legitimized groups of well-armed angry bigots who seriously believe they are patriots. Some are White Christian Nationalists who believe God is on their side. When you combine easy access to AR-15s, social media and high-level legitimization hatred of diversity, we cannot truly be surprised at all the American gun deaths. That most Americans support banning assault weapons, you begin to understand the power of special interests and disinformation in making sure that never happens.

I’m Peter Dekom, and unless you are a racist bigot, when you hear someone describing them selves as a “patriot,” run…

America’s Withdrawal and Return – Influence Slip-Sliding Away

  First Summit – 1994

America’s Isolationism

 Summit Today –  Summit Today – Uninvited and Tentative Attendees

“The diminishing influence of the United States in Latin America is a byproduct of toxic polarization”

Manuel Orozco, an expert at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank

Going back as far as the “Monroe Doctrine” of 1823 to the series of anti-Castro efforts in the 1960s to clandestine efforts in the latter part of 20th century to unseat leftist regimes in Latin America – often supporting brutal dictators – to the American government’s consistently blind eye to the massive smuggling of American made weapons to narco-cartels that have seriously destabilized Mexico and several nations in Central and South America, the United States has treated nations south of our border with mixture of distain, a region subject to our whims and domination with an occasional efforts towards friendship and rapprochement. We’ve certainly taken advantage of cheap, subsistence labor on farms and mines and pushed big American companies down the throats of nations seeking a greater control of their lands.

There was a moment, since passed, when maybe, just maybe our relationship with Latin American nations could turn around. As Tracy Wilkinson, writing for the June 6th Los Angeles Times notes, “It was the early 1990s, and the Western world seemed full of promise. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Cold War that had gripped and shaped global politics for decades was over.

“So were many of the wars in Central America and some of the most intractable and brutal military dictatorships in South America, from Argentina and Chile to Brazil… Then-President Clinton seized on the moment and the Summit of the Americas was born, with the inaugural event held in Miami in 1994. All of the countries of the Western Hemisphere except Cuba joined to debate trade, prosperity, immigration and democracy. And every one of the governments involved had been democratically elected, a sign of major progress.”

But the world has changed. Mired in a post-9/11/01 series of roiling global conflicts, facing its own rising tide of political extremism, polarization, wavering between policies of engagement followed by a toxic shunning of international cooperation, riding high on a mantra of “America First” isolationism, the United States all but abandoned the playing field of global influence. We became the country of “no.” A rising and very wealthy China took almost no time to step in and take our place, particularly in Latin America.

“In 1994, the United States was the only game in town, with an economy much larger than any other country in the hemisphere. China was not the player it is today, and many countries still had diplomatic relations with Taiwan, not Beijing… But today, China has grown exponentially and has made deep inroads into Latin America through its $4.3-trillion Belt and Road infrastructure and import-export initiative, of particular appeal to governments that don’t want to be challenged on democratic practices or human rights.

“‘The U.S. is giving this constant message to Latin American countries: Don’t do business with China. It’s bad for you,’ [said Cynthia Arnson, a longtime Latin America specialist and distinguished fellow at the Wilson Center research institute]. ‘But what the U.S. has to offer is still not clear. ... The United States needs to show it’s putting skin in the game.’

“She noted that while China is pouring money into the region, several overtures from Latin American nations about free-trade agreements with the U.S. have gone unanswered. Trade is an increasingly polarizing domestic political issue, further complicating any steps by Biden… A hallmark of the 1994 summit was a proposal for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, an ambitious plan to eliminate trade barriers throughout the region. However, it fell apart a few years later when officials could not agree on final terms.” LA Times. With that history in mind, a Biden Administration approach to rekindling our international presence was to resurrect the Summit (beginning on June 6th).

But lingering elements of Trump-era isolationism, Biden’s seeming futile efforts to embrace his virulent opponents in the populist GOP – his still holding on to failed vestiges of Trump foreign policy – have resulted in a Summit that has provoked many Latin American nations to see US efforts as more divisive than cooperative. Simply put, Biden purposely excluded leftist dictators from the invitation list, which in turn led even mainstream nations (like Mexico) to find that Summit becoming a negative “American” political event, a wishy-washy play to the American political scene rather than a genuine effort to reengage with the rest of the Americas.

Dictators and cartel-bought politicians dominate a sizeable portion of governments south of the border. “[Mack McLarty, Clinton’s special representative to the Summit of the Americas] said he holds out hope that President Biden’s administration can ‘set up a bridge’ to reengage with other countries in the region. But many believe the window that opened nearly 30 years ago has for the most part closed. Progress from what was seen as a watershed moment in 1994 was unraveling before the decade was out.

“The most glaring evidence of regression has come in the form of decisions or threats from several leaders to boycott the event, a position unheard of in 1994 and in most summits that have occurred since, taking place every three or four years. That problem has thrown the White House’s preparations for the summit into a chaotic scramble, creating bad optics for a president who has prided himself on his familiarity with Latin America…

“As many of the region’s governments turn away from democracy and an emphasis on the rule of law, they feel freer to disengage from the U.S., where democratic principles have also been struggling. Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has said he won’t attend after the Biden administration announced it would not invite Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua. Bolivia followed Mexico’s lead, and several Central American countries [suggested they too would boycott].” LA Times.

Indeed, as representatives gathered in Los Angeles, as Biden addressed the summit stressing unity of democracies in the Americas, failure was in the air… American hypocrisy at rejecting Latin American autocracies while coddling up to the Saudi autocracy was just one strong negative sentiment, one clearly represented by Argentine President Alberto Fernández, speaking on June 9th: “We definitely would have wished for a different Summit of the Americas. The silence of those who are absent is calling to us.” If there is ever another Summit, there was a solid chorus of member nations demanding no future exclusions.

Although there has been bipartisan support for our support of Ukraine, there is little else in American policies that seems able to bring bipartisan unity, particularly immediately preceding our midterm elections. Perhaps, as many foreign policy experts have suggested, the resurrection of the Summit of the Americas should never have happened.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the Biden administration’s efforts to embrace the concerns of the populist MAGA opposition appears to be a weak “bridge to nowhere.”