Chevron justice tries to bury a human rights lawyer – posted 10/10/2021

October 10, 2021 Leave a comment

The saga of Attorney Steven Donziger continues and the news is not good. On October 1, New York Federal Judge Loretta Preska sentenced Donziger to six months in federal prison for a misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt. This was the maximum penalty allowed.

This is on top of the 787 days Donziger has already spent under house arrest while being forced to wear an ankle bracelet.

The Court has additionally imposed millions of dollars in fines and court costs against Donziger. The Court already let Chevron swoop into Donziger’s bank accounts and take his life savings to cover Chevron’s attorney fees. Chevron has another pending motion to make Donziger pay another $32 million in their attorney’s fees. The Court also allowed Chevron to place a lien on Donziger’s apartment in Manhattan where he lives with his family.

The original trial judge on the RICO case, Judge Kaplan, orchestrated Donziger’s disbarment as a lawyer without a hearing where he could present factual evidence. Donziger now has no means to earn income in his profession.

If there is anything else that Chevron and their favorite judges could do to torture Donziger, it is hard to imagine.

I previously wrote about Donziger and Chevron but just to refresh recollection: Donziger is a human rights and environmental lawyer. His crime is that he was too successful in suing oil companies. On behalf of the indigenous people of Ecuador, Donziger and his legal team won an epic multi-billion dollar judgment against Chevron for their extensive pollution of the rain forest.

Chevron (previously Texaco) had discharged 16 billion gallons of toxic waste into Ecuador’s rivers, groundwater and farmland. Now Chevron, rather than paying the court judgment, is making Donziger pay.

Just before Judge Preska sentenced Donziger, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the top human rights legal body in the world, issued a ruling in favor of Donziger. The U.N.’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention called Donziger’s already over two year home detention “appalling” and said it violates international law. The U.N. opinion said the judges in this case displayed a “staggering lack of objectivity and impartiality” toward Donziger.

The opinion noted:

“The charges against and detention of Mr. Donziger appears to be retaliation for his work as a legal representative of indigenous communities as he refused to disclose confidential correspondence with his clients in a very high profile case against multi-national business enterprise.”

The U.N. Working Group found that Donziger was a “human rights defender” and that his treatment violated both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Taking into account all circumstances, the U.N. Working Group wrote that the “appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Steven Donziger immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparation in accordance with international law”.

No lawyer has ever been charged with criminal contempt for seeking judicial review of a civil discovery order. For the level of offense, no lawyer in New York has ever served more than 90 days and that was in home confinement.

The Court has wanted Donziger to turn over all his electronic devices, compromising his clients’ privilege. It is worth going back to a lawyer’s ethical duties under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the gold standard for lawyers. Rule 1.6(a) states, in relevant part:

“A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent.”

It is not an exaggeration to say that release of confidential client information could be dangerous for Donziger’s clients. Killings of environmental activists resisting extractive industries has been on the global upswing. Donziger has made clear he would turn over his electronic devices once a protocol is worked out that protects privilege.

Stepping back from the case, some observations are required. In Donziger’s case, the Court has clearly lost its way. A pro-corporate bias has corrupted the proceedings. The penalties imposed against Donziger are wildly excessive and not commensurate with his actions representing indigenous Ecuadorans.

The maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment. Donziger has already served the maximum penalty more than four times over. The Court is acting like the home confinement was nothing. Under international law, house arrest counts as detention. Donziger has no criminal record. He has a history of good deeds as a lawyer. The U.N. identifies him as a “human rights defender’.

When Judge Preska sentenced Donziger, she brushed over the U.N. opinion. She crassly said,

“It seems that only the proverbial two-by-four between the eyes will instill in him any respect for the law.”

Donziger has two weeks to appeal Judge Preska’s order that he be sent immediately to jail. He is appealing. Judge Preska denied Donziger bail claiming he posed a flight risk. Donziger told the journalist Chris Hedges:

“What Judge Preska is trying to do is force me to serve the entirety of my sentence before the appellate court can rule. If the appellate court rules in my favor, I will still have served my sentence, although I am innocent in the eyes of the law.”

In a perverse way, this case illustrates our underlying climate change reality. A multi-national fossil fuel company rapes the environment. When indigenous people who were victimized seek justice, a pro-corporate judiciary sides with the environmental rapist and brutally punishes the victims’ advocate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear that climate change is here and it is caused by fossil fuels. Many young people suffer climate anxiety because humanity has failed to respond. Donziger’s case is a perfect example of why so many have lost faith in the system.

Categories: Uncategorized

Road to Fowlertown, NH – posted 10/10/2021

October 10, 2021 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized

America’s debt to Haiti – posted 10/5/2021

October 5, 2021 Leave a comment

Has any country in the world suffered more than Haiti? It is the Job of nations. Earthquakes, tropical storms, gang violence, political assassinations, official corruption and extreme economic inequality are all part of the Haitian picture.

The 2010 7.0 magnitude earthquake alone killed 100,000 Haitians and left hundreds of thousands homeless. The international response exemplified what Naomi Klein calls “disaster capitalism”. The pursuit of profit by foreign contractors, greedy businesses, and NGOs’ took precedence over the survival needs of the Haitian people. Increasingly, Haiti is divided between a small elite class of the wealthy and impoverished masses.

Most recently we have observed the spectacle of horse-mounted Border Patrol agents wielding whips while rounding up Haitians who were crossing the border with Mexico to seek asylum in the United States. The Biden Administration is expelling and deporting many of these migrant families by flying them back to Haiti. Considering the arduous and dangerous journey, it must be a bitter pill to be returned to a place left because it was deemed impossible to stay.

I think it is fair to say that where Haitians are concerned, the image Americans typically get is one of desperation and absolute neediness. That image needs to be reconsidered by injecting a sense of historical perspective.

Americans owe a large and unacknowledged debt to the Haitian people. The Haitian revolution 1791-1804 played a critical role in early American history and in the abolition of slavery. It helped protect America from domination by both the French and the British who had imperial designs on our country. Both had expansionist empires.

The story is little known. The Haitian revolution followed on the heels of both the American and French revolutions, was inspired by both, and it stands as the only successful slave revolution in modern history. It was the largest slave revolt since Spartacus’ unsuccessful revolt against the Roman Republic 1900 years earlier.

The Haitian revolution shocked white supremacists and refuted notions of black inferiority. During the revolution, the Haitians defeated colonial militaries from Spain, Britain and France. The revolution was led by Toussaint Louverture, a former house servant, and Jean-Jacques Dessalines. Both were formidable military strategists.

Prior to the revolution, Haiti, known as Saint-Domingue, was a nation of 500,000 African slaves, 32,000 whites and 28,000 free Blacks. Saint-Domingue was the most profitable French colony and its wealth came primarily from sugar plantations worked by slaves. The French slavemasters were infamous for their extreme cruelty using whipping, castration, and burning to maintain iron discipline over the slaves.

The slaveholders worked slaves as hard as possible while providing a minimum of food and shelter. The life expectancy of slaves was very short. Fifty percent of the slaves in Haiti were dead within a year of arrival on the island. Many died from diseases like yellow fever. The slaves had no rights.

In 1802, when Napoleon sent his fleet to regain control of Haiti he wanted to re-establsih the French empire in the Caribbean. He ultimately desired to use Louisiana as a supply station for French colonies.

When the French were defeated by the Haitians, Napoleon had to give up his dream of empire. After losing a fortune in the conflict, Napoleon was desperate for money. Napoleon sold the Louisiana territory to the United States for 68 million francs, the equivalent today of $237 million. The Louisiana Purchase was a result of his defeat by the Haitians.

The Haitian revolution proved to be a roadblock to France, scuttling Napoleon’s expansionist dreams. The Haitians kept America free from French domination. Americans bought the right to contend with Native Americans in their pursuit of western expansion.

The Haitian revolution was also a major impetus for the abolition of slavery. In 1793, the Haitian revolutionary movement forced a decree abolishing slavery The decree was confirmed in Paris in 1794 by the National Convention which then ended slavery in the French empire. Thousands of white people fled Haiti for the U.S..

While it is difficult to attribute particular American slave revolts in the early nineteenth century to the Haitian revolution, there is no doubt that the revolution did act as inspiration for slaves. The Haitian revolution was widely reported. The ruling class in America saw Haiti as a dangerous example for U.S. slaves. Southern slaveholders actually worried that armed Haitians might land in the southern U.S. and launch attacks to free slaves.

The spectre of slave insurrections haunted the imagination of Southern slaveholders. And they had good reason to fear. Slave insurrections like the 1811 German Coast Uprising in Louisiana and Denmark Vesey’s aborted uprising in 1822 provoked Southern paranoia.

The British were also very concerned that the success of slave revolts would inspire insurrections in British Caribbean colonies.

As President, Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian and a slaveowner, refused diplomatic relations with Haiti’s new government and cut off trade with the country. He feared the Haitian revolution would spread to the United States. The United States did not extend diplomatic recognition to Haiti until 1862.

Before he died, Frederick Douglass described the Haitian revolution as “the original pioneer emancipator of the nineteenth century”. It posed a “threat to all slaveholders throughout the world” and “her very name was pronounced with a shudder”.

The Haitian revolution showed American abolitionists that a new world beyond slavery was possible. It was a tremendous shot in the arm for abolitionists everywhere. Part of the debt Americans owe Haiti is a moral one. Slavery is one of the two major stains on America’s conscience. Haiti showed by example that we did not have to live compromised by a moral atrocity.

When we see pictures of desperate Haitians now seeking asylum, maybe we should think about the history and what we owe the Haitian people. We should also consider that much of Haiti’s poverty was imposed by French colonialism. In 1825, the French forced Haiti to pay reparations (the equivalent of $21 billion) to the enslavers in exchange for recognition. The debt was crushing and contributed to long-term poverty for the Haitians.

We are still seeing the Haitian refugees through racist eyes. Rather than summary deportation, the Haitians deserve due process and a right to a hearing to make their asylum claim. Denying their right to seek asylum in the U.S. is in violation of both domestic and international law. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, those who arrive at the border are entitled to seek asylum if they can demonstrate a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on their race, religion, nationality political opinion or membership in a social group.

The Biden administration should not be following the Trump example. They have been expelling Haitians using Title 42, making the discredited claim Haitians are a threat to public health. This argument was crafted by Stephen Miller, who is a hatemonger and an anti-immigration kook.

Americans have been propagandized to hate and fear immigrants and refugees. Workers have every right to be angered about the degradation of their working and living conditions here but it is not immigrants who have caused that. Xenophobia and harsher restrictions on immigration are contrary to our needs as a nation.

Given our history, the Haitian refugees seeking asylum deserve so much better. America owes Haiti. Too many approach these extremely difficult circumstances with no historical perspective.

Categories: Uncategorized

New London NH Women’s March – posted 10/2/2021

October 2, 2021 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized

“Bury Me in a Free Land” by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper – posted 10/1/2021

October 1, 2021 2 comments

I wanted to share this poem written by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper (1825-1911) who was an abolitionist, an Underground Railroad conductor, a writer and cofounder of the National Association of Colored Women.

Make me a grave where’er you will,
In a lowly plain, or a lofty hill;
Make it among earth’s humblest graves,
But not in a land where men are slaves.

I could not rest if I heard the tread
Of coffee gang to the shambles led,
And the mother’s shriek of wild despair
Rise like a curse on the trembling air.

If I saw young girls from their mother’s arms
Bartered and sold for their youthful charms,
My eye would flash with a mournful flame,
My death-paled cheek grow red with shame.

I ask no monument, proud and high,
To arrest the gaze of passers-by;
All that my yearning spirit craves,
Is bury me not in a land of slaves.

Categories: Uncategorized

Isaac Woodard’s story should be widely known – posted 9/26/2021

September 26, 2021 1 comment

American history, as conventionally taught, includes a number of agreed-upon stories. What seems to get remembered is much less than the full tapestry of our history. There are some stories which have been left out but which have considerable historical importance.

The story of Isaac Woodard is such a story. I did not know about him until I read Isabel Wilkerson’s book, Caste. Woodard became unknown after the 1940’s even though his story is critical to the evolution of the modern civil rights movement. No less a person than Julian Bond, Georgia’s late outstanding civil rights leader, said that Woodard’s story inspired a generation of African Americans to act.

The story begins with Woodard’s honorable discharge from the U.S. Army. After serving for three years in the Pacific theater in World War II, Woodard returned to the United States. During his time in the military he was promoted to sergeant. He earned a battle star for unloading ships under enemy fire during the New Guinea campaign. Woodard was one of one million African Americans who all served in segregated units in the U.S. military.

On February 12, 1946, Woodard boarded a Greyhound bus in Augusta Ga as he headed home to see his wife. During an early stop Woodard asked the bus driver if he could step off the bus to go to the bathroom. In that time, buses did not have restroom facilities. The bus driver said:

“Hell no. Goddamn it, go back and sit down. I ain’t got time to wait.”

Woodard responded:

“God damn it, talk to me like I am talking to you. I am a man just like you.”

The bus driver then agreed to a brief rest stop. When the bus reached Batesburg, South Carolina, the bus driver exited the bus to find a police officer to have Woodard removed from the bus.

The bus driver found Batesburg’s police chief, Lynwood Shull, along with a second officer. When the bus driver returned to the bus, he told Woodard to get off the bus as he had someone who wanted to speak to him. While accounts vary somewhat about what happened next, the police chief struck Woodard over the head with a blackjack. He then placed Woodard under arrest.

The police chief hit Woodard again and Woodard tried to wrestle away the blackjack. He stopped when the other officer pulled a gun. The police chief then proceeded to repeatedly pound Woodard in the eyes and face with the end of his blackjack. Woodard blacked out.

When Woodard woke up the next morning, he could not see. Police Chief Shull had crushed Woodard’s eyes and permanently blinded him. Doctors later diagnosed that Woodard had suffered traumatic ruptures of both globes.

The next morning Shull guided Woodard to court. In a kangaroo court proceeding, Woodard was promptly found guilty of disorderly conduct and fined $50. He had $44 in cash and the judge accepted payment of that and suspended the balance.

A local doctor recommended that Woodard be transported to the VA Hospital in Columbia South Carolina. An internist there observed hemorrhaging of the eyeballs. Woodard remained at the VA Hospital for the next two months.

VA staff applied for VA disability benefits on his behalf but there was a problem. Woodard’s blinding happened five hours after his discharge. Even though he was still in uniform on the way home, the VA denied Woodard full benefits. He was given partial disability benefits of $50 per month which was a personal disaster for Woodard because that was not financially survivable.

It took fifteen years before Congress amended the law to allow full service-related disability for a soldier who suffered a disabling injury while traveling home after discharge from the military.

After he was blinded, Woodard’s wife dumped him. His parents and sisters who had moved north during the war came to the rescue. His sisters brought him back to New York City to live. Woodard complained to his mother, “My head feels like it’s going to burst and my eyes ache.” The situation was close to hopeless.

But then the NAACP took his case and things changed. The NAACP began a major public relations campaign around Woodard’s blinding that was extremely effective. At the same time there was a wave of violence carried out in the South against returning African American veterans. Woodard’s story captured in microcosm the broader trend.

Orson Welles’ very popular radio program focused on the Woodard case. Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion organized a benefit concert in Harlem that featured Cab Calloway and Nat King Cole. Woody Guthrie wrote an original song about Woodard and sang it at the benefit. The concert was very successful and raised money to help Woodard who was impoverished.

The federal government had been a passive bystander (and worse) to the prevailing racism of the 1940’s. Although J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI had a dismal record on civil rights, even Hoover thought Woodard’s case was flagrant. President Truman and Attorney General Tom Clark faced pressure to act.

At the time the federal government had almost entirely defaulted on prosecuting crimes of racial hate but the Justice Department filed suit against Shull. Not surprisingly, an all-white jury quickly acquitted him. That was the norm. The Charleston South Carolina federal court judge in the case, Judge J. Waties Waring was horrified both by a weak prosecution and by the racist verdict.

Sometimes disgraceful crimes that remain unpunished can lead to entirely unexpected outcomes. Both President Truman and Judge Waring were shocked by the Woodard events. Truman issued an executive order establishing the President’s Committee on Civil Rights. The Committee issued a report in October 1947 entitled “To Secure These Rights”. The report challenged Jim Crow and made many progressive proposals, including desegregating the armed forces and federal government employment.

While Truman was no civil rights firebrand, in July 1948 he issued another executive order ending segregation in the armed forces. Before his presidency ended in 1951 he issued a series of executive orders prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors in a number of federal agencies like the Department of Defense, Commerce and the Interior. It must be remembered that this was a time when there was overwhelming hostility to civil rights among American voters.

Judge Waring went through a process of personal transformation and racial awakening. The Woodard case opened his eyes. It did not take long for Judge Waring to be receiving death threats from the racists and segregationists. Waring ruled against South Carolina in a white primary case. South Carolina had been excluding qualified voters from its primaries based on race.

As part of a three judge panel, Judge Waring later issued a powerful dissent in Briggs v Elliott, a forerunner case to Brown v Board of Education. He found that “segregation is per se inequality”. Waring’s analysis reappeared in the Brown opinion.

Probably most people think the civil rights movement began in the 1950’s. In his book Unexampled Courage, Richard Gergel shows the movement’s 1940’s roots. A strong argument can be made that the Woodard case and its aftermath kickstarted the movement.

Once upon a time, Isaac Woodard’s name was one of the most recognizable names within the Black community in America. But that was over 70 years ago. His name has been long buried and forgotten just like much of our racial history. Woodard’s story should be acknowledged as an integral part of American history.

Categories: Uncategorized

Time to prosecute Donald Trump – posted 9/19/2021

September 19, 2021 2 comments

Former President Donald Trump organized a coup to overthrow democracy in America. Although he was not ultimately successful, Trump tried to steal the last presidential election to seize power for himself. In the process, he turned a formerly conservative party into a party of extremists. The Republican Party now poses a fascist threat to democracy.

Trump’s actions during his presidential term crossed many legal and ethical lines. In addressing the question of his potential prosecution, it is challenging to limit the inquiry about his crimes. I choose to narrow it down to Trump’s actions in the period of time after his electoral defeat and through January 6, 2021.

Arguably, refusing to support a peaceful transition of power after losing the election and organizing an insurrection to topple democracy are his worst crimes.

While there is dispute about whether a sitting President can be indicted on criminal charges, there is broad agreement that there is no federal prohibition on charging a former President who committed crimes while in office.

The biggest obstacle to prosecution is the seeming lack of will to do it. No previous president has ever been indicted. Prosecutors would, no doubt, wonder about both the obstacles in making a case as well as their chances for securing a conviction.

Trump is slippery. This is someone who has been a party in 3,500 lawsuits in federal and state court. In his book Plaintiff in Chief, James D. Zirin writes:

“Trump’s litigation history shows him more often suing than sued. It was how he engaged with people. He would sue almost anyone for anything. He never collected a big judgment, but he wasn’t in it for the money. Trump enjoyed the possession of money and the things that money could buy. But more than money, his goal was the possession of supreme power, the joy of domination over those who crossed his path.”

Zirin goes on to say that Trump has rarely won in court. Typically, Trump settles or, if he was the plaintiff, he drops the case. In his business career before the presidency, Trump was charged with race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, fraud, breach of trust, money laundering and defamation. Between 1991-2009, his hotel and casino businesses filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times.

At the start of his presidency, he paid $25 million to settle the Trump University case where he swindled thousands of students. He also paid $2 million for misusing his charitable foundation.

Lawsuits are a sport for Trump. They have often been more about getting headlines for himself than actually winning. Even when Trump loses, he will say he won. Sound familiar?

There is deep cynicism about the legal system protecting rich people, including sleazy rich people. Money talks. Still, I would suggest that Trump’s track record proves he should not be considered above the law. In the past, he has lost in court and he has had to pay or negotiate very expensive settlements.

Many seem to think Trump is some kind of teflon Superman as a litigant. History shows he is not. That is not to say he will not use scorched earth tactics that most reasonable lawyers and judges despise. That is his game. He will automatically label any investigation of his criminal activity a “witch hunt”.

It is legal error to think that a powerful case cannot be made against Trump for his actions in the last period of his presidency after the November 2020 election. A conviction could be obtained on multiple charges. Inciting an insurrection to prevent Congress and Vice-President Pence from counting electoral votes cannot possibly be kosher.

Laurence Tribe, the Harvard Law professor and constitutional law expert, has argued that Trump engaged in conspiracy to commit sedition, an extreme abuse of power. Trump was in cahoots with the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and others to prevent Congress and Vice President Pence from certifying an election winner.

Trump aided and abetted assault and battery against U.S. Capitol police officers. When he had the opportunity to call off attackers, he refused. There is a strong argument that his speech alone on January 6 incited a riot. Back on December 19, he had tweeted that people should come to a Washington DC on January 6. He said it would be “wild”.

The Trump 2020 campaign, along with its fundraising committees, made more than $3.5 million in direct payments to people and firms involved in the Washington DC protest on January 6. After taking the stage at noon on January 6, Trump spoke for an hour and fifteen minutes. Among other things, he said:

  • “They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.”
  • “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.”
  • “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”
  • “And we’re going to the capitol…But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness they need to take back our country.”

During his speech, the crowd started chanting “Fight like hell” and “Fight for Trump”. When Trump finished, the chants changed to “Storm the capitol”, “Invade the Capitol Building” and “Take the Capitol right now”.

While Trump is an expert at walking the line and creating plausible deniability, it is fair to say that many in the mob stormed the capitol at his direction. A number of the insurrectionists have said as much in defense of their own cases.

No case that might be brought is ironclad. There are two cases that have been brought by U.S. Capitol police officers. There are also the lawsuits filed by Congressman Eric Swalwell and Bennie Thompson, citing violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention Trump’s election interference. Both his actions in Georgia pressing their Secretary of State to “find” votes and his pressure on Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to declare the election “corrupt” are actionable.

The Department of Justice could prosecute Trump. Part of saving democracy is sending a clear message that breaking the law in the Oval Office will be punished. Congress’ failure to follow through on the impeachments and remove Trump did not send the necessary message.

Not to prosecute sends a different message: that an out-of-control President faces no consequences. It almost guarantees future repetition of the type of misconduct that Trump exemplified.

Categories: Uncategorized

The U.S. Supreme Court has become an embarrassment – posted 9/12/2021

September 12, 2021 1 comment

Probably no institution has been held in higher regard than the U.S. Supreme Court. In spite of a checkered history, the Court has been almost venerated which makes it particularly painful to note its Texas abortion decision. Or I should say anti-abortion decision.

In a shadow docket decision, the Court acquiesced in Texas’s enactment of a law that flouts almost fifty years of federal precedent.

The Texas law represents the most significant challenge to abortion rights since the Supreme Court struck down another Texas law that criminalized abortion in Roe v Wade. The new law bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Many women will be unaware that they are even pregnant at that point. The law also makes no exceptions for rape, incest or nonviable pregnancies in which the fetus has detectable cardiac activity or cases in which the fetus has a fatal and untreatable condition.

The law has other odious features. It has a novel enforcement mechanism. Private citizens can bring a civil lawsuit against any person “who performs or induces an abortion” or who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion”. If the private citizen prevails, they can win $10,000 and payment of their attorney’s fees. As has been pointed out, this is a bounty hunter’s delight.

When the Court overturns constitutional rights that have been guaranteed for almost fifty years, it is not simply embarrassing. It is so out-of-touch that it promotes disrespect for the rule of law.There are so many things wrong with the Court’s cursory decision that I simply wanted to list what floored me.

  • There are six million women of reproductive age in Texas. In taking away constitutional rights guaranteed by Roe, it denies women control of their own bodies. The Court treats women like they are broodmares, not autonomous citizens with rights.
  • Almost all abortions are barred by the Texas law. Abortion providers in Texas say that 85 to 90 percent of the abortion procedures they previously performed were after the six week period.
  • The Court used the sleazy maneuver of the shadow docket to eviscerate constitutional rights in Texas. It is not just that the Court did something rotten – it is how they did it that stinks. Without a record, briefing, and argument and with no split in the circuits which is typically required, the Court, in an unsigned opinion, took a drastic step when there was no need to do it. They have already accepted a Mississippi case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that will be heard in the next term that raises the question of a 15 week abortion ban.
  • The Court tossed aside the requirement of standing. Any bounty hunter can sue someone who “aids or abets” an abortion. This could mean a friend, a counselor, a doctor, or a taxi driver. Contrary to law around standing, bounty hunters need have no involvement in the particular case.
  • Many have accurately compared the bounty hunter provision of the Texas law to the nineteenth century Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act deputized citizens to surveil, stalk, and apprehend people trying to escape slavery. The bounty hunter provision of the Texas law could not be more parallel to the Fugitive Slave law.
  • Allowing no exception for rape, incest and nonviable pregnancies is medieval. It evidences that the law’’s authors have an absolute disregard for women’s lives. Responses like that of Texas Governor Greg Abbott that he is going to end rape are laughable. The law makes an exception for “medical emergencies” but that law is undefined. It will be up to doctors to decide whether their patient qualifies and they could be sued by those who disagree.
  • The Texas law will disproportionately adversely affect low-income people, minorities and people who live far away from abortion clinics. It is a safe bet well-off people will have the means and connections to get reproductive care outside the state. The poor will suffer more. It is also reasonable to speculate that the law will intimidate some people out of getting abortion care they need and others will seek unsafe underground abortions out of desperation..
  • The United Nations Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls has condemned the Texas abortion law as sex discrimination and a violation of international law.
  • In contrast to the United States, Mexico’s Supreme Court just de-criminalized abortion. The United States will likely be joining countries like Egypt, El Salvador, Iraq and Mauritania in having the most reactionary laws in the world around abortion rights.

Not surprisingly, the Biden Administration, through the Department of Justice, stepped in and filed a civil lawsuit to stop Texas’s abortion law. Attorney General Merrick Garland correctly called the Texas law “a scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States”. He also pointed to the likelihood other states will follow the Texas roadmap. It remains unclear how this will play out.

The Texas case shows that dressing up in Handsmaid’s Tale outfits is not enough. The Democrats’ neglect of the Supreme Court and its politics is coming home to roost. You have to ask: how many significant policy initiatives would survive Supreme Court review? The Republican shenanigans with blocking Merrick Garland and the tragic death of Justice Ginsberg have paid off for them. The Republicans are purveyors of the ultimate realpolitick.

While the term “court-packing” has an unfortunate negative connotation, Democrats need to add possibly four seats to the Court. There is no constitutional limitation on increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The Court originally had six justices. It can be done. Republicans are the last ones who have the right to cry foul. Their gaming made horrible decisions like the Texas abortion case possible.

The new ultra-conservative Supreme Court is at the beginning of what could be a long run. The vision of the current Supreme Court majority appears to be nineteenth century Christian nationalism featuring unregulated crony capitalism and subordinate women and minorities. The future as the past is less than inspiring.

Categories: Uncategorized

War is a racket – posted 9/5/2021

September 5, 2021 5 comments

Probably like many, I remember exactly where I was when I first heard about the events of 9/11. I was on my way to work in Claremont, listening to Don Imus on my car radio. Imus sportscaster, Warner Wolf, reported on seeing the World Trade Center on fire as he watched from his Lower Manhattan apartment. I had a hard time leaving my car as I listened to the events unfold.

Now, 20 years later, I suppose I have a dark view. There is an unfortunate direct line of unbridled and relatively little-questioned militarism from the Vietnam War to the war on terror. We have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, the failure of any peace dividend, and the almost endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While mainstream commentators may deplore aspects of our military interventions, I would like to offer a more critical take on how we have been led into never-ending wars.

In the middle of World War I, progressive critic, Randolph Bourne, wrote, ”War is the health of the state”. To understand the American obsession with war, the place to look is our military-industrial complex. Since the end of World War II, it has expanded as a way to massively subsidize corporations and as a mechanism for employment. The military industrial complex depends on war and a search for new enemies.

As a society we have developed an addiction to the war business. Congress always approves enormous military spending and that is a bi-partisan affair. There are multiple pots of money devoted to fighting wars, preparing for more wars and dealing with the consequences of wars previously fought. Some few Democrats complain about the size of the trillion dollar war budget but, in the end, they are always ignored. There is too much money to be made by the military-industrial complex.

The Pentagon and its contractors thrive on new weaponry and there are never-ending opportunities to develop more sophisticated and advanced instruments of death from guns to tanks to drones to nukes.

The United States does not have a classic colonial empire but it does have roughly 800 military bases located in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. We can project military power anywhere in the world. We have created a global military machine to police a global empire. A big part of the reason for the empire is for the protection and control of world markets.

Americans have been fed a steady diet of propaganda to justify our continuing military interventions. We need to appear benevolent and we need to appear like we are fighting for democracy. So it has always been with imperial states. Governments all use a sales effort and marketing to sell war. In this, I do not think we are different from other empires.

A senior United States Marine Corps officer, Major General Smedley Butler, who served in military actions in the Philippines, China, Central America, the Caribbean and France in World War I, wrote in his book “War is a Racket”:

“Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end wars”. This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy”. No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason. No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits.”

Butler went on:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short. I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

I do not see the last twenty years since 9/11 as that different from Butler’s era except that the militarism has vastly expanded. War is good for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, their executives and lobbyists and others of their ilk. We still have a revolving door where retired Pentagon officials get jobs with arm contractors while working class people die to support the war profiteering.

Four administrations spent many trillions fighting the war on terror and they always wrongly lauded progress. During that time we saw renewed use of torture and creation of black sites, increased use of drone assassinations, mass warrantless surveillance, the Patriot Act and the weakening of the Fourth Amendment.

I worry that the military industrial complex is already ratcheting up for the next war, possibly against China. Threat inflation is their business.

Right now the United States is building ultra-expensive new nuclear weapons. Northrup-Grumman Corporation has a contract to replace our aging Minuteman III missiles. The Pentagon purchased 659 ICBMs. By some insane logic, this is seen as a military necessity. Among others, Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out the faulty logic and the obsolescence of ICBMs.

We could take steps to back off from the self-destructive militarism. Congress could begin by repealing the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force. They have been used too broadly to authorize forever-war.

Our biggest national security threat is climate change. Increasingly, the U.S. military and other militaries around the world will need to focus on disaster relief, flood prevention, firefighting and population resettlement. The handwriting for that is already on the wall.

When he wrote these words back in 1963, Bob Dylan was ahead of his time:

“Come you masters of war
You that build the big guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks”

Categories: Uncategorized

Inheritors of the New England Abolitionist Tradition – posted 8/31/2021

August 31, 2021 8 comments

Current debates about racism, critical race theory or the 1619 Project generally lack historical perspective. Advocates take positions pro or con without putting 2021 issues in any historical context. As an anti-racist, I would like to situate current struggles in a different framework.

I would suggest that New Englanders are the inheritors of a most proud and noble abolitionist tradition that includes figures like William Lloyd Garrison, David Walker, Maria Stewart, Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, John Quincy Adams, Charles Sumner, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Greenleaf Whittier and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

There is a long interracial tradition of New Englanders taking the national lead in opposing racism and slavery. New England’s reputation as a cradle of American civilization is tied up with being in the anti-slavery vanguard.

Surprisingly though, abolitionists have been inadequately recognized in American history for their contributions to moving the struggle against racism forward. They started as a tiny despised minority and ended up persuading much of a nation. The abolitionists present a paradigm that all later progressive social movements in American history draw on.

I would begin with William Lloyd Garrison of Newburyport, Massachusetts and later Boston. In the late 1820’a there were about two million African Americans held in slavery. Few voices were raised in opposition. Garrison got the idea of publishing a newspaper to promote the immediate abolition of slavery. In 1831, he started the Liberator, a paper that had more black than white readers. In the first issue, Garrison wrote:

“…I unreflectingly assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this moment to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity…I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice…I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – and I will be heard.”

The world around Garrison did not appear to be moving in any direction he favored. The introduction of the cotton gin had made slavery economically indispensable to both the South and the North. Slavery was extremely profitable and deeply entrenched. Nevertheless, Garrison persisted, helping to found the New England Anti-Slavery Society and later the American Anti-Slavery Society.

Garrison believed in moral suasion. He actually believed he could convert all kinds of people, including slaveholders, to oppose slavery.

Garrison paid a heavy price for his writing and activism. Southern states placed a bounty on his head. In 1835, a Boston mob constructed a gallows in front of his office, apprehended him, put a rope around him and almost lynched him. He was rescued at the last minute and put in jail for his own protection. The mob burned him in effigy.

Allies in the Boston African American community supported the anti-slavery fight. In 1830, David Walker, a leader of the Boston black community, authored An Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World. Walker opposed colonization, a movement that sought to move free blacks to a colony in Africa. At the time, even some abolitionists supported colonization. Garrison published Walker’s Appeal.

Maria Stewart, an African American woman from Hartford Ct and later Boston, became one of the first women to speak publicly including to mixed audiences of black and white men and women. That was almost unheard of then. Stewart lectured before the New England Anti-Slavery Society and Garrison also published her anti-slavery writing. She became famous for powerful speeches she delivered in the early 1830’s.

In 1835, the New Hampshire Anti-Slavery Society based in Concord published the Herald of Freedom, a weekly newspaper with its motto “No compromise with slavery”. A Plymouth-based attorney Nathaniel Peabody Rogers became the editor. In 1840, Rogers represented New Hampshire abolitionists at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London. Thoreau wrote highly of Rogers and he became a subject of an 1844 Thoreau essay.

Abolitionists built a school in Canaan, New Hampshire named Noyes Academy that admitted 14 black students including Henry Highland Garnet, a later-to-be well-known abolitionist. The school only last a few months. Locals objected to the attendance of black students. They used a team of oxen to drag the school building off its foundation. The building was then destroyed.

On the political front, John Quincy Adams and Charles Sumner, both of Massachusetts, deserve special mention. After this presidency, Adams fought the Slave Power as a Congressman. For years, against massive opposition, he brought up petitions from his constituents demanding an end to slavery. As a master of parliamentary procedure, Adams fought the Slave Power tooth and nail.

Sumner was right there with Adams. Through a long political career, including 20 years as a U.S. Senator, Sumner fought eloquently. He was a great orator. In 1856, South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks attacked Sumner on the floor of the Senate after a Sumner speech excoriating slavery. Brooks felt Sumner had slandered his family. The assault almost killed Sumner. It took Sumner several years to recover but he went on to lead the Radical Republicans in the Senate right through the Civil War.

New England abolitionists were also most outspoken on the literary front. Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and John Greenleaf Whittier, all of Massachusetts, and Harriet Beecher Stowe of Connecticut all saw slavery as monstrous. Thoreau wrote “Slavery in Massachusetts” and raked the state for its collaboration with slaveholders. He also fiercely defended John Brown. Emerson denounced the Fugitive Slave Act.

Whittier, a Quaker and a poet, devoted twenty years of his life to abolitionism. He edited a leading Northern anti-slavery newspaper, the Pennsylvania Freeman. In May 1838 its offices were burned to the ground by a pro-slavery mob. Stowe was most famous for writing “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Stowe supported the Underground Railroad. Supposedly when Stowe met President Lincoln in 1862 he said, “so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war”.

I think all American progressives are in debt to the New England abolitionists. Although they were stereotyped as single-minded fanatics, they were quintessential moralists who placed human rights at the center of their world view. They transformed words into deeds and made peaceful co-existence with slavery an impossibility.

As 21st century activists, we are building on the abolitionist tradition. In our era, advancing an anti-racist agenda means attacking the pillars of institutionalized racism which have led to huge economic inequality, restricted voting rights, mass incarceration, poor housing, medical apartheid, and re-segregated public education.

Opponents of critical race theory and the 1619 project have shown no willingness to face the actual history of our country.

Just as the abolitionists moved from being a tiny minority to transforming a majority, we inheritors of that tradition can move toward a more just society now and in the years ahead. The New England abolitionists are a great example to follow.

Categories: Uncategorized