Our North Star

November 4, 2026

The Day After

November 4, 2026

Our North Star

Toward Peace and Freedom

NOTE: When people come together in pursuit of freedom, they often articulate a program to and for a public. We’re inspired by examples like the Combahee River Collective Statement; the Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program; and the Zapatista Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle (work, land, and housing; independence and liberty; food, health care, and education; democracy, justice, and peace). Here is a draft—no, a rickety draft of a draft—for discussion, debate, dialogue, additions, adjustments, corrections, revisions, and improvements.

We want peace. We want freedom. We want real democracy and self-determination for all peoples, and the power to control our own communities.

We are looking uneasily at the world we’ve inherited, and we’re searching together for solutions to the multiple challenges facing us. A future of peace and freedom is beckoning from the near horizon, inviting us to come together to create a world of justice and joy, balance and well-being for all—that future is at hand, but it’s not here yet.

We live in a country and a world brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin—corruption dominates the ballot box, the legislatures, and the political class, and the fruits of the labor of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes, unprecedented in history, while the ruling oligarchs despise and endanger liberty everywhere. The imperial center extracts tribute, labor, and resources from around the globe, making the US essentially a parasitic state. The US military spreads its threatening wings across the globe, creating a constant state of war to keep subject peoples in line. And yet, paradoxically, unprecedented military power does not make any of us safe. A small group of men seem determined to break the heart of the world.

We have a lot of work to do to reimagine and rebuild everything before us. Let’s get busy—arm-in-arm—in the most urgent projects of repair.

We’ve been thrust into a set of overlapping crises not of our choosing—crises that threaten to overwhelm us and destroy the possibility of a humane, or even a human, future. We’re determined to resist, to survive the gathering storms as we work to transform chaos into community. We come together to change society—from militarism and permanent war to a nation at peace; from economic uncertainty for the many and obscene amounts of wealth hoarded by the 1% to a country and community where everyone contributes to the common good; from an autocracy of billionaires determining who our political leaders will be to egalitarian participatory democracy; from a fractured country characterized by hierarchies of color, caste, and class to an inclusive and caring society; from patriarchy to true equality; from catastrophic climate collapse to a world in balance; and from the terrifying loneliness and precariousness of hyper-individualism to a shared understanding that we are all in this together. We will never be as prosperous or as free as we could be until all people are living in fellowship, enjoying equal rights and opportunities. Let’s search together for practical pathways toward creating that kind of Beloved Community.

The solution to any one of the looming calamities we’re facing depends on addressing all of them because each is intricately entangled with the others. War-making is linked to a warming world; the division of society into disposable people and worthwhile people is connected to a legacy of white supremacy; our anemic democratic institutions are embedded in a culture that ignores or punishes social solutions while it rewards individual greed and selfishness. We must change.

We ground our work toward a world of peace and freedom for all in fundamental moral principles that are our guides and pilots. And we begin with a belief that anchors all major faith traditions: every human being is of infinite and incalculable value. We want to contribute now to creating a world in which human beings, rather than swindling and murdering one another, acknowledge and love one another as equals.

There’s a distinction to note here between fundamental moral principles  and personal virtues. Personal virtues—be honest, do your work, show up on time—are a good thing no doubt, but we would be hard-pressed to say that a slave owner who paid the bills, for example, was an ethical person. An ethical person there and then had to wake up to the larger social context and try to live in active opposition to the rotten system itself. Most of us most of the time follow the prevailing conventions of our time and place—most Spartans, for example, acted like Spartans; most 15th Century Castilians, acted like 15th Century Castilians; and most Americans, even those in quite different economic and social circumstances, act most often like Americans. That’s conventional behavior, and conventional is not necessarily ethical.

To be an ethical actor and a person of moral character in an unjust society requires something more: to work in common to change that society, to rewrite its rules and its narratives, to come together and take risks on behalf of something better. It’s obvious now (even if it was obscure to some folks then) that the good people and the moral actors in the days of American slavery were the runaways who exercised their agency in courageous and surprising acts of self-liberation, and the abolitionists who joined the cause. They went beyond the little virtues and became ethical actors. When the system of slavery was finally abolished, a new norm was established, and everyone, acting conventionally, was freed to discover the better angels of themselves.

We can struggle for this or that policy change now—and we should—but policy shifts alone are inadequate to the task of building a society that works for everyone. In order for that to become authentic and real we need to change ourselves—we need a revolution in values. True and lasting freedom will only come with the full recognition that we’re all better off when we’re all better off—“we are each other’s harvest: we are each other’s business: we are each other’s magnitude and bond.” We must love one another, or die.

***

A Ten Point Program

Unifying, Achievable, and Transformative Goals

ONE) We want peace.

We want to live in peace, to worship in peace, to create in peace, to travel and go to work or school in peace. In order to generate and produce a peace culture, we must invest time and energy and resources toward building relationships of empathy, fellow feeling, mutual understanding, and authentic dialogue—both close at hand, across the country, and around the world. It’s a lie that a trillion dollar annual war budget makes us secure; it’s untrue that hundreds of military bases scattered around the globe staffed by troops juiced up on testosterone equals protection; it’s a myth that aggressive military actions (saber-rattling threats, bullying, invasions, and  occupations) somehow support the common good; and it’s false to say that constant surveillance, militarized police forces, or mass incarceration make us safe. It’s just the opposite: all of those things isolate us from one another and render us more vulnerable. Sitting on the throne of empire and commanding its violent legions is in truth a dangerous and  precarious place to be.

The world is on fire—war and violence in every direction—and yet the people want peace. The rich and powerful start the forever wars, and working people fight those wars and make the sacrifices. We’re only dimly aware of what a general peace would look or feel like—even as we wish it were so—because the world has had no experience of a world without war. The people want peace, and yet today, and everyday, thousands of us will be starving or bleeding to death or blowing one another to pieces; homeless children will be scrabbling for food among the wreckage. Peace is a worthy objective, and yet to say what a peaceful world would look like is a different matter—we have never seen such a thing. But that should not deter us from imagining and demanding a world at peace, and then working toward making it so.

Torture, rendition, imprisonment without trial, economic plunder of natural resources, seizure of strategic waterways, domination of the air and the seas, invasions and occupations, extra judicial killings, assassinations, drone strikes, and the bombing of civilians—all of these atrocities and more are crimes regardless of which country, which army, or which individual commits them. US secretary of state Madeleine Albright famously asserted that the United States is the one and only “indispensable nation.” “If we have to use force, it is because we are America,” she said. “We are the indispensable nation.” That is pure bunk  and a clear recipe for disaster.

War is and has always been the scourge of humanity—the wholesale deaths and massive destruction is both horrifying and overwhelming. And here we must face a hard truth: our country is number one in military spending worldwide with over a third of the world’s total military budget, and military spending continues to skyrocket. The US is also the world’s number one arms dealer—42% of all global arms exports, followed by France at 9.8%—disseminating massive amounts of everything from missiles and warplanes to hand guns.

Peace is more than the absence of war; peace is the presence of justice. We must create a movement for justice as we build a movement for peace. The US should use its phenomenal wealth to become a nation among nations and a people among peoples—there’s nothing to gain or cherish by attempting to be the uber-nation nor some imagined superior people.

~~Palestine is the moral core of our struggle for peace today. The US must stop weapons sales and aid to Israel immediately, stop enabling Israel’s genocide and systemic ethnic cleansing, and stop vetoing UN resolutions that would provide a modicum of accountability for Israel’s massive human rights violations.

~~Close all overseas military bases, and root US international policy in the rule of law.

~~Close the Department of War and Create a Department of Peace, using our enormous resources to develop policies rooted in global understanding, authentic internationalism, dialogue, and solidarity, starting with an agreement to ban nuclear testing and proliferation.

~~Stop the militarization of domestic police forces, abolish ICE, and cut the Pentagon budget by 20% immediately, and 10% every year after that for the next 5 years.

~~Disentangle the US from the war-sopped economy, starting with cancelling contracts with Lockheed Martin ($72 billion annually), Northrop Grumman ($37 billion) , and General Dynamics ($39 billion), as well as the techno-oligarchs of Silicon Valley like Peter Thiel (Palantir), Elon Musk (Space-X), and Palmer Luckey (Anduril).

TWO) We want equality.

Every human being matters, and we recognize that each of us is both the one-and-only—entirely unique, inviolate, and like no other—and at the same time only one part of our vast, shared human community—exactly like everyone else in important ways. We are each sacred, unrepeatable, and immeasurably precious, and yet we each share with all other human beings a human culture and a human experience—we were born, we want to love and to be loved, we dream, we suffer, we experience both joy and pain, and we will die. We are each both the one-of-one and one of the many—let’s embrace and live within that contradiction.

Each of us is the star in our own story; each is the author, director, and artist of our own life. We can choose to see everyone else as a bit player—unimportant and disposable—which is a terrible mistake, or we can recognize and respect the fact that each person is the lead character in their own life as well.

One way to think about the society we might build is to participate in a simple thought experiment: imagine yourself about to be born, and you’re unaware of who you will be, that is, you’re behind a “veil of ignorance”—you’re about to be thrust into the world, and none of the details of the life you’re about to embark upon is available to you. Your gender, race, abilities, tastes, ethnicity, wealth, social position, status, and more, are entirely unknown. Perhaps you’re blind or developmentally delayed; perhaps you’re of African or Asian or European or Indigenous descent; perhaps you’re born into extreme poverty. Of course that unknowing is the actual condition of every baby, but now, with all those obscured facts in mind, ask yourself, how should society be organized in order to allow you to create and lead a full, meaningful, and dignified life? What would be fair to you as a worthwhile human being, and what would be fair to everyone else as well? What would be justice and fair-mindedness to anyone caught on the wrong side of a broken system?

Each of us is a work in progress—questioning, listening, falling down, rising once more, learning, and continuously experimenting with and interrogating the world—and a force in motion, born equal in dignity and rights, and deserving recognition, respect, and a dedicated place in our shared community. We have distinct capacities and interests and needs, of course, and still we are all members of a larger communal space, and we have  a right to live, to belong, to grow and learn and flourish. The ancient Roman playwright, Terence (Publius Terentius Afer), wrote, “I am human, and nothing human is alien to me.” He is human—the one-of-one—and nothing human is alien to him—he is one person among the wildly diverse, complex, and fiery human community.

We should all try to live with that in mind: to love our own life, and to love others as well; to be good to ourselves as well as good neighbors to everyone we meet—to bandage the wounded, to help those who are hurting, to stand with the outcast. It is literally true that the “self-supporting” man or woman has become as extinct as the man or woman of the Stone Age. We are interdependent, and without the activities of thousands upon thousands of others, any one of us would perish—naked, starved, and alone.

I am the one-and-only, and I am one-of-the-many.

~~Acknowledge a woman’s (and every human being’s) right to bodily integrity.

~~Defend and extend the Dream Act.

~~Raise the minimum wage, provide jobs or guaranteed incomes now, and implement a fair and progressive wealth tax.

~~Organize gatherings, large and small, in every city, town, and community, and ask participants to enter a conversation around a critical question: What is your pursuit of happiness?

THREE) We want egalitarian democracy, and self-determination for all peoples.

Democracy is more than voting, more than any formal mechanism that allows (and limits) participation. Building a culture of democracy requires us to develop a sense of fairness worked out face to face with others—we become sources of both freedom and mutual aid for one another as we create norms of equality, mutual respect, tolerance for mistakes, interdependence, and reciprocity. We find all kinds of appropriate ways to share resources and care about and for one another.

In a robust democracy we try to account for and correct all chance/accidental disadvantages. An authentically democratic society invites people to discover or invent new ways to live, and new passages through which to make collective decisions. With genuine power in their hands, people can learn to make smart and socially useful decisions, and also to assume real responsibility for carrying out their collectively developed resolutions. The challenge to ourselves and others, especially people who’ve been traditionally ignored or excluded, is to ensure that involvement will have meaning and be effective, and that their ideas will be respected. The greater hazard is not too much, but too little participation.

Participatory democracy is always close to the ground, that is, people vote for folks they actually know—administrators and leaders in their work places and communities—who then vote for the next level of administration and leadership, and the next, and the next. Democracy is engaged locally and trickles up with people charged with making the decisions that affect their lives—big and small decisions alike.

What kinds of people do we want to become? Imagine advancing beyond the predatory phase in human affairs, and begin to envision a place of more, not less, economic democracy and justice, more respect for civil liberties and more tolerance for each other’s private lives, more public culture and more joyous shared space, more dialogue and camaraderie and solidarity. More freedom and more democracy.

~~One-person/one-vote without restrictions. End gerrymandering.

~~Reform and remake the Supreme Court by expanding it to 17 members and establishing staggered term-limits of 6 years.

~~Drastically restrict private money in electoral politics. Legislate an end to super-pacs, the Citizen’s United decision, and corporate wealth determining the outcomes of elections.

~~Incentivize and support efforts to create and support worker-owned enterprises, cooperatives, collectives, and unions through negotiation where possible and occupations, seizures, and takeovers where necessary.

~~Create a system of voluntary and universal community service at eighteen, everyone choosing to devote a year of service in one of ten areas determined of, by, and for the people. Designated areas of service might include food production and distribution, child and elder care, tutoring, rehabilitating housing, environmental justice, community health, infrastructure development, establishing and maintaining neighborhood gardens and parks and murals. We’d all be better if we created such a system, and we’d likely develop more powerful investments and opinions and political priorities about who we are and what we want to become.

FOUR) We want popular budgeting—public, transparent, participatory, and value-driven—at every level of government.

Taxpayer money, our public money, should be spent in accordance with our public priorities and our public decision-making. And those priorities should be grounded in our deepest moral principles.

Right-wing politicians and talking heads refer endlessly to tax-and-spend-liberals, weak-willed whiners who lack gumption, oppose tax cuts for the so-called “job creators,” support the “Nanny State,” and spend most of their time sniveling about being entitled to things like a job and a place to live, food, education, and health care, all the while begging for more government handouts for the lazy and the shiftless. The word “tax” itself is so toxic among US politicians that actual liberals can barely squeak the word out, preferring a range of euphemisms—revenues, co-pays, deductibles—as they too call for all manner of tax cuts. Ask a conservative US senator to vote for universal health care and you’ll be accused of being a tax-and-spend-liberal and maybe a communist agitator; ask the same senator to cut taxes substantially by closing all US military facilities abroad and ending military aid to Israel, and you’ll be called a communist again.

Often people refer to government provisions they favor (veteran’s benefits—which are nonetheless stingily meted out—or farm subsidies—which mainly benefit Big Agriculture) as necessary and fair, while programs they oppose  (Medicaid or Aid to Dependent Children) are disparaged as “welfare” for the lazy “takers.” The arguments for and against become a tangle of rationalizations and hypocrisies: one type of aid is sensible while another type is wasteful or encourages slothfulness.

This is all fraudulent posturing, because everyone knows that the business of government—liberal or conservative, open or authoritarian, feudal, theocratic, royal, capitalist, fascist, autocratic, socialist, or whatever—always includes the business of taxing and spending. If they’re honest, liberals and conservatives, reactionaries and radicals alike, as well as people bridging the widest possible political reaches, will agree that some folks ought to be taxed at certain set rates in order to mutually support the things we decide are our common needs. The only questions worth debating, then, are who should be taxed and how much? Who decides? What constitutes the general welfare and what should the collective pool of public funds be spent on? What would be fair and just? Or, how can we create a society in which each of us contributes what we can to the common good, and each of us receives what we need in order to live a life of  dignity?

Inequality has been rising exponentially since 1980, driven by regressive tax policies that tilt in favor of the wealthiest who continue to pull away, not just from the middle class, but also from the “merely wealthy.” The top 1%  of Americans hold almost 1/3 of the country’s wealth, and their share increased by $8.5 trillion just between the first and second quarters of 2026 while the middle’s share is shrinking. Since President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s, the US tax code has become less and less fair through policy changes supported by both mainstream political parties. The common argument for tax cuts is that they stimulate growth—there’s no evidence that that’s true.

There’s nothing wrong or hateful about advocating a policy of taxing the rich—taxing the poor makes no sense since they don’t have the resources we need for the common good. Taxing the rich recognizes the reality that vast wealth is the product of the labor of millions, as well as the principle that no one should be so rich that they can own others nor so poor that they must sell themselves to survive.

~~Tax the rich.

~~Spend generously on social investments like public education, public health, public housing, public transportation, and guarantees of income—all of which create safer and more flourishing communities—and cut spending on government surveillance, the military and militarized police forces, mass incarceration and the caging of human beings.

~~No new prisons.

FIVE) We want fully resourced schools available to all, schools that embrace and teach freedom.

In every totalitarian society schools are built for obedience and conformity, and no matter what else they teach, compliance is at the top of the agenda—a theocracy teaches rigid dogma and absolute deference to religious authority; a kingdom teaches fealty to the royals; a racialized society teaches hierarchy and the importance of everyone accepting the power and stability of the color line.

In a free and truly democratic society schools embody a spirit of cooperation, inclusion, and full participation—schools honor diversity while building unity. This means, for example, that enforced racial segregation, class separation, and disparate funding are wrong. There’s no justification in a free and fair country for the existence of one school for wealthy white kids funded to the tune of $50,000 or more per student per year, and another school for poor immigrant or Indigenous kids, or the descendants of formerly enslaved people with access to only $5,000. That offends the basic ethic that each person is equal in value and regard, and reflects instead the reactionary idea that some of us are disposable while others are valuable. It also expresses a simple and crude message we send to children: Choose the Right Parents! If you choose parents with money, access, social connections, and privilege, your choices and your chances will expand; if not, sorry, you’re on your own. This is cruel and absurd.

But it conforms to the harsh reality that maintains a caste-based system whose core principle, according to Jay Gillen, is that, “Every family will secure the best education for their children that their wealth and status can afford.” In this system education is reduced to a product to be sold in the market place.

Education as a fundamental human right challenges this reality, and insists that a good education should be available and accessible to every child, regardless of circumstance. When families are forced to play a real-life version of Hunger Games and students must compete for admission to an excellent school because of a scarcity of seats, that violates the right to an education.

The purpose of education in a free society is always human enlightenment and human liberation, and the driving principle is the unity of humanity—the recognition of differences as well as a consciousness of our interdependence. People are different—our wild diversity, distinct capacities, and unique needs are a fact—and we are, at the same time, entirely connected. We embrace the conviction that every human being is entitled to decent standards concerning freedom and justice and education, and that any violations, deliberate or inadvertent, must be fought against, testified to, and resisted.

In a free world we recognize our students as unruly sparks of meaning-making energy on exciting voyages of discovery and surprise. We want them to be able to think for themselves, to make judgments based on evidence and argument, to develop minds of their own. And we want them to be free to ask fundamental questions—who in the world am I? How did I get here and where am I going? What’s my story? What in the world are my choices? How in the world shall I proceed?—and to pursue the answers to wherever they might lead. Whatever else is on offer, in the free world we teach initiative, courage, imagination, creativity, and more. These qualities must be modeled and nourished, encouraged, practiced, and defended.

Young people, teachers, and whole communities rallied around the Algebra Project in Baltimore and pioneered a program that embodied these values. They built a system in which teenagers could look forward to paid knowledge-based jobs when they got to high school—coaching,  directing plays or mural-making, teaching drawing or math, leading reading groups, teaching poetry, organizing chemistry experiments, teaching journalism and media, choreographing dance, building a debate club, convening school-wide meetings focused on math or reading or athletics, or planning advocacy campaigns on issues that the young people themselves decided were important. This meant that young people were paid to do formally what they already knew how to do informally—sharing knowledge with peers—but now in a format and venue where it was recognized and rewarded. The important lessons learned and competencies gained from this practice included initiative, agency, responsibility, self-respect and respect for others, collaboration, and life-long learning.

We want free students to develop the capacity to name the world for themselves, to identify the obstacles to their full humanity, and the courage to act upon whatever the known demands. Education for freedom is always about opening doors and opening minds as students forge their pathways into a wider, shared world of free thinking.

~~Education is a human right and everyone must have access to a free high-quality education, K-16, from early childhood through technical school or college. Whatever the most privileged and thoughtful parents have access to for their children must become the baseline for what we demand for all children—anything less undermines and ultimately destroys democracy.

~~Schools are laboratories for learning, and must be, therefore, spaces where students can ask questions, read and inquire freely, and pursue their interests and investigations to the furthest limits. Students need no one’s permission to interrogate the world.

~~Ban police forces and the military from our schools.

SIX) We want universal single-payer health insurance for all.

Health care is a human right. Everyone wants good health, and because everyone is vulnerable to the vagaries and unpredictabilities of life, and all of us benefit from the security that comes from being insulated from the shock of serious injury or illness, we want a health care system that delivers. Even if many of us will never suffer significant affliction, all of us gain when people get the health care they need at a price we can afford. It’s not complicated: remove all profit and market incentives from the system, break the health insurance racket, equalize the financial risk between the healthy and the sick, the well and the wounded, and create a simple social contract built on shared costs and guaranteed benefits.

Medicare—fiercely opposed by conservatives and political reactionaries when it was proposed over half a century ago—is imperfect and flawed, but a popular and sensible single-payer plan for the elderly and the disabled. It’s similar in conception to national health care plans throughout the rest of the industrialized world. Compared to the tangled swamp of corporate medicine we slog through on our way to age sixty-five, it’s no wonder that people overwhelmingly support it. Private medical corporations squander a huge percentage of their resources on vast bureaucracies whose purpose is to examine every expenditure and, whenever possible, to deny coverage—the rest of the resources go to pay obscene benefits to the stockholders and to the executives whose specialty is figuring out how to charge more and deliver less.

But if Medicare is good for sixty-five-year-olds, why not sixty-year-olds? And if sixty, why not fifty? Down we go. It turns out that strong majorities favor just such a direction—some form of public option or single-payer—but the corporate elites and their enablers in both major political parties wage a long and endless war on people’s right to comprehensive health care. Some in the pay of the rackets push to privatize Medicare, others support increasing premiums and co-pays, chipping away at services, and shifting costs to working people. But none of them questions the logic of the market or corporate medicine, and all of them allow the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to author or veto all health-related legislation. Big Pharma is in the business of business; health and wellness is the last thing on its agenda.

Six times in the last several decades serious attempts have been made to develop and legislate a single-payer, universal health care system, and each attempt failed. Each defeat relied on the powerful health predators and profiteers coupling single-payer with a loss of freedom—dictatorial, undemocratic, top-heavy, bureaucratic, authoritarian, rigid—and then bribing enough politicians to defeat single-payer legislation.

The market in health care has created a deeply unequal system that stretches from the shameful state of mental health care to the tawdry patchwork of nursing home care, from disdain for the poor and the elderly to the war on women. The market—like all markets—creates winners and losers, and not surprisingly the biggest winners are the rich, and the biggest losers are working people, the poor, and those traditionally oppressed and exploited. Health disparities are everywhere, and universally appalling: 25 percent of Black mothers, for example, get no prenatal care during the first trimester of pregnancy (and 6 percent get no care for the entire nine months) compared to 11 percent (and 2 percent) of white mothers; mortality rates during the first year of life are fourteen per one thousand for Black children and six per one thousand for white children.

Inequities between men and women are monstrous in the capitalist health system. Women’s judgments about reproduction and birth are strictly policed by both the state and a mobilized mob—since 2011 more than 280 laws have been enacted in 31 states restricting women’s access to reproductive health. These laws make access more costly, more difficult (with mandatory wait times and multiple visits), and more humiliating.

Market-driven health care is also pauperizing us: 50 percent of personal bankruptcy filings in the US are directly related to medical costs and bills. Industries from auto to airlines, as well as public entities from states to municipalities, cannot meet financial or contractual obligations to employees because of the staggering costs of corporate health care. Compare Canadian and US auto industries, for example,  and one thing stands out: health care as a contractual benefit (the US) as opposed to a public trust (Canada) is extraordinarily stupid.

The market is remarkably wasteful: an average nurse spends 33 percent of their time on documentation for insurers; the US spends twice as much as Canada and Europe on administrative costs; 3 percent of Medicare costs go toward administration compared to 40 percent of individual insurance costs.

The US is the only industrialized country in the world in which it’s legal to advertise prescription drugs to the public which serves no public health interest whatsoever, but does indeed serve corporate wealth. Half of all Americans are taking prescription drugs at any given moment, and one in ten is taking more than five; millions of youngsters are taking prescription drugs for ADHD, including fourteen thousand children ages two or three. We are all potential customers—babies are the future clients the dope peddlers hope to hook.

Big Pharma—which is a profit-generating machine that doesn’t give a damn about anyone’s health—has always relied on basic research performed with public funds at the National Institute of Health. Taxpayers foot the bill for the research that later allows Big Pharma to rip us off. This must end.

The results of the corrupt and expensive corporate health care system are not encouraging: the rank of the US among eleven wealthy countries in health system performance is 11th; the rank of US among the countries of the world in annual per capita health care spending is 3rd; the rank of US out of 224 countries in average life expectancy is 43rd.

It’s past time to end the predatory health insurance industry and recognize heath care as a basic human right.

~~Create a universal single-payer health insurance system.

~~Ban all TV advertising for prescription drugs as well as for ultra-processed foods.

~~Correct for all inequities based on race, background, or wealth to basic health care.

~~Defend women’s access to reproductive health care.

SEVEN) We want housing justice and decent housing for all.

Every night more than 750,000 people in the richest country in the world sleep on the street. Many more are sleeping in their cars, couch-surfing, or experiencing housing insecurity. Many people are a paycheck away from the streets—an unforeseen circumstance like a layoff or an accident, a lapse in health care coverage, a vet returning home without a job or a support system. Unhoused people are like any and all of us—ordinary working folks who, faced with a bad break, found themselves on the street. This is intolerable—the shame of the nation—and it awakens us to act.

Housing is a human right, and everyone deserves a place to call home. Making housing a commodity, subject to invasion by corporate raiders, inevitably throws people onto the streets. While eighty-nine countries make explicit reference to housing rights in their constitutions, that list does not include the US.  There is not a single county in the US where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a modest two-bedroom apartment. Housing insecurity—being vulnerable to becoming unhoused with little warning—is the norm for millions of Americans.

The budget for the federal department of Housing and Urban Development is $73 billion annually, while we spend trillions on the military, including over $1 billion a day for the war-of-choice in Iran, and $80 billion for prisons. In 2021, the typical white household had over 9 times as much wealth as the typical Black household—the  disparity of home ownership between Black and white is a major reasons for this inequity.

Zoning ordinances were historically designed to exclude and wall off—we need inclusive zoning, including generous government-funded and aesthetically pleasing high-density housing.

Public housing began in the US as a means of providing homes for millions of people impacted by the Great Depression. The National Housing Act of 1937 helped to create housing authorities in every state for working class folks devastated by the Depression. At one point the US government’s mandate was to provide “a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family”—the exact words in the National Housing Act of 1949.  This was a time—in the not-so-distant past—when most people believed in the responsibility of government to care for its people. The desire to live in a fair and decent society included demands for housing and education, safety and healthcare.

Eventually the federal government began funding Indigenous housing programs that prioritized tribal self-governance. And public housing is not just about housing per se, but also about how decent housing helps to create public health systems, public education, public safety, and public welfare—the things that we need for a flourishing commonwealth.

The real cost to our society and ourselves are moral costs—something that cannot be quantified. We dehumanize ourselves when we look the other way and allow violence to happen to others, and we debase ourselves when human rights are ignored or invalidated. We must ask ourselves: what do we owe to a proximate stranger in distress? How shall we treat our neighbors? What would the Good Samaritan do?

~~Recognize adequate housing as a human right.

~~Implement a fair and graduated tax on all non-primary residences.

~~Repair the harm created by decades of redlining by in investing in targeted communities in ways that minimize displacement.

EIGHT) We want a healthy and livable world now and for future generations.

With the unfolding climate crisis, the global stakes are existential: nothing short of the future of human civilization. We’re all in this together—human and other living beings alike—here in our wondrous home, a vast but now threatened global ecosystem, Mother Earth. Ecosystems are being destroyed. From coral reefs to glacial fields, seas are rising. Island and coastal homes, villages and cities are being destroyed. Why is this happening? Because billion dollar industries and compliant governments would rather reap near-term profits than protect the lives of future generations.

We industrialized human beings must use our rational minds and our ethical hearts to mobilize against our common enemies: oil companies, extractive industries, toxic purveyors, and the governments that subsidize and protect them.  We need to commit to minimizing harm, refuse to profit from it, and imagine new ways to generate healthy systems toward a livable future. We can begin by honoring the indigenous practices and traditions that have been upended by ravenous capitalism.

We face grave dangers that call for urgent responses, and these are not “natural dangers”—they result from capitalism’s unrestrained and rapacious depletion of the natural world and the pumping of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere —especially for the last 40 years and specifically by the US and, at record profits, by the world’s fossil fuel giants.

We need to face the dangers before us with courage and wisdom, seeking genuine alternatives and putting the scientific reality of catastrophic climate change into all of our change efforts. We must build a coherent and unifying narrative about the real solutions to the climate catastrophe. In doing so, we create the potential for a global movement for change—environmental and political—because everyone is impacted. At the same time, we must realize that those most impacted, those whose lives are in greatest danger, are generally those least responsible for the harm.

For the past half decade, solar energy has become the most widely developed and least expensive global energy resource—and none of it passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

We must build renewable resources to power our communities. We need an enlightened economic system capable of restraining corporate power and capitalist avarice, overturning colonialist energy strategies, strengthening participatory democracy, redistributing earth’s resources. We must discover new ways to unleash clean energy to do the real and necessary work of the world uncoupled from racism and wage slavery.

Climate collapse is not an issue like every other; in fact, it’s not an issue at all. It is an all-encompassing reality. Climate change, and the toxic emissions of air pollutants poisoning local communities from Cancer Alley in Louisiana to school children in Harlem, from the South Pacific Islands to Bangladesh, are not natural disasters: they are the inevitable products of the capitalist market system. They claim thousands of lives annually, and they are disasters caused by governments, corporations, and economic systems.

These disasters challenge our relationship to the natural world— no part of the earth is untouched. The natural world we’ve always turned to for life, for natural healing, for great beauty and spirituality, is no longer untouched. The end of nature, as Bill McKibben writes, is revealing that the inherent and intrinsic value of nature cannot be monetized or marketed without irreparable harm.

But at the same time the climate crisis has created an opportunity for global solidarity and global solutions best led by those most at risk. It forces us to reimagine how we live, what we value, and how we organize our labor; it’s asking us to adopt and grow sustainable alternatives; it is urging us to pay close attention and demanding that we act forcefully and collectively.

Corporate power, the 1% and their enablers in the media and political establishment, systematically use crises, both real (like floods or fires) and invented (like Detroit going bankrupt), to enact cruel ideological agendas designed to enrich themselves at the expense of those who were hurt by the problems in the first place. “Disaster Capitalism” seizes every tragedy, misfortune, or calamity and turns it into another profit-making opportunity. The real causes of crises are never examined by the powerful; authentic or alternative solutions are never seriously pursued as the elites double down on the very policies and politics that created the crisis in the first place. In times like these we remind ourselves that our problem is not that we are vulnerable or poor—our problem is that we are being robbed.

Individual solutions or painting capitalism green won’t help. Taking a page from the tobacco industry’s playbook, the concept of the individual carbon footprint was promoted by the fossil fuel company BP in 2004. BP encouraged people to estimate how their consumption habits hurt the environment using their carbon footprint calculator. The company then spent $300 million promoting the concept. The American Petroleum Institute funded curricula touting their product and questioning climate science. While keeping our eyes fixed on our individual behavior rather than systemic causes, the fossil majors sought to postpone the unavoidable perception that their products were, in fact, the problem. Many advocates and governments adopted false solutions, like cap-and-trade programs or sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and then burying it in the Earth.

Our eyes have also been diverted from the greatest user of fossil fuel in the world—the US military—and the reckless carbon emissions and toxins spread by US aerial bombardments of Gaza since 2024, the made-in-America accompaniment to the Israeli genocide.

Few nations today are on the path to carbon-freedom. Most existing political and social systems run hungrily and recklessly on retrograde notions of economic growth, damming rivers, extracting all the coal and gas they can grab, burning filthy fuels, expanding and accumulating whatever they can and as far as they can reach.

We can reimagine and vitalize the public square, spaces and communities where people participate fully in planning the kind of circular economies and the urgent work of creating environmentally just solutions to the crisis. We must electrify our homes, our cooking, our transportation and run them all on abundant and affordable renewable energy. We must turn back the IPOs and privatization of energy and the tech world; we must ensure that banks, corporations, and data centers are heavily taxed and regulated, and get popular public control over public service industries.

We can look to gatherings on climate change in Santa Marta, Colombia where nations backing a fossil fuel treaty began negotiations independent of the UN process kidnapped by petro-states and the oil industry, with environmental justice leadership.

~~Transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy, and achieve freedom from carbon by 2040.

—Advance public ownership of the energy industry, removing the profit motive from this essential enterprise.

~~Ban construction of fossil fuel infrastructure from pipelines to shipping terminals.

~~End impunity for fossil fuel companies and require reparations for loss and damage along with penalties for decades of defrauding their customers, their shareholders, their governments, and the public.

~~Rejoin the international community and negotiate climate and other treaties in good faith in order to meet the most urgent needs of the Global South.

NINE) We want repair and reparations for past harm.

Reparations simply means compensation for an injury or an abuse. The goal is to acknowledge and repair some harm. If someone runs through a red light and causes a car accident, we expect repair and restoration—not punishment, but reparations.

Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address—the one available in most history textbooks—was delivered two years after the Emancipation Proclamation: “[The war will] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.” This was the angry cry of abolition and reparations, the real stakes in the conflict, which was defined by the heroism and sacrifice of the striking and self-liberating enslaved people, and the soldiers fighting on their side. And these words are important to remember today as we continue to raise the specter of abolition and the demand for reparations for decades of harm, including unrequited toil.

The US—its wealth and power, its culture and customs, its laws and government—was built on an elaborate architecture of white supremacy that includes the system of slavery and the practice of conquest, war, and genocide (in North America to start, but eventually stretching its deadly talons to Latin America, Asia, and Africa), the defeat of Reconstruction, the regime of lynching, Jim Crow, and more. Everyday bigotry and racist ideas bloom in the nourishing shade of those structures of inequality based on color. For many well-intentioned liberals, the path to repairing past harms is to be found exclusively in individuals, one by one, “unlearning racism” or embracing “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The definition of the problem leads to a specific theory of action: if the problem is merely a bad idea inside some people’s heads, the solution is in psychology and persuasion. But if instead the problem is structural, then action must involve dismantling those structures.

“Unlearning racism” is a doomed project because a collective catastrophe—vast structural inequities never repaired, centuries of exploitation and oppression and generational trauma caused by our laws and backed by armed agents of the state—demands a collective response. The harm was instituted by the government and embraced by the dominant society; any authentic repair must be social and shared as well, borne by the government, the dominant society, and the entire community—and also at the highest levels. Reparations would include, then, institutional transformations and structural rearrangement in every area of social life. Individual attitudes matter, but they cannot drive that kind of repair.

In the early Nineteenth Century the enslaved and free people of color in Haiti organized a successful anti-colonial and anti-slavery insurrection against French colonial rule. As a condition of peace, Haiti was forced to pay a tribute (reparations) of 150 million Francs annually to France—into the Twenty-first Century. This got reparations exactly backwards. Similarly, in the US President Lincoln signed a bill in 1862 (before the Emancipation Proclamation) emancipating enslaved people in Washington, DC, and the US government got it wrong, compensating the slaveowners for the loss of their property. Slaveowners got reparations, while the formerly enslaved African Americans got nothing for their generations of unpaid and forced labor.

More recently reparations have been paid for war-related damages and for violations of human rights. When well-designed, reparations programs acknowledge suffering and provide forms of redress for harms endured. Victims have a right to receive reparations for injuries; the responsible party has a responsibility to provide redress.

The government of Argentina provided reparations to victims of human rights abuses suffered under the military dictatorship of the 1970s and 80s; Italy apologized to Libya for colonization, and paid $5 billion as part of the Italy–Libya Friendship Treaty of 2008; Canada issued an apology to Indigenous peoples in a “Statement of Reconciliation,” acknowledging that the racist Indian residential schools were disastrous for victims, and providing financial over $2 billion to survivors; and in 1988 US President Ronald Reagan apologized and signed a bill authorizing payments of $20,000 to survivors of the World War II Japanese internment camps. And in 2015, Chicago issued an official apology for the systematic torture of victims in Area 2 police district under the leadership of commander Jon Burge—the city paid $100,000 to each survivor, provided free psychological counseling and medical care as well as free tuition to city colleges for survivors and their immediate family members, a mandatory curriculum about the Jon Burge torture cases to be taught in Chicago Public Schools, and a commitment to build a permanent public memorial to honor the victims. Each of these is an example of justice received—uncomplicated and easy to endorse.

The forms that reparations take can vary widely, and the practical policies can be worked out by people of good will. But the first essential step is the admission of harm by the established government or institution that caused the harm.

~~Invest massive resources—housing, education, community health clinics, jobs, arts centers, transportation, parks and recreation—into communities that were red-lined by the federal government, and have suffered ever since.

~~Pay the “education debt”—an alternative way of looking at the so-called “education gap,” a manufactured fable covering up the real story, which is a story of disinvestment, isolation, segregation, inferior physical plants, and miseducative curricula.

~~Pass H.R. 40, introduced in the House on January 3, 2025, by Rep. Ayanna Pressley, and S. 40, the Senate companion bill introduced on January 9, 2025, by Sen. Cory Booker.

~~Pass H.R. 7927 (Land Reparations Commission Act), a bill to establish a commission to study and distribute land reparations or one-time cash/subsidy payments to African-American descendants of enslaved people promised land (such as General Sherman’s Field Order 15).

~~Pass the “Reparations Now Resolution,” reintroduced on May 15, 2025, by Rep. Summer Lee alongside Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley to call on the federal government to advance descendants’ reparations and back local/state efforts.

TEN) We want freedom.

We want peace and justice, democracy and equality, health care, housing, education, and jobs or income now. We want significant work to do and meaningful lives to create. We want to be free—not the reactionary libertarian myth of individual autonomy, but a festival of joy and creativity, of collective hopes and community possibilities unleashed.

We are not free if we are fearful of other people or imagine ourselves surrounded by danger—we aren’t free if we organize our lives behind barricades, always poised for combat. We are not free if we are prevented or hindered from voting; we’re not free if we’re forced to attend underfunded, segregated, miseducating schools; we are not free if we have no roof over our heads; we’re not free if we have no privacy and no bodily integrity, but rather are under constant auditing and mass surveillance by the government with closed circuit TV cameras, mobile trailers, and automated license plate readers; we’re not free if pervasive policies and politics are uniformly based on caging and cruelty, exclusion and dehumanization.

Freedom is not and can never be an exclusively individual achievement—freedom must be worked out and accomplished in community. In a free society you’re free to swing your arms, of course, but your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.

The abolition of slavery freed the enslaved workers from bondage, true, and it simultaneously freed slave-owners from their evil business, and from the anxiety of wondering when payback would come; when Black people are truly free, white people can leave behind their shaky pretense of superiority with all its attendant loneliness and stress; when women get free, men will be freed from clinging desperately to their precarious perch.

Abolitionist values—liberation, community restoration, and shared fate as opposed to the hardening practices of cruelty and punishment, revenge and retribution—motivated the ten renowned words uttered by Justice Harry Blackmun in 1994 when he announced publicly that he had become a death penalty abolitionist: “I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.” Blackmun wasn’t searching for ways to make state-sanctioned murder more efficient or more palatable; he wanted to get out of the death business altogether.

An aspect of abolition is eradication or removal, true. But the more challenging and more rewarding task of abolition is the work of creation: the building of institutions and relationships, structures and cultures that would make slavery, for example,  unthinkable, then prisons and massive police forces unnecessary, and exploitation obsolete. Abolition is the work of “founding a new society” because abolition eliminates a  society that could have slavery, and builds a society where slavery is impossible. This is the practice of freedom.

So abolition is not best understood as a deletion or an erasure, but rather as a collection of creative and complex acts of “world-building.” What kind of world would we need to build in order to have no slavery? our forebears asked. And what kind of world could we begin to create today that would render prisons and militarized police and militarism obsolete, predation and exploitation relics of a cruel past?

We must reimagine, resist, and rebuild in the name of freedom. Striving for freedom and abolishing all manner of unfreedoms is the repudiation and nullification of oppression everywhere, and the struggle against subjugation anywhere: abuse or cruelty of any trace or tone, exploitation in any context. In order to activate and find answers to our common problems and challenges, we must develop a growing sense of our own agency, our own power, and our own possibilities, and we must come to see the situation before us, not as a fixed condition—a closed system from which we have no exit—but as a limiting situation which we can and must transform. Everything can change. And freedom is the horizon.

~~Create generously resourced and forward looking public educational opportunities, preschool through college, and abolish student debt, currently a staggering $1.72 trillion that is crushing millions of families, and has thrust 9 million people into default.

~~Generate bold initiatives for peace and reconciliation, and abolish contracts with the war industries.

~~Build a system of universal health care for all, and abolish medical debt.

~~Produce hundreds of thousands of decent and lovely public housing units, and abolish predatory loans.

~~Support direct democracy and one-person/one-vote, and abolish the electoral college.

In order for us as poor and oppressed people to be a part of a society that is meaningful, the system under which we now exist has to be radically changed. This means that we are going to have to learn to think in radical terms. I use the term radical in its original meaning—getting down to and understanding the root cause. It means facing a system that does not lend itself to your needs and devising means by which you change that system…But one of the things that has to be faced is, in the process of wanting to change that system, how much have we got to do to find out who we are, where we have come from and where we are going….I am saying as you must say, too, that in order to see where we are going, we not only must remember where we have been, but we must understand where we have been.

~~Ella Baker

NOTE: Send any notes, comments, additions, corrections to underthetreepod@gmail.com


Illinois Prison Project’s 6th Annual Gala

September 9, 2026

Celebrate with us – Illinois Prison Project’s 6th Annual Gala

Dear Comrades/Friends:

IPP’s 6th Annual Gala is set for October 16th at the historic Chicago Cultural Center — and I’m hoping you will purchase tickets and join us at the event!

This celebration brings together the people driving real change: advocates, elected officials, legal experts, and community members working at the forefront of the movement to end mass incarceration in Illinois and beyond. This year’s Visionary of the Year Awardees, Willette Benford & Sen. Robert Peters, will be honored, as well as Melissa Matusak Awardee Larry Beaumont. It’s also the biggest fundraising night of the year, with proceeds supporting IPP’s mission of providing direct legal representation to incarcerated people and changing the policies that fuel mass incarceration.

Will you join us? Your support helps us continue this work and signals your commitment to a more just system. Information on this year’s ticket, table and sponsorship options can be found here, including the ability to purchase a ticket so a formerly incarcerated person can attend (see the “Donate a ticket” option on our event registration page).

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to IPP’s Development Manager Shana East at: shana@illinoisprisonproject.org.

P.S. If you can’t make it on 10/16, but would still like to support IPP’s work–please consider making a secure gift online by clicking below, or by sending us a check at: Illinois Prison Project, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 452, Chicago, IL 60604. IPP is a nonprofit organization and all donations are tax-deductible. Thank you in advance!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

About IPP

In seven years, IPP has freed 201 people from prison, successfully advocated for a new law in Illinois that allows for medical release and administrative policy changes that create more pathways for release from prison, and educated tens of thousands of community members about the harms of our racist and regressive criminal legal system. Through creative lawyering, innovative advocacy and a focus on the humanity of people harmed by the criminal legal system, IPP’s work is transforming the way that Illinois treats incarcerated people.


SIRI HUSTVEDT

January 27, 2026

PLEEEZE READ:

The Emergency is Now
By Siri Hustvedt
Jan 27

Early in the Nazi occupation of Norway, my mother joined a protest. She and a group of students from the gymnasium they attended sang protest songs outside the houses of known Nazi sympathizers. Later, after she was arrested, she was given a choice to pay a fine or go to jail for nine days. She chose jail. Her jailer was a Norwegian Nazi. My mother was eighteen years old when she served her sentence. She always said that only a few months later, no one dreamed of organizing an open protest. All opposition went underground.

In Minneapolis, forty-five minutes by car from my hometown, Northfield, Minnesota, ICE is terrorizing the city. While some people are more vulnerable than others—anyone who is Black or Brown or speaks with an accent—no one is safe. Children have been taken. ICE is threatening schools. Every person who leaves their house is afraid of being stopped. ICE has been given license to kill people, as the Vice President said, with “absolute immunity.”

Brutality is the language of authoritarianism. Paramilitary groups enforced state power in fascist countries in the 20th century. The RSS in India is a paramilitary force that cultivated close relations with European fascism and is now allied with Modi. ICE is the paramilitary enforcer of Trump 2. Comparisons to the Brown and Black Shirts are not exaggerated or extreme. The parallels between what happened in Europe in the 20th century and what is happening in the United States now are real and frightening.

While the tech industry, banks, law firms, universities, corporations and far too many Democrats in Congress have rolled over to the new regime, ordinary people are pushing back. Continued pressure on government representatives and senators is vital, but it is not enough. Mass, noisy but peaceful protest, walkouts, strikes, and aid to people in danger of being deported, fired, silenced, or murdered is the way forward. The Trump regime wants violence from protesters. The ICE mission in cities is intended to foment violence that can then be used for media propaganda to scream insurrection and invoke the Insurrection Act. A single viral video of a single violent encounter is enough. Non-violence is crucial to the resistance because it has genuine power. It will increase our numbers.

My father, who was born in a log house in Minnesota in 1922, liked the word “neighborly.” Neighbors in the small, rural Norwegian American community where he grew up helped one another with farm work, barn raising, canning, and quilting. They fed the grieving and tended to the ill among them. Neighborliness runs deep in Minnesota. I see it now in the Minneapolis resistance. People are dropping off groceries to those who can’t leave their houses. They are monitoring ICE movements. They are filming and bearing witness to cruelty. They are protecting their neighbors.

No one can predict with any precision what will happen next or how many more people will die, but it is time for those who care about human rights to mobilize now because this is an emergency. If the republic isn’t lost already, it is clearly in its death throes.

It is time to end delusional talk of “Is this a constitutional crisis?” and hand wringing about “polarization.” We are way beyond that. When the Supreme Court gave broad immunity to a president for “official acts,” it effectively undermined the U.S. constitution and created a crisis that many in media treated as just another ruling to be analyzed. We are living in a country that fought a civil war over slavery. The current administration wants to institutes a white, Christian nationalist, autocratic state. We are polarized for ETHICAL reasons.

Hate speech and racist, misogynistic, xenophobic propaganda does not wait for a considered answer from the people it has targeted as “low IQ,” “criminals” from “shithole countries,” and “radical left lunatics.” ICE is not occupying the streets of U.S. cities, threatening, deporting, and killing people with whom they hope to have a friendly chat to reduce “polarization.”

Memory is important, historical memory of the genocide of tribal peoples, of slavery, Jim Crow, women’s suffrage and women’s liberation, the Civil Rights, anti-war, LBGTQ and disability rights movements. Personal memory also counts. I am remembering my parents. My left-wing father’s evocation of neighborliness and my mother’s decision to go to jail. It is painful to say, but I am glad neither of them lived to see Trump in his second incarnation.

The Nazi party in Norway, led by the notorious Quisling (whose name has come to mean traitor in English), welcomed the invasion of the country. I am not arguing that Norway under occupation is the same as ICE occupying U.S. cities now, but the moral choice between accepting fascism and opposing it is the same. The choice for my young mother then and for many Norwegians was stark: collaboration or resistance. That is the choice we are facing now.

Siri Hustvedt is the author of a book of poetry, three collections of essays, a work of non-fiction, and six novels, including the international bestsellers What I Loved and The Summer Without Men. Her most recent novel The Blazing World was long-listed for the Man Booker Prize and won The Los Angeles Book Prize for fiction. In 2012 she was awarded the International Gabarron Prize for Thought and Humanities. She has a PhD in English from Columbia University and is a lecturer in psychiatry at Weil Cornell Medical College in New York. Her work has been translated into over thirty languages.


OCTOBER 16, 1965—60 years ago today!

October 16, 2025

On October 16, 1965 I was arrested with 37 other students and two professors from the University of Michigan as we occupied and disrupted the normal operations of the Ann Arbor Selective Service Office (the Draft Board), a part of the massive US machinery of death. I’ve been arrested resisting war and empire, white supremacy and the racial capitalist system countless times since—and there’s no stopping now.
Sixty years! The blink of an eye in the life of the struggle.
KEEP RISING!!!

SEE this FROM MIKE KLONSKY:

Sixty years ago today (10/15/1965) the war makers met their first nationwide wall of resistance. On October 15, 1965, tens of thousands of Americans in over 40 cities took to the streets, campuses, churches, and union halls to protest a war they hadn’t voted for — and no longer believed in. These demonstrations drew over 100,000 participants and included the first public draft card burnings, as well as slogans such as “Hell no, we won’t go!”

This wasn’t a single march. It was a mosaic of resistance. In New York, clergy led vigils. In Berkeley, students staged teach-ins and burned draft cards. Detroit’s protest featured participation from members of the United Auto Workers (UAW), local chapters of the NAACP, and clergy aligned with the Detroit Council of Churches. These groups had already been collaborating on civil rights campaigns — and many viewed the Vietnam War as siphoning resources from the War on Poverty, disproportionately drafting Black and working-class youth, and fueling militarism abroad while neglecting justice at home

The protests were sparked by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), but they quickly outgrew any one group. SDS was one of the first groups to call for a nationwide day of protest. They helped coordinate actions across dozens of cities, working with local chapters, allied student groups, and sympathetic faculty to organize teach-ins, marches, and civil disobedience.

SDS framed the war not just as a foreign policy blunder, but as a symptom of deeper systemic rot — imperialism, racism, and economic exploitation. Their messaging helped shift the antiwar movement from moral pacifism to radical critique.

.October 15th was a turning point. The war was no longer just a foreign policy debate. It was a moral crisis. A test of conscience. The press downplayed it. The White House dismissed it. But the movement had found its voice. And it would only grow louder, through draft resistance, mass mobilizations, and the radicalization of a generation.

* * *

Phil Ochs’ “I Ain’t Marching Anymore,” released in 1965, was a searing antiwar anthem that became a rallying cry for the burgeoning Vietnam War protest movement. Ochs, a Greenwich Village folk singer and radical journalist, fused biting satire with historical indictment, tracing America’s militarism from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam.

* * *
Today, as we prepare for Saturday’s No Kings protests, the spirit of ‘65 still lives on within many of us.


FREE BUSES!!!

July 19, 2025

It’s the end of the world as we know it,

And I feel fine. ~~R.E.M.

When Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old state assemblyman and self-described democratic socialist, decisively won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City in June 2025, the entire liberal establishment lost its shit. The authorities reached for their fainting hankies, and the tone (if not the exact words) of the rulers and their enablers was unmistakable: “Bolsheviks take over NYC!”

The frenzied commentary ran the gamut: disbelief to delirium, agitation to hysteria, alarm to panic. Now that reality has settled in, the powerful have arrived at what they hope is a broad and reasoned consensus: Mamdani must be stopped at all costs! On the psycho side, the madman-in-chief suggested denaturalizing Mamdani and then deporting him; the realists, after scolding and patronizing the electorate for its misguided idealism leading to the socialist victory, got busy raising millions of dollars to buy the election—for anyone but Zohran. All the talk of the last several months about “saving democracy” and “undermining the will of the people” was shed like a dirty shirt, and the guy Mamdani crushed was dusted off and rehabilitated by the elite. 

It’s as if Mamdani were planning to defund the police, seize the banks, and nationalize the ports as well as the Yankees.

I like those ideas myself, but that’s just me; nothing in Zohran Mamdani’s policy proposals, campaign promises, or past activities suggests that these are anywhere in his sights. In fact,  what’s got the rulers in a tizzy is rather modest: making city buses free, establishing five city-run grocery stores, raising the minimum wage so that working people can afford to live in the city with some dignity, and freezing rents on rent-subsidized apartments. 

But in their minds something devilish is lurking: free buses today, and universal health care looms; rent freezes today, landlords rounded up and sent to re-education camps tomorrow. And before long people will get the idea that housing is a human right, and that everyone has a right to a place to call home. Then what? Food is a human right? Education? There’s no end! 

Plus Mamdani has refused to support Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians. He’s an immigrant from Africa, and a Muslim. That’s three strikes right there.

When a leading US Senator was asked by a reporter days after the election if a socialist mayor of the largest American city created problems for the Democratic Party, he responded, “I’m a capitalist.” There were no follow up questions, which was typical, but sad, because I have a few: do you mean that you own the means of production? Or merely that you embrace selfishness, murderous competition, selective humanization that renders large sections of human beings as disposable, and mindless growth—the vilest human qualities and the beating heart of capitalism? But “I’m a capitalist” stands alone—no elaboration, no further explanation needed—because the words “socialism” and “capitalism” function metaphorically in American political discourse: “socialism” is bad, cruel and authoritarian; “capitalism” is good, prosperous and free. 

The 1% promotes the myth that socialists want to make human beings into worker bees or indistinguishable ants in the colony, while capitalists will one day set us all free. Vote for free buses and you’re on a fast-path to the anthill.

In Chicago today we have socialist roads, socialist garbage collection, and a socialist fire department. We’ve agreed as a community over decades of living together that it’s best if everyone’s garbage gets collected by the city, and that the “freedom” to let your trash pile up in your yard or alley is unhealthy and stupid. We also think as a community that it’s a good idea to have a firehouse in every neighborhood rather than wait for a catastrophic fire to erupt, and then take bids from competing private contractors to see who will fight it. After World War II, Chicago took over the privately-owned elevated and subway lines, the street cars and bus companies, and unified and modernized a fragmented transportation system into a public entity. Everyday socialism.

Or as it was called in Milwaukee, “sewer socialism.” Emil Seidel (1910-1912), Daniel Hoan (1916-1940), and Frank Zeidler (1948-1960) were all democratic socialists who ran corruption-free administrations and took a pragmatic approach to governance. They’re remembered for things like building an extensive park system, installing public drinking fountains, and requiring owners to install toilets for workers in their factories.

We have models in the modern world, of course, of socialism without freedom, which is subjugation and control. But if we look honestly at what’s right before our eyes we can see clearly that freedom without socialism is privilege, predation, exploitation, and injustice.

The brutality of capitalism is apparent in every direction: war, invasion and occupation throughout the world exacting tribute in resources and labor from the Global South; militarized police forces at home; white supremacy cemented into law and culture and social structures; super-exploitation of an poorly paid underclass of workers; the looming catastrophic climate collapse; the banality of evil in the increasingly pervasive carceral state. Capitalism willfully and skillfully promotes greed, and turns frenzied accumulation from an obvious vice into an exalted virtue; it deliberately degrades human qualities such as mutual care, kindness, and the sense that we’re all better off when we’re all better off.  

As an 80-year-old person now, I  marvel at the all-conquering nature of capitalism, the ways market competition can be made into a model for every aspect of human life. Take elder-care, the plundering, profit-driven American care system that takes the basic human impulse to care for one another, and transforms it into a market, the Care Industry, with its fangs and talons covered with golden gauze.

If Zohran Mamdani becomes mayor of NY, the capitalists will work overtime to undermine his every initiative, and then proclaim that “once again, socialism failed.”

Let’s fight that—arm-in-arm, shoulder-to-shoulder.

~~Bill Ayers, Chicago 


CLOSING GITMO IN THE AMERICAN HEART By Robert C. Koehler

February 12, 2025
CLOSING GITMO IN THE AMERICAN HEART By Robert C. Koehler
Gitmo, of course!! It’s the freest place “we” have – by which I mean the American government, a.k.a. Donald Trump. No rules apply there, be they international humanitarian law or the U.S. Constitution. It’s a dumping ground, a black hole.It’s the most secure place for America to hold, as Trump put it a few weeks ago, “the worst criminal illegal aliens threatening the American people. Some of them are so bad we don’t even trust their countries to hold them because we don’t want them coming back.”His plan is to expand the infamous Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, part of the U.S. naval base in Cuba, which George W, Bush began using as he waged his horrific “war on terror” in the Middle East. He began imprisoning alleged terrorists, often arbitrarily arrested, in a hellhole where they had zero rights. Some are still there, several decades later. Trump’s plan is to expand the detention center to hold 30,000 people, which would be, oh, more than double the size of two unforgettable Nazi concentration camps combined: Dachau and Treblinka.And these migrants would be stuck there entirely under the control of an American government that has declared them to be the country’s biggest enemy of the moment: the biggest threat to our national safety. No rights for them!If you want to be a great national leader, this is step one: Create an enemy. Stir fear and hatred, then demonstrate that only you can protect us, by doing what’s necessary: dehumanize, dehumanize, dehumanize. That is to say, keep things simple:  us vs. them. This is what the masses understand, apparently.Oh God, I don’t believe this at all, but the reality of it seems unshakable – with Trump in the White House, more so than ever. There was a time when I believed we were moving beyond the militaristic simplism of Superpower America, with political hope bubbling all the way up to Barack Obama’s election in 2008. Yeah, the Bush era’s dead! But then . . . wars continued, not much changed. Obama had promised to close the Gitmo prison in his first year. That didn’t happen – and that’s when I started to realize that the progressive movement in this country had no real political traction.What we have instead is ongoing outrage, fueled by truth and introspection. Trump wants to “make America great again” and keeps ironically raging about the migrant invasion. The days of American greatness for which he’s reaching go well past the civil rights (the “political correctness”) era, past the women’s rights era, past the Great Depression. America’s greatness began with the European invasion of what came to be called the Americas – several hundred years of obliterating native cultures and dehumanizing them as “savages.” Our “greatness” preceded the American revolution and continued well after it.Trump’s intention to expand the Gitmo prison is symbolic as well as practical: It revitalizes the Bush era war on terror; it brings the war home. Today’s terrorist equivalents are the migrant invaders. If you’re interested in reclaiming the actual history of that period, I recommend the book Witnesses of the Unseen: Seven Years in Guantanamo, written by two Algerian men randomly arrested in Bosnia in 2001: Lakhdar Boumediene and Mustafa Ait Idir. They were falsely accused of being terrorists and spent seven years imprisoned for no reason at Gitmo – pulled away from their wives, their children . . . witnessing, and enduring, horrendous treatment, trapped in the American black hole with zero rights. The book contains fragments of our national history: what we can do in the wake of creating and dehumanizing an enemy.Some years ago, I wrote about the book, about the hell they endured: “stuffed into cages, interrogated endlessly and pointlessly, humiliated, force-fed (in Lakhdar’s case) . . . and finally, finally, ordered by a U.S. judge to be freed, when their case was at long last heard in a real court and the lack of evidence against them became appallingly clear.” This happened thanks to the unending aid they received from a U.S. law firm that spent more than 35,000 pro bono hours litigating the case.“The book is the story of the courage it takes to survive.”As well as alleged terrorists, Gitmo has also long been used to detain immigrants intercepted at sea. At Gitmo, they lacked “access to basic human necessities, appropriate medical care, education, and potable water,” according to the International Refugee Assistance Project. And they had no option to seek asylum in the U.S.What’s different about the Trump plan, according to PolifiFact, quoted at Al Jazeera, is that the U.S. has never sent people who were detained in the United States to Guantanamo. Those arrested here actually had certain rights and protections – which could essentially disappear at Gitmo. Somehow that seems like the point of it all: Americans first. Americans only!Progressive sanity will re-emerge politically, or so I believe, but how this will happen is anything but clear. The Republican right has certain serious political advantages, even if their basic agenda has only minority support. The prime advantage is billionaire dollars backing their cause. And, of course, creating an “us vs. them” governing mentality has a lot more immediate impact than addressing the world – even one’s enemies – with empathy, understanding and a sense of connection.Another difficulty the progressive movement faces is the Democrats, who have drifted ever more centrist-right since the Reagan era, refusing to challenge the Republican agenda head-on and gently cradling the nation’s expanding militarism.It almost seems like we need to start over: Rosa Parks must refuse to give up her seat on the bus again. What might this mean? If nothing else, the truth about American history must continue to flow and efforts to ban it from libraries and classrooms, to burn it in book fires, must be endlessly challenged. And truth still speaks to us from the mountaintop:“So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His newly released album of recorded poetry and art work, Soul Fragments, is available here: https://linktr.ee/bobkoehler

The US Goverment Murdered the Rosenbergs!

January 7, 2025

Mail to: USPardon.Attorney@usdoj.gov

Subject: President Biden, right the historical wrong done to Ethel Rosenberg

To the Office of the Pardon Attorney,

Please urge President Biden to issue a statement before he leaves office declaring Ethel Rosenberg’s conviction and execution wrongful.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed on June 19, 1953 during the anti-communist hysteria of the Cold War Era. A newly declassified NSA memorandum dated August 22, 1950 – just days after Ethel’s arrest – confirms that the U.S. government knew she was not a spy long before her trial and execution (https://www.rfc.org/why-ethels-execution-was-wrongful).

A formal acknowledgement of the wrong done to Ethel Rosenberg and her family will help prevent similar injustices in the future. Please, urge President Biden to formally exonerate Ethel Rosenberg now. More than 70 years after her unjust conviction and execution, now is the time to right this historic injustice, redress the harm done to the Rosenberg/Meeropol family and finally clear her good name.

Sincerely,

William Ayers


The New York Times

February 12, 2024

By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost

It has been evident to many of us since the genocide in Gaza began Oct. 7 that Israel risked asking too much of those inclined to take its side. The Zionist state would ask what many people cannot give: It would ask them to surrender their consciences, their idea of moral order, altogether their native decency as it murders, starves and disperses a population of 2.3 million while making their land uninhabitable. 

The Israelis took this risk and they have lost. We are now able to watch videos of Israeli soldiers celebrating as they murder Palestinian mothers and children, as they dance and sing while detonating entire neighborhoods, as they mock Palestinians in a carnival of racist depravity one would have thought beyond what is worst in humanity—and certainly beyond what any Jew would do to another human being. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports, as American media do not, that the Israel Defense Forces covertly sponsor a social media channel disseminating this degenerate material in the cause of maintaining maximum hatred.  

It is a psychologically diseased nation that boasts as it inflicts this suffering on The Other that obsesses it. The world is invited—the ultimate in perversity, this—to partake of Israel’s sickness and said, in a Hague courtroom two weeks ago, “No.”   

Post–Gaza, apartheid Israel is unlikely ever to recover what place it enjoyed, merited or otherwise, in the community of nations. It stands among the pariahs now. The Biden regime took this risk, too, and it has also lost. Its support for the Israelis’ daily brutalities comes at great political cost, at home and abroad, and is tearing America apart—its universities, its courts, its legislatures, its communities—and I would say what pride it still manages to take in itself. When the history of America’s decline as a hegemonic power is written, the Gaza crisis is certain to figure in it as a significant marker in the nation’s descent into a morass of immorality that has already contributed to a collapse of its credibility.    

We come to U.S. media — mainstream media, corporate media, legacy media. However you wish to name them, they have gambled and lost, too. Their coverage of the Gaza crisis has been so egregiously and incautiously unbalanced in Israel’s behalf that we might count their derelictions as unprecedented. When the surveys are conducted and the returns are in, their unscrupulous distortions, their countless omissions, and—the worst offense, in my view—their dehumanization of the Palestinians of Gaza will have further damaged their already collapsing credibility. 

We come, finally, to The New York Times. No medium in America has had further to fall in consequence of its reporting on Israel and Gaza since last October. And the once-but-no-longer newspaper of record, fairly suffocating amid its well-known hubris, falls as we speak. It has erupted, by numerous accounts including implicitly its own, in an internal uproar over reportage from Israel and Gaza so shabby—so transparently negligent—that it, like Israel, may never fully restore its reputation. 

Max Blumenthal, editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, described the crisis on Eighth Avenue better than anyone in the Jan. 30 segment of The Hill’s daily webcast, Rising. “We’re looking at one of the biggest media scandals of our time,” he told Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave. Indeed. This well captures the gravity of The Times’s willful corruptions in its profligate use of Israeli propaganda, and Blumenthal deserves the microphone to say so. Since late last year The Grayzone has exhaustively investigated The Times’s “investigations” of Hamas’s supposed savagery and Israel’s supposed innocence. 

This is more than “inside baseball,” as the saying goes. We now have a usefully intricate anatomy of an undeservedly influential newspaper as it abjectly surrenders to power the sovereignty it is its duty to claim and assert in every day’s editions. It would be hard to overstate the implications, for all of us, of what The Grayzone has just brought to light. This is independent journalism at its best reporting on corporate journalism at its worst. 

■

What we find as we read The Times’s daily report from Israel, and from Gaza when its correspondents unwisely accept invitations to embed with the IDF, is a newspaper unwilling to question either its longstanding fidelity to Israel or its service to American power. These two ideological proclivities—well more than what its reporters see and hear—have defined the paper’s coverage of this crisis. This is bad journalism straight off the top. 

It was inevitable, then, that The Timeswould serve as Israel’s apologist as soon as the IDF began its murder spree last October. This was not a rampage worthy of the Visigoths, as plentiful video footage carried on social media and in independent publications revealed it to be: It was dignified as “a war,” a war waged not against Palestinians but “against Hamas,” and Israel fought it in “self-defense.” Hamas is “a terrorist organization,” so there is no complexity or dimensionality to it, and therefore no need to understand anything about it.  

It has been a question of minimizing and maximizing in the pages of The Times. Israel’s genocidal intent is indecipherable to anyone relying on its coverage. The physical destruction of Gaza is never described as systematic. The IDF does not target noncombatants. The newspaper has reported the shocking statements of Israeli officials, some openly favoring genocide, ethnic-cleansing, and the like, only when these have been so prominently reported elsewhere that The Times could no longer pretend such things were never said.  

The taker of the cake in this line is a January 22 piece by David Leonhardt, who seems to be one of those desk reporters in New York who write whatever they are told to write. Under the headline, “The Decline of Deaths in Gaza,” we read that Palestinian fatalities declined “by almost half since early December.” Setting aside the fact that the record since does not seem to bear this out, inviting Times readers to celebrate a daily death toll of 150 instead of 300 lies somewhere between poor judgment and poor taste. But anything, it seems, to soften the look of things in Gaza. 

There is also the question of humanization and dehumanization. We have read very numerous and intimately detailed Times stories of Israelis attacked last Oct. 7—individuation being essential to shaping this kind of coverage—while Palestinians are an indistinct blur so far as Times correspondents report on them. The Times has fully indulged the pretense that history began on Oct. 7, erasing the previous 76 years or the previous century, depending on how one counts—the history, this is to say, wherein the Palestinian story is told. There is no Palestinian story in pages of The New York Times, as a walk through the archives of the last four months will make clear.  The Timeshas recently taken to publishing exceptions to these patterns in its coverage, and I will come to them in due course.   

■ 

There is one feature of The Times’s coverage that must be singled out, as it is very key to the whole of it. This concerns the question of evidence. Almost all of the reportage coming out of Israel, and on rare occasions Gaza, relies on evidence Times correspondents have obtained from the Israeli military, Israeli government officials, the Israeli police, or those representing some other part of the Israeli power structure. On some occasions, Times reporters will take a cue or a theme from Israeli information managers and then do their own reporting—Blumenthal calls this “alleged reporting”—to dress up the piece subsequently published as an independent piece of work. There are two things to say about this. 

One, the Israelis have been intent from the first to manipulate the imagery of the Gaza crisis—what it looks like—and keeping very tight control of evidence, including a great deal of conjured “evidence,” has been essential to getting this done. For the Israelis to make themselves a correspondent’s primary source—or the only source much or most of the time—and for correspondents to accept this arrangement implies a certain kind of relationship. It is evident that  this relationship has been routinized over the past four months.

Two, Times correspondents—and again, their colleagues at other Western newspapers and broadcasters, too—never raise questions of quality, veracity, provenance, or chain of custody when relying on evidence or  “evidence” supplied by Israeli authorities. In pro forma fashion, they will occasionally note that this or that account of events “cannot be independently verified.” But the procedure—Israelis supply evidence, correspondents turn it into reportage—is kept entirely from view. “According to Israeli officials,” “Israeli military sources said,” etc. is all readers get. On goes the report from there, in which evidence or “evidence” the Israelis have supplied is presented at face value.

In every case I know of, I should add, stories of this kind are one-source stories—even if they feature multiple voices saying the same thing in different language. This is a tired old trick at The Times and among other mainstream media: 5 and 2 are 7, 4 and 3 are also 7, so are 6 and 1, and so on. I have just termed the relationship implied here as routinized. Now I will call it a highly objectionable relationship: At its core is a symbiosis wherein The Times abandons its sovereignty and, corollary point, The Times obscures this abandonment from its readers.

The Times’s unprofessional handling of evidence and “evidence,” to state what may by now be obvious, has made it an instrument of official propaganda as Israel’s crimes in Gaza have proliferated these past months. This is open-and-shut the case, as the record shows. It is not an unusual circumstance for The Times: It is inevitable that a paper wherein ideologies determine what is published will assume this role, elsewhere as in Israel. 

But propaganda, as noted elsewhere, is crudely made in most cases. The propagandist much prefers simplicity and impact to sophistication or, God knows, nuance. The Israelis are not exceptions to this rule. The correspondent trafficking in propaganda must consequently be very careful to avoid reproducing what is patently cheap goods. This is especially so when working within the sort of relationship The Times has with the Israeli propaganda machine, whose output since they began their assault on Gaza has often been primitive and obviously overdone. If you are not careful you can get left holding the bag. 

Jeffrey Gettleman seems to have been other than careful in his reporting after he transited from Ukraine to Israel immediately after the events of Oct. 7. He did not, in fairness, do anything other than what Times correspondents routinely do when reporting “the Jewish state.” He opened wide and swallowed what the Israeli authorities fed him—the goose and the foie gras farmer. But when he began a grand investigation to expose the Hamas militias’ heinous use of sexual violence as a weapon of terror on Oct. 7, he does not seem to have recognized wildly implausible horror stories when the Israelis told them. Neither could Gettleman see, apparently, the immense implications of his piece once subjected to a scrutiny he may not have anticipated. 

Incautious Jeffrey Gettleman is now holding the bag—scrambling, so far as one can make out, to salvage reportage that looks to me too faulty to save. His newspaper is now in an uproar. This is not just about Gettleman’s piece: At issue is The Times’s  coverage of the Gaza crisis altogether. The routinized relationship between The Times and the Israeli authorities is now exposed to more light than was ever supposed to shine on it. Ditto the slack, sloppy, unprofessional mediocrities mainstream media altogether have made of themselves.

The Israelis began alleging that Hamas militias were guilty of rape and sexual violence during their Oct. 7 incursion into southern Israel more or less immediately after the events of that day. They claimed to be developing “considerable evidence”—Gettleman’s phrase in his initial report, on Dec. 4—from witnesses, photographs, and emergency medical teams. In the same piece, Gettleman quoted a police official saying that women and men numbering in the dozens had been raped on Oct. 7. Women’s rights advocates convening at the U.N. at this time introduced the thought that the alleged sexual abuses were part of a pattern: They were systematic, weapons of terror.

After these initial assertions the Israeli police authorities seem to have subtly but swiftly softened. No, there were no autopsies, witnesses were hard to locate, people at the scene of alleged incidents did not collect evidence, no, they had nothing to say about interviewing victims of alleged rapes. Gettleman’s Dec. 4 file was, at least relative to what was to come, suitably cautious—a what-we-know, what-we-don’t piece. But the drift was clear. “Extensive witness testimony and documentary evidence of killings, including videos posted by Hamas fighters themselves,” Gettleman wrote, “support the allegations.” 

If I read Gettleman’s clipping file correctly, it was with that sentence that he began his walk into trouble. As it has turned out, the witness testimony he cited has proven spongy and less than extensive, the documentary evidence proves little, and the videos, unless there are videos we do not know of, prove nothing at all. The phrase “witness testimony and documentary evidence” includes a link to a lengthy piece on Hamas’s post–Oct. 7 political deliberations that makes no mention of rape or sexual violence and has nothing whatever to do with the topic of Gettleman’s piece. 

Gettleman’s byline did not appear again in The Times until Dec. 28, when his sprawling investigative takeout appeared under the headline, “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct.7.” It took as its central figure “the woman in the black dress.” This refers to a corpse found and videoed on the side of a road on Oct. 8. “In a grainy video,” Gettleman writes, “you can see her, lying on her back, dress torn, legs spread, vagina exposed. Her face is burned beyond recognition and her right hand covers her eyes.”

Gettleman reports this woman’s identity as Gal Abdush, a 34–year-old mother of two who was partying with her husband along the Gaza border in the early hours of Oct. 7 and was later murdered, as was her husband. Within seven paragraphs of his lead, it appears perfectly clear Gettleman has taken the “evidence” bait as proffered by Israeli officials: 

Based largely on the video evidence—which was verified by The New York Times—Israeli police officials said they believed that Ms. Abdush was raped, and she has become a symbol of the horrors visited upon Israeli women and girls during the Oct. 7 attacks.

Let us study this passage briefly. Are you interested in what Israeli police say they believe? I’m not. I’m never interested in what officials in such positions believe or feel or, a lot of the time, think: I am interested in what they know, and they did not tell Gettleman that they knew anything. Do you see the air these officials put  between the rape theme and their reputations? Equally, The Times “verified” the video, did it? In what way this? What did it verify, exactly? That the video existed? Is Gettleman suggesting that The Times verified from the video that Abdush was raped? No video of a dead body could verify this. 

This video has a strange story, to stay with it briefly. Gettleman wrote that it “went viral,” but it is nowhere to be found on the internet, and nobody recalls referring to Abdush as “the woman in the black dress.” There is also a chronology question attaching to this video, as a Jan. 3 report in Mondoweiss analyzes. Gettleman recounts the last text message, with time-stamp, Gal Abdush sent to her family. During this time Abdush’s husband, Nagy, was with her and sent his own texts to the family, also time-stamped. Four minutes elapsed between Gal Abdush’s last message and the time Nagy Abdush messaged the family to report his wife’s death—a message Gettleman did not mention. Nagy Abdush made no reference to rape. He sent his own final message 44 minutes later – a message Gettleman’s report does mention.  

Did one or more Hamas militiaman rape a woman in the presence of her husband, then, in one or another sequence, murder her and burn her, then murder the husband—all not in 44 minutes, as the Gettleman piece implies, but in four? Since Gettleman published, Abdush’s family, evidently irate, has accused him of distorting the evidence and manipulating them in the course of his reporting. “She was not raped,” Mira Alter, Gal Abdush’s sister,  wrote on social media a few days after Gettleman published. “There was no proof that there was rape. It was only a video.”

This is how it is for the 3,700 words Gettleman gave his investigation, which also carries the bylines of Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella. There are witnesses who change their stories once, twice, or several times. There is a witness proven to have lied in similar circumstances. There is the testimony of a rescue organization with a compromised relationship with the Israeli military and an extensive record of corruption widely reported in Israeli media. There is a witness who told Gettleman he saw two teenage girls lying naked and alone on the floor of a house, one of them with semen all over her back, while it was later proven they were burned so badly they were hard to identify and they were found not alone but in the embrace of their also-burned mother. 

And so on. You have descriptions of all kinds of unimaginable, B–movie perversities—militiamen playing with severed breasts, militiamen walking around with armfuls of severed heads—that rest upon “witnesses” whose testimonies, given how often they shift or do not line up with what was eventually determined, simply cannot be counted as stable. 

And then there are the official statements. Among the most categoric of these is one from the Israeli police, issued after The Times published “‘Screams Without Words’” Dec. 28 and asserting that they have found no eyewitnesses to rapes on Oct. 7 and see nothing in media reports such as The Times’s constituting evidence of systematic sexual violence. 

I rarely urge readers of this column to read The New York Times—some, indeed, write to thank me for reading it so they don’t have to do so. On this occasion I think reading the Gettleman pieces is a good idea—but only back-to-back with The Grayzone’s work. Mondoweiss, a U.S. publication that reports on Israel and Palestine, has also done work worth reading. It is a chance to see what sclerosis looks like when placed next to vitality. 

Blumenthal and Aaron Maté, his colleague at The Grayzone, began scrutinizing The Times’s reports on alleged sexual violence immediately after Gettleman’s first piece appeared Dec. 4. Two days later, The Grayzone published a detailed account of ZAKA, the discredited rescue organization that featured prominently among Gettleman’s sources. Three days after “‘Screams Without Words’” appeared Dec. 28, Blumenthal and Maté aired a 42–minute podcast exposing the long list of inconsistencies in it they had by then identified. Two weeks later, on Jan. 10, The Grayzone published a lengthy letter it sent to The Times urging it to address the many defects and ethical breaches in Gettleman’s pieces. “The Times report,” the letter began, “is marred by sensationalism, wild leaps of logic, and an absence of concrete evidence to support its sweeping conclusion.” The Times has since been silent—publicly, if not internally.     

The Times could hardly have worked itself into a more awkward corner over the “‘Screams Without Words’” disaster had it tried. It seems to have been some while building and to have exploded as follows into the mess now before us.  

Unease as to The Times’s coverage of Israel, inside and outside the Times building, is a long story. Times correspondents whose children serve in the IDF, correspondents with apparently improper relations with lobbies such as the Anti–Defamation League: These kinds of things have over the years prompted critics to question of the paper’s proximity, where it puts itself in relation to the Israel story, the balance of its coverage. Nearer to the present, there had been sustained criticism of the paper’s Gaza coverage emanating from the newsroom well before Gettleman’s piece appeared. A Jan. 26 piece in The Intercept, citing newsroom sources, described “a rolling fight that is revived on a near-daily basis over the tenor of Times coverage of the war in Gaza.” 

This seems to have reached high-decibels acrimony as The Daily, The Times’s premier podcast, became involved. The Daily is where the paper showcases what are supposed to be its better enterprise pieces, as those with lots of original reporting are called, and it scheduled a segment based on “‘Screams Without Words’” for release on Jan. 9. Joe Kahn, The Times’s executive editor, had already touted the the piece in an internal memorandum as among several “signature pieces of enterprise on the Israel–Hamas war” and described it as executed “in a sensitive and detailed way.” Kahn may have leapt before he looked. The Daily’s producers soon pulled the segment as the defects began to accumulate in the piece Gettleman and his colleagues filed. They subsequently wrote a revised script addressing some of the problems—inserting qualifiers, The Intercept reported, and altogether leaving ample room to question, if not doubt, the factual certainty Gettleman wrote into his prose. 

The revised segment is now “paused,” whatever that turns out to mean. This leaves the paper effectively stuck with a Hobson’s choice that makes me marvel: It can run the original segment, pretending discredited work remains valid, or it can run the rewritten segment, so discrediting the Gettleman report by itself. 

Max Blumenthal thinks the crisis inside The Times reflects a deep divide between the newsroom, where there seems to be a surviving cohort of conscientious  journalists, and the upper reaches of management, where the paper’s ideological high priests reside. I have not been inside the Times building in well more than a decade, but there is a history to support this thesis. It goes at least as far back as the 1950s, when Aurthur Hays Sulzberger, as publisher, signed a secrecy agreement with the Central Intelligence Agency and gave tacit approval to correspondents who wanted to work for the agency.

But we have to look beyond the tall glass building on Eighth Avenue to grasp the magnitude of the crisis Jeffery Gettleman has precipitated. His careless work, to put the point mildly, has exposed a process that is prevalent across the mainstream. CNN, The Guardian, MSNBC, PBS, various others: They all followed the same procedure as they reproduced the “systematic sexual abuse” story as the Israelis gave it to them. We are face to face now with the destructive power of corporate media as they dedicate themselves to serving the interests of the policy cliques who run the imperium and its appendages. Face to face, too, with the responsibilities that fall to independent publications in consequence of so basic a corruption as this.   

“These are lies that kill,” Blumenthal remarked on that segment of Rising noted earlier, “because these lies, fabrications, distortions, half-truths, and exaggerations of facts are intended to generate political consent for Israel’s genocidal assault in Gaza. They need to be called out.”

Is there a truer way to make the point?

■

Credit when due.

The Times has published a handful of pieces over the past couple of weeks that are exceptional, at least relatively so, for their balanced treatment of the Israel–Palestine crisis in all its fullness. Suddenly there is a history to it that extends back more than four months. Suddenly Palestinians have voices that have things to say. Suddenly they are living, breathing human beings. How rare is this in the pages of The Times?

I was alerted to this spate of pieces—they cannot be read as a purposeful series—on the last day of January, when Roger Cohen published a long report from the West Bank under the headline “‘We Are Not Very Far From an Explosion,’” in which the paper’s Paris bureau chief, long sympathetic to Israeli perspectives, describes the vicious ugliness of fanatical Israeli settlers and IDF soldiers incessantly attacking West Bank townspeople simply trying to hold on to what they have. It is a moving piece of work. 

A day later The Times published “The Road to 1948,” which consists of a many-sided debate moderated by Emily Bazelon, who lectures in law at Yale. The people talking to one another in this lengthy presentation—and Bazelon manages the exchange with a light, unintrusive hand—take the Israel–Palestine question back to the British Mandate in 1920. There are many perspectives here, not all worthy of endorsement. The piece is good, certainly, in explaining how the British favored Zionist organizations as precursors of a state while giving no such status to Palestinians. But the simplifying thought that “this is a national conflict with religious elements,” or that arriving Zionist settlers and Palestinians have something like equivalent claims, seems to me an insidious gloss. Still, The Times has taken readers back a century. 

The next day came a news piece, “In the West Bank, Palestinians Struggle to Adjust to a New Reality.” In it, Yara Bayoumy and Rami Nazzal describe onerous new restrictions the Israelis have placed on the movements of West Bank residents since Oct. 7. Last Sunday The paper published “Portraits of Gazans,” photographs by Samar Abu Elouf with text by Declan Walsh and Abu Elouf. These pictures seem to me a little sanitized, as if they are meant to disturb liberal American sensibilities but not enough to disgust them or get them into the streets with placards. Good enough, but too tame next to the images that land the horror in one’s gut as one finds easily enough on social media and in independent publications.

On Tuesday morning, something interesting. “What Israeli Soldiers’ Videos Reveal: Cheering Destruction and Mocking Gazans,” featuring a small parade of bylines, has The Times finally getting around to publishing some of the astoundingly crude video IDF soldiers make of themselves as they rampage through the Gaza Strip.  Why now? There is no avoiding this question, given how assiduously The Times has indeed avoided this kind of material until this week. Why this string of pieces somewhat or more out of character for a newspaper that has so long stood among American media as Israel’s most influential apologist?  

It is a good question, and I do not have a certain answer. Looking at this phenomenon narrowly, these rapid-fire pieces might reflect the pandemonium and ire abroad in the newsroom. Have those reporters and editors disgusted by the Gaza coverage and riled by the Gettleman piece prompted an editorial change of heart? Maybe. Possible. Did the paper rush these pieces into print as a form of post–Gettlman damage control? Very possibly. Maybe The Times has at last decided Israel has asked too much of it. A little far-fetched, but let’s keep it on the list. 

We should recall The Times’s coverage after the al–Aqsa Mosque crisis in the spring of 2021. Just as it is doing now, it published a lot of pieces sympathetic to the Palestinians and sharply critical of the conduct of Israelis. But over time it became clear this was merely a temporary shift, a back-foot defense the moment required. Three years later The Times gives us Jeffrey Gettleman. Plus ça change.    

My mind goes back to the Vietnam war in search of an explanation for these pieces. Some readers may recall that The Times—a much different newspaper then—began in the late 1960s to publish highly critical work by correspondents who were soon noted for it: David Halberstam, Malcolm Browne, Neil Sheehan. In the trade and in the reading public these people were awarded badges of courage for their integrity, and fair enough, although they opposed the war less out of principle than a shared judgment the U.S. could not win it. 

I have long thought the tenor of The Times’s Vietnam coverage changed because, by the time the above-mentioned correspondents and others like them were filing stories with Saigon datelines, a deep divide had appeared among the policy cliques in Washington and its was permissible to write against the Pentagon’s Southeast Asia folly. 

Is The Times responding similarly now? The mood has changed in Washington, or is changing. There is a divide on Capitol Hill that grows gradually more evident. Think of all these open letters U.S. officials, some senior, are signing and circulating to express their objections to the Biden regime’s reckless support for a reckless nation’s crimes. Has The Times, in its typically indirect way, written and sent a letter of its own by way of the pieces that match not at all the Israel Jeffrey Gettleman offers Times readers?


Patrick Lawrence

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a media critic, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site. His Twitter account, @thefloutist, has been permanently censored without explanation.