truthout--2020-06-07--Why Is the University of California Punishing Students During a Pandemic?

In an experience now familiar to many , faculty at the University of California , Santa Cruz ( UCSC ) logged onto Zoom on May 15 and stared into the online abyss .
Hundreds of squares awaited us , some with actual faces , others with initials written on dark backgrounds .
The alienation that we have experienced from teaching remotely , and the exhaustion of transforming our classes into an online format , both pale in comparison to the bizarre spectacle we were about to witness .
One after another , we asked UCSC ’ s administration the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to punish students during a global pandemic ?
The chancellor and executive vice chancellor did not provide an answer .
Instead , they confirmed that the university would continue punitive measures against students due to their peaceful involvement in the wildcat strike this past winter .
Graduate students at UCSC began organizing for a cost-of-living adjustment ( COLA ) for graduate workers in September .
Our students work multiple jobs , experience precarious housing and homelessness , and suffer from food insecurity .
Santa Cruz is one of the least affordable cities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a one-bedroom apartment is $ 2,242 , which far exceeds the monthly salary of a graduate student worker .
The University of California ( UC ) administration has long refused to address the unlivable conditions experienced by students in a sustained manner .
As a result , the situation quickly escalated : Graduate workers announced a grade strike in December , and a full picket began at UCSC in early February .
On February 28 , the administration sent a “ notice of intent to dismiss ” 54 graduate students who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ failed to follow directives from an appropriate academic administrator to fully submit grades.
” Eighty-two graduate workers were eventually fired for withholding grades .
Understandably , this stoked the flames of student frustration across the UCs .
Graduate workers at UC Berkeley voted to go on a full strike in early March , just weeks after UC Davis began a grading strike and UC Santa Barbara embarked on a full teaching strike .
Then came a global health pandemic .
Ever since , it seems almost quaint to remember the hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of campus just months ago , upholding the principles of social justice for which this campus is ( or was ) so well-known .
Seventeen students — both graduate and undergraduate — were arrested during the actual protests .
Some of these students are also facing criminal charges and many remain ineligible for university appointments this fall , effectively ending their progress to a PhD .
Many of their testimonies are chilling and highlight the issues of police brutality and surveillance that we know all too well .
In accordance with the demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter on June 2 , students and faculty at UCSC have called on the administration to break their relationship with city police and other agencies with a demonstrated history of racial discrimination and/or violence .
COVID-19 could have been an opportunity for the administration to show our students that their welfare does indeed matter .
It could have convinced them that despite spending $ 300,000 a day on riot police , and using Homeland Security to track the protests , it was not too late to convey their concern for members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opportunity for them to follow the example of courts across the country , and halt the disciplinary hearings for the approximately 70 students who have been convoked .
As one graduate worker , Hannah Newburn , noted , “ These disciplinary proceedings , weakly disguised as lessons in ‘ community standards , ’ are simply the cold enforcement of the UC ’ s company standards , which — like any efficient corporation — seeks to eliminate non-compliant personnel.
” Indeed , some graduate student workers are being accused of temporarily moving grades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is increasingly being used for the surveillance of instructors , and which we have no obligation to use .
Yet inexplicably , the administration claims that the temporary use of Microsoft Excel to store grades constitutes “ theft or damage of intellectual property.
” The UAW 2865 union , which represents graduate students , has filed an unfair labor practice charge against the UC regents .
It alleges that the university has violated contractual agreements and disregarded mandated protections for graduate workers .
Although the University of California is not the only organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of labor organizing , punitive measures against our students in the context of a pandemic undermine the very nature of public education .
The UCs should not be engaging in the same union-busting practices as corporations like Amazon or Google .
The list of professional associations that have denounced these actions — not to mention the numerous petitions , boycotts and senate resolutions — would take pages to list .
Indeed , only a few weeks ago , some of us sent the administration an open letter communicating our concerns , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked for clarification regarding the mysterious “ Demonstrations Operations Team , ” which claims to be in charge of “ coordinating the campus ’ specific operational planning and responsive needs related to campus activism.
” But we still have no information about who serves on this team , or knowledge of their budget , surveillance activities or involvement in issuing summons .
We see the physical and emotional harm that is being done by these hearings .
And yet , it seems that all we can do is to raise an electronic hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our outrage and exhaustion .
One thing is now perfectly clear to us , however : The administration has had us on “ mute ” since day one of this struggle .
Absurdly , the UCSC administration has claimed that these highly traumatic hearings were not meant to “ punish ” students , but rather envisioned as a “ restorative ” and “ educational ” experience .
Disciplinary reports use racialized language , employing terms such as “ aggressive ” or “ threatening ” to describe people of color .
As UC faculty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial injustice , we know what learning looks like .
Using the same vocabulary to describe the hours of lectures we deliver every week , and the current scenes of student despair and anxiety , is nothing short of a slap in the face .
One of the chants that students and faculty shouted together during the strike , when bodies could still convene , was : “ Whose university ?
OUR university.
” After COVID-19 , this hope seems utterly utopian .
Since February , it has become even clearer that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regents who are political appointees ; the UCSC administration that ignores faculty concerns and senate resolutions imploring them to behave differently ; and the president of the UC , Janet Napolitano , the former head of Homeland Security who is currently a potential running mate for Joe Biden .
As teachers , our concerns are much more humble : the mental and physical well-being of our students .
And we are losing .
Will institutions of higher education use the crisis to extend coercive and surveillance measures on college campuses ?
At UC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable students — students of color , undocumented students and students from working-class backgrounds — are among those who have been most aggressively targeted by the university ’ s disciplinary apparatus .
Because of these disciplinary measures , students risk being suspended and losing much-needed housing stipends .
Moreover , UCSC has announced that the cost of family housing will go up yet again next year .
In short , the university ’ s administration has acted in an increasingly authoritarian fashion .
It continues to send summons and punish its students while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves in the public space .
The UC administration and Gov .
Gavin Newsom have a decision to make : Will the University of California emerge from the current crisis with a renewed sense of its mission as a public institution dedicated to social justice ?
Or will COVID-19 be weaponized , used to deliver a death blow to the social and intellectual foundations of this institution ?
By continuing with these disciplinary hearings and ignoring the voices of faculty and students , the UC administration has chosen the latter option .
Faculty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santa Cruz , that authored this piece include : Muriam Haleh Davis , Camilo Gómez-Rivas , Neel Ahuja , Anna Fritz , Jerry Zee , Camilla Hawthorne , Lisa Rofel , Jessica Taft , micha cárdenas , Regina Day Langhout , Irene Lusztig , Megan Thomas , Amy Mihyang Ginther , Deborah Gould , Laurie Palmer and Hillary Angelo .

Faculty members at the University of California, Santa Cruz

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
In an experience now familiar to many, faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) logged onto Zoom on May 15 and stared into the online abyss. Hundreds of squares awaited us, some with actual faces, others with initials written on dark backgrounds. The alienation that we have experienced from teaching remotely, and the exhaustion of transforming our classes into an online format, both pale in comparison to the bizarre spectacle we were about to witness. One after another, we asked UCSC’s administration the same question: Why is the university continuing to punish students during a global pandemic? The chancellor and executive vice chancellor did not provide an answer. Instead, they confirmed that the university would continue punitive measures against students due to their peaceful involvement in the wildcat strike this past winter.
Graduate students at UCSC began organizing for a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for graduate workers in September. Our students work multiple jobs, experience precarious housing and homelessness, and suffer from food insecurity. Santa Cruz is one of the least affordable cities in the world, where the monthly rental for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,242, which far exceeds the monthly salary of a graduate student worker. The University of California (UC) administration has long refused to address the unlivable conditions experienced by students in a sustained manner. As a result, the situation quickly escalated: Graduate workers announced a grade strike in December, and a full picket began at UCSC in early February. On February 28, the administration sent a “notice of intent to dismiss” 54 graduate students who were stripped of their spring appointments for having “failed to follow directives from an appropriate academic administrator to fully submit grades.” Eighty-two graduate workers were eventually fired for withholding grades.
Understandably, this stoked the flames of student frustration across the UCs. Graduate workers at UC Berkeley voted to go on a full strike in early March, just weeks after UC Davis began a grading strike and UC Santa Barbara embarked on a full teaching strike.
Then came a global health pandemic. Ever since, it seems almost quaint to remember the hundreds of students who rallied peacefully at the base of campus just months ago, upholding the principles of social justice for which this campus is (or was) so well-known. Seventeen students — both graduate and undergraduate — were arrested during the actual protests. Some of these students are also facing criminal charges and many remain ineligible for university appointments this fall, effectively ending their progress to a PhD. Many of their testimonies are chilling and highlight the issues of police brutality and surveillance that we know all too well. In accordance with the demand for police reform made by Black Lives Matter on June 2, students and faculty at UCSC have called on the administration to break their relationship with city police and other agencies with a demonstrated history of racial discrimination and/or violence.
COVID-19 could have been an opportunity for the administration to show our students that their welfare does indeed matter. It could have convinced them that despite spending $300,000 a day on riot police, and using Homeland Security to track the protests, it was not too late to convey their concern for members of the UCSC community. It could have been an opportunity for them to follow the example of courts across the country, and halt the disciplinary hearings for the approximately 70 students who have been convoked.
As one graduate worker, Hannah Newburn, noted, “These disciplinary proceedings, weakly disguised as lessons in ‘community standards,’ are simply the cold enforcement of the UC’s company standards, which — like any efficient corporation — seeks to eliminate non-compliant personnel.” Indeed, some graduate student workers are being accused of temporarily moving grades off of Canvas, a platform that is increasingly being used for the surveillance of instructors, and which we have no obligation to use. Yet inexplicably, the administration claims that the temporary use of Microsoft Excel to store grades constitutes “theft or damage of intellectual property.”
Punitive measures against our students in the context of a pandemic undermine the very nature of public education.
The UAW 2865 union, which represents graduate students, has filed an unfair labor practice charge against the UC regents. It alleges that the university has violated contractual agreements and disregarded mandated protections for graduate workers. Although the University of California is not the only organization using the COVID-19 crisis to curtail the power of labor organizing, punitive measures against our students in the context of a pandemic undermine the very nature of public education. The UCs should not be engaging in the same union-busting practices as corporations like Amazon or Google.
The list of professional associations that have denounced these actions — not to mention the numerous petitions, boycotts and senate resolutions — would take pages to list. Indeed, only a few weeks ago, some of us sent the administration an open letter communicating our concerns, but they did not respond. That correspondence asked for clarification regarding the mysterious “Demonstrations Operations Team,” which claims to be in charge of “coordinating the campus’ specific operational planning and responsive needs related to campus activism.” But we still have no information about who serves on this team, or knowledge of their budget, surveillance activities or involvement in issuing summons.
We see the physical and emotional harm that is being done by these hearings. And yet, it seems that all we can do is to raise an electronic hand on Zoom and try to virtually express our outrage and exhaustion. One thing is now perfectly clear to us, however: The administration has had us on “mute” since day one of this struggle.
Absurdly, the UCSC administration has claimed that these highly traumatic hearings were not meant to “punish” students, but rather envisioned as a “restorative” and “educational” experience. Disciplinary reports use racialized language, employing terms such as “aggressive” or “threatening” to describe people of color. As UC faculty, many of whom teach issues of racial injustice, we know what learning looks like. Using the same vocabulary to describe the hours of lectures we deliver every week, and the current scenes of student despair and anxiety, is nothing short of a slap in the face.
Some of our most vulnerable students are among those who have been most aggressively targeted by the university’s disciplinary apparatus.
One of the chants that students and faculty shouted together during the strike, when bodies could still convene, was: “Whose university? OUR university.” After COVID-19, this hope seems utterly utopian. Since February, it has become even clearer that the UC system belongs to them — the regents who are political appointees; the UCSC administration that ignores faculty concerns and senate resolutions imploring them to behave differently; and the president of the UC, Janet Napolitano, the former head of Homeland Security who is currently a potential running mate for Joe Biden. As teachers, our concerns are much more humble: the mental and physical well-being of our students. And we are losing.
Will institutions of higher education use the crisis to extend coercive and surveillance measures on college campuses? At UC Santa Cruz, some of our most vulnerable students — students of color, undocumented students and students from working-class backgrounds — are among those who have been most aggressively targeted by the university’s disciplinary apparatus. Because of these disciplinary measures, students risk being suspended and losing much-needed housing stipends. Moreover, UCSC has announced that the cost of family housing will go up yet again next year.
In short, the university’s administration has acted in an increasingly authoritarian fashion. It continues to send summons and punish its students while activists are unable to gather and defend themselves in the public space.
The UC administration and Gov. Gavin Newsom have a decision to make: Will the University of California emerge from the current crisis with a renewed sense of its mission as a public institution dedicated to social justice? Or will COVID-19 be weaponized, used to deliver a death blow to the social and intellectual foundations of this institution? By continuing with these disciplinary hearings and ignoring the voices of faculty and students, the UC administration has chosen the latter option.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-07--We Need a Universal Basic Income Now and After COVID-19

As the COVID-19 pandemic creeps into the summer , over 38.5 million U.S. workers are now jobless .
While an unforeseen era of social distancing takes hold , consumer purchasing has slowed to a crawl , labor markets face shortages and supply chains are interrupted .
Unprecedented economic uncertainty for the world ’ s population — the likes of which hasn ’ t been seen since the Great Depression — has brought economies and incomes to a standstill .
With U.S. lawmakers providing the largest handout to corporate America in history , workers have seen little relief and are struggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bills pile up and unemployment relief is slowed .
The most profitable multinational corporations , Wall Street speculators and insurance oligopolies have received trillions , while only some U.S. workers have seen a one-time payment of $ 1,200 .
Without income or guarantees from the government , consumer demand , supply chains and working people are on the brink .
As economies teeter and workers struggle , world governments are looking to Universal Basic Income ( UBI ) to solve their economic meltdowns while keeping in place social distancing and other health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic and health disaster , a permanent UBI — coupled with an expanded social safety net — would ease precarity for workers during the COVID crisis and help remedy existing disparities that have intensified due to the pandemic .
With U.S. politicians seeking bipartisan business-friendly responses , the debate on protecting the income of ordinary people and UBI has made waves abroad .
Nations and leaders across the globe are considering guaranteed income , while results from a basic income experiment in Finland have shown a glimpse into basic income ’ s potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the wake of the pandemic ’ s devastating effects on the interconnected globalized economy , Spain has passed a permanent income program to account for massive layoffs and a consumer demand collapse .
In April 2020 , under the coalition government led by the Spanish Socialist Workers ’ Party ( PSOE ) and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez , Spain passed a permanent minimum income program — a policy of guaranteed income for qualified low-income workers and families .
The minimum income program adopted by the Spanish was pushed by the PSOE-led coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallout generated by COVID-19 .
According to the Spanish publication La Vanguardia , under the new program , low-income families with two children could receive €1,000 ( $ 1,092 ) , while individuals who live in poverty could see up to €500 ( $ 546 ) monthly .
At a press conference on May 23 , Sánchez stated , “ It will cost around €3 billion ( $ 3.24 billion ) per year , will help four out of five people in severe poverty and benefit close to 850,000 households , half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated to benefit 2.5 million Spanish citizens or about a little over five percent of the population .
According to Spanish officials , the income program will be limited to targeted low-income families and individuals , with the benefit adjusted based on income level and factors like number of children per family and mono-parent households receiving more assistance .
The program will allow beneficiaries to retain other benefits and have a guaranteed income regardless of employment status .
Spain ’ s ministers have signaled a move toward a permanent and universal income model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moves forward , more details on the program ’ s implementation are expected to become available .
At the moment , the income proposal is not universal , although PSOE and other government officials have stated that over time the nation will move to a universal and unconditional model , in which every Spaniard receives guaranteed income with no strings attached .
Social Security Minister José Luis Escrivá told Spanish outlet La Sexta that UBI will come to Spain “ as soon as possible.
” Spain stands as the second nation to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a national level , joining Iran which implemented a UBI program between 2010 and 2011 .
Although Iran was the first to adopt an income program at a national level , it ended up facing backlash and was reined in after some argued that it disincentivized work , a notion which was later dispelled .
When first introduced , the program was widely rejected by the public as it replaced large state subsidies to energy and grain , yet overtime support for the program grew as Iranians saw a 29 percent median @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a $ 1.50 increase per day for households , which in the U.S. would equate roughly to an extra $ 16,389 annually .
The Spaniards and Iranians aren ’ t alone in their support for UBI .
Portuguese and Italian ministers have echoed calls to join Spain in protecting workers ’ income during the pandemic , while many leaders in other countries , including the Netherlands , Australia , Japan , New Zealand and Singapore , debate the subject .
As the economic fallout from the COVID-19 quandary continues to create uncertainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels in Europe .
A poll conducted in March 2020 by Oxford University researchers showed that 71 percent of Europeans support the adoption of a basic income program .
Before the shockwaves of the pandemic set in , there was similarly broad support for basic income in Europe , reaching 64 percent in March 2017 .
High levels of European and national support , along with longtime mainstream enthusiasm , led the Finnish government to run an experimental basic income program from 2017 to 2018 .
The study ran for two years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monthly cash payments to 2,000 unemployed workers .
Selected participants received a monthly payment of €560 ( fluctuating between $ 590 and $ 635 during the two years the study was conducted ) .
While the program wasn ’ t ultimately adopted by Finland — due to political dogfights , bureaucratic budget controls and social constraints — the study found that UBI had a positive impact on improving worker fulfillment and happiness and also had minimal impact on employment status .
In other words , data wasn ’ t statistically significant to conclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although employment prospects did increase for some individuals in year two of the trial ) .
The effect on employment is significant considering UBI detractors — mostly reserved to conservative liberals and the right who embrace the “ power of work ” — argue that a basic income will disincentivize workers from seeking employment , a conclusion which economists studying Iran ’ s UBI program and others have rejected .
UBI has great potential in nations with comprehensive benefits programs and solid social infrastructure .
Although nations around the world have seen decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era , strong social safety nets have worked well to promote solidarity , better fulfillment of the working class and act as a stopgap to mend the failures of a skewed economic system .
Like many world allies , the U.S. has seen its fair share of austerity .
Unlike the U.S. , however , most Western peer nations created stronger social safety net systems , based on universality , and made substantial investments in health , education , pensions and consumer protections .
Even with decades of austerity , many nations around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing universal and comprehensive benefits to workers .
What little remains of the American benefits and social safety net system has been deprived of resources , means-tested or sacrificed to privatization at the altar of budgetary deficits and bipartisan , neoliberal cost-cutting reforms .
Some proponents of UBI — mostly reserved to capitalist libertarians and the upper echelon of the Silicon Valley tech crowd — argue in favor of a UBI program as a means of gutting “ entitlement spending ” and throwing poor people “ off ” of welfare .
Under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by cutting off lifesaving social programs , the right ’ s reasoning for basic income will only exacerbate poverty and leave working people worse off .
A UBI will only be successful in its intent of alleviating financial hardship and creating more efficient social programs when its coupled with a robust safety net modeled on an unconditional , universal framework .
A depleted safety net would mean a UBI alone would do little to provide economic relief for workers .
Without universal programs , hardy workforce protections ( like a federal jobs guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little that remains of social safety nets , any gain UBI provides will be offset by the high cost of other essential goods and services , like raises in rent , and health and living costs .
A form of basic income coupled with a strong national health care system like the National Health Service in the U.K. , Denmark ’ s pension system or Berlin ’ s rent controls , poverty and financial struggle will be better addressed than a UBI with austerity or elimination of the social safety net .
Universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her 2007 book , Shock Doctrine , Naomi Klein asserts that in times of disaster , capitalism and its political systems have a tendency to naturally apply austerity .
Klein now argues that the opposite can be true , that working-class-centered policies can be achieved in times of crisis , as a world debate sparks and Spain moves toward UBI .
The likelihood of U.S. political elites adopting any sort of income program or expansion of the social safety net seems far from conceivable , yet given that the pandemic has shown the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems , support among the public could continue to gain traction .
UBI once had more conventional support across the political spectrum in the U.S. , garnering support from greats like Martin Luther King Jr. to even the less righteous like Richard Nixon .
While their rationales for supporting basic income differed immensely , after the late 1960s and early 1970s the debate on basic income in the U.S. cooled down .
Since the era of King and Nixon , UBI has been mostly reserved to the political fringes and wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Democratic Primary after being championed by former presidential hopeful Andrew Yang .
While Yang should be credited with elevating UBI back into the mainstream fold , his proposal and view of the social safety net should concern guaranteed income supporters .
In his campaign , Yang seemed opposed to expanding the social safety net , failing to fully endorse and tip-toeing around policies like Medicare for All , national rent control , expanding Social Security and universal tuition-free college .
His UBI policy would also have forced “ entitlement ” beneficiaries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to choose between Yang bucks or benefits , effectively replacing elements of the social safety net .
The policy would have relied on a regressive tax structure , in the form of a Value-Added Tax , which burdens poorer consumers at higher proportions than those with wealth .
Yang ’ s campaign rhetoric on the intersection between basic income and the social safety net also echoed the arguments made by those in Silicon Valley .
Without the expansion of social infrastructure or consumer price controls , Yang ’ s “ freedom dividend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) by itself would do little to prevent increases in prices for essentials like rent or health care and could open the door to austerity .
Despite his rationale but in part to Yang ’ s credit — who is now running pilot programs in upstate New York and South Carolina — basic income is gaining attention .
As the pandemic reveals a hollowed out economy , UBI and universal programs , like Medicare For All , are now nearing all-time highs in the U.S .
According to Data for Progress — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and left liberalism — on March 2 support for UBI in the U.S. reached 33 percent with opposition amounting to 48 percent .
On March 17 , support for basic income reached 58 percent , while opposition shriveled to 26 percent .
In just 15 days , as the COVID crisis began to materialize , the U.S. public dramatically shifted their view on basic income .
Temporary adoption of a Spanish-styled minimum income policy in the U.S. would be a meaningful adjustment in protecting workers ’ security during the pandemic .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy and ensure the public ’ s safety .
Yet , economic challenges — which existed long before COVID-19 — have amped up since the calamity put the world on hold .
Since the 1980s , a precarious labor force has been forced into competition for stagnant wages , while rents and the cost of living continue to rise .
High-paying , quality jobs have left and been replaced with unpredictable gig economy work , while capital has ventured out overseas to seek cheap inputs and higher profits .
Blue-collar jobs are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on labor costs and boosts production .
As the neoliberal project continues to churn , the economic contradictions of yesterday and the future await .
Looking down the road , a permanent , universal and unconditional basic income plan will help balance the inequities of yesterday , today and tomorrow .
Ensuring workers a guaranteed income from the state is not just a temporary solution to the economic crisis triggered by the pandemic , but rather a long-term measure to counteract aspects of wealth concentration , stagnating wages , job flights overseas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that said , UBI alone would have limited impact on improving the precarious lives of workers and isn ’ t an end-all-be-all policy .
Questions of workers ’ relationship to production would still remain .
Yet when used with other programs that are democratically owned and universally administered , UBI could be another valuable lifeline that enforces class solidarity for a downwardly mobile labor force .
As countries abroad debate and move towards unconditional income , a short- and long-term policy in the U.S. awaits .
With UBI , a stabilizing distribution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediate term and the future .
In easing pandemic uncertainty and promoting a post-pandemic recovery , a permanent UBI with large investments in social programs will increase solidarity , ease poverty and stabilize a volatile market that ’ s headed toward depression .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
As the COVID-19 pandemic creeps into the summer, over 38.5 million U.S. workers are now jobless. While an unforeseen era of social distancing takes hold, consumer purchasing has slowed to a crawl, labor markets face shortages and supply chains are interrupted. Unprecedented economic uncertainty for the world’s population — the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the Great Depression — has brought economies and incomes to a standstill.
With U.S. lawmakers providing the largest handout to corporate America in history, workers have seen little relief and are struggling to keep afloat as income is ceased, bills pile up and unemployment relief is slowed. The most profitable multinational corporations, Wall Street speculators and insurance oligopolies have received trillions, while only some U.S. workers have seen a one-time payment of $1,200. Without income or guarantees from the government, consumer demand, supply chains and working people are on the brink.
As economies teeter and workers struggle, world governments are looking to Universal Basic Income (UBI) to solve their economic meltdowns while keeping in place social distancing and other health precautions. To ward off a total economic and health disaster, a permanent UBI — coupled with an expanded social safety net — would ease precarity for workers during the COVID crisis and help remedy existing disparities that have intensified due to the pandemic.
With U.S. politicians seeking bipartisan business-friendly responses, the debate on protecting the income of ordinary people and UBI has made waves abroad. Nations and leaders across the globe are considering guaranteed income, while results from a basic income experiment in Finland have shown a glimpse into basic income’s potential of alleviating economic stressors for workers. In the wake of the pandemic’s devastating effects on the interconnected globalized economy, Spain has passed a permanent income program to account for massive layoffs and a consumer demand collapse.
Minimum Income Abroad, a Step Toward UBI
In April 2020, under the coalition government led by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, Spain passed a permanent minimum income program — a policy of guaranteed income for qualified low-income workers and families. The minimum income program adopted by the Spanish was pushed by the PSOE-led coalition and Sánchez in response to the economic fallout generated by COVID-19. According to the Spanish publication La Vanguardia, under the new program, low-income families with two children could receive €1,000 ($1,092), while individuals who live in poverty could see up to €500 ($546) monthly.
At a press conference on May 23, Sánchez stated, “It will cost around €3 billion ($3.24 billion) per year, will help four out of five people in severe poverty and benefit close to 850,000 households, half of which include children.” The program is estimated to benefit 2.5 million Spanish citizens or about a little over five percent of the population. According to Spanish officials, the income program will be limited to targeted low-income families and individuals, with the benefit adjusted based on income level and factors like number of children per family and mono-parent households receiving more assistance. The program will allow beneficiaries to retain other benefits and have a guaranteed income regardless of employment status. Spain’s ministers have signaled a move toward a permanent and universal income model in the future. As the initiative moves forward, more details on the program’s implementation are expected to become available.
At the moment, the income proposal is not universal, although PSOE and other government officials have stated that over time the nation will move to a universal and unconditional model, in which every Spaniard receives guaranteed income with no strings attached. Social Security Minister José Luis Escrivá told Spanish outlet La Sexta that UBI will come to Spain “as soon as possible.”
Spain stands as the second nation to move toward a form of an income guarantee on a national level, joining Iran which implemented a UBI program between 2010 and 2011. Although Iran was the first to adopt an income program at a national level, it ended up facing backlash and was reined in after some argued that it disincentivized work, a notion which was later dispelled. When first introduced, the program was widely rejected by the public as it replaced large state subsidies to energy and grain, yet overtime support for the program grew as Iranians saw a 29 percent median household income increase. The gain equated to a $1.50 increase per day for households, which in the U.S. would equate roughly to an extra $16,389 annually. The Spaniards and Iranians aren’t alone in their support for UBI. Portuguese and Italian ministers have echoed calls to join Spain in protecting workers’ income during the pandemic, while many leaders in other countries, including the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore, debate the subject.
As the economic fallout from the COVID-19 quandary continues to create uncertainty, support for UBI is reaching high levels in Europe. A poll conducted in March 2020 by Oxford University researchers showed that 71 percent of Europeans support the adoption of a basic income program. Before the shockwaves of the pandemic set in, there was similarly broad support for basic income in Europe, reaching 64 percent in March 2017.
A UBI will only be successful in its intent of alleviating financial hardship and creating more efficient social programs when its coupled with a robust safety net modeled on an unconditional, universal framework.
High levels of European and national support, along with longtime mainstream enthusiasm, led the Finnish government to run an experimental basic income program from 2017 to 2018. The study ran for two years, during which the Finnish government allocated no-strings-attached monthly cash payments to 2,000 unemployed workers. Selected participants received a monthly payment of €560 (fluctuating between $590 and $635 during the two years the study was conducted).
While the program wasn’t ultimately adopted by Finland — due to political dogfights, bureaucratic budget controls and social constraints — the study found that UBI had a positive impact on improving worker fulfillment and happiness and also had minimal impact on employment status. In other words, data wasn’t statistically significant to conclude if employment was disincentivized or incentivized (although employment prospects did increase for some individuals in year two of the trial). The effect on employment is significant considering UBI detractors — mostly reserved to conservative liberals and the right who embrace the “power of work” — argue that a basic income will disincentivize workers from seeking employment, a conclusion which economists studying Iran’s UBI program and others have rejected.
Basic Income, Worker Protections and Universal Programs
UBI has great potential in nations with comprehensive benefits programs and solid social infrastructure. Although nations around the world have seen decades of austerity measures applied over the neoliberal era, strong social safety nets have worked well to promote solidarity, better fulfillment of the working class and act as a stopgap to mend the failures of a skewed economic system.
Like many world allies, the U.S. has seen its fair share of austerity. Unlike the U.S., however, most Western peer nations created stronger social safety net systems, based on universality, and made substantial investments in health, education, pensions and consumer protections. Even with decades of austerity, many nations around the world have eclipsed the U.S in providing universal and comprehensive benefits to workers. What little remains of the American benefits and social safety net system has been deprived of resources, means-tested or sacrificed to privatization at the altar of budgetary deficits and bipartisan, neoliberal cost-cutting reforms.
Some proponents of UBI — mostly reserved to capitalist libertarians and the upper echelon of the Silicon Valley tech crowd — argue in favor of a UBI program as a means of gutting “entitlement spending” and throwing poor people “off” of welfare. Under the guise of creating a more efficient bureaucracy by cutting off lifesaving social programs, the right’s reasoning for basic income will only exacerbate poverty and leave working people worse off. A UBI will only be successful in its intent of alleviating financial hardship and creating more efficient social programs when its coupled with a robust safety net modeled on an unconditional, universal framework.
A depleted safety net would mean a UBI alone would do little to provide economic relief for workers. Without universal programs, hardy workforce protections (like a federal jobs guarantee or trade unionist policies) and the little that remains of social safety nets, any gain UBI provides will be offset by the high cost of other essential goods and services, like raises in rent, and health and living costs. A form of basic income coupled with a strong national health care system like the National Health Service in the U.K., Denmark’s pension system or Berlin’s rent controls, poverty and financial struggle will be better addressed than a UBI with austerity or elimination of the social safety net.
Universal Basic Income Before and After COVID
In her 2007 book, Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein asserts that in times of disaster, capitalism and its political systems have a tendency to naturally apply austerity. Klein now argues that the opposite can be true, that working-class-centered policies can be achieved in times of crisis, as a world debate sparks and Spain moves toward UBI. The likelihood of U.S. political elites adopting any sort of income program or expansion of the social safety net seems far from conceivable, yet given that the pandemic has shown the fragility of the U.S. and world economic systems, support among the public could continue to gain traction.
UBI once had more conventional support across the political spectrum in the U.S., garnering support from greats like Martin Luther King Jr. to even the less righteous like Richard Nixon. While their rationales for supporting basic income differed immensely, after the late 1960s and early 1970s the debate on basic income in the U.S. cooled down. Since the era of King and Nixon, UBI has been mostly reserved to the political fringes and wasn’t brought back into the mainstream until the 2020 Democratic Primary after being championed by former presidential hopeful Andrew Yang.
While Yang should be credited with elevating UBI back into the mainstream fold, his proposal and view of the social safety net should concern guaranteed income supporters. In his campaign, Yang seemed opposed to expanding the social safety net, failing to fully endorse and tip-toeing around policies like Medicare for All, national rent control, expanding Social Security and universal tuition-free college. His UBI policy would also have forced “entitlement” beneficiaries, like those who rely on food stamps, to choose between Yang bucks or benefits, effectively replacing elements of the social safety net. The policy would have relied on a regressive tax structure, in the form of a Value-Added Tax, which burdens poorer consumers at higher proportions than those with wealth.
Yang’s campaign rhetoric on the intersection between basic income and the social safety net also echoed the arguments made by those in Silicon Valley. Without the expansion of social infrastructure or consumer price controls, Yang’s “freedom dividend” (monthly payments of $1,000) by itself would do little to prevent increases in prices for essentials like rent or health care and could open the door to austerity.
Despite his rationale but in part to Yang’s credit — who is now running pilot programs in upstate New York and South Carolina — basic income is gaining attention. As the pandemic reveals a hollowed out economy, UBI and universal programs, like Medicare For All, are now nearing all-time highs in the U.S. According to Data for Progress — a think tank that ideologically fluctuates between centrist and left liberalism — on March 2 support for UBI in the U.S. reached 33 percent with opposition amounting to 48 percent. On March 17, support for basic income reached 58 percent, while opposition shriveled to 26 percent. In just 15 days, as the COVID crisis began to materialize, the U.S. public dramatically shifted their view on basic income.
Temporary adoption of a Spanish-styled minimum income policy in the U.S. would be a meaningful adjustment in protecting workers’ security during the pandemic. In the short term, basic income will stabilize the economy and ensure the public’s safety. Yet, economic challenges — which existed long before COVID-19 — have amped up since the calamity put the world on hold.
Since the 1980s, a precarious labor force has been forced into competition for stagnant wages, while rents and the cost of living continue to rise. High-paying, quality jobs have left and been replaced with unpredictable gig economy work, while capital has ventured out overseas to seek cheap inputs and higher profits. Blue-collar jobs are increasingly automated, while capital further saves on labor costs and boosts production. As the neoliberal project continues to churn, the economic contradictions of yesterday and the future await.
Looking down the road, a permanent, universal and unconditional basic income plan will help balance the inequities of yesterday, today and tomorrow. Ensuring workers a guaranteed income from the state is not just a temporary solution to the economic crisis triggered by the pandemic, but rather a long-term measure to counteract aspects of wealth concentration, stagnating wages, job flights overseas and increasing automation down the road.
With that said, UBI alone would have limited impact on improving the precarious lives of workers and isn’t an end-all-be-all policy. Questions of workers’ relationship to production would still remain. Yet when used with other programs that are democratically owned and universally administered, UBI could be another valuable lifeline that enforces class solidarity for a downwardly mobile labor force.
As countries abroad debate and move towards unconditional income, a short- and long-term policy in the U.S. awaits. With UBI, a stabilizing distribution of resources can be better achieved in the immediate term and the future. In easing pandemic uncertainty and promoting a post-pandemic recovery, a permanent UBI with large investments in social programs will increase solidarity, ease poverty and stabilize a volatile market that’s headed toward depression.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-08--Seattle Protesters Tear-Gassed Just Hours After City’s 30-Day Ban on Its Use

In spite of assurances from Seattle leaders last week that there would be a 30-day ban on the use of tear gas , demonstrators were still subjected to the chemical agent in the city on Sunday evening .
Both Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Chief of Police Carmen Best had emphasized that a temporary ban on tear gas would be in place while its efficacy in crowd control was investigated .
“ It ’ s really important we ’ re looking at every aspect of force and how we ’ re utilizing it .
We ’ ll review everything we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Saturday .
“ This review should better emphasize de-escalation tactics and incorporate recommendations from our accountability partners on the use of any crowd control techniques , including the use of tear gas and flash-bangs , ” Durkan added .
The ban would not apply to pepper spray , flash-bang grenades , or other measures the Seattle Police Department uses to disperse or control large crowds .
The ban on tear gas came about after criticisms of its use began to grow from Seattle residents .
Yet after the promise was made not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Seattle police ended up using it anyway , during demonstrations in the city on Sunday evening .
The police department ’ s official Twitter account even announced , just after midnight , that it had been “ authorized ” to use tear gas against those who were protesting racial inequalities in policing practices , prompted by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis two weeks ago .
Tear gas is not actually a gas at all : it ’ s more of a powder that is dispersed among crowds like an aerosol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually from canisters .
Its use in war has been banned since the 1925 Geneva Protocol , although the United States at the time reserved the right , according to the agreement , to continue using it for domestic purposes .
Beyond causing pain in people ’ s eyes , as the name implies , tear gas can do other significant harm to a person ’ s body , as author and activist Anna Feigenbaum pointed out in an interview from 2018 .
“ Tear gas is most often associated with making people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But tear gas actually affects many parts of the body , and can cause vomiting , digestive problems , respiratory problems , skin irritation , and burns , ” Feigenbaum said .
“ In severe cases , it can contribute to asphyxiation and heart attacks .
It has also been linked to miscarriages and higher rates of cancer.
” Recently , tear gas was allegedly used to clear out a peaceful protest in front of the White House in order to allow President Donald Trump to get a picture of himself taken in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and the National Parks Service denied using the agent on demonstrators that day , but the canisters local news media found in Lafayette Square following the photo op were confirmed to be tear gas by a military explosives expert .

Despite a temporary ban announced on Saturday by the mayor and police chief, tear gas was used on Sunday morning.
In spite of assurances from Seattle leaders last week that there would be a 30-day ban on the use of tear gas, demonstrators were still subjected to the chemical agent in the city on Sunday evening.
Both Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Chief of Police Carmen Best had emphasized that a temporary ban on tear gas would be in place while its efficacy in crowd control was investigated.
“It’s really important we’re looking at every aspect of force and how we’re utilizing it. We’ll review everything we’re utilizing,” Best said on Saturday.
“This review should better emphasize de-escalation tactics and incorporate recommendations from our accountability partners on the use of any crowd control techniques, including the use of tear gas and flash-bangs,” Durkan added.
The ban would not apply to pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, or other measures the Seattle Police Department uses to disperse or control large crowds. The ban on tear gas came about after criticisms of its use began to grow from Seattle residents.
Yet after the promise was made not to use tear gas for 30 days, Seattle police ended up using it anyway, during demonstrations in the city on Sunday evening. The police department’s official Twitter account even announced, just after midnight, that it had been “authorized” to use tear gas against those who were protesting racial inequalities in policing practices, prompted by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis two weeks ago.
Tear gas is not actually a gas at all: it’s more of a powder that is dispersed among crowds like an aerosol when it’s heated up, usually from canisters. Its use in war has been banned since the 1925 Geneva Protocol, although the United States at the time reserved the right, according to the agreement, to continue using it for domestic purposes.
Beyond causing pain in people’s eyes, as the name implies, tear gas can do other significant harm to a person’s body, as author and activist Anna Feigenbaum pointed out in an interview from 2018.
“Tear gas is most often associated with making people’s eyes stream with tears. But tear gas actually affects many parts of the body, and can cause vomiting, digestive problems, respiratory problems, skin irritation, and burns,” Feigenbaum said. “In severe cases, it can contribute to asphyxiation and heart attacks. It has also been linked to miscarriages and higher rates of cancer.”
Recently, tear gas was allegedly used to clear out a peaceful protest in front of the White House in order to allow President Donald Trump to get a picture of himself taken in front of a nearby church. The White House and the National Parks Service denied using the agent on demonstrators that day, but the canisters local news media found in Lafayette Square following the photo op were confirmed to be tear gas by a military explosives expert.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-08--New Zealand Declared Virus-Free as United States Approaches 2 Million Cases

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on Monday that the island nation would be lifting almost all of the restrictions it had put in place to respond to the coronavirus pandemic .
Ardern and her cabinet had imposed strict stay-at-home rules nationwide on March 23 , along with a two-week quarantine period for anyone arriving in the country .
Aside from those quarantine rules for travelers , however , New Zealanders will now be able to go about daily life in much the same way they did before , including being able to travel to stores , concerts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Today , I can announce that [ the ] Cabinet has agreed , that we will now move to Level 1 to get our economy back to normal again .
And we will start almost immediately , ” Ardern said on Monday .
The decision came about after the last known person to have COVID-19 had recovered from it .
However , the prime minister also recognized that citizens should still take precautions if they start to feel ill. “ We will almost certainly see cases here again , ” she added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the achievement a great success .
It ’ s a stark difference from how the United States , under the leadership of President Donald Trump , has handled the pandemic .
While Trump has taken some actions regarding the disease , the bulk of his statements on COVID-19 have been criticisms toward those who have urged him to take the matter more seriously , both before and after his administration urged social distancing measures for Americans in the middle of March .
At the end of January , Trump suspended travel from China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touted as being successful in preventing the spread of coronavirus .
A number of scientists have disputed that claim , however , noting that imposing travel restrictions merely delayed the inevitable arrival of the disease .
For the month of February , Trump did little to prepare for coronavirus , even as experts in his own administration voiced concerns , and often suggested those wanting him to do more were being critical simply to make him look bad .
On February 27 , during a press conference at the White House on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had contracted it would soon get better , and that no one else would get sick .
“ When you have 15 people , and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero , that ’ s a pretty good job we ’ ve done , ” Trump said , congratulating himself .
The following day , he described such criticisms and worries about coronavirus as a Democrat-led “ new hoax ” against him .
As late as March 9 , he had said on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the flu .
By March 11 , more than 1,000 Americans had contracted COVID-19 .
But Trump would not declare a national emergency until March 13 , and didn ’ t promote social distancing rules until March 16 .
Even then , those “ rules ” were simply recommendations for Americans to follow , leaving it to individual states to come up with their own regulations and stay-at-home orders .
Even though he finally recognized the disease as deadly at that time , in less than two weeks Trump once again downplayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed by most governors to be ended in order to “ reopen ” the economy , a move that some sources in his administration say came about due to his worrying about looking bad on the economy during his presidential reelection campaign .
Trump also encouraged Americans across several states to defy social distancing rules in order to protest for restrictions to be lifted .
As of Monday afternoon , more than 2 million cumulative cases of coronavirus have been identified in the U.S. , with more than 112,000 deaths from the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from epidemiologists , it ’ s likely that tens of thousands of American deaths occurred unnecessarily , and could have been prevented , had Trump reacted more quickly to the coronavirus .
It may be quite some time before the U.S. reaches circumstances similar to New Zealand .
In a recent survey involving hundreds of epidemiologists , the majority said they imagine it will be another year or more before they personally feel comfortable attending highly attended public events ( like a sporting contest or a concert ) in the U.S. Fifty-two percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that it will probably be more than a year before they personally feel comfortable going out without wearing a mask or face covering , too .

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on Monday that the island nation would be lifting almost all of the restrictions it had put in place to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.
Ardern and her cabinet had imposed strict stay-at-home rules nationwide on March 23, along with a two-week quarantine period for anyone arriving in the country.
Aside from those quarantine rules for travelers, however, New Zealanders will now be able to go about daily life in much the same way they did before, including being able to travel to stores, concerts, sporting events and more without restrictions.
“Today, I can announce that [the] Cabinet has agreed, that we will now move to Level 1 to get our economy back to normal again. And we will start almost immediately,” Ardern said on Monday. The decision came about after the last known person to have COVID-19 had recovered from it.
However, the prime minister also recognized that citizens should still take precautions if they start to feel ill. “We will almost certainly see cases here again,” she added.
Still, the country is calling the achievement a great success. It’s a stark difference from how the United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, has handled the pandemic.
While Trump has taken some actions regarding the disease, the bulk of his statements on COVID-19 have been criticisms toward those who have urged him to take the matter more seriously, both before and after his administration urged social distancing measures for Americans in the middle of March.
At the end of January, Trump suspended travel from China, a move he’s largely touted as being successful in preventing the spread of coronavirus. A number of scientists have disputed that claim, however, noting that imposing travel restrictions merely delayed the inevitable arrival of the disease.
For the month of February, Trump did little to prepare for coronavirus, even as experts in his own administration voiced concerns, and often suggested those wanting him to do more were being critical simply to make him look bad.
On February 27, during a press conference at the White House on the disease, Trump suggested that those who had contracted it would soon get better, and that no one else would get sick. “When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done,” Trump said, congratulating himself.
The following day, he described such criticisms and worries about coronavirus as a Democrat-led “new hoax” against him. As late as March 9, he had said on Twitter that the disease was less worrisome than the flu.
By March 11, more than 1,000 Americans had contracted COVID-19. But Trump would not declare a national emergency until March 13, and didn’t promote social distancing rules until March 16. Even then, those “rules” were simply recommendations for Americans to follow, leaving it to individual states to come up with their own regulations and stay-at-home orders.
Even though he finally recognized the disease as deadly at that time, in less than two weeks Trump once again downplayed its severity, calling for stay-at-home orders imposed by most governors to be ended in order to “reopen” the economy, a move that some sources in his administration say came about due to his worrying about looking bad on the economy during his presidential reelection campaign. Trump also encouraged Americans across several states to defy social distancing rules in order to protest for restrictions to be lifted.
As of Monday afternoon, more than 2 million cumulative cases of coronavirus have been identified in the U.S., with more than 112,000 deaths from the disease counted so far.
According to research from epidemiologists, it’s likely that tens of thousands of American deaths occurred unnecessarily, and could have been prevented, had Trump reacted more quickly to the coronavirus.
It may be quite some time before the U.S. reaches circumstances similar to New Zealand. In a recent survey involving hundreds of epidemiologists, the majority said they imagine it will be another year or more before they personally feel comfortable attending highly attended public events (like a sporting contest or a concert) in the U.S. Fifty-two percent of epidemiologists in the same survey also said that it will probably be more than a year before they personally feel comfortable going out without wearing a mask or face covering, too.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-08--Donald Trump Is Afraid of Us All — His Barricaded White House Is Proof

With newly placed armor swaddling the White House and armored police and federal agents arrayed throughout Washington , D.C. , Trump ’ s fearful agitation has taken on a macrocosm-microcosm hue that Shakespeare would recognize on sight : Even as he fortifies his fortress , this president is growing ever more afraid , his dread swelling in timorous harmony with the undiminishing size of the protests before him .
King Lear and Julius Caesar are instructive .
The history of White House security is both rich and bleak in equal measure .
When Abraham Lincoln assumed the office in 1861 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck him was the mob scene inside his new home office .
He , along with his aides , cabinet members and military commanders , were required to elbow their way through hundreds of office-seekers who daily crowded into the West Wing seeking federal employment .
Even as the fledgling nation trembled on the precipice of violent disunion , Lincoln refused to forbid the public their access to “ the People ’ s House.
” After the onset of the Civil War — and a number of failed assassination attempts , including one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blow Lincoln ’ s top hat off his head as he rode to the Old Soldier ’ s Home outside the city — security at the White House was tightened .
Lincoln ’ s assassination in 1865 ended for all time open public access to the building , and the assassination of John F. Kennedy a century later inspired far more severe security measures to be taken inside and outside the facility .
Four days after students were murdered by the National Guard at Kent State , a massive protest descended upon Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House was ringed with D.C .
Transit buses , though they eventually went back to work ferrying passengers .
One day after Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 men , women and children with a bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 , the length of Pennsylvania Avenue crossing in front of the White House was closed to vehicular traffic .
After September 11 , that change was made permanent , and E Street was likewise closed from the South Portico to the Ellipse .
Other , more subtle security measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a tourist ( or a protester ) still enjoyed an unobstructed view of the presidential mansion .
“ Every day , more fences go up and more concrete barriers are put in place as the security perimeter expands farther and farther , ” The New York Times reported on Friday .
“ The universally recognized symbol of American democracy increasingly looks like a fortress under siege in the heart of the nation ’ s capital , a Washington version of the Green Zone that sheltered American and Iraqi officials in Baghdad during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the immediate wake of September 11 , when fears of terrorist attacks were the most acute , the White House was protected without hiding it from the people .
Today , the people are the perceived threat , and the White House has been transformed into a symbol of the dystopia we endure under this feckless , frightened president .
Donald Trump is afraid of all of us , and his house now advertises that fear for the whole wide world to see .
After more than three years of bombast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his true nature is clearer than ever .
The police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis , combined with Trump ’ s awe-inspiring failures in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic , have galvanized an eruption of activism .
Trump ’ s house is now one big bunker with a single purpose : to shield him from the people who have had enough , who gather peacefully yet in strength to say with one clarion voice , “ No more.
” Blame for Trump ’ s ruined estate can be laid at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Confronted by a population in open revolt , he made grand threats about unleashing the military upon the people .
Upon discovering he was prohibited by law from rolling tanks on Everytown USA at a whim , he chose to enact a bit of violent political theater in Washington , D.C. , a city he could flood with troops because it does not reside within an actual state .
Lafayette Park across from the White House , where many of the protests were centered , is federal land , so Trump needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his way to that Bible-fapping photo op in front of St. John ’ s Church .
All he needed was the presence of doormat lickspittles like Attorney General William Barr and Defense Secretary Mark Esper to carry out his filthy authoritarian orders .
The city suddenly swarmed with soldiers and federal gendarmes , some without badge or insignia , a faceless fist wrapped in a burning flag .
It did not work out the way Trump hoped .
Rather than retreat before the implied and actual viciousness of federal forces , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country returned day after day in ever-increasing numbers , thundering for change .
Protests against police violence became a global phenomenon , and as they grew ever larger here and abroad , Trump grew ever smaller .
When Washington , D.C. , Mayor Muriel Bowser renamed the corner of 16th and H streets in front of the White House “ Black Lives Matter Plaza , ” and had the street painted with those words in giant block letters , Trump ’ s humiliation was complete .
The decision on Sunday to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white-flag tail of a fleeing rabbit .
Today , Trump is a turtle cowering within a steel shell .
He remains the president , despite the claims of some pundits , and retains all the monstrous powers of that office , but is a laughingstock at home and abroad .
The protests continue .
Trump can still see the people as they march in unity , but only if he peers through the bars of the cage he has constructed for himself .

Trump can still see the protesters, but only if he peers through the bars of the cage he has constructed for himself.
With newly placed armor swaddling the White House and armored police and federal agents arrayed throughout Washington, D.C., Trump’s fearful agitation has taken on a macrocosm-microcosm hue that Shakespeare would recognize on sight: Even as he fortifies his fortress, this president is growing ever more afraid, his dread swelling in timorous harmony with the undiminishing size of the protests before him. King Lear and Julius Caesar are instructive.
The history of White House security is both rich and bleak in equal measure. When Abraham Lincoln assumed the office in 1861, one of the first things that struck him was the mob scene inside his new home office. He, along with his aides, cabinet members and military commanders, were required to elbow their way through hundreds of office-seekers who daily crowded into the West Wing seeking federal employment.
Even as the fledgling nation trembled on the precipice of violent disunion, Lincoln refused to forbid the public their access to “the People’s House.” After the onset of the Civil War — and a number of failed assassination attempts, including one that saw a sniper in the woods blow Lincoln’s top hat off his head as he rode to the Old Soldier’s Home outside the city — security at the White House was tightened.
Lincoln’s assassination in 1865 ended for all time open public access to the building, and the assassination of John F. Kennedy a century later inspired far more severe security measures to be taken inside and outside the facility. Four days after students were murdered by the National Guard at Kent State, a massive protest descended upon Washington, D.C., and the Nixon White House was ringed with D.C. Transit buses, though they eventually went back to work ferrying passengers.
One day after Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 men, women and children with a bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the length of Pennsylvania Avenue crossing in front of the White House was closed to vehicular traffic. After September 11, that change was made permanent, and E Street was likewise closed from the South Portico to the Ellipse. Other, more subtle security measures were enacted by the Secret Service, but a tourist (or a protester) still enjoyed an unobstructed view of the presidential mansion.
Not today.
“Every day, more fences go up and more concrete barriers are put in place as the security perimeter expands farther and farther,” The New York Times reported on Friday. “The universally recognized symbol of American democracy increasingly looks like a fortress under siege in the heart of the nation’s capital, a Washington version of the Green Zone that sheltered American and Iraqi officials in Baghdad during the worst of the war.”
The White House has been transformed into a symbol of the dystopia we endure under this feckless, frightened president.
Even in the immediate wake of September 11, when fears of terrorist attacks were the most acute, the White House was protected without hiding it from the people. Today, the people are the perceived threat, and the White House has been transformed into a symbol of the dystopia we endure under this feckless, frightened president. Donald Trump is afraid of all of us, and his house now advertises that fear for the whole wide world to see.
After more than three years of bombast, bluster and unreconstructed bullshit from Mr. Trump, his true nature is clearer than ever. The police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, combined with Trump’s awe-inspiring failures in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, have galvanized an eruption of activism. Trump’s house is now one big bunker with a single purpose: to shield him from the people who have had enough, who gather peacefully yet in strength to say with one clarion voice, “No more.”
Blame for Trump’s ruined estate can be laid at the feet of one person: Trump. Confronted by a population in open revolt, he made grand threats about unleashing the military upon the people. Upon discovering he was prohibited by law from rolling tanks on Everytown USA at a whim, he chose to enact a bit of violent political theater in Washington, D.C., a city he could flood with troops because it does not reside within an actual state.
Lafayette Park across from the White House, where many of the protests were centered, is federal land, so Trump needed no special permission to brutalize peaceful protesters on his way to that Bible-fapping photo op in front of St. John’s Church. All he needed was the presence of doormat lickspittles like Attorney General William Barr and Defense Secretary Mark Esper to carry out his filthy authoritarian orders. The city suddenly swarmed with soldiers and federal gendarmes, some without badge or insignia, a faceless fist wrapped in a burning flag.
Trump can still see the people as they march in unity, but only if he peers through the bars of the cage he has constructed for himself.
It did not work out the way Trump hoped. Rather than retreat before the implied and actual viciousness of federal forces, the protesters in Washington, D.C., and across the country returned day after day in ever-increasing numbers, thundering for change.
Protests against police violence became a global phenomenon, and as they grew ever larger here and abroad, Trump grew ever smaller. When Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser renamed the corner of 16th and H streets in front of the White House “Black Lives Matter Plaza,” and had the street painted with those words in giant block letters, Trump’s humiliation was complete. The decision on Sunday to withdraw the soldiers from Washington was the white-flag tail of a fleeing rabbit.
Today, Trump is a turtle cowering within a steel shell. He remains the president, despite the claims of some pundits, and retains all the monstrous powers of that office, but is a laughingstock at home and abroad.
The protests continue. Trump can still see the people as they march in unity, but only if he peers through the bars of the cage he has constructed for himself.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-08--Thousands in New York City March for Justice, Peace and an End to Racist Police

AMY GOODMAN : We end this broadcast in the streets of New York , where hundreds of thousands of people have been letting their voices be heard .
These are just some of them .
CYN FABRE : My name is Cyn Fabre [ phon. ]
.
And my wife is over there .
I have four kids , two of them boys , and one presents as white , one presents as Black .
I ’ m here so my son never has to do this march .
And when we ’ re home , we have two different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save his life and be safe , the other conversation with my white son , to protect his brother when he gets older and do better for all the Black children in this world .
So I ’ m here today for my son , so he never has to march ever again .
PROTESTERS : Say her name !
Breonna Taylor !
Say her name !
Breonna Taylor !
CYN FABRE : Sometimes what happens is we lose sight on what we ’ re all fighting for .
We can get distracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breonna Taylor .
She is not forgotten .
She is why I ’ m here .
We are fighting for her .
I can ’ t tell you what this march means to me today .
This is history being made right now .
And I ’ m glad to be a part of it .
PROTESTERS : Say her name !
Breonna Taylor !
Say her name !
Breonna Taylor !
DAKIA McLEAN : Well , my name is Dakia McLean [ phon. ]
.
I ’ m out here because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m of color .
I ’ m a mother of two boys , two girls .
And it ’ s important .
We had enough .
This is the time .
The time is now .
So that ’ s why I ’ m out here .
PROTESTERS : Say her name !
Breonna Taylor !
Say her name !
Breonna Taylor !
DAKIA McLEAN : Again , a woman of color who was unjustly gunned down in her home .
And of course we know it ’ s because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , with these cops , it ’ s always shoot , ask questions last .
But if you ’ re white , they ask questions before they do anything else .
PROTESTERS : Hands up !
Don ’ t shoot !
Hands up !
Don ’ t shoot !
Hands up !
Don ’ t shoot !
Hands up !
Don ’ t shoot !
LUCINDA CROSS : My name is Lucinda Cross .
Our organization is Activate Your Life .
We stand for women reentry to have the same rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sure that Black people are seen justly , just as white people are .
I ’ m a mother of Black boys .
So it ’ s important to not only just walk for my boys , but to also walk for the women that I believe in .
This one , I think this is a world changer .
I can say honestly , even my own son was accused of something he didn ’ t do .
And so , this , right here , what is being done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I ’ m honored to be a part of it .
It ’ s about time .
It ’ s about time we made global change .
No justice , no peace !
No racist police !
PROTESTERS : I say , no justice , no peace !
I say , no justice , no peace !
I say , no justice , no peace !
I say , no justice , no peace !
JASON GILLILAND : I ’ m Jason Gilliland [ phon. ]
.
I ’ m from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
I ’ m here because , I mean , I ’ m affected .
Despite my education , despite all I ’ ve done , I ’ m just as afraid when the police are behind me or I pass by them and everything else .
And I don ’ t have a family yet , but I hope to .
So I ’ m out here hoping to get more justice for my kids and my friends ’ kids and everybody after me .
PROTESTERS : Donald Trump has got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ho !
Donald Trump has got to go !
Hey hey , ho ho !
JASON GILLILAND : What else can we say ?
I mean , every opportunity he ’ s had to say something positive or help , he ’ s done the exact opposite .
He ’ s done all he ’ s can to say that he ’ s not racist , but he makes sure to say that when racist things happens , there ’ s good people on both sides .
I mean , we compare the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , that he said about “ thugs ” and “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” but when Charlottesville happened not that long ago , there were good people on both sides , when people were brutally beaten and run over by cars .
And every opportunity to do the right thing , he does the wrong thing on purpose .
So at some point you ’ ve got to believe him for who he is .
And that ’ s why he got the response that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s from Oxnard , California .
On March 28 , 2015 , police was called because of a domestic dispute .
Twenty seconds after arriving , police opened fire and killed her .
She was only 28 years old .
And the same police officer was just involved in a shooting one year prior .
That person didn ’ t die , but people knew that there was a problem .
Just like many other stories , nothing came of it .
Very little justice was had at all .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her name .
So , along with Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and everybody else , Meagan Hockaday deserves her attention , and she deserves her justice , too .
LINDA SARSOUR : Off of the sidewalks and into the streets !
Off of the sidewalks and into the streets !
Off of the sidewalks and into the streets !
Linda Sarsour .
I ’ m a Brooklyn activist .
I ’ m a co-founder of Until Freedom .
And I ’ m here organizing , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last many decades , as you know , here in New York City for police reform .
We ’ re literally watching history unfold before our very eyes .
As an organizer , it ’ s different .
I feel different .
This is a moment where people have said , “ Enough is enough !
” And they mean at this time .
PROTESTERS : No justice , no peace !
No justice , no peace !
No justice , no peace !
No justice , no peace !
No justice , @ @ @

AMY GOODMAN: We end this broadcast in the streets of New York, where hundreds of thousands of people have been letting their voices be heard. These are just some of them.
CYN FABRE: My name is Cyn Fabre [phon.]. And my wife is over there. I have four kids, two of them boys, and one presents as white, one presents as Black. I’m here so my son never has to do this march. And when we’re home, we have two different conversations: one for my son to save his life and be safe, the other conversation with my white son, to protect his brother when he gets older and do better for all the Black children in this world. So I’m here today for my son, so he never has to march ever again.
PROTESTERS: Say her name! Breonna Taylor! Say her name! Breonna Taylor!
CYN FABRE: Sometimes what happens is we lose sight on what we’re all fighting for. We can get distracted. And I want people to remember Breonna Taylor. She is not forgotten. She is why I’m here. We are fighting for her. I can’t tell you what this march means to me today. This is history being made right now. And I’m glad to be a part of it.
PROTESTERS: Say her name! Breonna Taylor! Say her name! Breonna Taylor!
DAKIA McLEAN: Well, my name is Dakia McLean [phon.]. I’m out here because, one, I’m a woman. I’m of color. I’m a mother of two boys, two girls. And it’s important. We had enough. This is the time. The time is now. So that’s why I’m out here.
PROTESTERS: Say her name! Breonna Taylor! Say her name! Breonna Taylor!
DAKIA McLEAN: Again, a woman of color who was unjustly gunned down in her home. And of course we know it’s because of the color of her skin. You know, with these cops, it’s always shoot, ask questions last. But if you’re white, they ask questions before they do anything else.
PROTESTERS: Hands up! Don’t shoot! Hands up! Don’t shoot! Hands up! Don’t shoot! Hands up! Don’t shoot!
LUCINDA CROSS: My name is Lucinda Cross. Our organization is Activate Your Life. We stand for women reentry to have the same rights. So I’m marching today to make sure that Black people are seen justly, just as white people are. I’m a mother of Black boys. So it’s important to not only just walk for my boys, but to also walk for the women that I believe in. This one, I think this is a world changer. I can say honestly, even my own son was accused of something he didn’t do. And so, this, right here, what is being done, is an extreme global world changer. And I’m honored to be a part of it. It’s about time. It’s about time we made global change. No justice, no peace! No racist police!
PROTESTERS: I say, no justice, no peace! I say, no justice, no peace! I say, no justice, no peace! I say, no justice, no peace!
JASON GILLILAND: I’m Jason Gilliland [phon.]. I’m from Mississippi, but I went to school here. I’m here because, I mean, I’m affected. Despite my education, despite all I’ve done, I’m just as afraid when the police are behind me or I pass by them and everything else. And I don’t have a family yet, but I hope to. So I’m out here hoping to get more justice for my kids and my friends’ kids and everybody after me.
PROTESTERS: Donald Trump has got to go! Hey hey, ho ho! Donald Trump has got to go! Hey hey, ho ho!
JASON GILLILAND: What else can we say? I mean, every opportunity he’s had to say something positive or help, he’s done the exact opposite. He’s done all he’s can to say that he’s not racist, but he makes sure to say that when racist things happens, there’s good people on both sides. I mean, we compare the riots anywhere else in the last few weeks, that he said about “thugs” and “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” but when Charlottesville happened not that long ago, there were good people on both sides, when people were brutally beaten and run over by cars. And every opportunity to do the right thing, he does the wrong thing on purpose. So at some point you’ve got to believe him for who he is. And that’s why he got the response that you do.
This is Meagan Hockaday. She’s from Oxnard, California. On March 28, 2015, police was called because of a domestic dispute. Twenty seconds after arriving, police opened fire and killed her. She was only 28 years old. And the same police officer was just involved in a shooting one year prior. That person didn’t die, but people knew that there was a problem. Just like many other stories, nothing came of it. Very little justice was had at all. And many people don’t even know her name. So, along with Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and everybody else, Meagan Hockaday deserves her attention, and she deserves her justice, too.
LINDA SARSOUR: Off of the sidewalks and into the streets! Off of the sidewalks and into the streets! Off of the sidewalks and into the streets!
Linda Sarsour. I’m a Brooklyn activist. I’m a co-founder of Until Freedom. And I’m here organizing, like we’ve been doing for the last many decades, as you know, here in New York City for police reform. We’re literally watching history unfold before our very eyes. As an organizer, it’s different. I feel different. This is a moment where people have said, “Enough is enough!” And they mean at this time.
PROTESTERS: No justice, no peace! No justice, no peace! No justice, no peace! No justice, no peace! No justice, no peace!