US District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to indefinitely postpone Donald Trump’s trial for stealing and mishandling secret government documents is an attack on Justice. Not bringing the former president to account for his dangerous behavior also attacks our national security. With boxes of top secret documents stacked in his bathroom and elsewhere, there is no accounting for who may have seen sensitive military secrets. Indeed, we don’t know whether the former president tried to trade some of those secrets for his personal benefit, as befits his character and previous schemes.
Prosecutor Jack Smith ought to call for a replacement judge. The judge’s bias favoring Trump has been exposed by several of her decisions that were subsequently reversed by the higher appellate court. American voters need to know before the election whether this candidate engaged in traitorous disregard for our national security. Top secrets about nuclear weapons and foreign agents must be kept secret.
BRUCE JOFFE, Piedmont, Calif.
There is one sentinel topic that has received minimal media attention in recent weeks. That subject is the US military-industrial juggernaut that threatens both all humankind and our beloved mother earth. We are facing two existential threats that are bearing down on humanity like a runaway train. Those threats are truly the co-joined twins of Hell —catastrophic climate change and the growing threat of nuclear holocaust.
The single greatest contributor globally to climate catastrophe is the United States’ military Goliath. Couple that with the damning reality of US military spending and one can say without hesitation or exaggeration that no generation in recorded history has faced the realities and challenges that we must confront if we are to survive and offer any kind of future for our children and future generations.
Ten years ago US military spending broke all records with a $400 billion price tag that dwarfed and eclipsed every nation on Earth. The war budget for 2025 is $900 billion plus. Woven into this insanity that has Dwight Eisenhower rolling over in his grave is the trillions of dollars approved for “Nuclear Modernization” — a plan that insures a new global arms race that makes the likelihood of nuclear disaster probable if not inevitable.
Our survival is contingent and dependent on our ability as a nation and a people to come to terms with the realities of US militarism. We have roughly 800 military bases operating globally — and there is no end in sight. Americans need to accept the truth — the reality that endless military spending coupled with ‘Nuclear Modernization” makes the prospect for human survival a long shot at best. We need to urgently confront the dire threats of both catastrophic climate change and US militarism.
This is not an abstract problem that future generations will inherit and resolve. This is a looming crisis that we the people need to address and act on with immediacy for the sake of our children, future generations, and our planet. Our choices are stark and clear. Climate catastrophe and nuclear Armageddon is not inevitable. An informed and active citizenry is the planets best hope. The time to act and organize is now.
JIM SAWYER, Edmonds, Wash.
If asked the current temperature in the US, should someone answer in Celsius? If so, a warm 80-degree day would be 27 degrees. Most Americans would be confused. In discussing climate with them, saying the goal is an increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius misses a chance to speak their language.
That’s just one example of how those of us concerned about the effects of air pollution use words that are confusing and uninspiring for most Americans. Here are seven ways we can do better:
2 degrees Celsios (old) becomes 4 degrees Fahrenheit (new) — approximately 4 degrees F. is the temperature increase scientists say is a maximum before it may become like a runaway train. In addition to being unclear to most Americans, the use of Celsius reduces the perceived effect by almost half.
Tipping point (old), runaway temperatures (new) — what’s a tipping point? Many of us do not inherently understand, but most do get the concept of runaway.
Fossil fuels (old), Dirty fuels (new) — fossil doesn’t sound bad. Name them for what they are.
Renewable energy (old), clean energy (new) — we all know the simple power of clean.
Global warming (old), warming planet (new) — Global to some people implies a foreign or faraway problem. It is better understood that we live on planet Earth and should protect it.
Climate change (old), also warming planet (new) — opponents of clean energy measures argue that the climate is always changing, and they’re right.
Costly (old), less expensive (new). The perception of clean energy being more expensive still lingers, in part because the cost decline has been so rapid in solar, wind, batteries. And now we’re beginning to see that with electric vehicles. Current examples of lower costs can help deliver this message, such as the cost of fuel for EVs being approximately the equivalent of $1.44 per gallon of gasoline (US Department of Energy).
Summary — scientists and analysts have conducted decades of research about climate science … it’s sometimes more challenging to communicate the problem.
The goal of these thoughts is to increase public support for cleaner air, especially from those who don’t fully appreciate the threat to our warming planet. The very successful Clean Air Act of 1970 (consider the name) offers hints about how to do this. Somehow the clear messages of that time became confused when the conversation switched to climate.
WAYNE PARKER, Eugene, Ore.
Does Donald Trump dislike cats and dogs, or is he afraid of them? His fear and hatred is very clear when he calls human beings he regards with contempt, “animals.” Has anyone ever seen him touch, let alone pet, an animal?
Maybe animals can sense that he is evil and therefore avoid him.
FREDA M. ALVERSON, Hones Path, S.C.
The Pulitzer Prizes for work done in 2023 were recently handed out, and the Associated Press won a prize in the “feature photography category,” for 15 photos that were taken across Latin America and along the US-Mexico border. The photos all were of migrants.
The question that now needs to be asked: What makes a photo of humans suffering an award winning photo? The only answer is, the photo’s artistic value.
This is all about the romancing of human suffering, especially teh suffering that people of color endure. But human suffering in the real world is no one’s art, and no one’s artistic property. The Pulitzer Prize awards come with a cash award of $15,000. Take photos of people of color suffering, with the Pulitzer judges seeing your photos as award-worthy, and you walk away with $15,000.
This is arrogant, exploitive and racist. Take photos and publish them of people struggling and suffering to show the world what is happening — but don’t judge which photos are the “best,” when doing so you are putting art first, the people in the photos are no one’s artistic property.
Who among us have the right to decide which photos of human suffering are award worthy?
It is all quite simple. Their suffering is not our art.
FRANK ERICKSON, Minneapolis, Minn.
From The Progressive Populist, June 15, 2024
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us