How should we protest neo-Nazis? Lessons from German history

How should we protest neo-Nazis? Lessons from German history

File 20170820 22783 12tnnxh
A supporter of President Donald Trump, center, argues with a counterprotester at a rally in Boston on Saturday, Aug. 19, 2017.
AP Photo/Michael Dwyer

By Laurie Marhoefer, University of Washington

After the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, many people are asking themselves what they should do if Nazis rally in their city. Should they put their bodies on the line in counterdemonstrations? Some say yes.

History says no. Take it from me: I study the original Nazis.

We have an ethical obligation to stand against fascism and racism. But we also have an ethical obligation to do so in a way that doesn’t help the fascists and racists more than it hurts them.

History repeats itself

Charlottesville was right out of the Nazi playbook. In the 1920s, the Nazi Party was just one political party among many in a democratic system, running for seats in Germany’s Parliament. For most of that time, it was a small, marginal group. In 1933, riding a wave of popular support, it seized power and set up a dictatorship. The rest is well-known.

It was in 1927, while still on the political fringes, that the Nazi Party scheduled a rally in a decidedly hostile location – the Berlin district of Wedding. Wedding was so left-of-center that the neighborhood had the nickname “Red Wedding,” red being the color of the Communist Party. The Nazis often held rallies right where their enemies lived, to provoke them.

The people of Wedding were determined to fight back against fascism in their neighborhood. On the day of the rally, hundreds of Nazis descended on Wedding. Hundreds of their opponents showed up too, organized by the local Communist Party. The antifascists tried to disrupt the rally, heckling the speakers. Nazi thugs retaliated. There was a massive brawl. Almost 100 people were injured.

I imagine the people of Wedding felt they had won that day. They had courageously sent a message: Fascism was not welcome.

But historians believe events like the rally in Wedding helped the Nazis build a dictatorship. Yes, the brawl got them media attention. But what was far, far more important was how it fed an escalating spiral of street violence. That violence helped the fascists enormously.

Violent confrontations with antifascists gave the Nazis a chance to paint themselves as the victims of a pugnacious, lawless left. They seized it.

It worked. We know now that many Germans supported the fascists because they were terrified of leftist violence in the streets. Germans opened their morning newspapers and saw reports of clashes like the one in Wedding. It looked like a bloody tide of civil war was rising in their cities. Voters and opposition politicians alike came to believe the government needed special police powers to stop violent leftists. Dictatorship grew attractive. The fact that the Nazis themselves were fomenting the violence didn’t seem to matter.

One of Hitler’s biggest steps to dictatorial power was to gain emergency police powers, which he claimed he needed to suppress leftist violence.

Thousands of Nazi storm troops demonstrate in a Communist neighborhood in Berlin on Jan. 22, 1933. Thirty-five Nazis, Communists and police were injured during clashes.
AP Photo

The left takes the heat

In the court of public opinion, accusations of mayhem and chaos in the streets will, as a rule, tend to stick against the left, not the right.

This was true in Germany in the 1920s. It was true even when opponents of fascism acted in self-defense or tried to use relatively mild tactics, such as heckling. It is true in the United States today, where even peaceful rallies against racist violence are branded riots in the making.

Today, right extremists are going around the country staging rallies just like the one in 1927 in Wedding. According to the civil rights advocacy organization the Southern Poverty Law Center, they pick places where they know antifascists are present, like university campuses. They come spoiling for physical confrontation. Then they and their allies spin it to their advantage.

A demonstration on the University of Washington campus where far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was giving a speech on Friday, Jan. 20, 2017.
AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

I watched this very thing happen steps from my office on the University of Washington campus. Last year, a right extremist speaker came. He was met by a counterprotest. One of his supporters shot a counterprotester. On stage, in the moments after the shooting, the right extremist speaker claimed that his opponents had sought to stop him from speaking “by killing people.” The fact that it was one of the speaker’s supporters, a right extremist and Trump backer, who engaged in what prosecutors now claim was an unprovoked and premeditated act of violence, has never made national news.

We saw this play out after Charlottesville, too. President Donald Trump said there was violence “on both sides.” It was an incredible claim. Heyer, a peaceful protester, and 19 other people were intentionally hit by a neo-Nazi driving a car. He seemed to portray Charlottesville as another example of what he has referred to elsewhere as “violence in our streets and chaos in our communities,” including, it seems, Black Lives Matter, which is a nonviolent movement against violence. He stirred up fear. Trump recently said that police are too constrained by existing law.

President Trump tried it again during the largely peaceful protests in Boston – he called the tens of thousands who gathered there to protest racism and Nazism “anti-police agitators,” though later, in a characteristic about-face, he praised them.

President Trump’s claims are hitting their mark. A CBS News poll found that a majority of Republicans thought his description of who was to blame for the violence in Charlottesville was “accurate.”

This violence, and the rhetoric about it coming from the administration, are echoes – faint but nevertheless frightening echoes – of a well-documented pattern, a pathway by which democracies devolve into dictatorships.

The Antifa

There’s an additional wrinkle: the antifa. When Nazis and white supremacists rally, the antifa are likely to show up, too.

“Antifa” is short for antifascists, though the name by no means includes everyone who opposes fascism. The antifa is a relatively small movement of the far left, with ties to anarchism. It arose in Europe’s punk scene in the 1980s to fight neo-Nazism.

The antifa says that because Nazism and white supremacy are violent, we must use any means necessary to stop them. This includes physical means, like what they did on my campus: forming a crowd to block ticket-holders from entering a venue to hear a right extremist speak.

The antifa’s tactics often backfire, just like those of Germany’s communist opposition to Nazism did in the 1920s. Confrontations escalate. Public opinion often blames the left no matter the circumstances.

What to do?

One solution: Hold a counterevent that doesn’t involve physical proximity to the right extremists. The Southern Poverty Law Center has published a helpful guide. Among its recommendations: If the alt-right rallies, “organize a joyful protest” well away from them. Ask people they have targeted to speak. But “as hard as it may be to resist yelling at alt-right speakers, do not confront them.”

This does not mean ignoring Nazis. It means standing up to them in a way that denies them a chance for bloodshed.

The ConversationThe cause Heather Heyer died for is best defended by avoiding the physical confrontation that the people who are responsible for her death want.

Laurie Marhoefer, Assistant Professor of History, University of Washington

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons License

New study finding fat isn’t as bad as carbs misses the point

File 20170830 5668 31rv9i

What’s more important to examine is whether the fat and carbs come from fruits and vegetables or doughnuts and candy. from www.shutterstock.com.au

By Clare Collins, University of Newcastle

A new study has added weight to the debate as to whether fat is better or worse for you than carbohydrates, in terms of risk of heart disease and early death. Unfortunately based on this study the jury’s still out, but it does highlight that we should focus on what foods people are eating, rather than just looking at components such as fat and carbohydrates.

Researchers looked at intakes of fat, carbohydrates and protein in more than 135,000 people from 18 low income countries (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe), middle income countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Iran, Malaysia, occupied Palestinian territory, Poland, South Africa, Turkey) and high income countries (Canada, Sweden, United Arab Emirates).

They assessed dietary intakes based on questionnaires, and compared the results with death rates from heart disease and from all other causes.

Over 7.4 years of follow-up, 5,796 people died and 4,784 had major cardiovascular disease events, such as a heart attack or stroke. Interestingly, they found those with the highest intakes of total fat and sub-types of fat (saturated, unsaturated) compared to those with the lowest intakes, had a lower risk of dying from all causes.

There was a 21% lower risk of stroke among those with the highest saturated fat intakes compared to the lowest. However, when it came to the risk of having a heart attack or dying from heart disease, fats had no relationship with risk.

Interestingly, those consuming the highest percentage of total energy from carbohydrates had a 28% higher risk of early death, but no higher risk of having heart disease or dying from heart disease.

Although it hasn’t received as much attention, they also found a higher percentage energy intake from protein was associated with a 23% lower risk of early death and 15% lower risk of dying from causes other than heart disease. Animal protein intake was also associated with a lower risk of dying, but there was no significant association between plant protein and risk of early death.

So what does this all mean?

This study highlights that both carbohydrates and fat are important, but which foods you eat that contain fat or carbohydrate is even more important when it comes to how long you live.

The researchers found some differences between results for those living in Asian countries compared to other regions. For example there was no statistically significant difference in early death from all causes between those with the highest, compared to the lowest percentage of energy from carbohydrate for those living in Asian regions. But there was among those from non-Asian countries.

The analysis adds more weight to the global call to go beyond macro-nutrients (protein, fat and carbohydrate which are the major constituents of food) and to look carefully at actual food and drinks consumed. It matters whether your carbohydrates come from an apple, lentils or carrots compared to soft drink, doughnuts or pancakes.

The types of foods actually consumed could inform how changes in the food supply within lower and middle income countries relate to changes in death rates. They could also inform nutrition policies for countries experiencing a nutrition transition as they become more wealthy.

Overall, this study is very important, and a timely reminder of the need to continually update the evidence on diet disease relationships and to factor in what part of the world the individuals under study are from. But it’s not time to throw out the pasta, rice and bread and start guzzling tubs of fat.

It is time to pay more attention to nutrition and to focus on optimal eating patterns within each country. We need to stem the tide of ultra-processed foods that disrupt healthier eating patterns. Studies from around the world show that getting the ratio of ultra-processed to minimally processed foods back in balance is key to improving the nutritional quality of our overall diets.

Dietary patterns and heart disease

We recently reviewed the evidence on dietary patterns and heart disease, where most research has been done in high income countries.

Our report highlighted that a number of dietary patterns that vary in fat and carbohydrate type and quality are associated with lower heart disease risk. What they have in common is that they are all high in vegetables, fruit, wholegrains and most includes legumes.

This new study provides support for a focus on improving the nutritional quality of macronutrients. In other words, it matters what foods you eat that contain high amounts of carbohydrates and fats. For example is the major source of carbohydrate coming from fruit and vegetables or is it added sugars and highly processed foods?

Close examination of the barriers and facilitators of consuming a healthy diet is warranted. In an earlier analysis of data from this new study, the team reported very low intakes of vegetables and fruit with a mean combined intake of 3·8 servings a day. This varied from 2.1 servings of vegetables and fruit per day in low income countries up to 5.4 servings per day in high income countries. They found that the cost of fruits and vegetables relative to household income was high.

The ConversationThis highlights that to improve dietary patterns globally, we need people to eat more vegetables and fruit. To achieve that we must develop nutrition polices that support affordability of healthy food for all and stop arguing about whether fat is better than carbs. That just adds to the current confusion.


Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Old West theme parks paint a false picture of pioneer California

Reprinted from the August 30, 2017 edition of The Conversation

Editor’s Note: The nostalgia for California’s past is still very much an influence throughout much of the state, and is especially conspicuous in the Gold Country, where many old-timers long to re-open old polluting gold mines, such as the Idaho-Maryland mine here in Grass Valley.

By Amanda Tewes

Old West, as seen through 1967 Orange County eyes. Orange County Archives, CC BY

In 1940, just a year before Pearl Harbor plunged the United States into a world war, Walter and Cordelia Knott began construction on a notable addition to their thriving berry patch and chicken restaurant in the Orange County, California, city of Buena Park. This new venture was an Old West town celebrating both westward expansion and the California Dream – the notion that this Gold Rush state was a land of easy fortune for all. The Knotts’ romanticized Ghost Town – including a saloon, blacksmith’s shop, jail and “Boot Hill” cemetery – became the cornerstone of the amusement park that is today Knott’s Berry Farm.

While Ghost Town is arguably the first of its kind, since 1940 Old West theme parks have proliferated around the United States and the world. They’re more than just destinations for pleasure seekers. Like Hollywood Westerns and dime novels, these theme parks propagate a particular myth of “the West.”

The relationship between history and entertainment is especially complex when these theme parks exist in California – a place that actually experienced “the Wild West.” Visitors can have a hard time differentiating between fantasy landscapes and local history.

In studying California’s Old West theme parks and their version of the state’s past, I’ve conducted oral histories, visited these sites and observed continued nostalgia for these places. What do these imagined spaces reveal about cultural conflicts of politics and regional identity in midcentury California? How do they demonstrate the attraction of a fantasy past that has captivated Californians?

Knott’s original berry stand, Buena Park, California, circa 1926. Orange County ArchivesCC BY

Chicken with a side of ‘pioneer spirit’

The addition of a Ghost Town may seem an odd choice for the Knotts, who were farmers and restaurateurs. But it was a calculated move to entertain guests waiting upwards of three hours in line for their chicken dinner – as well as to tell a particular story about the California Dream.

Walter Knott grew up listening to his grandmother’s tales about traveling across the Mojave Desert to California in a covered wagon, with her young daughter (Walter’s mother) in tow. Knott admired his grandmother’s “pioneering spirit,” which influenced his own decisions to homestead (unsuccessfully) in the desert. For Knott, his grandmother’s account sparked ongoing admiration for independence and adventure, qualities that embody the myth of the West but not necessarily the realities of California’s past.

And it was this personal connection to California’s past that colored Knott’s critique of his present. Looking back over the devastation the Great Depression wrought on California, the farmer – a lifelong proponent of free enterprise – concluded federal interference had prolonged the situation by offering aid and social welfare programs, instead of encouraging struggling residents to work harder.

In the 1930s, Orange County was starting to transition from a land of orange groves and strawberry fields.Orange County Archives, CC BY

This assessment ignores the fact that an agricultural hub like Orange County gained much from New Deal programs. The Agricultural Adjustment Act, for instance, offered farmers price support for their crops, which Orange County growers accepted.

But Knott remained steadfast. In an oral history from 1963, he explained,

“We felt that if [Ghost Town visitors] looked back, they would see the little that the pioneer people had to work with and all the struggles and problems that they had to overcome and that they’d all done it without any government aid.”

This virulent independence shaped Ghost Town and ensured that Knott’s Berry Farm’s memorial to California history was a political statement as much as a place of leisure.

Beyond its political message about the past, Walter Knott wanted Ghost Town “to be an educational feature as well as a place of entertainment.” Indeed, the first edition of the theme park’s printed paper Ghost Town News in October 1941 explained, “…we hope it will prove of real tangible educational advantage and a lasting monument to California.” By 1963, Knott asserted,

“I suppose there’s hundreds of thousands of kids today that know what you mean when you say, ‘pan gold.’ I mean, when they read it in a book they understand it because they’ve gone down and actually done it [at Ghost Town].”

Indeed, the message reached generations of visitors.

Perpetuating the myth of rugged individualism

But Knott learned – and taught – the wrong lesson from the past. Certainly 19th-century Anglo pioneers faced financial, physical and psychological challenges in reaching California. But these individuals did actually benefit from the “government aid” Knott scorned.

Federal funds and policies supported land grants in the West, a military to expand territory and fight indigenous peoples and even the development of the railroad that eventually connected California to the rest of the country. Government intervention helped support these Anglo pioneers as much as it did their Depression-era descendants.

What’s left out of this picture? Orange County Archives, CC BY

Despite the fantasy past it represented, the premise of Ghost Town inspired local appreciation. Visitors to Knott’s Berry Farm saw evidence of California’s financial greatness when they panned for gold. Stories about the trials Walter Knott’s own relatives faced crossing the Mojave Desert reinforced the fortitude of those who settled in the Golden State. Indeed, by midcentury many Orange County residents had themselves moved west to California and could well identify with the theme of 19th-century migration.

Ghost Town played on mid-20th-century nostalgia for simpler and more adventurous times in California, especially as the area began to rapidly shed its agricultural past in the years following World War II. The Knotts’ nod to California’s 19th-century history was a welcome distraction from the modernization efforts in Orange County’s backyard.

Richard Nixon pans for gold with Walter Knott in 1959. Orange County Archives, CC BY

The romantic and often whitewashed version of California’s past embodied by Ghost Town played an ongoing role in shaping midcentury cultural and political identity in the region. The Knotts used the living they earned from Ghost Town and their other attractions to support conservative causes locally and nationally. In 1960, Ghost Town and the Old California it represented was the literal backdrop of a Richard Nixon rally during his first presidential run.

Later, fellow conservative and the Knotts’ personal friend Ronald Reagan produced a segment about their attraction on his political radio show. On the July 15, 1978 episode, Reagan said, “Walter Knott’s farm is a classic American success story…And, it still reflects its founder’s deep love and patriotism for his country.” Reagan celebrated the theme park as the pinnacle of free enterprise and the California Dream.

Among California’s Old West theme parks, Ghost Town at Knott’s Berry Farm is not unique in tweaking the state’s 19th-century past to more closely align with a Hollywood Western than the complex racial, cultural and political reality. Today Ghost Town serves millions of domestic and foreign visitors annually and continues to sell a fantasy version of the Golden State’s history. But this fantasy memorializes mid-20th-century conservative values rather than 19th-century California.

With renewed debates about public memory and monuments, it’s more important than ever to examine sites like historical theme parks as places where individuals learn (false) history. These romantic and politicized versions of the Old West can leave visitors longing for a past that never was.


Disclosure statement

Amanda Tewes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Inside the anti-racist movement that brings the fight to white supremacists

Editor’s Note: In a recent article in Mother Jones about the US anti-fascist movement, a young man spoke about his flexible ideology: “I wasn’t sure if I was racist or anti-racist,” recalls Alex Stuck. “I just knew I was pissed off … thank God that [HARM] got to me first. I could have easily went the opposite direction.” Related: Years ago, I heard some Hells Angels being interviewed on the radio. One said, “Many of us used to be cops.” Something deeper than ideology is going on here. What is it? A thirst for violence driven by testosterone?

From Mother Jones: “Inside the anti-racist movement that brings the fight to white supremacists”

“At lunchtime on May 19, 2012, 18 masked men and women shouldered through the front door of the Ashford House restaurant in Tinley Park, Illinois, a working-class suburb of Chicago. Some diners mistook the mob for armed robbers. Others thought they might be playing a practical joke. But Steven Speers, a stalactite-bearded 33-year-old who had just sat down for appetizers at a white nationalist meet and greet, had a hunch who they were. The gang filing in with baseball bats, police batons, hammers, and nunchucks were members of Anti-Racist Action (ARA) and the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (HARM), two groups dedicated to violently confronting white supremacists.

“Hey, bitches!” one of the anti-racists shouted before charging Speers’ table. “ARA is going to fuck this place up!”

“Speers stood up and warned his seven companions to prepare to fight. His girlfriend, Beckie Williams, who had organized the lunchtime gathering on the white supremacist website Stormfront, grabbed a butter knife. Francis Gilroy, a homeless man who had driven up from Florida to find “work for whites,” as an online ad for the meeting promised, tried to pull the attackers off his companions. Williams was clubbed on the arm. Speers was hit on the head so hard he vomited.

“An 80-year-old woman celebrating her granddaughter’s high school graduation at a nearby table was also pushed to the floor. A retired cop who believed he was witnessing a terrorist attack used a chair to knock out one of the masked intruders. That’s when they ran off, dragging their dazed companion.

“In less than two minutes, the anti-racists had unleashed a flurry of destruction. A mosaic of smashed glass covered the floor. Blood polka-dotted the ceiling. Three people required medical care.”

 

Read the full article here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/anti-racist-antifa-tinley-park-five/

How to reduce the risk of cognitive decline with age

File 20170825 28531 1jzrcc9
Jne Valokuvaus/Shutterstock

by Hayley Wright, Coventry University
Originally published in The Conversation, August 25, 2017

Research into how we can keep our brains healthy as we age has gained momentum in recent years. There is now an increased focus on the changes that we can makes to our health and lifestyle, which may prevent dementia. Here are some things that research has shown reduce a person’s risk of cognitive decline with age.

Sex

Our latest study shows that having more sex is associated with better cognitive function.

We recruited 28 men and 45 women, aged between 50 and 83, to take part in our study. We found that those who had sex weekly scored on average 2% higher on some cognitive tests than those who had sex monthly, and 4% higher than those who never had sex. These results were shown on tests of verbal fluency (such as naming as many animals as possible in one minute) and visuo-spatial abilities (drawing familiar objects from memory or copying complex pictures).

The association could be the result of the heightened levels of intimacy and companionship inherent in sexual relationships (that is, an increase in social contact), or there could be a purely biological explanation – where regular surges in arousal and release of sex-related hormones (such as oxytocin and dopamine) could be affecting brain function. Of course, as with the age-old nature/nurture debate, our answer could lie in a combination of the social and biological impact of sexual activity.

Could it be sex hormones that keep our brains young?
nd3000/Shutterstock

Sleep

Many studies show that getting enough sleep is important for preventing cognitive decline. A study of cognitively healthy people aged 65 and over showed that daytime napping is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline at two-year and ten-year follow-ups. Conversely, excessive daytime sleepiness and getting less than six-and-a-half hours of sleep at night are associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline at ten-year follow-up.

A more recent study showed that longer sleep duration and poorer sleep quality are both associated with poorer memory in men and women aged 65 and older. These studies all support the advice that we should be getting around eight hours of sleep a night. Sleep disturbance in early adulthood is associated with poorer cognitive function in later life, which just goes to shows how sleep can affect our brain health across the lifespan.

Active leisure

New studies show that increased participation in social, mental and physical activities is linked to a slower rate of cognitive decline in older adults. This research shows a “dose-response” relationship, where the more activities we do, the slower the rate of decline becomes.

The following activities are good examples of the types of mental, social and physical leisure activities that are good for your brain:

● Mental: puzzles, games and quizzes, reading or even adding up your shopping bill in your head as you go around the supermarket.

● Social: visiting friends and family, regular phone or email conversations with people, going to the cinema or doing some volunteer work.

● Physical: gardening, housework, walking for around 30 minutes a day, or doing chair-based or sitting exercises.

The more you do, the slower the decline.
ABO PHOTOGRAPHY/Shutterstock

Gender equality

Studies have found that women may be at reduced risk of cognitive decline, simply because of the activities they choose. There is little that we can do to change our gender, without drastic surgery of course – but we can be aware of the gender stereotypes and expectations that are all around us, which can affect the activities we engage in.

In a study of Australian older adults, there were notable gender differences in the leisure activities that people took part in. For example, women were more likely to engage in social activities, reading and volunteer work, all of which are known to slow cognitive decline. The way that cultures or societies perceive gender roles can affect people’s expectations of themselves and others. If this changes the lifestyle and leisure activities that men and women engage in, then it could well have an effect on cognitive abilities in later life.

Get an early (in life) start

When it comes to doing things to prevent cognitive decline, it’s never too early to start. Some studies show that interventions in older adults have little effect – but that could be because the participants are already suffering from cognitive decline. Studies mapping the rate of cognitive decline in older participants who do not yet have dementia or cognitive impairment, however, show promising results.

The ConversationWe all experience cognitive decline as we age. This is a natural process and occurs at different rates for everybody, much like declines in physical abilities with age. But it’s time we started addressing this much earlier in life, rather than waiting till middle age or older. It’s time for us to take a lifelong approach to keeping our brains healthy as we age.

Hayley Wright, Research Fellow, Coventry University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

A Strong Opinion: Stop Counter-Protesting

Even if the protesters are the KKK, white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

By Rick Gell
Reprinted from Alternet, August 21, 2017

First, My Definition

Counter-protest: an organized response, on the same day, at the same time and in the same place as a previously planned protest.

Now, My Argument

Counter-protests, by their very nature, escalate the risk of violence, and are therefore a less desirable tactic where the ends do not justify the means.

The Issue Is Irrelevant

This has nothing to do with which side one is on, the moral superiority of one view or the vile nature of another. If Planned Parenthood plans a march to support a woman’s right to choose, right-to-lifers should not counter-protest. And if right-to-lifers plan a march to condemn abortion, pro-choice supporters should not counter-protest. Resentment toward crashing an event is human nature and with 365 days, each side has ample time to march and make their counter-argument.

Yes, even if the protesters are the KKK, white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Deflate an Opponent, Don’t Inflate Them

The Women’s March attracted 4 million people.

How many extremists with torches were marching Friday night?

How many Nazis, white nationalists and KKK members marched on Saturday?

In a New York Times op-ed piece on August 19, Michael Signer, mayor of Charlottesville, suggested “several thousand alt-right activists and white supremacists came to my city.” He is off by a factor of 4. According to Joe Ruiz of NPR and Sandy Hausman of member station WVTF, 500 protesters were on-site with more than double the number of counter-protesters. Vox reported “hundreds of marchers” and AP “at least 500” for Saturday.

The consensus seems to come in at 500 on Saturday and less than 250 people on Friday night.

The mayor’s error is easy to understand, and I’d bet if Nate Silver or another pollster were to do a random survey and ask Americans whether 100,000, 10,000 or 1,000 right-wing extremists were in attendance in Charlottesville, many would exaggerate attendance due to the blanket TV coverage and violent nature of the event.

The Charlottesville police, according to Doug Stanglin of USA Today, estimated 2,000 to 6,000 marchers would attend before the event, billed by organizers as the biggest gathering of alt-right, white nationalists, KKK and neo-Nazis in decades.

In 1926, 50,000 KKK marched down Pennsylvania Avenue. Adjusted for current population, that would be close to 150,000 people today. A march before commercial air travel that did not include other groups. Today, Unite the Right has the benefit of a well-oiled, online ecosystem and convenient transit to bring supporters together.

And all they could muster were 500 people.

Without counter-protesters, without violence, there would be no blanket cable news coverage. And probably no innocent deaths. Might the headline have read “Unite the Right march fizzles”? What if the Democratic response was “70 years ago, 50,000 KKK marched down Pennsylvania Avenue, and today white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other alt-right groups combined, could barely muster 500 people. And while one Nazi is one too many, these are troubled, fringe people with an ideology America abhors.”

Violence Is More Likely, and Violence Rarely Benefits the Forces of Good

I am not a pacifist, believe revolution can be justified, but the bar is exceedingly high for actions that can cost innocent lives. Counter-protesting is confrontational, counter-productive and a troubling trend, if every protest in America is now going to be a head-to-head stand-off. A near impossible scenario for law enforcement and first responders.

The odds of violent encounters ratchet up, and violence is out of sync with the core ideologies of the clear majority of liberals and the left. Organizers of Unite the Right believe violence is a viable way to solve problems, came armed to the teeth, wanted violence to occur, and got what they wanted.

The Mob Effect

Any psychology student can cite studies about how people act in a mob and it ain’t pretty. People are pumped-up, taunting each other, and more prone to take actions they might not take in less heated circumstances. Counter-protests put two groups, who may hate each other, together face-to-face at a moment of heightened emotions.

It is simply a prescription for violence.

Never Elevate a Lesser Opponent

A counter-protest by its very existence is going to make an event bigger. In Charlottesville, the number of counter-protesters was double the size of the original protesters, greatly increasing the magnitude of the event. Yes, in Boston the counter-protest was so large the nationalist event didn’t even occur, but in Charlottesville opponents met and violence did happen. Incumbent candidates avoid direct engagement with challengers for a reason. Why legitimize a lesser, fringe candidate? Sharing the stage always places the lesser opponent on a more equal plain.

David Duke on TV, again?

Let’s Minimize Antifa

Michael Bray, author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” appeared on “Meet the Press” with Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center to discuss the Antifa group that supports violence as a legitimate response to fascism. Bray was clear: “Fascism cannot be defeated by speech,” arguing speech alone has failed historically.

Richard Cohen, who as legal counsel for the SPLC has won many landmark legal cases against white supremacists, strongly disagreed. Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC Intelligence Project, speaking to the New York Times, said, “We’re against violence, just straight up. If you want to protest racists and anti-Semites, it needs to be peacefully and hopefully somewhere away from where those guys are rallying.”

An Antifa supporter in the New York Times said, “You need violence in order to protect non-violence.” Another Antifa supporter punched white supremacist Richard B. Spencer at the inauguration, claiming it was justified to punch a neo-Nazi.

Do we want to see people punching a socialist, transsexual or atheist because it is now okay to punch people at public events because you believe they have extreme views?

If you are with the SPLC, and concerned about the rise of Antifa, then you will recognize that a counter-protest, even if the vast majority of counter-protesters are peaceful, runs the risk of an Antifa action painting the entire group with a violent brush, while providing unnecessary talking points to the real extremists.

The Lizard People

It is estimated over 10 million Americans believe there are lizard people who live underground, eat babies and run the country. In 2017, to believe in the KKK, white nationalism and the Third Reich is comparable. James Alex Fields, who allegedly drove the car into the crowd in Charlottesville, killing Heather Heyer, had a history of violent behavior. Much like the petty criminal who claims a last-minute allegiance to Islam, to ensure blanket media coverage as a “terrorist” when committing a horrific crime, are we feeding extremists’ sense of isolation and core mental illness with direct confrontation and counter-protesting? Should we be sending 1,000 psychiatrists, therapists and spiritual leaders to an alt-right protest instead, to deliver a stronger message about the participants and their state of mind?

When Mathew Heimbach, founder of the Nationalist Front, calls Charlottesville, “The largest nationalist rally in over two decades,” the reality is he can only attract 250 to 500 people in a nation of 325 million, even with free tiki torches. When Heimbach suggests they “achieved all their objectives” and “We asserted ourselves as the voice of white America. We had zero vehicles damaged,” is it ideology, or mental illness?

Fighting Smartly

My opposition to counter-protesting is not meant to ignore or diminish the threat. The extreme alt-right online-world is real. According to the SPLC, there are 276 militias operating in the United States today. And according to U.S. government reports of 85 violent extremist incidents resulting in death since 911, far right-wing extremists were responsible for 62 and radical Islamist extremists 23.

And reporting from the likes of Vice News, once again eating the lunch of mainstream news, with powerful embedded coverage by Elle Reeve of Vice News Tonight, is essential. But even Josh Tyrangiel, executive producer of Vice News Tonight, twice in one interview with Charlie Rose, cautioned against glamorization saying, “I am very aware of the double-edged sword there. We do not want to glamorize them, we do not want to draw more attention to them, but obviously we are in an urgent moment.”

I hear the counter-arguments. We must fight them at every turn. Donald Trump’s true nature has now been revealed. Corporations are fleeing the administration. Confederate statues are being torn down across America. Racists are losing their jobs. A secretive, online movement is exposed and a national conversation continues.

But Heather Heyer and two police officers are dead, bad actors feel emboldened and there is a better way. An event advertised as the Woodstock of the alt-right could barely attract 500 people. Those people are on the fringe, are deeply troubled and are in need of mental health services. Let members speak at their rally. Then organize a Unite the Country march a week later, with 100,000 peaceful attendees.

Let’s recognize how far we’ve come, be tactical, avoid violence and an arms race of counter-protesting, while acknowledging how far we still must go.

A legal snarl in Idaho portends future conflicts over water

As the climate changes, dams face new challenges for water rights and releases.

By Emily Benson, High Country News

On a sunny day in late April, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released hundreds of millions of gallons of water from Idaho’s Lucky Peak Dam, a dozen miles upstream of Boise. The dam operators call it a “rooster tail” display; thousands of observers took in the spectacle. The water, roaring out of a dam gate, arced high above the Boise River, rainbows shimmering in its spray.

Rooster tails are one way the Corps releases excess water to reduce the risk of flooding — a partially empty reservoir can capture spring runoff before it can race downstream and inundate Boise. Releases are necessary about seven years out of every 10, including this year, when basin flows were among the highest recorded. Lucky Peak and two associated reservoirs also store water for irrigation. In snow-heavy years, that means dam operators must strike a balance between letting enough water go early in the spring and retaining sufficient water for the hot, dry days to come.

Getting releases right is crucial for the farmers who depend on the Boise River to irrigate crops like sugar beets and seed corn. The river also waters lawns and parks, and supplies about 30 percent of Boise’s drinking water. As in other Western states, water users with older rights get first dibs. But since 2013, several irrigation companies and the Idaho Department of Water Resources have been fighting over administrative details that determine which water Lucky Peak irrigators are entitled to use during a wet year: flood-control releases, or the “refill” water that collects after releases are done. The case is now before the Idaho Supreme Court. Its outcome will determine how the water in the Boise River system is doled out — no small consequence for the people and fish that depend on it. The fight itself, however, highlights a larger challenge water managers across the West are confronting: How do you operate dams effectively as climate change alters the historical patterns used to predict runoff timing and volume?

Water being released from Lucky Peak Dam creates a rooster tail flowing into the Boise River.
David R. Frazier Photolibrary, Inc. / Alamy Stock

The Department of Water Resources contends that water counts toward storage rights upon entering the reservoir. That means flood-control releases could include already-allotted water. But irrigators say those releases arrive too early in the season to be useful, sometimes while snow still covers their fields. They claim they are entitled to the water that subsequently refills the reservoir, which is distributed later in the summer when they need it most.

While the department does dole out refill water, it considers it to be excess and unappropriated water that doesn’t fulfill any reservoir storage rights. In September 2016, District Court Judge Eric Wildman ruled partially in favor of the department, writing that water entering the reservoir satisfies users’ rights. However, he also pronounced the department’s practice of allocating refill unlawful, leaving the refill water distribution in limbo. The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision by year’s end. “For anybody to say that (releases) should be counted against our storage rights, as water that we’re actually using — it’s ridiculous,” says Roger Batt, executive director of the Treasure Valley Water Users Association, the irrigation companies’ lobbying group.

Regardless of its legality, the department’s method has largely kept water flowing to the irrigators. Since its implementation in 1986, there’s only been a single year in which there were flood-control releases but users didn’t get their full amount.

But the problem isn’t purely theoretical, says Mathew Weaver, Idaho Department of Water Resources deputy director. With no rights attached to the refill, future demands could take water that current users have come to rely upon. Extremely wet years could, paradoxically, leave fields and lawns parched if big flood-control releases happen and the refill water has been claimed for other uses. A similar case occurred in Idaho’s Upper Snake River Basin, where large diversions for groundwater recharge spurred a 2015 settlement in which irrigators gained legal rights to refill water. Those rights, however, date to 2014, meaning they have lower priority than older water rights.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, refilling reservoirs may be getting more difficult, thanks in part to shifting precipitation patterns caused by climate change. Greater extremes — wetter wet years and drier dry years — and earlier spring thaws could make it harder to manage dams, says Doug Kenney, the director of the Western Water Policy Program at the University of Colorado. “All these operating guidelines that you built up based on data from the last century just don’t work very well anymore,” he says.

Whether next year is wet enough to warrant a rooster tail display at Lucky Peak depends on nature; exactly how flood-control releases will be accounted for, however, is up to the Idaho Supreme Court. Whatever the decision, climate change will continue to impact water in the West. “We really need to use our reservoirs more skillfully than we have in the past,” Kenney says. “And it’s a challenge.”


Emily Benson is an HCN editorial fellow.

This story was originally published at High Country News (hcn.org) on August 4, 2017.

 

Centrist Democrats Riled as Warren Says Days of ‘Lukewarm’ Policies Are Over

“The Democratic Party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) addresses a rally against Trump Administration budget cuts to education funding outside the U.S. Capitol July 19, 2017 in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) addresses a rally against Trump administration budget cuts to education funding outside the U.S. Capitol July 19, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In a wide-ranging and fiery keynote speech last weekend at the 12th annual Netroots Nation conference in Atlanta, Georgia, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) relentlessly derided moderate Democratic pundits calling for the party to move “back to the center” and declared that Democrats must unequivocally “fight for progressive solutions to our nation’s challenges.”

“We’re not going back to the days when universal healthcare was something Democrats talked about on the campaign trail but were too chicken to fight for after they got elected.”
—Sen. Elizabeth Warren

As The Hill‘s Amie Parnes reported on Friday, Warren’s assertion during the weekend gathering that progressives are “the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party”—and not merely a “wing”—raised the ire of so-called “moderate” Democrats, who have insisted that progressive policies won’t sell in swing states.

But recent survey results have consistently shown that policies like single-payer healthcare, progressive taxation, a higher minimum wage, and tuition-free public college are extremely popularamong the broader electorate. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—the most prominent advocate of an ambitious, far-reaching progressive agenda—has consistently polled as the most popular politician in the country.

For Warren, these are all indicators that those pining for a rightward shift “back to the center” are deeply mistaken.

Specifically, Warren took aim at a recent New York Times op-ed by Democratic commentators Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, who argued that Democrats must moderate their positions in order to take back Congress and, ultimately, the presidency.

Warren ridiculed this argument as a call for a return to Bill Clinton-era policies that “lock[ed] up non-violent drug offenders and ripp[ed] more holes in our economic safety net.”

A free and independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy

“The Democratic Party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill,” Warren said. “We’re not going back to the days of being lukewarm on choice. We’re not going back to the days when universal healthcare was something Democrats talked about on the campaign trail but were too chicken to fight for after they got elected.”

“And,” Warren concluded, “we’re not going back to the days when a Democrat who wanted to run for a seat in Washington first had to grovel on Wall Street.”

For months media outlets have speculated that Warren is gearing up for a 2020 presidential run, but she has denied the rumors.

Warren’s remarks came as a large coalition of progressive groups is mobilizing during the congressional recess to pressure Democrats to formally endorse the “People’s Platform,” a slate of ambitious legislation that includes Rep. John Conyers’ (D-Mich.) Medicare for All bill.

Watch Warren’s full speech at Netroots Nation:

Show Up at NID Today at 1 pm & Oppose CA Taxpayer Dollars for Centennial Dam

From South Yuba River Citizen’s League:

Show  Up at NID Today & Oppose CA Taxpayer Dollars for Centennial Dam

 

KNOW & GO: 
Who: Dam Watchdogs
What: Show up for NID’s Special Board Meeting; Tell them to vote “NO” on Resolution No. 2017-24
When: Today, Wednesday, August 9, beginning at 1pm
Where: 1036 W Main St, Grass Valley
Why: NID Board will be voting on a resolution to apply for CA taxpayer money to fund Centennial Dam

Today, the NID Board will hold a special meeting and vote on a resolution to approve an application that would put NID in line for California state taxpayer money to build Centennial Dam. Help fill the room tomorrow and encourage the Board to vote “NO” on Resolution No. 2017-24.

A successful application to the California Water Commission (CWC) burdens NID with numerous requirements including supplying water outside the County of Origin in direct contradiction to the project’s statement of purpose to benefit NID customers. The Centennial Dam project, which began as a $160 million project is now estimated to cost over a billion dollars.

It is alarming that NID appears to be changing the direction for the Centennial Dam project without providing any information or time for the public to consider it – especially since the application is due to the CWC in two business days.

This is another unfortunate example of NID taking actions important to the community without adequate public notice and participation.

The deadline for this application was known six months ago. Given this project is controversial, financially risky, and will provide an uncertain benefit, the NID Board and staff should be operating with full transparency and inviting public participation. Rather, staff is attempting to pass this item through on the consent agenda, two days before it’s due, with no copy of the application nor supporting materials, at a “special” board meeting scheduled at the very last minute.

Come to the meeting so that we can question NID about this application:

  • What are the implications for NID if this funding application is successful? The public has a right to know.
  • What will NID ratepayers, taxpayers, and customers be obligated to do if this application goes through?
  • How much money does the application request from the California Water Commission (CWC) and what is the money for?
  • How much water is NID committing to send out of the district?
  • Does NID have a qualified consultant working on the application, and if so, who are they and when were they hired? How much has and will the application cost to submit and follow up on?
  • Why is the funding application action being revealed to the Board and public two business days before the due date, when the deadline has been known for six months?

‘Earth Is Exhausted’: Humans Have Already Consumed the Planet’s Annual Resources

“The costs of this global ecological overspending are becoming increasingly evident around the world.”

by Jake Johnson, staff writer, Commondreams
Reprinted from Commondreams under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

 

"This means that in seven months, we emitted more carbon than the oceans and forests can absorb in a year, we caught more fish, felled more trees, harvested more, and consumed more water than the Earth was able to produce in the same period," World Wildlife Fund and Global Footprint Network said in a statement.

“This means that in seven months, we emitted more carbon than the oceans and forests can absorb in a year, we caught more fish, felled more trees, harvested more, and consumed more water than the Earth was able to produce in the same period,” World Wildlife Fund and Global Footprint Network said in a statement. (Photo: Guy Gorek/Flickr/cc)

With several months left until the end of 2017, humans have already used up more natural resources than the planet can regenerate in a year, making today Earth Overshoot Day. For the rest of the year, humanity is “living on credit.”

“Humanity’s carbon footprint alone more than doubled since the early 1970s.”
—Mathis Wackernagel, Global Footprint Network

“This means that in seven months, we emitted more carbon than the oceans and forests can absorb in a year, we caught more fish, felled more trees, harvested more, and consumed more water than the Earth was able to produce in the same period,” World Wildlife Fund and Global Footprint Network said in a statement.

“The costs of this global ecological overspending are becoming increasingly evident around the world,” the groups added, “in the form of deforestation, drought, fresh-water scarcity, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

Last year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on August 8, an indication that the world’s population is accelerating the pace with which it blows through the planet’s annual resource budget from year to year.

When viewed over the longer-term—Earth Overshoot Day has been marked annually since 1983—the acceleration becomes even more glaring.

According to environmental groups and climate scientists, Earth Overshoot Day is just one of many urgent indicators that only rapid and systemic restructuring of our energy systems can reverse the trends that continue to deplete and degrade the planet.

“Humanity’s carbon footprint alone more than doubled since the early 1970s and remains the fastest growing component of the widening gap between the Ecological Footprint and the planet’s biocapacity,” Mathis Wackernagel, CEO of Global Footprint Network, said in a statement. “To achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Accord, humanity would need to exit the fossil fuel economy before 2050.”

But recent moves by U.S. President Donald Trump have significantly undercut hopes that the global community can work together to accomplish this necessarily ambitious transformation.

Imperfect as it may be, the Paris Climate Accord generated global goodwill and hope that humanity was ready at last to tackle its biggest challenge yet,” writes The Telegraph‘s Patrick Scott. “However, the deal suffered a huge blow in June when Trump announced his plans to withdraw from the agreement.”

According to the Global Footprint Network, if everyone lived like the U.S. population, we would need five Earths to sustain the level of consumption.

(Image Source: Global Footprint Network)

Next Page »

Bitnami