Speakout is Truthout's treasure chest for bloggy, quirky, personally reflective, or especially activism-focused pieces. Speakout articles represent the perspectives of their authors, and not those of Truthout.
For years in US government climate policy circles, the mantra was, "How can we commit to binding emissions reduction goals, if China does not?" In one fell swoop (after years of quiet negotiations of course), the US-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change seemed to provide a path forward from this impasse. The agreement calls for the US to achieve economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. For its part, China will strive to achieve peak CO2 emissions around 2030, and increase the share of non-fossil fuel energy consumption to 20 percent by 2030.
The Social Security Disability Fund is a crucial part of Social Security that provides support to people with serious disabilities and medical conditions. In 2016, the fund will need to be replenished to continue protecting people with disabilities and their families at the same levels as in the past. Failure to act will result in a 20 percent cut in assistance for the disabled next year.
Pacific island leaders have called for a global discussion on halting new coal mine construction in an effort to highlight their nations' plight in the face of climate change.
The Suva declaration on climate change, issued this month, demands "a new global dialogue on the implementation of an international moratorium on the development and expansion of fossil fuel extracting industries."
The State of Israel was established on the ruins of Palestine, based on a series of objectives that were initialed by letters from the Hebrew alphabet, the consequences of which continue to guide Israeli strategies to this day. The current violence against Palestinian worshippers at al-Aqsa Mosque in Occupied East Jerusalem is a logical extension of the same Zionist ambition.
"It is Europe today," claimed the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, "that represents a beacon of hope, a haven of stability in the eyes of women and men in the Middle East and in Africa." The rest of his State of the Union Address is certainly not without its merits, but the discourse on the beacon of hope, which has become ubiquitous for framing a relationship between needy refugees and prosperous host countries, should give us pause.
Progressives have long fretted about the most effective way to make long lasting change. Do we put our efforts into the candidate who best represents a progressive agenda, as many progressives did with Obama in 2008, or more recently, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders? Or should we push from the outside, agitating the power structures in our society for a more progressive future?
This dilemma has faced the progressive movement for some time.
I, like all of us, have been hearing about the California drought for months. But as with most issues that are not present outside the window, I became hardened to the front-page stories - showing depleted reservoirs and poverty-stricken families in the Central Valley.
So it wasn't until I went back to my hometown of Oakland, California, at the beginning of summer that the drought, in all its omnipresence and urgency and sadness, became real to me.
El Salvador is struggling with a growing health epidemic among its rural residents: Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). In 2008, the country registered the world's highest mortality rate from kidney failure. Over 3,000 people died from CKD between just January 2010 and July 2014. Doctors diagnose 60 new cases each month.
Traditionally, CKD is a secondary effect of diabetes or hypertension. In the early 2000s, Central Americans began noticing significant numbers of CKD cases among otherwise healthy agricultural workers and rural residents.
Back on May 1, 2015, I wrote an analysis on "Changing Alliances and the National Interest in the Middle East." In this piece, which can be found on my website, tothepointanalyses.com, I made the argument that, at least since September 2001 and the declaration of the "war on terror," the defeat of al-Qaeda and its affiliates has been a publicly stated national interest of the United States. This certainly has been the way it has been presented by almost continuous government pronouncements and media stories dedicated to this "war" over the years.
"Are We Winning the Drone War?" This headline from a recent syndicated column falsely frames the issue. Let's take it apart. This formulation implicitly restricts its concern for "winners" to the US. But other lives - combatant and non-combatant - also matter.
And what sort of war is it talking about, anyway? There was a time when war was declared and mutually visible, sometimes symmetrical, forces clashed. Does robotic "drone war" bear any resemblance?