This is Karen Anderson a funky little theatre company and you are listening to k.c. M.j. LP f.m. 93.9 Colorado Springs. From community Public Radio this is the c.p.r. News. From the York I'm Don De Bar today the 18th installment of a conversation that we've been having with Professor Louisiana bone about the political economy the history in essence of the founding and the on timely demise of the u.s.s.r. The period from say 917 until 1991 Lucienne It's a pleasure to have you with us again thank you John so we left off. In Spain really in Catalonia which is an interesting place to leave off these days. And we were talking about essentially how the war was lost when you had. Essentially the government in power being attacked by fascists who at the beginning were kind of feuding with each other you had the left and the anarchists and popular forces generally siding with the government and then we got to the point where there were there were groups that decided to go it alone they decided instead of working in coalition with the rest of the society that now was the time for revolution while they were under attack and we were starting to get through how that played out so let's let's go there that's right the last time we talked about Di it could I make it fact oh of the social revolution that the end of Q. And I should call them Trotsky's to pool. And to new. Parts they were in control namely cuts alone you know I've gone in places like that and we. Demonstrated we talked about. Well last time about how this the taking over of the means of production we created economic chaos nobody knew what we should decide and we went into that last time but today I want to talk about how the Republic of Spain and. The Loyalist side the Republican side for him and its own army because we have to remember that when Franco arrived in Spain the he had with him. Inside Spain the whole military. Challenge the higher operetta learns the whole a military 9 command you know whatever we would call the Pentagon. So he came with forces from Spanish Morocco and he had me. What had been the Army of the Republic sided with Franco which meant that the Republic had. A very. Minimal army. Right that you had some officers and some but you know and this is what I want to talk about how. This Army was formed. Mainly through the efforts of the Spanish Communist Party. In Thailand and together with its Mosco. And really quite obstructed in its formation in the beginning by the forces of the anarchists and what I call the Trotsky is the pool Ok yeah that's that's that's a good that's that's a good one of it too. Ok. So after Franco's led military rebellion. The Republic was left with decimated officer corps. And a severely weakened army in the regions were which were in the republic's control so. The Army this army was the one that had been unable to resist the rebellion. So the fighting mainly fell to the militia units organized by the various labor unions the c.m.t. Had its own militia the pool had its. Intel militia the u.g.g. Had its own militias. And I think a fine main to check tier this is the idea of a people's army that. Comes up I was also this sort of formation that worked in the in the in the Russian revolution initially but anyway so the militias were inexperienced they lack discipline and coordination unlike the Soviet Union in World War 2 They didn't have a staff they didn't have a general staff directing the war imagined. The so. Any. And there were so these militias even had rivalry between them and this you know who would get what arms there was no central command distributing arms organizing transportation. It's Think about it so because they lack a centralized command in general staff and this is just those people who say that studying wasn't significant in World War 2 was the people who fought right well you know they had a central command a staff. Yeah General I actually I posted I posted today at my Facebook page I had stumbled on on You Tube a radio address that Stalin gave it was July 3rd of the 1940 War Now Hitler attacked I think it was June 22nd of 1941 so this is me and 11 days later he spoke for about 28 minutes and essentially outlined the strategy that was going to be followed which ended up being the strategy that was followed which ended up being the strategy that won the war and you know we're talking about this scorched earth policy as it came to be no need to use that terminology then the people who are in essence So you know they you've got all these other folks that have you know from our Yes the what but you've got people who since then have been looking at you know what happened in Soviet Union in contrasting what hap what they say happened with what should the fab and people's wars and people revolutions but in fact that was a people's war and that and it was won because it was a people's war and Stalin they designed it with a radio Saudi that's Ok No No What I'm saying is Stalin basically called for it over the radio at the very beginning that's right and I forget what the percentage of communities member urged me but they were and overwhelming right I mean they were large larger than the society at large but but but not it wasn't even a majority I don't think you know that's right and that alone makes it a people's thoughts right absolutely yeah but a people's army has to have. An organisation that direct it to yeah I mean if you want to win if you want to win yeah yeah yeah go ahead I'm sorry so this is another contest you know not having an organized. What you just call to like you know like an office or score or whatever you know a hierarchy of censure just central planning committee right out of the war Ok I mean the Pentagon I think Ok well I don't know not even the Pentagon but anyway but was just it was about the general staff basically the you know you know that yeah actually like. This militia lacked weapons. And. Because of course the Army had taken. What they needed from because our midst they lacked heavy weapons so. Any In addition they lacked heavy weapons which won so there were there were 2 or 3 players in the Spanish foreign players in the Spanish Civil War Germany Italy and the Soviet elite was right. The jungle got 2 thirds of the total Army from of the total weapons of the foreign weapons from Italy and Germany and and and the 3rd. What was supplied to the republic by the Soviet Union 600 planes I don't know 700 pilots. Advisory considerable a considerable contribution by the Soviet Union to the Republicans so one 3rd. You know 2 thirds of the foreign. Weapons went to the 2 front though one 3rd. Went to the republic by the Soviet Union. Britain and France contributed nothing Mexico however did Mexico through a couple $1000000.20 rifles and some other things and that's right political support they took a strong political stance you know backing the the government that's right there they had their own revolution that's right in the nation months of the of the Civil War in 136 after July the ministry a war had little authority over transport because as we noted that the transport was in the hands of the c n t the anarchist Union. Trade union and was forced to rely on the national committee overrode transport that is the Ministry of War which as I said was controlled by the AC in t.n. The u.g.g. . And I kissed union is the c n t and a huge e t is the Socialist Party even you write anyway that the comedians the unions and the parties. Regarded demands from the ministry war and retain equipment and vehicles for themselves and their own militia forces which sometimes you know eventually they turned on each other. One second that I have in my outline here. In a recalcitrant computer. We all have those and while you're looking Meanwhile you've got the also the. Smarts the minor players on the international stage Portugal for example was involved. And the Irish go. From prohibited participation I already sent Irish brigade to fight a war inside Franco. And that was done to follow a system apparently. To fight the. Good they were fighting Communism in defense of the Catholic Church. Even though Duffy The Irish Brigade but now were way $936.00 which Ireland was it. The North no no no this is it was Ireland I don't believe this I already there's the Ira. Yeah. Very strange in a strange the so-called lefties Yeah huge what you have you know you what you had going on 2 things that I think were probably attractive one you know the track to those elements number one you know that the National was struggling in the in the u.k. Of Ireland against the Brits you know religion is the sort of the soil that that takes place in or in any event that's the dressing that they put on it. Says And so they had that in common because they were painting the Republicans whether they were just liberals or or even not so liberal supporters of the government all the way out to the Communists as you know secularists and atheists and hostile to the Catholic church so the Catholic you know they were rallying fellow Catholics and also you had nested within that the nationalist struggles in both Basque and Catalonia which of course the Irish could identify with at the time as well so it's complex you know. Sure but I have to add something else. In 121 I think that's the date you had a civil war in Ireland and the socialist side won so what you have in power in Ireland is a compromise Ira. That's right. I mean so because the usual excuse is Whoever fights Britain where on their side right whether it's a good leader or an india rubber we're on their side but it's not the case right and I step that Britain was fighting against the republic simply by not helping and etc So I would think that because the. Military the socialist branch of the Irish Republican $121.00 lost the Civil War. This is the consequence of that. Defeat is that the existing Irish government in Dublin. Sided with. The fascist on grounds of Catholic. Possibly Catholic sympathy Yeah you know by the way oh Duffy was also the head of the what they call the n.c.p. Which was a fascist party national corporate party and he was the one who was recruiting. And they had sent about 7000 people in the Irish Brigade but it became a real problem at home as it turns out and we're off we're off the track let's get back because yeah yeah. So because of and this is already good one too there's a because of the need 936 because that was the need to create a decentralized military you know I centralized and run military the Communist Party of Spain was in favor of establishing a regular army and integrating the militias into this new force. So they the Communist Party were the 1st to dissolve the militia forces including the 5th Regiment which is one of the most effective units in the war. And created a mixed brigades and a people's army. Forming the core of the new popular army. These units however were firmly under the oversight of the. The Communist Party. To one sick. Person who was having to struggle that's Ok these things happened. They by the way I just found as a matter of fact there was also although was smaller an Irish Brigade the international brigade sent by the organized by the Communist Party of fire when that supported strongly the Republican side in the civil war and like a quarter of them died you know fighting that war. They were you know they were heroic so pleasing that they put it they put in there you know they were well represented on our side as well. And so the Popular Army studies units was firmly under the oversight of Communist Party come is ours and that would be from Moscow and under the command of experienced army officers So I mean the communist party eventually came to dominate the leadership of the new army to their coming stars Soviet advisors and and and n.k.v.d. Agents also exercise considerable influence within the new armed forces although this presence of Kommunist in the struggle it seems to have really upset. Or kissed and and and the Communist right. And the c. And d. On a case trade union and the pool the Marxist. But there is another socialist militias initially resisted the integration magine resisted integration the scene to feed the anarchist trade union so the militias as representing the will of the people while a centralized army was against the. Old Tory Tarion principles I mean talk about oh now go ahead talk about being chained down by ideology I said yes it's a clear faction exact way that amazing Yes yes they also fear the army as an organ of the Communist Party so we see that in Spain communism represented a threat for a sizeable fighting force on the side of the Republicans that's right communism was a. Well we could say you know it was. If you stretch it communism was as bad as fascism is and that the ideology of certain some weird lefties today well that's certainly of anarchists you know that the Soviet Union was in essence the same as Nazi Germany it's just different forms you know that while these Iraq significance are in the name of the government or the people in this case instead of in the name of the actual owners but that it operates the same way that still gets their argument and you know it's distilled down from absurdity to something intelligible. So. You see in t. The anarchists you knew eventually forced to. Force to yield to military zation says the government refused to supply. Arms. To its new to the militias unless they joined the regular army. But so we have events. In Qatar Lonia of May which. Carried a kind of uprising against t. . Believe essentially the communist. Direction of the war and this is what George Orwell celebrates in so much to cut alone you know. And out of the Spanish Civil War comes amid thought oh gee did this start in East you know this world study in East Soviet Union had crushed the social revolution which we have seen last time. See the businesses and brought the production economy to a standstill so had crushed this amazing social revolution which would have. Been the mythology you know she's the land from. The land lords and seize the factories and then didn't know how to rule it had this wonderful Middle East. News people dog army would have rolled right over the borders and swept across Europe and then the whole world with the with the revolution that's the mythology amazing while Germany provided she Chunder it playing it to the 700 and to to Franco and you know that just I don't know what to say and the u.s.s.r. Providing 67800 planes also to the other side in other words while Orwell offered some typewritten words or handwritten words and wow the Trotskyists were offering poems in you know tribute to the heroic people the Soviet Union was building and shipping and building an infrastructure for trans shipping armaments to the people to protect themselves from the fascists. That's right they were they were trying to save is simple the state just just just like Go Russia did with serious serious That's exactly right and you're looking at the way imperialism is you know treating you know world events now nation states now they essentially turn them into failed states and so you know when you step in and prop up states just so that they can remain intact provide basic services not create another you know area that's on fire socially politically militarily and everything else that that's a separate step is look that somehow is counter revolutionary. Yeah that's right that's right I mean exactly right this is it do you see if you know the Soviet Union it had to intervene and it would have been the mediately Jake you know . Yeah yeah so these 2 mates out of the study I was saying that to me it's developed one that studying these to the Soviet Union had crushed the people's social revolution of Vienna accused in the truck skis and that they did so to show me how to be big and friend and I was a brilliant strategy that study and didn't back to social revolution because this would have that upset. At Britain and France and he was such a fool not to understand according to this logic that France and Britain who would. Would egg on people there to attack the Soviet Union. The new stupid right yeah it's the same kind of think that they impute like. You know the personal characteristics of you know individual behavior to 2 nation states you know Hitler might have thought. He was Germany and the people on the ground some of them might have thought that he was Germany but in general the industrialists the capital was the military leaders they all knew that you know what time it was and so you don't go Hitler or you don't go do your money into war they do a calculation and because the mythology is he was crazy started to front war you know what cetera et cetera et cetera and I'm sure that there is some aspect of that that's true but in reality the just the amount the number of resources that you have to mobilize and the cooperation that's required from Sauza is of senior administrators generals and officers in the military and the you know the pinnacles of production in the rest of the society there it doesn't work that way and so Stalin knowing this since he's sitting in the midst of a group of people that are building in the Qana me from whole cloth to protect itself from what's coming from Hitler. Understands this and yet they you know they have this kind of popular myth that well Stalin didn't want to get Britain and France mad at him and so they went when then and they betrayed the revolution and and he just got betrayed and that's what happened that's the case it's like what you're hearing a 5 year old narrative you know it's a 5 year olds narrative Yeah so there's the 1st Mace was do that we talked about just now and just a 2nd charge I guess and. I started in. I noticed that jump skis supports this one dish when you really quite do say I think. It in the metaphorical sense yes I get it and the 2nd means he's dead he started he showed to support the nationalist believes he should nationalities I'm going. Galas mobilization in Spanish Morocco which was brewing I don't know how to boil it was but which was brewing. So that if starting had at the same time Sue ported a un Thai cologne you know struggle mobilisation in Spanish Morocco this would have weakened Trenchard's army and therefore starting lost the Spanish Civil War by not doing that which is now I only understanding that there are 2 things here 2 minutes to change that could not happen at the same way at the Certainly not at the same that you wasn't defending wasn't doing. A bullshit revolution in Spain that's up to the Spaniard That's right it was defending that's what we said that's up to the Syrians That's right you know. What he was defending is what you said the integrity of this state it's right it is stayed together and then do the bush league revolution when you are together if you like if you like when the 2nd thing is a xpect did. These left and even today expected styling and you know to to to mount and anti-colonial revolution and supported in Morocco was telling you Hitler was at the gates almost That's right I mean the theory again and then this magical thinking universe that that some of these folks reside in that if you wipe matches everywhere you can set everything ablaze and at the end of the day there will be a Communist paradise that will spring magically in its place that all you need do is burn down the forest. And you know that and Utopia it wise under the ashes or or inside the car or somewhere maybe it's in one of the trees and it falls out I don't know but I don't know the reality of it is that the base of the seamy this is we're talking in 193619371938 we're talking 20 years or Wes the country which drew from World War one devastated a revolution a brand new wood Khana me that started on the ashes of a feudal economy in essence with some that Konami developments in the cities you know some industrial in cities and they are about to be attacked by the minute by the basically the rest of Europe except for the u.k. By the time they come they've conquered war allied with the rest of Europe and while we're constructing our defenses here and trying to preserve this nation state at the rear end of this thing let's go fight over in Africa by the way and see if we can spark an anti colonial revolution there you know what we're going to have to pick that up there next week or out it's only just going to have to go and if you haven't made it you know we don't have 30 seconds we're going to do then is that to tell you you can let Yes they did and we'll have to pick it up there next week thank you very much. And that's all the news we have for you right now for community Public Radio on the bar in the York thanks for listening. What Pandora wants to be when it grows up k c m j community powered radio for Colorado Springs. Welcome to counter spin. Behind the Headlines I'm Judy Jackson this week on counter spin the opinion column in Scientific American headlined the caveman on the bomb conveys just a little. The sense. That hearing on the process involved in the use of a nuclear weapon put simply folks are scared that Donald Trump may not understand the difference between threats to rain. On the people of North Korea and the devastating reality of a nuclear war but while we're talking about the dangers of trump having his hand on the figurative button we should also be asking. At all we'll hear from William hard tongue director of the arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy about what drives nuclear weapons production also in the show countries from around the world are grappling with the current and coming impacts of climate disruption at the u.n. Conference in Bonn Germany the trumpet ministration for its part contributed what was described as. A vent promoting fossil fuels we'll talk about the disconnect between the White House and the rest of the planet on climate change with Karen Orenstein deputy director of economic policy at Friends of the earth that's all coming up but 1st we'll take a quick look back at recent press. You could say the New York Times is very interested in the squashing of. Each on college campuses but as research by fair analyst Adam Johnson shows that wouldn't quite describe it over the past 18 months the New York Times has dedicated 21 columns on articles to the subject of conservatives free speech on campus while just 3 talked about the silencing of college liberals or leftists Johnson reviewed Times articles columns and op eds and found a clear emphasis on documenting and condemning the perceived suppression of right wing voices at American universities but vanishingly little mention of harassment campaigns against leftist professors and or the criminalization of leftist causes such as the pro palestinian b.d.s. Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement since May 1st 2016 The Times has run pieces like college Republicans once the best party on campus indoor taunts over Trump my liberal university cemented my vote for Trump on campus Trump fans say they need safe spaces the isolation of college libertarians life and combat for Republicans at Berkeley and these campus inquisitions must stop. Well the paper did sporadically report the dozens of laws throughout the country that seek to criminalize b.d.s. They didn't put that in the context of college free speech professors silenced or fired over activities critical of Israel like Berkeley's pol hardway or Sunni Plattsburg Simona Sharone were covered much less defended in the times leaving much more room for pearl clutching over the lack of far right professors or the mean things said about Trump supporters by undergrads besides the notion that college campuses should be $1.00 to $1.00 spit a bowl to all ideologies at all times the idea that certain viewpoints like supply side economics racial eugenics or a euro centric view of history are under represented on campus because they aren't intellectually credible has never entertained so Johnson concludes on the dubious altar of ideological diversity the paper of record sacrifices any sense of proportionality with all right a neo nazi elements on the March and a White House that's at the very least sympathetic to them The Times focuses its tremendous influence time and again on creating a space in academia for reactionary racist and sexist views that are over represented in almost every other sector of society and finally one of the most important and also kindest media critics has passed away Edward Herman was the main author of Manufacturing Consent the political economy of the mass media written with Noam Chomsky the one $980.00 s. Masterwork that exposed how elite u.s. Media typically function as propaganda organs for a us empire and militarism. Fair founder Jeff Cohen recalled how as part of a lawyers delegation monitoring election in death squad run El Salvador in 1904 he and a group of progressive attorneys at the Salvador Sheraton scrambled to get their hands on a shipment of hot off the press copies of demonstration elections heads devastating book with Frank Broadhead about the u.s. Staging elections says p.r. Shows to prop up a repressive regimes from the Dominican Republic to Vietnam to Salvador. Ed Roeder co-wrote classic works of political and media criticism including the political economy of human rights the real terror network beyond hypocrisy decoding the news in an age of propaganda and the global media a long time friend and supporter affair he occasionally wrote for our magazine extra on for example double standards in coverage of Suharto and Pol Pot Jeff Cohen notes that ads name often went unmentioned in discussion of manufacturing consent for example in the Hollywood movie Good Will Hunting asked if that troubled him and answered Not at all the point is the movie could bring the book more readers that was Ed he will be missed You're listening to counter spin brought to you each week by the media watch group fair. We have this idea that things should make sense but we have homeless people and empty buildings we have unemployed people and work that needs doing and we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet and are building more the thing is these things do make sense just not in a way we would hope for or the way we are often told when it comes to nuclear weapons our next guest explains all the talk you hear about strategic considerations driving proliferation how do we look tough with North Korea and so on is in a sense a distraction from what's really going on if you really want to know why the u.s. Keeps churning out nuclear warheads follow the money William hard tongue has been doing just that for years now he's director of the arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy author most recently of profits of war Lockheed Martin and the making of the military. Industrial Complex and a contributor to the book sleepwalking to Armageddon the threat of nuclear annihilation which is just out now from New Press he joins us now by phone from here in town Welcome back to counter spin William hard tongue thanks so much for having me listen it Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the authority and process for the use of nuclear weapons one senator said constituents are asking him at town halls if Trump can just order a nuclear attack without any controls on obviously that's because they're worried that he might as you write a tough guy attitude on nuclear weapons when combined with an apparent ignorance about their world ending potential adds up to a toxic brew no argument there let's start by just talking about the current state of the arsenal that we're being told needs to be modernized and expanded we have what some 4000 nuclear weapons yes in the active stockpile so any of those could be deployed at any time there's a little under 2000 ready to go now and ballistic missiles and submarines and bombers and that's far more than would be needed to destroy North Korea that would be a handful of weapons pretty much disable destroy any country in the world and if there were a large exchange probably of the prospects of life on the planet over the medium term so there's a massive nuclear overkill and you know some experts those who believe in nuclear deterrence as opposed to getting rid of nuclear weapons say about $300.00 would be enough to dissuade any country from tech of United States with nuclear weapons so you've got huge excess some of it is you know left over from the Cold War But as I said most of it is power and profits Well let's get into that because despite the arsenal you've just described we are looking at a modernization plan to the tune of some $1.00. Trillion Dollars Alaska simply Why is that the case well I think the nuclear enterprise is on autopilot Valerie's build a new generation the company's always need a new contract the Pentagon cooked this up under Obama so it's not unlike many other things a trump invention but General Dynamics wants to make new nuclear submarines a company like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin want to make nuclear bombers the Bush took missile force which is based in Wyoming North Dakota some in the brass and cetera the senators from those states are very keen on a new generation of plastic pencils because they're afraid they might get dropped from the arsenal if they're not brand new and shiny So there's a lot of pork barrel politics involved and also just. Kind of bureaucracies want to be fed and they're be fed dollars both in the Pentagon and the services and of course the companies I think it was from you that I learned about the strategy if you will of breaking up the production process of a particular weapon so that you'll have many states and their representatives invested in. Exactly and the nuclear complex is very much that way he's got weapons labs in California New Mexico you've got a rain facility in Tennessee you've got some Marines based in Washington state in Georgia you've got this plastic missiles in the northern Midwest as I mentioned Connecticut's building nuclear capable submarines and on and on so if you put together the senators and representatives from those states this kind of a solid block I'll support your nuke if you support mine you've already got a huge group in Congress pushing for this stuff and you know when Chuck Hagel for example has been confirmed as secretary of defense he had signed on as an advisor to a project by the group Global 0 That said we could get by with as few as 900 nuclear weapons not the 4000 and also perhaps we didn't need ballistic missiles and he was pilloried by members from states that have the missiles or the command a control for the missiles and so forth to the point where he basically backed off and said Well that was just one idea you know there was a study it doesn't mean something we're going to do so Congress is a big part of the problem well I'd like to do a little bit of history as you do in this piece for Tom Dispatch because it seems as though we used to see this in a more clear eyed way I mean Eisenhower pretty much called it right with the Military Industrial Complex yes and he was most concerned about things like the push for a nuclear bomb or by the contractors in the air force some generals who you know he was the commander in chief after all we're talking out of school. Needing this even though he thought he did and he basically called the push for the bomber and the false claims about a missile gap that were used to fuel a missile build up political demagoguery and he said that basically the there was done to influence on senators like John f. Kennedy Lyndon Johnson by the industry to get them to adopt these positions so he was right on target way back then and I think you would be horrified to see the shape of the nuclear duster complex now the size of the companies the clock Martin which gets $30.00 to $40000000000.00 a year you know in a good year for them not a good year for the taxpayers so there were no companies of that size and Eisenhower's day and they have that much more influence because of their spread across the country their campaign contributions their lobbyists and so forth well and I was just going to go there because the the mechanics the techniques you say haven't really changed fundamentally and that is campaign contributions and lobbying and it's not partisan it's bipartisan Exactly so for example the entire weapons industry has in any given year 700 to a 1000 registered lobbyists almost 2 for every member of Congress and some years and that's not counting you know Board members and people who can solve them other people who try to influence the process but aren't you know technically lobbyists they have tens of millions of dollars in contributions they also fund think tanks like the Center for Security Policy the Lexington Institute the Democratic leaning Center for New American Security and many cases those think tanks advocate positions that the logical conclusion is we need more Pentagon spending so they're almost like in some cases mouthpieces for the industry but very useful because the Us doesn't have to lobby for it themselves it's being done under the kind of a legend or of objectivity which of course doesn't exist when you're on the payroll of the arms industry when media of course play a role. I hear in a general failure to indicate you know which Think tanks are tied to wear so that they do kind of a bet to this process of presenting them as independent entities that just happened to have a point of view that dovetails with that of weapons makers Yeah we need truth in labeling basically I think Bakley Well another thing that media can play a role in is is. Credulous shall we say reporting of another angle of approach which is that weapons are about jobs Yes Well the thing is Pentagon spending is the least effective way to create jobs economists if you were semester choices have done very good work on this and they have figured out infrastructure spending is about one and a half times as many jobs as Pentagon spending and education spending more than twice as many so it's really about serving particular areas and members you know if you have a fighter plane in St Louis Missouri delegation is going to push for that if you have nuclear submarine and Connecticut delegations going to push for it and those as you said are both Democrats and Republicans so it's not that we couldn't create jobs differently it's that there's a political logjam in Washington against investing in other things well let me just ask you finally you remind us that grassroots activism in Europe and in the u.s. The freeze movement that was what played a role in helping turn around Ronald Reagan's view on nuclear weapons is that what we need now absolutely and I think you know globally there's been some hope I mean there the u.n. Has passed a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons which many people thought would not be possible and the majority the world's countries are behind that of course the big players are not but I think this puts them on the moral defensive in the political defensive such that if we can build the movement here and we might make some progress and of course all bets are off about what Donald Trump himself might do but I think there's already building support in Congress for a new policy including not letting the president be the sole person to decide if we launch a nuclear war. We've been speaking with William hard tongue his article massive overkill brought to you by the Nuclear Industrial Complex can be found on Tom Dispatch dot com and the new book sleepwalking to Armageddon the threat of nuclear annihilation is out from new press Williams thank you very much for joining us this week on counterspell Thank you. A New York Times explainer in advance of the bomb climate talks told readers the worst case scenario for the u.n. Summit is it quote could get bogged down by the traditional rifts between richer and poorer nations close quote that might quote stall momentum right before the next big round of climate talks in 2018 close quote Of course others may see different forces behind any stalled momentum and might offer a different frame for questions of climate justice than that of a traditional rift between the world's rich and poor Karen Orenstein is the deputy director of the Economic Policy Program at Friends of the earth u.s. Where she works on issues of international public finance and climate finance in particular she joins us now by phone from Washington d.c. Welcome to counter spin Karen aren't sitting thank you for having me on well I have to start with the event that inspired a statement from you and that boggled so many here were at an international conference to address the reality of human driven climate disruption it's in Germany but it's hosted by Fiji in part to highlight the problems facing island nations problems caused by other countries emissions and the trend administration does a presentation titled The role of cleaner and more efficient fossil fuels and nuclear power in climate mitigation what the heck. I think you introduced you correctly by talking about this was in response to you know the reality of climate change but Trump and his administration live in a parallel universe that is not based in reality so it is not a surprise that you know the climate deniers for them upside is down and downside is up so that they could make the most important climate types of the year to try to promote climate pollution that's just what they do it's truly strange you know but Barry Worthington the executive director of the United States Energy Association who spoke at this panel he told The New York Times beforehand he's just going to be delivering a dose of reality you know he says no credible projection shows fossil fuels meeting less than 40 percent of global energy he just says it's going to be a horrible experience for him to have to deliver that message to climate activists but quote The reality of it is the world is going to continue to use fossil fuels and if I can throw myself on my hand grenade to help people realize that I'm willing to do it close quote so their argument is they're just being realistic. Isn't he nice to make such sacrifices I think again it could come down to the question reality is reality as a fossil fuel executive is one thing the reality of say for example someone living in Bangladesh who whose whose home is now getting inundated with water or in carry bass or Tuvalu or Marshall Islands or Fiji Fiji which is hosting the conference for them their reality is that their. Country faces the next essential crisis because it might not exist anymore or farmers in Malawi whose crops aren't working or people Him used in north Florida or Puerto Rico who just counter storms that have unprecedented vigor to them and resulted in unprecedented destruction and that is their reality so I would believe more the farmer in by what ash than I would believe the coal and oil executives like entity. Well I want to bring you back to this question of climate finance what does that mean what questions are being addressed by that well basically that's about the provision of money from rich countries to poor countries to help the poorer countries adapt to the unavoidable in-text of climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because to do that is a very expensive and b. They're not the ones responsible for causing the climate crisis right the u.s. More than any other country in the history of the world is most responsible for causing the climate crisis so we abide by the idea of the polluter pays principle the idea that if you walk into a shop and you break something you're in charge of paying for it well the sort of broke the climate where responsible for paying for it the u.s. And other rich countries and so that's really the claim that finances about it's both about justice it's about practicality it's about expense and it's about morality what it sounds like it's not about is an age old traditional rift you know that will always be with us between the world's rich and the world's poor Hugh you make it much more dynamic than that yeah I really dislike that framing the rift is caused because wealthy countries have damaged the climate is incredible ways and it's having the 1st and worst impacts on countries for example in Africa and so it's about people in Africa saying we need to be able to live we deserve a life of dignity the actions of people richer countries have in the kynge done their ability to have sort of a dignified life I don't know I wouldn't call that a vest I would call that about fairness and justice and basically the right to livelihoods and to quality life you know it's not a vest makes it sound like there's not you know people disagreeing over whether you know bananas are the best fruit. It's not business people live. Well this event that we're talking about this fossil fuel described a surreal event at the climate talks it was interrupted I want to be clear you know before you even started to u.s. Governors from Washington and Oregon came in and said you know this is not we don't agree with this this is not our view and then young activists who were there interrupted with a 7 minute song you know and then left peacefully at the same time we saw the largest ever climate protest in Germany I feel that people understand that what we're talking about is a matter of political will and not some sort of arcane science question or technology question it seems that activism really is going to be the core to moving forward here yeah I agree there's not rocket science here it is entirely political the fact that you know 95 percent plus of you know scientists agree that humans are causing climate change climate change is causing global warming etc. That's a fact it's about entrenched interests in wealthier countries you know the fossil fuel industry for example of Wall Street they want to maintain the status quo to their benefit and I think we often see governments not necessarily acting in the best interest of their constituencies but certainly true of the tribe in ministration so to necessarily expect that governments with with their own vested economic interests are going to you know necessarily do what is needed for the benefit of you know the average ordinary people and the planet is probably not in tiredly in line with the history of civilization just Which isn't to say that I think we're going to find the answers in the streets that the demand will come from the streets and from just everyday folks who take action especially now people are so inspired to act because I mean Trump is just such an extreme villain in so. Many ways including on the climate Well I have to note in this context a new study from Public Citizen that showed that media severely under report activism at climate conferences even though those demonstrations are really a primary way that the public is claiming a voice here and that under reporting distorts public understanding it gives the impression that there's less support for this action than there actually is I wonder what in general you might like to see from media more of or less of more broadly on not just climate talks but on this whole set of issues what do you think journalism can do here yeah I agree there's a big problem of corporate controlled media and also this idea that they're afraid to wade into the controversy of climate change which isn't actually a controversy so I would for example like to see during weather reports just talk about climate change because that affects the weather in an extreme way so that actually you know your daily nightly newscast which a lot of people watch when they they know when they have the Doppler radar and all that stuff that climate change yes certainly I to be honest with you most of my own news comes from Democracy Now and alternative sources and then till I think you have less media consolidation and more local decentralized media it's going to be up to people on the ground to get their stories out and to pay attention to alternative sources of information but I mean I think things are turning out I'm willing to I go back home talk to my family and they think about climate change in a way that they didn't before and they're not a bunch of. Very political people so I think things are changing especially with the devastation that's happened in the United States and especially with just how extreme trends is so maybe not thanks to media or thanks to government but things are nevertheless nevertheless changing in terms of the way. You know maybe in spite of the media and the government. All right then I'll have to end it there we've been speaking with Karen Ornstein of friends of the earth us you can find their work online at f.o. Easy dot org Karen Ornstein thank you so much for joining us today on counter spin thank you very much. And that's it for counter spin for this week counter spin is produced by fair the national media watch group based in New York if you missed part of today's show or you'd like to hear previous shows you can find the interviews and transcripts on fares website Fair dot org The show is engineered by Alex noice I'm Gene Jackson thanks for listening to counters. Welcome to counter spin your weekly look behind the headlines I'm Judy Jackson this week on counter spin the opinion column in Scientific American headlined the caveman on the bomb conveys just a little. The sense one got from the Senate hearing on the process involved in the use of a nuclear weapon put simply folks are scared that Donald Trump may not understand the difference between threats to rain. On the people of North Korea and the devastating reality of a nuclear war but while we're talking about the dangers of trump having his hand on the figurative button we should also be asking why we maintain a world. At all we'll hear from William hard director of the arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy about what drives nuclear weapons production also on the show countries from around the world are grappling with the current and coming impacts of climate disruption at the u.n. Conference in Bonn Germany the trumpet ministration for its part contributed what was described as a surreal event promoting fossil fuels we'll talk about the disconnect between the White House and the rest of the planet a c m j l p f 3.9 Spring. Welcome to Radio Curious. To. In who those citizens are of the 1100 killings by police in the United States in the year 201585 percent of those killings were a result of a fatal shooting 95 percent of those victims were male.