From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Jan 1 02:35:06 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:35:06 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NfN #407 notes Message-ID: News from Neptune #407 A "Stocking Up" edition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTr0rfAux0c A list of references mentioned on the show. Adolph Reed, Jr. on "Which Side Are You On?" https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/12/23/which-side-are-you Miguel Salazar on "Do America’s Socialists Have a Race Problem?" https://newrepublic.com/article/152789/americas-socialists-race-problem Related: Naked Capitalism blog on Adolph Reed, Jr. -- https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/adolph-reed-identity-politics-exposing-class-division-in-democrats.html Richard Wolff on Democracy Now https://www.democracynow.org/2018/12/26/richard_wolff_we_need_a_more Richard Wolff on RT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZq9RmEmLUo Dylan Riley on "What is Trump?" https://newleftreview.org/II/114/dylan-riley-what-is-trump Rania Khalek on "Unauthorized Disclosure" Show feed: http://unauthorizeddisclosure.libsyn.com/rss Episode: http://traffic.libsyn.com/unauthorizeddisclosure/S5E42.mp3 The episode includes a discussion with Mnar Muhawesh including "the wars in Yemen and Syria. They take a moment to address the most recent development—President Donald Trump ordering the withdrawal of troops from Syria. The show ends with Mnar, Rania, and Kevin each highlighting something they believe went significantly under-reported or virtually ignored in the U.S. press, including progressive media." Gareth Porter on "Trump Scores, Breaks Generals’ 50-Year War Record" https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-scores-breaks-generals-50-year-war-record-syria-mattis-dunford/ -J From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 03:57:17 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 21:57:17 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The war party vs. Trump Message-ID: <75EB0393-A99B-492D-B6A2-BB0B606BDBA6@gmail.com> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-scores-breaks-generals-50-year-war-record-syria-mattis-dunford/ “...Mattis and Dunford were consciously exploiting Trump’s defensiveness about a timeline to press ahead with their own strategy unless and until Trump publicly called them on it. That is what finally happened some weeks after Trump’s six month deadline had passed. The claim by Trump advisors that they were taken by surprise was indeed disingenuous. What happened last week was that Trump followed up on the clear policy he had laid down in April. "The Syria withdrawal affair is a dramatic illustration of the fundamental quandary of the Trump presidency in regard to ending the state of permanent war that previous administrations created. Although a solid majority of Americans want to rein in U.S. military deployments in the Middle East and Africa, Trump’s national security team is committed to doing the opposite. "Trump is now well aware that it is virtually impossible to carry out the foreign policy that he wants without advisors who are committed to the same objective. That means that he must find people who have remained outside the system during the permanent war years while being highly critical of its whole ideology and culture. If he can fill key positions with truly dissident figures, the last two years of this term in office could decisively clip the wings of the bureaucrats and generals who have created the permanent war state we find ourselves in today.” From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 04:01:06 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 22:01:06 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Cockburn on Syrian withdrawal Message-ID: <7EB88CEF-A22B-4FB2-9E26-E041625E55C7@gmail.com> As is often the case, Patrick Cockburn has the clearest vision in the media of the situation: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/31/trumps-syrian-withdrawal-an-act-of-political-realism/ From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jan 2 05:07:06 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 05:07:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: WIRED: How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America References: <49EFC43F-E812-498E-BBD7-F1EB8B4366A7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <5AE868B4-9193-481B-A371-DCAE19BBCF47@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: WIRED: How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America Date: January 1, 2019 WIRED: "How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America" https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ira-propaganda-senate-report/?mbid=email_onsiteshare NOTE: According our local pundits & most authoritative resident experts on these matters, nothing like this ever happened, & this is all FAKE NEWS invented by warmongering neoliberal elements in the Deep State & American Political Elite (APE). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jan 2 05:32:00 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 00:32:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: WIRED: How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America In-Reply-To: <5AE868B4-9193-481B-A371-DCAE19BBCF47@illinois.edu> References: <49EFC43F-E812-498E-BBD7-F1EB8B4366A7@illinois.edu> <5AE868B4-9193-481B-A371-DCAE19BBCF47@illinois.edu> Message-ID: "The researchers can’t say whether any of this propaganda actually influenced the election." That's the core issue, isn't it? If some people were messing around but had no significant impact, why should there be such an obsession about this? Hillary's loss is easy to explain without reference to a foreign conspiracy. The amount of money "the Russians" apparently spent was microscopic compared to what Hillary and Trump spent. The story that this determined the outcome of the election is wildly implausible. It's certainly reasonable to try to make reasonable efforts to stop foreigners from messing around in our elections. But this is not why Hillary lost, and it's not obvious why we should be obsessed with Russian interference as opposed to any other form of interference. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:07 AM Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *From: *"Szoke, Ron" > *Subject: **WIRED: How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America* > *Date: *January 1, 2019 > > WIRED: "How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America" > > > https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ira-propaganda-senate-report/?mbid=email_onsiteshare > > NOTE: According our local pundits & most authoritative resident experts on > these matters, nothing like this ever happened, & this is all FAKE NEWS > invented by warmongering neoliberal elements in the Deep State & American > Political Elite (APE). > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 14:57:06 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 08:57:06 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune - year-ending show In-Reply-To: <7EB88CEF-A22B-4FB2-9E26-E041625E55C7@gmail.com> References: <7EB88CEF-A22B-4FB2-9E26-E041625E55C7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <95D1E9E1-8D78-4E01-98DA-F35916AFD60B@gmail.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTr0rfAux0c From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Jan 2 15:21:08 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:21:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: WIRED: How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America In-Reply-To: References: <49EFC43F-E812-498E-BBD7-F1EB8B4366A7@illinois.edu> <5AE868B4-9193-481B-A371-DCAE19BBCF47@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <009f01d4a2ae$ca0261f0$5e0725d0$@comcast.net> Well said Bob ! Here is some background on “ WIRED “ online publication – Owned by Condé Nast , it is headquartered in San Francisco, California , and has been in publication since March/April 1993. Condé Nast Inc. is an American mass media company founded in 1909 by Condé Montrose Nast , based at One World Trade Center and owned by Advance Publications .[1] The company attracts more than 164 million consumers across its 19 brands and media: Allure , Architectural Digest , Ars Technica , Backchannel , Bon Appétit , Brides , Condé Nast Traveler , Epicurious , Glamour , Golf Digest , GQ , Pitchfork , Self , Teen Vogue , The New Yorker , Vanity Fair , Vogue , W and Wired . Robert A. Sauerberg Jr. is Condé Nast's current chief executive officer and president. US Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour serves as the current artistic director of Condé Nast. The company launched Condé Nast Entertainment in 2011 to develop film, television and digital video programming. Hence “ WIRED “ magazine is owned by a huge corporate media conglomerate. WikiLeaks affair Wired was criticized[32] [33] for its handling of the Adrian Lamo /Chelsea Manning logs. Wired contributor Kevin Poulsen used Lamo to obtain transcripts of the communications between Lamo and Manning that led to Manning's arrest over the "WikiLeaks " in 2010. Poulsen released approximately one third of the logs, but he and Wired editor-in-chief Evan Hansen refused to release more on grounds of privacy. The issue became a subject of controversy,[34] when Poulsen and Hansen attacked Wired critic Glenn Greenwald .[35] The Guardian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange slams Wired magazine on Twitter Editor-in-chief of controversial whistleblowing website says US technology magazine 'has an agenda and is not to be trusted' Josh Halliday Tue 19 Oct 2010 06.23 EDT First published on Tue 19 Oct 2010 06.23 EDT Wikileaks founder Julian Assange WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Photograph: Andrew Winning/Reuters The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange , has launched a verbal broadside against US technology magazine Wired, claiming the publication "has [an] agenda, doesn't check facts and is not to be trusted". Assange, the editor-in-chief of the controversial whistleblowing website, also claimed the Condé Nast title is a "known opponent and spreader of all sorts of minsinformation about WikiLeaks", pointing to what he claimed were false reports in the magazine that the site was due to release as many as 500,000 classified US documents from the Iraq war online on Monday. Kevin Poulsen, a senior editor at Wired, is "responsible for a tremendous amount of other completely false information [about] WikiLeaks", Assange alleged on Twitter . David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2019 11:32 PM To: Szoke, Ron Cc: Peace-discuss; Bill Strutz Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: WIRED: How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America "The researchers can’t say whether any of this propaganda actually influenced the election." That's the core issue, isn't it? If some people were messing around but had no significant impact, why should there be such an obsession about this? Hillary's loss is easy to explain without reference to a foreign conspiracy. The amount of money "the Russians" apparently spent was microscopic compared to what Hillary and Trump spent. The story that this determined the outcome of the election is wildly implausible. It's certainly reasonable to try to make reasonable efforts to stop foreigners from messing around in our elections. But this is not why Hillary lost, and it's not obvious why we should be obsessed with Russian interference as opposed to any other form of interference. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:07 AM Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: From: "Szoke, Ron" Subject: WIRED: How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America Date: January 1, 2019 WIRED: "How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America" https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ira-propaganda-senate-report/?mbid=email_onsiteshare NOTE: According our local pundits & most authoritative resident experts on these matters, nothing like this ever happened, & this is all FAKE NEWS invented by warmongering neoliberal elements in the Deep State & American Political Elite (APE). _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9291 bytes Desc: not available URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Jan 3 04:57:12 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 04:57:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Army, in Need of Recruits, Turns Focus to Liberal-Leaning Cities References: Message-ID: From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: The Army, in Need of Recruits, Turns Focus to Liberal-Leaning Cities Date: January 2, 2019 >From The New York Times: The Army, in Need of Recruits, Turns Focus to Liberal-Leaning Cities Too few recruits are signing up from cities like Chicago and Seattle, so the Army is trying to frame enlistment as a patriotic detour. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-recruiting-tech-industry-seattle.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Thu Jan 3 13:26:21 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Army, in Need of Recruits, Turns Focus to Liberal-Leaning Cities References: <1171915113.13591219.1546521981901.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1171915113.13591219.1546521981901@mail.yahoo.com> "Liberal-leaning cities" like Chicago--Daley-Emmanuel land?  A parent-teacher-coach  "who know what the army is about"? Good luck recruiting there if they really tell a kid what the military is about.  Sounds like fertile ground for anti-war recruiting.   Midge O'Brien  -----Original Message----- From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss To: Peace-discuss Sent: Wed, Jan 2, 2019 10:57 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Army, in Need of Recruits, Turns Focus to Liberal-Leaning Cities From:"Szoke, Ron" Subject:NYTimes.com: The Army, in Need of Recruits, Turns Focus to Liberal-Leaning Cities Date:January 2, 2019  >From The New York Times: The Army, in Need of Recruits, Turns Focus to Liberal-Leaning Cities Too few recruits are signing up from cities like Chicago and Seattle, so the Army is trying to frame enlistment as a patriotic detour. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-recruiting-tech-industry-seattle.html _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jan 6 00:22:26 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 00:22:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] After a Rocky 2018, Populism Is Down but Far From Out in the West References: Message-ID: <707E34FC-988C-4A28-A83B-772703C482F1@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: After a Rocky 2018, Populism Is Down but Far From Out in the West Date: January 5, 2019 >From The New York Times: After a Rocky 2018, Populism Is Down but Far From Out in the West Hard-line leaders and parties are responding to setbacks by revitalizing a sense of crisis and stripping down their message to its core: a skepticism toward liberal ideals. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/world/europe/populism-voters-global.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Jan 6 03:05:30 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:05:30 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] After a Rocky 2018, Populism Is Down but Far From Out in the West In-Reply-To: <707E34FC-988C-4A28-A83B-772703C482F1@illinois.edu> References: <707E34FC-988C-4A28-A83B-772703C482F1@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <02BA7AD9-E53B-490F-9EA2-7BFF27629841@illinois.edu> Populism is democracy, but not the simulacrum of democracy of modern capitalist states, controlled in the interest of the economic elite (the one percent, the ruling class). We see today a tendentious use of ‘populism’ to denigrate democratic demands that have slipped out of the control of the political organizations (Republicans and Democrats in this country) meant to contain them, in the interest of the ruling class. Populist impulses include the Sanders and Trump campaigns, Brexit and Corbynistas, Le Pen and Mélenchon, the Lega and M5S, even the AfD. Much effort is spent trying to divide populist movements into 'left' and ‘right,’ but as the new Italian government shows, that’s largely an attempt to force the populist genie back into the bottle of ruling-class-controlled categories. Chomsky wrote a generation ago, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” Populist movements depart from that spectrum, and the political establishment is desperate to force them back into it. Heaven forfend that ‘left populism’ and 'right populism' get together. But that’s what they're doing, as Italy shows. Meanwhile, orthodox leftists are losing it over the threat of a ‘red-brown alliance.’ Won’t people on the left learn to stay in their lanes?! ‘Populism' is worth recovering as an analytic category (and not a term of abuse), not easily translated as 'left' or 'right.’ In "Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy" (2008), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell say populism "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.” Only by establishment convention are these movements frequently described as 'right-wing,' which normally means support for the wealthy. But populism supports the opponents of wealth. The US political establishment (the major party organizations, the ‘intelligence community,’ the leading media [NYT, WaPo et al.] and their pundits) understands this, as their sneers at ‘populism’ show… —CGE > On Jan 5, 2019, at 6:22 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: After a Rocky 2018, Populism Is Down but Far From Out in the West > Date: January 5, 2019 > > From The New York Times: > > After a Rocky 2018, Populism Is Down but Far From Out in the West > > Hard-line leaders and parties are responding to setbacks by revitalizing a sense of crisis and stripping down their message to its core: a skepticism toward liberal ideals. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/world/europe/populism-voters-global.html > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jan 6 03:13:30 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 03:13:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Unbelievable ? Message-ID: Sign this loyalty oath to support another country or you will be called an anti-Semite and fired from your American government job. Absurd and unbelievable, you say? =================== BrasscheckTV Report =================== Want a government job or contract? In many places in the US that now means swearing a loyalty oath to Israel. Video: https://www.brasscheck.com/video/want-a-government-job/ - Brasscheck TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Jan 6 03:31:44 2019 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:31:44 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Unbelievable ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: and you personally have independently verified this often unreliable pretend news source as being accurate in this case. Nope, didn't think so. Roger As a retired contracting officer, such a requirement would have to be in the Federal Acquistion Regulation or a supplement thereto. Rather strongly doubt that. On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:13 PM Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Sign this loyalty oath to support another country or you will be called > an anti-Semite and fired from your American government job. > > Absurd and unbelievable, you say? > > =================== > BrasscheckTV Report > =================== > > > Want a government job or contract? > > > In many places in the US that > now means swearing a loyalty oath > to Israel. > > > Video: > > > https://www.brasscheck.com/video/want-a-government-job/ > > > > - Brasscheck TV > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jan 6 04:05:54 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 04:05:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Krugman: The Economics of Soaking the Rich References: <9FFA7A69-825B-478F-A729-C8E1146D161D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: The Economics of Soaking the Rich Date: January 5, 2019 >From The New York Times: The Economics of Soaking the Rich What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know about tax policy? A lot. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Jan 6 04:10:22 2019 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 20:10:22 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Unbelievable ? In-Reply-To: <5C7B0FC4-E32A-40BD-8A1B-8833C8DDCA6A@illinois.edu> References: <5C7B0FC4-E32A-40BD-8A1B-8833C8DDCA6A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Rather doubt that as well - Brasscheck is about as reliable as Fox News, even less so - show me the laws! Roger On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 8:03 PM Szoke, Ron wrote: > You seem to have overlooked the fact that — so far — this is only a matter > of state laws in 26 states. > Regret that you missed the mark completely. Care to try something else? > > ~~ Ron > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Jan 6 04:22:17 2019 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 20:22:17 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Unbelievable ? In-Reply-To: <5C7B0FC4-E32A-40BD-8A1B-8833C8DDCA6A@illinois.edu> References: <5C7B0FC4-E32A-40BD-8A1B-8833C8DDCA6A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Promising not to Boycott Israel is not the same as swearing loyalty to Israel - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-israel-oath-boycott/ - I don't know what Brasscheck said, but your post was misleading - so, smart ass, when asked to independently verify, do it - even if all you do is cite Snopes or another reliable source. Roger On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 8:03 PM Szoke, Ron wrote: > You seem to have overlooked the fact that — so far — this is only a matter > of state laws in 26 states. > Regret that you missed the mark completely. Care to try something else? > > ~~ Ron > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jan 6 19:22:37 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 19:22:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] True heroes.... Message-ID: https://therealnews.com/stories/activists-on-hunger-strike-demanding-an-end-to-us-saudi-war-on-yemen From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jan 6 20:51:28 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 14:51:28 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US remains greatest purveyor of violence Message-ID: <7094EAC5-CF67-4DA4-9F69-25B613A77E0A@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215772 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jan 6 22:05:51 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:05:51 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biggest Threat to Single-Payer? Democrat Support for a Public Option. Message-ID: <00c501d4a60b$fd88f790$f89ae6b0$@comcast.net> Biggest Threat to Single-Payer? Democrat Support for a Public Option. https://truthout.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GettyImages-1001242904-1200x 800.jpgRep. Brian Higgins participates in the House Ways and Means Committee Trade Subcommittee hearing on 'The Effects of Tariffs on US Agriculture and Rural Communities' on Wednesday, July 18, 2018. Despite co-sponsoring Medicare for All, Rep. Brian Higgins is clearly not interested in pursuing the reform any time soon.Bill Clark / CQ Roll Call By Michael Corcoran, Truthout Published January 4, 2019 Share A white lower-case t on a black background With the midterms over, a battle over health care policy among establishment Democrats and the grassroots is unfolding. What kind of health care reform should Democrats pursue now that they have won control of the House? This struggle will determine in large part how Democrats will spend the political capital the party has accumulated on the issue of health care. This is a considerable amount thanks to the GOP's efforts to take health care away from millions and ongoing war against Medicaid. How this battle transpires over the next two years may go a long way in determining if Medicare for All can become policy, or simply remains a "goal" or an "aspiration." Single-payer advocates, jubilant about record support in Congress and in public polls, have responded to the midterm success by boldly pushing for a floor vote on Medicare for All (H.R. 676) during the 116th Congress. This move would not result in a law as it has no chance in the Senate. It would, however, represent a huge symbolic victory and, ideally, plant HR 676 as the centerpiece of the Democratic Party's health care platform. Much of the work that is being planned by major players in the movement was discussed in a post-midterm strategy call hosted by National Nurses United and attended by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Pramila Jayapal and speakers from Healthcare-NOW!, Physicians for a National Health Program and Democratic Socialists of America. In the call, Sanders warned of the opposition from "Trump and his minions" and the private health industry. But of all the speakers, only one, Dr. Adam Gaffney, president of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), warned of the dangers posed by Democrats and the threat of "a slew of half-measures." Gaffney is right to be concerned about Democrats undermining efforts to improve and expand health care. Since the midterms, so-called moderate Democrats have gone on an increasingly loud offensive for a "practical" alternative to Medicare for All: a public option (also called a Medicaid Buy-I n or " Medicare for Some"). The United States of Care, a group started by former Obama official Andy Slavitt that promotes bipartisan solutions, also recently released a memo about various Medicaid Buy-In proposals. The Center for American Progress has offered its own version of this kind of policy, as have numerous legislators. The basic idea is rather than create a universal health care plan for all, preserve the status quo but add a new optional Medicare product to be sold on the exchange to a limited group of people ages 50-64, although the exact details vary in the many different public option plans that exist (this is a useful comparison of existing proposals). Some advocates for a public option argue it can lead to single-payer, but leaders of the movement and experts on health care argue it would be counterproductive. This is because the public option will attract high-risk patients and would have little impact on costs or access. The primary appeal of single-payer is to benefit from a simplified process and wider risk pool that spreads cost equally across the country. None of this would happen under a public option. The leading face of this centrist proposal, which would add a limited product to a hopelessly broken market and hijack energy from the single-payer movement, is Rep. Bill Higgins of New York. He is also one of the 123 co-sponsors of Medicare for All in the House, which is rather unsettling to single-payer enthusiasts. This dynamic raises a serious question that organizers must grapple with. While political pressure from advocates has created many new Democrats who publicly support Medicare for All, there are concerns about the intensity and authenticity of support among many of them. For support to have practical meaning, members of Congress must try to advance the policy. Yet many Democrats made a point to qualify their support for Medicare for All as "aspirational," and essentially symbolic. With ready-made alternatives to Medicare for All already available, the next big fight for single-payer may not be with Big Pharma or the GOP, but rather, Democrats who insist on putting their energy behind weaker policies. "If Democrats coalesce around half-measures like the public option, it would squander the political capital Democrats have accumulated on health care on solutions that we know do not work," Gaffney told Truthout. This issue highlights what author and activist Norman Solomon says is a "fundamental issue that progressives must deal with in the coming years - and not just for Medicare for All," but a number of policies. "It is not enough for Democrats to say they will support something," said Solomon. "What matters is: Will they advance the legislation? Will they represent the grassroots? This is at the heart of what the grassroots needs to do. We need to hold politicians, even ones we like, accountable for what they do, not just what they say." New Democrat Goes on Centrist Offensive Rep. Higgins, the most visible face of this strategy, is a member of the centrist New Democrat Coalition. He briefly opposed Nancy Pelosi's speakership as part of a group of hold-outs that mostly stemmed from the party's right-leaning plank. In explaining his rationale in opposing Pelosi's speakership, he went on a media offensive in late November to advocate for a Medicaid Buy-In program. This early, aggressive gambit gave centrists a chance to plant flagship health policy for Democrats post-midterm and succeeded in shaping the narrative. "Momentum is building among House Democrats for a more moderate alternative to single-payer health-care legislation," the Hill reported on November 29. Despite co-sponsoring Medicare for All, Higgins is clearly not interested in pursuing the reform any time soon. "I support the exploration of Medicare for all, but you have to be well balanced and practical about this," he said (emphasis added). The next big fight for single-payer may not be with Big Pharma or the GOP, but rather, Democrats who insist on putting their energy behind weaker policies. It appears Pelosi and Higgins found common ground (though what their dispute was over a public option remains a mystery). After their meeting, Higgins told the Buffalo News he would give his support to Pelosi and they agreed that he be the lead person on the Medicare Buy-In. That the pair found common ground is not surprising. Pelosi has long been a darling of the private health industry. She collected more than $500,000 from the private health sector in contributions between 2017 and 2018. The private health industry would prefer a New Democrat like Higgins (who himself collected nearly $115,000 in industry money in 2018) to be the face of Democratic health care reform, as opposed to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders. Higgins also has a close relationship with Rep. Richard Neal, the powerful ranking member (and likely the next chairman) of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is one of two committees to have jurisdiction over health policy. (The other one is the Energy and Commerce Committee.) Neal, who has received more than $2 million in his career from the industry, hosted a fundraiser breakfast for Higgins in 2017, indicating a close working relationship. https://truthout.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NEAL_HIGGINS.jpg Rep. Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce committee, has received about $6 million from the health industry throughout his career and has said, "We [the committee] certainly would consider a Medicare buy-in." Single-payer strategists, according to the strategy call made in November, are targeting the chairs of these committees. To date, neither chair has given any words of support for single-payer. "This is a fight that is not going to be easy," said Gaffney. "The other side will always have more money and more political connections." Democrats: Hedging Their Bets on Medicare for All? Higgins is hardly alone in showing equivocation in his "support" for single-payer. He supports exploring Medicare for All, but does he support passing it? It has been a common strategy for Democrats to offer co-sponsorship in the face of a mountain of grassroots pressure in the last few years but add a conjunctive adverb ("however," "but" or "on the other hand") and various caveats and qualifications. This was especially evident among senators who co-sponsored Sanders 's Medicare for All bill in 2017. When Sanders's bill garnered 16 co-sponsors, advocates were elated, and understandably so. In the past, Sanders could not find one solitary co-sponsor in the Senate for any single-payer bill. But the great lengths some of these politicians went to distance themselves from their own support has been a source of concern among many advocates. Then-Sen. Al Franken's response might be the most absurd qualification his "support" for Medicare for All (this came before the Minnesota senator resigned over sexual misconduct): Establishing a single-payer system would be one way to achieve universal coverage, and Senator Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill lays down an important marker to help us reach that goal. This bill is aspirational, and I'm hopeful that it can serve as a starting point for where we need to go as a country. In the short term, however, I strongly believe we must pursue bipartisan policies that improve our current health care system for all Americans. (Emphasis added.) This is about as lukewarm of "support" as you could imagine for a bill that, if passed, would be arguably the most consequential domestic legislation in a generation. Other Democrats, including possible presidential contenders, followed suit (before Franken's scandal he had been rumored as a possible presidential contender as well). For instance, Sen. Cory Booker said he would co-sponsor the bill, but in doing so, said he "won't rest until every American has a basic security that comes from access to affordable health care. "Access to affordable health care" is not the same thing as a guarantee to comprehensive health care. In fact, the statement alone cedes health care as a commodity, which is not very different from the language the GOP used to try to make its reforms sound palatable - " universal access." In countries like Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom, citizens don't merely have "access to affordable care"; they are automatically enrolled - for life - under the nations' single-payer systems. Sen. Kamala Harris of California is also a co-sponsor of the bill, but in a later interview up with the Sacramento Bee, she said, "as we talk about moving toward a single-payer system, I think that there's certainly momentum and energy around that, and when I get back to D.C., I'll have a better sense of where people are now that they've been home." These high-profile equivocations worry some single-payer advocates. "It has become difficult for any Democratic senator considering a 2020 presidential bid not to co-sponsor Sanders' bill, a sign that support for single-payer will be the default position," wrote Jim Newell in Slate. "These [co-sponsors] need to show, in short, that they're not duping single-payer supporters to get their votes-that they care about single-payer health care as a government program they're serious about implementing, and not just as a talking point." This weak-kneed support is seen outside of Congress as well. For instance, it became common for the press to conclude that former President Barack Obama has " endorsed" Medicare for All, when in fact, his comments were much less committal and somewhat confusing. Obama misidentified Medicare for All as a new idea, though he expressed support for the policy as far back as 2003. Ocasio-Cortez and the Merits of Primary Challengers Being concerned about the authenticity of some Democrats' support for single-payer is one thing. Doing something about it is harder. While many Democrats who have co-sponsored Medicare for All have done so timidly, advocates are reluctant to be too harsh on these politicians. Winning new co-sponsors has been the major priority. This is one reason why Sanders's bill did not get specific about financing (the staff chose to release a memo outlining possible ways to pay for the plan). The way his legislation was written allowed senators to co-sponsor without technically supporting any new taxes. But, given the finite amount of time and political capital that exists, organizers say, politicians can't play it safe much longer. "Politicians will try very hard to avoid making hard decisions," Solomon said. "But eventually, you have to decide: Is health care a right or not?" "Access to affordable health care" is not the same thing as a guarantee to comprehensive health care. One way to ensure that members of Congress who are sincere in their support for Medicare for All is to run primary opponents against Democrats who don't advance single-payer. Many of the self-described Democratic Socialists won in the midterms through their strong support for Medicare for All and refusal to accept money from major corporate donors and the private health industry. Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed this tactic, not just on health care but on many issues, to reform the party. Her victory is an example of a strong supporter of single-payer running against a politician whose decision to support single-payer was viewed with great skepticism among progressives. Joseph Crowley, was, like Higgins, among the 123 co-sponsors to HR 676 when he lost to Ocasio-Cortez. While Crowley had never endorsed the bill in past congressional terms, he did so in May 2017 after the Sanders campaign managed to push the issue into the national spotlight. Moderates like Crowley felt tremendous pressure from the left to co-sign single-payer. But voters were not fooled by Crowley's about-face on Medicare for All. As the public grows increasingly class conscious, they are can better able to distinguish Democrats like Crowley, who is drowning in health insurance money and has virtually no small donors, and a new breed of leaders like Ocasio-Cortez, who do not rely on corporate money and whose support for single-payer comes off as genuine. "Primary challengers, when credible, can be very effective. Even if they do not win, they often move the incumbent on the issues," Solomon said. "And they are a way to hold Democrats accountable to what they promise progressives along the way. Voters should make these judgments on who to challenge not on their words, but their actions." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 89915 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 3157 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53301 bytes Desc: not available URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Jan 7 02:05:44 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 02:05:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reject Rubio's sneak attacks on peace & 1st amendment References: <4330123409.407631460@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: From: Just Foreign Policy > Subject: Reject Rubio's sneak attacks on peace & 1st amendment Date: January 6, 2019 [Just Foreign Policy] Tell your Senators to oppose Rubio's sneaky attacks on peace and Sign the petition Dear Ron, On November 28, sixty-three Senators, including fourteen Republicans, voted to discharge from committee to the floor the Bernie Sanders – Mike Lee – Chris Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's catastrophic war in Yemen. Sixty-three Senators said by deed they thought that allowing the Senate to have an up-or-down floor vote on ending the unconstitutional Yemen war was the right thing to do. But Florida Republican Marco Rubio voted no on discharging the resolution from committee to the floor. He didn’t just vote to continue the unconstitutional war in Yemen. He voted to prevent a floor debate and vote on ending the unconstitutional war in Yemen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), James Risch (R-ID), and Cory Gardner (R-CO) voted the same way as Rubio. They didn’t just vote to continue the unconstitutional war; they voted to prevent the Senate from having an up-or-down floor vote on ending the unconstitutional war. Now, this coming Tuesday, the Senate is expected to vote on a package of bills assembled by these four pro-war Republican Senators, led by Rubio. Rubio’s “omnibus” includes a bill that attacks the First Amendment rights of Americans to advocate for the economic boycott of controversial Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. This bill is opposed by the ACLU on First Amendment grounds. This bill is opposed by Americans for Peace Now – the American counterpart of the Peace Now movement in Israel – both on First Amendment grounds and because the goal of Rubio’s bill is to protect the settlements from international human rights activism. In December, Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Dianne Feinstein opposed a similar bill on similar grounds. Rubio’s “omnibus” also includes a bill that seeks to keep the war in Syria going, despite President Trump’s promise to end it. Rubio’s Syria bill has been opposed by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, America's largest peace lobby in DC, on the grounds that it would tie the hands of U.S. diplomats working to negotiate a political solution to the Syria conflict, impose unrealistic conditions for ceasefire, and punish Iranian civilians with broad sanctions. Bills enacting such far-reaching changes in U.S. government policy affecting war and peace and First Amendment rights should not be crammed through Congress in an “omnibus.” If they are considered at all, each should receive its own up-or-down roll call vote, so Members of Congress can be held accountable for their votes by their constituents. Urge your Senators and Representative to oppose Rubio’s sneak attacks on peace and the First Amendment by signing our petition. Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Sarah Burns, Hassan El-Tayyab, and Robert Reuel Naiman Just Foreign Policy If you think our work is important, please support us with a donation. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate [Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] © 2018 Just Foreign Policy Click here to unsubscribe [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Mon Jan 7 04:41:37 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 22:41:37 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NfN notes Message-ID: Some items to consider for discussion. WikiLeaks: New release -- US Embassy Shopping List https://shoppinglist.wikileaks.org/ -- WikiLeaks publishes material which the US government used to publish but then stopped linking to. This set of documents includes descriptions of items 11 US Embassies have requested including: - spy devices: hidden mics in shirt buttons, USB keys, and more - "[a] Quotation to design and produce three marketing and promotional videos that highlight U.S. beef quality" (send the quote to ShanghaiGSOProcurement at state.gov in Chinese RMB (CNY) with Value Added Tax as a separate line item) - cell phone jammers to be used in high security prisons in Mauritius (contact cyprayag at govmu.org with details) - offers for various jobs (nurse practitioner, gardener, security escort, and more) some with limited job timespans (one example: the security escort job will last no more than 5 years) William Arkin leaves NBC/MSNBC based on their devotion to war. Critical view is equally applicable to other corporate media and their friends. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/03/veteran-nbcmsnbc-journalist-blasts-the-network-for-being-captive-to-the-national-security-state-and-reflexively-pro-war-to-stop-trump/ -- Glenn Greenwald's article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlb-DZpyFOw -- Jimmy Dore's piece An uncommon reiteration of themes found on all too few shows (News from Neptune, AWARE on the Air, Jimmy Dore's show to name a few) -- elites vs. the rest of the country, missing the forest for the trees, reflexive cheerleading for war, reflexively against whatever Pres. Trump says (even when he's correct like getting the US out of wars), and reiterating the value of whistleblowing. From Arkin's resignation letter as quoted by The Intercept: > My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the > challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued at the > moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, > being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested in the Trump circus. > … > > To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that > resembles actual safety and security, the national security leaders and > generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested. Despite being > at “war,” no great wartime leaders or visionaries are emerging. There is > not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any > conflict. And though there might be the beloved perfumed princes in the > form of the Petraeus’ and Wes Clarks’, or the so-called warrior monks > like Mattis and McMaster, we’ve had more than a generation of national > security leaders who sadly and fraudulently have done little of > consequence. And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly > partisan formers who masquerade as “analysts”. We do so ignoring the > empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in > the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18 years ago. Indeed the > world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous. … > > Windrem again convinced me to return to NBC to join the new > investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign. > I thought that the mission was to break through the machine of perpetual > war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary Clinton’s > hawkishness. It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone > was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other upstarts creeping up > on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got > sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly lost in a directionless > adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading > the broadcast with every snow storm. And I would assert that in many > ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy > and profitable. No wars won but the ball is kept in play. > > I’d argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only > hasn’t missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is > ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I’d also > argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has become somewhat lost in its own > verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional wisdom, defender of > the government against Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat > mongering, in love with procedure and protocol over all else (including > results). I accept that there’s a lot to report here, but I’m more > worried about how much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step > back and think why so little changes with regard to America’s wars. … > > In our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald > Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss so much. People > who don’t understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that > it’s corporate control or even worse, that it’s partisan. Sometimes I > quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) > that if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and > Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right. > > For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump’s various > bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations with Russia, to > denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why > we are fighting in Africa, even in his attacks on the intelligence > community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent > impostor. And yet I’m alarmed at how quick NBC is to mechanically argue > the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict > and more war. Really? We shouldn’t get out Syria? We shouldn’t go for > the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, > though we should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy > that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the > Cold War? And don’t even get me started with the FBI: What? We now > lionize this historically destructive institution? Israel: Harsher conditions for Palestinian prisons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3ql3uTdt0 -- Galloway on how Israel makes life even harder for Palestinian prisoners. Why not trust the Democrats? Because they work for the elites. There are plenty of stories on this in the past couple of weeks. Virtually every Russiagate story fits in this category as Russiagate is devised by and largely driven by the Democrats. Now there's also Democratic Party elites giving us reasons to not trust them; more reason to understand what's going on from a policy continuity standpoint which reinforces the meaninglessness of "left vs. right" and meaningfulness of "1% (elites) vs 99% (populists)". This might commit the error of overestimating the size of the elites -- 0.1% might be more realistic. Joe Biden told millennials "I have no empathy [for you]" about 1 year ago per https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbpxx8/biden-trashes-millennials-in-his-quest-to-become-even-less-likable (it's also noteworthy that the corporate vice.com even calls Biden "less likable"). > Joe Biden: The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. > Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break. > Because here’s the deal guys, we decided we were gonna change the > world. And we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement in the > first stage. The women’s movement came to be. So my message is, get > involved. There’s no place to hide. You can go and you can make all the > money in the world, but you can't build a wall high enough to keep the > pollution out. You can't live where—you can't not be diminished when > your sister can't marry the man or woman, or the woman she loves. You > can't—when you have a good friend being profiled, you can't escape this > stuff. And so, there's an old expression my philosophy professor would > always use from Plato, 'The penalty people face for not being involved > in politics is being governed by people worse than themselves.' It's > wide open. Go out and change it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdmeV0GJ-oE Jimmy Dore has some good commentary on this including pointing out the bullshit of a recent poll which claims "progressives" prefer Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0PgVSM5FH4 for more) and that Biden voted for the Iraq war, for deregulating the banks (removing Glass-Steigel), and that millennials make up 40% of the electorate. The poll was a poll of Democratic Party elites; those who stand to benefit from more corporatism. They like Biden over Sanders, even as Sanders is down with the drone war. Democrats support corporatist Nancy Pelosi (House speaker) and "PAYGO" (which sharply curtails the ability for Congress to pass amenable legislation without cutting spending on the basis that paying for it would raise the deficit) which was a Republican idea back in 2010 (continuity of policy). This greatly reduces the odds of the Democrats delivering Medicare for All, taxpayer-funded college for all, and more regardless of what they tell you they favor in campaign ads or face-to-face. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsWlxHYLpsg -- Jimmy Dore talks about this. Generally, this strategy creates the means by which the Democrats marginalize party representatives they need to court attention from the populists but ultimately don't want. The Democrats play this game in presidential elections -- let someone who seems relatively acceptable to the public run and then get shut down by a neocon/neoliberal competitor (Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton in 2016) only to end with the former candidate gratefully capitulating to the latter (Sanders knowing and stating on-camera that his campaign was being cheated out of a fair DLC primary followed by attending Clinton's rally saying he accepts her as the Democratic representative): BlackAgendaReport.com rightly called this "sheepdogging" in: https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-in-hillarys-pocket -- critiquing Sanders' choice and the "lesser of two evils" narrative. https://blackagendareport.com/sheep_dogging_through_trumpland -- on Keith Ellison's choices. This also helps us understand one of the challenges Jimmy Dore raised above: why not pass HR676 (Medicare for All) and let the Republicans veto it letting the Democrats say it's the Republican's fault that you can't have Medicare for All? I offer 3 responses (all of which I'm sure he's well aware of): 1. Passing HR676 by the House and relying on a Republican Senate to oppose HR676 (or a Republican presidential veto of HR676) comes to dangerously close to making HR676 law which doesn't suit their funders' interests (the HMOs and drug companies, chiefly). The funders could easily frame this as an unnecessary risk. In other words, this strategy gives the public a chance to rally behind supporting HR676 pressuring the Republicans to pass this into law (remember that the one thing both parties fear is an organized public). This strategy also means Pres. Trump might make good on something candidate Trump mentioned on "60 Minutes" regarding healthcare policy where he gave lip service to Medicare for All (remember that the deep state got very nervous about candidate Trump's talk which is why they switched their support to Mrs. Clinton and likely why Trump Derangement Syndrome rages in corporate media today). 2. When the Democrats were in power in both Congress and the presidency, they didn't bring HR676 (Medicare for All) up for voting let alone make HR676 law. HR676 sat around collecting co-sponsors so Democrats could do the least amount possible to look like they're on the public's side while achieving the same corporate-friendly ends. This showed us a bit of what the Democrats do with power and why we can't trust them. 3. The Democrats don't care if they lose. Their funders' interests are being met whether they're trying to pitch themselves as the victim (a mythical beleaguered but well-minded opposition) or whether they're part of a good-cop/bad-cop corporatist strategy against the populists. Ted Rall gets into this in https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/10/corporate-democrats-would-rather-lose-than-include-progressives/ titled "Corporate Democrats Would Rather Lose Than Include Progressives". Will Bernie Sanders run for US President in 2020? I'm not convinced I ought to care if he does because he's so weak on issues that matter. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/04/if-bernie-runs-wrong-question/ -- Author Paul Street says he will run (and that this isn't even the right question) because his people have been working on campaign groundwork. But more importantly, Sanders is weak on war and critiquing fellow Democrats (despite billing himself as an independent) whether this means pointing out how the DLC cheated him and his campaigners out of a fair primary (including the DLC corporation telling a court the DLC owes nobody a fair primary), weak on challenging Russiagate lies, being for war (remember his pro-drone interview with NBC's "Meet the Press"), and more. But then Paul Street is also pro-impeachment or via the 25th amendment (replacing the president or vice president in the event of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation): > The next U.S. presidential election will take place roughly 670 days > from now. That’s one hell of a long time from now. In the meantime, > Sanders ought to call for the removal of the malignant, criminal, > corrupt, and dangerous Trump from the presidency through impeachment or > the 25th Amendment. The orange monstrosity should be evicted from the > Oval Office as soon as possible. We really can’t wait until January 20, > 2021. Who benefits from impeaching someone who is talking getting out of Syria? Who benefits from Pres. Pence? The establishment, deep state, permanent government, that's who. Russiagate: No new news, no evidence, and no real consequences for The Guardian's lies about alleged Assange-Manafort meeting https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/ -- Glenn Greenwald following up after 5 weeks of silence from The Guardian on his questions: > * How could it be that Manafort, of all people, snuck into one of the > most monitored, surveilled, videoed, and photographed buildings on the > planet on three separate occasions without any of that ostensibly > “smoking gun” visual evidence having emerged, including in The > Guardian’s own story? > > * Why would The Guardian publish a story of this magnitude without first > requiring that its Ecuadoran intelligence sources provide them with such > photographic or video evidence to publish it or at least review prior to > publication? > > * How could it be that Manafort’s name never appeared in any of the > embassy entrance logs even though, as The Guardian itself admitted, > “visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their > passports”? > > * What was the bizarre, sensationalistic reference to “Russians” that > The Guardian included in its article but never bothered to explain > (“separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence > agency and seen by The Guardian lists ‘Paul Manaford [sic]’ as one of > several well-known guests. It also mentions ‘Russians'”). > > Five weeks later, all of these questions remain unanswered. That’s > because The Guardian — which likes to pride itself on flamboyantly > demanding transparency and accountability from everyone else — has > refused to provide any of its own. > > In lieu of addressing the increasingly embarrassing scandal, The > Guardian’s top editors and reporters on this story have practically gone > into hiding, ignoring all requests for comment and referring journalists > to a corporate PR official who provides a statement that is as vague and > bureaucratic as it is non-responsive. It’s easier to get a substantive > comment from the National Security Agency than from The Guardian on this > story. This is yet another Russiagate story that falls apart. Like Greenwald says: > The Guardian’s typically public and outspoken editor-in-chief Kath > Viner has all but disappeared since the story was published on November > 27. Since then, she stopped tweeting entirely except to commemorate the > November 30 death of a Guardian columnist. Harding has also tweeted > just once since then. And both have ignored these questions submitted by > The Intercept, as well as similar inquiries from other reporters: > > [image of his questions emailed to Kath Viner] > > None of this is an aberration. Quite the contrary, it has become par > for the Trump-Russia course. One major story after the next falls apart, > and there is no accountability, reckoning, or transparency (neither CNN > nor MSNBC, for instance, have to date bothered to explain how they both > “independently confirmed” the totally false story that Donald Trump, > Jr. was offered advanced access to the WikiLeaks email archive, all > based on false claims about the date of an email to him from a random > member of the public). Russiagate stories generally fall into two categories: 1) Stories that simply didn't happen: This story about Assange and Manafort meeting has no evidence to back it up even from parties that you'd expect to have such evidence (video recordings, visitor log entries, passport information, etc.); and Russians taking over the US power grid by way of a Vermont power station, are a couple of examples. 2) Stories that greatly exaggerate the significance of what may have happened: Some Russians spent thousands of dollars on ads, a good percentage of which either ran after the election, had no clear political message (such as the now famous one of Jesus talking to a depressed young man saying: > 'Struggling with the addiction to masturbation? Reach out to me, and we > will beat it together.' -Jesus; > > You can't hold hands with God when you are masturbating. > Use our hotline if you need help. see attached or visit https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/sHFZyOPOjG4d_Oq5lmzWjAKhZGM=/0x0:724x448/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:724x448):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13631765/Screen_Shot_2018_12_17_at_9.50.35_AM.png for the image), and are indistinguishable from free speech (which Americans ought to relish). Russiagate: The tables are turning, western governments are even more hypocritical and culpable than previously believed. https://moderaterebels.libsyn.com/rss -- Moderate Rebels RSS feed https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/modreb_e32_integrity_initiative.mp3 -- Audio episode (Interview with Professor David Miller) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doip79-pYn0 -- Video episode (Interview with Professor David Miller) Courtesy of David Green, Moderate Rebels on the "Integrity Initiative" which is a UK government funded "Institute for Statecraft" project which intends to "defend democracy from disinformation", in particular from Russia. The Integrity Initiative received government funding of £296,500 in the 2017-18 financial year and would receive a further £1,961,000 in 2018-19. In other words, this is state-funded "interference" in the affairs of other countries -- precisely what the US, UK, German, and French governments have alleged (on separate occasions) Russia has done in various ways in their countries -- and against the UK Labour Party (Corbyn in particular) which is illegal. More evidence that foreign "interference" is okay when western countries do it but not okay the other way around, even if the allegations of so-called "interference" amount to nothing more than free speech at such a lowly-funded level (thousands of dollars of social media ads, in the case of what the US alleges some Russians spent, in order to install Trump in the White House by as yet unclearly disclosed means). > Professor David Miller: Essentially this [the Integrity Initiative] is > an organization funded by the Foreign Office and there are people from > the Foreign Office listed as being involved. But when we started > investigating this we discovered there were a lot more senior people > from the Ministry of Defence involved in the documents, first of all. > Second of all we discovered that the people who actually run the > Integrity Initiative, people in charge of it, several of them were > actually involved in military intelligence. The person who actually > received the grounds of two million pounds from the Foreign Office is > what was called Honorary Colonel in the intelligence core. > > Max Blumenthal: That's Chris Donnelly. > > Professor David Miller: Yes, he was appointed to that role as a new > appointment in 2015 just as the Integrity Initiative was being created. > He had previously, of course, a long-term history in the intelligence > core and the reserves in the intelligence core and that's one of the > interesting things about this is that many of the people involved are in > the intelligence core reserves while they have other jobs. So he, for > example, was a special adviser to the General Secretary of NATO while > also being a Major in military intelligence in the UK. So there's a > long-term pattern here, but the Integrity Initiative itself has several > people who have those connections to military intelligence which is why > we think [this is a] MOD, Ministry of Defence, push, effectively an MOD > cutout; an organization set up to look like a charity but which is in > reality a military intelligence and propaganda operation of the British > military. Economy: "Four in 10 adults say they couldn’t produce $400 in an emergency without sliding into debt or selling something" https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/28/living-paycheck-paycheck-is-disturbingly-common-i-see-no-way-out/ -- living paycheck-to-paycheck is disturbingly common. This is a much bigger reason for electing Trump than anything Russia is alleged to have done. Russiagate is a distraction; we're not supposed to talk about economic reality for more and more Americans nor are we supposed to discuss the Democratic Party's continuing support of neoliberalism. American voters increasingly don't identify as being with either corporate party. Objections to the corporate duopoly apparently take the form of eligible voters not voting in the US presidential race at all or voting in an opponent who says some agreeable things and looks like they have a chance to win (such as Donald Trump in 2016). > Lani Harrison, 43, said she and her software engineer husband have > trouble buying groceries after paying the $2,249 rent on their > two-bedroom Los Angeles apartment. They’re raising three young kids and > rely on her husband’s income, she said. Her work as a certified car seat > installer earns her $40 per appointment, but the work isn’t steady. > > “Each month, we have to stretch his paycheck to make things work,” she > said. “We really don’t have any savings. Many months we go under.” > > Sometimes, she confides in trusted friends. > > “I’m often surprised that their stories are so similar to ours,” she > said. > > Dillon Holt, a housekeeping assistant at a Nashville hotel, said he’s > down to one piece of chicken in his freezer. His checking account often > hovers around zero, and he is unable to put away any money for the > future or an emergency. > > “I make $12.50, work 40-50 hours a week,” he said. “I still don’t have a > savings account.” > > Emily Webb, 38, said she works full time as an arts administrator in > Columbus, Ohio, and waits tables on the side. Staying afloat each month, > she said, is a precarious dance. > > “It’s a scramble at the end of a paycheck to deposit my tips and make > sure none of my automatic payments bounce,” said Webb, who has master’s > degree but cannot make her student loan payments. > > She’s grateful to work in her field, though, and loves her job. One big > financial boost, she said, awaits her at the end of 2019. > > “I can finally pay off my 9-year-old car,” Webb said. “The plastic part > of the back bumper was slowly sliding off the back of it. I got > rear-ended by an uninsured driver 2 years ago, so I reattached it with > zip ties.” Recall that the US found the means to bail out the big banks (and even did so without the corporate media asking where the money would come from or fretting that we couldn't afford to do this or that such a choice would be unwise). But what does corporate media say about forgiving student loan debt? In a 2016 pre-election episode, John Oliver on his HBO show "Last Week Tonight" reviewed a few US presidential candidates' campaigns. He mentioned Jill Stein was running and said she had many agreeable points in her candidacy. Then he objected to Jill Stein's plan to use quantitative easing as a means to forgive government-issued student loans (as the US bailed out the big banks). This objection was the sole reason to reject the entirety of Jill Stein's 2016 campaign. Not only was that ridiculous on its face even if one agrees with that objection, but tellingly Oliver never put Hillary Clinton's campaign to any close scrutiny. Oliver was essentially arguing for Clinton by way of the classic Democratic Party strategy 'where else are you gonna go?'. The US sent him an answer: not with Hillary Clinton. She ended up losing because she failed to motivate enough previous Democrat voters to vote for her campaign (her electors). For all of the attention some people pay to the popular vote, it's worth noting that she didn't maintain the voting support Obama had. But somehow we're supposed to believe others are to blame, such as that laundry list of others she gave us in 2018 (including "Russian WikiLeaks" Jill Stein, and Vladimir Putin). Labor: Amazon warehouse employees push to unionize https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/01/amazon-fulfillment-center-warehouse-employees-union-new-york-minnesota -- Amazon's harsh working conditions and failure to recognize the plight of the worker are driving the workers to organize. > As Amazon’s workforce has more than doubled over the past three years, > workers at Amazon fulfillment center warehouses in the United States > have started organizing and pushing toward forming a union to fight back > against the company’s treatment of its workers. > > Amazon’s global workforce reached more than 613,000 employees worldwide > according to its latest quarterly earnings report, not including the > 100,000 temporary employees the company hired for the holiday season. > > Just a few months after Amazon opened its first New York-based > fulfillment center in Staten Island, workers announced on 12 December > the launch of a union push with help from the Retail, Wholesale and > Department Store Union. > > “Amazon is a very big company. They need to have a union put in place,” > said an Amazon worker who requested to remain anonymous. The worker has > been with the company for two years and was transferred to Staten Island > when it opened in October 2018. “They overwork you and you’re like a > number to them. During peak season and Prime season, they give you 60 > hours a week. In July, I had Prime week and worked 60 hours. The same > day I worked overtime, I got into a bad car accident because I was > falling asleep behind the wheel.” > > Other employees cited working conditions as one of the prevailing > factors for wanting to form a union. “I support the effort. They have to > be more supportive toward their employees,” said another Amazon employee > in Staten Island. “Right now, at that fulfillment center, if an employee > is a picker, they want that person to pick up 400 items per hour, > picking each item every seven seconds.” > > They noted that to keep up with that hourly rate, workers cannot take > bathroom breaks or they risk Tot (time off task points) that could be > used to justify job termination. [...] > In Minnesota, workers at several Amazon facilities were the first to > force management to the bargaining table over the past few months after > workers held protests in the summer. > > “The end of September and October, we had private meetings with Amazon > management,” said Nimo Omar, an organizer and founder of the Awood > Center, an east African worker-led organization in the Minneapolis area. > “We met with Amazon management, and we had workers from across five > different warehouses in that meeting talking about working conditions at > Amazon, from warehouse workers to truck drivers who deliver packages to > some of the leads in these warehouses as well.” Virtue signaling: People selectively don't like clear explanations for what the US has been doing for ages. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/01/what-kind-maniacs-are-running-country-pentagon-rings-new-year-joke-about-dropping -- reports of people's reaction to US_Stratcom posting (and later deleting) https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1079865479756374017/pu/img/WfyyecDno9FNwyOm.jpg which reads: > #TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big > balll...if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much > bigger. > > Watch to the end! @AFGlobalStrike @Whiteman_AFB #Deterrence #Assurance > #CombatReadyForce #PeaceIsOurProfession... > > [picture of a stealth bomber] Walter Schaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics, posted a followup tweet asking: "What kind of maniacs are running this country?". Probably the same "maniacs" who were running it when Pres. Obama threatened to murder the members of a boy band his daughters liked with a drone strike. Back then the assembled press thought that to be a funny joke and laughed. There were very few people who objected to this "joke" particularly in the context of coming from one of the few people in the world who had a history of doing precisely that against countless other innocent people. Disappointing coverage of war: The Real News' interview of Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is not very practical https://therealnews.com/stories/rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-the-dawn-of-a-new-era-in-congress -- transcript and link to video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MzJlmQLmg4 -- video There are a few big issues to talk about with a Congressperson: war, climate change (global warming), and healthcare. The Real News Network (TRNN) interviewed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). But TRNN ignored 2 of these issues -- war and healthcare -- and let her get away with little on the third issue -- climate change. I think Rep. Gabbard's politics are indicative of the Democratic Party at their best as a whole -- so deeply in the pocket of deep state interests that any amenable points raised along the way are merely a sham to keep people believing that the Democrats are worth supporting. Here's the climate change discussion from TRNN's transcript (all spelling in context): > SHARMINI PERIES: Are you talking about the New Green Deal? > > TULSI GABBARD: The Green New Deal is the … I guess at the forefront of > what the Sunrise Movement is pushing through. Again, young leaders from > across the country who are taking ownership for their future, as well as > some of the other pieces of legislation that we already have introduced > and that this Select Committee will continue to work on building > forward; to actually have an actionable plan. Where is this actionable plan published now, in any form? > SHARMINI PERIES: What are the components of the New Green Deal that you > think could have life? > > TULSI GABBARD: When you create this Select Committee, you really start > looking at taking a comprehensive approach through legislation on how we > get our country off of its addiction to fossil fuels and invest in the > kinds of infrastructure, jobs, and economy that we need to build this … > An economy that’s based on green and clean renewable energy. I’ve > introduced legislation last year called the Off Fossil Fuels Act, > working with incredible environmental organizations like Food and Water > Watch. We have now I think close to 400 environmental nonprofits from > across the country who are supporting that legislation. There's some more vague inspirational talk here, none of which really matters or is detailed enough to examine. The most substantive thing she mentions here is the "Off Fossil Fuels Act" (HR3671). > SHARMINI PERIES: All right. You’re going to get incredible pushback from > the Trump administration, as you have been. I mean, he’s rolled back so > many of the very little Obama was able to advance in terms of climate > crisis we’re dealing with and trying to tackle it. How do you plan to, I > guess, push through some of these very good policies that the Green New > Deal is talking about? > > TULSI GABBARD: Well, I think it’s first important to understand that, > yes, we have to fight back against these attempts, some successful, some > not, to take away very basic but very important environmental > protections that are in place really to protect us and our families and > our communities. That’s kind of the immediate, right, with the situation > that we have. But it’s important as we look at how to make this very > systemic change that we address the systemic problem, as well. I can > tell you the systemic problem in Washington is the influence of big > fossil fuel money in Washington, and how long that has existed. It’s > something that exists not just because of Trump. It’s been around long > before that, and it effects Democrats and Republicans. Okay, what is to be done about that source of funding? So far other Democrats talk about 'getting big money out of politics' which is vague, inchoate, and sounds unconstitutional. She follows this up with more vague inspirational talk which isn't specific enough to examine. The "Off Fossil Fuels Act" is HR3671 -- https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3671 -- and has 46 cosponsors as I write this (all Democrats). Sec. 301.b.2. stops federal permits on "any new gathering line or interstate pipeline for the transport of any fossil fuel resource that crosses Federal land or navigable water; or requires the use of eminent domain on private property". I don't see this going over well with oil companies which contribute to congress. It's not clear how she's going to convince a corporate-funded Democratic Party to go with her on any serious chance to any policy that would disallow polluting American air or waterways. Gabbard provides no specifics on how to accomplish this. Therefore I'm not very incentivized to believe even these cosponsors would vote for this bill or pressure leadership to bring the bill up for a vote (just like they did with HR676 -- Medicare for All). On healthcare we see something similar -- vaguely amenable ends that never make it to a point where they become actionable. Consider what happened to HR676 (what was John Conyers' Medicare for All bill and is currently being revised in a process that apparently doesn't include publishing public drafts). HR676 sat for years collecting cosponsors where no Democrat would bring it to a vote or put any organized pressure on party leadership to bring it to a vote. This included the time when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and a Democratic Party president. On war, Rep. Gabbard is down with the drone war. She told The Intercept one year ago (January 2018) that she endorsed "very limited use of drones" in https://theintercept.com/2018/01/20/tulsi-gabbard-syria-isis-al-qaeda/ > Asked if she still favors a small footprint approach with limited use of > weaponized drones against groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, Gabbard said, > “With these terror cells, for example, yes, I still believe that the > right approach to take is these quick-strike forces, surgical strikes in > and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation, > to get rid of the threat that exists and then get out and the very > limited use of drones in those situations where our military is not able > to get in without creating an unacceptable level of risk.” > > These strikes have taken a significant toll on civilian populations. She also said she wants to keep the so-called 'war on terror' going by "defeating ISIS militarily" according to https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25013. -J -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Russian Jesus -- Screen_Shot_2018_12_17_at_9.50.35_AM.png.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 106857 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Mon Jan 7 17:16:25 2019 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 09:16:25 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] We Remember Campaign Message-ID: *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vHmYtAe7hU&utm= * and Night at the Garden 1939 https://vimeo.com/234762935 and this is especially for the resident 9/11 Truther - found it looking for something else More Jake Hanrahan Retweeted Cole Bunzel Jihadist 9/11 truthers are ruining al-Qaeda’s reputation. Jake Hanrahan added, *Cole Bunzel* @colebunzel "September 11: Yes, We Did it"—title of article published today by al-Qaida leader in Syria Bilal Khuraysat, who complains even some "Islamists" refuse to believe al-Qaida pulled it off 6 replies62 retweets131 likes Reply 6 Retweet 62 Like 131 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jan 7 18:40:37 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:40:37 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Ten Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101d4a6b8$7bff01d0$73fd0570$@comcast.net> Ten Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts https://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-irrefutable-devastating-911-facts/5637525 Image removed by sender. Ten Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization There is actually no need to resort to speculative arguments that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud since there are hard facts that support this conclusion. Here are 10 such undisputed facts. www.globalresearch.ca By Elias Davidsson and Craig McKee Global Research, January 06, 2019 Global Research 2 April 2018 Region: USA Theme: Intelligence, Media Disinformation, Terrorism In-depth Report: Prosecute Bush/Cheney Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Note to readers: please click the share buttons above This incisive article was originally published on GR in April 2018. Scholars who attempt to elucidate the crime perpetrated on 9/11 – who are commonly referred to as 9/11 truthers – are often criticized for relying on conjecture and speculation in support of their claims. Such criticism may at times be justified, though often made in bad faith. There is actually no need to resort to speculative arguments that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud since there are hard facts that support this conclusion. Here are 10 such undisputed facts: 1. U.S. authorities have failed to trace, arrest, try (prosecute), and punish anyone responsible for the crime against humanity committed on 9/11. The mass murder committed on September 11, 2001 represents, under international law, a crime against humanity. The State where it was committed – in this case the United States of America – bears the obligation to the international community to trace, arrest, try, and punish individuals responsible for that crime. Since 2002, U.S. authorities admit they have detained a handful of persons at Guantánamo Bay who are accused of helping to orchestrate 9/11. Their identities remain in doubt; their alleged confessions were made behind closed doors; and their trial by a military court does not fulfill minimal international norms of due process. U.S. authorities claim to have sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment for not having warned the FBI about the preparations for 9/11, an allegation he denied. No evidence was presented that he was involved in the preparations for 9/11 or knew anything about these preparations. No evidence was presented that he even knew the alleged hijackers. U.S. authorities also claim to hold, since 2003, a man by the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) in Guantánamo who allegedly confessed to have masterminded 9/11 and more than 30 other terrorist operations. He also allegedly confessed to having planned an attack on a bank in Washington State that did not exist until after he was already in Guantánamo. The man, whose identity remains murky and whose connection to 9/11 is limited to what he said in his ludicrous confession, has not been prosecuted, let alone sentenced. No one seriously expects him to be ever brought to trial, let alone a trial fulfilling international norms. 2. When announcing to the United Nations their decision to attack Afghanistan, U.S. authorities failed to provide evidence that the crime of 9/11 was in any way connected to Afghanistan. In fact, such evidence has still not been produced. See the letter from U.S. Representative John Negroponte to the President of the UN Security Council, October 7, 2001 (mirrored here). 3. The United States government did not authorize an investigation of the events of 9/11 that could have fulfilled minimal international standards: The 9/11 Commission was neither independent nor impartial, and its investigation was neither thorough nor transparent. Regarding minimal standards of investigation, see Elias Davidsson, “The Events of 11 September 2001 and the Right to the Truth.” (See this or this) 4. Despite vilifying Osama bin Laden as a terrorist leader, judicial authorities in the United States have failed to charge him in connection with 9/11. He was not even wanted in connection with this crime. The FBI admitted in June 2006 that it possesses no concrete evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. (See: Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has no ‘hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” Information Clearing House, June 18, 2006, mirrored here) 5. Authorities in the United States have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the 19 persons named by the FBI as 9/11 hijackers even boarded aircraft that they are alleged to have subsequently hijacked. To be precise: U.S. authorities have failed to produce authenticated passenger lists that would include the names of the alleged hijackers; witnesses who saw these alleged hijackers in the airports or boarding the aircraft; authenticated security-camera videos proving their presence in the airports of departure; and DNA identification of these individuals’ bodily remains (see detailed analysis in Elias Davidsson, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 [Algora Publishers, New York, 2013], Chapter 2). 6. U.S. authorities have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that passenger airliners crashed at the known landmarks on 9/11. The FBI admitted in a letter to the Nevada District U.S. Court on March 14, 2008, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose, that records detailing the collection and positive identification of the wreckage of the crashed aircraft do not exist (Letter mirrored here). He thus admitted that the FBI failed to formally identify the wreckage found at the various crash sites as belonging to the allegedly hijacked aircraft. It is, therefore, not established that the allegedly hijacked aircraft crashed at these locations. 7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air. Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances. 8. U.S. authorities compensated families of 9/11 victims that agreed to waive their right to further court action. The compensation exceeded by at least seven times what was paid to the families of firefighters who died in rescue operations on 9/11. The families of 9/11 victims received from the U.S. Compensation Fund, established in October 2001, an average of $2.1 million if they agreed to waive their right to engage in civil proceedings (see, inter alia, Brian Bernbaum, “9/11 Fund Chief Faults Payments,” CBS News, 4.9.2003 [mirrored here]). As of 2013, spouses of firefighters who die in line of duty can obtain $333,605 under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Act (42 U.S.C. 3796). The figure for 2001 was undoubtedly lower. The 95 families, who did not apply to the Compensation Fund and preferred to let courts determine their rights, obtained an average of $5.5 million in out-of-court settlements (see, Ashby Jones, “The 9/11 Victim Settlements: A Chat with Skadden’s Sheila Birnbaum,” The Wall Street Journal, 13.3.2009 [mirrored here]). 9. U.S. authorities have failed to explain the effect of numerous military drills conducted on the morning of 9/11 – including the simulation of aircraft hijackings – on the commission of the mass murder. Military drills caused confusion and surprised military and civilian personnel responsible for air traffic, as reported in U.S. media. For example, NORAD Major General Larry Arnold said that, “By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” (See, Eric Hehs, “Conversation with Major General Larry Arnold,” One Magazine, January 2002 [mirrored here]). Colonel Robert Marr, NEADS battle commander, said he had been told that across the nation there were “29 different reports of hijackings.” (See, Robert A. Baker, “Commander of 9/11 Air Defenses Retires,” Newhouse News Service, March 31, 2005 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities failed to explain how these drills affected the commission of the crime, including the apparent failure to intercept hijacked aircraft. 10. U.S. authorities promoted numerous officials who, according to the official account on 9/11, had failed to carry out their duties with regard to 9/11. Not a single person has been held accountable anywhere in government for what went wrong on or prior to 9/11. Here are few examples: Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11, was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2001; Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11, was promoted to head the new “Northern Command” a year after 9/11; Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director on 9/11, was promoted in 2004 to the rank of admiral; Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who on 9/11 was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), was promoted in May 2003 to the two-star rank of major general; Marion (Spike) Bowman, who blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.” Conclusion The above facts are sufficient to reject the official account of 9/11 and consider the administration of President George W. Bush as the main suspect for this crime against humanity. While the facts are not sufficient for leveling criminal charges against specific individuals, they permit general conclusions to be drawn regarding the dangerous nature of the U.S. regime and the complicity of the political class, mainstream media, academia, and the justice system of NATO member states in covering-up the crime of 9/11 and shielding those responsible for that crime. * This article was originally published on Truth and Shadows. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 737 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jan 7 18:47:15 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:47:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] We Remember Campaign In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003001d4a6b9$693fb390$3bbf1ab0$@comcast.net> That proves nothing ! Just because some asshole makes a claim doesn’t mean it is true. Look at FACTS not unsubstantiated claims either by the Bush administration ( parroted by the corporate media ) or anyone else. And one excellent source of facts are the 9-11 victims’ families who had to FORCE the so called “ investigation “ by the appointed 9-11 commission. Also that the families stated afterwards that the 9-11 commission only produced a “ whitewash and a cover up “. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 11:16 AM To: Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] We Remember Campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vHmYtAe7hU &utm= and Night at the Garden 1939 https://vimeo.com/234762935 and this is especially for the resident 9/11 Truther - found it looking for something else More Jake Hanrahan Retweeted Cole Bunzel Jihadist 9/11 truthers are ruining al-Qaeda’s reputation. Jake Hanrahan added, Image removed by sender. Cole Bunzel @colebunzel "September 11: Yes, We Did it"—title of article published today by al-Qaida leader in Syria Bilal Khuraysat, who complains even some "Islamists" refuse to believe al-Qaida pulled it off 6 replies62 retweets131 likes Reply 6 Retweet 62 Like 131 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 7 19:09:51 2019 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 180, Issue 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1834330749.7531708.1546888191852@mail.yahoo.com> Ten is a drop in the bucket... Here's a MS Excel interactive spreadsheet with 2000 rows of supporting evidence that a cabal consisting of Israel / US / Britain and Saudi Arabia did 9/11....one of its main goals was to enable the mass surveillance state...not to mention Afghanistan and Iraq wars....https://newsfollowup.com/9-11_truth_search_engine_zionist_neocon_nuclear_demolition_wtc_holocaust_hoax_jfk_assassination_isis.html#interactive On Monday, January 7, 2019, 1:41:14 PM EST, peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net wrote: Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to     peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to     peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net You can reach the person managing the list at     peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..." Today's Topics:   1. We Remember Campaign (Roger Helbig)   2. FW: Ten Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts (David Johnson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 09:16:25 -0800 From: Roger Helbig To: Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] We Remember Campaign Message-ID:     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vHmYtAe7hU&utm= * and Night at the Garden 1939 https://vimeo.com/234762935 and this is especially for the resident 9/11 Truther - found it looking for something else More Jake Hanrahan Retweeted Cole Bunzel Jihadist 9/11 truthers are ruining al-Qaeda’s reputation. Jake Hanrahan added, *Cole Bunzel* @colebunzel "September 11: Yes, We Did it"—title of article published today by al-Qaida leader in Syria Bilal Khuraysat, who complains even some "Islamists" refuse to believe al-Qaida pulled it off 6 replies62 retweets131 likes Reply 6 Retweet 62 Like 131 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:40:37 -0600 From: "David Johnson" To: Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Ten Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts Message-ID: <002101d4a6b8$7bff01d0$73fd0570$@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ten Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts https://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-irrefutable-devastating-911-facts/5637525 Image removed by sender. Ten Irrefutable, Devastating 9/11 Facts - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization There is actually no need to resort to speculative arguments that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud since there are hard facts that support this conclusion. Here are 10 such undisputed facts. www.globalresearch.ca By  Elias Davidsson and  Craig McKee Global Research, January 06, 2019 Global Research 2 April 2018 Region:  USA Theme:  Intelligence, Media Disinformation,  Terrorism In-depth Report: Prosecute Bush/Cheney Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  This incisive article was originally published on GR in April 2018. Scholars who attempt to elucidate the crime perpetrated on 9/11 – who are commonly referred to as 9/11 truthers – are often criticized for relying on conjecture and speculation in support of their claims. Such criticism may at times be justified, though often made in bad faith. There is actually no need to resort to speculative arguments that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud since there are hard facts that support this conclusion. Here are 10 such undisputed facts: 1. U.S. authorities have failed to trace, arrest, try (prosecute), and punish anyone responsible for the crime against humanity committed on 9/11. The mass murder committed on September 11, 2001 represents, under international law, a crime against humanity. The State where it was committed – in this case the United States of America – bears the obligation to the international community to trace, arrest, try, and punish individuals responsible for that crime. Since 2002, U.S. authorities admit they have detained a handful of persons at Guantánamo Bay who are accused of helping to orchestrate 9/11. Their identities remain in doubt; their alleged confessions were made behind closed doors; and their trial by a military court does not fulfill minimal international norms of due process. U.S. authorities claim to have sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment for not having warned the FBI about the preparations for 9/11, an allegation he denied. No evidence was presented that he was involved in the preparations for 9/11 or knew anything about these preparations. No evidence was presented that he even knew the alleged hijackers. U.S. authorities also claim to hold, since 2003, a man by the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) in Guantánamo who allegedly confessed to have masterminded 9/11 and more than 30 other terrorist operations. He also allegedly confessed to having planned an attack on a bank in Washington State that did not exist until after he was already in Guantánamo. The man, whose identity remains murky and whose connection to 9/11 is limited to what he said in his ludicrous confession, has not been prosecuted, let alone sentenced. No one seriously expects him to be ever brought to trial, let alone a trial fulfilling international norms. 2. When announcing to the United Nations their decision to attack Afghanistan, U.S. authorities failed to provide evidence that the crime of 9/11 was in any way connected to Afghanistan. In fact, such evidence has still not been produced. See the letter from U.S. Representative John Negroponte to the President of the UN Security Council, October 7, 2001 (mirrored here). 3. The United States government did not authorize an investigation of the events of 9/11 that could have fulfilled minimal international standards: The 9/11 Commission was neither independent nor impartial, and its investigation was neither thorough nor transparent. Regarding minimal standards of investigation, see Elias Davidsson, “The Events of 11 September 2001 and the Right to the Truth.” (See this or this) 4. Despite vilifying Osama bin Laden as a terrorist leader, judicial authorities in the United States have failed to charge him in connection with 9/11. He was not even wanted in connection with this crime. The FBI admitted in June 2006 that it possesses no concrete evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. (See: Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has no ‘hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” Information Clearing House, June 18, 2006, mirrored  here) 5. Authorities in the United States have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the 19 persons named by the FBI as 9/11 hijackers even boarded aircraft that they are alleged to have subsequently hijacked. To be precise: U.S. authorities have failed to produce authenticated passenger lists that would include the names of the alleged hijackers; witnesses who saw these alleged hijackers in the airports or boarding the aircraft; authenticated security-camera videos proving their presence in the airports of departure; and DNA identification of these individuals’ bodily remains (see detailed analysis in Elias Davidsson, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 [Algora Publishers, New York, 2013], Chapter 2). 6. U.S. authorities have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that passenger airliners crashed at the known landmarks on 9/11. The FBI admitted in a letter to the Nevada District U.S. Court on March 14, 2008, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose, that records detailing the collection and positive identification of the wreckage of the crashed aircraft do not exist (Letter mirrored here). He thus admitted that the FBI failed to formally identify the wreckage found at the various crash sites as belonging to the allegedly hijacked aircraft. It is, therefore, not established that the allegedly hijacked aircraft crashed at these locations. 7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air. Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances. 8. U.S. authorities compensated families of 9/11 victims that agreed to waive their right to further court action. The compensation exceeded by at least seven times what was paid to the families of firefighters who died in rescue operations on 9/11. The families of 9/11 victims received from the U.S. Compensation Fund, established in October 2001, an average of $2.1 million if they agreed to waive their right to engage in civil proceedings (see, inter alia, Brian Bernbaum, “9/11 Fund Chief Faults Payments,” CBS News, 4.9.2003 [mirrored here]). As of 2013, spouses of firefighters who die in line of duty can obtain $333,605 under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Act (42 U.S.C. 3796). The figure for 2001 was undoubtedly lower. The 95 families, who did not apply to the Compensation Fund and preferred to let courts determine their rights, obtained an average of $5.5 million in out-of-court settlements (see, Ashby Jones, “The 9/11 Victim Settlements: A Chat with Skadden’s Sheila Birnbaum,” The Wall Street Journal, 13.3.2009 [mirrored here]). 9. U.S. authorities have failed to explain the effect of numerous military drills conducted on the morning of 9/11 – including the simulation of aircraft hijackings – on the commission of the mass murder. Military drills caused confusion and surprised military and civilian personnel responsible for air traffic, as reported in U.S. media. For example, NORAD Major General Larry Arnold said that, “By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” (See, Eric Hehs, “Conversation with Major General Larry Arnold,” One Magazine, January 2002 [mirrored  here]). Colonel Robert Marr, NEADS battle commander, said he had been told that across the nation there were “29 different reports of hijackings.” (See, Robert A. Baker, “Commander of 9/11 Air Defenses Retires,” Newhouse News Service, March 31, 2005 [mirrored  here]). U.S. authorities failed to explain how these drills affected the commission of the crime, including the apparent failure to intercept hijacked aircraft. 10. U.S. authorities promoted numerous officials who, according to the official account on 9/11, had failed to carry out their duties with regard to 9/11. Not a single person has been held accountable anywhere in government for what went wrong on or prior to 9/11. Here are few examples: Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11, was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2001; Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11, was promoted to head the new “Northern Command” a year after 9/11; Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director on 9/11, was promoted in 2004 to the rank of admiral; Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who on 9/11 was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), was promoted in May 2003 to the two-star rank of major general; Marion (Spike) Bowman, who blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.” Conclusion The above facts are sufficient to reject the official account of 9/11 and consider the administration of President George W. Bush as the main suspect for this crime against humanity. While the facts are not sufficient for leveling criminal charges against specific individuals, they permit general conclusions to be drawn regarding the dangerous nature of the U.S. regime and the complicity of the political class, mainstream media, academia, and the justice system of NATO member states in covering-up the crime of 9/11 and shielding those responsible for that crime. * This article was originally published on Truth and Shadows. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 737 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1457 bytes Desc: not available URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss ------------------------------ End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 180, Issue 9 ********************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jan 7 19:20:42 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:20:42 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Stand w/ Bernie, Rashida, ACLU: Block Rubio's Sneak Attack on First Amendment References: <4330560727.-739533711@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: <4939ECC1-B9B2-4A88-B076-B9D2C23D0D46@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Just Foreign Policy > Date: January 7, 2019 at 12:45:49 PM CST > To: cge at shout.net > Subject: Stand w/ Bernie, Rashida, ACLU: Block Rubio's Sneak Attack on First Amendment > Reply-To: info at justforeignpolicy.org > > > Tell your Senators to oppose Rubio's sneaky attacks on peace and free speech. > > Call and report your call > > Sign the petition > Dear Supporter, > > On Tuesday, instead of re-opening the [non-Pentagon part of the] government, the Senate is expected to consider a Marco Rubio bill that attacks the First Amendment right of Americans to boycott illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. > > This legislation is opposed by Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, the ACLU, J Street, Americans for Peace Now, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and American Muslims for Palestine, among many others. > > Bernie Sanders tweeted: "It’s absurd that the first bill during the shutdown is legislation which punishes Americans who exercise their constitutional right to engage in political activity. Democrats must block consideration of any bills that don’t reopen the government. Let's get our priorities right." > > Rashida Tlaib tweeted: "They forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away." > > As if that weren’t bad enough, the bill also seeks to make it an objective of U.S. policy to drive Iran out of Syria, something that neocon national security advisor John Bolton has pushed for but that the Pentagon and Trump have so far resisted. Bolton’s Syria policy would be a recipe for permanent war, instead of getting out of Syria, as Trump has promised. The Syria piece would re-impose sanctions on Iran that were lifted by President Obama under the Iran nuclear deal, making it harder to re-instate the deal in a future Democratic Administration. > > Here is the Just Foreign Policy e-alert and petition, which links to ACLU and Americans for Peace Now statements of opposition to the attack on the First Amendment and to the FCNL opposition to the escalate-against-Iran-in-Syria piece. > > Call your Senators at 202-225-3121. > > When you reach a staffer or leave a message, you can say something like: > > “I urge you to oppose S. 1. This bill is an attack on the First Amendment, opposed by the ACLU and J Street. The bill also seeks to keep the U.S. at war in Syria instead of getting out as Trump has promised.” > When you’ve made your calls, please report them in the comments here. > > Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, > > Sarah Burns, Hassan El-Tayyab, and Robert Reuel Naiman > Just Foreign Policy > > If you think our work is important, please support us with a donation. > MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "org.salsalabs.com" claiming to be http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate > > > > © 2018 Just Foreign Policy > > Click here to unsubscribe > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Jan 7 19:41:21 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:41:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] URGENT: Anti-BDS Vote in Senate Tomorrow! References: Message-ID: From: Michael Deheeger > Subject: URGENT: Anti-BDS Vote in Senate Tomorrow! Date: January 7, 2019 [https://nvlupin.blob.core.windows.net/images/van/JVP/JVP/1/61881/images/jewish-voice-for-peace-signup-header-1.png] Dear Ron, It’s time to fight. And it’s urgent that you act now to stop legislation that is getting voted on tomorrow. In the midst of a government shutdown, a new bill introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) attacks our right to free speech by giving state and local governments explicit authority to punish supporters of Palestinian human rights who engage in Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions against Israel. [https://nvlupin.blob.core.windows.net/images/van/JVP/JVP/1/61881/images/bernie%202.0.png] Back-up Senator Bernie Sanders and pick up the phone right now and call your senators. Click here and tell them to vote NO on S.1 TOMORROW. Call your senators and tell them to stand up for our First Amendment rights and protect our right to boycott! Click here for a sample script and a phone number to call your Senator. The ACLU called all these laws unconstitutional. They were already overturned by federal courts in Kansas and Arizona, and lawsuits are ongoing in Texas and Arkansas. That’s why Rubio and others who want to stop the growing movement for Palestinian rights are trying to sneak this legislation through the Senate’s first bill of the year. This is an underhanded move to push through something we’ve powerfully fought back against. It’s time to raise your voice now. Join me and thousands of others across the country and say no to Rubio and yes to fighting for freedom, justice and equality. Thanks for all that you do, [https://nvlupin.blob.core.windows.net/images/van/JVP/JVP/1/61881/images/Michael-Deheeger-JVP-Staff.jpg] Michael Deheeger Congressional Organizer P.S. Another reason why you should contact your Senators to oppose S.1 is because the bill also authorizes the US to provide $38 billion in weapons to Israel over the next ten years. It’s largely symbolic – President Obama already committed to providing this money in 2016, and Congress appropriates the actual money through the budget every year. However, this bill would further legitimize US complicity in Israel’s violent oppression of the Palestinian people by authorizing the expenditure of these funds. Jewish Voice for Peace is a national membership organization inspired by Jewish tradition to work for the justice, equality, and dignity of all the people of Israel/Palestine. Become a JVP Member today. * Donate * Facebook * Twitter www.Jewishvoiceforpeace.org Jewish Voice for Peace P.O. Box 589 Berkeley, California 94701 This email was sent to r-szoke at illinois.edu We use email to build our grassroots power - don't hesitate to share your feedback and campaign suggestions. You can change your subscription options anytime. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jan 8 20:06:14 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:06:14 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?iso-8859-1?q?FW=3A_Ray_McGovern_-_A_Look_Back_a?= =?iso-8859-1?q?t_Clapper=27s_Jan=2E_2017_=27Assessment=27_on_Russi?= =?iso-8859-1?q?a-gate?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005101d4a78d$9bfccb90$d3f662b0$@comcast.net> A Look Back at Clapper’s Jan. 2017 ‘Assessment’ on Russia-gate January 7, 2019 • 0 Comments\ https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/07/a-look-back-at-clappers-jan-2017-asses sment-on-russia-gate/ Image removed by sender. A Look Back at Clapper’s Jan. 2017 ‘Assessment’ on Russia-gate – Consortiumnews The banner headline atop page one of The New York Times two years ago today, on January 7, 2017, set the tone for two years of Dick Cheney-like chicanery: “Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report ... consortiumnews.com Save On the 2nd anniversary of the “assessment” blaming Russia for “collusion” with Trump there is still no evidence other than showing the media “colluded” with the spooks, says Ray McGovern. By Ray McGovern Special to Consortium News Image removed by sender.The banner headline atop page one of The New York Times two years ago today, on January 7, 2017, set the tone for two years of Dick Cheney-like chicanery: “Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says.” Under a media drumbeat of anti-Russian hysteria, credulous Americans were led to believe that Donald Trump owed his election victory to the president of Russia, and that Trump, according to the Times, “colluded” in Putin’s “interference to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.” Hard evidence supporting the media and political rhetoric has been as elusive as proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002-2003. This time, though, an alarming increase in the possibility of war with nuclear-armed Russia has ensued — whether by design, hubris, or rank stupidity. The possible consequences for the world are even more dire than 16 years of war and destruction in the Middle East. If It Walks Like a Canard The CIA-friendly New York Times two years ago led the media quacking in a campaign that wobbled like a duck, canard in French. A glance at the title of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) (which was not endorsed by the whole community) — “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” — would suffice to show that the widely respected and independently-minded State Department intelligence bureau should have been included. State intelligence had demurred on several points made in the Oct. 2002 Estimate on Iraq, and even insisted on including a footnote of dissent. James Clapper, then director of national intelligence who put together the ICA, knew that all too well. So he evidently thought it would be better not to involve troublesome dissenters, or even inform them what was afoot. Image removed by sender. Clapper: Showing handpicked evidence? (White House Photo) Similarly, the Defense Intelligence Agency should have been included, particularly since it has considerable expertise on the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence agency, which has been blamed for Russian hacking of the DNC emails. But DIA, too, has an independent streak and, in fact, is capable of reaching judgments Clapper would reject as anathema. Just one year before Clapper decided to do the rump “Intelligence Community Assessment,” DIA had formally blessed the following heterodox idea in its “December 2015 National Security Strategy”: “The Kremlin is convinced the United States is laying the groundwork for regime change in Russia, a conviction further reinforced by the events in Ukraine. Moscow views the United States as the critical driver behind the crisis in Ukraine and believes that the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych is the latest move in a long-established pattern of U.S.-orchestrated regime change efforts.” Any further questions as to why the Defense Intelligence Agency was kept away from the ICA drafting table? Handpicked Analysts With help from the Times and other mainstream media, Clapper, mostly by his silence, was able to foster the charade that the ICA was actually a bonafide product of the entire intelligence community for as long as he could get away with it. After four months it came time to fess up that the ICA had not been prepared, as Secretary Clinton and the media kept claiming, by “all 17 intelligence agencies.” In fact, Clapper went one better, proudly asserting — with striking naiveté — that the ICA writers were “handpicked analysts” from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He may have thought that this would enhance the ICA’s credibility. It is a no-brainer, however, that when you want handpicked answers, you better handpick the analysts. And so he did. Why is no one interested in the identities of the handpicked analysts and the hand-pickers? After all, we have the names of the chief analysts/managers responsible for the fraudulent NIE of October 2002 that greased the skids for the war on Iraq. Listed in the NIE itself are the principal analyst Robert D. Walpole and his chief assistants Paul Pillar, Lawrence K. Gershwin and Maj. Gen. John R. Landry. The Overlooked Disclaimer Buried in an inside page of the Times‘ Jan. 7, 2017 report was a cautionary paragraph by reporter Scott Shane. It seems he had read the ICA all the way through, and had taken due note of the derriere-protecting caveats included in the strangely cobbled together report. Shane had to wade through nine pages of drivel about “Russia’s Propaganda Efforts” to reach Annex B with its curious disclaimer: “Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents. High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.” Small wonder, then, that Shane noted: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. This a significant omission.” Image removed by sender. Scott Shane (Twitter) Since then, Shane has evidently realized what side his bread is buttered on and has joined the ranks of Russia-gate aficionados. Decades ago, he did some good reporting on such issues, so it was sad to see him decide to blend in with the likes of David Sanger and promote the NYT official Russia-gate narrative. An embarrassing feature , “The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far,” that Shane wrote with NYT colleague Mark Mazzetti in September, is full of gaping holes, picked apart in two pieces by Consortium News. Shades of WMD Sanger is one of the intelligence community’s favorite go-to journalists. He was second only to the disgraced Judith Miller in promoting the canard of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March 2003. For example, in a July 29, 2002 article , “U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike As Iraq Option,” co-written by Sanger and Thom Shanker, the existence of WMD in Iraq was stated as flat fact no fewer than seven times. The Sanger/Shanker article appeared just a week after then-CIA Director George Tenet confided to his British counterpart that President George W. Bush had decided “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” At that critical juncture, Clapper was in charge of the analysis of satellite imagery and hid the fact that the number of confirmed WMD sites in Iraq was zero. Despite that fact and that his “assessment” has never been proven, Clapper continues to receive praise. During a “briefing ” I attended at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington several weeks ago, Clapper displayed master circular reasoning, saying in effect, that the assessment had to be correct because that’s what he and other intelligence directors told President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump. Image removed by sender. McGovern questions Clapper at Carnegie Endowment in Washington.(Alli McCracken) I got a chance to question him at the event. His disingenuous answers brought a painful flashback to one of the most shameful episodes in the annals of U.S. intelligence analysis. Ray McGovern: My name is Ray McGovern. Thanks for this book; it’s very interesting [Ray holds up his copy of Clapper’s memoir]. I’m part of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. I’d like to refer to the Russia problem, but first there’s an analogy that I see here. You were in charge of imagery analysis before Iraq. James Clapper: Yes. RM: You confess [in the book] to having been shocked that no weapons of mass destruction were found. And then, to your credit, you admit, as you say here [quotes from the book], “the blame is due to intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help [the administration make war on Iraq] that we found what wasn’t really there.” Now fast forward to two years ago. Your superiors were hell bent on finding ways to blame Trump’s victory on the Russians. Do you think that your efforts were guilty of the same sin here? Do you think that you found a lot of things that weren’t really there? Because that’s what our conclusion is, especially from the technical end. There was no hacking of the DNC; it was leaked, and you know that because you talked to NSA. JC: Well, I have talked with NSA a lot, and I also know what we briefed to then-President Elect Trump on the 6th of January. And in my mind, uh, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT [signals intelligence] business, the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever. The Intelligence Community Assessment that we rendered that day, that was asked, tasked to us by President Obama — and uh — in early December, made no call whatsoever on whether, to what extent the Russians influenced the outcome of the election. Uh, the administration, uh, the team then, the President-Elect’s team, wanted to say that — that we said that the Russian interference had no impact whatsoever on the election. And I attempted, we all did, to try to correct that misapprehension as they were writing a press release before we left the room. However, as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn’t have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election. RM: That’s what the New York Times says. But let me say this: we have two former Technical Directors from NSA in our movement here, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity; we also have forensics, okay? Now the President himself, your President, President Obama said two days before he left town: The conclusions of the intelligence community — this is ten days after you briefed him — with respect to how WikiLeaks got the DNC emails are “inconclusive” end quote. Now why would he say that if you had said it was conclusive? JC: I can’t explain what he said or why. But I can tell you we’re, we’re pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails. I’m not going to go into the technical details about why we believe that. RM: We are too [pretty sure we know]; and it was a leak onto a thumb drive — gotten to Julian Assange — really simple. If you knew it, and the NSA has that information, you have a duty, you have a duty to confess to that, as well as to [Iraq]. JC: Confess to what? RM: Confess to the fact that you’ve been distorting the evidence. JC: I don’t confess to that. RM: The Intelligence Community Assessment was without evidence. JC: I do not confess to that. I simply do not agree with your conclusions. William J. Burns (Carnegie President): Hey, Ray, I appreciate your question. I didn’t want this to look like Jim Acosta in the White House grabbing microphones away. Thank you for the questioning though. Yes ma’am [Burns recognizes the next questioner]. The above exchange can be seen starting at 28:45 in this video. Not Worth His Salt Having supervised intelligence analysis, including chairing National Intelligence Estimates, for three-quarters of my 27-year career at CIA, my antennae are fine-tuned for canards. And so, at Carnegie, when Clapper focused on the rump analysis masquerading as an “Intelligence Community Assessment,” the scent of the duck came back strongly. Intelligence analysts worth their salt give very close scrutiny to sources, their possible agendas, and their records for truthfulness. Clapper flunks on his own record, including his performance before the Iraq war — not to mention his giving sworn testimony to Congress that he had to admit was “clearly erroneous,” when documents released by Edward Snowden proved him a perjurer. At Carnegie, the questioner who followed me brought that up and asked, “How on earth did you keep your job, Sir?” The next questioner, a former manager of State Department intelligence, posed another salient question: Why, he asked, was State Department intelligence excluded from the “Intelligence Community Assessment”? Image removed by sender. U.S. Marine patrols the streets of Al Faw, Iraq, 2003. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Ted Banks.) Among the dubious reasons Clapper gave was the claim, “We only had a month, and so it wasn’t treated as a full-up National Intelligence Estimate where all 16 members of the intelligence community would pass judgment on it.” Clapper then tried to spread the blame around (“That was a deliberate decision that we made and that I agreed with”), but as director of national intelligence the decision was his. Given the questioner’s experience in the State Department’s intelligence, he was painfully aware of how quickly a “full-up NIE” can be prepared. He knew all too well that the October 2002 NIE, “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction,” was ginned up in less than a month, when Cheney and Bush wanted to get Congress to vote for war on Iraq. (As head of imagery analysis, Clapper signed off on that meretricious estimate, even though he knew no WMD sites had been confirmed in Iraq.) It’s in the Russians’ DNA The criteria Clapper used to handpick his own assistants are not hard to divine. An Air Force general in the mold of Curtis LeMay, Clapper knows all about “the Russians.” And he does not like them, not one bit. During an interview with NBC on May 28, 2017, Clapper referred to “the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique.” And just before I questioned him at Carnegie, he muttered, “It’s in their DNA.” Even those who may accept Clapper’s bizarre views about Russian genetics still lack credible proof that (as the ICA concludes “with high confidence”) Russia’s main military intelligence unit, the G.R.U., created a “persona” called Guccifer 2.0 to release the emails of the Democratic National Committee. When those disclosures received what was seen as insufficient attention, the G.R.U. “relayed material it acquired from the D.N.C. and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks,” the assessment said. At Carnegie, Clapper cited “forensics.” But forensics from where? To his embarrassment, then-FBI Director James Comey, for reasons best known to him, chose not to do forensics on the “Russian hack” of the DNC computers, preferring to rely on a computer outfit of tawdry reputation hired by the DNC. Moreover, there is zero indication that the drafters of the ICA had any reliable forensics to work with. In contrast, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, working with independent forensic investigators, examined metadata from a July 5, 2016 DNC intrusion that was alleged to be a “hack.” However, the metadata showed a transfer speed far exceeding the capacity of the Internet at the time. Actually, all the speed turned out to be precisely what a thumb drive could accommodate, indicating that what was involved was a copy onto an external storage device and not a hack — by Russia or anyone else. WikiLeaks had obtained the DNC emails earlier. On June 12, 2016 Julian Assange announced he had “emails relating to Hillary Clinton.” NSA appears to lack any evidence that those emails — the embarrassing ones showing that the DNC cards were stacked against Bernie Sanders — were hacked. Since NSA’s dragnet coverage scoops up everything on the Internet, NSA or its partners can, and do trace all hacks. In the absence of evidence that the DNC was hacked, all available factual evidence indicates that earlier in the spring of 2016, an external storage device like a thumb drive was used in copying the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. Additional investigation has proved Guccifer 2.0 to be an out-and-out fabrication — and a faulty basis for indictments. A Gaping Gap Clapper and the directors of the CIA, FBI, and NSA briefed President Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2007, the day before they briefed President-elect Trump. At Carnegie, I asked Clapper to explain why President Obama still had serious doubts. On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama saw fit to use lawyerly language to cover his own derriere, saying: “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked.” So we end up with “inconclusive conclusions” on that admittedly crucial point. In other words, U.S. intelligence does not know how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks. In the absence of any evidence from NSA (or from its foreign partners) of an Internet hack of the DNC emails the claim that “the Russians gave the DNC emails to WikiLeaks” rests on thin gruel. After all, these agencies collect everything that goes over the Internet. Clapper answered: “I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we’re, we’re pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails.” Really? Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year CIA career he supervised intelligence analysis as Chief of Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, as editor/briefer of thePresident’s Daily Brief, as a member of the Production Review Staff, and as chair of National Intelligence Estimates. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 782 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2316 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1784 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4688 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2348 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 15:14:08 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 09:14:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Women politicals of the American empire Message-ID: <963E611A-F9FD-4651-8B27-30DDF5B998F4@gmail.com> https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/01/women-politicals-of-the-american-empire/ From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jan 9 17:33:56 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:33:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong References: <903E00AD-BFA8-4466-84E9-ED11D9275851@illinois.edu> Message-ID: From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong Date: January 9, 2019 Why it’s so hard to see our own ignorance, and what to do about it. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Jan 9 23:19:14 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:19:14 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Ray McGovern - A Look Back at Clapper's Jan. 2017 'Assessment' on Russia-gate In-Reply-To: <005101d4a78d$9bfccb90$d3f662b0$@comcast.net> References: <005101d4a78d$9bfccb90$d3f662b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/07/a-look-back-at-clappers-jan-2017-assessment-on-russia-gate/ Relatedly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngIKjpucQh8 is a recording of McGovern's lecture on Russia-gate titled "Ray McGovern - Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?" recorded August 4, 2018 at the Common Good Cafe, University Temple United Methodist Church, Seattle. From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 10:43:39 2019 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 04:43:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] great shutdown article-the human cost Message-ID: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/09/shutdown-offers-taste-suffering-poor-and-vulnerable-know-too-well -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 11:23:31 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 05:23:31 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Your message to Peace awaits moderator approval References: Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: Your message to Peace awaits moderator approval > Date: January 10, 2019 at 5:21:45 AM CST > To: peace-owner at lists.chambana.net > > Posts like this should not be censored while those from the so-called ‘Progressive Democrats’ go through. > > Censorship of AWARE lists is inappropriate - especially in favor of the US political establishment. > > >> On Jan 6, 2019, at 2:52 PM, peace-owner at lists.chambana.net wrote: >> >> Your mail to 'Peace' with the subject >> >> US remains greatest purveyor of violence >> >> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. >> >> The reason it is being held: >> >> Post to moderated list >> >> Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive >> notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel >> this posting, please visit the following URL: >> >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/confirm/peace/8fc8304cdaa8eb21992ead1f08a8c71f332ef9f1 >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 10 14:31:34 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 08:31:34 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [New post] A New Narrative Control Firm Works To Destroy Alternative Media In-Reply-To: <139971992.5780.0@wordpress.com> References: <139971992.5780.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <002d01d4a8f1$308b7ea0$91a27be0$@comcast.net> Caitlin Johnstone posted: "The frenzied, hysterical Russia narrative being promoted day in and day out by western mass media has had two of its major stories ripped to shreds in the last three days. A report seeded throughout the mainstream media by anonymous intelligence offici" New post on Caitlin Johnstone Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. A New Narrative Control Firm Works To Destroy Alternative Media by Caitlin Johnstone The frenzied, hysterical Russia narrative being promoted day in and day out by western mass media has had two of its major stories ripped to shreds in the last three days. A report seeded throughout the mainstream media by anonymous intelligence officials back in September claimed that US government workers in Cuba had suffered concussion-like brain damage after hearing strange noises in homes and hotels with the most likely culprit being "sophisticated microwaves or another type of electromagnetic weapon" from Russia. A recording of one such highly sophisticated attack was analyzed by scientists and turned out to be the mating call of the male indies short-tailed cricket. Neurologists and other brain specialists have challenged the claim that any US government workers suffered any neurological damage of any kind, saying test results on the alleged victims were misinterpreted. The actual story, when stripped of hyperventilating Russia panic, is that some government workers heard some crickets in Cuba. Another report which dominated news headlines all of yesterday claimed that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort (the same Paul Manafort who the Guardian falsely claimed met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy) had shared polling data with a Russian associate and asked him to pass it along to Oleg Deripaska, who is often labeled a "Russian oligarch" by western media. The polling data was mostly public already, and the rest was just more polling information shared at the beginning of 2016, but Deripaska's involvement had Russiagaters burning the midnight oil with breathless excitement. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall went so far as to publish an article titled "The ‘Collusion’ Debate Ended Last Night", substantiating his click-generating headline with the claim that "What’s crystal clear is that the transfer to Kilimnik came with explicit instructions to give the information to Deripaska. And that’s enough." Except Manafort didn't give any explicit instructions to share the polling data with Deripaska, but with two Ukrainian oligarchs (who are denying it). The New York Times was forced to print this embarrassing correction to the story it broke, adding in the process that Manafort's motivation was likely not collusion, but money. Aw, shucks. Well at least the new names are also complicated and Slavic, so readers can still draw their preferred sinister inferences https://t.co/1NPNC5EN4m pic.twitter.com/P2dhAN8eQg — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 9, 2019 These are just the latest in a long, ongoing pattern of terrible mass media debacles as reporters eager to demonstrate their unquestioning fealty to the US-centralized empire fall all over themselves to report any story that makes Russia look bad without practicing due diligence. The only voices who have been questioning the establishment Russia narrative that is being fed to mass media outlets by secretive government agencies have been those which the mass media refuses to platform. Alternative media outlets are the only major platforms for dissent from the authorized narratives of the plutocrat-owned political/media class. Imagine, then, how disastrous it would be if these last strongholds of skepticism and holding power to account were removed from the media landscape. Well, that's exactly what a shady organization called NewsGuard is trying to do, with some success already. A new report by journalist Whitney Webb for MintPress News details how NewsGuard is working to hide and demonetize alternative media outlets like MintPress, marketing itself directly to tech companies, social media platforms, libraries and schools. NewsGuard is staffed with some of the most virulently pro-imperialist individuals in America, and its agenda to shore up narrative control for the ruling power establishment is clear. EXCLUSIVE: As Newsguard’s project advances, it will soon become almost impossible to avoid this neocon-approved news site’s ranking systems on any technological device sold in the United States. @_whitneywebb https://t.co/ftH6QnVlDn — MintPress News (@MintPressNews) January 9, 2019 The product which NewsGuard markets to the general public is a browser plugin which advises online media consumers whether a news media outlet is trustworthy or untrustworthy based on a formula with a very pro-establishment bias which sees outlets like Fox News and the US propaganda outlet Voice of America getting trustworthy ratings while outlets like RT get very low ratings for trustworthiness. This plugin dominates the bulk of what comes up when you start researching NewsGuard, but circulating a plugin which individual internet users can voluntarily download to help their rulers control their minds is not one of the more nefarious agendas being pursued by this company. The full MintPress article gives a thorough breakdown of the yucky things NewsGuard has its fingers in, but here's a summary of six of its more disturbing revelations: 1. The company has created a service called BrandGuard, billed as a “brand safety tool aimed at helping advertisers keep their brands off of unreliable news and information sites while giving them the assurance they need to support thousands of Green-rated [i.e., Newsguard-approved] news and information sites, big and small.” Popularizing the use of this service will attack the advertising revenue of unapproved alternative media outlets which run ads. NewsGuard is aggressively marketing this service to "ad tech firms, leading agencies, and major advertisers”. 2. NewsGuard's advisory board reads like the fellowships list of a neocon think tank, and indeed one of its CEOs, Louis Gordon Crovitz, is a Council on Foreign Relations member who has worked with the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation. Members of the advisory board include George W Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, deep intelligence community insider Michael Hayden, and the Obama administration's Richard Stengel, who once publicly supported the need for domestic propaganda in the US. All of these men have appeared in influential think tanks geared toward putting a public smiley face on sociopathic warmongering agendas. At a Council on Foreign Relations forum about "fake news," former Editor at Time Magazine Richard Stengel directly states that he supports the use of propaganda on American citizens - then shuts the session down when challenged about how propaganda is used against the third world pic.twitter.com/ClAT5POv7G — William Craddick (@williamcraddick) May 11, 2018 3. Despite one of its criteria for trustworthy sources being whether or not they are transparent about their funding, the specifics of NewsGuard's financing is kept secret. 4. The company has created a service called BrandGuard, billed as a “brand safety tool aimed at helping advertisers keep their brands off of unreliable news and information sites while giving them the assurance they need to support thousands of Green-rated [i.e., Newsguard-approved] news and information sites, big and small.” Popularizing the use of this service will attack the advertising revenue of unapproved alternative media outlets which run ads. NewsGuard is aggressively marketing this service to "ad tech firms, leading agencies, and major advertisers”. 5. NewsGuard is also planning to get its news-ranking system integrated into social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter, pursuing a partnership which will make pro-establishment media consumption a part of your experience of those sites regardless of whether you download a NewsGuard app or plugin. 6. NewsGuard markets itself to state governments in order to get its plugin installed in all of that state's public schools and libraries to keep internet users from consuming unauthorized narratives. It has already succeeded in accomplishing this in the state of Hawaii, with all of its branches now running the NewsGuard plugin. Really excited to see NewsGuard now built into the latest beta of Edge on iOS Image removed by sender. ??Image removed by sender. ??. Smart service. There's also an extension for Edge on Windows 10. pic.twitter.com/Pqq9diNR8F — Daniel Rubino (@Daniel_Rubino) January 4, 2019 We may be absolutely certain that NewsGuard will continue giving a positive, trustworthy ranking to the New York Times no matter how many spectacular flubs it makes in its coverage of the establishment Russia narrative, because the agenda to push popularize anti-Russia narratives lines up perfectly with the neoconservative, government agency-serving agendas of the powers behind NewsGuard. Any attempt to advance the hegemony of the US-centralized power establishment will be rewarded by its lackeys, and any skepticism of it will be punished. Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Ruling power's desire to regulate people's access to information is so desperate that it has become as clumsy and ham-fisted as a teenager pawing at his date in the back seat of a car, and it feels about as enjoyable. They're barely even concealing their desire to control our minds anymore, so it shouldn't be too difficult to wake everyone up to their manipulations. We need to use every inch of our ability to communicate with each other before it gets shut down for good. ______________________ The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet new merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. Image removed by sender. Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 Caitlin Johnstone | January 10, 2019 at 3:30 am | Tags: media, MintPress News, narrative, NewsGuard, propaganda, Whitney Webb | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1ve Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/01/10/a-new-narrative-control-firm-works-to-destroy-alternative-media/ Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 368 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jan 11 08:01:09 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 02:01:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NfN notes Message-ID: <6d413268-956e-d768-ca36-6aa44a1024a3@forestfield.org> A few notes on recent developments. Have a good show guys. Economy: America’s Middle Class is Vanishing. Nearly Half of Workers Earn Less than $30,000 https://howmuch.net/articles/how-much-americans-make-in-wages Someday we'll be able to sing "Russiagate is falling down...falling down...falling down..." but not today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNNhXjTk0Aw -- CrossTalk on "Psyop" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFfm8b3kLt4 -- Afshin Rattansi on Integrity Initiative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBX1rBHqXF8 -- Integrity Initiative had an operative in the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ak8aXHeeok -- Max Blumenthal (of https://grayzoneproject.com/) is interviewed on the latest regarding the "Integrity Initiative" (a British taxpayer-funded effort). All of the following comes from Max Blumenthal and Mark Ames' reports in this piece and on the grayzoneproject.com site. It turns out that the Integrity Initiative: - operates secretly from a building not listed as their address - covertly funded -- over 2 million pounds -- from the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office which oversees the main foreign intelligence operations of the UK government - meddles in foreign elections: has spies that have worked on the Bernie Sanders campaign - smears Jeremy Corbyn and the UK Labour Party - operates similarly to what was described in "Operation Mockingbird" which was revealed in the 1970s in the Church Commission to be the CIA paying hundreds of US journalists during the Cold War More is revealed by grayzoneproject.com on the "Institute for Statecraft" whose email servers were broken into and emails were obtained and released. This is how outsiders came to learn of the Integrity Initiative. The main goals of the Integrity Initiative: 1. Get the west (particularly US & UK) on a permanent war footing against Russia. Treat anything (including RT's broadcasts) as an act of war. 2. Smear anyone who gets in their way and that "typically includes major figures on the left like the opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who has been smeared by this British government operation". Liz Wahl, former RT on-air anchor, resigned from her RT show on-air on March 5, 2014. Wahl was "paid by [the Integrity Initiative] to produce attacks on RT". At least one of her stories has been identified to have been paid for in this way. Ben Nimmo, who reports on "Russian bots", turns out to be a consultant for the Integrity Initiative. A Seattle conference between the Integrity Initiative and the journalists they collude with (and pay) happened. At this meeting they coordinated their messages: permanent war, conflict with Russia, "and smear the crap out of anyone who gets in your way". On the US side there's also the State Department's "Global Engagement Center". Blumenthal said: > [The State Department's Global Engagement Center] is the domestic > propaganda arm of the US Government. It was created under Obama. Under > Trump it became direct at Russian disinformation. And it refuses to say > whether it's targeting American citizens but what I'm saying, Rick > [Sanchez, RT show host], is there's a war for the minds of American > media consumers and there is a war on their minds and it's not just > being fought through the media. There are tentacles going into the media > from military intelligence cutouts and we wouldn't know this unless > these communications had been hacked and leaked. Read the following for more details: https://grayzoneproject.com/2019/01/08/new-documents-reveal-a-covert-british-military-intelligence-smear-machine-meddling-in-american-politics/ https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/12/17/inside-the-temple-of-covert-propaganda-the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiwY2ILldMY -- New York Times published report which claimed "Manafort Accused of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate" and 1 day later admits they got the story wrong (but didn't bother to change the headline): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html > The document provided the clearest evidence to date that the Trump > campaign may have tried to coordinate with Russians during the 2016 > presidential race. The NYT's report was based on an anonymous source and it turns out was completely wrong. One day after publishing the story the Times had to correct the story: > A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul > Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort > wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and > Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to > the Kremlin. The Washington Post continued to report on this story (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/09/one-more-russian-contact-heres-why-it-matters/) without any note of the Times' correction. Don't forget the entire Assange/Manafort narrative is shot through with problems. Glenn Greenwald has written a couple of articles about this and in his latest -- https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/ -- he asks some critical questions which have yet to be answered: > How could it be that Manafort, of all people, snuck into one of the most > monitored, surveilled, videoed, and photographed buildings on the planet > on three separate occasions without any of that ostensibly “smoking gun” > visual evidence having emerged, including in The Guardian’s own story? > > Why would The Guardian publish a story of this magnitude without first > requiring that its Ecuadoran intelligence sources provide them with such > photographic or video evidence to publish it or at least review prior to > publication? > > How could it be that Manafort’s name never appeared in any of the > embassy entrance logs even though, as The Guardian itself admitted, > “visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their > passports”? > > What was the bizarre, sensationalistic reference to “Russians” that The > Guardian included in its article but never bothered to explain > (“separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence > agency and seen by The Guardian lists ‘Paul Manaford [sic]’ as one of > several well-known guests. It also mentions ‘Russians'”). and he reminds us that > None of this is an aberration. Quite the contrary, it has become par for > the Trump-Russia course. One major story after the next falls apart, and > there is no accountability, reckoning, or transparency (neither CNN nor > MSNBC, for instance, have to date bothered to explain how they both > “independently confirmed” the totally false story that Donald Trump, Jr. > was offered advanced access to the WikiLeaks email archive, all based on > false claims about the date of an email to him from a random member of > the public). > > Nor is it atypical for The Guardian when it comes to its institutionally > blinding contempt for Assange: During the election, the paper was forced > to retract its viral report from political reporter Ben Jacobs, who > decided to assert, without any whiff of basis, that Assange has a “long > had a close relationship with the Putin regime.” > > The U.S media has become very adept at outrage rituals whenever they are > denounced as “fake news.” They should spend some time trying to become > as skilled in figuring out why such attacks resonate for so many. https://archive.fo/3szkm https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trust-in-media-down.php -- The Columbia Journalism Review reports: > The results of a new Knight Foundation and Gallup poll released on > Tuesday won’t come as a huge surprise to most journalists: Trust in the > media is down. Again. > > A majority of those who were surveyed said they had lost trust in the > media in recent years, and more than 30 percent of those who identified > themselves as being on the conservative end of the spectrum said they > had not only lost faith in the media, but they “expect that change to be > permanent.” According to a separate Gallup poll from earlier this year > that tracked trust in major institutions, newspapers and television news > were among the lowest, exceeded only by Congress. The poll report is at https://www.knightfoundation.org/reports/indicators-of-news-media-trust . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAtEC7sOfew https://theintercept.com/2019/01/07/nbc-and-msnbc-blamed-russia-for-using-sophisticated-microwaves-to-cause-brain-injuries-in-u-s-diplomats-in-cuba-the-culprits-were-likely-crickets/ -- US reflexively blames Russia for "attacking Cuba" with "sophisticated microwaves" and causing "brain injuries". The source of the odd noise was likely crickets. > NBC claimed that U.S. intelligence agencies had intercepted > communications between Russian officials where they acknowledged their > guilt for this attack, those same agencies insisted to the New Yorker > “that they still had no evidence of Russian complicity.” Did any of that > make MSNBC or NBC go re-visit their story and tell their viewers of this > rather significant doubt raised by the New Yorker? Do you even need to > ask? > > Instead, NBC and MSNBC used hours of airtime and numerous pages to > spread highly inflammatory claims across their numerous media platforms, > all blaming Russia for an extremely serious attack on the U.S. – all > because their CIA masters told them to do it. This is what NBC and MSNBC > are, their function and mission: > > An @NBCNews exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the > main suspect in the sonic attacks that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and > intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the latest. > pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD > > — TODAY (@TODAYshow) September 11, 2018 > > And, needless to say, journalists from other mainstream outlets accepted > these claims on blind faith, as exemplified by this Daily Beast > reporter: > > Wow >> U.S. has signals intelligence linking the sonic attacks on > Americans in Cuba and China to *Russia* https://t.co/FbNla0vu9W > > — Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) September 11, 2018 > > One U.S. Senator used the NBC report to urge that Russia be classified > as a “terrorist” state: > > Following NBC report about sonic attacks, @SenCoryGardner renews calls > for declaring Russia a state sponsor of terror https://t.co/wrnubfecom > > — Niels Lesniewski (@nielslesniewski) September 11, 2018 But researchers publish https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/01/04/510834 which starts: > Recording of "sonic attacks" on U.S. diplomats in Cuba spectrally > matches the echoing call of a Caribbean cricket > > Beginning in late 2016, diplomats posted to the United States embassy in > Cuba began to experience unexplained health problems including ear pain, > tinnitus, vertigo, and cognitive difficulties which reportedly began > after they heard strange noises in their homes or hotel rooms. In > response, the U.S. government dramatically reduced the number of > diplomats posted at the U.S. embassy in Havana. U.S. officials initially > believed a sonic attack might be responsible for their ailments. The > sound linked to these attacks, which has been described as a > high-pitched beam of sound, was recorded by U.S. personnel in Cuba and > released by the Associated Press (AP). Because these recordings are the > only available non-medical evidence of the sonic attacks, much attention > has focused on identifying health problems and the origin of the > acoustic signal. As shown here, the calling song of the Indies > short-tailed cricket (Anurogryllus celerinictus) matches, in nuanced > detail, the AP recording in duration, pulse repetition rate, power > spectrum, pulse rate stability, and oscillations per pulse. The AP > recording also exhibits frequency decay in individual pulses, a distinct > acoustic signature of cricket sound production. While the temporal pulse > structure in the recording is unlike any natural insect source, when the > cricket call is played on a loudspeaker and recorded indoors, the > interaction of reflected sound pulses yields a sound virtually > indistinguishable from the AP sample. This provides strong evidence that > an echoing cricket call, rather than a sonic attack or other > technological device, is responsible for the sound in the released > recording. Although the causes of the health problems reported by > embassy personnel are beyond the scope of this paper, our findings > highlight the need for more rigorous research into the source of these > ailments, including the potential psychogenic effects, as well as > possible physiological explanations unrelated to sonic attacks. This follows a pattern of one of the two types of Russiagate stories out there: Type 1: Stories that are just plain false. For example, Russians didn't take over the US power grid via a power station in Vermont. Type 2: Stories that are wildly exaggerated to create an unjustified panic: Some Russians are said to have bought social media ads before the 2016 US presidential election. Some of those ads didn't run at all. Some ads didn't run until after the election. Some ads didn't seem to address the election in any way. The total amount of money spent on the ads is some thousands of dollars; orders of magnitude less money than what is needed to convey any message to American voters. And even for those ads that did run and did address the election, and didn't endorse Clinton, so what? Freedom of speech as a principle tells us it's okay for people (even Russians) to want Trump to win. The real reasons for Trump's victory are rooted in Democrats not being motivated to vote for Hillary Clinton (many Democrats who voted for Obama did not vote for US President at all in 2016). That's Hillary Clinton's fault and is easily understood by looking at her neoliberalism (her support for economic policies that widen the gap between the wealthy and poor) and her neoconservatism (her support for more war). Mix in some amenable statements from Trump (criticizing NAFTA, criticizing the Iraq War, mentioning Medicare for All as a possibility) and apparently we see a repeat of what we learned when Mrs. Clinton lost to another political novice named Barack Obama whom most Americans had never heard of when he was the junior Illinois state senator. 2016 was Clinton's election to lose and she lost it. Getting back to the problem with a lot of western media: At what point does western media and state-owned corporate sycophants (BBC and CBC, to name a couple), and the so-called "alternative" Democracy Now become so distrusted for their reflexive Russiagate support that we are forced to conclude they're dangerous jokes? Supporting Russiagate is pushing for war with Russia, distracting attention away from issues that matter, and apparently resulting in an overall loss of trust in an institution people need in order to make informed decisions. https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/12/25/senate-report-on-russian-interference-was-written-by-disinformation-warriors-behind-alabama-false-flag-operation/ -- Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’ > Hailed by Congress and the media as defenders of democracy, high-tech > Russiagate hustlers Jonathon Morgan and Ryan Fox have been exposed for > waging “an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation” to swing the 2017 Alabama > senate race. War reporting: DoD stops releasing details on strikes in war against ISIS. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/09/syria-isis-airstrikes-us-military/ -- > The Defense Department has quietly halted its practice of issuing > detailed “strike releases,” periodic reports that provided information > about bombings targeting Islamic State fighters, buildings, and > equipment in Iraq and Syria. > > The change comes as the U.S. military has ramped up its bombing > offensive against ISIS in eastern Syria following President Donald > Trump’s surprise announcement of a troop withdrawal last month. While > many of the U.S.-led coalition’s actions against ISIS were shrouded in > secrecy, the strike releases, which the military has been issuing since > the start of the campaign against ISIS in 2014, were valuable tools for > watchdogs that work to corroborate reports of civilian casualties. > > “The only claim I’ve seen publicly made is that with ISIS almost beat, > there’s less need for detailed releases,” said Chris Woods, the founder > of Airwars, a London-based nonprofit that monitors and assesses civilian > harm from bombing campaigns in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. “Yet both strikes > and civilian harm are at their highest levels since Raqqa. Reducing > transparency is entirely counterproductive in our view.” > > In a note appended to the top of its January 4 strike release, the > Defense Department announced that strike releases would be cut from > weekly to biweekly. The subtext of the announcement is that even with > biweekly releases, transparency about the bombings, including the dates > of specific strikes and the buildings or groups targeted, has become the > latest collateral damage. Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX6eBqTUz6U -- Trump wants less transparency on wars: President Trump said: > What kind of stuff is this? We're fighting wars and they're filing > reports and releasing it to the public. Now the public means the enemy. > The enemy reads those reports, they study every line of it. [...] They > should be private reports and be locked up and if a member of Congress > wants to see it he can go in and read it. Afghanistan war spending: The SIGAR reviewed how money is spent in Afghanistan and (surprise!) there's wasteful spending: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-brand-new-us-military-headquarters-in-afghanistan-and-nobody-to-use-it/2013/07/09/2bb73728-e8cd-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/boondoggle -- From Pro Publica: > [T]he U.S. military built a lavish headquarters in Afghanistan that > wasn’t needed, wasn’t wanted and wasn’t ever used—at a cost to American > taxpayers of at least $25 million. > > From start to finish, this 64,000-square-foot mistake could easily have > been avoided. Not one, not two, but three generals tried to kill it. And > they were overruled, not because they were wrong, but seemingly because > no one wanted to cancel a project Congress had already given them money > to build. > > In the process, the story of “64K” reveals a larger truth: Once wartime > spending gets rolling there’s almost no stopping it. In Afghanistan, the > reconstruction effort alone has cost $109 billion, with questionable > results. > > The 64K project was meant for troops due to flood the country during the > temporary surge in 2010. But even under the most optimistic estimates, > the project wouldn’t be completed until six months after those troops > would start going home. > > Along the way, the state-of-the-art building, plopped in Afghanistan’s > Helmand province, nearly doubled in cost and became a running joke among > Marines. The Pentagon could have halted construction at many points—64K > made it through five military reviews over two years—but didn’t, saying > it wanted the building just in case U.S. troops ended up staying. (They > didn’t.) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dea-s-86m-spy-plane-for-combating-afghanistan-drug-trade-left-sitting-in-delaware-hanger-a6962561.html > DEA’s $86m spy plane for combating Afghanistan drug trade left sitting > in Delaware hanger > > An $86m spy plane kitted out by the US Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) > for the skies above Afghanistan has instead been sitting in a hangar in > Delaware, it has emerged. > > The DEA bought the ATR 42-500 plane for less than $10m in 2008, to help > combat the Afghan drug trade, which is thought to contribute to funding > terrorism. But the agency then spent almost $65m on modifications and > surveillance equipment, as well as building a customised hangar to house > the aircraft in Kabul. > > However, a report published this week by the Inspector General’s Office > of the US Justice Department found that the plane “remains inoperable, > resting on jacks, and has never actually flown in Afghanistan.” > > The DEA’s activities in Afghanistan were wound down last year, and now > the plane is unlikely ever to fly there. It was grounded in Delaware > after failing a Federal Aviation Administration inspection in 2014. A > DEA official told investigators the plane would eventually be used for > anti-drug trade efforts in Latin American and the Caribbean. The cost of these two efforts alone could have paid for the expected costs of giving healthcare to the poorest New York City residents (see story below). Palestinian support is source of job loss for Marc Lamont Hill, award loss for Angela Davis https://on.rt.com/9m2j https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxTY0LABCiI -- RT's report on Angela Davis being stripped of an award from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute for her support of BDS ('Boycott Divest Sanction' Israel businesses ). Also includes how Marc Lamont Hill was recently fired from CNN and smeared for his support of the same. From https://on.rt.com/9m2j > The scandal started innocuously enough in October, when the Alabama > institute gave the former Black Panther and American communist party > figurehead its biggest annual accolade, calling her “one of the most > globally recognized champions of human rights, giving voice to those who > are powerless to speak." > > There was no immediate pushback, and a “homecoming” for Birmingham-born > Davis, who is professor emeritus at the University of California, was > scheduled for next month. > > As the date neared, organized dissent began to be heard. Online > publication Southern Jewish Life wrote a 1,200-word editorial in > December saying “there might be some indigestion at the [award-ceremony] > dinner over this year’s honoree,” and detailing her consistent support > of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which “isolates > Israel.” > > On January 2, the Birmingham Holocaust Education Center wrote a letter > directly to the civil rights institute, expressing “concern and > disappointment” at Davis being honored, while local celebrity, retired > four-star Marine General Charles Krulak, an outspoken friend of Israel, > also issued a public statement condemning Davis, through a member of the > local Jewish community. > > On January 4, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute caved in, and issued > a vague statement in which it said it had conducted a “closer > examination” of Davis’ pronouncements, and concluded that she “does not > meet all the criteria on which the award is based.” The criteria is unpublished. Angela Davis responded to the award cancellation: > Although the BCRI refused my requests to reveal the substantive reasons > for this action, I later learned that my long-term support of justice > for Palestine was at issue... [...] > I support Palestinian political prisoners just as I support current > political prisoners in the Basque Country, in Catalunya, in India, and > in other parts of the world. I have indeed expressed opposition to > policies and practices of the state of Israel, as I express similar > opposition to U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine and > to other discriminatory U.S. policies. Marc Lamont Hill was a former CNN contributor who was fired for saying this on the record and in a recording: > We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to > commit to political action, grassroots action, local action, and > international action that will give us what justice requires. And that > is a free Palestine. From the river to the sea. In regards to Davis' award being rescinded, Marc Lamont Hill tweeted in https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/1082243739228270593 > This is shameful. I stand with my dear sister and friend Angela Davis. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/09/new-york-city-care-comprehensive-health-care-plan-concerns/2522924002/ https://abc7ny.com/politics/mayor-de-blasio-announces-health-care-for-all-nyc-residents/5034167/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gJCqYCUMds -- NYC mayor Bill de Blasio promises to cover all city residents despite citizenship or ability to pay. Bill de Blasio said: > For those who can afford something they'll pay on a sliding scale. For > those who can't afford anything care will be for free. From https://abc7ny.com/politics/mayor-de-blasio-announces-health-care-for-all-nyc-residents/5034167/ > NYC Care, will ensure health care for the estimated 600,000 people > without health insurance in the city. > > The mayor said he believes too many city residents turn to hospital > emergency rooms for health care. Instead, NYC Care is intended to > connect these New Yorkers with primary-care doctors, specialty care, > mental health services and prescription drugs. > > Health care will be guaranteed to all residents, regardless of someone's > ability to pay or immigration status. > > The plan calls for strengthening the city's public health insurance > option, MetroPlus, and guaranteeing anyone ineligible for insurance -- > including undocumented New Yorkers -- has direct access to NYC Health + > Hospitals' physicians, pharmacies and mental health and substance abuse > services. MetroPlus currently insures more than 500,000 low-income New > Yorkers. All 5 boroughs will be covered by 2021 and the program ("NYC Care") is expected to cost $100M per year. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Jan 12 02:00:06 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 20:00:06 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News From Neptune episode #408 notes Message-ID: News from Neptune episode #408 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtBj5Lmt7Z4 A list of links to resources mentioned on the program. I've added links to archive copies of some articles that come from sources which are known to change what they publish. This should help you compare what was published and what is being published in case this becomes an issue. David Leonhardt on "How to Choose a Candidate" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/democrats-2020-presidential-primary.html https://archive.fo/TcIsW Jeffrey St. Clair on "Roaming Charges: Que Syria, Syria" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/11/roaming-charges-que-syria-syria/ 10,000 roses sent to millionaire and House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) courtesy of Daily Kos readership https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1825079 https://archive.fo/45qZs Additional reportage on 10,000 roses story https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/09/nancy-pelosi-gets-delivery-roses-thanks-an-online-fundraiser/ https://archive.fo/hBm7M https://thehill.com/homenews/house/424622-pelosi-receives-10000-roses-at-her-office-thanks-to-online-fundraiser https://archive.fo/Yd0MA https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/01/10/nancy-pelosi-freedom-roses/ https://archive.fo/PzZCG Comparing the language of the "Green New Deal" between Green Party and Democratic Party and examining what the Green New Deal means. Andrew Stewart on "Sorry Democrats, the Green Party Came Up With the Green New Deal!" https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/29/sorry-democrats-the-green-party-came-up-with-the-green-new-deal/ Bruce Dixon on "Raising the Bar on the Green New Deal" https://blackagendareport.com/raising-bar-green-new-deal Pamela Anderson on Europe’s Turmoil https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/12/yellow-vests-pamela-anderson-france-macron Related -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrBUgOyNf5M -- Anderson's take on economy is more sound than she commonly gets credit for. Fred Gardner on "How Corrupt is Malcolm Gladwell?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/01/how-corrupt-is-malcolm-gladwell/ Noam Chomsky on conspiracy theories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JirrKIQfOmk -- discussion includes reflecting on JFK's hawkishness, Obama's allegedly dedication to "wonderful things" and we "have to hope he'll overcome the dark forces" but "[Chomsky] doesn't think there's any truth to that". We've got to do the organizing and work to get his administration to do what we want that administration to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50MqHnoDEts Adolph Reed on "What Materialist Black Political History Actually Looks Like" https://nonsite.org/editorial/what-materialist-black-political-history-actually-looks-like Louis Proyect's take on the above essay from https://www.mail-archive.com/marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu/msg33777.html > Adolph Reed is really great at sticking his foot in his mouth. This > article is filled with howling stupidities. Michael Yates' essay based on his book "Can the Working Class Change the World?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/24/exploitation-and-expropriation-or-why-capitalism-must-be-attacked-with-equal-force-on-every-front/ Michael Schwalbe's response article "What It Means to Put Class First" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/04/what-it-means-to-put-class-first/ Tariq Ali and C.L.R. James: A Conversation (from 1980) https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm -J From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 11:03:59 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 05:03:59 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism Message-ID: Remember when the War on Terror ended and the War on Populism began? That’s OK, no one else does. It happened in the Summer of 2016, also known as “the Summer of Fear.” The War on Terror was going splendidly. There had been a series of “terrorist attacks,” in Orlando, Nice, Würzberg, Munich, Reutlingen, Ansbach, and Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, each of them perpetrated by suddenly “self-radicalized” “lone wolf terrorists” (or “non-terrorist terrorists“) who had absolutely no connection to any type of organized terrorist groups prior to suddenly “self- radicalizing” themselves by consuming “terrorist content” on the Internet. It seemed we were entering a new and even more terrifying phase of the Global War on Terror, a phase in which anyone could be a “terrorist” and “terrorism” could mean almost anything. This broadening of the already virtually meaningless definition of “terrorism” was transpiring just in time for Obama to hand off the reins to Hillary Clinton, who everyone knew was going to be the next president, and who was going to have to bomb the crap out of Syria in response to the non-terrorist terrorist threat. The War on Terror (or, rather, “the series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,” as Obama rebranded it) was going to continue, probably forever. The Brexit referendum had just taken place, but no one had really digested that yet … and then Trump won the nomination. Like that scene in Orwell’s 1984 where the Party switches official enemies right in the middle of the Hate Week rally, the War on Terror was officially canceled and replaced by the War on Populism. Or … all right, it wasn’t quite that abrupt. But seriously, go back and scan the news. Note how the “Islamic terrorist threat” we had been conditioned to live in fear of on a daily basis since 2001 seemed to just vanish into thin air. Suddenly, the “existential threat” we were facing was “neo-nationalism,” “illiberalism,” or the pejorative designator du jour, “populism.” Here we are, two and a half years later, and “democracy” is under constant attack by a host of malevolent “populist” forces …. Russo-fascist Black vote suppressors, debaucherous eau de Novichok assassins, Bernie Sanders, the yellow-vested French, emboldened non-exploding mail bomb bombers, Jeremy Corbyn’s Nazi Death Cult, and brain-devouring Russian-Cubano crickets. The President of the United States is apparently both a Russian intelligence operative and literally the resurrection of Hitler. NBC and MSNBC have been officially merged with the CIA. The Guardian has dispensed with any pretense of journalism and is just making stories up out of whole cloth. Anyone who has ever visited Russia, or met with a Russian, or read a Russian novel, is on an “Enemies of Democracy” watch list (as is anyone refusing to vacation in Israel, which the Senate is now in the process of making mandatory for all U.S. citizens). Meanwhile, the “terrorists” are nowhere to be found, except for the terrorists we’ve been using to attempt to overthrow the government of Bashar al Assad, the sadistic nerve-gassing Monster of Syria, who illegally invaded and conquered his own country in defiance of the “international community.” All this madness has something to do with “populism,” although it isn’t clear what. The leading theory is that the Russians are behind it. They’ve got some sort of hypno-technology (not to be confused with those brain-eating crickets) capable of manipulating the minds of … well, Black people, mostly, but not just Black people. Obviously, they are also controlling the French, who they have transformed into “racist, hate-filled liars” who are “attacking elected representatives, journalists, Jews, foreigners, and homosexuals,” according to French President Emmanuel Macron, the anointed “Golden Boy of Europe.” More terrifying still, Putin is now able to project words out of Trump’s mouth in real-time, literally using Trump’s head as a puppet, or like one of those Mission Impossible masks. (Rachel Maddow conclusively proved this by spending a couple of hours on Google comparing the words coming out of Trump’s mouth to words that had come out of Russian mouths, but had never come out of American mouths, which they turned out to be the exact same words, or pretty close to the exact same words!) Apparently, Putin’s master plan for Total Populist World Domination and Establishment of the Thousand Year Duginist Reich was to provoke the global capitalist ruling classes, the corporate media, and their credulous disciples into devolving into stark raving lunatics, or blithering idiots, or a combination of both. But, seriously, all that actually happened back in the Summer of 2016 was the global capitalist ruling classes recognized that they had a problem. The problem that they recognized they had (and continue to have, and are now acutely aware of) is that no one is enjoying global capitalism … except the global capitalist ruling classes. The whole smiley-happy, supranational, neo-feudal corporate empire concept is not going over very well with the masses, or at least not with the unwashed masses. People started voting for right-wing parties, and Brexit, and other “populist” measures (not because they had suddenly transformed into Nazis, but because the Right was acknowledging and exploiting their anger with the advance of global neoliberalism, while liberals and the Identity Politics Left were slow jamming the TPP with Obama and babbling about transgender bathrooms, and such). The global capitalist ruling classes needed to put a stop to that (i.e, the “populist” revolt, not the bathroom debate). So they suspended the Global War on Terror and launched the War on Populism. It was originally only meant to last until Hillary Clinton’s coronation, or the second Brexit referendum, then switch back to the War on Terror, but … well, weird things happen, and here we are. We’ll get back to the War on Terror, eventually … as the War on Populism is essentially just a temporary rebranding of it. In the end, it’s all the same counter-insurgency. When a system is globally hegemonic, as our current model of capitalism is, every war is a counter-insurgency (i.e., a campaign waged against an internal enemy), as there are no external enemies to fight. The “character” of the internal enemies might change (e.g., “Islamic terrorism,” “extremism,” “fascism,” “populism,” “Trumpism,” “Corbynism,” et cetera) but they are all insurgencies against the hegemonic system … which, in our case, is global capitalism, not the United States of America. The way I see it, the global capitalist ruling classes now have less than two years to put down this current “populist” insurgency. First and foremost, they need to get rid of Trump, who despite his bombastic nativist rhetoric is clearly no “hero of the common people,” nor any real threat to global capitalism, but who has become an anti-establishment symbol, like a walking, talking “fuck you” to both the American and global neoliberal elites. Then, they need to get a handle on Europe, which isn’t going to be particularly easy. What happens next in France will be telling, as will whatever becomes of Brexit … which I continue to believe will never actually happen, except perhaps in some purely nominal sense. And then there’s the battle for hearts and minds, which they’ve been furiously waging for the last two years, and which is only going to intensify. If you think things are batshit crazy now (which, clearly, they are), strap yourself in. What is coming is going to make COINTELPRO look like the work of some amateur meme-freak. The neoliberal corporate media, psy-ops like Integrity Initiative, Internet-censoring apps like NewsGuard, ShareBlue and other David Brock outfits, and a legion of mass hysteria generators will be relentlessly barraging our brains with absurdity, disinformation, and just outright lies (as will their counterparts on the Right, of course, in case you thought that they were any alternative). It’s going to get extremely zany. The good news is, by the time it’s all over and Trump has been dealt with, and normality restored, and the working classes put back in their places, we probably won’t remember that any of this happened. We’ll finally be able to sort out those bathrooms, and get back to paying the interest on our debts, and to living in more or less constant fear of an imminent devastating terrorist attack … and won’t that be an enormous relief? —CJ Hopkins January 10, 2018 ### From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 11:09:22 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 05:09:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Your message to Peace awaits moderator approval References: Message-ID: <268A8E7B-F76F-443A-A1D9-DE6DE651B3E0@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: peace-owner at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Your message to Peace awaits moderator approval > Date: January 12, 2019 at 5:05:26 AM CST > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > > Your mail to 'Peace' with the subject > > The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Post to moderated list > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel > this posting, please visit the following URL: > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/confirm/peace/62effd7f6c830c4425314e5fc655c9e3499c241a > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Jan 12 20:55:16 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:55:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007501d4aab9$1f7acc00$5e706400$@comcast.net> Carl, Who is C.J. Hopkins, the author of this article ? Quite a good parody and fairly accurate. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 5:04 AM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism Remember when the War on Terror ended and the War on Populism began? That’s OK, no one else does. It happened in the Summer of 2016, also known as “the Summer of Fear.” The War on Terror was going splendidly. There had been a series of “terrorist attacks,” in Orlando, Nice, Würzberg, Munich, Reutlingen, Ansbach, and Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, each of them perpetrated by suddenly “self-radicalized” “lone wolf terrorists” (or “non-terrorist terrorists“) who had absolutely no connection to any type of organized terrorist groups prior to suddenly “self- radicalizing” themselves by consuming “terrorist content” on the Internet. It seemed we were entering a new and even more terrifying phase of the Global War on Terror, a phase in which anyone could be a “terrorist” and “terrorism” could mean almost anything. This broadening of the already virtually meaningless definition of “terrorism” was transpiring just in time for Obama to hand off the reins to Hillary Clinton, who everyone knew was going to be the next president, and who was going to have to bomb the crap out of Syria in response to the non-terrorist terrorist threat. The War on Terror (or, rather, “the series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,” as Obama rebranded it) was going to continue, probably forever. The Brexit referendum had just taken place, but no one had really digested that yet … and then Trump won the nomination. Like that scene in Orwell’s 1984 where the Party switches official enemies right in the middle of the Hate Week rally, the War on Terror was officially canceled and replaced by the War on Populism. Or … all right, it wasn’t quite that abrupt. But seriously, go back and scan the news. Note how the “Islamic terrorist threat” we had been conditioned to live in fear of on a daily basis since 2001 seemed to just vanish into thin air. Suddenly, the “existential threat” we were facing was “neo-nationalism,” “illiberalism,” or the pejorative designator du jour, “populism.” Here we are, two and a half years later, and “democracy” is under constant attack by a host of malevolent “populist” forces …. Russo-fascist Black vote suppressors, debaucherous eau de Novichok assassins, Bernie Sanders, the yellow-vested French, emboldened non-exploding mail bomb bombers, Jeremy Corbyn’s Nazi Death Cult, and brain-devouring Russian-Cubano crickets. The President of the United States is apparently both a Russian intelligence operative and literally the resurrection of Hitler. NBC and MSNBC have been officially merged with the CIA. The Guardian has dispensed with any pretense of journalism and is just making stories up out of whole cloth. Anyone who has ever visited Russia, or met with a Russian, or read a Russian novel, is on an “Enemies of Democracy” watch list (as is anyone refusing to vacation in Israel, which the Senate is now in the process of making mandatory for all U.S. citizens). Meanwhile, the “terrorists” are nowhere to be found, except for the terrorists we’ve been using to attempt to overthrow the government of Bashar al Assad, the sadistic nerve-gassing Monster of Syria, who illegally invaded and conquered his own country in defiance of the “international community.” All this madness has something to do with “populism,” although it isn’t clear what. The leading theory is that the Russians are behind it. They’ve got some sort of hypno-technology (not to be confused with those brain-eating crickets) capable of manipulating the minds of … well, Black people, mostly, but not just Black people. Obviously, they are also controlling the French, who they have transformed into “racist, hate-filled liars” who are “attacking elected representatives, journalists, Jews, foreigners, and homosexuals,” according to French President Emmanuel Macron, the anointed “Golden Boy of Europe.” More terrifying still, Putin is now able to project words out of Trump’s mouth in real-time, literally using Trump’s head as a puppet, or like one of those Mission Impossible masks. (Rachel Maddow conclusively proved this by spending a couple of hours on Google comparing the words coming out of Trump’s mouth to words that had come out of Russian mouths, but had never come out of American mouths, which they turned out to be the exact same words, or pretty close to the exact same words!) Apparently, Putin’s master plan for Total Populist World Domination and Establishment of the Thousand Year Duginist Reich was to provoke the global capitalist ruling classes, the corporate media, and their credulous disciples into devolving into stark raving lunatics, or blithering idiots, or a combination of both. But, seriously, all that actually happened back in the Summer of 2016 was the global capitalist ruling classes recognized that they had a problem. The problem that they recognized they had (and continue to have, and are now acutely aware of) is that no one is enjoying global capitalism … except the global capitalist ruling classes. The whole smiley-happy, supranational, neo-feudal corporate empire concept is not going over very well with the masses, or at least not with the unwashed masses. People started voting for right-wing parties, and Brexit, and other “populist” measures (not because they had suddenly transformed into Nazis, but because the Right was acknowledging and exploiting their anger with the advance of global neoliberalism, while liberals and the Identity Politics Left were slow jamming the TPP with Obama and babbling about transgender bathrooms, and such). The global capitalist ruling classes needed to put a stop to that (i.e, the “populist” revolt, not the bathroom debate). So they suspended the Global War on Terror and launched the War on Populism. It was originally only meant to last until Hillary Clinton’s coronation, or the second Brexit referendum, then switch back to the War on Terror, but … well, weird things happen, and here we are. We’ll get back to the War on Terror, eventually … as the War on Populism is essentially just a temporary rebranding of it. In the end, it’s all the same counter-insurgency. When a system is globally hegemonic, as our current model of capitalism is, every war is a counter-insurgency (i.e., a campaign waged against an internal enemy), as there are no external enemies to fight. The “character” of the internal enemies might change (e.g., “Islamic terrorism,” “extremism,” “fascism,” “populism,” “Trumpism,” “Corbynism,” et cetera) but they are all insurgencies against the hegemonic system … which, in our case, is global capitalism, not the United States of America. The way I see it, the global capitalist ruling classes now have less than two years to put down this current “populist” insurgency. First and foremost, they need to get rid of Trump, who despite his bombastic nativist rhetoric is clearly no “hero of the common people,” nor any real threat to global capitalism, but who has become an anti-establishment symbol, like a walking, talking “fuck you” to both the American and global neoliberal elites. Then, they need to get a handle on Europe, which isn’t going to be particularly easy. What happens next in France will be telling, as will whatever becomes of Brexit … which I continue to believe will never actually happen, except perhaps in some purely nominal sense. And then there’s the battle for hearts and minds, which they’ve been furiously waging for the last two years, and which is only going to intensify. If you think things are batshit crazy now (which, clearly, they are), strap yourself in. What is coming is going to make COINTELPRO look like the work of some amateur meme-freak. The neoliberal corporate media, psy-ops like Integrity Initiative, Internet-censoring apps like NewsGuard, ShareBlue and other David Brock outfits, and a legion of mass hysteria generators will be relentlessly barraging our brains with absurdity, disinformation, and just outright lies (as will their counterparts on the Right, of course, in case you thought that they were any alternative). It’s going to get extremely zany. The good news is, by the time it’s all over and Trump has been dealt with, and normality restored, and the working classes put back in their places, we probably won’t remember that any of this happened. We’ll finally be able to sort out those bathrooms, and get back to paying the interest on our debts, and to living in more or less constant fear of an imminent devastating terrorist attack … and won’t that be an enormous relief? —CJ Hopkins January 10, 2018 ### _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From jbw292002 at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 23:39:28 2019 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 17:39:28 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism In-Reply-To: <007501d4aab9$1f7acc00$5e706400$@comcast.net> References: <007501d4aab9$1f7acc00$5e706400$@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 2:55 PM David Johnson via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Carl, > > Who is C.J. Hopkins, the author of this article ? > > Quite a good parody and fairly accurate. > It's clever. It's facile. Some of it is quite incisive, some of it is absolutely stupid. Whatever "populism" actually is in its current incarnation, Donald tRump and his minions are precisely the WRONG people to whom one should ever in a million years affix the label. I'll bet anything that Hopkins is a libertarian. The thing could have been written by one person on THIS list, whose name escapes me at the moment. The guy at pigs.org. > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On > Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 5:04 AM > To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Cc: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on > Populism > > Remember when the War on Terror ended and the War on Populism began? > That’s OK, no one else does. > > It happened in the Summer of 2016, also known as “the Summer of Fear.” The > War on Terror was going splendidly. There had been a series of “terrorist > attacks,” in Orlando, Nice, Würzberg, Munich, Reutlingen, Ansbach, and > Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, each of them perpetrated by suddenly > “self-radicalized” “lone wolf terrorists” (or “non-terrorist terrorists“) > who had absolutely no connection to any type of organized terrorist groups > prior to suddenly “self- radicalizing” themselves by consuming “terrorist > content” on the Internet. It seemed we were entering a new and even more > terrifying phase of the Global War on Terror, a phase in which anyone could > be a “terrorist” and “terrorism” could mean almost anything. > > This broadening of the already virtually meaningless definition of > “terrorism” was transpiring just in time for Obama to hand off the reins to > Hillary Clinton, who everyone knew was going to be the next president, and > who was going to have to bomb the crap out of Syria in response to the > non-terrorist terrorist threat. The War on Terror (or, rather, “the series > of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent > extremists that threaten America,” as Obama rebranded it) was going to > continue, probably forever. The Brexit referendum had just taken place, but > no one had really digested that yet … and then Trump won the nomination. > > Like that scene in Orwell’s 1984 where the Party switches official enemies > right in the middle of the Hate Week rally, the War on Terror was > officially canceled and replaced by the War on Populism. Or … all right, it > wasn’t quite that abrupt. But seriously, go back and scan the news. Note > how the “Islamic terrorist threat” we had been conditioned to live in fear > of on a daily basis since 2001 seemed to just vanish into thin air. > Suddenly, the “existential threat” we were facing was “neo-nationalism,” > “illiberalism,” or the pejorative designator du jour, “populism.” > > Here we are, two and a half years later, and “democracy” is under constant > attack by a host of malevolent “populist” forces …. Russo-fascist Black > vote suppressors, debaucherous eau de Novichok assassins, Bernie Sanders, > the yellow-vested French, emboldened non-exploding mail bomb bombers, > Jeremy Corbyn’s Nazi Death Cult, and brain-devouring Russian-Cubano > crickets. The President of the United States is apparently both a Russian > intelligence operative and literally the resurrection of Hitler. NBC and > MSNBC have been officially merged with the CIA. The Guardian has dispensed > with any pretense of journalism and is just making stories up out of whole > cloth. Anyone who has ever visited Russia, or met with a Russian, or read a > Russian novel, is on an “Enemies of Democracy” watch list (as is anyone > refusing to vacation in Israel, which the Senate is now in the process of > making mandatory for all U.S. citizens). Meanwhile, the “terrorists” are > nowhere to be found, except for the terrorists we’ve been using to attempt > to overthrow the government of Bashar al Assad, the sadistic nerve-gassing > Monster of Syria, who illegally invaded and conquered his own country in > defiance of the “international community.” > > All this madness has something to do with “populism,” although it isn’t > clear what. The leading theory is that the Russians are behind it. They’ve > got some sort of hypno-technology (not to be confused with those > brain-eating crickets) capable of manipulating the minds of … well, Black > people, mostly, but not just Black people. Obviously, they are also > controlling the French, who they have transformed into “racist, hate-filled > liars” who are “attacking elected representatives, journalists, Jews, > foreigners, and homosexuals,” according to French President Emmanuel > Macron, the anointed “Golden Boy of Europe.” More terrifying still, Putin > is now able to project words out of Trump’s mouth in real-time, literally > using Trump’s head as a puppet, or like one of those Mission Impossible > masks. (Rachel Maddow conclusively proved this by spending a couple of > hours on Google comparing the words coming out of Trump’s mouth to words > that had come out of Russian mouths, but had never come out of American > mouths, which they turned out to be the exact same words, or pretty close > to the exact same words!) Apparently, Putin’s master plan for Total > Populist World Domination and Establishment of the Thousand Year Duginist > Reich was to provoke the global capitalist ruling classes, the corporate > media, and their credulous disciples into devolving into stark raving > lunatics, or blithering idiots, or a combination of both. > > But, seriously, all that actually happened back in the Summer of 2016 was > the global capitalist ruling classes recognized that they had a problem. > The problem that they recognized they had (and continue to have, and are > now acutely aware of) is that no one is enjoying global capitalism … except > the global capitalist ruling classes. The whole smiley-happy, > supranational, neo-feudal corporate empire concept is not going over very > well with the masses, or at least not with the unwashed masses. People > started voting for right-wing parties, and Brexit, and other “populist” > measures (not because they had suddenly transformed into Nazis, but because > the Right was acknowledging and exploiting their anger with the advance of > global neoliberalism, while liberals and the Identity Politics Left were > slow jamming the TPP with Obama and babbling about transgender bathrooms, > and such). > > The global capitalist ruling classes needed to put a stop to that (i.e, > the “populist” revolt, not the bathroom debate). So they suspended the > Global War on Terror and launched the War on Populism. It was originally > only meant to last until Hillary Clinton’s coronation, or the second Brexit > referendum, then switch back to the War on Terror, but … well, weird things > happen, and here we are. > > We’ll get back to the War on Terror, eventually … as the War on Populism > is essentially just a temporary rebranding of it. In the end, it’s all the > same counter-insurgency. When a system is globally hegemonic, as our > current model of capitalism is, every war is a counter-insurgency (i.e., a > campaign waged against an internal enemy), as there are no external enemies > to fight. The “character” of the internal enemies might change (e.g., > “Islamic terrorism,” “extremism,” “fascism,” “populism,” “Trumpism,” > “Corbynism,” et cetera) but they are all insurgencies against the hegemonic > system … which, in our case, is global capitalism, not the United States of > America. > > The way I see it, the global capitalist ruling classes now have less than > two years to put down this current “populist” insurgency. First and > foremost, they need to get rid of Trump, who despite his bombastic nativist > rhetoric is clearly no “hero of the common people,” nor any real threat to > global capitalism, but who has become an anti-establishment symbol, like a > walking, talking “fuck you” to both the American and global neoliberal > elites. Then, they need to get a handle on Europe, which isn’t going to be > particularly easy. What happens next in France will be telling, as will > whatever becomes of Brexit … which I continue to believe will never > actually happen, except perhaps in some purely nominal sense. > > And then there’s the battle for hearts and minds, which they’ve been > furiously waging for the last two years, and which is only going to > intensify. If you think things are batshit crazy now (which, clearly, they > are), strap yourself in. What is coming is going to make COINTELPRO look > like the work of some amateur meme-freak. The neoliberal corporate media, > psy-ops like Integrity Initiative, Internet-censoring apps like NewsGuard, > ShareBlue and other David Brock outfits, and a legion of mass hysteria > generators will be relentlessly barraging our brains with absurdity, > disinformation, and just outright lies (as will their counterparts on the > Right, of course, in case you thought that they were any alternative). It’s > going to get extremely zany. > > The good news is, by the time it’s all over and Trump has been dealt with, > and normality restored, and the working classes put back in their places, > we probably won’t remember that any of this happened. We’ll finally be able > to sort out those bathrooms, and get back to paying the interest on our > debts, and to living in more or less constant fear of an imminent > devastating terrorist attack … and won’t that be an enormous relief? > > —CJ Hopkins > January 10, 2018 > > ### > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jan 13 00:27:15 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 18:27:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism In-Reply-To: References: <007501d4aab9$1f7acc00$5e706400$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00af01d4aad6$bc6e1040$354a30c0$@comcast.net> I agree John ! It is definitely a mixed bag, but the good parts are nevertheless Accurate and insightful. As the Irish revolutionary James Connolly said ; “ The fighting spirit is the essential element, infinitely more important than a perfect organization “. David J. From: John W. [mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 5:39 PM To: David Johnson Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 2:55 PM David Johnson via Peace wrote: Carl, Who is C.J. Hopkins, the author of this article ? Quite a good parody and fairly accurate. It's clever. It's facile. Some of it is quite incisive, some of it is absolutely stupid. Whatever "populism" actually is in its current incarnation, Donald tRump and his minions are precisely the WRONG people to whom one should ever in a million years affix the label. I'll bet anything that Hopkins is a libertarian. The thing could have been written by one person on THIS list, whose name escapes me at the moment. The guy at pigs.org. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 5:04 AM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US replaces the War on Terror with the War on Populism Remember when the War on Terror ended and the War on Populism began? That’s OK, no one else does. It happened in the Summer of 2016, also known as “the Summer of Fear.” The War on Terror was going splendidly. There had been a series of “terrorist attacks,” in Orlando, Nice, Würzberg, Munich, Reutlingen, Ansbach, and Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, each of them perpetrated by suddenly “self-radicalized” “lone wolf terrorists” (or “non-terrorist terrorists“) who had absolutely no connection to any type of organized terrorist groups prior to suddenly “self- radicalizing” themselves by consuming “terrorist content” on the Internet. It seemed we were entering a new and even more terrifying phase of the Global War on Terror, a phase in which anyone could be a “terrorist” and “terrorism” could mean almost anything. This broadening of the already virtually meaningless definition of “terrorism” was transpiring just in time for Obama to hand off the reins to Hillary Clinton, who everyone knew was going to be the next president, and who was going to have to bomb the crap out of Syria in response to the non-terrorist terrorist threat. The War on Terror (or, rather, “the series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America,” as Obama rebranded it) was going to continue, probably forever. The Brexit referendum had just taken place, but no one had really digested that yet … and then Trump won the nomination. Like that scene in Orwell’s 1984 where the Party switches official enemies right in the middle of the Hate Week rally, the War on Terror was officially canceled and replaced by the War on Populism. Or … all right, it wasn’t quite that abrupt. But seriously, go back and scan the news. Note how the “Islamic terrorist threat” we had been conditioned to live in fear of on a daily basis since 2001 seemed to just vanish into thin air. Suddenly, the “existential threat” we were facing was “neo-nationalism,” “illiberalism,” or the pejorative designator du jour, “populism.” Here we are, two and a half years later, and “democracy” is under constant attack by a host of malevolent “populist” forces …. Russo-fascist Black vote suppressors, debaucherous eau de Novichok assassins, Bernie Sanders, the yellow-vested French, emboldened non-exploding mail bomb bombers, Jeremy Corbyn’s Nazi Death Cult, and brain-devouring Russian-Cubano crickets. The President of the United States is apparently both a Russian intelligence operative and literally the resurrection of Hitler. NBC and MSNBC have been officially merged with the CIA. The Guardian has dispensed with any pretense of journalism and is just making stories up out of whole cloth. Anyone who has ever visited Russia, or met with a Russian, or read a Russian novel, is on an “Enemies of Democracy” watch list (as is anyone refusing to vacation in Israel, which the Senate is now in the process of making mandatory for all U.S. citizens). Meanwhile, the “terrorists” are nowhere to be found, except for the terrorists we’ve been using to attempt to overthrow the government of Bashar al Assad, the sadistic nerve-gassing Monster of Syria, who illegally invaded and conquered his own country in defiance of the “international community.” All this madness has something to do with “populism,” although it isn’t clear what. The leading theory is that the Russians are behind it. They’ve got some sort of hypno-technology (not to be confused with those brain-eating crickets) capable of manipulating the minds of … well, Black people, mostly, but not just Black people. Obviously, they are also controlling the French, who they have transformed into “racist, hate-filled liars” who are “attacking elected representatives, journalists, Jews, foreigners, and homosexuals,” according to French President Emmanuel Macron, the anointed “Golden Boy of Europe.” More terrifying still, Putin is now able to project words out of Trump’s mouth in real-time, literally using Trump’s head as a puppet, or like one of those Mission Impossible masks. (Rachel Maddow conclusively proved this by spending a couple of hours on Google comparing the words coming out of Trump’s mouth to words that had come out of Russian mouths, but had never come out of American mouths, which they turned out to be the exact same words, or pretty close to the exact same words!) Apparently, Putin’s master plan for Total Populist World Domination and Establishment of the Thousand Year Duginist Reich was to provoke the global capitalist ruling classes, the corporate media, and their credulous disciples into devolving into stark raving lunatics, or blithering idiots, or a combination of both. But, seriously, all that actually happened back in the Summer of 2016 was the global capitalist ruling classes recognized that they had a problem. The problem that they recognized they had (and continue to have, and are now acutely aware of) is that no one is enjoying global capitalism … except the global capitalist ruling classes. The whole smiley-happy, supranational, neo-feudal corporate empire concept is not going over very well with the masses, or at least not with the unwashed masses. People started voting for right-wing parties, and Brexit, and other “populist” measures (not because they had suddenly transformed into Nazis, but because the Right was acknowledging and exploiting their anger with the advance of global neoliberalism, while liberals and the Identity Politics Left were slow jamming the TPP with Obama and babbling about transgender bathrooms, and such). The global capitalist ruling classes needed to put a stop to that (i.e, the “populist” revolt, not the bathroom debate). So they suspended the Global War on Terror and launched the War on Populism. It was originally only meant to last until Hillary Clinton’s coronation, or the second Brexit referendum, then switch back to the War on Terror, but … well, weird things happen, and here we are. We’ll get back to the War on Terror, eventually … as the War on Populism is essentially just a temporary rebranding of it. In the end, it’s all the same counter-insurgency. When a system is globally hegemonic, as our current model of capitalism is, every war is a counter-insurgency (i.e., a campaign waged against an internal enemy), as there are no external enemies to fight. The “character” of the internal enemies might change (e.g., “Islamic terrorism,” “extremism,” “fascism,” “populism,” “Trumpism,” “Corbynism,” et cetera) but they are all insurgencies against the hegemonic system … which, in our case, is global capitalism, not the United States of America. The way I see it, the global capitalist ruling classes now have less than two years to put down this current “populist” insurgency. First and foremost, they need to get rid of Trump, who despite his bombastic nativist rhetoric is clearly no “hero of the common people,” nor any real threat to global capitalism, but who has become an anti-establishment symbol, like a walking, talking “fuck you” to both the American and global neoliberal elites. Then, they need to get a handle on Europe, which isn’t going to be particularly easy. What happens next in France will be telling, as will whatever becomes of Brexit … which I continue to believe will never actually happen, except perhaps in some purely nominal sense. And then there’s the battle for hearts and minds, which they’ve been furiously waging for the last two years, and which is only going to intensify. If you think things are batshit crazy now (which, clearly, they are), strap yourself in. What is coming is going to make COINTELPRO look like the work of some amateur meme-freak. The neoliberal corporate media, psy-ops like Integrity Initiative, Internet-censoring apps like NewsGuard, ShareBlue and other David Brock outfits, and a legion of mass hysteria generators will be relentlessly barraging our brains with absurdity, disinformation, and just outright lies (as will their counterparts on the Right, of course, in case you thought that they were any alternative). It’s going to get extremely zany. The good news is, by the time it’s all over and Trump has been dealt with, and normality restored, and the working classes put back in their places, we probably won’t remember that any of this happened. We’ll finally be able to sort out those bathrooms, and get back to paying the interest on our debts, and to living in more or less constant fear of an imminent devastating terrorist attack … and won’t that be an enormous relief? —CJ Hopkins January 10, 2018 ### _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace Image removed by sender. Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 350 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 02:37:01 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 20:37:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] If America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win References: <139971992.5796.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <020B8D49-366D-4CB7-BC82-586FE7257D33@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Date: January 12, 2019 at 8:24:13 PM CST > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Subject: [New post] If America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win > > itself -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jan 14 14:02:29 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:02:29 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Military Occupations Supported by Dems but not Reps In-Reply-To: <483148990.17821560.1547391276664@mail.yahoo.com> References: <483148990.17821560.1547391276664.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <483148990.17821560.1547391276664@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001501d4ac11$c9e16380$5da42a80$@comcast.net> Many of us saw this coming, thanks to the Russia Gate hoax and the obsessive focus on Trump as the source of all of our problems, as opposed to the reality that Trump is a symptom of the greater disease. Thank you corporate media, you have served your ruling class owners well. David J. From: mark johnson [mailto:political.economist at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 8:55 AM Subject: Military Occupations Supported by Dems but not Reps New Poll: US Military Occupations Supported By Far More Democrats Than Republicans Text Box: New Poll: US Military Occupations Supported By Far More Democrats Than R... A new Politico/Morning Consult poll has found that there is much more support for ongoing military occupations a... Kind regards, Mark J Single Payer, Healthcare for need not greed: promotes health, saves lives, reduces costs. Don't believe me, ask Warren Buffett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/warren-buffett-single-payer-health-care_us_5952ddade4b05c37bb7a54e8 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 163 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1880 bytes Desc: not available URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Jan 14 14:17:27 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Military Occupations Supported by Dems but not Reps References: <1227086383.19513855.1547475447947.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1227086383.19513855.1547475447947@mail.yahoo.com> Caitlin does it again! MO'B -----Original Message----- From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss To: peace-discuss Sent: Mon, Jan 14, 2019 8:02 am Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Military Occupations Supported by Dems but not Reps <!-- #yiv1580375466 _filtered #yiv1580375466 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1580375466 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1580375466 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1580375466 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1580375466 {font-family:"Segoe UI";panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;} #yiv1580375466 #yiv1580375466 p.yiv1580375466MsoNormal, #yiv1580375466 li.yiv1580375466MsoNormal, #yiv1580375466 div.yiv1580375466MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";} #yiv1580375466 h2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";} #yiv1580375466 a:link, #yiv1580375466 span.yiv1580375466MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1580375466 a:visited, #yiv1580375466 span.yiv1580375466MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1580375466 span.yiv1580375466Heading2Char {font-family:"Cambria", "serif";color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;} #yiv1580375466 p.yiv1580375466ydpc8ada82card-description, #yiv1580375466 li.yiv1580375466ydpc8ada82card-description, #yiv1580375466 div.yiv1580375466ydpc8ada82card-description {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";} #yiv1580375466 span.yiv1580375466EmailStyle19 {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;} #yiv1580375466 .yiv1580375466MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv1580375466 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #yiv1580375466 div.yiv1580375466WordSection1 {} --> Many of us saw this coming, thanks to the Russia Gate hoax and the obsessive focus on Trump as the source of all of our problems, as opposed to the reality that Trump is a symptom of the greater disease.   Thank you corporate media, you have served your ruling class owners well.   David J.   From: mark johnson [mailto:political.economist at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 8:55 AM Subject: Military Occupations Supported by Dems but not Reps     New Poll: US Military Occupations Supported By Far More Democrats Than Republicans   | |   | | | | | | New Poll: US Military Occupations Supported By Far More Democrats Than R... A new Politico/Morning Consult poll has found that there is much more support for ongoing military occupations a... | | |       Kind regards, Mark J Single Payer, Healthcare for need not greed:  promotes health, saves lives, reduces costs. Don't believe me, ask Warren Buffett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/warren-buffett-single-payer-health-care_us_5952ddade4b05c37bb7a54e8 _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1880 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 163 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jan 14 14:25:20 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:25:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] If America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win Message-ID: <003301d4ac14$fb6b65b0$f2423110$@comcast.net> If America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win * * * * * * https://i1.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Screen-Sho t-2019-01-13-at-10.21.40-AM.jpg?fit=747%2C473&ssl=1 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on Saturday that the government under Venezuela's recently re-inaugurated president Nicolas Maduro is "illegitimate", and that "the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country." Pompeo's remarks, which were echoed by Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton, are interesting for a couple of reasons. The first is because Venezuela's presidential election in May of last year (which incidentally was found to have been perfectly legitimate by the international Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America) was actively and aggressively meddled in by the US and its allies. The second is that while the US government is openly broadcasting its intention to keep interfering in Venezuela's political system, it continues to scream bloody murder about alleged Russian interference in its own democratic process two years ago. What is the difference between the behavior of the United States, which remains far and away the single worst offender in foreign election meddling on the planet, and what Russia is accused of having done in 2016? According to a comment made by former CIA Director James Woolsey last year, it's that the US interferes in foreign democracies "for a very good cause." And that's really the only argument that empire loyalists have going for them on this subject. The US is different because the US has moral authority. It's okay for the US to continue to interfere in the political affairs of foreign nations while it would be an unforgivable and outrageous " act of war" for a nation like Russia to do the exact same thing, because the US is countering the interests of the Bad Guys while Russia is countering the interests of the Good Guys. Who decided who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are in this argument? The US. This "What we do is good because we're the Good Guys" faith-based doctrine was regurgitated with full-throated zealotry in a recent speech given by Pompeo in Cairo, in which he cited "America's innate goodness" in making the absolutely ridiculous claim that "America is a force for good in the Middle East" which has been "absent too much" from the region previously. America's nonstop deadly interventionism in the Middle East is "good", because America is "innately good". America's constant military interventionism, election interference and other nastiness are painted as Good Things done by Good Guys to fight the Bad Guys. The argument, when you boil it right down, is that if America wasn't constantly starting wars, invading sovereign nations, staging coups, sponsoring proxy conflicts, arming terrorists, bombing civilians, torturing people, implementing starvation sanctions on impoverished populations, pointing nuclear weapons everywhere, spying on us all with a globe-spanning Orwellian surveillance network, interfering in foreign elections, and patrolling the skies with flying death robots, the Bad Guys might win. Sort of makes you wonder who the Bad Guys really are, huh? The theme of Good Guys fighting Bad Guys resonates with a population that has been raised for generations on Hollywood films featuring a handsome action hero emerging victorious after a ninety-minute struggle and karate kicking an ugly villain off a cliff before kissing the pretty girl, but it doesn't accurately reflect the reality we actually live in. Our world is dominated by extremely powerful people who are motivated not out of interest in good or evil but a drive toward power and profit which is completely disinterested in morality of any kind, and the empires they build for themselves have their foundations on the backs of ordinary people who are just trying to get by. The majority of those extremely powerful people either live in the United States or have formed alliances with US power structures, and all their agendas in Asia, South America, the Middle East and elsewhere have nothing to do with "protecting democracy" or being a "force of good", and everything to do with amassing more power. Even among those who recognize that the US-centralized empire isn't a shining beacon of virtue in our world, the notion remains prevalent that if American power ceases to be a unipolar dominator then someone worse will take over the world. This fear-based mindset ultimately underlies all establishment manipulation and all educated support for it: the idea that someone needs to rule and dominate the world to prevent someone else from doing the same. But what are the fruits of this mindset? A corporatist Orwellian dystopia hurtling toward climate collapse if nuclear war doesn't kill us all first. We can't keep doing this. We literally can't; we'll evolve beyond this fear-based dominator paradigm or we'll all perish beneath its feet very soon. We are now in a position where our irrational fear of being invaded by China has pushed us to the brink of extinction, so it isn't even a gamble to step off that train and try something else instead. It is entirely possible that the US is capable of functioning like a normal nation and simply defending its own shores and sustaining itself without interfering in world affairs. It is entirely possible that the threat everyone imagines of some foreign power stepping in as the unipolar dominator should America vacate that role is the product of fearful imaginings with no bearing on reality and a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity. It is entirely possible that we are capable of creating a world where nobody dominates anybody, and no iron-fisted world leader of any kind is needed. Either way, the train we're on is headed for a brick wall, so we've now got nothing to lose by stepping off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60763 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 17:25:39 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:25:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My letter in today's News-Gazette Message-ID: Military made up of working class U.S. wars rightly became domestically unpopular subsequent to World War II. Since Vietnam (1962-75), the rebellion of soldiers and civilians against that war, and the implementation of “voluntary”military service, affluent Americans have overwhelmingly not encouraged their children to volunteer in such a manner. Accordingly, their children infrequently do so, except perhaps in more privileged capacities referred to as “intelligence” services. While there have always been social class divisions in relation to who serves and how they serve, these have become more obvious during four decades of radically increasing economic inequality. The children of the top 10 percent compete in the upper reaches of the class-rigged educational/ professional/ financial “meritocracy,” while those of the economically precarious bottom 50 percent are “incentivized” to serve as potential cannon fodder and global “cops on the beat.” Our wars are mendaciously promoted by the political, corporate, media and academicintelligentsia, with plenty of Ivy League credentials to go around. War and constant threats of war are “geostrategically” necessary in relation to the class interests of the 10 percent, who not coincidentally own 80 percent of the stock market and whose portfolios are enhanced by military expenditures — a kind of weaponized socialism for the rich. The contradictions inherent in this situation necessitate an enormous amount of propaganda to both counter and preemptively silence dissent. Thus, the incessant and highly manipulative promotion of military veterans as icons of patriotic service and sacrifice. Nevertheless, these predominately working-class individuals serve only the accumulative interests of the capitalist class and sacrifice only to the latter’s benefit. DAVID GREEN Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Jan 14 21:05:59 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 21:05:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! References: <5c3cefa76de1a_80fee6af5010634@asgworker-qmb3-3.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: From: Donna Smith for Progressive Democrats of America > Subject: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! Date: January 14, 2019 a [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/560b0f33ec8d8379d1000003/attachments/original/1444050888/National2.jpg?1444050888] Barnstorm And March For Justice And Medicare For All! Dear Ron— While we all fight to reopen our government, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) activists dedicate ourselves to keep moving forward on our Medicare for All (MFA) effort. This, as we have since our founding more than 14 years ago. As always, we progressives demand more progress; and thanks to your commitment, the doorway to passage of MFA is open wider than ever before! We’re so pleased that the Women’s March (scheduled for this Saturday) has embraced Medicare for All as one of their priorities! Ever widening support, the exciting Medicare for All Caucus in Congress, and the newly sworn-in Democratic House majority empower all of us. These new political realities bring us new hope as we strive to replace the current inhumane greed-driven “wealth care” system with a life-saving, money-saving, comprehensive, high quality healthcare program—one that guarantees healthcare as a human right. Help PDA and our coalition partners spread the word! Are You Going to a Women’s March on January 19th? Click Here for Materials from NNU to Crowd Canvass! [https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pda/mailings/7929/attachments/original/E30F24B0-72CD-46BE-881D-667C060F1BEA.png] Urge Your Representative to Join the MFA Caucus Join or Host a MFA Barnstorming Tour Event Please Give Now To Support MFA Organizing Some background: In June of 2018, PDA met with our allies in the Medicare for All movement at the Healthcare-NOW National Strategy Conference held in Minneapolis. We planned together for an ambitious, intelligent, and focused campaign to enact expanded and improved Medicare for all. From then until now, we participated in MFA door-knocking efforts, training calls for activists, and heightened public awareness build energy and commitment. PDA is mobilizing with the MFA coalition—led by our sisters and brothers of National Nurses United (NNA)—for February 2019 barnstorming events throughout the country. Join with us raising the national profile of single-payer / improved Medicare for All. Planning to attend a Women’s March Saturday January, 19? Please take that opportunity for some MFA crowd canvassing. Click here for a tool kit from NNU to help you canvass the crowd! Our coalition has worked closely with Rep. Jayapal’s office for several months on the Expanded, Improved Medicare for All Act, to strengthen the legislation. We’re thrilled with the results, and we’re busily building support for an inspiring launch later this month, with the maximum possible number of original cosponsors. Now, it’s time to stand up together! Please host or help organize a local MFA barnstorming event to educate your community about MFA and organize ongoing efforts. A huge majority of the American public already support of MFA. As usual, the public is leading the politicians—sometimes kicking and screaming. Now, we must bring our elected officials into alignment with that majority. Find a barnstorming event close to you, reach out to help, and get ready to rally support for healthcare justice. This month, our Educate Congress Letter Drops will again push members of Congress to cosponsor Medicare for All legislation. Contact Mike Fox to get involved with our Educate Congress Letter Drops! Also, please join the PDA Phone Team making easy, effective calls from your own home with Mike “Phone Guy” Fox to help out! No time to make calls? Please pitch in to support our phone banking, help us design and distribute mobilization materials, and sustain our other organizing efforts. Help spread the word on our progressive priorities. Visit the PDA Store to purchase high quality, American union-made items that amplify our progressive message. Our new Healthcare Not Warfare T-shirts are in! Hurry! PDA ships via USPS Priority Mail and rates are about to go up. Save money by ordering today. Your monthly donation of $100, $27, $10, or $5 gives us the resources we need to sustain the struggle for healthcare as a human right. We don’t get a dime from corporarions. We rely exclusively on support from activists like you. To build on our midterm successes, we need your help now! Please sign up now to makeautomatic monthly sustaining gifts or a generous one-time gift now. If you can give $5 per month, that’s great! $10? Wonderful! $27? Spectacular! Whatever you can spare will help keep us working for you. Thanks so much for anything you can do right now to help us reach our goal of 100 new monthly sustainers this month. Thank you so much for supporting PDA and our shared efforts for progress! We appreciate you more than words can say. In solidarity, Donna Smith for Alan, Mike F., Janis, Deb, Dan, Dr. Bill, Kim, Bryan, Mike H. and Shayna—your PDA National Team P.S. We're here to help you make progress in your state and locality! If you need help organizing a new PDA chapter or energizing your existing chapter, please contact PDA Field Coordinator Dan O’Neal. Join the PDA Phone Team making easy, effective calls from your own home with Mike “Phone Guy” Fox. Also please pitch in $1000, $100, or whatever you can afford to support our organizing for Medicare For All. Join PDA Making MFA Progress [blue-donate-now.png] Click on the icons below to follow PDA on social media: [Facebook.jpg] [Twitter.jpg] [Logo-Flickr.jpg] [YouTube.jpg] [pinterest3.jpg] Paid for by Progressive Democrats of America (http://www.pdamerica.org) Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee ________________________________ Progressive Democrats of America · Grand Rapids, MI 49515, United States This email was sent to r-szoke at illinois.edu. To stop receiving emails, click here. Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jan 16 06:08:49 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:08:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Here=E2=80=99s_where_all_that_U=2ES=2E_?= =?utf-8?q?foreign_aid_is_going_and_why=2C_in_one_chart_-_MarketWatch?= Message-ID: <2F2721F9-8132-4AFC-84BE-C2E542CFADA8@illinois.edu> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-foreign-aid-where-all-that-money-is-going-and-why-in-one-chart-2019-01-15 Here’s where all that U.S. foreign aid is going and why, in one chart Shawn Langlois [cid:23374650-A9B4-4711-89FF-3CDC08A0B1A5 at hsd1.il.comcast.net] Getty Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump shake hands during the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly. President Trump, flashing one weapon in his “America First” arsenal, often talks about the need to cut back on providing financial aid overseas. Back in September, he used his speech at the United Nations to hammer home the point that he doesn’t want to support countries that don’t return the love. “Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid for those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends,” he told world leaders in New York. “Few give anything to us, that is why we are taking a hard look at U.S. foreign assistance.” Then, he brought it regarding the Central American migrant caravan. “Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador were not able to do the job of stopping people from leaving their country and coming illegally to the U.S,” Trump tweeted in mid-October. “We will now begin cutting off, or substantially reducing, the massive foreign aid routinely given to them.” X See Also The 184 MPH Woman And now there’s talk of using foreign aid cash to build the U.S.-Mexico wall instead. But, really, where does all that money go? Cost-estimating website HowMuch.net created this huge visual to illustrate where American dollars are sent and the issues they are meant to address: [cid:C2B3A481-DB88-4820-A554-A25360C4EAA1 at hsd1.il.comcast.net] As you can see, HowMuch.net crunched data from USAID, the agency responsible for U.S. assistance to countries around the world, to put the expenditures in perspective and to highlight the biggest sector supported by U.S. cash. All told, 30 countries receive 82% of all U.S. foreign aid, led by Afghanistan and Iraq, while 121 countries get less than $100 million each. More from MarketWatch * Aurora stock falls as earnings show cannabis company’s investments are still the big earners * Driverless cars will lead to more sex in cars, study finds * Tips from a guy who managed to live in Manhattan on a $40,000 salary and still max out his 401(k) contributions -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MW-HC048_trump_20190115123639_ZH.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 70701 bytes Desc: MW-HC048_trump_20190115123639_ZH.jpeg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MW-HC047_foreig_20190115122702_NS.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 104845 bytes Desc: MW-HC047_foreig_20190115122702_NS.jpeg URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 12:55:29 2019 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:55:29 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=28from_CodePink=29_Help!_Tell_Europe_N?= =?utf-8?q?ot_to_Join_Pompeo=E2=80=99s_War_on_Iran?= In-Reply-To: <5c3e172577e12_114d112d0f54753b5@asgworker-qmb3-3.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> References: <5c3e172577e12_114d112d0f54753b5@asgworker-qmb3-3.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Help! Tell Europe Not to Join Pompeo’s War on Iran Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:23:49 +0000 (UTC) From: Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK To: Stuart Levy CODEPINK - Communications CODEPINK.ORG Say NO to the Pompeo Dear Stuart, We’ve seen this before, a mixture of fear-mongering, bullying, and lies leading us down a path to war. While we just learned that National Security Advisor John Bolton had asked the Pentagon for plans to bomb Iran, *Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has just announced that the US will host a summit on the Middle East in Warsaw, Poland on February 13-14.* Pompeo’s aim is to set the stage for an *unnecessary conflict* with Iran. Instead of a summit to confront Iran, we need the world to pressure the United States to reenter the Iran nuclear deal after Trump’s unilateral withdrawal and to lift the devastating sanctions it has imposed on Iran.*Sign our letter asking EU countries to skip Pompeo’s belligerent conference in Warsaw next month and instead convene a gathering on Middle East peace that includes Iran. * Pompeo claims Iran needs to be squeezed until it learns how to act like a “normal country.” But Pompeo is leaning out of a glass house throwing stones. Right after he announced the conference, he was in Saudi Arabia cozying up to war criminal and bone-saw murderer Mohammed bin Salman. What’s so normal about excusing the murder of journalists and supporting the Saudi’s catastrophic war on Yemen? All the other signatories to the Iran nuclear deal — France, UK, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran — are still abiding by the deal. Only the US has exited. In fact, the European countries are trying to find ways around the US sanctions that affect their companies. It would not make sense for them to join a US-Poland conference aimed at increasing hostility towards Iran. *Sign our letter to the EU asking them not to attend this summit but to create an alternative one with all the Middle Eastern nations, including Iran. * EU countries should pressure the US administration to rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement and work with Iran, as well as all other nations in the region, to end the conflicts that have been devastating the region. Towards peace with Iran, /*Medea and Lily, and the entire CODEPINK team*/ *P.S.* Join us this Saturday for the Women’s March! *Here* are materials you can download and all the locations where we will be. Donate Now! This email was sent to stuartnlevy at gmail.com . © Copyright 2018 | www.codepink.org Created with NationBuilder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jan 16 18:56:21 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:56:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bertrand Russell's 10 Commandments for Living in a Healthy Democracy | Open Culture References: <48F02D77-5F1D-483F-ABED-14DBB6144B3E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Bertrand Russell's 10 Commandments for Living in a Healthy Democracy | Open Culture Date: January 16, 2019 http://www.openculture.com/2019/01/bertrand-russells-10-commandments-for-living-in-a-healthy-democracy.html Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments for Living in a Healthy Democracy in Art, History | January 10th, 2019 3 Comments [russell rules 2] Image by J. F. Horrabin, via Wikimedia Commons Bertrand Russell saw the history of civilization as being shaped by an unfortunate oscillation between two opposing evils: tyranny and anarchy, each of which contain the seed of the other. The best course for steering clear of either one, Russell maintained, is liberalism. "The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation," writes Russell in A History of Western Philosophy. "The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma [a feature of tyranny], and insuring stability [which anarchy undermines] without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community." In 1951 Russell published an article in The New York Times Magazine, "The Best Answer to Fanaticism--Liberalism," with the subtitle: "Its calm search for truth, viewed as dangerous in many places, remains the hope of humanity." In the article, Russell writes that "Liberalism is not so much a creed as a disposition. It is, indeed, opposed to creeds." He continues: But the liberal attitude does not say that you should oppose authority. It says only that you should be free to oppose authority, which is quite a different thing. The essence of the liberal outlook in the intellectual sphere is a belief that unbiased discussion is a useful thing and that men should be free to question anything if they can support their questioning by solid arguments. The opposite view, which is maintained by those who cannot be called liberals, is that the truth is already known, and that to question it is necessarily subversive. Russell criticizes the radical who would advocate change at any cost. Echoing the philosopher John Locke, who had a profound influence on the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Russell writes: The teacher who urges doctrines subversive to existing authority does not, if he is a liberal, advocate the establishment of a new authority even more tyrannical than the old. He advocates certain limits to the exercise of authority, and he wishes these limits to be observed not only when the authority would support a creed with which he disagrees but also when it would support one with which he is in complete agreement. I am, for my part, a believer in democracy, but I do not like a regime which makes belief in democracy compulsory. Russell concludes the New York Times piece by offering a "new decalogue" with advice on how to live one's life in the spirit of liberalism. "The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows," he says: 1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. 2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. 3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed. 4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. 5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. 6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. 7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. 8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. 9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. Wise words then. Wise words now. Note: An earlier version of this post appeared on our site in March, 2013. Follow Open Culture on Facebook and Twitter and share intelligent media with your friends. Or better yet, sign up for our daily email and get a daily dose of Open Culture in your inbox. If you'd like to support Open Culture and our mission, please consider making a donation to our site. It's hard to rely 100% on ads, and your contributions will help us provide the best free cultural and educational materials. via Brain Pickings Related Content: Bertrand Russell’s Advice For How (Not) to Grow Old: “Make Your Interests Gradually Wider and More Impersonal” Bertrand Russell’s Advice to People Living 1,000 Years in the Future: “Love is Wise, Hatred is Foolish” Bertrand Russell: The Everyday Benefit of Philosophy Is That It Helps You Live with Uncertainty Bertrand Russell Authority and the Individual (1948) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Jan 17 03:19:54 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:19:54 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! In-Reply-To: References: <5c3cefa76de1a_80fee6af5010634@asgworker-qmb3-3.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > From: Donna Smith for Progressive Democrats of America > Subject: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! > > [...] Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) activists dedicate > ourselves to keep moving forward on our Medicare for All (MFA) effort. > This, as we have since our founding more than 14 years ago. I'd be careful of using the term "Medicare for All" without clearly explaining which implementation one refers to as this gives way to being exploited by redefining what that term means. HR676 is long-idle but short, easily understood, and supportable. S1804 is longer, includes for-profit actors, and is backed by Bernie Sanders (who is clearly a shepherd for the Democrats[1]). There's a revision of HR676 coming from Rep. Pramila Jayapal. Russell Mokhiber tells us[2] this revision is getting a new bill number. This revision is not yet published (as far as I know). It looks like the shift from HR676 to S1804 is to redefine "Medicare for All" to include for-profit elements which we don't want or need in a proper universalization of Medicare. That would end up letting so-called progressive Congresspeople not only say they support Medicare for All but also vote on such a bill leaving us with a continued expensive and under-delivering healthcare system. > Our coalition has worked closely with Rep. Jayapal’s office for several > months on the Expanded, Improved Medicare for All Act, to strengthen the > legislation. We’re thrilled with the results, and we’re busily building > support for an inspiring launch later this month, with the maximum > possible number of original cosponsors. What's the URL where we, the public, may read this "Expanded, Improved Medicare for All Act" bill? This press release is online at https://pdamerica.org/medicare-for-all-is-closer-than-ever/ but there is no link to the in-progress bill text on that page. The latter half of [2] talks about Jayapal's revision which will "keep for-profit hospitals in the mix". None of it looks favorably on the work being done in secret. I'd also be wary of any so-called progressive who backed Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House. Pelosi will do as the Democrats did when they had a majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic Party president -- not bring HR676 up for a vote. That means no opportunity for a high-publicity push to urge the public to instruct their Congresspeople to vote for HR676 on the condition of losing their vote. Given that Medicare for All is so popular (more than any HMO-based plan) it wouldn't take much to convince people to support such a drive (perhaps that's why HR676 never came up for a vote?). Pelosi makes no secret of her objection to Medicare for All. Giving her such power to keep important bills from being voted on is an effective means of letting representatives look progressive but achieve the same HMO-centric ends we've had so far. The Democrats have an ugly history with healthcare because they're doing what their HMO and drug company funders are paying them to do. Important commentary on this comes from Jimmy Dore on his show[3]. [1] https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-in-hillarys-pocket and https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary [2] https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/11/single-payer-not-single-payer/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/videos has all the episodes of his show. Some recent comments on this topic are in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06J3eTIAIiU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ1i_BM_qTE From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Jan 17 07:23:05 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 07:23:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! In-Reply-To: References: <5c3cefa76de1a_80fee6af5010634@asgworker-qmb3-3.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: <99FFA6F1-7F19-4257-8BDE-29A5963CEDEA@illinois.edu> Thanks for all the advice & warnings about those perfidious & treacherous Democrats. And who is thus lecturing me/us, the PDA, etc.? ~~ Ron [cid:48EAA835-E6D6-4DFE-B3A6-D6C21AFFA57E at hsd1.il.comcast.net][cid:5BFFAB63-C5EE-4A2D-B506-A6568D238ED3 at hsd1.il.comcast.net] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: voted & died.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13604 bytes Desc: voted & died.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recently deceased.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24589 bytes Desc: Recently deceased.jpg URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 17 13:14:59 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 07:14:59 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! In-Reply-To: <99FFA6F1-7F19-4257-8BDE-29A5963CEDEA@illinois.edu> References: <5c3cefa76de1a_80fee6af5010634@asgworker-qmb3-3.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> <99FFA6F1-7F19-4257-8BDE-29A5963CEDEA@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <002a01d4ae66$a659d7b0$f30d8710$@comcast.net> Well Ron, If you had been paying attention for the last 25 years, and / or if the corporate neo-liberal policies the Democrats have implemented ( or helped implemented with the Republicans ) affected you, then you would know that there is plenty good reason to be cautious and suspicious. Your problem has been and continues to be your refusal to accept the reality that the U.S. ruling class ( yes Ron, there is such a thing ) and their corporate money have bought off the vast majority of Democratic politicians, just like they do with the Republicans. But hey, don't take my word for it, go to www.opensecrets.com and see which politicians receive what corporate money from whom and then look at their voting records. Follow the money ! He who pays the piper calls the tune. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:23 AM To: J.B. Nicholson Cc: peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! Thanks for all the advice & warnings about those perfidious & treacherous Democrats. And who is thus lecturing me/us, the PDA, etc.? ~~ Ron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13604 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24589 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 17 13:19:56 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 07:19:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The Democratic Party Obsession with Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow Worse by 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003901d4ae67$5762bc20$06283460$@comcast.net> Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she is a "capitalist" seeking to undermine even the most marginal of progressive policies advocated by the likes of Bernie Sanders. Pelosi's "pay-go" policy recently voted in by House Democrats ensures that any increase in federal spending is offset by an equal number of cuts. In other words, "pay-go" makes Medicare for All or the Green New Deal impossible to fund under current arrangements. Of course, Pelosi is a wholly owned representative of the medical industrial complex, the military industrial complex, and Silicon Valley, all of which make up her largest donors. https://www.blackagendareport.com/democratic-party-obsession-capitalism-and- militarism-will-grow-worse-2020 The Democratic Party Obsession with Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow Worse by 2020 Danny Haiphong, BAR contributor 16 Jan 2019 Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. The Democratic Party Obsession with Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow Worse by 2020 The Democratic Party Obsession with Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow Worse by 2020 The Democratic Party is a political trap designed to capture the most progressive constituency in the United States: Black America. "The Congressional Black Caucus has sided with the forces of imperialism when it comes to war, surveillance, and the police." For a movement, especially a Black left movement that has yet to emerge in this period, the critical task is to develop mass consciousness of the fact that U.S. imperialism is incapable of providing concessions to the poor and oppressed. History has shown that the Black left has always been in the most favorable position for bringing this reality to light. After all, Black workers struggled to throw off the yoke of slavery only to find themselves mired in the murderous jaws of Jim Crow and mass Black incarceration. A significant shift occurred in the Obama period, one that ultimately marked the culmination of three decades of a complete assault on the Black condition through neoliberal capitalist and white supremacist policies. The Black left has been decimated by the assault and has yet to recover from the economic and political ruin imposed by U.S. imperialism. It is from this vantage point that the Democratic Party's obsession with capitalism and militarism must be approached. The Democratic Party is accountable only to its donors on Wall Street and in the military industrial complex.A splintered and weakened Black left and left-wing political movement in general in the United States has taught us invaluable lessons about the Democratic Party and the two-party duopoly more broadly. The so-called "Blue Wave" of the mid-term elections of 2018 has been more of a low tide that has continued to drown Black America and poor people generally. Nancy Pelosi is the new Speaker of the House and Elizabeth Warren is the first Democrat to announce her bid to replace Trump as president in the 2020 election. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) was sworn in on January 3rd, complete with fifty-five seats. "The Democratic Party is accountable only to its donors on Wall Street and in the military industrial complex." This modest "wave" of Democrats is sure to bring with it an even bigger wave of militarism and capitalist plunder. This is not to say that the Republican Party represents an alternative. The Republican Party has been known as the White Man's Party for good reason and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pentagon and monopoly capital. However, this epoch of U.S. imperialism is not like any prior. At no other point in U.S. history has the two-party duopoly experienced a crisis of legitimacy of this magnitude. And at no other point in history has it been more apparent that the Democratic Party is a political trap designed to capture the hearts and minds of the most progressive constituency in the United States: Black America. The words and policies of the Democratic leadership reveal the danger of the trap. Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she is a "capitalist" seeking to undermine even the most marginal of progressive policies advocated by the likes of Bernie Sanders. Pelosi's "pay-go" policy recently voted in by House Democrats ensures that any increase in federal spending is offset by an equal number of cuts. In other words, "pay-go" makes Medicare for All or the Green New Deal impossible to fund under current arrangements. Of course, Pelosi is a wholly owned representative of the medical industrial complex, the military industrial complex, and Silicon Valley, all of which make up her largest donors. Her so-called political opponents in the party are little better. "Socialist" Ocasio-Cortez voted in favor of funding the Department of Homeland Security with the first vote of the new Democrat-led House despite her promise to fight to "abolish ICE" once in office. "Pelosi is a wholly owned representative of the medical industrial complex, the military industrial complex, and Silicon Valley." Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi speaks and acts more like Reagan and has never tried to speak to the conditions of Black America. Neither did Elizabeth Warren until a month ago. In mid-December, Warren spoke at Morgan State University's commencement ceremony where she outlined her position that the government was "rigged" against Black people. The speech was made in obvious preparation for her announcement of a 2020 presidential run that came just weeks later. Yet while Warren talked a big game to begin her effort to galvanize the Black vote, her record of action is less impressive. Warren has often spoken of being a "capitalist to her bones" and her politics are even further to the right than Bernie Sanders' pseudo-socialism. As BAR editor Margaret Kimberly explained in first issue of the new year, Warren is no friend of single payer healthcare or any of the modest reforms that Bernie Sanders proposed in his 2016 campaign. Warren has no substantial record of addressing the issues of police brutality and mass incarceration which are so fundamental to the condition of Black people in the United States. And just as she is an enthusiastic champion of capitalism, Warren is a stalwart of militarism. Warren supported Israel's military assault on schools and hospitals in Gaza during the 2014 invasion and voted for the massive increase in the military budget in 2017, a budget that was far larger than the one Trump originally proposed. "Warren has no substantial record of addressing the issues of police brutality and mass incarceration." The Democratic Party's thirst for war and unbridled capitalism is set to worsen in 2020 and there exists no better measure of this than the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Fifty-five CBC officials were sworn in earlier this January, which The Root called "the tip of the spear in the resistance against Trump." Maxine Waters greeted her fellow CBC members with the "Wakanda" salute. It is fitting that Waters would reference a Hollywood film that promoted "diversity" as the equivalent of Black uplift. The truth is that the CBC has used diversity to actively collaborate with the U.S. imperial state in the destruction of the lives of Black Americans and their allies for decades. The CBC has sided with the forces of imperialism when it comes to war, surveillance, and the police, with 29 CBC members having voted in favor of a law last year that made the police a protected class in America. CBC members can be depended upon to put on a show of "diversity" while working hand over foot to show their loyalty to the monopolists and militarists in control of U.S. imperialism. Diversity is a cruel con game employed by the Democratic Party to delineate who is and isn't "fit" to rule the system of imperialism. The white racist ogre Donald Trump is unfit to be president by the calculations of Democrats, yet these same Democrats refuse to admit that it was their party that placed him into office. Instead, so-called evil Russiahas been blamed in the never-ending Russiagate saga for the Donald's rise to political stardom even though Russian history and its current political trajectory is categorically different from that of the United States. The United States is the birthplace of whiteness and its "purebred" capitalist system has only itself to blame for the current political and economic crisis embodied by Trump. However, there is no room for investigation when the political discourse in the United States has been reduced to what typeof individual should hold political office and whether Washington is under constant electoral attack by the Russians. "Russiagate has given people in the U.S something to blame other than the rulers of their own system." Diversity and Russiagate are interrelated. The former has been employed to make the rule of imperialism more effective under the auspices of "diverse" oligarchs such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Russiagate is the spawn of diversity's failures. Diversity did nothing to intervene in the declining living standards of working and poor people, especially Black people. Rather, it complimented the system's race to the bottom. Now that the War on Terror has lost legitimacy, and the two-party duopoly along with it, Russiagate has given people in the U.S. someone and something to blame other than the rulers of their own system.This won't last forever, as Russiagate and its architects in the ruling class are built to wage war, drive the system into economic collapse, or both. The real question of 2020 is whether a truly left political insurgency will develop in opposition to the obsessions of empire. Danny Haiphong is an activist and journalist in the New York City area. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the forthcoming book entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News- From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror(Skyhorse Publishing). He can be reached at wakeupriseup1990 at gmail.com. COMMENTS? Please join the conversation on Black Agenda Report's Facebook page at http://facebook.com/blackagendareport Or, you can comment by emailing us at comments at blackagendareport.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4307 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 17 13:25:49 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 07:25:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Fwd: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! In-Reply-To: <002a01d4ae66$a659d7b0$f30d8710$@comcast.net> References: <5c3cefa76de1a_80fee6af5010634@asgworker-qmb3-3.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> <99FFA6F1-7F19-4257-8BDE-29A5963CEDEA@illinois.edu> <002a01d4ae66$a659d7b0$f30d8710$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <005401d4ae68$2a0305e0$7e0911a0$@comcast.net> Sorry, that should have been ; www.opensecrets.org Well Ron, If you had been paying attention for the last 25 years, and / or if the corporate neo-liberal policies the Democrats have implemented ( or helped implemented with the Republicans ) affected you, then you would know that there is plenty good reason to be cautious and suspicious. Your problem has been and continues to be your refusal to accept the reality that the U.S. ruling class ( yes Ron, there is such a thing ) and their corporate money have bought off the vast majority of Democratic politicians, just like they do with the Republicans. But hey, don't take my word for it, go to www.opensecrets.com and see which politicians receive what corporate money from whom and then look at their voting records. Follow the money ! He who pays the piper calls the tune. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:23 AM To: J.B. Nicholson Cc: peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Medicare For All Is Closer Than Ever! Thanks for all the advice & warnings about those perfidious & treacherous Democrats. And who is thus lecturing me/us, the PDA, etc.? ~~ Ron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13604 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24589 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Untitled attachment 00082.txt URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 16:56:44 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:56:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good letter in today's N-G Message-ID: I write in response to your editorial, “Another One Bites the Dust,” published on Jan. 10. You write approvingly of the U.S. strike on Jamal al-Badawi, “responsible for the deaths of 17 sailors, the wounding of 39 others and the near-sinking in 2000 of the USS Cole,” writing that this strike in Yemen falls “under the category of getting the job done the right way.” Your view, I take it, is that it is acceptable to use lethal force in foreign territory as a response to violence that results in deaths, injuries and destruction of state property when institutions in that territory cannot carry out justice. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, Iran Air 655, killing 290 people. Would you write approvingly of Iran’s IRGC if they were to kill the captain of the Vincennes, William C. Rogers III, who was not convicted of any crime? I doubt it. Another case: On Jan. 20, 2017, the Council on Foreign Relations wrote that “the 542 drone strikes that (Barack) Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians.” Would you approve of the killing of Obama, who not only was not convicted of any crime but was given an ethics award from UIUC? I doubt it. Your problem isn’t with violence, but with the violence “they” do. This is hypocrisy. The News-Gazette doesn’t care about justice and is just another cheerleader for American state terrorism. ANDREW SMITH Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Jan 17 21:49:37 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 15:49:37 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The Democratic Party Obsession with Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow Worse by 2020 In-Reply-To: <003901d4ae67$5762bc20$06283460$@comcast.net> References: <003901d4ae67$5762bc20$06283460$@comcast.net> Message-ID: My understanding is that the CPC extracted a concession from Pelosi that pay-go would be "waived" on "anything important," including Medicare for All and Green New Deal. === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:20 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she is a “capitalist” > seeking > to undermine even the most marginal of progressive policies advocated by > the likes of Bernie Sanders. Pelosi’s “pay-go” policy > recently > voted in by House Democrats ensures that any increase in federal spending > is offset by an equal number of cuts. In other words, “pay-go” makes > Medicare for All or the Green New Deal impossible to fund under current > arrangements. Of course, Pelosi is a wholly owned representative of the > medical industrial complex, the military industrial complex, and Silicon > Valley, all of which make up her largest donors. > > > > > > > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/democratic-party-obsession-capitalism-and-militarism-will-grow-worse-2020 > The Democratic Party Obsession with Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow > Worse by 2020 > > > Danny Haiphong , > BAR contributor > > > > 16 Jan 2019 > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > [image: > Image removed by sender.] > [image: > Image removed by sender.] > > > [image: Image removed by sender. The Democratic Party Obsession with > Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow Worse by 2020] > > > *The Democratic Party Obsession with Capitalism and Militarism Will Grow > Worse by 2020* > > The Democratic Party is a political trap designed to capture the most > progressive constituency in the United States: Black America. > > *“The Congressional Black Caucus has sided with the forces of imperialism > when it comes to war, surveillance, and the police.”* > > For a movement, especially a *Black left* movement that has yet to emerge > in this period, the critical task is to develop mass consciousness of the > fact that U.S. imperialism is incapable of providing concessions to the > poor and oppressed. History has shown that the Black left has always been > in the most favorable position for bringing this reality to light. After > all, Black workers struggled to throw off the yoke of slavery only to find > themselves mired in the murderous jaws of Jim Crow and mass Black > incarceration. A significant shift occurred in the Obama period, one that > ultimately marked the culmination of three decades of a complete assault on > the Black condition through neoliberal capitalist and white supremacist > policies. The Black left has been decimated by the assault and has yet to > recover from the economic and political ruin imposed by U.S. imperialism. > > It is from this vantage point that the Democratic Party’s obsession with > capitalism and militarism must be approached. The Democratic Party is > accountable only to its donors on Wall Street and in the military > industrial complex.A splintered and weakened Black left and left-wing > political movement in general in the United States has taught us invaluable > lessons about the Democratic Party and the two-party duopoly more broadly. > The so-called “Blue Wave” of the mid-term elections of 2018 has been more > of a low tide that has continued to drown Black America and poor people > generally. Nancy Pelosi is the new Speaker of the House and Elizabeth > Warren is the first Democrat to announce her bid to replace Trump as > president in the 2020 election. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) was > sworn in on January 3rd, complete with fifty-five seats. > > *“The Democratic Party is accountable only to its donors on Wall Street > and in the military industrial complex.”* > > This modest “wave” of Democrats is sure to bring with it an even bigger > wave of militarism and capitalist plunder. This is not to say that the > Republican Party represents an alternative. The Republican Party has been > known as the White Man’s Party for good reason and is a wholly owned > subsidiary of the Pentagon and monopoly capital. However, this epoch of > U.S. imperialism is not like any prior. At no other point in U.S. history > has the two-party duopoly experienced a crisis of legitimacy of this > magnitude. And at no other point in history has it been more apparent that > the Democratic Party is a political trap designed to capture the hearts and > minds of the most progressive constituency in the United States: Black > America. > > The words and policies of the Democratic leadership reveal the danger of > the trap. Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she is a “capitalist” > seeking > to undermine even the most marginal of progressive policies advocated by > the likes of Bernie Sanders. Pelosi’s “pay-go” policy > recently > voted in by House Democrats ensures that any increase in federal spending > is offset by an equal number of cuts. In other words, “pay-go” makes > Medicare for All or the Green New Deal impossible to fund under current > arrangements. Of course, Pelosi is a wholly owned representative of the > medical industrial complex, the military industrial complex, and Silicon > Valley, all of which make up her largest donors. > Her > so-called political opponents in the party are little better. “Socialist” > Ocasio-Cortez voted in favor of funding the Department of Homeland Security > with the first vote of the new Democrat-led House despite her promise to > fight to “abolish ICE” once in office. > > *“Pelosi is a wholly owned representative of the medical industrial > complex, the military industrial complex, and Silicon Valley.”* > > Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi speaks and acts more like Reagan and > has never tried to speak to the conditions of Black America. Neither did > Elizabeth Warren until a month ago. In mid-December, Warren spoke at Morgan > State University’s commencement ceremony where she outlined her position > that the government was “rigged” against Black people. > The > speech was made in obvious preparation for her announcement of a 2020 > presidential run that came just weeks later. Yet while Warren talked a big > game to begin her effort to galvanize the Black vote, her record of action > is less impressive. > > Warren has often spoken of being a “capitalist to her bones” > and > her politics are even further to the right than Bernie Sanders’ > pseudo-socialism. As BAR editor Margaret Kimberly explained in first > issue of the new year > , > Warren is no friend of single payer healthcare or any of the modest reforms > that Bernie Sanders proposed in his 2016 campaign. Warren has no > substantial record of addressing the issues of police brutality and mass > incarceration which are so fundamental to the condition of Black people in > the United States. And just as she is an enthusiastic champion of > capitalism, Warren is a stalwart of militarism. Warren supported Israel’s > military assault on schools and hospitals in Gaza during the 2014 > invasion > and > voted for the massive increase in the military budget in 2017, > a > budget that was far larger than the one Trump originally proposed. > > *“Warren has no substantial record of addressing the issues of police > brutality and mass incarceration.”* > > The Democratic Party’s thirst for war and unbridled capitalism is set to > worsen in 2020 and there exists no better measure of this than the > Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Fifty-five CBC officials were sworn in > earlier this January, which *The Root *called > “the > tip of the spear in the resistance against Trump.” Maxine Waters greeted > her fellow CBC members with the “Wakanda” salute. It is fitting that Waters > would reference a Hollywood film that promoted “diversity” as the > equivalent of Black uplift. The truth is that the CBC has used diversity to > actively collaborate with the U.S. imperial state in the destruction of the > lives of Black Americans and their allies for decades. The CBC has sided > with the forces of imperialism when it comes to war, surveillance, and the > police, with 29 CBC members having voted in favor of a law last year that > made the police a protected class in America > . > CBC members can be depended upon to put on a show of “diversity” while > working hand over foot to show their loyalty to the monopolists and > militarists in control of U.S. imperialism. > > Diversity is a cruel con game employed by the Democratic Party to > delineate who is and isn’t “fit” to rule the system of imperialism. The > white racist ogre Donald Trump is unfit to be president by the calculations > of Democrats, yet these same Democrats refuse to admit that it was their > party that placed him into office. Instead, so-called evil *Russia*has > been blamed in the never-ending Russiagate saga for the Donald’s rise to > political stardom even though Russian history and its current political > trajectory is categorically different from that of the United States. The > United States is the birthplace of whiteness and its “purebred” capitalist > system has only itself to blame for the current political and economic > crisis embodied by Trump. However, there is no room for investigation when > the political discourse in the United States has been reduced to what > *type*of individual should hold political office and whether Washington > is under constant electoral attack by the Russians. > > *“Russiagate has given people in the U.S something to blame other than the > rulers of their own system.”* > > Diversity and Russiagate are interrelated. The former has been employed to > make the rule of imperialism *more effective *under the auspices of > “diverse” oligarchs such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Russiagate is > the spawn of diversity’s failures. Diversity did nothing to intervene in > the declining living standards of working and poor people, especially Black > people. Rather, it complimented the system’s race to the bottom. Now that > the War on Terror has lost legitimacy, and the two-party duopoly along with > it, Russiagate has given people in the U.S. someone and something to blame > other than the rulers of their own system.This won’t last forever, as > Russiagate and its architects in the ruling class are built to wage war, > drive the system into economic collapse, or both. The real question of 2020 > is whether a truly *left *political insurgency will develop in opposition > to the obsessions of empire. > > *Danny Haiphong is an activist and journalist in the New York City area. > He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the forthcoming book > entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History > of Fake News- From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror(Skyhorse > Publishing). He can be reached at *wakeupriseup1990 at gmail.com. > > *COMMENTS?* > > *Please join the conversation on Black Agenda Report's Facebook page at > http://facebook.com/blackagendareport > * > > *Or, you can comment by emailing us at comments at blackagendareport.com > * > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4307 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jan 18 04:59:16 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:59:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Some war and occupation notes for NfN/AOTA Message-ID: War/Politicos: Regarding Oprah Winfrey for US President (something the corporate media was talking about not too long ago): Bill Moyers Journal played an October 9, 2002 clip from "Oprah" on Moyers' PBS program. This Moyers PBS episode has the title "Buying the War". "Buying the War" Transcript: https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W56Ezi3ZlzI Excerpt of the following transcript: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmevAN_FLnQ From the episode: > BILL MOYERS: EVEN OPRAH GOT IN ON THE ACT, FEATURING IN OCTOBER 2002 NEW > YORK TIMES REPORTER JUDITH MILLER. > > JUDITH MILLER: (OPRAH 10/9/02) The US intelligence community believes > that Saddam Hussein has deadly stocks of anthrax, of botulinum toxin, > which is one of the most virulent poisons known to man. > > BILL MOYERS: LIBERAL HAWK KENNETH POLLAK. > > KENNETH POLLAK: And what we know for a fact from a number of defectors > who've come out of Iraq over the years is that Saddam Hussein is > absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as > fast as he can. > > BILL MOYERS: AND THE RIGHT HAND MAN TO AHMED CHALABI. > > OPRAH: And so do the Iraqi people want the American people to liberate > them? > > QUANBAR: Absolutely. In 1991 the Iraqi people were.... > > WOMAN: I hope it doesn't offend you... > > BILL MOYERS: WHEN ONE GUEST DARED TO EXPRESS DOUBT OPRAH WOULD HAVE NONE > OF IT > > WOMAN: I just don't know what to believe with the media and.. > > OPRAH: Oh, we're not trying to propaganda-- show you propaganda. ..We're > just showing you what is. > > WOMAN: I understand that, I understand that. > > OPRAH: OK, but Ok. You have a right to your opinion. And there's also https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2600/1*1hDL3hsWqdNmZ3SynqmeYA.jpeg -- Oprah cozying up with G.W. Bush -- reminiscent of what has become in vogue since Trump was elected. Venezuela: US's next war in Venezuela? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8i2XLwSJAA -- US supports Juan Guaidó [GUAY-doe], head of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as an unelected self-declared interim president of Venezuela. Guaidó doesn't recognize the Nicolas Maduro administration. For the US government (elites), this is a good thing: Guaidó is the stooge who will help usher in the takeover the US has wanted since 2001. VP Pence, Nikki Haley, and Sen. Marco Rubio are in favor of recognizing Guaidó, as are the Washington Post and New York Times which both urge military intervention to rescue the oppressed Venezuelans (regime change war). Pres. Trump has already called for violent overthrow of Venezuela: Pres. Trump on August 11, 2017: > We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military > option. Pres. Trump on September 25, 2018 > It's a regime that, frankly, could be toppled very quickly by the > military if the military decides to do that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc07gT6gczc -- Russia disagrees with the US on Venezuela. Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRkPYnJIZc -- Israel opens segregated road; the wall of separation spans a 5km stretch of the road. Palestinians call this wall the "Apartheid wall". Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is running for POTUS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXKsDap51_Q -- RT's coverage of her candidacy so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWfwqxwSUF8 -- Jimmy Dore promotes her and covers how the corporate media smears her. There are good reasons to object to Rep. Gabbard and both the corporate media and Dore aren't bringing any of them up for discussion. One major problem is Gabbard's support for the drone war. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike > forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your position > that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the U.S. > military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is that > still your position? > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > current AUMFs [Authorization to Use Military Forces]. > > So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe > that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical > strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no > long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and > then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations > where our military is not able to get in without creating an > unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not > causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties. "Quick strike forces", "Surgical strikes", "in and out" are propaganda terms. Remember when we were assured that the invasion of Iraq would be speedy? Donald Rumsfeld from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-it-would-be-a-short-war/ > "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going > to last any longer than that," he [Rumsfeld] said. "It won't be a World > War III." Drone attacks mean extrajudicial murder of "a large amount of civilian casualties" without traditional occupation. Drone wars continue current US policy set back in G.W. Bush's administration and escalated in every subsequent administration. If she were POTUS there is no reason to believe she'd do anything differently: hand-pick the targets from dossiers ("baseball cards") in a Tuesday afternoon meeting ("terror Tuesday" meetings) resulting in killing a lot of other people who just happen to be in the blast zone. If she runs on an identity politics campaign like Hillary Clinton did there's another conflict with the drone war: innocent women and girls die in drone bomb attacks just like men and boys do. Noam Chomsky in an interview with Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOksJKfapVM around 1h8m28s into the recording: > Noam Chomsky: Let me say that there are plenty of people who live > constantly under the threat of terrorism. If you wanna find them go to > Yemen or North Waziristan where people don't have to be told about > terrorism. They are constantly in fear that five minutes from now the > guy across the street is going to be blown away along with anyone else > who happens to be around. That's massive global terrorism. > > And it has repercussions, and we're seeing some of the repercussions. > > What happened in Brussels was a monstrous terrorist act but it's worth > looking at the explanation that was given for it: ISIS took credit for > it and issued a statement which basically said 'As long as you keep > bombing us, we're gonna respond by attacking you.'. There's something > to that. This also helps put into context the term "terrorist" -- Gabbard uses it to describe those being bombed by the US, Chomsky gives a good argument for how those at the receiving end of US foreign policy could use the term to describe the US bombing. Most of the people who are killed in drone attacks are not the targeted people (and there's strong reason to killing the targeted people as well, there's no evidence, no trial, no opportunity for debate or review). Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, "drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens.". It looks like people have been looking into Rep. Gabbard's political history, particularly now that she is running for POTUS. My conclusion (based on her electoral record, her political affiliations, and her own political commentary): she's complying with Democratic Party/permanent government values quite well. It might be to the Democrat's benefit to criticize her harshly to bring voters into the Democratic Party primaries (as if they were elections and not the rigged corporate selections the DNC corporation's lawyer Bruce Spiva told us they were) and support her. If she's down with the deep state/permanent government on the most significant issue the state ever takes up -- war -- she might be acceptable to party elites and can be "brought to heel" (to use another Democratic Party representative's phrase) on domestic issues where she's giving lip service to amenable ideas like Medicare for All (HR676). -J From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 17:15:02 2019 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 17:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter in response to my letter References: <334908690.329694.1547918102405.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <334908690.329694.1547918102405@mail.yahoo.com> Military service a positive experience Our local iconoclast and critic of American life, David Green, writes that our armed forces are predominantly drawn from the economically underprivileged “to serve as potential cannon fodder and cops on the beat.” He concludes, “these predominantly working-class individuals serve … the interests of the capitalist class and sacrifice only to the latter’s benefit.” First, I dislike “working man/working-class” terminology because, while long employed in management and thereby disqualified as a “working man,” I consistently worked more hours per week (including every Saturday and Sunday) than the typical Monday through Fri- day “working man.” But that is not my primary dispute with Green’s views. To realize that military service offers many positives to “working-class individuals,” one has but to read what Seon Williams, this year’s Dr. Martin Luther King Outstanding Achievement Awardee, said about his six-plus years of service: “It was the best thing I could have ever done.” Williams credits his success as an entrepreneur to the “discipline, responsibility, initiative, leadership and positive attitude” he learned in the service. Thousands of oncedisadvantaged men and women have been positively impacted by their valued service to their country. To many, our armed forces offer employable skills and self-confidence as alternatives to a life of poverty or crime. Honoring veterans is anything but “propaganda” and “manipulative promotion.” PETER T. TOMARAS Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Jan 19 17:33:21 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:33:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [New post] Credulous Atheist Believes Evidence-Free Establishment Russia Narrative In-Reply-To: <139971992.5826.0@wordpress.com> References: <139971992.5826.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <002a01d4b01d$12e896c0$38b9c440$@comcast.net> New post on Caitlin Johnstone Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Credulous Atheist Believes Evidence-Free Establishment Russia Narrative by Caitlin Johnstone The other day RT reporter Dan Cohen flagged how New Atheism guru Sam Harris recently had a shady cold war manipulator on his podcast promulgating the establishment narrative that Russian hackers and trolls interfered in the 2016 US election, despite the fact that there is no more publicly available evidence for this than there is for the existence of biblical Jehovah. I find this both fascinating and hilarious. Listen to New Atheist guru @SamHarrisOrg faithfully accept @NewKnowledgeAI disinformation warrior @noUpside's claim that there's no doubt Russia meddled in the 2016 election because "the intelligence agencies know it happened" https://t.co/GHf94ZAEtB HT @Whtapl pic.twitter.com/Hgf4PQzTA9 — Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) January 16, 2019 Harris, author of The End of Faith and commonly mentioned in the same breath as atheistic thought leaders like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, once wrote the following: "While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, will be thought insane.” Belief in the establishment Russia narrative is very much the same. As Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity recently documented in an excellent article for Consortium News titled "A Look Back at Clapper’s Jan. 2017 ‘Assessment’ on Russia-gate", the entire election meddling narrative was built upon an ODNI assessment by two dozen analysts hand-picked and overseen by James Clapper. McGovern notes how Clapper, then the Director of National Intelligence, is notorious for having helped sell the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, for lying to congress about NSA surveillance, and for multiple instances of claiming that Russians are genetically predisposed to nefarious behavior. We the public have never seen the evidence that led to this extremely shady assessment's findings, yet those findings have gradually been integrated into mass media reports as infallible fact upon which the rest of the establishment Russia narrative has been built. Like belief in mainstream religions, the only reason its lack of evidence fails to come into question is because it has been made popular by mainstream politicians and credulous media talking heads who have been reporting it as fact day in and day out for two years, without adding any solid, tangible evidence to the equation beyond the unsubstantiated say-so of intelligence agencies with an extensive record of lying to the public to manufacture support for preexisting geopolitical agendas. It's an entirely faith-based narrative, only instead of placing faith in the words of priests and books authored by long-dead men, faith is placed in the authoritative say-so of the imperial intelligence community. I really enjoyed speaking with Renee DiResta about information warfare. We live in interesting times... @noUpside https://t.co/CU2jTMfCPq — Sam Harris (@SamHarrisOrg) January 2, 2019 It's funny then, given the aforementioned quote, that Harris escalated his already highly credulous relationship with the CIA Russia narrative in a podcast earlier this month titled " The Information War" in which he nodded faithfully along with a guest whose organization was recently exposed as having manufactured the appearance of Russian election meddling in an Alabama Senate race. His guest, Renee DiResta, is named in a December New York Times report for her involvement in a project by narrative control firm New Knowledge, which claims in an internal document to have "orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the [Alabama Senate candidate Roy] Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.” This same narrative control firm which manufactured the bogus story that Moore was being amplified by Russian bots also authored two reports on Russian social media meddling for the US Congress in December which set off a week's worth of hysterical shrieking headlines. At no time in Harris' interview with DiResta does he question any of her cold war rhetoric or baseless assertions, and indeed he eggs her along with agreeable questions along the lines of the CIA/CNN Russia narrative. "Many people, certainly most Trump supporters, continue to doubt whether Russia interfered in anything in 2016," Harris said, as though skepticism of the unproven claims of shady intelligence agencies is a bad thing, then asked point-blank, "Is there any basis for doubt about that at this point?" "Nope," DiResta replied. "This is just crystal clear as a matter of what our intelligence services tell us, and a matter of what people like you can ascertain by just studying online behavior?" Harris helpfully added. "It happened," DiResta replied. "There's really nothing else to say about it. The intelligence agencies know it happened, foreign governments know it happened, the platforms acknowledge it happened. There may be some small group of people that continues to live like ostriches, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen." Intelligence agencies know something happened, therefore it happened. The Pope knows bread and wine transubstantiates into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ, therefore it happens. Sam Harris went right along with this, completely unquestioning like a good little cult member. Silly Republican, as if a $100k social media campaign “could have affected the closely fought Senate race” in 2017. Oh wait, that’s also the prevailing liberal supposition about a ~$100k Russian social media campaign in a 2016 presidential race. Never mind! https://t.co/pEH1jDj06n — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) December 27, 2018 In an article for The Nation, journalist Aaron Maté breaks down how the data within the establishment Russia narrative itself shows that Russia's social media involvement in US politics was "small, amateurish, and mostly unrelated to the 2016 election," with only a tiny fraction of the Russia-based Internet Research Agency's US content having anything to do with the election at all, a very small amount of funds allocated to the total project, and making up an infinitesimally small percentage of total social media content viewed by Americans. Maté has also noted that the total expenditure on IRA posts for the entire US election is actually comparable to what New Knowledge spent on its "false flag operation" in the Alabama Senate race alone, which New Knowledge claims was too small to have impacted the election. If that's not enough reason for you to be skeptical, Maté and the Moon of Alabama blog point out that there is no evidence that the Internet Research Agency had any intent to influence the election, nor indeed that it is anything other than a for-profit clickbait operation. Looking at the content of the posts we've been shown and the statistics we've been told about them, this is very difficult to argue against, which is probably why nobody ever tries to. Sam Harris the credulous atheist never brings any of this up, uncritically letting his guest spout faith-based doctrine about both Kremlin social media interference and Russian hacking. "Let's talk about the WikiLeaks data dump," DiResta said later in the podcast. "So as you mentioned at the start, the GRU had this hack, they had these emails and they laundered these emails through WikiLeaks. They gave them to WikiLeaks." There is no more publicly available evidence that this happened than there is that the Qur'an is the actual, literal word of actual, literal Allah, yet Sam Harris the credulous atheist never asked her for evidence of her claims. He uncritically let her advance not just establishment narratives but establishment agendas as well, nodding agreeably along as she called for social media platforms to collaborate with intelligence agencies and grieved about America being legally unable to respond with propaganda of its own to Russian online manipulations. Image removed by sender. Support for establishment cold war narratives against Russia is not the only front along which Sam Harris finds himself in alignment with neoconservatism, whose push for a more aggressive posture toward the USSR was one of the early tenets of the movement. Harris' extensive history of I slamophobic comments and his sympathetic attitude toward the so-called "war on terror" and US military interventionism in Muslim-majority nations play right into the hands of neoconservative agendas in the Middle East, and he's been accused of being a closet neocon so much he's had to publicly address it. Neoconservatives have been consistently wrong about literally everything to do with foreign policy for decades, yet Sam Harris the credulous atheist finds theirs a sufficiently rational ideology to ride alongside. There is no more evidence that US interventionism in the Middle East is helpful than there is for the existence of Vishnu, yet Sam Harris the credulous atheist uncritically endorses it. Establishment-fueled Russia hysteria is a religion. It is an entirely faith-based belief system which has toxic effects on the people who subscribe to it, and toxic effects on the world as it manufactures support for insane escalations between two nuclear superpowers. As we discussed yesterday, if you don't have a functioning radar for detecting malignant narratives, you might get lucky and find yourself in opposition to some pernicious belief systems, yet also find yourself selling CIA narratives to your very large online audience as well. Credulous atheist Sam Harris doesn't oppose all religions. He is critical of some of them, and he is a zealous bishop of others. ____________________________ The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet new merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. Image removed by sender. Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 Caitlin Johnstone | January 19, 2019 at 2:47 am | Tags: atheism, neocon, Russia, Russiagate, sam harris | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1vY Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/01/19/credulous-atheist-believes-evidence-free-establishment-russia-narrative/ Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 368 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Jan 19 19:50:34 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:50:34 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The Medicare for All Act of 2019 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006c01d4b030$3fe7c660$bfb75320$@comcast.net> From: Labor Campaign For Single Payer [mailto:laborcampaignforsinglepayer at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 12:35 PM To: Mark Dudzic Subject: The Medicare for All Act of 2019 Labor Campaign for Single-Payer To: LCSP National Advisory Board and National Steering Committee From: Mark Dudzic, National Coordinator Yesterday the National Steering Committee voted to endorse the Medicare for All Act of 2019 which will be submitted by Representative Jayapal (D., WA) and to work with the bill's sponsors on rollout and promotion. We also heard from Kelly Coogan-Gehr from NNU which is taking the lead in bill rollout and in organizing the national week of action February 9-13. The first task is to recruit additional cosponsors for the bill so that, when it is released in early February, more than one hundred Representatives stand with Pramilla Jayapal. Attached is a sample email template. We will be sending it out to our activist list. I urge you to request that your organization send it out quickly through it's internal email lists and that you make every effort to encourage your members to call their Congressional Representatives. More information on the rollout and the week of action will be sent out shortly. The 202-858-1717 number has been provided by NNU. It is a dedicated line that will connect the user with their specific Member of Congress by putting in their zip code. The number collects aggregate data about which Members have been called and how many. It does not capture any individual's personal data. This is our moment! Our movement has compelled Congress to begin to address the overwhelming desire of the American people for expanded and improved Medicare for All. Victory will require unity, hard work and building grassroots power. Now is the time to redouble our efforts. In Solidarity. Mark Dudzic National Coordinator 201-314-2653 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call Your Rep Medicare for All Act of 2019 Email Template Edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 202634 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jan 20 02:17:42 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 20:17:42 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #409 notes Message-ID: News from Neptune #409 A "Coup Coup" edition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63oFXqxqX2A A list of references to items mentioned on the show and related notes. Peter T. Tomaras on "Military service a positive experience" http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-the-editor/2019-01-18/letter-the-editor-military-service-positive-experience.html Related: Not only is "the gig economy" neologism really a scam of low-pay work (forcing poor people to take multiple such jobs to make ends meet) as the show explains, but the nature of the work are also a part of the problem. You can see the ugly nature of so much work show up in other areas of the economy as well -- the recent article in The Guardian describes why "people don't want to work in abattoirs any more": https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/christmas-crisis-kill-dinner-work-abattoir-industry-psychological-physical-damage -- "People don’t want to work in abattoirs any more. The industry is linked to psychological and physical damage" > A report in the trade magazine Farmers Weekly has revealed that staff > shortages at slaughterhouses are threatening Christmas sales. Some > 10,000 positions are unfilled at major abattoirs, meaning supermarkets > will “seriously struggle” to fulfil their seasonal orders. Of course > some of that shortfall is because of Brexit; crucially, however, the > report explains that for most potential applicants, the industry’s low > pay is not the problem but that “people simply do not want to do this > work any more”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR_4h5A5z_A -- "The Simpsons" episode "Lisa the Vegetarian" (S07E05), the scene of a fictional meat lobby-sponsored propaganda film played in schools titled "Meat and You: Partners in Freedom" has a comedic view of why people don't want abattoir work with Troy McClure the omnipresent narrator of Simpsons' educational films, and Jimmy, a young boy: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=the-simpsons&episode=s07e05 > Jimmy: I'm curious as to how meat gets from the ranch to my stomach. > > Troy: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down, Jimmy. You just asked a mouthful. It > all starts here in the high-density feedlot. Then when the cattle are > just right -- Mmm! -- it's time for them to "graduate" from Bovine > University. Come on, Jimmy. Let's take a peek at the killing floor. > > [Jimmy is visibly startled.] > > Troy: Don't let the name throw you, Jimmy. It's not really a floor. It's > more of a steel grating that allows material to sluice through so it can > be collected and exported. > > [Troy and Jimmy enter the killing floor where we see only the side of > the building but hear cattle being slaughtered and chopped up. As Troy > and Jimmy exit the building Jimmy shudders in fear.] > > Troy: Getting hungry, Jimmy? > > Jimmy: Uh, Mr. McClure, I have a crazy friend who says it's wrong to > eat meat. Is he crazy? > > Troy: No, just ignorant. You see, your crazy friend never heard of the > food chain. [a slide showing all sorts of creatures each with an arrow > pointing to the human in the center] Just ask this scientician. > > Unnamed man in lab coat at microscope: Uh > > Troy: He'll tell you that in nature one creature invariably eats > another to survive. Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the > chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about. > > Jimmy: Wow, Mr. McClure! I was a Grade-A moron to ever question eating > meat. > > Troy: Yes, you were, Jimmy. Yes, you were. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOf_DPchpoE -- Rick Sanchez's "report card on the American worker" includes the following: > Net worth of Americans from 2007 to 2019 (during the so-called > "recovery") -- White middle class families have seen their net worth go > down by 19%; African American families' net worth fell 40%; Hispanic > families' net worth fell by 46% > > The US created $26 trillion dollars [not to:] build roads, build > schools, bail out Americans who were cheated in sub-prime loans, > forgive student debt, [nor to] create a healthcare structure for > uninsured Americans. It was used to bail out the banks. > > Right now about a 1/3rd of American workers make less than $12/hour. > > American productivity since 1973 has risen: Productivity has gone up by > 77% and the hourly wage has gone up by 12%. > > If a federal minimum wage were tracked to productivity the federal > minimum wage would be $20/hr. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-to-re-introduce-15-minimum-wage-bill-in-first-week-of-new-congress -- Bernie Sanders, one of the most popular politicians in the US today, is introducing a bill that "would raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024 and would index it to median wage growth thereafter". Bret Stephens on "The Rudderless West" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/brexit-western-powers.html Yves Engler on "Is Canada's 'Left' Marching To The Beat of America's Imperial Drum?" Transcripts for both parts: https://therealnews.com/series/is-canadas-left-marching-to-the-beat-of-americas-imperial-drum Video part 1 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nymp9uefUxA Video part 2 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6IcRIycmpE Shir Hever and David Sheen on "Will Coming Israeli Elections Change Anything?" Transcripts of both parts: https://therealnews.com/series/will-coming-israeli-elections-change-anything Video part 1 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQ2LXVYzB4 Video part 2 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvVk6OiFr30 Leo Panitch on "UK Brexit Vote Reflects a Deep Crisis in Capitalism" Transcripts of both parts: https://therealnews.com/series/uk-brexit-vote-reflects-a-deep-crisis-in-capitalism Video part 1 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FP-rwrlv_0 Video part 2 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_2c24JzL0 Regarding discussion of Marx's reflections on constitutionalism Ben Gliniecki on "Law and Marxism: the state and the constitution" https://www.marxist.com/law-and-marxism-the-state-and-the-constitution.htm > For Marxists there is nothing mysterious about the state: it is a weapon > of the ruling class to be used in the class struggle. Constitutional > laws appear to regulate and limit the power of the state – does that > mean they should be supported by Marxists? This would be a > misunderstanding. Constitutional laws are a conquest of the bourgeois > revolutions against the old feudal order, and they flow, in content and > form, directly from a system based on commodity production. We have no > illusions that constitutional safeguards can help the working class win > its struggle against the bourgeoisie. It also means that, as well as the > state being entirely different under socialism, constitutional law, and > law in general, would look very different as well. Dean Baker and Jason Hickel debate Whether the Green New Deal should be pro-growth or anti-growth Baker starts: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/saving-the-environment-is-degrowthing-the-answer Hickel replies: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/stability-without-growth-keynes-in-an-age-of-climate-breakdown Robert Pollin on "De-growth vs a Green New Deal" (full article) https://newleftreview.org/II/112/robert-pollin-de-growth-vs-a-green-new-deal Stan Cox on "That Green Growth at the Heart of the Green New Deal? It’s Malignant" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/17/that-green-growth-at-the-heart-of-the-green-new-deal-its-malignant/ Andrew Stewart on "Sorry Democrats, the Green Party Came Up With the Green New Deal!" https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/29/sorry-democrats-the-green-party-came-up-with-the-green-new-deal/ and http://www.gp.org/sorry_democrats where the author's name is spelled "Andrew Steward" Andrew Stewart on "The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party" Part 1 of 3: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/15/the-green-new-deal-must-be-centered-on-african-american-and-indigenous-workers-to-differentiate-itself-from-the-democratic-party/ Part 2 of 3: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/16/the-green-new-deal-must-be-centered-on-african-american-and-indigenous-workers-to-differentiate-itself-from-the-democratic-party-part-two/ Part 3 of 3: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/17/the-green-new-deal-must-be-centered-on-african-american-and-indigenous-workers-to-differentiate-itself-from-the-democratic-party-part-three/ Dean Baker's blog "Beat the Press" http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/ Eric Blanc on "Billionaires vs. LA Schools" https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/la-teachers-strike-charters-privatization Some of the New York Times articles on the ongoing Los Angeles Teachers' Strike https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/style/la-school-strike-latino.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/california-today-la-teachers-union-leader-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/us/la-teacher-strike-lausd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/california-today-los-angeles-teachers-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/us/california-today-austin-beutner-la-teacher-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/opinion/letters/los-angeles-teachers-strike-prop-13.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/lausd-strike-schools.html https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/17/us/ap-us-los-angeles-teachers-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/california-teachers-strike.html Glenn Sachs articles on CounterPunch about the ongoing LA Teachers' Strike https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/06/a-teacher-explains-why-the-janus-ruling-is-bad-news-for-schools-students/ -- on how Janus v. AFSCME is aimed at Teachers' union https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/08/la-teachers-strike-dispatch-1/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/09/obamas-education-secretary-arne-duncan-slams-la-teachers-for-strike/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/14/la-teachers-strike-the-country-is-watching/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/15/on-the-picket-lines-los-angeles-teachers-go-on-strike-for-first-time-in-30-years/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/16/la-teachers-strike-when-just-one-man-says-no/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/17/la-teachers-strike-black-smoke-pouring-out-of-lausd-headquarters/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/18/la-teachers-strike-student-voices-of-the-los-angeles-education-revolt/ Moderate Rebels episode 33: "Revolt of the haves: Venezuela's US-backed opposition and economic sabotage w/ Steve Ellner" https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/e33_steve_ellner_venezuela.mp3 Moderate Rebels RSS feed: https://moderaterebels.libsyn.com/rss Moderate Rebels videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNiXhsI4QtmQaeICpT-k7BQ/videos -J From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jan 20 04:38:06 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 04:38:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Time to Break the Silence on Palestine References: <818FABEE-3B71-4005-A768-2B9D518B621D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <2DF2F94A-062E-4DBA-9216-55F37789EA6D@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: Time to Break the Silence on Palestine Date: January 19, 2019 >From The New York Times: Time to Break the Silence on Palestine Martin Luther King Jr. courageously spoke out about the Vietnam War. We must do the same when it comes to this grave injustice of our time. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/martin-luther-king-palestine-israel.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 06:47:05 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 00:47:05 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Time to Break the Silence on Palestine In-Reply-To: <2DF2F94A-062E-4DBA-9216-55F37789EA6D@illinois.edu> References: <818FABEE-3B71-4005-A768-2B9D518B621D@illinois.edu> <2DF2F94A-062E-4DBA-9216-55F37789EA6D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: A good summary article, but at this point of no political consequence. Ineffectual pro-Palestinianism is quickly becoming one of the requirements of liberal Identity Politics, and also related to anti-Trumpism. DG On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 10:38 PM Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *From: *"Szoke, Ron" > *Subject: **NYTimes.com : Time to Break the Silence > on Palestine* > *Date: *January 19, 2019 > > From The New York Times: > > Time to Break the Silence on Palestine > > Martin Luther King Jr. courageously spoke out about the Vietnam War. We > must do the same when it comes to this grave injustice of our time. > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/martin-luther-king-palestine-israel.html > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jan 20 16:08:03 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:08:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter in response to my letter In-Reply-To: <334908690.329694.1547918102405@mail.yahoo.com> References: <334908690.329694.1547918102405.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <334908690.329694.1547918102405@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8E21D8DC-A343-4D71-9B55-846B313FA852@illinois.edu> Nothing unexpected here. Yes, we buy our military “volunteers”, and some do profit from it, while others flounder and are wasted in one way or another. And cost the rest of society dearly. And a belated thanks for your letter. Mort On Jan 19, 2019, at 11:15 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Military service a positive experience Our local iconoclast and critic of American life, David Green, writes that our armed forces are predominantly drawn from the economically underprivileged “to serve as potential cannon fodder and cops on the beat.” He concludes, “these predominantly working-class individuals serve … the interests of the capitalist class and sacrifice only to the latter’s benefit.” First, I dislike “working man/working-class” terminology because, while long employed in management and thereby disqualified as a “working man,” I consistently worked more hours per week (including every Saturday and Sunday) than the typical Monday through Fri- day “working man.” But that is not my primary dispute with Green’s views. To realize that military service offers many positives to “working-class individuals,” one has but to read what Seon Williams, this year’s Dr. Martin Luther King Outstanding Achievement Awardee, said about his six-plus years of service: “It was the best thing I could have ever done.” Williams credits his success as an entrepreneur to the “discipline, responsibility, initiative, leadership and positive attitude” he learned in the service. Thousands of oncedisadvantaged men and women have been positively impacted by their valued service to their country. To many, our armed forces offer employable skills and self-confidence as alternatives to a life of poverty or crime. Honoring veterans is anything but “propaganda” and “manipulative promotion.” PETER T. TOMARAS Champaign _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jan 20 16:17:29 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:17:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter in response to my letter In-Reply-To: <8E21D8DC-A343-4D71-9B55-846B313FA852@illinois.edu> References: <334908690.329694.1547918102405.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <334908690.329694.1547918102405@mail.yahoo.com> <8E21D8DC-A343-4D71-9B55-846B313FA852@illinois.edu> Message-ID: David inspired me, and I submitted my letter yesterday morning to the NG as a result of the one by Tomaras attempting to counter him. I don’t know if mine will be printed, but I suggest others write one up also, we need to flood the NG with letters countering war and militarism which isn’t going away, we are now looking at permanent war, because its profitable and the potential for nuclear war given “anything can happen.” My letter to the NG Editor yesterday: When those who served in the military talk of "what a wonderful experience they and others had while with the US military, I ask, to what is it they are referring? Is being cannon fodder, and part of an organization used to destroy and murder innocent people, a worthy endeavor? Do they not notice the veterans suffering from PTSD, as well as crippling physical malady’s, suffered by many returning veterans? Do they not see the homeless, nor the recorded suicides of at least two a day, every day, of US veterans. This doesn't cover the numerous broken family's or the nightmares suffered as a result of their "service to their country." I suggest speaking to “Veterans Against War,” those who served their country, only to return and become active opposing US imperialism and hegemony, whether Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, due to the horrors suffered by our soldiers, as well as "inflicted upon others." Its time the News Gazette stop glorifying wars that serve only to kill and enrich the corporate elites owning our government, wars that cripple our people while ensuring wealth for our major industry, weapons. On Jan 20, 2019, at 08:08, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: Nothing unexpected here. Yes, we buy our military “volunteers”, and some do profit from it, while others flounder and are wasted in one way or another. And cost the rest of society dearly. And a belated thanks for your letter. Mort On Jan 19, 2019, at 11:15 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Military service a positive experience Our local iconoclast and critic of American life, David Green, writes that our armed forces are predominantly drawn from the economically underprivileged “to serve as potential cannon fodder and cops on the beat.” He concludes, “these predominantly working-class individuals serve … the interests of the capitalist class and sacrifice only to the latter’s benefit.” First, I dislike “working man/working-class” terminology because, while long employed in management and thereby disqualified as a “working man,” I consistently worked more hours per week (including every Saturday and Sunday) than the typical Monday through Fri- day “working man.” But that is not my primary dispute with Green’s views. To realize that military service offers many positives to “working-class individuals,” one has but to read what Seon Williams, this year’s Dr. Martin Luther King Outstanding Achievement Awardee, said about his six-plus years of service: “It was the best thing I could have ever done.” Williams credits his success as an entrepreneur to the “discipline, responsibility, initiative, leadership and positive attitude” he learned in the service. Thousands of oncedisadvantaged men and women have been positively impacted by their valued service to their country. To many, our armed forces offer employable skills and self-confidence as alternatives to a life of poverty or crime. Honoring veterans is anything but “propaganda” and “manipulative promotion.” PETER T. TOMARAS Champaign _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jan 20 23:31:17 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 23:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why Do People Fall for Fake News? References: <175096DF-EAE7-45DC-8DE7-E682E5B608E8@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <646AE142-7135-4E07-97CB-3B24ABAAD4D8@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: Why Do People Fall for Fake News? Date: January 20, 2019 >From The New York Times: Why Do People Fall for Fake News? Are they blinded by their political passions? Or are they just intellectually lazy? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/fake-news.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jan 20 23:36:33 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:36:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why Do People Fall for Fake News? In-Reply-To: <646AE142-7135-4E07-97CB-3B24ABAAD4D8@illinois.edu> References: <175096DF-EAE7-45DC-8DE7-E682E5B608E8@illinois.edu> <646AE142-7135-4E07-97CB-3B24ABAAD4D8@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <001b01d4b118$faa5d350$eff179f0$@comcast.net> Define " fake news " Ron. I hope you are not one of those who has been convinced by corporate media propaganda, like our favorite lurking troll Roger , to believe that anything other than corporate media is so called " fake news ". But please, tell me your definition of what fake news is ! David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:31 PM To: Peace-discuss Cc: Bill Strutz Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why Do People Fall for Fake News? From: "Szoke, Ron" Subject: NYTimes.com: Why Do People Fall for Fake News? Date: January 20, 2019 >From The New York Times: Why Do People Fall for Fake News? Are they blinded by their political passions? Or are they just intellectually lazy? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/fake-news.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jan 20 23:36:31 2019 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (Anne Bjornson) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:36:31 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why Do People Fall for Fake News? In-Reply-To: <646AE142-7135-4E07-97CB-3B24ABAAD4D8@illinois.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jan 20 23:45:19 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:45:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why Do People Fall for Fake News? In-Reply-To: References: <646AE142-7135-4E07-97CB-3B24ABAAD4D8@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <003b01d4b11a$3432af70$9c980e50$@comcast.net> INDEED ! David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Anne Bjornson via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:37 PM To: Szoke, Ron Cc: Peace-discuss; Bill Strutz Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why Do People Fall for Fake News? Ironic to see this in the NYT On Jan 20, 2019 5:31 PM, "Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss" wrote: From: "Szoke, Ron" Subject: NYTimes.com: Why Do People Fall for Fake News? Date: January 20, 2019 >From The New York Times: Why Do People Fall for Fake News? Are they blinded by their political passions? Or are they just intellectually lazy? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/fake-news.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 15:24:31 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?In_honor_of_the_Yellow_Vests=2C_who_hav?= =?utf-8?q?en=E2=80=99t_given_up_their_fight_against_exploitation=E2=80=A6?= =?utf-8?b?4oCm?= Message-ID: In honor of the Yellow Vests, who haven’t given up their fight against exploitation……Marielle Mathieu singing La Marseillaise. https://youtu.be/7va62mL_LYU From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 16:06:04 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:06:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Oliver Stones VDO on the Ukraine, for those who aren't already aware Message-ID: https://www.sott.net/article/373841-Ukraine-on-Fire-How-US-Not-Russia-Destroyed-Ukraine-Oliver-Stone-Documentary-Finally-Available-VIDEO From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 02:10:01 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 02:10:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Response_in_respect_to=3A_In_honor_of_t?= =?utf-8?q?he_Yellow_Vests=2C_who_haven=E2=80=99t_given_up_their_fight_aga?= =?utf-8?b?aW5zdCBleHBsb2l0YXRpb27igKbigKY=?= References: <108442435.2007352.1548189364737@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A message to all, from Doug and Ann Clough, who have been steadfast for so many years in pursuit of peace. Doug has almost never missed a monthly AWARE demonstration, downtown Champaign, no matter what the weather conditions. You will see him holding a pole, with the “peace” symbol, for at least 2 hours, non stop. He has also joined other marches in pursuit of anti-war holding the flag pole for an additional two hours, not easy for anyone, let alone a senior. Please see below: hi karen and others the life story of marielle mathieu is almost other worldly check wikepaedia and other sources including you tube such an inspiration (does my my to you e-mail go to others on peace list can you forward my e-mail to the whole list if not am i asking too much? thanking you again for all you do doug) In a message dated 1/22/2019 9:24:56 AM Central Standard Time, peace at lists.chambana.net writes: In honor of the Yellow Vests, who haven’t given up their fight against exploitation……Marielle Mathieu singing La Marseillaise. https://youtu.be/7va62mL_LYU _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 13:31:42 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN Friday Message-ID: Carl and David I don’t think your researcher is quite correct, nor is he wrong, regarding Aaron Mate leaving the Real News. Aaron was interviewed by someone, saw it on my tablet, couldn’t find it online at the time. It may have been Jimmy Dore, but Aaron complained, not his exact words, that the Real News is looking at being “more balanced” by interviewing those that oppose their views. Mate who made mincemeat out of those faux journalists promoting Russiagate, and war, clearly opposes the idea, as do I. It’s the path that those media in peril due to lack of funding have taken, and though some might refer to it as “free speech,” when that free speech isn’t backed up by evidence, when that free speech is just propaganda as is russiagate, then we just have more of the same like CNN, NPR, Democracy Now, leaving us with few sources of reliable news. In spite of that, I agree with Paul Jay, too much focus on russiagate, or Trump becomes counterproductive in that its just distractions from what is taking place in the world, what the USG is doing, which is what I want from news. What is the US doing now in Venezuela, Lebanon, Nicaragua, what is the US doing now regarding US social services. What are we doing in Macedonia, with Nato. Focusing on the faux news one way or the other, focusing on what this one said or didn’t say is irrelevant. Focusing on electoral politics which is as we know, anything but democratic, of little value. Trump should not be the center of attention, he is just a symptom of our decaying system. Yes, the House today signed a bill preventing Trump from disbanding or dissolving Nato, Rt.com wrote about it. Rather silly actually as Trump never attempted to disband Nato, he simply suggested or demanded Europeans pay their fair share, why should they when it does nothing for them? It does show the intent of the “House,” with provocations of Russia. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jan 23 22:24:16 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 22:24:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?WSJ=3A_How_do_Americans_feel_about_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=98Medicare-for-all=E2=80=99=3F_This_poll_tells_us_-_Mark?= =?utf-8?q?etWatch?= Message-ID: <04AEC4F1-BA94-495A-BC71-95C29C6A4EC6@illinois.edu> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-finds-medicare-for-all-support-drops-when-details-are-included-2019-01-23 How do Americans feel about ‘Medicare-for-all’? This poll tells us Associated Press [cid:DEC67C41-784D-4E4A-89EE-B22ACDEA945F at hsd1.il.comcast.net] Getty Images WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans like the idea of “Medicare-for-all,” but support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care. That’s a key insight from a national poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. It comes as Democratic presidential hopefuls embrace the idea of a government-run health care system, considered outside the mainstream of their party until Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders made it the cornerstone of his 2016 campaign. President Donald Trump is opposed, saying “Medicare-for-all” would “eviscerate” the current program for seniors. The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent. However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con. Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent). But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program. “The issue that will really be fundamental would be the tax issue,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who reviewed the poll. He pointed out that state single-payer efforts in Vermont and Colorado failed because of concerns about the tax increases needed to put them in place. There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement that a single-payer system would require tax increases, since the government would take over premiums now paid by employers and individuals as it replaces the private health insurance industry. The question is how much. Several independent studies have estimated that government spending on health care would increase dramatically, in the range of about $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over a 10-year period. But a recent estimate from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst suggests that it could be much lower. With significant cost savings, the government would need to raise about $1.1 trillion from new revenue sources in the first year of the new program. House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., has asked the Congressional Budget Office for a comprehensive report on single-payer. The CBO is a nonpartisan outfit that analyzes the potential cost and impact of legislation. Its estimate that millions would be made uninsured by Republican bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act was key to the survival of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Mollyann Brodie, director of the Kaiser poll, said the big swings in approval and disapproval show that the debate over “Medicare-for-all” is in its infancy. “You immediately see that opinion is not set in stone on this issue,” she said. Indeed, the poll found that many people are still unaware of some of the basic implications of a national health plan. For example, most working-age people currently covered by an employer (55 percent) said they would be able to keep their current plan under a government-run system, while 37 percent correctly answered that they would not. There’s one exception: Under a “Medicare-for-all” idea from the Center for American Progress employers and individuals would have the choice of joining the government plan, although it wouldn’t be required. Sanders’ bill would forbid employers from offering coverage that duplicates benefits under the new government plan. “Medicare-for-all” is a key issue energizing the Democratic base ahead of the 2020 presidential election, but Republicans are solidly opposed. “Any public debate about ‘Medicare-for-all’ will be a divisive issue for the country at large,” Brodie said. The poll indicated widespread support for two other ideas advanced by Democrats as alternatives to a health care system fully run by the government. Majorities across the political spectrum backed allowing people ages 50-64 to buy into Medicare, as well as allowing people who don’t have health insurance on the job to buy into their state’s Medicaid program. Separately, another private survey out Wednesday finds the uninsured rate among U.S. adults rose to 13.7 percent in the last three months of 2018. The Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index found an increase of 2.8 percentage points since 2016, the year Trump was elected promising to repeal “Obamacare.” That would translate to about 7 million more uninsured adults. Government surveys have found that the uninsured rate has remained essentially stable under Trump. The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll was conducted Jan. 9-14 and involved random calls to the cellphones and landlines of 1,190 adults. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3 percentage points. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MW-GP512_bernie_20180905112227_ZH.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54655 bytes Desc: MW-GP512_bernie_20180905112227_ZH.jpeg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 16:49:57 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:49:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good LTE to the N-G today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for our letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today (to which they gave the headline, “Military service isn’t glorious”). The local daily should be called on their glorification the military & American wars (which are estimated to have killed 20-30 million people since WWII). —CGE > On Jan 23, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl and David > > I don’t think your researcher is quite correct, nor is he wrong, regarding Aaron Mate leaving the Real News. Aaron was interviewed by someone, saw it on my tablet, couldn’t find it online at the time. It may have been Jimmy Dore, but Aaron complained, not his exact words, that the Real News is looking at being “more balanced” by interviewing those that oppose their views. Mate who made mincemeat out of those faux journalists promoting Russiagate, and war, clearly opposes the idea, as do I. > > It’s the path that those media in peril due to lack of funding have taken, and though some might refer to it as “free speech,” when that free speech isn’t backed up by evidence, when that free speech is just propaganda as is russiagate, then we just have more of the same like CNN, NPR, Democracy Now, leaving us with few sources of reliable news. > > In spite of that, I agree with Paul Jay, too much focus on russiagate, or Trump becomes counterproductive in that its just distractions from what is taking place in the world, what the USG is doing, which is what I want from news. What is the US doing now in Venezuela, Lebanon, Nicaragua, what is the US doing now regarding US social services. What are we doing in Macedonia, with Nato. Focusing on the faux news one way or the other, focusing on what this one said or didn’t say is irrelevant. Focusing on electoral politics which is as we know, anything but democratic, of little value. > > Trump should not be the center of attention, he is just a symptom of our decaying system. Yes, the House today signed a bill preventing Trump from disbanding or dissolving Nato, Rt.com wrote about it. Rather silly actually as > > Trump never attempted to disband Nato, he simply suggested or demanded Europeans pay their fair share, why should they when it does nothing for them? It does show the intent of the “House,” with provocations of Russia. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Jan 24 16:53:33 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:53:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good LTE to the N-G today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40B25AD3-BF54-435B-874B-806369926324@illinois.edu> Karen-- Thanks for YOUR letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today... > On Jan 24, 2019, at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thanks for our letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Jan 24 18:03:35 2019 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (Anne Parkinson) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good LTE to the N-G today In-Reply-To: <40B25AD3-BF54-435B-874B-806369926324@illinois.edu> References: <40B25AD3-BF54-435B-874B-806369926324@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1638660517.592254.1548353015922@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Karen: It was a great letter... realistic instead of the usual partisan. I am feeling the chaos today and can only describe it as our universe's tendency to unravel. Had to read Yeats' "The Second Coming" just to feel better.  However, I had forgotten the lines:   " The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Interesting.... On Thursday, January 24, 2019, 10:54:04 AM CST, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Karen-- Thanks for YOUR letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today... > On Jan 24, 2019, at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thanks for our letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Jan 24 18:43:27 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:43:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Origins of "cultural Marxism" (long) References: <1114C0BF-5AC1-48DB-9AD8-9CA8D42C05AD@illinois.edu> Message-ID: From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: How the 'cultural Marxism' hoax began, and why it's spreading into the mainstream Date: January 24, 2019 https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/23/1828527/-How-the-cultural-Marxism-hoax-began-and-why-it-s-spreading-into-the-mainstream?detail=emaildkre How the 'cultural Marxism' hoax began, and why it's spreading into the mainstream An academic plot David Neiwert Daily Kos Staff Wednesday January 23, 2019 · 3:55 PM CST The general outline of this conspiracy, according to the progenitors of the theory, is fairly simple: A group of Jewish academics, all Marxists with a base of operations at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main—known as “the Frankfurt School”—were responsible for concocting the ideas behind multiculturalism and “Critical Theory,” which they saw as a means for translating Marxist ideals into cultural values. During the 1930s, the story goes, they moved from Frankfurt to New York and Columbia University, and their influence became so profound that it now dominates both academia and modern popular culture. Indeed, as they tell it, nearly all of the modern expressions of liberal democratic culture—feminism, the civil rights movement, the '60s counterculture movement, the antiwar movement, rock and roll, and the gay rights movement—are eventually all products of the scheming of this cabal of Jewish elites. In reality, while the influence of the Frankfurt School is generally viewed by most political scientists to have had a considerable range within academia, especially regarding Critical Theory, this school of thought was directly in opposition to the theories promoted by “postmodernists,” who are frequently themselves identified by right-wing ideologues as leading examples of “cultural Marxism.” Nor were its members leaders of any kind of international conspiracy to destroy Western civilization. Contrary to the characterizations of the conspiracy theorists, most of the “cultural Marxists” of the Frankfurt School were sharply critical of the modern entertainment industry, which they saw not as a tool for their own ideology but as a kind of modern “opiate of the masses” that was antithetical to their values. Moreover, multiculturalism was not the product of Critical Theory, but has much deeper roots in the study of anthropology, dating back to the turn of the 20th century. It became ascendant as a worldview in the post-World War II years, after it became apparent (especially as the events of the Holocaust became more widely understood) that white supremacy—the worldview it replaced—was not only inadequate but a direct source of wholesale evil. The people who are widely recognized as the founders of multiculturalism—particularly such anthropologists as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead—were not members of the Frankfurt School (though both were affiliated with Columbia), and their work had long preceded the war. Far-right bogeyman The idea of “cultural Marxism” as a plot to destroy the West originated with a handful of far-right thinkers in the 1990s. One of these was the conservative Jewish intellectual Paul Gottfried, who claimed in later years that he had identified with the right-wing bloc of the Frankfurt School, and had first complained about cultural Marxism as an insider. Gottfried (who is also credited with having helped coin the phrase “alt-right”) engaged in a debate with paleoconservative William S. Lind, an associate of far-right godfather Paul Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation, questioning whether or not such thinkers could be properly labeled Marxists. Lind concluded that they could and should be (Gottfried disagreed). In short order, Lind began developing a cottage industry around his “cultural Marxism” theory, promoting the idea on the internet, in speeches, and in videos. “Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union,” he wrote. “It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’ ” Eventually, Lind propounded on the topic at a Holocaust denial conference in 2003, where he explained to the audience pointedly: “These guys were all Jewish.” Weyrich, who had already promoted the idea of “cultural conservatism,” also heavily promoted the idea, presenting it as the subject of a speech he gave in 1998 to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference: “Cultural Marxism is succeeding in its war against our culture. The question becomes, if we are unable to escape the cultural disintegration that is gripping society, then what hope can we have?” This became the cornerstone in Weyrich’s call for conservatives to join in a “culture war” against liberals, joining the ranks of such paleoconservatives as Patrick Buchanan, the former presidential candidate who in 1992 had originally issued a call for such a “culture war” at the Republican National Convention. Beginning in 2000, Buchanan picked up Lind’s and Weyrich’s idea and ran with it, incorporating his attacks on “cultural Marxism” in his writings, and began giving a number of interviews in which he laid all of the world’s ills at its feet. In his 2001 book The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, Buchanan described it as a “regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.” The book ascribes nearly superhuman powers to “Critical Theory.” “Using Critical Theory, for example, the cultural Marxist repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered,” Buchanan averred. “Under Critical Theory, one repeats and repeats that Western societies are history's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism and Nazism. Under Critical Theory, the crimes of the West flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity ... Under the impact of Critical Theory, many of the sixties generation, the most privileged in history, convinced themselves that they were living in an intolerable hell.” In addition to Buchanan and the paleoconservatives, the theory was also quickly adopted by white nationalists who began promoting the theory assiduously. The most notable of these was the far-right publisher Roger Pearson, a retired anthropologist and prominent eugenicist. Besides numerous eugenicist and supremacist books and journals, he published a book in 2006 by Frank Ellis titled Marxism, Multiculturalism, and Free Speech that laid out the basics of the “cultural Marxism” theory and claims. Ellis, a former Leeds University professor, claimed that “political correctness” could be traced to Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, and that it was designed as an attack on the principles of free speech. Other white nationalists, notably Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, academic Kevin MacDonald, and Peter Brimelow of VDare, likewise made discussion of “cultural Marxism” central to their arguments. Taylor railed against it and multiculturalism at a Council of Conservative Citizens convention in 1999. MacDonald discussed “cultural Marxism” at length in his book Culture of Critique and discusses it frequently in interviews and at his magazine, Occidental Observer. Brimelow mentioned the concept as early as 2003, and all the way up through 2017 was blaming it for the world’s ills, including the cancellation of a VDare conference. It also gained wide play among right-wing conspiracy theorists, led by Alex Jones, who featured guest conspiracist Alan Watt on air in a 2010 show. Watt told Jones: “People really have lost a sense of dignity and self-respect, and definitely a common culture. That was part of the deep massive Communist move for multiculturalism. It wasn’t to be nice to other cultures, it was to help you destroy your own cohesive majority.” “Get rid of all other cultures and replace it with a corporate Borg culture,” Jones surmised. However, the concept also began moving into the mainstream of the conservative movement as early as 2008, mainly due to the contributions of Andrew Breitbart, the founder of the online news organization Breitbart News. In his autobiography Righteous Indignation, Breitbart described his discovery, in about 2007, of “cultural Marxism” as his “awakening.” He told an interviewer in 2012, shortly before his death, that the concept was like “putting the medicine in the sherbet ... My one great epiphany, my one a-ha moment where I said, 'I got it—I see what exactly happened in this country.’ ” Breitbart began holding forth at length in various venues about the evils of “cultural Marxism.” He appeared on Fox News and told Sean Hannity and his audience: “For much of the latter half of the 20th century, America dealt with Communism, which was economic Marxism. And what America was susceptible to during that period of time was cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is political correctness, it’s multiculturalism, and it’s a war on Judeo-Christianity.” After Breitbart’s death in 2012, the news organization bearing his name continued its tradition of obsession with cultural Marxism; the subject remains a popular keyword among the website’s writers. Inspiring violence The concept of “cultural Marxism” first came to the public’s attention in a broad way in 2011, almost entirely due to one of the most heinous acts of terrorism in memory. It began, on July 22, in Oslo, Norway, where a car bomb blast in the middle of the capital, at the offices of the prime minister, killed eight people and injured another 209. Then, less than two hours later, the man who had set off the bomb entered a youth summer camp on the lake island of Utoya, northwest of Oslo, disguised as a policeman and carrying an array of guns, and began slaughtering the teenagers who were there. In the end, he had killed 69 of them and another 110 were wounded.Police arrested 32-year-old Anders Breivik. It soon emerged that not only was Breivik a frequent commenter on far-right websites, railing about the decline of civilization and nonwhite immigration into Europe, but he had left behind a lengthy, 1,500-page manifesto explaining why he had committed these acts. It was accompanied by a video.Titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” it was obsessed with “cultural Marxism” and its effects on Western civilization. “We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of ‘racism and xenophobia,’” he wrote. It cited a number of American inspirations, including such noted Islamophobes as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, as well as the various promoters of the “cultural Marxism” concept. “As we all know, the root of Europe’s problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence (nationalism),” he wrote. “Most people are still terrified of nationalistic political doctrines thinking that if we ever embrace these principles again, new ‘Hitler’s’ will suddenly pop up and initiate global Armageddon ... This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually ... You cannot defeat Islamization or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism.” Breivik was found guilty of murder by the court (which declined to rule that he was mentally ill) and sentenced to life in prison. During the trial, he expressed the wish that he had been able to kill even more people. But he broke into tears when the video manifesto he had created was shown. Meanwhile, back in the U.S., Patrick Buchanan chimed in: “As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.” Going mainstream Over the past three years, the idea of “cultural Marxism” as a real thing rather than a whole-cloth concoction has gained traction throughout right-wing media and among its pundits and thinkers. It also has become a mainstay of the belief systems of the alt-right. Some of this spread has been on mainstream right-wing news outlets. During the 2016 election campaign, former game show host Chuck Woolery went on Fox News to complain about liberal ads being run against Donald Trump. He told the hosts of America’s Election HQ that it was all a product of “cultural Marxism,” in a breathless rant that was risibly afactual and ahistorical: No one knows where this stuff came from. PC just kind of appeared. Well, it didn’t. It was the Frankfurt School, that’s where it appeared, and the Frankfurt School – it’s real interesting little piece. The Frankfurt School was in Germany, obviously, brought on PC, Marx picked it up and thought it was a great idea for his government. By the second World War, Hitler was such an anti-Communist that the Frankfurt School had to move, so they moved here, to the Columbia University campus. You will find the Frankfurt School on Columbia’s property. That’s where political correctness came from. I like the history of all of this stuff so that I understand what’s happening today. I want to know who my enemy is. Our enemy is cultural Marxism. [Fact-check note: Karl Marx died in 1883, long before the Frankfurt School was founded in the 1920s. He never led any government. No one “picked up” the school’s concepts as part of any government, prewar or postwar. There is no Frankfurt School on the Columbia campus; the Institute for Social Research, which is the School’s formal name, returned to Frankfurt in 1953.] The theories spread throughout the right-wing mediasphere. At the Daily Caller, the website founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, articles explored the cultural-Marxism theories in detail with headlines like “Cultural Marxism is Destroying America.” At the Pajamas Media website, author Michael Walsh (whose book, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace, regurgitates the various Frankfurt School theories) attacked other journalists for pointing out that “cultural Marxism” was mostly a kind of hoax. At the Federalist, one writer asserted that “Cultural Marxists are actually [postmodern] fascists,” and that “The problem isn’t what the Frankfurt School made of Marx, but what contemporary postmodernists made of the Frankfurt School.” At the longtime conservative mainstay American Spectator, writer Paul Kengor described “today’s Marxist revolution” as a “cultural” one: “Karl Marx’s vision may have ended in political and economic failure, but even he couldn't have anticipated his ongoing and perhaps ultimate triumph on the cultural front.” It’s even played a role in the ongoing culture war arguments that have arisen over pop entertainment. “Cultural Marxism” has been blamed by angry alt-right fans for the multi-ethnic nature of the recent Star Wars films, leading to a #BoycottStarWars campaign that failed badly. Right-wing pop philosopher Jordan Peterson, the Toronto-based lecturer whose book 12 Rules for Life is a nonfiction bestseller, has built much of his reputation as an enemy of multiculturalism and “cultural Marxism,” though he rarely uses the latter phrase, other than in mostly secondary contexts. Peterson prefers instead to attack “postmodernism” as the final outcome of misbegotten academic thinking: “Postmodernism, in many ways, especially as it’s played out politically, is the new skin that the old Marxism now inhabits,” he says in a video titled “Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism.” In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson explicitly links postmodernism with the Frankfurt School. He also shared the Daily Caller piece describing cultural Marxism as killing America on his Facebook page. The theory has also made its way into the halls of government under the Trump administration. In August 2017, a memo written by a Trump-appointed analyst named Rich Higgins at the National Security Council was leaked to the press, revealing that he was a believer in the “cultural Marxism” claims. The memo was written to describe a nefarious plot against the new administration. “This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle,” Higgins wrote. “It must be recognized on its own terms so that immediate action can be taken. At its core, these campaigns run on multiple lines of effort, serve as the non-violent line of effort of a wider movement, and execute political warfare agendas that reflect cultural Marxist outcomes.” Higgins, who had previously held a position in the Trump campaign and was associated with former national security adviser Michael Flynn Sr., was among several high-level staff members who were fired in the internal furor that arose within the NSC over its authorship. According to Foreign Policy, which first published Higgins’ memo, one of the administration officials who read it was Donald Trump Jr., who then passed it along to his father, the president. According to the article’s sources, Trump “gushed over it.” It also reported that when Trump later learned, from Fox News’ Sean Hannity, that the memo’s author had been fired, the president was “furious,” according to a senior administration official. “He is still furious.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jan 24 20:15:43 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:15:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good LTE to the N-G today In-Reply-To: <1638660517.592254.1548353015922@mail.yahoo.com> References: <40B25AD3-BF54-435B-874B-806369926324@illinois.edu> <1638660517.592254.1548353015922@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Anne, I wonder which, Yeats would have categorized me? The latter I suspect. On Jan 24, 2019, at 10:03, Anne Parkinson > wrote: Dear Karen: It was a great letter... realistic instead of the usual partisan. I am feeling the chaos today and can only describe it as our universe's tendency to unravel. Had to read Yeats' "The Second Coming" just to feel better. However, I had forgotten the lines: " The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Interesting.... On Thursday, January 24, 2019, 10:54:04 AM CST, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Karen-- Thanks for YOUR letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today... > On Jan 24, 2019, at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Thanks for our letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 24 20:16:43 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:16:43 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?WSJ=3A_How_do_Americans_feel_about_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=98Medicare-for-all=E2=80=99=3F_This_poll_tells_us?= =?utf-8?q?_-_MarketWatch?= In-Reply-To: <04AEC4F1-BA94-495A-BC71-95C29C6A4EC6@illinois.edu> References: <04AEC4F1-BA94-495A-BC71-95C29C6A4EC6@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <004201d4b421$b950d5b0$2bf28110$@comcast.net> We will be seeing a lot more bullshit articles like this one in the coming months. The corporate interests are frightened as well as their bought and paid for politicians. The Kaiser foundation is notoriously anti- single payer. The results of polls depend a LOT on ; sample size, sample composition, and the manner in which the polling questions are asked. Accurate polls with straight forward questions about support for single payer conducted several months ago by Gallup showed 70 % + support for single payer in the general public, which when party affiliation was asked, this included 52 % support from self-identified Republican voters. The examples they give about Vermont and Colorado are also deceptive. Colorado’s proposal was NOT a single payer system, it was a Obamacare hybrid with more public tax money committed to paying for the healthcare needs of the Working poor. Vermont was TOTALLY a different circumstance in that the newly elected Democratic Governor at the time promised to implement the single payer system ( Green Mountain Care ) APPROVED by the voters 6 months prior. Instead he worked with the Obama administration and Blue cross blue shield to sabotage the plan. The Obama admin stated they would refuse to release federal Medicare / Medicaid funds for Vermont and would refuse ERISA approval.. This Associated Press article is typical of the lies and deception practiced on a regular basis by the corporate owned media. As I said, there will be a lot of such stories hitting us within the next several months. Glen Greenwald at the INTERCEPT wrote an article about this last month, in which he obtained internal documents from the Center for American Progress showing a coordinated plan by corporate Democrats and the Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical industry for an all-out PR offensive against Single Payer beginning in early 2019. As Martin Luther King said ; “ At first they try to ignore you, then they try to ridicule you, then they try slander and threats including violence, then when they don’t succeed you win. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 4:24 PM To: Peace-discuss Cc: Bill Strutz Subject: [Peace-discuss] WSJ: How do Americans feel about ‘Medicare-for-all’? This poll tells us - MarketWatch https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-finds-medicare-for-all-support-drops-when-details-are-included-2019-01-23 How do Americans feel about ‘Medicare-for-all’? This poll tells us Associated Press Getty Images WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans like the idea of “Medicare-for-all,” but support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care. That’s a key insight from a national poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. It comes as Democratic presidential hopefuls embrace the idea of a government-run health care system, considered outside the mainstream of their party until Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders made it the cornerstone of his 2016 campaign. President Donald Trump is opposed, saying “Medicare-for-all” would “eviscerate” the current program for seniors. The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent. However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con. Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent). But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program. “The issue that will really be fundamental would be the tax issue,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who reviewed the poll. He pointed out that state single-payer efforts in Vermont and Colorado failed because of concerns about the tax increases needed to put them in place. There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement that a single-payer system would require tax increases, since the government would take over premiums now paid by employers and individuals as it replaces the private health insurance industry. The question is how much. Several independent studies have estimated that government spending on health care would increase dramatically, in the range of about $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over a 10-year period. But a recent estimate from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst suggests that it could be much lower. With significant cost savings, the government would need to raise about $1.1 trillion from new revenue sources in the first year of the new program. House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., has asked the Congressional Budget Office for a comprehensive report on single-payer. The CBO is a nonpartisan outfit that analyzes the potential cost and impact of legislation. Its estimate that millions would be made uninsured by Republican bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act was key to the survival of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Mollyann Brodie, director of the Kaiser poll, said the big swings in approval and disapproval show that the debate over “Medicare-for-all” is in its infancy. “You immediately see that opinion is not set in stone on this issue,” she said. Indeed, the poll found that many people are still unaware of some of the basic implications of a national health plan. For example, most working-age people currently covered by an employer (55 percent) said they would be able to keep their current plan under a government-run system, while 37 percent correctly answered that they would not. There’s one exception: Under a “Medicare-for-all” idea from the Center for American Progress employers and individuals would have the choice of joining the government plan, although it wouldn’t be required. Sanders’ bill would forbid employers from offering coverage that duplicates benefits under the new government plan. “Medicare-for-all” is a key issue energizing the Democratic base ahead of the 2020 presidential election, but Republicans are solidly opposed. “Any public debate about ‘Medicare-for-all’ will be a divisive issue for the country at large,” Brodie said. The poll indicated widespread support for two other ideas advanced by Democrats as alternatives to a health care system fully run by the government. Majorities across the political spectrum backed allowing people ages 50-64 to buy into Medicare, as well as allowing people who don’t have health insurance on the job to buy into their state’s Medicaid program. Separately, another private survey out Wednesday finds the uninsured rate among U.S. adults rose to 13.7 percent in the last three months of 2018. The Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index found an increase of 2.8 percentage points since 2016, the year Trump was elected promising to repeal “Obamacare.” That would translate to about 7 million more uninsured adults. Government surveys have found that the uninsured rate has remained essentially stable under Trump. The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll was conducted Jan. 9-14 and involved random calls to the cellphones and landlines of 1,190 adults. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3 percentage points. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54655 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 21:07:30 2019 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 21:07:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jewish women unwelcome in Women's March...more References: <18639048.690957.1548364050278.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <18639048.690957.1548364050278@mail.yahoo.com> This is huge!As hard as the Jewish people try (disingenuously) try to portray themselves as victims, it is not working. This Women's March 'anti-Semitism' kerfuffle exemplifies this point.Not only are they (collectively) not victims, but precisely the opposite. Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, have the most powerful congressional lobby (AIPAC), they are over-represented on the Supreme Court, were instrumental in involving the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and throughout the last two centuries have a significant role in instigating wars (beginning with Wilson in WWI, to say the least)... this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg....not to mention their egregious treatment of the Palestinians...and the Israeli apartheid state...with its codified Nation State laws... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/18/wasserman-schultz-womens-march-1111572 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 24 22:06:19 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:06:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Lobbyist Documents Reveal Health Care Industry Battle Plan Against "Medicare for All" Message-ID: <00c901d4b431$08c1c1e0$1a4545a0$@comcast.net> Lobbyist Documents Reveal Health Care Industry Battle Plan Against "Medicare for All" https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/03/Lee-Fang-headshot- bw-crop-1521415569.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&h=60&w=60 https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/02/nick_surgey_bio_0b w-1487339360.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&h=60&w=60 Lee Fang, Nick Surgey November 20 2018, 12:21 p.m. In partnership with Now that the midterms are finally over, the battle against "Medicare for All" that has been quietly waged throughout the year is poised to take center stage. Internal strategy documents obtained by The Intercept and Documented reveal the strategy that private health care interests plan to use to influence Democratic Party messaging and stymie the momentum toward achieving universal health care coverage. At least 48 incoming freshman lawmakers campaigned on enacting "Medicare for All" or similar efforts to expand access to Medicare. And over the last year, 123 incumbent House Democrats co-sponsored "Medicare for All" legislation - double the number who supported the same bill during the previous legislative session. The growing popularity of "Medicare for All" in the House has made progressives optimistic that the Democratic Party will embrace ideas to expand government coverage options with minimal out-of-pocket costs for patients going into the 2020 election. But industry groups have watched the development with growing concern. Over the summer, leading pharmaceutical, insurance, and hospital lobbyists formed the Partnership for America's Health Care Future, an ad hoc alliance of private health interests, to curb support for expanding Medicare. The campaign, according to one planning document, is designed to "change the conversation around Medicare for All," then "minimize the potential for this option in health care from becoming part of a national political party's platform in 2020." https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/11/objectives-1542237 655.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=683 A slide from Partnership for America's Health Care Future presentation. Behind the scenes, the group attempted to sway candidates during the midterms, encouraging several of them to focus on shoring up the Affordable Care Act instead of supporting single-payer health care. The documents show that Partnership representatives spoke to the staffs of Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and received confirmation that both senators would maintain their "moderate position." When the team met with Rep.-elect Lori Trahan, D-Mass., she said that although she does not speak about the issue, she agreed that "language around single payer should be tempered." (None of the three politicians' offices provided responses to inquiries from The Intercept.) In several competitive races, the Partnership pressed candidates to use industry-crafted talking points when speaking about health care. In one internal planning document circulated with health care lobbyists, the Partnership touted its influence over Danny O'Connor, the Columbus, Ohio-area Democrat who ran for the 12th Congressional District, claiming that O'Connor used Partnership talking points "in national news interviews." (O'Connor's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.) Several of the candidates who agreed to embrace the Partnership's messaging and policy ideas, including Donnelly and O'Connor, came up short on Election Day. A recount ending on November 18 confirmed that Nelson received fewer votes than Republican challenger Rick Scott. But soon after Election Day results came in, the Partnership went on the offensive, informing reporters that candidates who embraced "Medicare for All" had also lost, pointing to the defeat of progressives such as Kara Eastman in Nebraska. The group also relied on research from the business-friendly Democratic think tank Third Way to argue that victorious pro-"Medicare for All" candidates couldn't attribute their success to having supported "Medicare for All" because few Democrats explicitly mentioned the policy in their campaign advertisements. "'Medicare for All' didn't win," said Joel Kopperud, the vice president of government affairs at the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, one of the industry groups backing the Partnership. "I don't think that the Bernie Sanders $32 trillion solution that's going to eviscerate the insurance for 156 million Americans is really something that's going to be helpful to the party in critical states," he added in an interview with The Intercept. Kopperud represents insurance brokers who sell employer-based health insurance coverage. He noted that his organization has a vested interest in backing the Partnership. "Medicare for All," as some envision the policy, would eventually eliminate the need for most health insurance plans - a death knell for companies represented by the CIAB. Private health care lobbyists are confident that they can prevent any federal expansion of Medicare in Congress, given Republican control of the Senate and the White House. In the states, CIAB and other private health groups have easily defeated measures to develop single-payer proposals, such as the ColoradoCare ballot question in 2016. But the political calculus could be changing. Recent election gains by Democrats in state government could create new opportunities for proponents of expanded government-backed health care initiatives. Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom of California campaigned on single payer and is expected to have one of the largest Democratic supermajorities in recent memory in the legislature, though California has a notoriously complex state constitution that would likely require an amendment before any significant government plan could be created. The growing momentum for "Medicare for All" could raise expectations for the next time Democrats are in full control of power in Washington, industry groups worry. They are already pressuring conservative-leaning caucuses in the House of Representatives, such as the Blue Dogs and New Democrats Coalition, to push back against insurgent progressives' demands. https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/11/summer-1542238105. jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=719 A slide from Partnership for America's Health Care Future presentation. Reframing the Debate For industry opponents of expanded government health insurance, there are two main challenges. One is combatting growing public support for the idea. The other is shaping elite opinion within the Beltway. Over the last two years, several opinion surveys show rising support for expanding Medicare. In March, the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found that 59 percent of Americans support the idea, and by August, a poll conducted by Reuters-Ipsos found an astounding 70 percent of Americans support "Medicare for All," including a majority of self-identified Republicans. But the Partnership is quick to zero in on research that shows support for the idea drops precipitously when respondents are told that the plan would require ending employer-based coverage, tax increases, and increased government control. The campaign has worked with advertising agencies to draw up a series of messages to convince select audiences. Several of the messages, categorized as "positive," are dedicated to educating the public on more minimal reforms that do not include expanding Medicare. Other messages, categorized as "persuasion" and "aggressive," are designed to instill fear about what could happen if "Medicare for All" passes. In the coming weeks, the Partnership plans to ramp up a campaign designed to derail support for "Medicare for All." The group, working with leading Democratic political consultants, will place issue advertisements to target audiences, partner with Beltway think tanks to release studies to raise concerns with the plan, and work to shape the public discourse through targeted advocacy in key congressional districts. The Partnership has tapped consulting firms with deep ties to Democratic officials. Forbes-Tate, a lobbying firm founded by former officials in President Bill Clinton's administration and conservative Democrats in Congress, is managing part of the Partnership coalition. Blue Engine Message & Media, a firm founded by former campaign aides to President Barack Obama, has handled the Partnership's interactions with the media. In one planning document circulated over the summer, the Partnership suggested a series of messages to wean Americans away from supporting single payer. The talking points emphasize that the current system provides "world-class care," and that any move away from the Affordable Care Act would be "ripping apart our current system." The strategy exploits familiar themes that have long been used by business groups against new government health care programs, calling for allies to say lines such as "bureaucrats in DC have no understanding of a person's medical situation and will be making decisions about your health care instead of doctors." The Partnership plans to form a speakers bureau of former Democratic elected officials who can leverage the media to make the case that expanding Medicare is bad politics and policy. The memo names former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle, now a health insurance lobbyist at the law firm Baker Donelson, as one such potential surrogate. The memo points to early success in shaping media coverage, citing several "earned media" columns such as one published in August by former Rep. Jill Long Thompson, D-Ind., which argues that Democrats should only focus on small reforms to the Affordable Care Act, and warns against wasting political capital on pursuing a "government-controlled health insurance system." Thompson, now an associate professor at Indiana University Bloomington, did not respond to a request for comment. Adam Gaffney, president-elect of Physicians for a National Health Program, a national coalition that advocates in favor of "Medicare for All," said he is not surprised by the messaging. "What we're seeing is the wages of success: With single payer on the rise, it was only a matter of time before the insurance companies, big pharma, and other big-money groups came out swinging," said Gaffney, who also serves as an instructor at Harvard Medical School. "The smear of 'socialized medicine' has been used a thousand times and has lost its bite," he added. https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/11/achieved-154223809 1.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=682 A slide from Partnership for America's Health Care Future presentation. Influencing the 2020 Democratic Field "We're all focused on 2020," Lauren Crawford Shaver, a partner at Forbes-Tate who is helping to manage the Partnership campaign, recently told the National Association of Health Underwriters in a podcast produced by the group. Shaver, a former top staffer for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, explained to the group that she is working to peel support away from the "Medicare for All" bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. The Sanders bill is currently sponsored by several rumored 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "The No. 1 thing we need to focus on is that there are a lot of likely candidates that currently support the Senate bill," said Shaver. "We need to make sure we educate the public, we educate both parties, and we educate all the campaigns about both the policy and political challenges." Shaver encouraged health care companies concerned about the growing popularity of "Medicare for All" to mobilize opposition among clients, customers, and employees. Industry groups will likely have workers or customers residing in key districts who can be tapped to influence wavering lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The Partnership plans to "take stories of how these proposals would directly impact your clients and the constituents of the policymakers who are voting for or against these proposals," Shaver said. The Partnership strategy echoes the health insurance industry's campaign to shape the 2008 presidential primary. At that time, the health insurance lobby group known as America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, tapped the consulting firm APCO to develop an effort to label any government-run insurance option as an existential threat to Democratic political goals. The initiative emerged from a plan to minimize the impact of Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko," which was deeply critical of the American health care system. The campaign involved planting studies with think tanks, mobilizing pundits on television, and sponsoring YouTube videos on "the horrors of government-run systems," among other publicity tactics. The APCO-crafted blitz leaned on right-wing voices such as Fox News pundit John Stossel, conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and centrist Democratic groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, a now-defunct group associated with the Third Way. The 2008 campaign adopted a two-pronged strategy: position private health insurance as the only positive solution to America's health care woes and "disqualify government-run health care as a politically viable solution." Now, the same lobby groups are involved in a similar effort. AHIP, the insurance trade group behind the 2008 plan, is also a sponsor of the Partnership's 2020 campaign, along with the Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and the American Medical Association. Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in Not only are the same health insurance groups financing a renewed campaign against "Medicare for All," but many of the same players who worked to undermine the public option during the ACA debate are now fighting for influence within the party. The public option was the government-run insurance plan that advocates intended to use to compete with private insurance and bring down consumer costs. In one version of the plan, the public option would pay doctors and other providers the same reimbursement rates as Medicare. Despite a pledge by many Democratic candidates to eschew corporate PAC donations, health care lobbyists have funneled cash to many incoming lawmakers through the New Democrats PAC, the Blue Dog PAC, and other centrist committees. Unsurprisingly, the centrist New Democrats Coalition, the caucus of business-friendly centrist Democrats, has worked to depress momentum for "Medicare for All," reprising the role centrist Democrats played in killing the public option during the Obama administration. In 2009, then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., a founding member of the New Democrats caucus, threatened to join the Republican filibuster against health reform unless the public option was dropped from the bill. Immediately following the midterm elections this month, the Washington Post published a column by Third Way warning that "Medicare for All" "failed the Hippocratic Oath" because opposition to the plan helped Republican candidates, thus causing "harm" to the long-term health interests of voters. But advocates for "Medicare for All" are feeling optimistic. "In terms of tactics, it sounds like they will just be updating the same lines they used in the 1990s to sideline reform efforts and in the ACA fight to keep single-payer health care off the table," said Eagan Kemp, a health care policy advocate with Public Citizen. "The Partnership for America's Health Care Future would be more accurately titled the 'Partnership for Profiting Off America's Health Care.'" Private health care interests will certainly have much more money, media attention, and political resources with which to campaign. Advocates, however, are hoping Americans see past the public relations smokescreen and support health care as a human right. "There is no brand loyalty to insurance companies, which are rightly seen as parasitic," Gaffney, the PNHP leader, said. "Once single payer is widely understood as a program that covers everyone, that doesn't impose copays and deductibles, that has more comprehensive benefits than existing plans, and that doesn't employ restrictive insurance 'networks,' support will only grow," he added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1320 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1596 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 107799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 221904 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 116967 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 24 22:08:03 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:08:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Health Care Lobbyists Secretly Secure Democrats' Opposition to "Medicare for All, " Internal Documents Show Message-ID: <00d801d4b431$471ee030$d55ca090$@comcast.net> Health Care Lobbyists Secretly Secure Democrats' Opposition to "Medicare for All," Internal Documents Show https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/03/Lee-Fang-headshot- bw-crop-1521415569.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&h=60&w=60 https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/02/nick_surgey_bio_0b w-1487339360.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&h=60&w=60 Lee Fang, Nick Surgey August 2 2018, 4:00 a.m. The 1st Congressional District of Hawaii is about as far from Washington, D.C.'s pitched political battles as you can get - not typically seen as a national bellwether. Yet the race for the congressional district, centered in southern Oahu, is one of several competitive elections that has attracted the attention of big-money lobbyists seeking to influence the direction of American health care policy. Hawaii's 1st District seat, which was vacated by incumbent Democratic Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, who is running for governor, has attracted six serious candidates to the Democratic primary in this reliably blue district. According to documents obtained by The Intercept, at least three of the candidates took time out from their schedules to talk to a consultant dispatched by the Healthcare Leadership Council, a lobbying group that seeks to advance the goals of the largest players in the private health care industry. Now, the 1st District candidates working with the Healthcare Leadership Council - former state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, Hawaii Lt. Gov. Doug Chin, and Honolulu City Council Member Ernest Martin - are taking heat from their opponents for talking to an industry-friendly group, even as public opinion is increasingly rallying to positions opposed by giant health care companies. "Democrats running in a primary election will say they support 'Medicare for All,' but what do they say to lobbyists behind the scenes?" said Kaniela Ing, a state lawmaker vying for the 1st District seat on a democratic socialist platform, warning of Democrats who make progressive promises when campaigning, but then work hand in hand with industries when in office. "We need health care champions, not puppets." One of the leading candidates has campaigned on a promise to crack down on over-priced pharmaceuticals and promote single payer health care, but told the consultant dispatched by the Healthcare Leadership Council that he would maintain drug industry-friendly pricing policies and views Medicare for All with skepticism. The Healthcare Leadership Council has closely tracked what its lobbyists have described as the "leftward movement" within the Democratic Party. In Hawaii and other states, the lobby group wanted to know if ideas popularized by Sen., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. - such as aggressive proposals to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals and institute a single-payer health care system modeled on Medicare - were taking hold. The council, which spends over $5 million a year on industry advocacy and brings together chief executives of major health corporations, represents an array of health industries, including insurers, hospitals, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, pharmacies, health product distributors, and information technology companies. The group's focus on competitive open seats around the country - like Hawaii's 1st Congressional District - is aimed at shaping the next generation of lawmakers' views on health care policy. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4618671/pages/Hawaii-1st-District -HLC-Surveys-p1-normal.gif Healthcare Leadership Council Dossiers for Hawaii's 1st Congressional District Candidates12 pages The Healthcare Leadership Council's outreach in Hawaii began in January. In an email obtained by The Intercept, the group told candidates that it was in the process of forming a coalition to "jointly develop policies, plans, and programs to achieve their vision of a 21st century system that makes affordable, high-quality care accessible to all Americans" - language that obscured its national campaign to monitor and blunt the energy behind progressive health policy reforms. The email included an invitation for the candidates to take a meeting in Honolulu. Kim, Chin, and Martin agreed to speak to the Healthcare Leadership Council, which then drew up dossiers on each candidate based on their answers to the survey questions. The dossiers, which were obtained by The Intercept and Documented, profiled each of the candidates, including their photos, biographical sketches, contact information for their campaigns, and a checklist for determining their positions on certain issues of importance to the Healthcare Leadership Council. (Kim and Martin's campaigns did not respond to a request for comment for this story.) In an email to The Intercept, Michael Freeman, executive vice president of the Healthcare Leadership Council, said that his organization surveys "congressional candidates every election cycle regarding their views on a wide range of healthcare issues." The dossiers offer the candidates' general outlook on health care policy issues, as well as their answers on specific policy positions. Of Kim, the former state senator, the group's profile says, "She is very pro-market, opposes any attempt at single payer, does not support price controls on pharmaceuticals and agrees that Medicaid and Medicare need to be managed by the private market." Chin is a "moderate Democrat that has represented healthcare providers in Med-mal lawsuits," said the Healthcare Leadership Council's profile. Chin, the survey noted, "supports the market concept advocated by HLC and does not think a single payer/Medicare-for-All approach would work in Hawaii." "Martin supports a majority of HLC's positions," the profile on the Honolulu City Council member says. "He does not want single payer." But, the dossier noted, Martin needed better education on health policy. In some cases, what the candidates told the lobbyist appeared to differ from what they told voters. Chin indicated to the Healthcare Leadership Council that he supports its position that the "best way to achieve the lowest prices for Medicare beneficiaries in the Medicare Part D program is through the current process of private sector negotiation," according to his dossier. As it stands now, the Medicare law, authored under the influence of the drug lobby, prevents the agency from using its collective bargaining power to negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals as part a benefit program known as Part D. Progressive health care activists have agitated for the government to become directly involved in negotiations. Public Citizen, a watchdog group, claims that allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower-priced drugs could save $15 billion per year from the program's budget. Drug industry groups like the Healthcare Leadership Council - which is funded by pharma giants Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Bristol-Myers Squibb - have opposed the negotiation route. Chin's claim, according to the Healthcare Leadership Council documents, that he supports the industry-friendly status quo contrasts sharply with what he has said in public. In July, he told local news website Civil Beat that he supports "steps like empowering the federal government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries." (Civil Beat and The Intercept's publisher, First Look Media, were founded by Pierre Omidyar.) In response to a request for comment from The Intercept, Chin stuck with his public position that Medicare Part D should include negotiations with drugmakers over prices. "Doug Chin speaks with seniors across Hawai'i who are making heartbreaking sacrifices to buy the life-saving prescriptions and get the quality health care they need. That's why he supports the merits of a single-payer system, and it's why he will demand that Medicare use its existing authorities - and support giving it new powers - to negotiate better deals for seniors," said Chin's campaign manager, Dylan Beesley. "Doug was endorsed by End Citizens United because he is committed to getting the secret cash from big drug companies out of politics - for good." The campaign's statement did not address a question from The Intercept about why the council lists Chin as supporting its position that Medicare should not negotiate directly with drug companies - or the discrepancy with his public stance. The dossiers indicated that all three candidates who met with the group were rated as positive leaders who shared much of the Healthcare Leadership Council agenda and were the type of politicians who might turn to the group to help formulate policy. Yet the Healthcare Leadership Council didn't blanket all the state's congressional candidates with requests for meetings. Beth Fukumoto, a Republican-turned-Democratic state legislator who launched her campaign for the 1st Congressional District seat in March, had not heard from the group, according to a campaign spokesperson. Another candidate for the seat, former Rep. Ed Case, a conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat who has served recently as a senior executive at Outrigger Hotels, did not respond to a request for comment from The Intercept about whether he had received any requests from the Healthcare Leadership Council. The group also kept tabs on candidates that could be a threat to its agenda. In its internal profile for Ing, the democratic socialist candidate, the Healthcare Leadership Council noted that Ing vocally supports a single-payer, public health care system. "One of Kaniela Ing's top priorities will be to promote a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system," the dossier says. Lobbyists for the group have told health industry executives to remain vigilant about the threat of single payer. "It would be a mistake for us to overlook the growing number of lawmakers who are supportive of measures to expand significantly government's role in healthcare," the Healthcare Leadership Council warned in a report published at the end of last year. The report observed that Sanders, the Vermont senator, had introduced a "Medicare for All" bill during every congressional session, typically by himself. But when he unveiled his latest version of the legislation in 2017, Sanders "had 14 Democratic senators with him, including some thought to be presidential contenders in 2020." Even more moderate members, including Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Col., had introduced a public option bill that would provide patients with the ability to purchase a government-sponsored insurance plan that would ensure access with Medicare providers, paying Medicare reimbursement rates. The Healthcare Leadership Council report said that while these ideas do not have the political support to pass at the moment, the "momentum on the Democratic side of the aisle is undeniable." The group has warned health care executives to remain vigilant and dispatched its team of lobbyists, which includes a bipartisan team of two former members of Congress and several former senior congressional staffers, to keep tabs on rising candidates. The Healthcare Leadership Council's outreach to candidates was not limited to Hawaii. Lobbyists working with the group have surveyed congressional candidates for open seats in Indiana, Kansas, California, Minnesota, Illinois, and New Mexico. For instance, Young Kim, the Republican nominee for California's 39th Congressional District, an open seat and one of the most competitive races in the country, spoke to the Healthcare Leadership Council earlier this year. "She has very little understanding of the healthcare delivery system, but wants to learn," the dossier on Kim noted. "Her philosophy is similar to HLC's overall agenda. She supports the market as the real innovator in healthcare does not support California's effort to implement a Medicare for All system." The lobbyists who drew up the dossier found that Kim agreed with the Healthcare Leadership Council on 88 percent of the policy positions it inquired about. Other dossiers noted that some Republican candidates were privately skeptical of repealing the Affordable Care Act. Jim Hagedorn, a Republican candidate for Congress in Minnesota, shared internal polling from his campaign with the Healthcare Leadership Council, revealing that health care is the No. 1 issue in his district. Though he expressed support for "free market healthcare," Hagedorn conceded that he has heard from "many farmers having to choose to not to carry insurance and gamble that they do not need it." The Healthcare Leadership Council's candidate outreach program is part of the group's ongoing push to develop "get-out-the-vote" efforts for favored politicians, develop "early connections to successful congressional candidates," and aggregate data about up-and-coming lawmakers so that health care executives and lobbyists can quickly facilitate meetings and relationships, according to an internal document explaining its political approach to member companies. The group boasts on its website that it has conducted 3,900 meetings with lawmakers, staff, and candidates around health care issues. The group also organizes coalition efforts with patient organizations, industry letters to regulators, and regular coffee sessions between legislators, congressional staff, and health industry executives. The threat of government expansion into health care, however, has added new urgency to the council's outreach efforts. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4617924/pages/HLC-SinglePayer-v3- p1-normal.gif Healthcare Leadership Council Talking Points on "The Ramifications of Single-Payer Healthcare"3 pages The Healthcare Leadership Council also recently produced a set of talking points to warn of the "ramifications of single-payer healthcare." The document makes the outlandish claim that "Medicare for All" proposals might resemble the failed health care system of Venezuela and prophesies extreme cuts in care and health services. In reality, the "Medicare for All" program proposed by an increasing number of Democrats would be akin to the system in Canada, under which the government provides health insurance coverage free of cost for patients to seek care with private-sector providers. Leading health policy watchdogs have found that the system in Canada and similar government-run health plans provide higher quality medical services at a much lower cost than the U.S. system. The alarmist positions relayed in the talking points reprise a familiar role for the group. Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in Health insurance whistleblower Wendell Potter previously worked closely with the Healthcare Leadership Council. Potter later leaked documents detailing a health insurance industry plan to stigmatize single payer during the 2008 election, hoping that scare tactics would dissuade successful Democrats from championing the idea. The anti-single-payer plan included outreach to moderate Democrats at organizations such as the Progressive Policy Institute - the think tank arm of centrist group Third Way - to position the idea as an extremist threat to the Democratic Party. The plan called for supporting groups that would broadcast supposed "horrors of government-run systems." The Healthcare Leadership Council also served as a coordinating organization for health industry lobbyists to launch attacks against President Bill Clinton's push for a national health care plan in 1993. During the debate over the bill, industry organizations sponsored misleading campaign commercials to mobilize mass opposition to the policy. At a gathering of health care executives in 1994, at the height of negotiations, then-Council President Michael David Bromberg reportedly rose from his chair and confronted then-first lady Hillary Clinton, threatening that if she did not agree to industry demands, the industry would strike back and campaign against her and her husband's plan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1320 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1596 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 192452 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 92220 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 24 22:16:36 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:16:36 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Lobbyist Documents Reveal Health Care Industry Battle Plan Against "Medicare for All" Message-ID: <00f001d4b432$78d8b6e0$6a8a24a0$@comcast.net> Lobbyist Documents Reveal Health Care Industry Battle Plan Against "Medicare for All" https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/03/Lee-Fang-headshot- bw-crop-1521415569.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&h=60&w=60 https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/02/nick_surgey_bio_0b w-1487339360.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&h=60&w=60 Lee Fang , Nick Surgey November 20 2018, 12:21 p.m. In partnership with Now that the midterms are finally over, the battle against "Medicare for All" that has been quietly waged throughout the year is poised to take center stage. Internal strategy documents obtained by The Intercept and Documented reveal the strategy that private health care interests plan to use to influence Democratic Party messaging and stymie the momentum toward achieving universal health care coverage. At least 48 incoming freshman lawmakers campaigned on enacting "Medicare for All" or similar efforts to expand access to Medicare. And over the last year, 123 incumbent House Democrats co-sponsored "Medicare for All" legislation - double the number who supported the same bill during the previous legislative session. The growing popularity of "Medicare for All" in the House has made progressives optimistic that the Democratic Party will embrace ideas to expand government coverage options with minimal out-of-pocket costs for patients going into the 2020 election. But industry groups have watched the development with growing concern. Over the summer, leading pharmaceutical, insurance, and hospital lobbyists formed the Partnership for America's Health Care Future, an ad hoc alliance of private health interests, to curb support for expanding Medicare. The campaign, according to one planning document, is designed to "change the conversation around Medicare for All," then "minimize the potential for this option in health care from becoming part of a national political party's platform in 2020." https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/11/objectives-1542237 655.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=683 A slide from Partnership for America's Health Care Future presentation. Behind the scenes, the group attempted to sway candidates during the midterms, encouraging several of them to focus on shoring up the Affordable Care Act instead of supporting single-payer health care. The documents show that Partnership representatives spoke to the staffs of Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and received confirmation that both senators would maintain their "moderate position." When the team met with Rep.-elect Lori Trahan, D-Mass., she said that although she does not speak about the issue, she agreed that "language around single payer should be tempered." (None of the three politicians' offices provided responses to inquiries from The Intercept.) In several competitive races, the Partnership pressed candidates to use industry-crafted talking points when speaking about health care. In one internal planning document circulated with health care lobbyists, the Partnership touted its influence over Danny O'Connor, the Columbus, Ohio-area Democrat who ran for the 12th Congressional District, claiming that O'Connor used Partnership talking points "in national news interviews." (O'Connor's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.) Several of the candidates who agreed to embrace the Partnership's messaging and policy ideas, including Donnelly and O'Connor, came up short on Election Day. A recount ending on November 18 confirmed that Nelson received fewer votes than Republican challenger Rick Scott. But soon after Election Day results came in, the Partnership went on the offensive, informing reporters that candidates who embraced "Medicare for All" had also lost, pointing to the defeat of progressives such as Kara Eastman in Nebraska. The group also relied on research from the business-friendly Democratic think tank Third Way to argue that victorious pro-"Medicare for All" candidates couldn't attribute their success to having supported "Medicare for All" because few Democrats explicitly mentioned the policy in their campaign advertisements. "'Medicare for All' didn't win," said Joel Kopperud, the vice president of government affairs at the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, one of the industry groups backing the Partnership. "I don't think that the Bernie Sanders $32 trillion solution that's going to eviscerate the insurance for 156 million Americans is really something that's going to be helpful to the party in critical states," he added in an interview with The Intercept. Kopperud represents insurance brokers who sell employer-based health insurance coverage. He noted that his organization has a vested interest in backing the Partnership. "Medicare for All," as some envision the policy, would eventually eliminate the need for most health insurance plans - a death knell for companies represented by the CIAB. Private health care lobbyists are confident that they can prevent any federal expansion of Medicare in Congress, given Republican control of the Senate and the White House. In the states, CIAB and other private health groups have easily defeated measures to develop single-payer proposals, such as the ColoradoCare ballot question in 2016. But the political calculus could be changing. Recent election gains by Democrats in state government could create new opportunities for proponents of expanded government-backed health care initiatives. Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom of California campaigned on single payer and is expected to have one of the largest Democratic supermajorities in recent memory in the legislature, though California has a notoriously complex state constitution that would likely require an amendment before any significant government plan could be created. The growing momentum for "Medicare for All" could raise expectations for the next time Democrats are in full control of power in Washington, industry groups worry. They are already pressuring conservative-leaning caucuses in the House of Representatives, such as the Blue Dogs and New Democrats Coalition, to push back against insurgent progressives' demands. https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/11/summer-1542238105. jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=719 A slide from Partnership for America's Health Care Future presentation. Reframing the Debate For industry opponents of expanded government health insurance, there are two main challenges. One is combatting growing public support for the idea. The other is shaping elite opinion within the Beltway. Over the last two years, several opinion surveys show rising support for expanding Medicare. In March, the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found that 59 percent of Americans support the idea, and by August, a poll conducted by Reuters-Ipsos found an astounding 70 percent of Americans support "Medicare for All," including a majority of self-identified Republicans. But the Partnership is quick to zero in on research that shows support for the idea drops precipitously when respondents are told that the plan would require ending employer-based coverage, tax increases, and increased government control. The campaign has worked with advertising agencies to draw up a series of messages to convince select audiences. Several of the messages, categorized as "positive," are dedicated to educating the public on more minimal reforms that do not include expanding Medicare. Other messages, categorized as "persuasion" and "aggressive," are designed to instill fear about what could happen if "Medicare for All" passes. In the coming weeks, the Partnership plans to ramp up a campaign designed to derail support for "Medicare for All." The group, working with leading Democratic political consultants, will place issue advertisements to target audiences, partner with Beltway think tanks to release studies to raise concerns with the plan, and work to shape the public discourse through targeted advocacy in key congressional districts. The Partnership has tapped consulting firms with deep ties to Democratic officials. Forbes-Tate, a lobbying firm founded by former officials in President Bill Clinton's administration and conservative Democrats in Congress, is managing part of the Partnership coalition. Blue Engine Message & Media, a firm founded by former campaign aides to President Barack Obama, has handled the Partnership's interactions with the media. In one planning document circulated over the summer, the Partnership suggested a series of messages to wean Americans away from supporting single payer. The talking points emphasize that the current system provides "world-class care," and that any move away from the Affordable Care Act would be "ripping apart our current system." The strategy exploits familiar themes that have long been used by business groups against new government health care programs, calling for allies to say lines such as "bureaucrats in DC have no understanding of a person's medical situation and will be making decisions about your health care instead of doctors." The Partnership plans to form a speakers bureau of former Democratic elected officials who can leverage the media to make the case that expanding Medicare is bad politics and policy. The memo names former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle, now a health insurance lobbyist at the law firm Baker Donelson, as one such potential surrogate. The memo points to early success in shaping media coverage, citing several "earned media" columns such as one published in August by former Rep. Jill Long Thompson, D-Ind., which argues that Democrats should only focus on small reforms to the Affordable Care Act, and warns against wasting political capital on pursuing a "government-controlled health insurance system." Thompson, now an associate professor at Indiana University Bloomington, did not respond to a request for comment. Adam Gaffney, president-elect of Physicians for a National Health Program, a national coalition that advocates in favor of "Medicare for All," said he is not surprised by the messaging. "What we're seeing is the wages of success: With single payer on the rise, it was only a matter of time before the insurance companies, big pharma, and other big-money groups came out swinging," said Gaffney, who also serves as an instructor at Harvard Medical School. "The smear of 'socialized medicine' has been used a thousand times and has lost its bite," he added. https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/11/achieved-154223809 1.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=682 A slide from Partnership for America's Health Care Future presentation. Influencing the 2020 Democratic Field "We're all focused on 2020," Lauren Crawford Shaver, a partner at Forbes-Tate who is helping to manage the Partnership campaign, recently told the National Association of Health Underwriters in a podcast produced by the group. Shaver, a former top staffer for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, explained to the group that she is working to peel support away from the "Medicare for All" bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. The Sanders bill is currently sponsored by several rumored 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "The No. 1 thing we need to focus on is that there are a lot of likely candidates that currently support the Senate bill," said Shaver. "We need to make sure we educate the public, we educate both parties, and we educate all the campaigns about both the policy and political challenges." Shaver encouraged health care companies concerned about the growing popularity of "Medicare for All" to mobilize opposition among clients, customers, and employees. Industry groups will likely have workers or customers residing in key districts who can be tapped to influence wavering lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The Partnership plans to "take stories of how these proposals would directly impact your clients and the constituents of the policymakers who are voting for or against these proposals," Shaver said. The Partnership strategy echoes the health insurance industry's campaign to shape the 2008 presidential primary. At that time, the health insurance lobby group known as America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, tapped the consulting firm APCO to develop an effort to label any government-run insurance option as an existential threat to Democratic political goals. The initiative emerged from a plan to minimize the impact of Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko," which was deeply critical of the American health care system. The campaign involved planting studies with think tanks, mobilizing pundits on television, and sponsoring YouTube videos on "the horrors of government-run systems," among other publicity tactics. The APCO-crafted blitz leaned on right-wing voices such as Fox News pundit John Stossel, conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and centrist Democratic groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, a now-defunct group associated with the Third Way. The 2008 campaign adopted a two-pronged strategy: position private health insurance as the only positive solution to America's health care woes and "disqualify government-run health care as a politically viable solution." Now, the same lobby groups are involved in a similar effort. AHIP, the insurance trade group behind the 2008 plan, is also a sponsor of the Partnership's 2020 campaign, along with the Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and the American Medical Association. Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I 'm in Not only are the same health insurance groups financing a renewed campaign against "Medicare for All," but many of the same players who worked to undermine the public option during the ACA debate are now fighting for influence within the party. The public option was the government-run insurance plan that advocates intended to use to compete with private insurance and bring down consumer costs. In one version of the plan, the public option would pay doctors and other providers the same reimbursement rates as Medicare. Despite a pledge by many Democratic candidates to eschew corporate PAC donations, health care lobbyists have funneled cash to many incoming lawmakers through the New Democrats PAC, the Blue Dog PAC, and other centrist committees. Unsurprisingly, the centrist New Democrats Coalition, the caucus of business-friendly centrist Democrats, has worked to depress momentum for "Medicare for All," reprising the role centrist Democrats played in killing the public option during the Obama administration. In 2009, then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., a founding member of the New Democrats caucus, threatened to join the Republican filibuster against health reform unless the public option was dropped from the bill. Immediately following the midterm elections this month, the Washington Post published a column by Third Way warning that "Medicare for All" "failed the Hippocratic Oath" because opposition to the plan helped Republican candidates, thus causing "harm" to the long-term health interests of voters. But advocates for "Medicare for All" are feeling optimistic. "In terms of tactics, it sounds like they will just be updating the same lines they used in the 1990s to sideline reform efforts and in the ACA fight to keep single-payer health care off the table," said Eagan Kemp, a health care policy advocate with Public Citizen. "The Partnership for America's Health Care Future would be more accurately titled the 'Partnership for Profiting Off America's Health Care.'" Private health care interests will certainly have much more money, media attention, and political resources with which to campaign. Advocates, however, are hoping Americans see past the public relations smokescreen and support health care as a human right. "There is no brand loyalty to insurance companies, which are rightly seen as parasitic," Gaffney, the PNHP leader, said. "Once single payer is widely understood as a program that covers everyone, that doesn't impose copays and deductibles, that has more comprehensive benefits than existing plans, and that doesn't employ restrictive insurance 'networks,' support will only grow," he added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1320 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1596 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 107799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 221904 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 116967 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jan 24 23:31:15 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 17:31:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Unresponsive response from Duckworth on anti-anti-BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011a01d4b43c$e662f770$b328e650$@comcast.net> Doesn’t surprise me about Duckworth. She not only opposes BDS but also owns stock in major war profiteer companies, has voted for every increase in the military budget since she was elected and is a staunch opponent ( just like Durbin ) of single payer. David J. From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 4:34 PM To: peace Subject: [Peace] Unresponsive response from Duckworth on anti-anti-BDS I feel personally insulted by this. Even if we concede that they've made up their minds to be cowards, as usual, they could at least have the decency to include the phrase "First Amendment" somewhere in their letter, to acknowledge that somewhere there is a group of people who have a problem with this. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Senator Tammy Duckworth Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:30 PM Subject: Responding to your message To: Dear Neighbor, Thank you for contacting me to share your views on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your concerns on this important matter. As you know, the BDS movement is a global campaign designed to exert pressure on Israel’s economy. As your Senator, I am committed to advancing policies that promote a safe and secure Middle East and defend the sovereignty of America’s ally, Israel. Our Nation should remain committed to helping the Israeli and Palestinian people negotiate a permanent two-state solution to end decades of conflict. Ultimately, the Israeli and Palestinian people share a responsibility to achieve peace, and the region needs a strong and secure Israel to live peacefully alongside a free and independent Palestine. Various proposals have been introduced this Congress addressing the BDS movement. The Combating BDS Act of 2017 was introduced by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida on January 17, 2017. This bill would strengthen protections for State and local governments who choose not to invest in, or do business with, companies and organizations that participate in BDS actions. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act was introduced by Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland on March 23, 2017 and would prohibit boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations against Israel. While I am not currently a sponsor of either of these bills, I remain firmly opposed to the BDS movement and believe that we must remain staunch supporters of Israel. Rest assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind if these bills come to the Senate floor for a vote. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. If you would like more information on my work in the Senate, please visit my website at www.duckworth.senate.gov. You can access my voting record and see what I am doing to address today’s most important issues. I hope that you will continue to share your views and opinions with me and let me know whenever I may be of assistance to you. Sincerely, Image removed by sender. Tammy Duckworth United States Senator Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 23:53:51 2019 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 17:53:51 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Good LTE to the N-G today In-Reply-To: References: <40B25AD3-BF54-435B-874B-806369926324@illinois.edu> <1638660517.592254.1548353015922@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:16 PM Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Thanks Anne, I wonder which, Yeats would have categorized me? The latter I > suspect. > *smile* You're far from the "worst", Karen, though you are definitely full of passionate intensity. For those of us who don't subscribe to the N-G, could you reprise your letter to the editor? John Wason > On Jan 24, 2019, at 10:03, Anne Parkinson wrote: > > Dear Karen: It was a great letter... realistic instead of the usual > partisan. > > I am feeling the chaos today and can only describe it as our universe's > tendency to unravel. Had to read Yeats' "The Second Coming" just to feel > better. However, I had forgotten the lines: " The best lack all > conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." > Interesting.... > > > On Thursday, January 24, 2019, 10:54:04 AM CST, C. G. Estabrook via > Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Karen-- > > Thanks for YOUR letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today... > > > On Jan 24, 2019, at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Thanks for our letter-to-the-editor in the News-Gazette today > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 00:30:34 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:30:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] They published my letter this morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > John I have posted it on the Peace List, but now will post it to you and the Peace Discuss List, I never get it right. This was written to support David Green’s excellent letter. Please see below: > >> >> When those who served in the military talk of "what a wonderful experience they and others had while with the US military, I ask, to what is it they are referring? Is being cannon fodder, and part of an organization used to destroy and murder innocent people, a worthy endeavor? >> >> Do they not notice the veterans suffering from PTSD, as well as crippling physical malady’s, suffered by many returning veterans? Do they not see the homeless, nor the recorded suicides of at least two a day, every day, of US veterans. This doesn't cover the numerous broken family's or the nightmares, suffered as a result of their "service to their country." >> >> I suggest speaking to “Veterans Against War," those who served their country, only to return and become active opposing US imperialism and hegemony, whether Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, due to the horrors suffered by our soldiers, as well as inflicted upon others. >> >> It's time the News Gazette stop glorifying wars that serve only to kill and enrich the corporate elites owning our government, wars that cripple our people while ensuring wealth for our major industry, weapons. > From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 00:35:18 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:35:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letters to the Editor Message-ID: Carl, Your letter to the Editor of January 6th was excellent, in fact I used some of it for my speech at the Unite Against Trump rally, with my own amendments/additions. From jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 01:26:18 2019 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:26:18 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] They published my letter this morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Karen. Yes, it's a good letter. The military has served as a vehicle of upward social mobility and decent retirement income for a lot of black people, whose opportunities elsewhere were limited. But of course they've had to ignore the larger implications of what they were engaged in and contributing to. Muhammad Ali, famously, did NOT ignore those larger implications. John On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:30 PM Karen Aram wrote: > John > > I have posted it on the Peace List, but now will post it to you and the > Peace Discuss List, I never get it right. > This was written to support David Green’s excellent letter. > > Please see below: > > > >> > >> When those who served in the military talk of "what a wonderful > experience they and others had while with the US military, I ask, to what > is it they are referring? Is being cannon fodder, and part of an > organization used to destroy and murder innocent people, a worthy endeavor? > >> > >> Do they not notice the veterans suffering from PTSD, as well as > crippling physical malady’s, suffered by many returning veterans? Do they > not see the homeless, nor the recorded suicides of at least two a day, > every day, of US veterans. This doesn't cover the numerous broken family's > or the nightmares, suffered as a result of their "service to their country." > >> > >> I suggest speaking to “Veterans Against War," those who served their > country, only to return and become active opposing US imperialism and > hegemony, whether Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, due to the horrors suffered > by our soldiers, as well as inflicted upon others. > >> > >> It's time the News Gazette stop glorifying wars that serve only to kill > and enrich the corporate elites owning our government, wars that cripple > our people while ensuring wealth for our major industry, weapons. > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jan 25 01:44:51 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] They published my letter this morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did you see David Green’s letter, it was his I was supporting. On Jan 24, 2019, at 17:26, John W. > wrote: Thank you, Karen. Yes, it's a good letter. The military has served as a vehicle of upward social mobility and decent retirement income for a lot of black people, whose opportunities elsewhere were limited. But of course they've had to ignore the larger implications of what they were engaged in and contributing to. Muhammad Ali, famously, did NOT ignore those larger implications. John On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:30 PM Karen Aram > wrote: > John I have posted it on the Peace List, but now will post it to you and the Peace Discuss List, I never get it right. This was written to support David Green’s excellent letter. Please see below: > >> >> When those who served in the military talk of "what a wonderful experience they and others had while with the US military, I ask, to what is it they are referring? Is being cannon fodder, and part of an organization used to destroy and murder innocent people, a worthy endeavor? >> >> Do they not notice the veterans suffering from PTSD, as well as crippling physical malady’s, suffered by many returning veterans? Do they not see the homeless, nor the recorded suicides of at least two a day, every day, of US veterans. This doesn't cover the numerous broken family's or the nightmares, suffered as a result of their "service to their country." >> >> I suggest speaking to “Veterans Against War," those who served their country, only to return and become active opposing US imperialism and hegemony, whether Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, due to the horrors suffered by our soldiers, as well as inflicted upon others. >> >> It's time the News Gazette stop glorifying wars that serve only to kill and enrich the corporate elites owning our government, wars that cripple our people while ensuring wealth for our major industry, weapons. > [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Jan 26 01:20:08 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:20:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NfN #410 notes Message-ID: News from Neptune #410 notes A "Wrong Question" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnvmopdM-Is Mark Mazzetti, Eileen Sullivan, and Maggie Haberman on "Indicting Roger Stone, Mueller Shows Link Between Trump Campaign and WikiLeaks" from the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/us/politics/roger-stone-trump-mueller.html Peter Baker and Edward Wong on "Intervening Against Venezuela’s Strongman, Trump Belies ‘America First’" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/world/americas/donald-trump-venezuela.html Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman on "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Tax Hike Idea Is Not About Soaking the Rich" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opinion/ocasio-cortez-taxes.html Kamala Harris 2017 speech to AIPAC http://www.policyconference.org/article/transcripts/2017/harris.asp Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1pJm9Fall0 -- Jimmy Dore on "Kamala Harris Announces Presidential Run With PLATITUDES" David Leonhardt on "Kamala Harris, a front-runner" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opinion/kamala-harris-2020-democrats.html Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) Matt Bruenig on "Sorry, AOC Is Right" https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fact-check-kessler Steve Maher on the rise and fall of GE -- interview with Doug Henwood http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2019/19_01_17.mp3 Behind the News RSS feed: http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/radio-feed.php Thomas B. Edsall "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Leading and Following at the Same Time" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/ocasio-cortez-pressley-democrats.html Julie Wurth on "UI names alum as 1st chief marketing officer" http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2019-01-24/ui-names-alum-1st-chief-marketing-officer.html -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jan 26 13:26:28 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 13:26:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Green's LTE on militarism Message-ID: Another letter this morning bashing David Green due to his letter to the Editor. This one from a Tom Bennet of Tuscola. Short and to the point, his point being David is a russian or “commie.” Congratulations David, where that label with pride. See below: Wed, 01/23/2019 - 7:02pm | The News-Gazette David Green's agitation/propaganda, class struggle/hostility opinions read as though they would be found acceptable for the pages of Literary Gazette, Red Star, Izvestia and Pravda. TOM BENNETT Tuscola -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jan 26 15:50:32 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 15:50:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: David Green's LTE on militarism References: Message-ID: Another letter this morning bashing David Green due to his letter to the Editor. This one from a Tom Bennet of Tuscola. Short and to the point, his point being David is a russian or “commie.” Congratulations David, wear that label with pride. As to hostility, propaganda, I don’t see it in David’s letters, but I sure do see it in the below: Wed, 01/23/2019 - 7:02pm | The News-Gazette David Green's agitation/propaganda, class struggle/hostility opinions read as though they would be found acceptable for the pages of Literary Gazette, Red Star, Izvestia and Pravda. TOM BENNETT Tuscola -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jan 26 21:40:35 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 21:40:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday Message-ID: Carl and David Excellent program. My thoughts, I am skeptical of these women in Congress, whether AOC, Tulsi, or anyone else because they offer “hope” just as Bernie did, hope that the Democrats will save us. Having Tulsi and Bernie run in 2020, even if elected will be mere puppets as all other Presidents before them, and they know it. In the meantime DNC strategy, now I speculate, is to suck off the young Bernie folks, pseudo socialists, and those who are afraid to support a third Party because you know the usual, “Trump is so awful,” and he is, but this is why we are just running in circles, with inequality growing, and more nations in our crosshairs for destruction. AOC may say some of the right things, but even if she is genuine, I see someone either being prepared for the future, a woman of color, or shut down when she takes up FP. In the meantime she is a diversion from FP, focusing on domestic issues as if one person is going to change anything. I’m inundated with postings of both AOC and Tulsi, they get a lot of coverage from mainstream media, unlike Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, and anyone else who speaks out against USFP. In fact, most of the websites providing information related to foreign policy are being censored or closed down, so one must question Tulsi, and I have yet to hear her go into any indepth analysis related to our wars, she supposedly opposes. AOC to my knowledge has yet to comment on FP. We have a “for profit system” of capitalism which isn’t going to get better, it will likely get worse. People need to remember, anyone can say anything, until they’re elected, and even then they can say anything and they do, as they have, it means little. From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jan 27 00:48:38 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 18:48:38 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sisters are doin' it for themselves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6752d1da-b28d-e373-5975-598656c8e620@forestfield.org> Karen Aram wrote: > I’m inundated with postings of both AOC and Tulsi, they get a lot of > coverage from mainstream media, unlike Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, and > anyone else who speaks out against USFP. In fact, most of the websites > providing information related to foreign policy are being censored or > closed down, so one must question Tulsi, and I have yet to hear her go > into any indepth analysis related to our wars, she supposedly opposes. > AOC to my knowledge has yet to comment on FP. Check out: https://theintercept.com/2018/01/20/tulsi-gabbard-syria-isis-al-qaeda/ -- a brief article on Rep. Gabbard's endorsing drone war. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ -- the full transcript and one link to audio of her interview on which the former link is based. https://traffic.megaphone.fm/PPY1407171456.mp3 -- another copy of the interview audio. In this interview, published January 17, 2018, you can hear her endorse drone war and propaganda including "quick strike forces", "surgical strikes", support "no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation": > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike > forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your position > that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the U.S. > military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is that > still your position? > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those > current AUMFs. > > So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe > that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical > strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term > occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and then get > out and the very limited use of drones in those situations where our > military is not able to get in without creating an unacceptable level of > risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not causing, you know, a > large amount of civilian casualties. Whatever wars she opposes, she might only oppose them on the basis of a technical detail concerning how those wars are being carried out. Perhaps she'd rather the US carry out wars with drones instead of "long-term occupation" and other forms of what are sometimes called 'boots on the ground'. Drone wars extrajudicially kill mostly innocent people who happen to be near the target of the attack. The US apparently doesn't care about killing Americans, children, or respecting due process. But she's in good company: The "Military-Industrial Complex is now run by women" according to Redacted Tonight's Lee Camp in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOGowwQToM -- Lee is correct: most of the American weapons manufacturer CEOs are now women. The way MSNBC talks about this (in a report Redacted Tonight's Naomi Karavani shows us) we're supposed to as progress in the correct direction. MSNBC asks (and answers) "Who runs the world?": > The CEOs of 4 of the 5 biggest defense contractors are in fact women: > Northrop Grumman (CEO Kathy Warden), Lockheed Martin (CEO Marillyn > Hewson), General Dynamics (CEO Phebe Novakovic), and Boeing's defense > wing (President & CEO Leanna Caret). There's also America's lead weapons > negotiator the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control (Andrea > Thompson) and the Undersecretary of State for Energy for Nuclear > Security (Lisa Gordon-Hagerty) also a woman, she runs the world's > largest nuclear stockpile. Related: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/02/how-women-took-over-the-military-industrial-complex-1049860 (or https://archive.fo/MHWwp which doesn't require Javascript to read) -- David Brown on "How women took over the military-industrial complex": > It’s a watershed for what has always been a male-dominated bastion, the > culmination of decades of women entering science and engineering fields > and knocking down barriers as government agencies and the private > sector increasingly weigh merit over machismo. > > And, as Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson told POLITICO, it's also the > result of "quieting that little voice in your head that doubts whether > you can do that next job or take on that special assignment." > > “I think there’s critical mass, where you have enough women that > they’re getting noticed,” said Rachel McCaffrey, a retired Air Force > colonel and executive director of Women in Defense, a career development > and networking organization affiliated with the National Defense > Industrial Association, a leading industry group. Raytheon partnered with the Girl Scouts -- see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0atqH8pmMzg for the full promotional clip. Raytheon calls their partnership "Thinking like a programmer" and "making the world a safer place". Saudi Arabia has been using US-supplied/Raytheon-made bombs to kill Yemeni civilians (including children) as Ben Norton wrote about in https://www.mintpressnews.com/saudi-arabia-kills-civilians-in-yemen-with-another-us-made-raytheon-bomb/251104/ From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jan 27 02:47:08 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 02:47:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36089D28-A7D7-46BC-B997-F3A452ED0FE8@illinois.edu> The Real News Network has useful discussions concerning the events in Venezuela: https://therealnews.com/stories/attempted-coup-in-venezuela-with-abby-martin-greg-wilpert-paul-jay https://therealnews.com/stories/defusing-the-crisis-a-way-forward-for-venezuela The reaction to the intended coup there in our mainstream media is perverse, and the virtual absence of commentary by members of Congress to the adminstration's actions and comments is notable, a reflection of the corruption of our so-called democratic institutions. AOC, Tulsi, and Sanders mildly critical, Sanders attempting to straddle a middle ground, harshly condemming Maduro but saying “we" (U.S. political and economic forces) shouldn’t interfere: that is risible, we already have; we’ve organized the whole thing. —mkb On Jan 26, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl and David Excellent program. My thoughts, I am skeptical of these women in Congress, whether AOC, Tulsi, or anyone else because they offer “hope” just as Bernie did, hope that the Democrats will save us. Having Tulsi and Bernie run in 2020, even if elected will be mere puppets as all other Presidents before them, and they know it. In the meantime DNC strategy, now I speculate, is to suck off the young Bernie folks, pseudo socialists, and those who are afraid to support a third Party because you know the usual, “Trump is so awful,” and he is, but this is why we are just running in circles, with inequality growing, and more nations in our crosshairs for destruction. AOC may say some of the right things, but even if she is genuine, I see someone either being prepared for the future, a woman of color, or shut down when she takes up FP. In the meantime she is a diversion from FP, focusing on domestic issues as if one person is going to change anything. I’m inundated with postings of both AOC and Tulsi, they get a lot of coverage from mainstream media, unlike Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, and anyone else who speaks out against USFP. In fact, most of the websites providing information related to foreign policy are being censored or closed down, so one must question Tulsi, and I have yet to hear her go into any indepth analysis related to our wars, she supposedly opposes. AOC to my knowledge has yet to comment on FP. We have a “for profit system” of capitalism which isn’t going to get better, it will likely get worse. People need to remember, anyone can say anything, until they’re elected, and even then they can say anything and they do, as they have, it means little. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Jan 27 02:58:35 2019 From: galliher at illinois.edu (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 20:58:35 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday In-Reply-To: <36089D28-A7D7-46BC-B997-F3A452ED0FE8@illinois.edu> References: <36089D28-A7D7-46BC-B997-F3A452ED0FE8@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Unfortunately true. And ‘liberal Democrat’ Durbin supports the US-backed coup: . > On Jan 26, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The Real News Network has useful discussions concerning the events in Venezuela: > > https://therealnews.com/stories/attempted-coup-in-venezuela-with-abby-martin-greg-wilpert-paul-jay > https://therealnews.com/stories/defusing-the-crisis-a-way-forward-for-venezuela > > The reaction to the intended coup there in our mainstream media is perverse, and the virtual absence of commentary by members of Congress to the adminstration's actions and comments is notable, a reflection of the corruption of our so-called democratic institutions. AOC, Tulsi, and Sanders mildly critical, Sanders attempting to straddle a middle ground, harshly condemming Maduro but saying “we" (U.S. political and economic forces) shouldn’t interfere: that is risible, we already have; we’ve organized the whole thing. > > —mkb > > >> On Jan 26, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl and David >> >> >> Excellent program. >> >> My thoughts, >> >> I am skeptical of these women in Congress, whether AOC, Tulsi, or anyone else because they offer “hope” just as Bernie did, hope that the Democrats will save us. Having Tulsi and Bernie run in 2020, even if elected will be mere puppets as all other Presidents before them, and they know it. In the meantime DNC strategy, now I speculate, is to suck off the young Bernie folks, pseudo socialists, and those who are afraid to support a third Party because you know the usual, “Trump is so awful,” and he is, but this is why we are just running in circles, with inequality growing, and more nations in our crosshairs for destruction. >> >> AOC may say some of the right things, but even if she is genuine, I see someone either being prepared for the future, a woman of color, or shut down when she takes up FP. In the meantime she is a diversion from FP, focusing on domestic issues as if one person is going to change anything. >> >> I’m inundated with postings of both AOC and Tulsi, they get a lot of coverage from mainstream media, unlike Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, and anyone else who speaks out against USFP. In fact, most of the websites providing information related to foreign policy are being censored or closed down, so one must question Tulsi, and I have yet to hear her go into any indepth analysis related to our wars, she supposedly opposes. AOC to my knowledge has yet to comment on FP. >> >> We have a “for profit system” of capitalism which isn’t going to get better, it will likely get worse. >> People need to remember, anyone can say anything, until they’re elected, and even then they can say anything and they do, as they have, it means little. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jan 27 12:35:08 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:35:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday In-Reply-To: References: <36089D28-A7D7-46BC-B997-F3A452ED0FE8@illinois.edu> Message-ID: My opinion: We aren't leaving the Middle East, we have entrenched our military throughout the African continent, we aren't leaving Syria, we are likely planning on a take over of Lebanon, but yes there is no stopping a US takeover of Venezuela, and yes this has been taking place since 2002, it didn't just begin a year or two ago. It has nothing to do with anything Maduro has or has not done. "It is perfectly clear today that the process towards war is underway. Enormous forces are in play, and there is little that can be done to stop them now. It is in this context that Russia is studying the possibility of setting up a permanent aero-naval base in Venezuela. The island of La Orchila – where President Hugo Chávez was held prisoner during the coup d’etat of April 2002 – would enable the storing of strategic bombers. This would constitute a much greater threat to the United States than the Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba in 1962." [1] « Plan to overthrow the Venezuelan Dictatorship – “Masterstroke” », Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, Voltaire Network, 23 février 2018. “The United States “Master Stroke” against Venezuela”, by Stella Calloni; “The United States are preparing a war between Latin-American states”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 17 May and 18 December 2018. [2] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004. “The US military project for the world”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 22 August 2017. [3] “Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to Venezuela”, “Executive Order – Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela”, by Barack Obama, Voltaire Network, 9 March 2015. [4] « Brexit : Londres assume sa nouvelle politique coloniale », Réseau Voltaire, 3 janvier 2019. [5] “Assad and Chávez call for the creation of a Free Allied Movement”, Voltaire Network, 29 June 2010. [6] “Large-scale manoeuvres encircling Venezuela”, by Manlio Dinucci, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Il Manifesto (Italy) , Voltaire Network, 23 August 2017. [7] “We are opening new overseas bases to boost Britain”, Christopher Hope, Sunday Telegraph, December 30, 2018. [8] “Declaration of the Lima Group”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 4 January 2019. Top Photo | A US Naval Aircrewman surveys Honduran airspace from aboard an MH-60S Seahawk, assigned to the “Sea Knights” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 22. Photo | U.S. Navy Thierry Meyssan is a political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). His latest work in French is Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump)." [https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p64x64/28166847_1741468235896704_6248596513829510852_n.png?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=7f5679c4d8acdc46d4695178d5e0a7ce&oe=5CC6A0AF] https://www.mintpressnews.com/goodbye-middle-east-the-coming-destruction-of-latin-america/253795/ On Jan 26, 2019, at 18:58, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: Unfortunately true. And ‘liberal Democrat’ Durbin supports the US-backed coup: . On Jan 26, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: The Real News Network has useful discussions concerning the events in Venezuela: https://therealnews.com/stories/attempted-coup-in-venezuela-with-abby-martin-greg-wilpert-paul-jay https://therealnews.com/stories/defusing-the-crisis-a-way-forward-for-venezuela The reaction to the intended coup there in our mainstream media is perverse, and the virtual absence of commentary by members of Congress to the adminstration's actions and comments is notable, a reflection of the corruption of our so-called democratic institutions. AOC, Tulsi, and Sanders mildly critical, Sanders attempting to straddle a middle ground, harshly condemming Maduro but saying “we" (U.S. political and economic forces) shouldn’t interfere: that is risible, we already have; we’ve organized the whole thing. —mkb On Jan 26, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Carl and David Excellent program. My thoughts, I am skeptical of these women in Congress, whether AOC, Tulsi, or anyone else because they offer “hope” just as Bernie did, hope that the Democrats will save us. Having Tulsi and Bernie run in 2020, even if elected will be mere puppets as all other Presidents before them, and they know it. In the meantime DNC strategy, now I speculate, is to suck off the young Bernie folks, pseudo socialists, and those who are afraid to support a third Party because you know the usual, “Trump is so awful,” and he is, but this is why we are just running in circles, with inequality growing, and more nations in our crosshairs for destruction. AOC may say some of the right things, but even if she is genuine, I see someone either being prepared for the future, a woman of color, or shut down when she takes up FP. In the meantime she is a diversion from FP, focusing on domestic issues as if one person is going to change anything. I’m inundated with postings of both AOC and Tulsi, they get a lot of coverage from mainstream media, unlike Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, and anyone else who speaks out against USFP. In fact, most of the websites providing information related to foreign policy are being censored or closed down, so one must question Tulsi, and I have yet to hear her go into any indepth analysis related to our wars, she supposedly opposes. AOC to my knowledge has yet to comment on FP. We have a “for profit system” of capitalism which isn’t going to get better, it will likely get worse. People need to remember, anyone can say anything, until they’re elected, and even then they can say anything and they do, as they have, it means little. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 20:45:30 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 14:45:30 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Bernie/DSA "movement" will only be genuinely successful if its adherents are relentlessly truthful about the nature of USFP. Then they can figure out who their "friends" and "enemies" are. Certainly Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) will be counted as one of the latter. Her website statement, for example, on Israel/Palestine is: "Historically, the United States has played a critical role in advancing engagement between Israeli and Palestinian leadership, and working to ease tensions in the region. It remains vital for the United States, along with the broader international community, to continue to bring both parties to the negotiating table. We must avoid efforts to unilaterally blame and deny legitimacy to either side, and should instead work towards building a just solution that recognizes the trauma suffered by both populations. We should hold both Israelis and Palestinians accountable when they take actions in bad faith that cause each other harm, and should encourage actions that build trust and demonstrate a real willingness to make peace. I do not support BDS as a means to achieve a two-state solution because I believe it does not acknowledge the efforts of those on the ground who are deeply committed to bringing peaceful coexistence to the region, and pushes Israelis and Palestinians farther away from the meaningful engagement and dialogue needed to empathize with each other's struggle and acknowledge each other's humanity. At the same time, I believe that others should be free to advocate it and that their 1st amendment rights should be respected." Honestly I don't care if she opposes BDS; I care that she doesn't understand anything about the history, and is disinterested in a genuine solution. On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 3:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Carl and David > > > Excellent program. > > My thoughts, > > I am skeptical of these women in Congress, whether AOC, Tulsi, or anyone > else because they offer “hope” just as Bernie did, hope that the Democrats > will save us. Having Tulsi and Bernie run in 2020, even if elected will be > mere puppets as all other Presidents before them, and they know it. In the > meantime DNC strategy, now I speculate, is to suck off the young Bernie > folks, pseudo socialists, and those who are afraid to support a third Party > because you know the usual, “Trump is so awful,” and he is, but this is why > we are just running in circles, with inequality growing, and more nations > in our crosshairs for destruction. > > AOC may say some of the right things, but even if she is genuine, I see > someone either being prepared for the future, a woman of color, or shut > down when she takes up FP. In the meantime she is a diversion from FP, > focusing on domestic issues as if one person is going to change anything. > > I’m inundated with postings of both AOC and Tulsi, they get a lot of > coverage from mainstream media, unlike Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, and anyone > else who speaks out against USFP. In fact, most of the websites providing > information related to foreign policy are being censored or closed down, so > one must question Tulsi, and I have yet to hear her go into any indepth > analysis related to our wars, she supposedly opposes. AOC to my knowledge > has yet to comment on FP. > > We have a “for profit system” of capitalism which isn’t going to get > better, it will likely get worse. > People need to remember, anyone can say anything, until they’re elected, > and even then they can say anything and they do, as they have, it means > little. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jan 27 21:49:29 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:49:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN yesterday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In addition to her not supporting BDS, but her statement: " It remains vital for the United States, along with the broader international community, to continue to bring both parties to the negotiating table. We must avoid efforts to unilaterally blame and deny legitimacy to either side, and should instead work towards building a just solution that recognizes the trauma suffered by both populations. We should hold both Israelis and Palestinians accountable when they take actions in bad faith.” infuriating, and certainly does show ignorance, if nothing else. I haven’t heard anything related to Israel from AOC yet. Either way, “reformism” isn’t going to work, with just a couple people bucking the crowd with only a few years left to bring about change. Within twelve years its too late to do anything about climate change, it’s not like pushing a button and “whola" there we have clean atmosphere, clean oceans, etc. How many nations will have been destroyed by then, how many millions murdered by then, and we must remember 2030 is the deadline according to the Rand Corp. for war with China. Congress is about power, the Presidents always knew that, and made sure they cultivated those with it. Our corporate lobbyists have managed to do that, over the many years, very well. On Jan 27, 2019, at 12:45, David Green > wrote: The Bernie/DSA "movement" will only be genuinely successful if its adherents are relentlessly truthful about the nature of USFP. Then they can figure out who their "friends" and "enemies" are. Certainly Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) will be counted as one of the latter. Her website statement, for example, on Israel/Palestine is: "Historically, the United States has played a critical role in advancing engagement between Israeli and Palestinian leadership, and working to ease tensions in the region. It remains vital for the United States, along with the broader international community, to continue to bring both parties to the negotiating table. We must avoid efforts to unilaterally blame and deny legitimacy to either side, and should instead work towards building a just solution that recognizes the trauma suffered by both populations. We should hold both Israelis and Palestinians accountable when they take actions in bad faith that cause each other harm, and should encourage actions that build trust and demonstrate a real willingness to make peace. I do not support BDS as a means to achieve a two-state solution because I believe it does not acknowledge the efforts of those on the ground who are deeply committed to bringing peaceful coexistence to the region, and pushes Israelis and Palestinians farther away from the meaningful engagement and dialogue needed to empathize with each other's struggle and acknowledge each other's humanity. At the same time, I believe that others should be free to advocate it and that their 1st amendment rights should be respected." Honestly I don't care if she opposes BDS; I care that she doesn't understand anything about the history, and is disinterested in a genuine solution. On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 3:40 PM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl and David Excellent program. My thoughts, I am skeptical of these women in Congress, whether AOC, Tulsi, or anyone else because they offer “hope” just as Bernie did, hope that the Democrats will save us. Having Tulsi and Bernie run in 2020, even if elected will be mere puppets as all other Presidents before them, and they know it. In the meantime DNC strategy, now I speculate, is to suck off the young Bernie folks, pseudo socialists, and those who are afraid to support a third Party because you know the usual, “Trump is so awful,” and he is, but this is why we are just running in circles, with inequality growing, and more nations in our crosshairs for destruction. AOC may say some of the right things, but even if she is genuine, I see someone either being prepared for the future, a woman of color, or shut down when she takes up FP. In the meantime she is a diversion from FP, focusing on domestic issues as if one person is going to change anything. I’m inundated with postings of both AOC and Tulsi, they get a lot of coverage from mainstream media, unlike Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, and anyone else who speaks out against USFP. In fact, most of the websites providing information related to foreign policy are being censored or closed down, so one must question Tulsi, and I have yet to hear her go into any indepth analysis related to our wars, she supposedly opposes. AOC to my knowledge has yet to comment on FP. We have a “for profit system” of capitalism which isn’t going to get better, it will likely get worse. People need to remember, anyone can say anything, until they’re elected, and even then they can say anything and they do, as they have, it means little. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jan 27 23:20:50 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 17:20:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Popular Resistance Newsletter - What activists needs to know about Venezuela In-Reply-To: <33602bebba8fb7dd6e71fb413.32c556cb2b.20190127212732.10e071cd00.f901f081@mail185.sea22.mcdlv.net> References: <33602bebba8fb7dd6e71fb413.32c556cb2b.20190127212732.10e071cd00.f901f081@mail185.sea22.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: <006901d4b696$f1826030$d4872090$@comcast.net> Two things stand out about the US coup in Venezuela. First, it is unusually open. Typically, the US tries to hide its coups. Second, the coup is built on a series of obvious falsehoods, yet the bi-partisans in Washington, with a few exceptions, keep repeating them. First, we will correct the falsehoods so readers are all working from the same facts. Second, we will describe how this coup is being defeated. It will be another major embarrassment for the Trump administration and US foreign policy. It is important to understand Venezuela has become a geopolitical conflict as Russia and China are closely allied with Venezuela. China and Russia coming into the backyard of the United States challenges the antiquated Monroe Doctrine. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and the second largest gold reserves, as well as diamonds and other minerals such as coltan (needed for electronic devices). And, Venezuela is taking over as president of OPEC and will be in a position to push for oil payments in non-dollar currencies or in cryptocurrencies, a major threat to the US dollar. Correcting the Record There are a series of false statements repeated by DC officials and corporate media to justify the coup that are so obvious, it is hard to believe they are not intentional. In his two-paragraph comment on the coup, even Senator Bernie Sanders repeated them. 1. Truth: President Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president. President Maduro was re-elected on May 20, 2018, in response to the opposition demanding an early election. The legitimacy of the election of Maduro is so evident that it must be assumed those who say he is illegitimate are either intentionally false or ignorant. The election was scheduled consistent with the Venezuelan Constitution and in consultation with opposition parties. When it became evident that the opposition could not win the election, they decided, under pressure from the United States, to boycott the election in order to undermine its legitimacy. The facts are 9,389,056 people voted, 46% of eligible voters. Sixteen parties participated in the election with six candidates competing for the presidency. The electoral process was observed by more than 150 election observers. This included 14 electoral commissions from eight countries among them the Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America; two technical electoral missions; and 18 journalists from different parts of the world, among others. According to the international observers, “the elections were very transparent and complied with international parameters and national legislation.” Venezuela has one of the best electoral systems in the world. Voter fraud is not possible as identification and fingerprints are required for each voter. Voting machines are audited before and immediately after the election. Venezuela does something no other country in the world does — a public, citizen’s audit of a random sample of 53% of voting machines that is televised. All 18 parties signed the audits. Maduro won by a wide margin, obtaining 6,248,864 votes, 67.84%; followed by Henri Falcón with 1,927,958, 20.93%; Javier Bertucci with 1,015,895, 10.82%; and Reinaldo Quijada, who obtained 36,246 votes, 0.39% of the total. This same voting system has been used in elections that Maduro’s party has lost in governor’s and legislative elections. Venezuela is a real democracy with transparent elections. The United States could learn a good deal about real democracy from Venezuela. 2. Truth: The economic crisis is caused by outside intervention, internal sabotage and the decline in oil prices. There is no doubt the economic situation in Venezuela is dire. The cause is the economic war conducted by the United States, the major decline in oil prices and economic sabotage by the opposition. In essence, the United States and opposition created problems in the Venezuelan economy and now say Maduro must be replaced because of problems they created. Oil was discovered in Venezuela in the early part of the 20th Century and has dominated the economy since then. The Dutch Disease, the negative impact of an economy based on one natural resource, causes a sharp inflow of foreign currency, which raises the value of the country’s currency, making the country’s other products less price competitive. It is cheaper to import products rather than create them. This makes it more difficult for segments of the economy like agriculture and manufacturing to develop. Chavez/Maduro sought to diversify the economy. They put in place thousands of communes and hundreds of thousands of people working in cooperatives to build agriculture and manufacturing. When the global price of oil was cut by more than half, it collapsed Venezuela’s public finances undermining these efforts. The economic war by the US made it difficult for Venezuela to borrow and trade with some countries. Economic sanctions against Venezuela began under President Obama, and the Trump administration escalated them with financial sanctions. United States sanctions cost Venezuela some $6 billion since August, according to an October analysis. Measures against the nation’s oil industry have prohibited the Venezuelan majority-owned company, CITGO, from sending profits back to Venezuela, a $1 billion loss to the government yearly. Now, the Bank of England is refusing to return $1.2 billion in gold reserves after US officials, including Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, lobbied them to cut Venezuela off from its overseas assets. The US economic war and sabotage of the economy by business interests has been exposed as part of the effort to remove Maduro by creating social unrest and lack of confidence in the government. This has included hoarding of goods, storing essentials in warehouses and selling Venezuelan goods in Colombia. In September 2018, Venezuela pointed to a false media campaign exaggerating migration from Venezuela. They highlighted statistics from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to affirm that Venezuela has the fewest volunteer migrants in the continent. They pointed out 5.6 million Colombians have fled violence in their country and live in Venezuela. Venezuela has programs that have helped thousands of Venezuelans return home. Socialism strengthens economies, as demonstrated in Portugal. Indeed, one criticism of Venezuela is that the Bolivarian Process is moving too slowly to put in place a socialist economy. There is a need for more sectors to be nationalized and put under democratic control of the people. 3. Truth: The opposition is violent, not the Maduro government. Opposition protesters have been extremely violent. One tactic of the opposition was to be violent and then film the government’s response to make the government look violent. When A bby Martin was confronted by opposition protesters, they told her, “Do not film anything that we do. Just film what the government does to us.” She reported on the violence saying, “the vast majority has been caused by either indirect or direct violence by the opposition.” Martin reports the opposition attacked hospitals, burned down the Housing Ministry, assassinated Chavistas and attacked citizen communes such as an art commune that gave free dance and music lessons to local children. Afro-Venezuelans were burned alive. Protesters pulled drivers out of buses and torched the buses. When photos and videos of opposition violence were put on social media, Martin and her colleague, Mike Prysner, became the target of a false media campaign on social media. The opposition did all they could to prevent them from reporting the truth using hundreds of death threats and threats they would be lynched. In 2017, Venezuela Analysis reported that violent opposition protests included an attack on a maternity hospital endangering the lives of more than 50 newborn babies. Another report described the opposition using snipers to shoot government officials and civilians. Opposition newspapers urged that blunt objects be used to “neutralize” pro-government protesters, resulting in serious injuries and death. Steve Ellner also reported that violence was coming from the opposition. He pointed to attacks at grocery stores, banks, buses, and government buildings. Other commentators described specific incidents of violence by the opposition including killing people. Maduro ordered the arrest of a retired general who tweeted how to use wire to decapitate people on motorcycles, which happened, and how to attack armored vehicles with Molotov cocktails. Documents show that violence was the opposition’s strategy. They sought to “Create situations of crisis in the streets that will facilitate US intervention, as well as NATO forces, with the support of the Colombian government. Whenever possible, the violence should result in deaths or injuries.” The tales of government violence are rooted in lies. The government’s response was Maduro calling for a peace conference describing it as “a national peace conference with all the country’s political sectors … so we Venezuelans can try to neutralize violent groups.” 4. Truth: The National Assembly acted in violation of the law and is in contempt of court. The National Assembly is not the only democratic body in Venezuela. Indeed, its actions since the opposition won a majority have violated the law and protected the violence of the opposition with an embarrassing amnesty bill. On December 6, 2015, the opposition won a parliamentary majority in the Assembly. There were allegations of vote buying in Amazonas state that were investigated by the National Electoral Council, another branch of the government. The Supreme Court barred four legislators from Amazonas taking office, two from the opposition, one allied with the opposition and one from the ruling party. The National Assembly allowed three candidates to take office. The Assembly has been held in contempt of court since July 2016 and their decisions were nullified. Before the court ruling, the Assembly passed an amazing amnesty law, which granted amnesty for crimes the opposition has committed since 1999 (Chavez’ election). The law is an admission of guilt and provides a well-organized catalog of crimes including felonies, crimes committed at public rallies, terrorist acts involving explosives and firearms and undermining the economy. They essentially admitted exactly what Chavez/Maduro have claimed — crimes to overthrow the government for 17 years. Venezuela’s Supreme Court ruled the amnesty law was unconstitutional. Inaccurately, the Trump administration calls the Assembly Venezuela’s only remaining democratic institution. This January, a subsidiary of the state oil company asked the Assembly to intervene claiming the president cannot make reforms to mixed public-private oil businesses without the prior approval of the National Assembly. On January 16, the court ruled that the Assembly was still in contempt of court and could not act. This is also when the Assembly elected Juan Guaidó as their president, who would later appoint himself President of Venezuela, as part of the US-led coup. Guaidó’s election to head the legislature was illegal and nullified by the court. The Assembly still exists but remains in a state of contempt of the judiciary. It can rectify the situation by removing the lawmakers accused of electoral fraud. The Assembly refuses to do so because their goal is to remove Maduro from office and they need a super-majority to do so. Image removed by sender. A Timeline of the US Coup in Venezuela In “ Anti-Maduro Coalition Grew from Secret Talks,” the Associated Press explains the coup was “only possible because of strong support from the Trump administration, which led a chorus of mostly conservative Latin American governments that immediately recognized Guaidó.” Since August 2017, Donald Trump has been saying that military interventionagainst Venezuela was a distinct possibility. AP describes this as a “watershed moment” in the coup planning. They report Trump pressuring aides and Latin American countries to invade Venezuela. In September, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration had been meeting with coup plotters since mid-2017. The Wall Street Journal reports Trump has long viewed Venezuela as one of his top-three foreign policy priorities, with Iran and North Korea. Trump requested a briefing on Venezuela on his second day in office, talking of the immense potential of Venezuela to become a rich nation through its oil reserves. AP reports that Trump “personally sparked” this as he brought up regime change in Venezuela in every meeting with Latin American leaders. After Maduro was re-elected, administration plans began taking shape, driven in part by key members in the National Security Council and anti-Maduro advocates in Congress like extreme interventionist Senator Marco Rubio. On November 1, John Bolton zeroed in on Latin America, calling Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela a “ troika of tyranny.” On January 2, Bolton met with his Brazilian and Colombian counterparts to collaborate to “return Venezuela to its democratic heritage.” On January 10, Maduro was sworn in for his second term, Pompeo spoke with opposition leader Guaidó, pledging support. Canada also played a key role, AP reports that Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaidó the night before Maduro’s inauguration offering Canada’s support. This was 13 days before Guaidó announced he was president of Venezuela. On January 12, the State Department backed Guaidó’s move to invoke his authority as president of the assembly, saying, “It is time to begin the orderly transition to a new government.” On January 15, the National Assembly declared Maduro as illegitimate. The Trump administration worked to get allies lined up to support Guaidó’. By January 18, the Venezuela Foreign Minister was describing a US coup in progress. The night before Guaidó’s announcement on January 23, Vice President Mike Pence put out a video message encouraging Venezuelans to overthrow their government, saying, “We are with you. We stand with you, and we will stay with you.” Guaidó also received a phone call from Pence the night before he appointed himself president where he pledged that the U.S. would back Guaidó. Guaidó declared that Maduro’s government was illegitimate and he was assuming the presidency. In a well-coordinated charade, almost instantly, Trump recognized Guaidó as the country’s rightful leader. To further demonstrate the preconceived, tightly coordinated and efficiently carried out the coup, US allies, among them Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, and Peru, quickly recognized the coup president. The Trump administration is claiming Guaidó represents the lawful government and is entitled to all Venezuelan revenues. The State Department notified the Federal Reserve that Guaidó is the agent for access to Venezuelan assets in US banks. Nearly as quickly, Maduro drew statements of support from Russia, China, Turkey, Mexico, Cuba, Bolivia, and others. The Venezuelan Supreme Court called for an investigation into the National Assembly and Guaidó, regarding the illegal usurpation of Executive power. The Venezuelan military announced it supported Maduro and Russia warned the US not to intervene militarily. On January 25, the Organization of American States, which is traditionally a US tool, rejected a resolution to recognize Guaidó. Medea Benjamin of CODE PINK interrupted Pence at the OAS holding a sign that said: “a coup is not a democratic transition!” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza thanked Benjamin, saying, “With her protest, she revealed the macabre coup plan against Venezuela, we will always prevail, thank you!” Eighteen countries defeated the proposal. At the UN Security Council meeting on January 26, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused the United States of attempting “to engineer a coup d’etat.” He demanded to know whether the Trump administration “is ready to use military force” against Venezuela. European countries gave Venezuela eight days to hold an election, a suggestion Venezuela rejected. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Venezuela an “illegitimate mafia state.” He accused Russia and China of trying “to prop up Maduro.” Both China and Russia have told the US not to intervene in Venezuela’s internal affairs. In December, Russia sent two nuclear-capable strategic Tu-160 bombers to Venezuela along with an An-124 heavy military transport plane and an II-62 long-haul plane. As of December, Russia has one brigade in Venezuela and was discussing sending a second military brigade to Venezuela even before the coup due to the continued threat of intervention from the United States. China has lent over $50 billion to Venezuela through oil-for-loan agreements over the past decade and has become a partner in the Venezuelan oil industry. In December, seven months since signing a financial business venture with China, Venezuela’s oil production has doubled to 130,000 barrels per day. The take-over of Venezuela’s oil would also be an attack on China. China and Venezuela signed 28 bilateral strategic cooperation agreements on September 14 in the areas of oil, mining, security, technology, finance, and health. Demonstrating the nature of the coup president, the first acts that Guaidó took were to seek a loan from the International Monetary Fund, which would put Venezuela in debt to western bankers and under their control, and to privatize the Venezuelan oil industry, which would rob Venezuela of the funds being used to lift up the poor and working class. The appointment by Mike Pompeo of Elliott Abrams as the person in charge of overseeing operations “to restore democracy in Venezuela” is an ominous sign. It is scandalous and demonstrates the most extreme elements of the US establishment are leading the charge. Abrams was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, supported US-backed death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador in the 1980s, played a key role in the Reagan administration support for the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and was the person who gave approval for the US-backed coup in Venezuela in 2002. Analyst Vijay Prashad writes the coup violated the charters of the United Nations and of the Organisation of American States and describes efforts to call on the military to rise up against the government have failed. The Trump administration is now threatening a total oil embargo on Venezuela and is leaving the “military option” open. The concerted campaign by the US and Canada to install Juan Guaidó as the new ‘self-declared’ interim President of Venezuela has been met with initial failure. Unfortunately, the illegal and undemocratic attempts to destabilize the country and overthrow the democratically-elected President will continue with harmful consequences. The people of Venezuela are rising once again to defend their country against hostile foreign intervention. It is essential that we support them in this fight. Many groups are holding solidarity rallies and issuing statements of support. Find rallies and protests here and here. While Sanders got all the facts wrong about Venezuela, he did reach the right conclusion: “The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries. We must not go down that road again.” People in the United States have an important role to play in supporting Venezuela and defeating the coup. Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6566 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Jan 28 13:15:23 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: FW: Popular Resistance Newsletter - What activists needs to know about Venezuela References: <131827087.2275795.1548681323826.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <131827087.2275795.1548681323826@mail.yahoo.com> Good God--Maduro as president of OPEC--we can't have that!  No wonder there is an all-out effort for "regime change" mentioned in Washington by politicians of both parties (not even a covert CIA job anymore, which has been going on since Chavez took office)-- might threaten our very Currency!  Don't confuse the issues with facts: it's time for a coup!  (Where's Kissinger when we need him?...) Midge -----Original Message----- From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss To: peace-discuss Sent: Sun, Jan 27, 2019 5:21 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Popular Resistance Newsletter - What activists needs to know about Venezuela #yiv8997909711 #yiv8997909711 #yiv8997909711 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv8997909711 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711MsoNormal, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711MsoNormal, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv8997909711 h1 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:25.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 h2 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:22.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 h3 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:19.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 h4 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:16.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 a:link, #yiv8997909711 span.yiv8997909711MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8997909711 a:visited, #yiv8997909711 span.yiv8997909711MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8997909711 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv8997909711 span.yiv8997909711Heading1Char {color:#365F91;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 span.yiv8997909711Heading2Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 span.yiv8997909711Heading3Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 span.yiv8997909711Heading4Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711readmsgbody, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711readmsgbody, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711readmsgbody {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711externalclass, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711externalclass, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711externalclass {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711h1, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711h1, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711h1 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:25.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711h2, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711h2, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711h2 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:22.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711h3, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711h3, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711h3 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:19.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711h4, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711h4, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711h4 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:16.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711headercontent, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711headercontent, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711headercontent {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;text-align:center;font-size:25.5pt;color:#202020;font-weight:bold;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711bodycontent, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711bodycontent, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711bodycontent {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;background:white;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711yshortcuts, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711yshortcuts, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711yshortcuts {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711mcnpreviewtext, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711mcnpreviewtext, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711mcnpreviewtext {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;display:none;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711yshortcuts1, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711yshortcuts1, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711yshortcuts1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;color:#336699;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711yshortcuts2, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711yshortcuts2, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711yshortcuts2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;color:#336699;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711yshortcuts3, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711yshortcuts3, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711yshortcuts3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;color:#336699;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8997909711 p.yiv8997909711yshortcuts4, #yiv8997909711 li.yiv8997909711yshortcuts4, #yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711yshortcuts4 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;color:#336699;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8997909711 span.yiv8997909711EmailStyle38 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv8997909711 .yiv8997909711MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv8997909711 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv8997909711 div.yiv8997909711WordSection1 {}#yiv8997909711 #yiv8997909711     | | | | Two things stand out about the US coup in Venezuela. First, it is unusually open. Typically, the US tries to hide its coups. Second, the coup is built on a series of obvious falsehoods, yet the bi-partisans in Washington, with a few exceptions, keep repeating them. First, we will correct the falsehoods so readers are all working from the same facts. Second, we will describe how this coup is being defeated. It will be another major embarrassment for the Trump administration and US foreign policy. It is important to understand Venezuela has become a geopolitical conflict as Russia and China are closely allied with Venezuela. China and Russia coming into the backyard of the United States challenges the antiquated Monroe Doctrine.  Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and the second largest gold reserves, as well as diamonds and other minerals such as coltan (needed for electronic devices). And, Venezuela is taking over as president of OPEC and will be in a position to push for oil payments in non-dollar currencies or in cryptocurrencies, a major threat to the US dollar.  Correcting the Record There are a series of false statements repeated by DC officials and corporate media to justify the coup that are so obvious, it is hard to believe they are not intentional. In his two-paragraph comment on the coup, even Senator Bernie Sanders repeated them. 1. Truth: President Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president. President Maduro was re-elected on May 20, 2018, in response to the opposition demanding an early election. The legitimacy of the election of Maduro is so evident that it must be assumed those who say he is illegitimate are either intentionally false or ignorant. The election was scheduled consistent with the Venezuelan Constitution and in consultation with opposition parties. When it became evident that the opposition could not win the election, they decided, under pressure from the United States, to boycott the election in order to undermine its legitimacy. The facts are 9,389,056 people voted, 46% of eligible voters. Sixteen parties participated in the election with six candidates competing for the presidency.  The electoral process was observed by more than 150 election observers. This included 14 electoral commissions from eight countries among them the Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America; two technical electoral missions; and 18 journalists from different parts of the world, among others. According to the international observers, “the elections were very transparent and complied with international parameters and national legislation.” Venezuela has one of the best electoral systems in the world. Voter fraud is not possible as identification and fingerprints are required for each voter. Voting machines are audited before and immediately after the election. Venezuela does something no other country in the world does — a public, citizen’s audit of a random sample of 53% of voting machines that is televised. All 18 parties signed the audits. Maduro won by a wide margin, obtaining 6,248,864 votes, 67.84%; followed by Henri Falcón with 1,927,958, 20.93%; Javier Bertucci with 1,015,895, 10.82%; and Reinaldo Quijada, who obtained 36,246 votes, 0.39% of the total.  This same voting system has been used in elections that Maduro’s party has lost in governor’s and legislative elections. Venezuela is a real democracy with transparent elections. The United States could learn a good deal about real democracy from Venezuela. 2. Truth: The economic crisis is caused by outside intervention, internal sabotage and the decline in oil prices. There is no doubt the economic situation in Venezuela is dire. The cause is the economic war conducted by the United States, the major decline in oil prices and economic sabotage by the opposition. In essence, the United States and opposition created problems in the Venezuelan economy and now say Maduro must be replaced because of problems they created. Oil was discovered in Venezuela in the early part of the 20th Century and has dominated the economy since then. The Dutch Disease, the negative impact of an economy based on one natural resource, causes a sharp inflow of foreign currency, which raises the value of the country’s currency, making the country’s other products less price competitive. It is cheaper to import products rather than create them. This makes it more difficult for segments of the economy like agriculture and manufacturing to develop.  Chavez/Maduro sought to diversify the economy. They put in place thousands of communes and hundreds of thousands of people working in cooperatives to build agriculture and manufacturing. When the global price of oil was cut by more than half, it collapsed Venezuela’s public finances undermining these efforts. The economic war by the US made it difficult for Venezuela to borrow and trade with some countries. Economic sanctions against Venezuela began under President Obama, and the Trump administration escalated them with financial sanctions. United States sanctions cost Venezuela some $6 billion since August, according to an October analysis. Measures against the nation’s oil industry have prohibited the Venezuelan majority-owned company, CITGO, from sending profits back to Venezuela, a $1 billion loss to the government yearly. Now, the Bank of England is refusing to return $1.2 billion in gold reserves after US officials, including Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, lobbied them to cut Venezuela off from its overseas assets. The US economic war and sabotage of the economy by business interests has been exposed as part of the effort to remove Maduro by creating social unrest and lack of confidence in the government.  This has included hoarding of goods, storing essentials in warehouses and selling Venezuelan goods in Colombia. In September 2018, Venezuela pointed to a false media campaign exaggerating migration from Venezuela. They highlighted statistics from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to affirm that Venezuela has the fewest volunteer migrants in the continent. They pointed out 5.6 million Colombians have fled violence in their country and live in Venezuela. Venezuela has programs that have helped thousands of Venezuelans return home. Socialism strengthens economies, as demonstrated in Portugal. Indeed, one criticism of Venezuela is that the Bolivarian Process is moving too slowly to put in place a socialist economy. There is a need for more sectors to be nationalized and put under democratic control of the people. 3. Truth: The opposition is violent, not the Maduro government. Opposition protesters have been extremely violent. One tactic of the opposition was to be violent and then film the government’s response to make the government look violent. When Abby Martin was confronted by opposition protesters, they told her, “Do not film anything that we do. Just film what the government does to us.” She reported on the violence saying, “the vast majority has been caused by either indirect or direct violence by the opposition.” Martin reports the opposition attacked hospitals, burned down the Housing Ministry, assassinated Chavistas and attacked citizen communes such as an art commune that gave free dance and music lessons to local children. Afro-Venezuelans were burned alive. Protesters pulled drivers out of buses and torched the buses. When photos and videos of opposition violence were put on social media, Martin and her colleague, Mike Prysner, became the target of a false media campaign on social media. The opposition did all they could to prevent them from reporting the truth using hundreds of death threats and threats they would be lynched.  In 2017, Venezuela Analysis reported that violent opposition protests included an attack on a maternity hospital endangering the lives of more than 50 newborn babies. Another report described the opposition using snipers to shoot government officials and civilians. Opposition newspapers urged that blunt objects be used to “neutralize” pro-government protesters, resulting in serious injuries and death.  Steve Ellner also reported that violence was coming from the opposition. He pointed to attacks at grocery stores, banks, buses, and government buildings.  Other commentators described specific incidents of violence by the opposition including killing people. Maduro ordered the arrest of a retired general who tweeted how to use wire to decapitate people on motorcycles, which happened, and how to attack armored vehicles with Molotov cocktails.  Documents show that violence was the opposition’s strategy. They sought to “Create situations of crisis in the streets that will facilitate US intervention, as well as NATO forces, with the support of the Colombian government. Whenever possible, the violence should result in deaths or injuries.” The tales of government violence are rooted in lies. The government’s response was Maduro calling for a peace conference describing it as “a national peace conference with all the country’s political sectors … so we Venezuelans can try to neutralize violent groups.” 4. Truth: The National Assembly acted in violation of the law and is in contempt of court. The National Assembly is not the only democratic body in Venezuela. Indeed, its actions since the opposition won a majority have violated the law and protected the violence of the opposition with an embarrassing amnesty bill. On December 6, 2015, the opposition won a parliamentary majority in the Assembly. There were allegations of vote buying in Amazonas state that were investigated by the National Electoral Council, another branch of the government. The Supreme Court barred four legislators from Amazonas taking office, two from the opposition, one allied with the opposition and one from the ruling party. The National Assembly allowed three candidates to take office. The Assembly has been held in contempt of court since July 2016 and their decisions were nullified. Before the court ruling, the Assembly passed an amazing amnesty law, which granted amnesty for crimes the opposition has committed since 1999 (Chavez’ election). The law is an admission of guilt and provides a well-organized catalog of crimes including felonies, crimes committed at public rallies, terrorist acts involving explosives and firearms and undermining the economy. They essentially admitted exactly what Chavez/Maduro have claimed — crimes to overthrow the government for 17 years. Venezuela’s Supreme Court ruled the amnesty law was unconstitutional. Inaccurately, the Trump administration calls the Assembly Venezuela’s only remaining democratic institution. This January, a subsidiary of the state oil company asked the Assembly to intervene claiming the president cannot make reforms to mixed public-private oil businesses without the prior approval of the National Assembly. On January 16, the court ruled that the Assembly was still in contempt of court and could not act. This is also when the Assembly elected Juan Guaidó as their president, who would later appoint himself President of Venezuela, as part of the US-led coup. Guaidó’s election to head the legislature was illegal and nullified by the court. The Assembly still exists but remains in a state of contempt of the judiciary. It can rectify the situation by removing the lawmakers accused of electoral fraud. The Assembly refuses to do so because their goal is to remove Maduro from office and they need a super-majority to do so.    A Timeline of the US Coup in Venezuela In “Anti-Maduro Coalition Grew from Secret Talks,” the Associated Press explains the coup was “only possible because of strong support from the Trump administration, which led a chorus of mostly conservative Latin American governments that immediately recognized Guaidó.” Since August 2017, Donald Trump has been saying that military interventionagainst Venezuela was a distinct possibility. AP describes this as a “watershed moment” in the coup planning. They report Trump pressuring aides and Latin American countries to invade Venezuela. In September, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration had been meeting with coup plotters since mid-2017. The Wall Street Journal reports Trump has long viewed Venezuela as one of his top-three foreign policy priorities, with Iran and North Korea. Trump requested a briefing on Venezuela on his second day in office, talking of the immense potential of Venezuela to become a rich nation through its oil reserves. AP reports that Trump “personally sparked” this as he brought up regime change in Venezuela in every meeting with Latin American leaders. After Maduro was re-elected, administration plans began taking shape, driven in part by key members in the National Security Council and anti-Maduro advocates in Congress like extreme interventionist Senator Marco Rubio. On November 1, John Bolton zeroed in on Latin America, calling Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela a “troika of tyranny.” On January 2, Bolton met with his Brazilian and Colombian counterparts to collaborate to “return Venezuela to its democratic heritage.” On January 10, Maduro was sworn in for his second term, Pompeo spoke with opposition leader Guaidó, pledging support. Canada also played a key role, AP reports that Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaidó the night before Maduro’s inauguration offering Canada’s support. This was 13 days before Guaidó announced he was president of Venezuela. On January 12, the State Department backed Guaidó’s move to invoke his authority as president of the assembly, saying, “It is time to begin the orderly transition to a new government.” On January 15, the National Assembly declared Maduro as illegitimate. The Trump administration worked to get allies lined up to support Guaidó’. By January 18, the Venezuela Foreign Minister was describing a US coup in progress. The night before Guaidó’s announcement on January 23, Vice President Mike Pence put out a video message encouraging Venezuelans to overthrow their government, saying, “We are with you. We stand with you, and we will stay with you.” Guaidó also received a phone call from Pence the night before he appointed himself president where he pledged that the U.S. would back Guaidó. Guaidó declared that Maduro’s government was illegitimate and he was assuming the presidency. In a well-coordinated charade, almost instantly, Trump recognized Guaidó as the country’s rightful leader. To further demonstrate the preconceived, tightly coordinated and efficiently carried out the coup, US allies, among them Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, and Peru, quickly recognized the coup president. The Trump administration is claiming Guaidó represents the lawful government and is entitled to all Venezuelan revenues. The State Department notified the Federal Reserve that Guaidó is the agent for access to Venezuelan assets in US banks. Nearly as quickly, Maduro drew statements of support from Russia, China, Turkey, Mexico, Cuba, Bolivia, and others. The Venezuelan Supreme Court called for an investigation into the National Assembly and Guaidó, regarding the illegal usurpation of Executive power. The Venezuelan military announced it supported Maduro and Russia warned the US not to intervene militarily. On January 25, the Organization of American States, which is traditionally a US tool, rejected a resolution to recognize Guaidó. Medea Benjamin of CODE PINK interrupted Pence at the OAS holding a sign that said: “a coup is not a democratic transition!” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza thanked Benjamin, saying, “With her protest, she revealed the macabre coup plan against Venezuela, we will always prevail, thank you!” Eighteen countries defeated the proposal. At the UN Security Council meeting on January 26, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused the United States of attempting “to engineer a coup d’etat.” He demanded to know whether the Trump administration “is ready to use military force” against Venezuela. European countries gave Venezuela eight days to hold an election, a suggestion Venezuela rejected. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Venezuela an “illegitimate mafia state.” He accused Russia and China of trying “to prop up Maduro.” Both China and Russia have told the US not to intervene in Venezuela’s internal affairs. In December, Russia sent two nuclear-capable strategic Tu-160 bombers to Venezuela along with an An-124 heavy military transport plane and an II-62 long-haul plane. As of December, Russia has one brigade in Venezuela and was discussing sending a second military brigade to Venezuela even before the coup due to the continued threat of intervention from the United States. China has lent over $50 billion to Venezuela through oil-for-loan agreements over the past decade and has become a partner in the Venezuelan oil industry. In December, seven months since signing a financial business venture with China, Venezuela’s oil production has doubled to 130,000 barrels per day. The take-over of Venezuela’s oil would also be an attack on China. China and Venezuela signed 28 bilateral strategic cooperation agreements on September 14 in the areas of oil, mining, security, technology, finance, and health. Demonstrating the nature of the coup president, the first acts that Guaidó took were to seek a loan from the International Monetary Fund, which would put Venezuela in debt to western bankers and under their control, and to privatize the Venezuelan oil industry, which would rob Venezuela of the funds being used to lift up the poor and working class. The appointment by Mike Pompeo of Elliott Abrams as the person in charge of overseeing operations “to restore democracy in Venezuela” is an ominous sign. It is scandalous and demonstrates the most extreme elements of the US establishment are leading the charge. Abrams was convicted during the Iran-Contra scandal, supported US-backed death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador in the 1980s, played a key role in the Reagan administration support for the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and was the person who gave approval for the US-backed coup in Venezuela in 2002. Analyst Vijay Prashad writes the coup violated the charters of the United Nations and of the Organisation of American States and describes efforts to call on the military to rise up against the government have failed. The Trump administration is now threatening a total oil embargo on Venezuela and is leaving the “military option” open. The concerted campaign by the US and Canada to install Juan Guaidó as the new ‘self-declared’ interim President of Venezuela has been met with initial failure. Unfortunately, the illegal and undemocratic attempts to destabilize the country and overthrow the democratically-elected President will continue with harmful consequences. The people of Venezuela are rising once again to defend their country against hostile foreign intervention. It is essential that we support them in this fight. Many groups are holding solidarity rallies and issuing statements of support. Find rallies and protests here and here. While Sanders got all the facts wrong about Venezuela, he did reach the right conclusion: “The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries. We must not go down that road again.” People in the United States have an important role to play in supporting Venezuela and defeating the coup.   | | | |   | | _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6566 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Jan 28 17:34:21 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:34:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Opinion | Paths to Power: How Every Member Got to Congress - The New York Times References: <7A030552-F163-48FC-9318-74228F115D93@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <3601B0EB-25B6-47D0-8158-A08333507FCC@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Opinion | Paths to Power: How Every Member Got to Congress - The New York Times Date: January 28, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/opinion/sunday/paths-to-congress.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage Opinion | Paths to Power: How Every Member Got to Congress Find a representative Alabama Bradley Byrne Gary Palmer Martha Roby Mike Rogers Mo Brooks Robert B. Aderholt Terri Sewell Alaska Don Young Arizona Andy Biggs Ann Kirkpatrick David Schweikert Debbie Lesko Greg Stanton Paul Gosar Raúl M. Grijalva Ruben Gallego Tom O'Halleran Arkansas Bruce Westerman French Hill Rick Crawford Steve Womack California Adam B. Schiff Alan Lowenthal Ami Bera Anna G. Eshoo Barbara Lee Brad Sherman Devin Nunes Doris O. Matsui Doug LaMalfa Duncan Hunter Eric Swalwell Gil Cisneros Grace F. Napolitano Harley Rouda Jackie Speier Jared Huffman Jerry McNerney Jim Costa Jimmy Gomez Jimmy Panetta John Garamendi Josh Harder Juan Vargas Judy Chu Julia Brownley Karen Bass Katie Hill Katie Porter Ken Calvert Kevin McCarthy Linda T. Sánchez Lou Correa Lucille Roybal-Allard Mark DeSaulnier Mark Takano Maxine Waters Mike Levin Mike Thompson Nancy Pelosi Nanette Diaz Barragán Norma J. Torres Paul Cook Pete Aguilar Raul Ruiz Ro Khanna Salud Carbajal Scott Peters Susan A. Davis T.J. Cox Ted Lieu Tom McClintock Tony Cárdenas Zoe Lofgren Colorado Diana DeGette Doug Lamborn Ed Perlmutter Jason Crow Joe Neguse Ken Buck Scott R. Tipton Connecticut Jahana Hayes Jim Himes Joe Courtney John Larson Rosa L. DeLauro Delaware Lisa Blunt Rochester Florida Al Lawson Alcee L. Hastings Bill Posey Brian Mast Charlie Crist Daniel Webster Darren Soto Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Debbie Wasserman Schultz Donna Shalala Francis Rooney Frederica S. Wilson Greg Steube Gus M. Bilirakis John Rutherford Kathy Castor Lois Frankel Mario Diaz-Balart Matt Gaetz Michael Waltz Neal Dunn Ross Spano Stephanie Murphy Ted Deutch Ted Yoho Val Demings Vern Buchanan Georgia Austin Scott Barry Loudermilk David Scott Doug Collins Drew Ferguson IV Earl L. Carter Hank Johnson Jody B. Hice John Lewis Lucy McBath Rick W. Allen Rob Woodall Sanford D. Bishop Jr. Tom Graves Hawaii Ed Case Tulsi Gabbard Idaho Mike Simpson Russ Fulcher Illinois Adam Kinzinger Bill Foster Bobby L. Rush Brad Schneider Cheri Bustos Daniel Lipinski Danny K. Davis Darin LaHood Jan Schakowsky Jesús Garcia John Shimkus Lauren Underwood Mike Bost Mike Quigley Raja Krishnamoorthi Robin L. Kelly Rodney Davis Sean Casten Indiana André Carson Greg Pence Jackie Walorski Jim Baird Jim Banks Larry Bucshon Peter J. Visclosky Susan W. Brooks Trey Hollingsworth Iowa Abby Finkenauer Cindy Axne David Loebsack Steve King Kansas Roger W. Marshall Ron Estes Sharice Davids Steve Watkins Kentucky Andy Barr Brett Guthrie Harold Rogers James Comer John Yarmuth Thomas Massie Louisiana Cedric L. Richmond Clay Higgins Garret Graves Mike Johnson Ralph Abraham Steve Scalise Maine Chellie Pingree Jared Golden Maryland Andy Harris Anthony G. Brown C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger David Trone Elijah E. Cummings Jamie Raskin John Sarbanes Steny H. Hoyer Massachusetts Ayanna Pressley Bill Keating Jim McGovern Joseph P. Kennedy III Katherine M. Clark Lori Trahan Richard E. Neal Seth Moulton Stephen F. Lynch Michigan Andy Levin Bill Huizenga Brenda Lawrence Daniel T. Kildee Debbie Dingell Elissa Slotkin Fred Upton Haley Stevens Jack Bergman John Moolenaar Justin Amash Paul Mitchell Rashida Tlaib Tim Walberg Minnesota Angie Craig Betty McCollum Collin C. Peterson Dean Phillips Ilhan Omar Jim Hagedorn Pete Stauber Tom Emmer Mississippi Bennie G. Thompson Michael Guest Steven M. Palazzo Trent Kelly Missouri Ann Wagner Billy Long Blaine Luetkemeyer Emanuel Cleaver Jason Smith Sam Graves Vicky Hartzler William Lacy Clay Montana Greg Gianforte Nebraska Adrian Smith Don Bacon Jeff Fortenberry Nevada Dina Titus Mark Amodei Steven Horsford Susie Lee New Hampshire Ann McLane Kuster Chris Pappas New Jersey Albio Sires Andy Kim Bill Pascrell Jr. Bonnie Watson Coleman Christopher H. Smith Donald M. Payne Jr. Donald Norcross Frank Pallone Jr. Jeff Van Drew Josh Gottheimer Mikie Sherrill Tom Malinowski New Mexico Ben Ray Luján Deb Haaland Xochitl Torres Small New York Adriano Espaillat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Anthony Brindisi Antonio Delgado Brian Higgins Carolyn B. Maloney Chris Collins Eliot L. Engel Elise M. Stefanik Grace Meng Gregory W. Meeks Hakeem Jeffries Jerrold Nadler John Katko Joseph Morelle José E. Serrano Kathleen M. Rice Lee M. Zeldin Max Rose Nita Lowey Nydia M. Velázquez Paul Tonko Peter T. King Sean Patrick Maloney Thomas R. Suozzi Tom Reed Yvette D. Clarke North Carolina Alma Adams David E. Price David Rouzer G. K. Butterfield George Holding Mark Meadows Mark Walker Patrick T. McHenry Richard Hudson Ted Budd Virginia Foxx Walter B. Jones North Dakota Kelly Armstrong Ohio Anthony Gonzalez Bill Johnson Bob Gibbs Brad Wenstrup David Joyce Jim Jordan Joyce Beatty Marcia L. Fudge Marcy Kaptur Michael R. Turner Robert E. Latta Steve Chabot Steve Stivers Tim Ryan Troy Balderson Warren Davidson Oklahoma Frank D. Lucas Kendra Horn Kevin Hern Markwayne Mullin Tom Cole Oregon Earl Blumenauer Greg Walden Kurt Schrader Peter DeFazio Suzanne Bonamici Pennsylvania Brendan F. Boyle Brian Fitzpatrick Chrissy Houlahan Conor Lamb Dan Meuser Dwight Evans Glenn Thompson Guy Reschenthaler John Joyce Lloyd Smucker Madeleine Dean Mary Gay Scanlon Matt Cartwright Mike Doyle Mike Kelly Scott Perry Susan Wild Tom Marino Rhode Island David N. Cicilline Jim Langevin South Carolina James E. Clyburn Jeff Duncan Joe Cunningham Joe Wilson Ralph Norman Tom Rice William Timmons South Dakota Dusty Johnson Tennessee Chuck Fleischmann David Kustoff Jim Cooper John Rose Mark Green Phil Roe Scott DesJarlais Steve Cohen Tim Burchett Texas Al Green Bill Flores Brian Babin Chip Roy Colin Allred Dan Crenshaw Eddie Bernice Johnson Filemon Vela Henry Cuellar Joaquin Castro Jodey C. Arrington John Carter John Ratcliffe Kay Granger Kenny Marchant Kevin Brady Lance Gooden Lizzie Pannill Fletcher Lloyd Doggett Louie Gohmert Mac Thornberry Marc Veasey Michael C. Burgess Michael Cloud Michael McCaul Mike Conaway Pete Olson Randy Weber Roger Williams Ron Wright Sheila Jackson Lee Sylvia Garcia Van Taylor Veronica Escobar Vicente Gonzalez Will Hurd Utah Ben McAdams Chris Stewart John R. Curtis Rob Bishop Vermont Peter Welch Virginia Abigail Spanberger Ben Cline Bobby Scott Denver Riggleman Don Beyer Jr. Donald McEachin Elaine Luria Gerry Connolly Jennifer Wexton Morgan Griffith Rob Wittman Washington Adam Smith Cathy McMorris Rodgers Dan Newhouse Denny Heck Derek Kilmer Jaime Herrera Beutler Kim Schrier Pramila Jayapal Rick Larsen Suzan DelBene West Virginia Alex Mooney Carol Miller David B. McKinley Wisconsin Bryan Steil Glenn Grothman Gwen Moore Jim Sensenbrenner Mark Pocan Mike Gallagher Ron Kind Sean P. Duffy Wyoming Liz Cheney Under-GraduateGraduateCareerGovernmentTheHousePrivatecollegePubliccollegeElitecollegeLaw schoolMedical schoolMaster’sDoctorateNo bachelor’sdegreeLobbyingor activismBusiness ormanagementPrivate lawMilitaryMedicineNonprofits and unionsEducationRealestateBlue-collar or service jobSportsScience or engineeringReligious leaderFarmingor ranchingMediaLawenforcementNo previous officeLocal governmentPublic lawyer or judgeStatelegislatureFederal or state office The United States does not grant titles of nobility. There are no lords, barons or dukes here. At least, not officially. Unofficially, however, Congress is made up of people who have credentials and experiences vastly different from those of most citizens. Unofficially, considering education, career, family background and personal wealth, it seems that America has a ruling class — or at least a limited number of ways to enter the halls of power. Here, we’ve traced the pre-congressional career of every House member in the 116th Congress, showing the narrow but well-trodden paths through prestigious schools, lucrative jobs and local political offices that led the latest crop of legislators to Capitol Hill. The new House has a notable number of political novices, and more women and people of color than any Congress in history. But a majority of members, even the new ones, still made it to Washington by way of institutions and professions that are out of reach for most Americans. More than 70 percent of House members were lawyers in private practice, businesspeople (including employees in insurance, banking, finance and real estate) or medical professionals. That work can inform the types of bills they introduce, according to research by Katie Francis, a faculty member at Western Governors University. Doctors sponsor more health care legislation, for example. In part because Congress is filled with successful white-collar professionals, the House is much, much richer than the people it represents, and affluent politicians support legislation that benefits their own class at the expense of others. Wealthier legislators are, for instance, more likely to vote to repeal the estate tax. “The rosy notion that lawmakers from business and professional backgrounds want what is best for everyone is seriously out of line with the realities of legislative decision-making in the United States,” wrote Nicholas Carnes, a Duke professor of public policy, in his book “White-Collar Government.” About 5 percent of representatives don't have a bachelor's degree, compared with about two-thirds of Americans 25 and older. Hover to see members with no bachelor’s degree The path to the House starts with higher education. About half of members graduated from public universities, often in their home states, but more than 10 percent of representatives have bachelor’s degrees from elite, private colleges. It makes sense to elect educated leaders, and voters seem to think a college education is a necessary qualification for office. But the link between having a degree and being a more effective politician is tenuous. Research on legislators in the United States and in Brazil shows that lawmakers with more formal education are not more productive, more popular or less likely to be corrupt. The gap between legislators and their constituents is stark in graduate education, too. Almost 70 percent of representatives attended graduate school, but only around 10 percent of Americans 25 and older can say the same. More than one in three members have law degrees, compared with around 13 percent in the United Kingdom's Parliament. Law school Among both Democrats and Republicans, lawyers are staggeringly overrepresented: They constitute less than 1 percent of the voting-age population but more than one-third of the House. Perhaps it is natural for the people writing laws to study them first. But the United States is an exception internationally. Research by Adam Bonica of Stanford and Maya Sen of Harvard found that in Sweden, France and Denmark, lawyers make up less than 10 percent of the legislature. Not only are lawyers more likely to run for office, they are also more likely to win. This success is largely because of the advantage they have in early fund-raising, drawing from professional networks of other lawyers and affluent professionals. Once in office, lawyers tend to vote in a way that benefits their profession. They are less likely to support laws that would cap awards for damages or regulate legal fees, according to Mr. Bonica and Ms. Sen’s research. Almost 40 percent of House members, more than half Republicans, cite business experience. Business owners, executives or professionals In addition to small business owners and corporate executives, the House is filled with people who worked in finance, insurance and banking. Members with business backgrounds sometimes argue that their “outside the Beltway” experience will enable them to run government more like a business — to reduce grift and waste and to pass laws more efficiently. Indeed, a majority of Americans think the country would be better governed with more people from business and management, according to a 2014 Gallup poll. House members with business backgrounds get more contributions from corporations and vote for pro-business legislation more often. Other research has shown that states with more legislators who worked in the insurance industry are likely to pass bills more favorable to it. Fewer than 5 percent of representatives cite blue-collar or service jobs in their biographies. Blue-collar or service job They include Tom Marino, Republican of Pennsylvania, who worked in factories before law school and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, who often refers to her working-class experience as a bartender when explaining her left-leaning economic policy positions. Mr. Carnes notes that there is no dearth of politically ambitious, qualified working-class candidates. And when working-class candidates run, they do just as well as candidates from other backgrounds. But blue-collar workers are less able to shoulder the practical burdens associated with running a campaign — like taking time off from paid employment — and less likely to be asked to run by local party leaders and officials. To get people with a more diverse set of experiences into Congress, he argues, we need to focus on recruiting working-class candidates at the local level — often years before a potential congressional run. Nearly one in five members served or currently serve in the armed forces, including the National Guard. Military experience This is a substantial decline from the early 1970s, when more than 70 percent of Congress had military experience. Seventy percent of veterans in the House are Republicans — but several Democratic women elected in 2018 made their military experience a focus of their campaigns, including Chrissy Houlahan, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who served in the Air Force. Common fields for Republicans include medicine, real estate and farming. For Democrats, they include teaching, nonprofits and unions. Experience in one of the above fields There are rarer occupations, too. Colin Allred, Democrat of Texas, played for the Tennessee Titans in the N.F.L. before becoming a lawyer. Jody B. Hice, Republican of Georgia, served as a pastor before stepping down to run for office. He also started a conservative talk radio show. Other professions are underrepresented, with material consequences for lawmaking. Only about 15 United States representatives are scientists or engineers, which could partly explain lackluster action on climate change and ineffectual regulation of technology companies. Women tend to have followed more varied paths to Capitol Hill: A smaller proportion are lawyers and businesspeople. Female representatives While men might run for office because of a “longstanding desire to be an elected official,” women are more likely to run because “they encounter something in their engagement with the political system that angers them enough or frustrates them enough,” said Kelly Dittmar, a political scientist at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. When they run, men and women have roughly the same chance of winning. But research by Sarah A. Fulton, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, shows that female candidates tend to be more qualified. Many female representatives campaigned on their experience in business and the working world. Some, like Ann Wagner, Republican of Missouri, also highlighted more traditional domestic roles. Her website says her “most important jobs,” despite her previous role as ambassador to Luxembourg, “have always been as a wife, mother and now grandmother.” No previous political office Historically, it is somewhat rare for representatives to reach the House without holding previous political office. Nearly 200 representatives have experience in a state legislature; others were mayors, local district attorneys or state agency heads. These experiences aren’t just symbolic. New legislators with political experience introduce and pass more bills, according to Ms. Francis’ research. But drawing politicians from local governments and state legislatures also gives an edge to people who can afford to take those jobs. In some states, those positions don’t pay enough to live on. New Hampshire’s legislature, for example, pays just $200 per two-year term. As a result, state politicians are often “local economic elites and corporate titans,” said Jake Grumbach, a researcher at Princeton. The new representatives in the 116th Congress, however, do represent a significant break from the past. More than 40 percent of those elected in November are political novices who have never worked in government. Many were inspired to run in order to stand up to President Trump’s agenda — two-thirds of new members are Democrats — but they may also have been emboldened by Mr. Trump’s lack of political experience. “That hasn’t translated into lots of working-class candidates in this cycle,” Mr. Carnes said, but “the larger narrative I see on both sides is, ‘You don’t have to be an establishment type to be a good politician.’” Sahil Chinoy and Jessia Ma are graphics editors for The Times. Isvett Verde contributed research. Methodology We did not consider associate degrees or schools that a representative attended but did not graduate from. We counted only a first bachelor’s degree. “Elite colleges” refers to the eight Ivy League colleges and Duke, M.I.T., Stanford and the University of Chicago. We counted only full-time jobs held for a substantial period of a representative’s adult career; we discounted summer jobs, adjunct teaching positions and volunteering or serving on a board. We did not include political party positions or staff jobs in a congressional or other political office. Government experience includes both elected and appointed office, but does not include staff roles in a government agency. Note The results of the 2018 election in North Carolina’s Ninth District have not been certified, so no representative is included here. Sources Biographical Directory of the United States Congress; CQ Roll Call; officials’ websites; Vote Smart; news reports; “Pathways to Congress: Precongressional Careers and Congressional Behavior”; Nicholas Carnes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 21:37:45 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:37:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News Message-ID: Last week we discussed Aaron Mate’s departure from TRNN, and Paul Jay’s discussion that they have been urged to offer opposing views, which means, allowing those who don’t provide truth and evidence the opportunity to present propaganda. We have limited alternative media, and I highly recommend we oppose this track. They can be contacted at: https://therealnews.com/about/contact-us From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 21:44:59 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:44:59 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From 'Just Foreign Policy' Message-ID: <2A066D3B-E7E4-4EC3-8AAA-69858FD40EF0@gmail.com> Tell your Senators to vote NO on Rubio's attack on our Constitutional rights. The Senate is expected to vote today at around 5:30 PM ET on Marco Rubio’s package of Netanyahu demands, S.1. Rubio’s bill, which contains the “Combatting BDS Act of 2019,” attacks Americans’ First Amendment right to boycott to protest U.S. foreign policy. In this particular case, it attacks the right to boycott to protest U.S. support of illegal Israeli colonies in the Palestinian West Bank. But if they can take away our right to boycott the “settlements,” they can take away our right to boycott the Saudi war in Yemen. This bill calls on state and local governments to withhold contracts from any individual or business that boycotts “Israel,” where “Israel” is typically defined as including the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. State laws enacted with such encouragement have already hit individual American citizens with loyalty oaths that have forced teachers out of public employment. Federal judges in Kansas and Arizona have ruled these types of laws to be a violation of our First Amendment right to boycott. The ACLU says that all laws punishing Americans for “advocating BDS” violate the First Amendment by penalizing Americans for exercising their protected political speech rights. J Street’s call alert against the bill is here. Rubio’s bill also contains broad Netanyahu-endorsed sanctions on Syria, Iran, and Russia intended to block realistic diplomacy to end the Syria war and reconstruct Syria. This legislation is a backdoor to continuing the unconstitutional Syria war that was never authorized by Congress. Call your Senators now at 202-225-3121. When you reach a staffer or leave a message, you can say something like: “I urge you to vote NO on Senator Rubio’s bill to take away my First Amendment right to boycott and to continue the war in Syria.” From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Jan 29 02:25:49 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:25:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > Last week we discussed Aaron Mate’s departure from TRNN, and Paul Jay’s > discussion that they have been urged to offer opposing views, which > means, allowing those who don’t provide truth and evidence the > opportunity to present propaganda. I asked TRNN the following: > Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories > which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary > Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political > novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was > when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to blame > for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed > this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from > TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a difference > of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. > > Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? > > And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? > > If not, why not? From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue Jan 29 02:58:35 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 02:58:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prominent Democrats Form Pro-Israel Group to Counter Skepticism on the Left Message-ID: >From The New York Times: Prominent Democrats Form Pro-Israel Group to Counter Skepticism on the Left The group will create a political action committee and may be active in Democratic primaries. It is also planning to organize pro-Israel Democrats in early nominating states for 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/politics/democrats-israel-palestine.html From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Jan 29 03:07:05 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:07:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prominent Democrats Form Pro-Israel Group to Counter Skepticism on the Left In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2D4F40E3-167E-4918-A8AC-3DBE8CEE3CF0@illinois.edu> Just one more political action committee for Israel/Zionism? It won’t make that much difference. > On Jan 28, 2019, at 8:58 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From The New York Times: > > Prominent Democrats Form Pro-Israel Group to Counter Skepticism on the Left > > The group will create a political action committee and may be active in Democratic primaries. It is also planning to organize pro-Israel Democrats in early nominating states for 2020. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/politics/democrats-israel-palestine.html > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 03:55:18 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:55:18 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Duckworth voted yes on Rubio's anti-BDS bill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://normanfinkelstein.com/2019/01/22/why-kamela-harris-should-run-for-president-of-israel/ On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:32 PM Robert Naiman via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00011 > > The ACLU opposed this bill on First Amendment grounds. > > Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, and Brown voted no. Durbin voted no. Kaine, > Murphy voted no. Jack Reed voted no. Baldwin voted no. > > But Duckworth voted yes. > > Profiles in courage Booker and Harris skipped the vote. > > === > > Robert Reuel Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Jan 29 04:07:03 2019 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 22:07:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Duckworth voted yes on Rubio's anti-BDS bill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ‘More AIPAC Than J Street’: Kamala Harris Runs to the Right on Foreign Policy The California senator’s hardline positions on Israel-Palestine point to a dangerous disregard for international law. By Stephen Zunes, January 28, 2019. https://fpif.org/more-aipac-than-j-street-kamala-harris-runs-to-the-right-on-foreign-policy/ === Robert Reuel Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 9:56 PM David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > http://normanfinkelstein.com/2019/01/22/why-kamela-harris-should-run-for-president-of-israel/ > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:32 PM Robert Naiman via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> >> https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00011 >> >> The ACLU opposed this bill on First Amendment grounds. >> >> Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, and Brown voted no. Durbin voted no. Kaine, >> Murphy voted no. Jack Reed voted no. Baldwin voted no. >> >> But Duckworth voted yes. >> >> Profiles in courage Booker and Harris skipped the vote. >> >> === >> >> Robert Reuel Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jan 29 19:33:16 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:33:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: forms to Send a Letter to Senator Durbin and your Representatives to condemn the US coup in Venezuela. Webinar today from on the ground in Venezuela with Charlie Hardy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002a01d4b809$7b8fdff0$72af9fd0$@comcast.net> From: ChicagoALBA Solidarity Committee [mailto:chicagoalbasolidarity at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:56 PM To: Stansfield Smith Subject: forms to Send a Letter to Senator Durbin and your Representatives to condemn the US coup in Venezuela. Webinar today from on the ground in Venezuela with Charlie Hardy Take Action! Tell Sen. Durbin that the US doesn’t choose who is president of Venezuela! https://afgj.salsalabs.org/tellsenatordurbin-venezuela/index.html Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, has endorsed President Trump’s decision to foster a coup in Venezuela by issuing a statement recognizing Juan Guaido, self-proclaimed “president” as the leader of Venezuela. The Washington Post has reported on the US government and the Venezuelan opposition secret talks that led to the coup attempt. The New York Times previously reported that Trump met with disloyal Venezuelan military officers. Sen. Durbin himself went to Venezuela last year and met with opposition leaders. Fill out the form here to send a message to Sen. Durbin that you oppose a US-orchestrated coup in Venezuela. Click on the link above to send a letter. Send letters to all your Representatives: Oppose US & Canada Regime Change Efforts in Venezuela https://afgj.org/take-action-now-oppose-us-regime-change-efforts-in-venezuela Today US President Donald Trump took the extraordinary and illegal action to recognize the president of Venezuela’s legislature as the “interim president” of the country. Sign the petition HERE to tell your elected officials NO US/CANADA-ENGINEERED COUP In Venezuela! It is clear that the US government and corporate media believe they have entered the final offensive to replace the elected Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro with one that will be subservient to the interests of the US and its allies. Tell your elected officials (US and Canadian) that you oppose foreign intervention in Venezuela’s internal affairs. This action is counter to both the United Nations and Organization of American States Charters and thus illegal under international law. Webinar today 7 pm Central Time with a report from Venezuela by Charlie Hardy You can register today and listen tomorrow or later if need be. https://afgj.org/register-for-januarys-venezuela-webinar Now is the time for action to condemn the overt and illegal U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Part of that action needs to be sharing narratives that are completely absent in corporate mainstream news. To that end we are excited to have Charlie Hardy join us for January's Venezuela Webinar for a presentation and Q&A.. He regularly visits Venezuela, and has been there since the beginning of January, throughout this latest U.S. coup attempt Charlie Hardy is the author of Cowboy in Caracas, A North American’s Memoir of Venezuela’s Democratic Revolution. He arrived in Venezuela in 1985 as an associate priest of the Catholic Maryknoll Missionaries. For eight years he lived in a pressed-cardboard-and-tin shack in a Caracas barrio. He married in 1994 and continued to live in Venezuela until 2011 when he returned to the U.S. and became involved in national politics. He was the 2014 candidate of the Democratic Party in Wyoming for the U.S. Senate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jan 29 19:39:32 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:39:32 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Veterans Call to Resist U.S. Coup in Venezuela In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: <004701d4b80a$5b79ce00$126d6a00$@comcast.net> From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:34 AM To: nodronesdiscussion at lists.riseup.net Subject: Fw: Veterans Call to Resist U.S. Coup in Venezuela _____ _____ From: vfp-all at yahoogroups.com on behalf of Gerry Condon projectsafehaven at hotmail.com [vfp-all] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 2:19 PM To: projectafehaven at hotmail.com Subject: [vfp-all] Veterans Call to Resist U.S. Coup in Venezuela The Veterans For Peace Board of Directors issued the following statement at its meeting in Tijuana, Mexico on Sunday, January 27. Veterans Call to Resist U.S. Coup in Venezuela https://www.veteransforpeace.org/our-work/position-statements/veterans-call- resist-us-coup-venezuela Image removed by sender. Veterans Call to Resist U.S. Coup in Venezuela | Veterans For Peace Veterans For Peace is outraged at the unfolding coup d'etat in Venezuela, which is clearly being orchestrated by the U.S. government. Two hundred years of blatant U.S. intervention in Latin America must come to an end. www.veteransforpeace.org Veterans Call to Resist U.S. Coup in Venezuela Image removed by sender. Veterans For Peace is outraged at the unfolding coup d'etat in Venezuela, which is clearly being orchestrated by the U.S. government. Two hundred years of blatant U.S. intervention in Latin America must come to an end. Veterans For Peace was founded in 1985, in part prompted by the U.S.-backed "contra" war in Nicaragua, and U.S. support for the rightwing government in the bloody civil war in neighboring El Salvador. We did not want to see another Vietnam War in Central America. Years of increasingly crippling U.S. sanctions have succeeded in destabilizing the Venezuelan economy and created great unrest, division and migration. The U.S. government encouraged Venezuelan opposition parties to boycott last year's election. Now they are calling the election fraudulent, and attempting to install a little-known politician more to their liking. This is part of a dangerous game that the U.S. continues to play throughout Latin America. President Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton has called Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba the "Troika of Tyranny," and boasted that they have now "met their match." Right-wing Cuban American Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, said to be deeply involved in orchestrating this coup, has implied that U.S.. military intervention may be next. Responding to questions about possible military intervention, President Trump says that "all options are on the table." Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have openly encouraged the Venezuelan military to stage a coup and U.S. officials have even met with potential coup leaders. Right-wing governments in Colombia and Brazil could also possibly be involved in U..S.-coordinated military action against the democratically elected government of Venezuela. In our Statement of Purpose, Veterans For Peace promises to "restrain our governments from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations." We call on our members in over 100 U.S. cities and internationally, to make their voices heard. We must do all we can to prevent a bloody civil war from taking a huge toll on the Venezuelan people, and the peace-loving people of the hemisphere. Call your political representatives, write letters to the editors, protest in the streets, resist yet another blow against democracy and human rights in this hemisphere and the world. For more historical context details about the current situation in Venezuela, please read this Open Letter signed by 70 academics, Latin America experts and activists, including Veterans For Peace Advisory Board members, Medea Benjamin and Phyllis Bennis. __._,_.___ _____ Posted by: Gerry Condon _____ Reply via web post . Reply to sender . Reply to group . Start a New Topic . Messages in this topic (2) _____ Image removed by sender. Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. _____ Visit Your Group Image removed by sender. Yahoo! Groups . Privacy . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use SPONSORED LINKS Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. . Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 542 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1073 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 422 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 01:14:51 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:14:51 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] EMERGENCY SHELTERS, WARMING CENTERS, SOUP KITCHENS iN C-U Message-ID: <61F53316-0242-4EBF-84CF-DE30DE5B8C8E@gmail.com> http://champaignil.gov/emergency-shelters/?fbclid=IwAR04DkxL0YPY5Vx_fPg2VAmyUoNNlWpXurnbCQXYbSM-r9IpgR1q8RxiXcM From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jan 30 19:32:40 2019 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:32:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] IMPORTANT health advice from the business press Message-ID: [cid:AF60585A-9DA2-4E82-860E-873CDE629E0D at hsd1.il.comcast.net] https://www.businessinsider.com/boogers-snot-eat-nose-unhealthy-science-virus-bacteria-2019-1?utm_source=email&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop&pt=385758&ct=Sailthru_BI_Newsletters&mt=8&utm_campaign=email_article There are serious health reasons why you shouldn't eat your boogers Odds are you are surrounded by nose-pickers. It's true, in one study, 91% of adults admitted to picking their nose regularly. So, chances are, you've probably mined for some juicy nose nuggets yourself. But maybe you didn't stop there. Maybe you ate those boogers too! And it turns out, that slimy snack could hurt more than just your social standing. Let's take a closer look at that booger. It's mostly made of water, gel-like proteins that give it that gooey consistency and special immune proteins that fight off germs. Those immune proteins are especially useful. Because boogers are teeming with harmful viruses, like influenza. That's the whole point, actually. Boogers serve as your body's front-line defense against invading germs. When you breathe in, you're not just inhaling air. You're also taking in bacteria, viruses, and dirt. Which get trapped by a layer of sticky snot that lines your nostrils. It's like fly paper for the flu. And as you continue to breathe, air hardens the mucus into a solid booger, a gooey prison cell for your ensnared enemies. Now, normally, you can get rid of that bacteria-ridden ball either when you sneeze or blow your nose. But if you decide to eat it instead it stands to reason that you're putting yourself at risk of infection. Because as your body digests the booger, it can release those harmful pathogens into your system. Now, some people claim that eating your boogers can strengthen your immune system. By training your body to recognize and attack invading microbes. But, sorry to say, there's zero scientific evidence to support any health benefits from eating your boogers. And besides whether or not you eat your boogers just getting ahold of them can be dangerous. For example, scratching up the inside of your nose opens the door for a nasty bacteria that lurks under your fingernails, Staphylococcus aureus. A 2006 study found that nose-pickers were more likely to have Staph in their nose than those who abstain. And that's a big problem. Since Staph can cause serious abscesses or pus-filled pockets inside your nose and on your face. Even worse, if you keep picking you could actually puncture your septum. In one case, a 53 year old woman managed to carve a hole right through her sinus. And if that sinus becomes infected badly enough, it can erode your skull leaving a door open for bacteria to march right into your brain. To be fair, these are extreme scenarios. One time probably won't hurt you. The next time you feel the urge to mine for green gold, just grab a tissue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Picking his nose.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 140576 bytes Desc: Picking his nose.jpeg URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Jan 30 23:36:53 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:36:53 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> I wrote: > I asked TRNN the following: > > Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories > which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary > Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political > novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was > when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to blame > for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed > this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from > TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a difference > of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. > > Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? > > And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? > > If not, why not? I thought I'd follow up to this since I received a response and give some thoughts of my own. Here's the response I received from TRNN: ---begin quote--- Hi there, Thanks for asking about Aaron’s departure and our editorial approach to the Russia election interference stories. TRNN took a position against Russophobia long before Aaron started working for us. Aaron’s work on Russiagate was worked out together with our editorial team, and we were in full support of the approach. Paul Jay has done numerous editorials and commentaries denouncing attempts to revive Cold War fear mongering. TRNN has always refused to take anything US intelligence agencies say on faith and remain profoundly skeptical of the information that’s in the public domain about election interference and such. Paul has gone further to say even if some or most of the accusations turn out to be true, it’s very secondary when compared to how the American oligarchy undermines what little democracy there is here. This issue has been blown up to defend the Cold War narrative and for partisan advantage. We’ve opposed the demonization of Putin, and our series with Buzgalin gives the whole issue historical context. We’ve said it’s up to Americans to oppose the American oligarchy and the Russian people will decide what to do with theirs. TRNN does not side with either of the elites. No doubt, we’ve lost some capacity to follow these events on a daily basis. That said, we maintain a firm stand against narratives that promote war and mostly serve arms manufacturers. Aaron left over contractual and HR issues that we shouldn’t discuss in public. Best wishes and thanks for your interest. Rosette Sewali Producer & Membership Relations Manager The Real News Network ---end quote--- I'll attempt to review the referenced interviews and see how well this description matches the interviews. The most recent discussion I've seen TRNN give on Russiagate -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaaZYuU9X4I -- features 3 TRNN hosts, two of which have something substantive to say on Russiagate. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia is a transcript of this video. Dharna Noor didn't have much to say in the entire video, and virtually nothing to say on Russiagate. I don't come away with a clear understanding of her take on this 2+ year ongoing issue. Marc Steiner seems to be to be a Russiagate believer who doesn't believe that Russiagate issues decided this election but does buy the idea that ascendant racism is a critical issue that "people are worried about". TRNN head Paul Jay said he didn't know what to believe in Russiagate but found Russiagate claims believable and of minor importance. I take this to mean that Jay believes that Russia had "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton, Trump is awash in corrupt Russian money, and there were meetings between Trump campaign people and some Russians. It would have been good to have Maté on this program to ask for evidence to back the Russiagate stories or point out how all of the Russiagate stories people have looked into fall apart suggesting there's good reason to be far more skeptical of Russiagate stories and the Russiagate claims than what showed up in this piece. As of today, the Mueller investigation has provided no "smoking gun" and no story of significance to back up Russiagate claims and certainly nothing of importance to justify another year of investigation, hearings, indictments, and media distraction. But you won't hear that opinion aired on the above TRNN segment either. I don't see how anyone can come away from 2+ years of Russiagate not knowing what to believe about Russiagate. Aaron Maté left Democracy Now in part over Russiagate disagreements. An article showed up at https://ghionjournal.com/aaron-mate-is-a-beast/ > He [Aaron Maté] left DN in 2016 to join the Real News Network, just as > Goodman was starting to embrace some fairly destructive establishment > viewpoints (where previously she’d played footsy with them) in her > coverage of key events, particularly around Russiagate and the U.S. > proxy war of aggression in Syria. Also, in what is now a deleted tweet, Aaron Maté wrote: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/985980643971608576 on Apr 16, 2018 20:37:58 UTC > I was a producer at @democracynow for 10 years, until early 2016, and > even before I worked there it was hugely formative for me. I disagree > with where it's gone on two crucial issues, Russiagate and especially > Syria. And this got a thread of discussion on reddit.com in https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/8dex0z/aaron_mat%C3%A9_critique_of_democracy_now_what_do_you/ including: > I still listen to DN and support them, but their coverage of Russiagate > went from reasonable moderation to MSNBC-lite around mid 2017, and > their Syria coverage has been about as poor as the MSM, though they do > not actively champion military activity. See also issues tacitly related > to Russiagate and Syria, like their sudden lack of coverage of > Assange's situation and the Al-Nusra presence among Syrian anti-Assad > forces. Democracy Now strikes me as pro-Russiagate or at the very least tacitly supportive of Russiagate because DN repeats Russiagate story claims without critical examination or debunking. This is sharply different from how DN reported the claims about Iraqi WMDs during the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Then DN would repeat a claim from, say, the New York Times and then immediately tell the audience what Hans Blix's group had found when they were on-site doing their investigation -- there was no evidence to back the NYT's claims. I know nothing of the alleged "contractual and HR issues" between Maté and TRNN. Also, in some longer pieces (which were posted to youtube.com both in full and in pieces) Maté and Jay talk and sometimes argued at length. We learned that the two had off-camera disagreements. At some point they thought having these disagreements on-camera would make for good discussions, hence their segments together. From brussel at illinois.edu Thu Jan 31 03:27:39 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:27:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> References: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <1DFD76B5-BD63-4A56-93E5-6F40383B807A@illinois.edu> Pau Jay evidently does not like disagreements with his interpretations of the events he discusses, Russiagate, Israel-Palestine, now Venezuela. As to the latter, he gives credence to the failures of Maduro for the present situation, some of which may be valid, without sufficiently emphasizing the pernicious effects of U.S policies to undermine the government. In the present situation, this is not for the good, where solidarity against U.S. depredations are needed. my 2¢. > On Jan 30, 2019, at 5:36 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I wrote: >> I asked TRNN the following: >> Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories >> which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary >> Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political >> novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was >> when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to blame >> for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed >> this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from >> TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a difference >> of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. >> >> Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? >> >> And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? >> >> If not, why not? > > I thought I'd follow up to this since I received a response and give some thoughts of my own. Here's the response I received from TRNN: > > ---begin quote--- > Hi there, > > Thanks for asking about Aaron’s departure and our editorial approach to the > Russia election interference stories. > > TRNN took a position against Russophobia long before Aaron started working > for us. Aaron’s work on Russiagate was worked out together with our > editorial team, and we were in full support of the approach. Paul Jay has > done numerous editorials and commentaries denouncing attempts to revive > Cold War fear mongering. TRNN has always refused to take anything US > intelligence agencies say on faith and remain profoundly skeptical of the > information that’s in the public domain about election interference and > such. > > Paul has gone further to say even if some or most of the accusations turn > out to be true, it’s very secondary when compared to how the American > oligarchy undermines what little democracy there is here. > > This issue has been blown up to defend the Cold War narrative and for > partisan advantage. > > We’ve opposed the demonization of Putin, and our series with Buzgalin gives > the whole issue historical context. > > We’ve said it’s up to Americans to oppose the American oligarchy and the > Russian people will decide what to do with theirs. TRNN does not side with > either of the elites. > > No doubt, we’ve lost some capacity to follow these events on a daily basis. > That said, we maintain a firm stand against narratives that promote war and > mostly serve arms manufacturers. > > > > Aaron left over contractual and HR issues that we shouldn’t discuss in > public. > > > > Best wishes and thanks for your interest. > > > Rosette Sewali > Producer & Membership Relations Manager > The Real News Network > ---end quote--- > > > > I'll attempt to review the referenced interviews and see how well this description matches the interviews. The most recent discussion I've seen TRNN give on Russiagate -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaaZYuU9X4I -- features 3 TRNN hosts, two of which have something substantive to say on Russiagate. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia is a transcript of this video. > > Dharna Noor didn't have much to say in the entire video, and virtually nothing to say on Russiagate. I don't come away with a clear understanding of her take on this 2+ year ongoing issue. > > Marc Steiner seems to be to be a Russiagate believer who doesn't believe that Russiagate issues decided this election but does buy the idea that ascendant racism is a critical issue that "people are worried about". > > TRNN head Paul Jay said he didn't know what to believe in Russiagate but found Russiagate claims believable and of minor importance. I take this to mean that Jay believes that Russia had "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton, Trump is awash in corrupt Russian money, and there were meetings between Trump campaign people and some Russians. > > It would have been good to have Maté on this program to ask for evidence to back the Russiagate stories or point out how all of the Russiagate stories people have looked into fall apart suggesting there's good reason to be far more skeptical of Russiagate stories and the Russiagate claims than what showed up in this piece. > > As of today, the Mueller investigation has provided no "smoking gun" and no story of significance to back up Russiagate claims and certainly nothing of importance to justify another year of investigation, hearings, indictments, and media distraction. But you won't hear that opinion aired on the above TRNN segment either. I don't see how anyone can come away from 2+ years of Russiagate not knowing what to believe about Russiagate. > > > > > Aaron Maté left Democracy Now in part over Russiagate disagreements. > > An article showed up at https://ghionjournal.com/aaron-mate-is-a-beast/ > >> He [Aaron Maté] left DN in 2016 to join the Real News Network, just as Goodman was starting to embrace some fairly destructive establishment viewpoints (where previously she’d played footsy with them) in her coverage of key events, particularly around Russiagate and the U.S. >> proxy war of aggression in Syria. > > Also, in what is now a deleted tweet, Aaron Maté wrote: > https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/985980643971608576 on Apr 16, 2018 20:37:58 UTC > >> I was a producer at @democracynow for 10 years, until early 2016, and even before I worked there it was hugely formative for me. I disagree with where it's gone on two crucial issues, Russiagate and especially Syria. > > And this got a thread of discussion on reddit.com in https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/8dex0z/aaron_mat%C3%A9_critique_of_democracy_now_what_do_you/ including: > >> I still listen to DN and support them, but their coverage of Russiagate went from reasonable moderation to MSNBC-lite around mid 2017, and >> their Syria coverage has been about as poor as the MSM, though they do >> not actively champion military activity. See also issues tacitly related >> to Russiagate and Syria, like their sudden lack of coverage of >> Assange's situation and the Al-Nusra presence among Syrian anti-Assad >> forces. > > Democracy Now strikes me as pro-Russiagate or at the very least tacitly supportive of Russiagate because DN repeats Russiagate story claims without critical examination or debunking. This is sharply different from how DN reported the claims about Iraqi WMDs during the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Then DN would repeat a claim from, say, the New York Times and then immediately tell the audience what Hans Blix's group had found when they were on-site doing their investigation -- there was no evidence to back the NYT's claims. > > > > I know nothing of the alleged "contractual and HR issues" between Maté and TRNN. > > Also, in some longer pieces (which were posted to youtube.com both in full and in pieces) Maté and Jay talk and sometimes argued at length. We learned that the two had off-camera disagreements. At some point they thought having these disagreements on-camera would make for good discussions, hence their segments together. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 04:01:42 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:01:42 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: <1DFD76B5-BD63-4A56-93E5-6F40383B807A@illinois.edu> References: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> <1DFD76B5-BD63-4A56-93E5-6F40383B807A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: As far as Israel/Palestine, at least, I think that Shir Hever, a regular guest, is among the most insightful around; they also utilize Ali Abunimah on a regular basis, and have had the As'ad Abu Khalil lately as well; the series of interviews that Paul Jay did with Norman Finkelstein was, of course, excellent. I've had no problems with the Venezuela coverage, even Larry Wilkerson is pretty adamant about opposing regime change. Aaron Maté did great work for quite a while, especially with hard-nosed interviews of people such as Marcy Wheeler, Michael Izikoff, Luke Harding, and Craig Unger; and of course more harmonious interviews with Stephen Cohen. He is missed in that regard, but I'm not sure what more there is for him to do about all the Russiagate nonsense. Also, Paul Jay's series of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin, a Russian professor, were excellent in terms of both historical context and the current situation. I do wish that Maté was still at TRNN, because I don't follow the Nation closely; but this might also have to do with $ and his career trajectory, which is understandable since everyone has to eat and young people like to feel they might have a better future. Ben Norton is now doing some good basic documentation for TRNN. And one can also listen to the excellent programs he does with Max Blumenthal on the podcast and youtube program Moderate Rebels. I'm not anywhere close to withholding the $5 per month I give to TRNN. DG On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:28 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Pau Jay evidently does not like disagreements with his interpretations of > the events he discusses, Russiagate, Israel-Palestine, now Venezuela. As to > the latter, he gives credence to the failures of Maduro for the present > situation, some of which may be valid, without sufficiently emphasizing the > pernicious effects of U.S policies to undermine the government. In the > present situation, this is not for the good, where solidarity against U.S. > depredations are needed. > > my 2¢. > > > On Jan 30, 2019, at 5:36 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > I wrote: > >> I asked TRNN the following: > >> Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories > >> which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary > >> Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political > >> novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was > >> when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to blame > >> for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed > >> this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from > >> TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a difference > >> of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. > >> > >> Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? > >> > >> And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? > >> > >> If not, why not? > > > > I thought I'd follow up to this since I received a response and give > some thoughts of my own. Here's the response I received from TRNN: > > > > ---begin quote--- > > Hi there, > > > > Thanks for asking about Aaron’s departure and our editorial approach to > the > > Russia election interference stories. > > > > TRNN took a position against Russophobia long before Aaron started > working > > for us. Aaron’s work on Russiagate was worked out together with our > > editorial team, and we were in full support of the approach. Paul Jay has > > done numerous editorials and commentaries denouncing attempts to revive > > Cold War fear mongering. TRNN has always refused to take anything US > > intelligence agencies say on faith and remain profoundly skeptical of the > > information that’s in the public domain about election interference and > > such. > > > > Paul has gone further to say even if some or most of the accusations turn > > out to be true, it’s very secondary when compared to how the American > > oligarchy undermines what little democracy there is here. > > > > This issue has been blown up to defend the Cold War narrative and for > > partisan advantage. > > > > We’ve opposed the demonization of Putin, and our series with Buzgalin > gives > > the whole issue historical context. > > > > We’ve said it’s up to Americans to oppose the American oligarchy and the > > Russian people will decide what to do with theirs. TRNN does not side > with > > either of the elites. > > > > No doubt, we’ve lost some capacity to follow these events on a daily > basis. > > That said, we maintain a firm stand against narratives that promote war > and > > mostly serve arms manufacturers. > > > > > > > > Aaron left over contractual and HR issues that we shouldn’t discuss in > > public. > > > > > > > > Best wishes and thanks for your interest. > > > > > > Rosette Sewali > > Producer & Membership Relations Manager > > The Real News Network > > ---end quote--- > > > > > > > > I'll attempt to review the referenced interviews and see how well this > description matches the interviews. The most recent discussion I've seen > TRNN give on Russiagate -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaaZYuU9X4I -- > features 3 TRNN hosts, two of which have something substantive to say on > Russiagate. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia is a > transcript of this video. > > > > Dharna Noor didn't have much to say in the entire video, and virtually > nothing to say on Russiagate. I don't come away with a clear understanding > of her take on this 2+ year ongoing issue. > > > > Marc Steiner seems to be to be a Russiagate believer who doesn't believe > that Russiagate issues decided this election but does buy the idea that > ascendant racism is a critical issue that "people are worried about". > > > > TRNN head Paul Jay said he didn't know what to believe in Russiagate but > found Russiagate claims believable and of minor importance. I take this to > mean that Jay believes that Russia had "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton, Trump is > awash in corrupt Russian money, and there were meetings between Trump > campaign people and some Russians. > > > > It would have been good to have Maté on this program to ask for evidence > to back the Russiagate stories or point out how all of the Russiagate > stories people have looked into fall apart suggesting there's good reason > to be far more skeptical of Russiagate stories and the Russiagate claims > than what showed up in this piece. > > > > As of today, the Mueller investigation has provided no "smoking gun" and > no story of significance to back up Russiagate claims and certainly nothing > of importance to justify another year of investigation, hearings, > indictments, and media distraction. But you won't hear that opinion aired > on the above TRNN segment either. I don't see how anyone can come away from > 2+ years of Russiagate not knowing what to believe about Russiagate. > > > > > > > > > > Aaron Maté left Democracy Now in part over Russiagate disagreements. > > > > An article showed up at https://ghionjournal.com/aaron-mate-is-a-beast/ > > > >> He [Aaron Maté] left DN in 2016 to join the Real News Network, just as > Goodman was starting to embrace some fairly destructive establishment > viewpoints (where previously she’d played footsy with them) in her coverage > of key events, particularly around Russiagate and the U.S. > >> proxy war of aggression in Syria. > > > > Also, in what is now a deleted tweet, Aaron Maté wrote: > > https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/985980643971608576 on Apr 16, > 2018 20:37:58 UTC > > > >> I was a producer at @democracynow for 10 years, until early 2016, and > even before I worked there it was hugely formative for me. I disagree with > where it's gone on two crucial issues, Russiagate and especially Syria. > > > > And this got a thread of discussion on reddit.com in > https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/8dex0z/aaron_mat%C3%A9_critique_of_democracy_now_what_do_you/ > including: > > > >> I still listen to DN and support them, but their coverage of Russiagate > went from reasonable moderation to MSNBC-lite around mid 2017, and > >> their Syria coverage has been about as poor as the MSM, though they do > >> not actively champion military activity. See also issues tacitly related > >> to Russiagate and Syria, like their sudden lack of coverage of > >> Assange's situation and the Al-Nusra presence among Syrian anti-Assad > >> forces. > > > > Democracy Now strikes me as pro-Russiagate or at the very least tacitly > supportive of Russiagate because DN repeats Russiagate story claims without > critical examination or debunking. This is sharply different from how DN > reported the claims about Iraqi WMDs during the run-up to the 2003 US > invasion of Iraq. Then DN would repeat a claim from, say, the New York > Times and then immediately tell the audience what Hans Blix's group had > found when they were on-site doing their investigation -- there was no > evidence to back the NYT's claims. > > > > > > > > I know nothing of the alleged "contractual and HR issues" between Maté > and TRNN. > > > > Also, in some longer pieces (which were posted to youtube.com both in > full and in pieces) Maté and Jay talk and sometimes argued at length. We > learned that the two had off-camera disagreements. At some point they > thought having these disagreements on-camera would make for good > discussions, hence their segments together. > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Thu Jan 31 05:03:48 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 05:03:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: References: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> <1DFD76B5-BD63-4A56-93E5-6F40383B807A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I’ve listened to the contretemps between Maté and Jay, and was disappointed with Jay. I’ll stand by what I said, without disagreeing that TRNN has been doing valuable reporting and analysis. Speculation that Maré may have left for pecuniary reasons have little merit without confirmation. On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:01 PM, David Green > wrote: As far as Israel/Palestine, at least, I think that Shir Hever, a regular guest, is among the most insightful around; they also utilize Ali Abunimah on a regular basis, and have had the As'ad Abu Khalil lately as well; the series of interviews that Paul Jay did with Norman Finkelstein was, of course, excellent. I've had no problems with the Venezuela coverage, even Larry Wilkerson is pretty adamant about opposing regime change. Aaron Maté did great work for quite a while, especially with hard-nosed interviews of people such as Marcy Wheeler, Michael Izikoff, Luke Harding, and Craig Unger; and of course more harmonious interviews with Stephen Cohen. He is missed in that regard, but I'm not sure what more there is for him to do about all the Russiagate nonsense. Also, Paul Jay's series of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin, a Russian professor, were excellent in terms of both historical context and the current situation. I do wish that Maté was still at TRNN, because I don't follow the Nation closely; but this might also have to do with $ and his career trajectory, which is understandable since everyone has to eat and young people like to feel they might have a better future. Ben Norton is now doing some good basic documentation for TRNN. And one can also listen to the excellent programs he does with Max Blumenthal on the podcast and youtube program Moderate Rebels. I'm not anywhere close to withholding the $5 per month I give to TRNN. DG On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:28 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Pau Jay evidently does not like disagreements with his interpretations of the events he discusses, Russiagate, Israel-Palestine, now Venezuela. As to the latter, he gives credence to the failures of Maduro for the present situation, some of which may be valid, without sufficiently emphasizing the pernicious effects of U.S policies to undermine the government. In the present situation, this is not for the good, where solidarity against U.S. depredations are needed. my 2¢. > On Jan 30, 2019, at 5:36 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > I wrote: >> I asked TRNN the following: >> Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories >> which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary >> Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political >> novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was >> when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to blame >> for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed >> this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from >> TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a difference >> of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. >> >> Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? >> >> And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? >> >> If not, why not? > > I thought I'd follow up to this since I received a response and give some thoughts of my own. Here's the response I received from TRNN: > > ---begin quote--- > Hi there, > > Thanks for asking about Aaron’s departure and our editorial approach to the > Russia election interference stories. > > TRNN took a position against Russophobia long before Aaron started working > for us. Aaron’s work on Russiagate was worked out together with our > editorial team, and we were in full support of the approach. Paul Jay has > done numerous editorials and commentaries denouncing attempts to revive > Cold War fear mongering. TRNN has always refused to take anything US > intelligence agencies say on faith and remain profoundly skeptical of the > information that’s in the public domain about election interference and > such. > > Paul has gone further to say even if some or most of the accusations turn > out to be true, it’s very secondary when compared to how the American > oligarchy undermines what little democracy there is here. > > This issue has been blown up to defend the Cold War narrative and for > partisan advantage. > > We’ve opposed the demonization of Putin, and our series with Buzgalin gives > the whole issue historical context. > > We’ve said it’s up to Americans to oppose the American oligarchy and the > Russian people will decide what to do with theirs. TRNN does not side with > either of the elites. > > No doubt, we’ve lost some capacity to follow these events on a daily basis. > That said, we maintain a firm stand against narratives that promote war and > mostly serve arms manufacturers. > > > > Aaron left over contractual and HR issues that we shouldn’t discuss in > public. > > > > Best wishes and thanks for your interest. > > > Rosette Sewali > Producer & Membership Relations Manager > The Real News Network > > ---end quote--- > > > > I'll attempt to review the referenced interviews and see how well this description matches the interviews. The most recent discussion I've seen TRNN give on Russiagate -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaaZYuU9X4I -- features 3 TRNN hosts, two of which have something substantive to say on Russiagate. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia is a transcript of this video. > > Dharna Noor didn't have much to say in the entire video, and virtually nothing to say on Russiagate. I don't come away with a clear understanding of her take on this 2+ year ongoing issue. > > Marc Steiner seems to be to be a Russiagate believer who doesn't believe that Russiagate issues decided this election but does buy the idea that ascendant racism is a critical issue that "people are worried about". > > TRNN head Paul Jay said he didn't know what to believe in Russiagate but found Russiagate claims believable and of minor importance. I take this to mean that Jay believes that Russia had "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton, Trump is awash in corrupt Russian money, and there were meetings between Trump campaign people and some Russians. > > It would have been good to have Maté on this program to ask for evidence to back the Russiagate stories or point out how all of the Russiagate stories people have looked into fall apart suggesting there's good reason to be far more skeptical of Russiagate stories and the Russiagate claims than what showed up in this piece. > > As of today, the Mueller investigation has provided no "smoking gun" and no story of significance to back up Russiagate claims and certainly nothing of importance to justify another year of investigation, hearings, indictments, and media distraction. But you won't hear that opinion aired on the above TRNN segment either. I don't see how anyone can come away from 2+ years of Russiagate not knowing what to believe about Russiagate. > > > > > Aaron Maté left Democracy Now in part over Russiagate disagreements. > > An article showed up at https://ghionjournal.com/aaron-mate-is-a-beast/ > >> He [Aaron Maté] left DN in 2016 to join the Real News Network, just as Goodman was starting to embrace some fairly destructive establishment viewpoints (where previously she’d played footsy with them) in her coverage of key events, particularly around Russiagate and the U.S. >> proxy war of aggression in Syria. > > Also, in what is now a deleted tweet, Aaron Maté wrote: > https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/985980643971608576 on Apr 16, 2018 20:37:58 UTC > >> I was a producer at @democracynow for 10 years, until early 2016, and even before I worked there it was hugely formative for me. I disagree with where it's gone on two crucial issues, Russiagate and especially Syria. > > And this got a thread of discussion on reddit.com in https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/8dex0z/aaron_mat%C3%A9_critique_of_democracy_now_what_do_you/ including: > >> I still listen to DN and support them, but their coverage of Russiagate went from reasonable moderation to MSNBC-lite around mid 2017, and >> their Syria coverage has been about as poor as the MSM, though they do >> not actively champion military activity. See also issues tacitly related >> to Russiagate and Syria, like their sudden lack of coverage of >> Assange's situation and the Al-Nusra presence among Syrian anti-Assad >> forces. > > Democracy Now strikes me as pro-Russiagate or at the very least tacitly supportive of Russiagate because DN repeats Russiagate story claims without critical examination or debunking. This is sharply different from how DN reported the claims about Iraqi WMDs during the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Then DN would repeat a claim from, say, the New York Times and then immediately tell the audience what Hans Blix's group had found when they were on-site doing their investigation -- there was no evidence to back the NYT's claims. > > > > I know nothing of the alleged "contractual and HR issues" between Maté and TRNN. > > Also, in some longer pieces (which were posted to youtube.com both in full and in pieces) Maté and Jay talk and sometimes argued at length. We learned that the two had off-camera disagreements. At some point they thought having these disagreements on-camera would make for good discussions, hence their segments together. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 13:12:02 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:12:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: References: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> <1DFD76B5-BD63-4A56-93E5-6F40383B807A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I wrote to TRNN, simply making my point, that I hope they don’t go down the trail of so many other mediums, by delivering “balanced” news. Allowing the promotion of propaganda, where no evidence exists, with a weak response, serves no purpose. I received a form letter thanking me. I have appreciated all that David Green refers to below, but I no longer enjoy TRNN as I once did, because I find most statements that require deeper analysis and refutation, no longer challenged. Only Aaron Mate, would challenge assumptions and propaganda, so he is sorely missed. Hearing Ro Khanna, in spite of the “good” he is doing, when he spoke this week on DN in relation to US involvement in Venezuela, without any “historical context” lends credence to US propaganda being promoted, and proves that as a Democrat he is merely challenging Trump and the Republican Administration, this is the nonsense of which we need less, not more. This is why the American people are so in the dark. This is why more Aaron Mate’s are needed, though I avoid all discussions related to russiagate, a distraction and nonsense. On Jan 30, 2019, at 21:03, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: I’ve listened to the contretemps between Maté and Jay, and was disappointed with Jay. I’ll stand by what I said, without disagreeing that TRNN has been doing valuable reporting and analysis. Speculation that Maré may have left for pecuniary reasons have little merit without confirmation. On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:01 PM, David Green > wrote: As far as Israel/Palestine, at least, I think that Shir Hever, a regular guest, is among the most insightful around; they also utilize Ali Abunimah on a regular basis, and have had the As'ad Abu Khalil lately as well; the series of interviews that Paul Jay did with Norman Finkelstein was, of course, excellent. I've had no problems with the Venezuela coverage, even Larry Wilkerson is pretty adamant about opposing regime change. Aaron Maté did great work for quite a while, especially with hard-nosed interviews of people such as Marcy Wheeler, Michael Izikoff, Luke Harding, and Craig Unger; and of course more harmonious interviews with Stephen Cohen. He is missed in that regard, but I'm not sure what more there is for him to do about all the Russiagate nonsense. Also, Paul Jay's series of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin, a Russian professor, were excellent in terms of both historical context and the current situation. I do wish that Maté was still at TRNN, because I don't follow the Nation closely; but this might also have to do with $ and his career trajectory, which is understandable since everyone has to eat and young people like to feel they might have a better future. Ben Norton is now doing some good basic documentation for TRNN. And one can also listen to the excellent programs he does with Max Blumenthal on the podcast and youtube program Moderate Rebels. I'm not anywhere close to withholding the $5 per month I give to TRNN. DG On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:28 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Pau Jay evidently does not like disagreements with his interpretations of the events he discusses, Russiagate, Israel-Palestine, now Venezuela. As to the latter, he gives credence to the failures of Maduro for the present situation, some of which may be valid, without sufficiently emphasizing the pernicious effects of U.S policies to undermine the government. In the present situation, this is not for the good, where solidarity against U.S. depredations are needed. my 2¢. > On Jan 30, 2019, at 5:36 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > I wrote: >> I asked TRNN the following: >> Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories >> which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary >> Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political >> novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was >> when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to blame >> for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed >> this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from >> TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a difference >> of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. >> >> Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? >> >> And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? >> >> If not, why not? > > I thought I'd follow up to this since I received a response and give some thoughts of my own. Here's the response I received from TRNN: > > ---begin quote--- > Hi there, > > Thanks for asking about Aaron’s departure and our editorial approach to the > Russia election interference stories. > > TRNN took a position against Russophobia long before Aaron started working > for us. Aaron’s work on Russiagate was worked out together with our > editorial team, and we were in full support of the approach. Paul Jay has > done numerous editorials and commentaries denouncing attempts to revive > Cold War fear mongering. TRNN has always refused to take anything US > intelligence agencies say on faith and remain profoundly skeptical of the > information that’s in the public domain about election interference and > such. > > Paul has gone further to say even if some or most of the accusations turn > out to be true, it’s very secondary when compared to how the American > oligarchy undermines what little democracy there is here. > > This issue has been blown up to defend the Cold War narrative and for > partisan advantage. > > We’ve opposed the demonization of Putin, and our series with Buzgalin gives > the whole issue historical context. > > We’ve said it’s up to Americans to oppose the American oligarchy and the > Russian people will decide what to do with theirs. TRNN does not side with > either of the elites. > > No doubt, we’ve lost some capacity to follow these events on a daily basis. > That said, we maintain a firm stand against narratives that promote war and > mostly serve arms manufacturers. > > > > Aaron left over contractual and HR issues that we shouldn’t discuss in > public. > > > > Best wishes and thanks for your interest. > > > Rosette Sewali > Producer & Membership Relations Manager > The Real News Network > > ---end quote--- > > > > I'll attempt to review the referenced interviews and see how well this description matches the interviews. The most recent discussion I've seen TRNN give on Russiagate -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaaZYuU9X4I -- features 3 TRNN hosts, two of which have something substantive to say on Russiagate. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia is a transcript of this video. > > Dharna Noor didn't have much to say in the entire video, and virtually nothing to say on Russiagate. I don't come away with a clear understanding of her take on this 2+ year ongoing issue. > > Marc Steiner seems to be to be a Russiagate believer who doesn't believe that Russiagate issues decided this election but does buy the idea that ascendant racism is a critical issue that "people are worried about". > > TRNN head Paul Jay said he didn't know what to believe in Russiagate but found Russiagate claims believable and of minor importance. I take this to mean that Jay believes that Russia had "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton, Trump is awash in corrupt Russian money, and there were meetings between Trump campaign people and some Russians. > > It would have been good to have Maté on this program to ask for evidence to back the Russiagate stories or point out how all of the Russiagate stories people have looked into fall apart suggesting there's good reason to be far more skeptical of Russiagate stories and the Russiagate claims than what showed up in this piece. > > As of today, the Mueller investigation has provided no "smoking gun" and no story of significance to back up Russiagate claims and certainly nothing of importance to justify another year of investigation, hearings, indictments, and media distraction. But you won't hear that opinion aired on the above TRNN segment either. I don't see how anyone can come away from 2+ years of Russiagate not knowing what to believe about Russiagate. > > > > > Aaron Maté left Democracy Now in part over Russiagate disagreements. > > An article showed up at https://ghionjournal.com/aaron-mate-is-a-beast/ > >> He [Aaron Maté] left DN in 2016 to join the Real News Network, just as Goodman was starting to embrace some fairly destructive establishment viewpoints (where previously she’d played footsy with them) in her coverage of key events, particularly around Russiagate and the U.S. >> proxy war of aggression in Syria. > > Also, in what is now a deleted tweet, Aaron Maté wrote: > https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/985980643971608576 on Apr 16, 2018 20:37:58 UTC > >> I was a producer at @democracynow for 10 years, until early 2016, and even before I worked there it was hugely formative for me. I disagree with where it's gone on two crucial issues, Russiagate and especially Syria. > > And this got a thread of discussion on reddit.com in https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/8dex0z/aaron_mat%C3%A9_critique_of_democracy_now_what_do_you/ including: > >> I still listen to DN and support them, but their coverage of Russiagate went from reasonable moderation to MSNBC-lite around mid 2017, and >> their Syria coverage has been about as poor as the MSM, though they do >> not actively champion military activity. See also issues tacitly related >> to Russiagate and Syria, like their sudden lack of coverage of >> Assange's situation and the Al-Nusra presence among Syrian anti-Assad >> forces. > > Democracy Now strikes me as pro-Russiagate or at the very least tacitly supportive of Russiagate because DN repeats Russiagate story claims without critical examination or debunking. This is sharply different from how DN reported the claims about Iraqi WMDs during the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Then DN would repeat a claim from, say, the New York Times and then immediately tell the audience what Hans Blix's group had found when they were on-site doing their investigation -- there was no evidence to back the NYT's claims. > > > > I know nothing of the alleged "contractual and HR issues" between Maté and TRNN. > > Also, in some longer pieces (which were posted to youtube.com both in full and in pieces) Maté and Jay talk and sometimes argued at length. We learned that the two had off-camera disagreements. At some point they thought having these disagreements on-camera would make for good discussions, hence their segments together. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 17:22:39 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:22:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: References: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> <1DFD76B5-BD63-4A56-93E5-6F40383B807A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yes, for sure TRNN loses some of its edge without Maté; Steiner's interviews are often perfunctory. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:12 AM Karen Aram wrote: > I wrote to TRNN, simply making my point, that I hope they don’t go down > the trail of so many other mediums, by delivering “balanced” news. > Allowing the promotion of propaganda, where no evidence exists, with a weak > response, serves no purpose. I received a form letter thanking me. > > I have appreciated all that David Green refers to below, but I no longer > enjoy TRNN as I once did, because I find most statements that require > deeper analysis and refutation, no longer challenged. Only Aaron Mate, > would challenge assumptions and propaganda, so he is sorely missed. > > Hearing Ro Khanna, in spite of the “good” he is doing, when he spoke this > week on DN in relation to US involvement in Venezuela, without any > “historical context” lends credence to US propaganda being promoted, and > proves that as a Democrat he is merely challenging Trump and the Republican > Administration, this is the nonsense of which we need less, not more. This > is why the American people are so in the dark. This is why more Aaron > Mate’s are needed, though I avoid all discussions related to russiagate, a > distraction and nonsense. > > > On Jan 30, 2019, at 21:03, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > I’ve listened to the contretemps between Maté and Jay, and was > disappointed with Jay. I’ll stand by what I said, without disagreeing that > TRNN has been doing valuable reporting and analysis. Speculation that Maré > may have left for pecuniary reasons have little merit without confirmation. > > On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:01 PM, David Green wrote: > > As far as Israel/Palestine, at least, I think that Shir Hever, a regular > guest, is among the most insightful around; they also utilize Ali Abunimah > on a regular basis, and have had the As'ad Abu Khalil lately as well; the > series of interviews that Paul Jay did with Norman Finkelstein was, of > course, excellent. I've had no problems with the Venezuela coverage, even > Larry Wilkerson is pretty adamant about opposing regime change. Aaron > Maté did great work for quite a while, especially with hard-nosed > interviews of people such as Marcy Wheeler, Michael Izikoff, Luke Harding, > and Craig Unger; and of course more harmonious interviews with Stephen > Cohen. He is missed in that regard, but I'm not sure what more there is > for him to do about all the Russiagate nonsense. > > Also, Paul Jay's series of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin, a Russian > professor, were excellent in terms of both historical context and the > current situation. > > I do wish that Maté was still at TRNN, because I don't follow the Nation > closely; but this might also have to do with $ and his career trajectory, > which is understandable since everyone has to eat and young people like to > feel they might have a better future. > > Ben Norton is now doing some good basic documentation for TRNN. And one > can also listen to the excellent programs he does with Max Blumenthal on > the podcast and youtube program Moderate Rebels. > > I'm not anywhere close to withholding the $5 per month I give to TRNN. > > DG > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:28 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Pau Jay evidently does not like disagreements with his interpretations of >> the events he discusses, Russiagate, Israel-Palestine, now Venezuela. As to >> the latter, he gives credence to the failures of Maduro for the present >> situation, some of which may be valid, without sufficiently emphasizing the >> pernicious effects of U.S policies to undermine the government. In the >> present situation, this is not for the good, where solidarity against U.S. >> depredations are needed. >> >> my 2¢. >> >> > On Jan 30, 2019, at 5:36 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > I wrote: >> >> I asked TRNN the following: >> >> Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories >> >> which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary >> >> Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political >> >> novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was >> >> when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to >> blame >> >> for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed >> >> this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from >> >> TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a >> difference >> >> of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. >> >> >> >> Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? >> >> >> >> And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? >> >> >> >> If not, why not? >> > >> > I thought I'd follow up to this since I received a response and give >> some thoughts of my own. Here's the response I received from TRNN: >> > >> > ---begin quote--- >> > Hi there, >> > >> > Thanks for asking about Aaron’s departure and our editorial approach to >> the >> > Russia election interference stories. >> > >> > TRNN took a position against Russophobia long before Aaron started >> working >> > for us. Aaron’s work on Russiagate was worked out together with our >> > editorial team, and we were in full support of the approach. Paul Jay >> has >> > done numerous editorials and commentaries denouncing attempts to revive >> > Cold War fear mongering. TRNN has always refused to take anything US >> > intelligence agencies say on faith and remain profoundly skeptical of >> the >> > information that’s in the public domain about election interference and >> > such. >> > >> > Paul has gone further to say even if some or most of the accusations >> turn >> > out to be true, it’s very secondary when compared to how the American >> > oligarchy undermines what little democracy there is here. >> > >> > This issue has been blown up to defend the Cold War narrative and for >> > partisan advantage. >> > >> > We’ve opposed the demonization of Putin, and our series with Buzgalin >> gives >> > the whole issue historical context. >> > >> > We’ve said it’s up to Americans to oppose the American oligarchy and the >> > Russian people will decide what to do with theirs. TRNN does not side >> with >> > either of the elites. >> > >> > No doubt, we’ve lost some capacity to follow these events on a daily >> basis. >> > That said, we maintain a firm stand against narratives that promote war >> and >> > mostly serve arms manufacturers. >> > >> > >> > >> > Aaron left over contractual and HR issues that we shouldn’t discuss in >> > public. >> > >> > >> > >> > Best wishes and thanks for your interest. >> > >> > >> > Rosette Sewali >> > Producer & Membership Relations Manager >> > The Real News Network >> > ---end quote--- >> > >> > >> > >> > I'll attempt to review the referenced interviews and see how well this >> description matches the interviews. The most recent discussion I've seen >> TRNN give on Russiagate -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaaZYuU9X4I >> -- features 3 TRNN hosts, two of which have something substantive to say on >> Russiagate. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia is a >> transcript of this video. >> > >> > Dharna Noor didn't have much to say in the entire video, and virtually >> nothing to say on Russiagate. I don't come away with a clear understanding >> of her take on this 2+ year ongoing issue. >> > >> > Marc Steiner seems to be to be a Russiagate believer who doesn't >> believe that Russiagate issues decided this election but does buy the idea >> that ascendant racism is a critical issue that "people are worried about". >> > >> > TRNN head Paul Jay said he didn't know what to believe in Russiagate >> but found Russiagate claims believable and of minor importance. I take this >> to mean that Jay believes that Russia had "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton, Trump is >> awash in corrupt Russian money, and there were meetings between Trump >> campaign people and some Russians. >> > >> > It would have been good to have Maté on this program to ask for >> evidence to back the Russiagate stories or point out how all of the >> Russiagate stories people have looked into fall apart suggesting there's >> good reason to be far more skeptical of Russiagate stories and the >> Russiagate claims than what showed up in this piece. >> > >> > As of today, the Mueller investigation has provided no "smoking gun" >> and no story of significance to back up Russiagate claims and certainly >> nothing of importance to justify another year of investigation, hearings, >> indictments, and media distraction. But you won't hear that opinion aired >> on the above TRNN segment either. I don't see how anyone can come away from >> 2+ years of Russiagate not knowing what to believe about Russiagate. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Aaron Maté left Democracy Now in part over Russiagate disagreements. >> > >> > An article showed up at https://ghionjournal.com/aaron-mate-is-a-beast/ >> > >> >> He [Aaron Maté] left DN in 2016 to join the Real News Network, just as >> Goodman was starting to embrace some fairly destructive establishment >> viewpoints (where previously she’d played footsy with them) in her coverage >> of key events, particularly around Russiagate and the U.S. >> >> proxy war of aggression in Syria. >> > >> > Also, in what is now a deleted tweet, Aaron Maté wrote: >> > https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/985980643971608576 on Apr 16, >> 2018 20:37:58 UTC >> > >> >> I was a producer at @democracynow for 10 years, until early 2016, and >> even before I worked there it was hugely formative for me. I disagree with >> where it's gone on two crucial issues, Russiagate and especially Syria. >> > >> > And this got a thread of discussion on reddit.com in >> https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/8dex0z/aaron_mat%C3%A9_critique_of_democracy_now_what_do_you/ >> including: >> > >> >> I still listen to DN and support them, but their coverage of >> Russiagate went from reasonable moderation to MSNBC-lite around mid 2017, >> and >> >> their Syria coverage has been about as poor as the MSM, though they do >> >> not actively champion military activity. See also issues tacitly >> related >> >> to Russiagate and Syria, like their sudden lack of coverage of >> >> Assange's situation and the Al-Nusra presence among Syrian anti-Assad >> >> forces. >> > >> > Democracy Now strikes me as pro-Russiagate or at the very least tacitly >> supportive of Russiagate because DN repeats Russiagate story claims without >> critical examination or debunking. This is sharply different from how DN >> reported the claims about Iraqi WMDs during the run-up to the 2003 US >> invasion of Iraq. Then DN would repeat a claim from, say, the New York >> Times and then immediately tell the audience what Hans Blix's group had >> found when they were on-site doing their investigation -- there was no >> evidence to back the NYT's claims. >> > >> > >> > >> > I know nothing of the alleged "contractual and HR issues" between Maté >> and TRNN. >> > >> > Also, in some longer pieces (which were posted to youtube.com both in >> full and in pieces) Maté and Jay talk and sometimes argued at length. We >> learned that the two had off-camera disagreements. At some point they >> thought having these disagreements on-camera would make for good >> discussions, hence their segments together. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Peace-discuss mailing list >> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 20:47:15 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:47:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News In-Reply-To: References: <3f0595a0-1252-2147-27c6-4c11cfa252ec@forestfield.org> <1DFD76B5-BD63-4A56-93E5-6F40383B807A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I think you all will agree, this is a revealing podcast as to where some stand in relation to The Real News. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia On Jan 31, 2019, at 09:22, David Green > wrote: Yes, for sure TRNN loses some of its edge without Maté; Steiner's interviews are often perfunctory. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:12 AM Karen Aram > wrote: I wrote to TRNN, simply making my point, that I hope they don’t go down the trail of so many other mediums, by delivering “balanced” news. Allowing the promotion of propaganda, where no evidence exists, with a weak response, serves no purpose. I received a form letter thanking me. I have appreciated all that David Green refers to below, but I no longer enjoy TRNN as I once did, because I find most statements that require deeper analysis and refutation, no longer challenged. Only Aaron Mate, would challenge assumptions and propaganda, so he is sorely missed. Hearing Ro Khanna, in spite of the “good” he is doing, when he spoke this week on DN in relation to US involvement in Venezuela, without any “historical context” lends credence to US propaganda being promoted, and proves that as a Democrat he is merely challenging Trump and the Republican Administration, this is the nonsense of which we need less, not more. This is why the American people are so in the dark. This is why more Aaron Mate’s are needed, though I avoid all discussions related to russiagate, a distraction and nonsense. On Jan 30, 2019, at 21:03, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: I’ve listened to the contretemps between Maté and Jay, and was disappointed with Jay. I’ll stand by what I said, without disagreeing that TRNN has been doing valuable reporting and analysis. Speculation that Maré may have left for pecuniary reasons have little merit without confirmation. On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:01 PM, David Green > wrote: As far as Israel/Palestine, at least, I think that Shir Hever, a regular guest, is among the most insightful around; they also utilize Ali Abunimah on a regular basis, and have had the As'ad Abu Khalil lately as well; the series of interviews that Paul Jay did with Norman Finkelstein was, of course, excellent. I've had no problems with the Venezuela coverage, even Larry Wilkerson is pretty adamant about opposing regime change. Aaron Maté did great work for quite a while, especially with hard-nosed interviews of people such as Marcy Wheeler, Michael Izikoff, Luke Harding, and Craig Unger; and of course more harmonious interviews with Stephen Cohen. He is missed in that regard, but I'm not sure what more there is for him to do about all the Russiagate nonsense. Also, Paul Jay's series of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin, a Russian professor, were excellent in terms of both historical context and the current situation. I do wish that Maté was still at TRNN, because I don't follow the Nation closely; but this might also have to do with $ and his career trajectory, which is understandable since everyone has to eat and young people like to feel they might have a better future. Ben Norton is now doing some good basic documentation for TRNN. And one can also listen to the excellent programs he does with Max Blumenthal on the podcast and youtube program Moderate Rebels. I'm not anywhere close to withholding the $5 per month I give to TRNN. DG On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:28 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Pau Jay evidently does not like disagreements with his interpretations of the events he discusses, Russiagate, Israel-Palestine, now Venezuela. As to the latter, he gives credence to the failures of Maduro for the present situation, some of which may be valid, without sufficiently emphasizing the pernicious effects of U.S policies to undermine the government. In the present situation, this is not for the good, where solidarity against U.S. depredations are needed. my 2¢. > On Jan 30, 2019, at 5:36 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > I wrote: >> I asked TRNN the following: >> Aaron Maté insisted on evidence-based justifications for the stories >> which collectively make up "Russiagate": the narrative that Hillary >> Clinton isn't to blame for her 2nd presidential loss to a political >> novice (I doubt many people knew who the junior Illinois Senator was >> when he ran for US president), but instead Russians are somehow to blame >> for her loss against Donald Trump. Maté interviewed people who pushed >> this narrative and those who challenged Russiagate. Now he's gone from >> TRNN. His reporting is missed and it appears that there was a difference >> of opinion between Maté and Paul Jay. >> >> Why is Aaron Maté not with TRNN now? >> >> And will TRNN make an offer to bring Aaron Maté back? >> >> If not, why not? > > I thought I'd follow up to this since I received a response and give some thoughts of my own. Here's the response I received from TRNN: > > ---begin quote--- > Hi there, > > Thanks for asking about Aaron’s departure and our editorial approach to the > Russia election interference stories. > > TRNN took a position against Russophobia long before Aaron started working > for us. Aaron’s work on Russiagate was worked out together with our > editorial team, and we were in full support of the approach. Paul Jay has > done numerous editorials and commentaries denouncing attempts to revive > Cold War fear mongering. TRNN has always refused to take anything US > intelligence agencies say on faith and remain profoundly skeptical of the > information that’s in the public domain about election interference and > such. > > Paul has gone further to say even if some or most of the accusations turn > out to be true, it’s very secondary when compared to how the American > oligarchy undermines what little democracy there is here. > > This issue has been blown up to defend the Cold War narrative and for > partisan advantage. > > We’ve opposed the demonization of Putin, and our series with Buzgalin gives > the whole issue historical context. > > We’ve said it’s up to Americans to oppose the American oligarchy and the > Russian people will decide what to do with theirs. TRNN does not side with > either of the elites. > > No doubt, we’ve lost some capacity to follow these events on a daily basis. > That said, we maintain a firm stand against narratives that promote war and > mostly serve arms manufacturers. > > > > Aaron left over contractual and HR issues that we shouldn’t discuss in > public. > > > > Best wishes and thanks for your interest. > > > Rosette Sewali > Producer & Membership Relations Manager > The Real News Network > > ---end quote--- > > > > I'll attempt to review the referenced interviews and see how well this description matches the interviews. The most recent discussion I've seen TRNN give on Russiagate -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaaZYuU9X4I -- features 3 TRNN hosts, two of which have something substantive to say on Russiagate. https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trnn-soft-on-russia is a transcript of this video. > > Dharna Noor didn't have much to say in the entire video, and virtually nothing to say on Russiagate. I don't come away with a clear understanding of her take on this 2+ year ongoing issue. > > Marc Steiner seems to be to be a Russiagate believer who doesn't believe that Russiagate issues decided this election but does buy the idea that ascendant racism is a critical issue that "people are worried about". > > TRNN head Paul Jay said he didn't know what to believe in Russiagate but found Russiagate claims believable and of minor importance. I take this to mean that Jay believes that Russia had "dirt" on Mrs. Clinton, Trump is awash in corrupt Russian money, and there were meetings between Trump campaign people and some Russians. > > It would have been good to have Maté on this program to ask for evidence to back the Russiagate stories or point out how all of the Russiagate stories people have looked into fall apart suggesting there's good reason to be far more skeptical of Russiagate stories and the Russiagate claims than what showed up in this piece. > > As of today, the Mueller investigation has provided no "smoking gun" and no story of significance to back up Russiagate claims and certainly nothing of importance to justify another year of investigation, hearings, indictments, and media distraction. But you won't hear that opinion aired on the above TRNN segment either. I don't see how anyone can come away from 2+ years of Russiagate not knowing what to believe about Russiagate. > > > > > Aaron Maté left Democracy Now in part over Russiagate disagreements. > > An article showed up at https://ghionjournal.com/aaron-mate-is-a-beast/ > >> He [Aaron Maté] left DN in 2016 to join the Real News Network, just as Goodman was starting to embrace some fairly destructive establishment viewpoints (where previously she’d played footsy with them) in her coverage of key events, particularly around Russiagate and the U.S. >> proxy war of aggression in Syria. > > Also, in what is now a deleted tweet, Aaron Maté wrote: > https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/985980643971608576 on Apr 16, 2018 20:37:58 UTC > >> I was a producer at @democracynow for 10 years, until early 2016, and even before I worked there it was hugely formative for me. I disagree with where it's gone on two crucial issues, Russiagate and especially Syria. > > And this got a thread of discussion on reddit.com in https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/8dex0z/aaron_mat%C3%A9_critique_of_democracy_now_what_do_you/ including: > >> I still listen to DN and support them, but their coverage of Russiagate went from reasonable moderation to MSNBC-lite around mid 2017, and >> their Syria coverage has been about as poor as the MSM, though they do >> not actively champion military activity. See also issues tacitly related >> to Russiagate and Syria, like their sudden lack of coverage of >> Assange's situation and the Al-Nusra presence among Syrian anti-Assad >> forces. > > Democracy Now strikes me as pro-Russiagate or at the very least tacitly supportive of Russiagate because DN repeats Russiagate story claims without critical examination or debunking. This is sharply different from how DN reported the claims about Iraqi WMDs during the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Then DN would repeat a claim from, say, the New York Times and then immediately tell the audience what Hans Blix's group had found when they were on-site doing their investigation -- there was no evidence to back the NYT's claims. > > > > I know nothing of the alleged "contractual and HR issues" between Maté and TRNN. > > Also, in some longer pieces (which were posted to youtube.com both in full and in pieces) Maté and Jay talk and sometimes argued at length. We learned that the two had off-camera disagreements. At some point they thought having these disagreements on-camera would make for good discussions, hence their segments together. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 21:00:32 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:00:32 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Saturday's AWARE demo Message-ID: https://blackagendareport.com/racist-imperialist-war-venezuela A better flyer for Saturday's AWARE demo. --CGE (there in spirit) From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jan 31 23:26:43 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:26:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for Saturday's AWARE demo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is one on offer from Adrian of the Green Party, posted on FB: Adrian Boutureira Sansberro 23 hrs · Hello all, Planning a rally in your hometown? Please use this release freely: For immediate release, January 30, 2019 What: XXXXXXXX plans to mobilize its membership to express our strong opposition to any form of US intervention into the internal affairs of the sovereign nation of Venezuela. When: XXXXXXXX. Where: XXXXXXXXXXX Contacts: XXXXXXXXX Background In mid-December, Juan Guaidó, the leader of Venezuela’s right-wing opposition-controlled National Assembly, traveled to Washington, Colombia, and Brazil. The exact nature of Guaidó's discussions with the right-wing government officials of these nations is unknown, but on Jan. 15, Vice President Pence made a telephone call to Guaidó. On Jan. 21, encouraged by the right-wing governments of Colombia, Brazil, and the U.S., a small group of Venezuelan National Guard soldiers attempted and failed to execute a military coup. Vice President Pence called Guaidó again the next day, and the day after that, Jan. 23, Guaidó declared himself the interim president of Venezuela. 17 years prior, the Bush Administration openly backed a violent and deadly coup that temporarily deposed then-president Hugo Chavez. In the years since, the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have also supported the right-wing opposition and its neoliberal plans for a Venezuelan economy subservient to U.S. interests. While Trump allies with fascists like Bolsonaro in Brazil and murderous monarchs like Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, his administration continues to serve U.S. imperial policies by attempting to overthrow a democratically elected left-wing government in Venezuela and institute neoliberal policies that would plunder the Venezuelan economy at the service of the oligarchs and wealthy that lead the Venezuelan opposition. U.S. President Donald Trump's appointments of John Bolton as National Security Advisor and Elliot Abrams as "Special Envoy to Venezuela" bode particularly ill for Venezuela's future. Abrams was convicted during the Iran Contra investigation of withholding information from Congress to help cover up atrocities committed by the Reagan Administration-backed right-wing governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and by the Contras against Nicaragua, and mischaracterized the U.S.’s brutal and often criminal policy towards El Salvador as a "fabulous achievement." Under the Bolivarian Revolution, the Venezuelan government set up large-scale social programs to combat poverty. Workers and indigenous peoples have been empowered. The state has taken control of resources that were formerly in the hands of foreign multinationals. But the United States and its allies refuse to tolerate any attempt by a poor country to buck the neoliberal order and institute any kind of socialist reforms, so they keep attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government. The opposition is run by wealthy Venezuelans who are of European descent and have often targeted Chavistas who are poor and often of African and indigenous heritage. Many of the leaders of the opposition are the same leaders who led and supported the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. This opposition has openly incited violence and murdered people because they were pro-government. They have harassed and shot journalists and plotted to blow up pro-government news stations. This is fascism. Demand We oppose this latest coup attempt and the direct and illegal U.S. role in it, and demand that our elected officials stand up and speak out against it now. To do anything less is to aid and abet another U.S.-engineered imperialist crime in this hemisphere. There have been too many already. This sharp escalation of attacks on Venezuela comes after long U.S. campaign of destabilizing the Venezuelan economy and society. Destabilizing Venezuela to achieve “regime change” and the imposition of yet another anti-working class, anti-indigenous, anti-environmentalist, right-wing government subservient to global capitalism, like those of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Ivan Duque in Colombia, is not in the interests of the Venezuelan working people, or of workers in the United States. Under both President Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has repeatedly shown its willingness to maintain friendly relations with the United States and its people, even going so far as to help poor communities in the United States by providing them with discounted heating oil. The people of the United States need to speak out forcefully and immediately to put a stop to the Trump administration’s reckless actions against Venezuela, which could easily lead to a civil war with regional and U.S. participation. We urge everyone to immediately contact their senators and representatives to demand an end to this illegal and dangerous intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation which has done nothing to harm our country or its people. > On Jan 31, 2019, at 13:00, C G Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > https://blackagendareport.com/racist-imperialist-war-venezuela > > A better flyer for Saturday's AWARE demo. --CGE (there in spirit) > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace