From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Nov 1 03:18:19 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 22:18:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald leaves The Intercept In-Reply-To: <15c7b136-d03f-820a-2dd0-01ce9fb14b55@forestfield.org> References: <15c7b136-d03f-820a-2dd0-01ce9fb14b55@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <7bc5abaa-9829-307f-906f-ceeb77f55804@forestfield.org> I wrote: > I'm guessing that Jimmy Dore will discuss this tomorrow (2020-10-30) night if not > also have someone else on his show to discuss this with. The archived version of this interview is https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nig6c1WEc-0 and it's worth watching. Some of the highlights included discussion of Naomi Klein, go-to talking head on environmentalism who has seemingly joined the establishment: Aaron Mat? said that Naomi Klein has joined her Intercept colleagues in saying that Glenn Greenwald's departure and publishing the essay The Intercept wanted edited to remove all criticism of the Bidens was, basically, "a marketing opportunity for his Substack" articles (13m43s into the above recording). She was also part of censoring "Planet of the Humans" (the recent documentary Michael Moore produced but did not star in which debunked 'green energy' claims showing what frauds they are in terms of immediate viability, long-term sustainability, and unmentioned dependence on other horrors including child labor and mining). Klein also obtained funding from what Mat? called "dubious foundations" in this Jimmy Dore interview, backed by reporting from fellow Grayzone investigator Max Blumenthal in https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/07/green-billionaires-planet-of-the-humans/: > Naomi Klein, perhaps the most prominent left-wing writer on climate-related issues > in the West, did not weigh in to defend ?Planet of the Humans.? Instead, the > Intercept columnist, social activist, and Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, > Culture, and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University was an early participant in > the campaign to suppress the film. > > According to McKibben, ?Naomi [Klein] had in fact taken Moore aside in an MSNBC > greenroom? before the documentary?s release to lobby him against publishing the > film. Klein later signed Josh Fox?s open letter demanding the film be retracted. > > On Twitter, Klein condemned ?Planet of the Humans? as ?truly demoralizing,? and > promoted a ?big blog/fact check? of the film by Ketan Joshi, a former > communications officer for the Australian wind farm company Infigen Energy. Related commentary on Greenwald's resignation and what this means for adversarial journalism: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/10/30/greenwalds-intercept-resignation-exposes-the-rot-in-all-mass-media/ -- Caitlin Johnstone https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=hnz6LlZHA1s -- Peter Lavelle & George Szamuely https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation -- Matt Taibbi Joe Rogan interview with Greenwald http://traffic.libsyn.com/joeroganexp/p1556.mp3?dest-id=19997 -- audio https://youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA -- video https://youtube.com/watch?v=CYyn_XGAsCs -- The Hill From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Nov 1 15:59:14 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 09:59:14 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald leaves The Intercept In-Reply-To: <7bc5abaa-9829-307f-906f-ceeb77f55804@forestfield.org> References: <15c7b136-d03f-820a-2dd0-01ce9fb14b55@forestfield.org> <7bc5abaa-9829-307f-906f-ceeb77f55804@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <003101d6b067$f2d53f30$d87fbd90$@comcast.net> That is too bad about Naomi Klein, but that is how the system operates to co-opt people. That is why individuals and organizations need to always be careful about who they take money from. Corporate foundation grant money is the biggest corrupter in U.S. society. Nevertheless she will always be well remembered for her book SHOCK DOCTRINE and the film THE TAKE. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 10:18 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald leaves The Intercept I wrote: > I'm guessing that Jimmy Dore will discuss this tomorrow (2020-10-30) night if not > also have someone else on his show to discuss this with. The archived version of this interview is https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nig6c1WEc-0 and it's worth watching. Some of the highlights included discussion of Naomi Klein, go-to talking head on environmentalism who has seemingly joined the establishment: Aaron Mat? said that Naomi Klein has joined her Intercept colleagues in saying that Glenn Greenwald's departure and publishing the essay The Intercept wanted edited to remove all criticism of the Bidens was, basically, "a marketing opportunity for his Substack" articles (13m43s into the above recording). She was also part of censoring "Planet of the Humans" (the recent documentary Michael Moore produced but did not star in which debunked 'green energy' claims showing what frauds they are in terms of immediate viability, long-term sustainability, and unmentioned dependence on other horrors including child labor and mining). Klein also obtained funding from what Mat? called "dubious foundations" in this Jimmy Dore interview, backed by reporting from fellow Grayzone investigator Max Blumenthal in https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/07/green-billionaires-planet-of-the-humans/: > Naomi Klein, perhaps the most prominent left-wing writer on climate-related issues > in the West, did not weigh in to defend ?Planet of the Humans.? Instead, the > Intercept columnist, social activist, and Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, > Culture, and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University was an early participant in > the campaign to suppress the film. > > According to McKibben, ?Naomi [Klein] had in fact taken Moore aside in an MSNBC > greenroom? before the documentary?s release to lobby him against publishing the > film. Klein later signed Josh Fox?s open letter demanding the film be retracted. > > On Twitter, Klein condemned ?Planet of the Humans? as ?truly demoralizing,? and > promoted a ?big blog/fact check? of the film by Ketan Joshi, a former > communications officer for the Australian wind farm company Infigen Energy. Related commentary on Greenwald's resignation and what this means for adversarial journalism: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/10/30/greenwalds-intercept-resignation-exposes-the-rot-in-all-mass-media/ -- Caitlin Johnstone https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=hnz6LlZHA1s -- Peter Lavelle & George Szamuely https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation -- Matt Taibbi Joe Rogan interview with Greenwald http://traffic.libsyn.com/joeroganexp/p1556.mp3?dest-id=19997 -- audio https://youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA -- video https://youtube.com/watch?v=CYyn_XGAsCs -- The Hill _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Nov 1 16:01:08 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 10:01:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <003301d6b068$3686f570$a394e050$@comcast.net> . Perhaps, but obviously the Intercept and the rest of the corporate media thinks so, considering the Intercept?s censorship and the corporate media?s furious campaign trying to convince everyone that there is ? nothing there ?. The real story here is the censorship and it?s support by the corporate media and liberals, NOT so much further details exposing the corruption of the Bidens. David J. From: Brussel, Morton K [mailto:brussel at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 10:27 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Brussel, Morton K Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. My impression is that there is much less here than meets the eye. Yes, the media is largely corrupt in imposing its biases while concealing them, and The Intercept has been disappointing, but they still have Naomi Klein on board, and Scahill. Even Caitland Johnstone has admitted regarding these arguable revelations: "I don't know that the Hunter Biden October surprise shows anything more scandalous than you'd expect for any major US presidential nominee.?? On Oct 30, 2020, at 2:43 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: Here is the censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden ? the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept?s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me ? to shorten it, fix typos, etc ? but it?s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not ?edit? but completely gut as a condition to publication: TITLE: THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER?S EMAILS Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine , and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family's pursuit of business opportunities in China , provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories. One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence. After the Post?s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father. Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the contents' authenticity . One of Hunter?s former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist that Hunter along with Joe Biden's brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of the published email chains, appeared to confirm the authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up questions about it. Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that "text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don?t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture." But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated -- so the conclusion that one had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing. Beyond that, the Journal's columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of documents and "found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post," including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion : while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, "records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy," and "make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his 'family?s brand' as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture." These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, "that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president." Strassel noted that "a May 2017 'expectations' document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for 'the big guy'?who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden." And the independent journalist Matt Taibbi published an article on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden's attempt to replace a Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma. All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son's business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them. The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution) to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims. Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its ?fact-check,? one that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for Twitter?s handling of the censorship and reversed the policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation?s fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as the election approaches, for almost two weeks. After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs have donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation's media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story. Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept , quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the ?classic trademarks" of a ?Russian disinformation? plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times reported that ?no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation? and the paper said even the FBI has ?acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.? The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed -- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories -- that contained this extraordinary proclamation: "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation ? even if they probably aren't." Even the letter from the former intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was all part of some ?Russian disinformation? scheme explicitly admitted that ?we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,? though many media outlets omitted that crucial acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot: Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. ?I think we need to be very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden emails at Thursday night?s debate. Biden?s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC : ?if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation." The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along with the derogatory nickname ?MAGA Haberman.? CBS News? Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by his some in the media simply for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer, accusing Erickson of spreading a "smear." That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified NPR?s refusal to cover the story on the ground that ?we do not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers? and listeners? time on stories that are just pure distractions.? NPR Public Editor @NPRpubliceditor Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter ?? tinyurl.com/y67vlzj2 October 22nd 2020 7,781 Retweets20,498 Likes To justify her own show?s failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes? Leslie Stahl resorted to an entirely different justification . ?It can?t be verified,? the CBS reporter claimed when confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program?s failure to cover the Hunter Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same phrase : ?it can?t be verified.? After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the story as too complex and obscure for anyone to follow -- a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the network's media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride , the story has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on Friday : "most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails.... CNN?s mentions of ?Hunter? peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC?s at 24 seconds one day last week." On Sunday, CNN's Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC's Elizabeth Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: "We're not going to do your work for you." Watch how the U.S.'s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic front-runner: These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday about this tawdry press spectacle: " The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies." All of those excuses and pretexts ? emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win ? served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it. The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and, when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the absolute right to know, including: * whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific ones); * whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store; * whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did so; * whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and, * how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement ? Yuriy Lutsenko, someone who had no experience in law ; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself had a history of corruption allegations ? was acceptable if Biden?s goal really was to fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal affairs for some other objective. Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept?s questions, they have not done so. A statement they released to other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden ?has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business overseas.? To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that anyone discussing this story is ?amplifying Russian disinformation,? neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents -- which they and the press continue to label "Russian disinformation" -- are forgeries or whether they are authentic. The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny: First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified -- the excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others -- is blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014 and the Intercept?s Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level Bolsonaro officials ), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden?s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those. With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected. This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process. The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake. Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting's authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting. The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material?s authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives. Second, the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published emails and texts were ?Russian disinformation? was, from the start, obviously baseless and reckless. No evidence ? literally none ? has been presented to suggest involvement by any Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible ? when one does not know for certain what the provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out ? but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was "Russian disinformation" was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA officials. Worse is the ?disinformation? part of the media?s equation. How can these materials constitute ?disinformation? if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions about "Russian disinformation" is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were "disinformation," became their placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these documents. Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden's aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid. But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son's highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was? The standard answer to the question about Biden's motive -- offered both by Biden and his media defenders -- is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption. ?Biden?s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine?s Western benefactors wanted to see as,? wrote the Washington Post?s Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a ?fact-check.? Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. ?The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine?s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,? Kessler claims. But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies. Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden's goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had "no legal background as general prosecutor," was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to "resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly," and "was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated." Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it. As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied ? that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma ? the evidence does not justify that assertion. It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that "no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general?s dismissal," this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma: [Biden's] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament . Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden?s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general. The Times added: "Mr. Shokhin?s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma's billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma." By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, "initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office." So whether or not it was Biden's intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin's firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko "cleared [Burisma's founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office." The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed: For all the negative press about Shokhin, there?s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like ?dormant.? Here?s how Ken Vogel at the New York Times put it in May of 2019: "When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources." Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time. ?There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,? says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General?s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were. ?There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don't know the exact amount." But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin. The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another ?13 or 14 ? cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky. Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, "one can?t say there?s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky's assets] that got him fired." And, Taibbi notes, "the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement ? Yuri Lutsenko ? who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular." In sum: "it?s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin?s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month." The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden?s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son?s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried ? regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has. But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President?s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi?s headline put it: ?With the Hunter Biden Expos?, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.? The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years ? cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated. It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win. But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents. Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic ? large-city, college-educated professionals ? has vanishingly little Trump support. A New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of cultural insularity and homogeniety: Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in the last two months....It is not just that much of Mr. Biden?s strongest support comes overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does.... [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486 million to only $167 million ? accounting for almost his entire financial edge....One Upper West Side ZIP code ? 10024 ? accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York City in total delivered $85.6 million for him ? more than he raised in every state other than California.... The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was actually ahead by $53.4 million. Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post's Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance, issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt. That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and -- despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its contents . When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them: Michael Barbaro @mikiebarb Why NYT's David Barstow does not care who leaked us Trump's tax return, or what the motivation was. Listen: The Journalist Who Broke Open Trump?s Taxes On Why He Doesn?t Care Who The Source IsDavid Barstow, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-author of the bombshell New York Times investigation of Donald J. Trump?s taxes, was asked whether he cared who had anonymously msoundcloud.com October 4th 2016 418 Retweets812 Likes The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it. A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored. As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday : "The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear." Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: "The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it's true." _______________________________________________ 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 moboct1 at aim.com Sun Nov 1 16:15:25 2020 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 16:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. In-Reply-To: <003301d6b068$3686f570$a394e050$@comcast.net> References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> <003301d6b068$3686f570$a394e050$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1937778798.1067397.1604247325842@mail.yahoo.com> MSM/DNC probably blame "the Russians" for leaking the emails... Midge -----Original Message----- From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Sun, Nov 1, 2020 8:02 am Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. ? ? . ? Perhaps, but obviously the Intercept and the rest of the corporate media thinks so, considering the Intercept?s censorship and the corporate media?s furious campaign trying to convince everyone that there is ? nothing there ?. ? The real story here is the censorship and it?s support by the corporate media and liberals, NOT so much further details exposing the corruption of the Bidens. ? David J. ? From: Brussel, Morton K [mailto:brussel at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 10:27 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Brussel, Morton K Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. ? My impression is that there is much less here than meets the eye. Yes, the media is largely corrupt in imposing its biases while concealing them, and The Intercept has been disappointing, but they still have Naomi Klein on board, and Scahill. Even Caitland Johnstone has admitted regarding these arguable revelations: "I don't know that the Hunter Biden October surprise shows anything more scandalous than you'd expect for any major US presidential nominee.??? ? On Oct 30, 2020, at 2:43 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: ? Here is the censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. ? Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept | | I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden ? the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they?refuse to publish it?absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept?s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me ? to shorten it, fix typos, etc ? but it?s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not ?edit? but completely gut as a condition to publication: ? TITLE:?THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER?S EMAILS Publication by the?New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop, relating to?Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family's?pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a?de facto?union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories. One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence. After the Post?s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father. Individuals included in some of the email chains have?confirmed the contents' authenticity. One of Hunter?s former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist that Hunter along with Joe Biden's brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of the published email chains,?appeared to confirm the authenticity?as well, though he?refused to answer?follow-up questions about it. Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal?says?that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that "text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don?t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture." But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated -- so the conclusion that one had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing. Beyond that, the Journal's columnist Kimberly Strassel?reviewed a stash of documents?and "found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post," including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday?reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, "records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy," and "make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his 'family?s brand' as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture." These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, "that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president." Strassel noted that "a May 2017 'expectations' document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for 'the big guy'?who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden." And the independent journalist Matt Taibbi?published an article?on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden's attempt to replace a Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma. All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son's business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them. The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in?interviews with news outlets?and then (under penalty of prosecution)?to a Senate Committee;?he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims. Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked?a highly unusual censorship campaign?by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its ?fact-check,? one that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for Twitter?s handling of the censorship and?reversed the policy?that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation?s fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as the election approaches, for almost two weeks. After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs?have donated?almost entirely?to the Biden campaign, it was the nation's media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story. Numerous news outlets,?including the Intercept, quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the ?classic trademarks" of a ?Russian disinformation? plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times?reported?that ?no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation? and the paper said even the FBI has ?acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.? The Washington Post on Sunday?published an op-ed?-- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories -- that contained this extraordinary proclamation: "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation ? even if they probably aren't." Even the?letter from the former intelligence officials?cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was all part of some ?Russian disinformation? scheme explicitly admitted that ?we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,? though many media outlets omitted that crucial acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot: Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. ?I think we need to be very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation,"?said?Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden emails at Thursday night?s debate. Biden?s senior advisor Symone Sanders?similarly warned on MSNBC: ?if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation." The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had her name?trend all morning?along with the derogatory nickname ?MAGA Haberman.? CBS News? Bo Erickson was?widely attacked?even by his?some in the media?simply for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer, accusing Erickson of spreading a "smear." That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in?an anazing statement?representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified NPR?s refusal to cover the story on the ground that ?we do not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers? and listeners? time on stories that are just pure distractions.? NPR Public Editor @NPRpubliceditor Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter???tinyurl.com/y67vlzj2? October 22nd 2020 7,781 Retweets20,498 Likes To justify her own show?s failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes? Leslie Stahl?resorted to an entirely different justification. ?It can?t be verified,? the CBS reporter claimed when confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program?s failure to cover the Hunter Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the laptop, Stahl simply?repeated the same phrase: ?it can?t be verified.? After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel?mocked the story?as too complex and obscure for anyone to follow -- a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the network's media reporter Brian Stelter?noted with pride, the story has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times?noted on Friday: "most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails.... CNN?s mentions of ?Hunter? peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC?s at 24 seconds one day last week." On Sunday, CNN's Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC's Elizabeth Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: "We're not going to do your work for you." Watch how the U.S.'s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic front-runner: These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi?wrote on Sunday?about this tawdry press spectacle: " The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies." All of those excuses and pretexts ? emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win ? served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it. The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and, when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the absolute right to know, including: - whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific ones); - whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store; - whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did so; - whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and, - how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement ? Yuriy Lutsenko, someone who?had no experience in law; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself had a history of corruption allegations ? was acceptable if Biden?s goal really was to fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal affairs for some other objective. Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept?s questions, they have not done so. A?statement they released?to other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden ?has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business overseas.? To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that anyone discussing this story is ?amplifying Russian disinformation,? neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents -- which they and the press continue to label "Russian disinformation" -- are forgeries or whether they are authentic. The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny: First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified -- the excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others -- is blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014 and?the Intercept?s Brazil Archive?over the last year?showing corruption by high-level Bolsonaro officials), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden?s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those. With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected. This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process. The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake. Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting's authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting. The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material?s authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives. Second, the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published emails and texts were ?Russian disinformation? was, from the start, obviously baseless and reckless. No evidence ? literally none ? has been presented to suggest involvement by any Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible ? when one does not know for certain what the provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out ? but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was "Russian disinformation" was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA officials. Worse is the ?disinformation? part of the media?s equation. How can these materials constitute ?disinformation? if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions about "Russian disinformation" is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were "disinformation," became their placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these documents. Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden's aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of?a video of Biden boasting?in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid. But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son's highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was? The standard answer to the question about Biden's motive -- offered both by Biden and his media defenders -- is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption. ?Biden?s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine?s Western benefactors wanted to see as,??wrote the Washington Post?s Glenn Kessler?in what the Post calls a ?fact-check.? Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. ?The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine?s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,? Kessler claims. But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies. Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden's goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had "no legal background as general prosecutor," was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to "resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly," and "was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated." Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it. As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied ? that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma ? the evidence does not justify that assertion. It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019?published one of the most comprehensive investigations?to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that "no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general?s dismissal," this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma: [Biden's] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was?voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament. Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden?s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch?who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general. The Times added: "Mr. Shokhin?s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma's billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma." By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, "initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office." So whether or not it was Biden's intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin's firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko "cleared [Burisma's founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office." The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed: For all the negative press about Shokhin, there?s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like ?dormant.? Here?s how Ken Vogel at the?New York Times?put it?in May of 2019: "When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources." Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time. ?There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,? says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General?s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were. ?There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don't know the exact amount." But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin. The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another ?13 or 14? cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky. Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, "one can?t say there?s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky's assets] that got him fired." And, Taibbi notes, "the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement ? Yuri Lutsenko ? who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular." In sum: "it?s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin?s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month." The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden?s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son?s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried ? regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has. But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President?s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi?s headline put it: ?With the Hunter Biden Expos?, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.? The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years ? cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated. It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win. But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents. Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic ? large-city, college-educated professionals ? has vanishingly little Trump support. A?New York Times survey of campaign data?from Monday tells just a part of this story of cultural insularity and homogeniety: Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in the last two months....It is not just that much of Mr. Biden?s strongest support comes overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does.... [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486 million to only $167 million ? accounting for almost his entire financial edge....One Upper West Side ZIP code ? 10024 ? accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York City in total delivered $85.6 million for him ? more than he raised in every state other than California.... The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was actually ahead by $53.4 million. Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post's Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance,?issued a memo?full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt. That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and -- despite having?no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? --?the Times?reported on its contents. When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow?compellingly explained?what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them: Michael Barbaro @mikiebarb Why NYT's David Barstow does not care who leaked us Trump's tax return, or what the motivation was. Listen:?The Journalist Who Broke Open Trump?s Taxes On Why He Doesn?t Care Who The Source IsDavid Barstow, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-author of the bombshell New York Times investigation of Donald J. Trump?s taxes, was asked whether he cared who had anonymously msoundcloud.com October 4th 2016 418 Retweets812 Likes The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it. A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored. As my colleague Lee Fang?put it on Sunday: "The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear." Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi?summed up?the most important point this way: "The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it's true." ? _______________________________________________ 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Nov 1 16:37:22 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 10:37:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] deception-2020-the-one-thing-democrats-and-republicans-always-agree-on Message-ID: <006601d6b06d$46b41860$d41c4920$@comcast.net> https://popularresistance.org/deception-2020-the-one-thing-democrats-and-rep ublicans-always-agree-on/ Deception 2020: The One Thing Democrats And Republicans Always Agree On By Eleanor Goldfield, Art Killing Apathy. October 31, 2020 | Resistance Report In this sixth installment of the Deception 2020 Series, we highlight the most vibrant common thread between both of our corporate parties: imperialism. We sit down with Leonardo Flores to discuss Venezuela in particular, placing the ongoing attack on this progressive nation in the broader context of US imperialism both away and at home. NOTE: this video was recorded prior to the elections in Bolivia that saw the socialist party MAS win an overwhelming victory. It was also recorded prior to the Chilean vote to scrap the Pinochet constitution. Both of these events are huge victories for the people of South America - and folks here could definitely learn a few things by looking south. 89 % of Senate Democrats help pass the 696.5 Billion Defense Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Nov 1 23:49:37 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 23:49:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. In-Reply-To: <002401d6b067$51464c90$f3d2e5b0$@comcast.net> References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> <002401d6b067$51464c90$f3d2e5b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5C1846EC-2CC2-4AD8-8E37-09C96534DB38@illinois.edu> A critique of Glenn Greenwald, specifically his appearance on tthe Tucker Fox show is well presented on Paul Jay?s interview with Abby Martin: It?s about 27 minutes into the podcast: https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ Regards, Mort On Nov 1, 2020, at 9:54 AM, David Johnson > wrote: Perhaps, but obviously the Intercept and the rest of the corporate media thinks so, considering the Intercept?s censorship and the corporate media?s furious campaign trying to convince everyone that there is ? nothing there ?. The real story here is the censorship and it?s support by the corporate media and liberals, NOT so much further details exposing the corruption of the Bidens. David J. From: Brussel, Morton K [mailto:brussel at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 10:27 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Brussel, Morton K Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. My impression is that there is much less here than meets the eye. Yes, the media is largely corrupt in imposing its biases while concealing them, and The Intercept has been disappointing, but they still have Naomi Klein on board, and Scahill. Even Caitland Johnstone has admitted regarding these arguable revelations: "I don't know that the Hunter Biden October surprise shows anything more scandalous than you'd expect for any major US presidential nominee.?? On Oct 30, 2020, at 2:43 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: Here is the censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden ? the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept?s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me ? to shorten it, fix typos, etc ? but it?s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not ?edit? but completely gut as a condition to publication: TITLE: THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER?S EMAILS Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family's pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories. One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence. After the Post?s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father. Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the contents' authenticity. One of Hunter?s former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist that Hunter along with Joe Biden's brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of the published email chains, appeared to confirm the authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up questions about it. Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that "text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don?t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture." But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated -- so the conclusion that one had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing. Beyond that, the Journal's columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of documents and "found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post," including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, "records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy," and "make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his 'family?s brand' as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture." These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, "that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president." Strassel noted that "a May 2017 'expectations' document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for 'the big guy'?who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden." And the independent journalist Matt Taibbi published an article on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden's attempt to replace a Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma. All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son's business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them. The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution) to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims. Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its ?fact-check,? one that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for Twitter?s handling of the censorship and reversed the policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation?s fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as the election approaches, for almost two weeks. After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs have donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation's media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story. Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept, quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the ?classic trademarks" of a ?Russian disinformation? plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times reported that ?no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation? and the paper said even the FBI has ?acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.? The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed -- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories -- that contained this extraordinary proclamation: "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation ? even if they probably aren't." Even the letter from the former intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was all part of some ?Russian disinformation? scheme explicitly admitted that ?we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,? though many media outlets omitted that crucial acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot: Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. ?I think we need to be very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden emails at Thursday night?s debate. Biden?s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: ?if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation." The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along with the derogatory nickname ?MAGA Haberman.? CBS News? Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by his some in the media simply for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer, accusing Erickson of spreading a "smear." That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified NPR?s refusal to cover the story on the ground that ?we do not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers? and listeners? time on stories that are just pure distractions.? NPR Public Editor @NPRpubliceditor Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter?? tinyurl.com/y67vlzj2 October 22nd 2020 7,781 Retweets20,498 Likes To justify her own show?s failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes? Leslie Stahl resorted to an entirely different justification. ?It can?t be verified,? the CBS reporter claimed when confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program?s failure to cover the Hunter Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same phrase: ?it can?t be verified.? After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the story as too complex and obscure for anyone to follow -- a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the network's media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride, the story has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on Friday: "most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails.... CNN?s mentions of ?Hunter? peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC?s at 24 seconds one day last week." On Sunday, CNN's Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC's Elizabeth Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: "We're not going to do your work for you." Watch how the U.S.'s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic front-runner: These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday about this tawdry press spectacle: " The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies." All of those excuses and pretexts ? emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win ? served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it. The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and, when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the absolute right to know, including: * whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific ones); * whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store; * whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did so; * whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and, * how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement ? Yuriy Lutsenko, someone who had no experience in law; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself had a history of corruption allegations ? was acceptable if Biden?s goal really was to fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal affairs for some other objective. Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept?s questions, they have not done so. A statement they released to other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden ?has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business overseas.? To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that anyone discussing this story is ?amplifying Russian disinformation,? neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents -- which they and the press continue to label "Russian disinformation" -- are forgeries or whether they are authentic. The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny: First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified -- the excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others -- is blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014 and the Intercept?s Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level Bolsonaro officials), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden?s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those. With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected. This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process. The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake. Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting's authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting. The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material?s authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives. Second, the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published emails and texts were ?Russian disinformation? was, from the start, obviously baseless and reckless. No evidence ? literally none ? has been presented to suggest involvement by any Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible ? when one does not know for certain what the provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out ? but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was "Russian disinformation" was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA officials. Worse is the ?disinformation? part of the media?s equation. How can these materials constitute ?disinformation? if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions about "Russian disinformation" is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were "disinformation," became their placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these documents. Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden's aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid. But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son's highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was? The standard answer to the question about Biden's motive -- offered both by Biden and his media defenders -- is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption. ?Biden?s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine?s Western benefactors wanted to see as,? wrote the Washington Post?s Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a ?fact-check.? Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. ?The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine?s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,? Kessler claims. But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies. Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden's goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had "no legal background as general prosecutor," was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to "resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly," and "was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated." Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it. As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied ? that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma ? the evidence does not justify that assertion. It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that "no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general?s dismissal," this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma: [Biden's] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament. Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden?s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general. The Times added: "Mr. Shokhin?s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma's billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma." By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, "initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office." So whether or not it was Biden's intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin's firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko "cleared [Burisma's founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office." The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed: For all the negative press about Shokhin, there?s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like ?dormant.? Here?s how Ken Vogel at the New York Times put it in May of 2019: "When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources." Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time. ?There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,? says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General?s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were. ?There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don't know the exact amount." But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin. The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another ?13 or 14? cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky. Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, "one can?t say there?s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky's assets] that got him fired." And, Taibbi notes, "the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement ? Yuri Lutsenko ? who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular." In sum: "it?s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin?s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month." The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden?s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son?s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried ? regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has. But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President?s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi?s headline put it: ?With the Hunter Biden Expos?, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.? The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years ? cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated. It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win. But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents. Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic ? large-city, college-educated professionals ? has vanishingly little Trump support. A New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of cultural insularity and homogeniety: Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in the last two months....It is not just that much of Mr. Biden?s strongest support comes overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does.... [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486 million to only $167 million ? accounting for almost his entire financial edge....One Upper West Side ZIP code ? 10024 ? accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York City in total delivered $85.6 million for him ? more than he raised in every state other than California.... The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was actually ahead by $53.4 million. Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post's Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance, issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt. That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and -- despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its contents. When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them: Michael Barbaro @mikiebarb Why NYT's David Barstow does not care who leaked us Trump's tax return, or what the motivation was. Listen: The Journalist Who Broke Open Trump?s Taxes On Why He Doesn?t Care Who The Source IsDavid Barstow, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-author of the bombshell New York Times investigation of Donald J. Trump?s taxes, was asked whether he cared who had anonymously msoundcloud.com October 4th 2016 418 Retweets812 Likes The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it. A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored. As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: "The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear." Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: "The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it's true." _______________________________________________ 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 moboct1 at aim.com Mon Nov 2 02:43:11 2020 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 02:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] deception-2020-the-one-thing-democrats-and-republicans-always-agree-on In-Reply-To: <006601d6b06d$46b41860$d41c4920$@comcast.net> References: <006601d6b06d$46b41860$d41c4920$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1894892442.1192161.1604284991375@mail.yahoo.com> Socialism (not even?so much as the mention of?Capitalism, often associated with the word "Communism") used as a pejorative by both "our corporate" parties and their major political candidates indicates that this form of (theoretically) politically unaligned economic philosophy is the object of disdain and condemnation which the Capitalist ruling class dictates that patriotic Americans must eschew from political consideration.?? The great Socialist Party labor activist Eugene V. Debs was once a Democrat and imprisoned for opposing WW I ran for President from his prison cell.. Midge ? ? -----Original Message----- From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss uTo: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Sun, Nov 1, 2020 8:37 am Subject: [Peace-discuss] deception-2020-the-one-thing-democrats-and-republicans-always-agree-on https://popularresistance.org/deception-2020-the-one-thing-democrats-and-republicans-always-agree-on/ ? ? Deception 2020: The One Thing Democrats And Republicans Always Agree On By Eleanor Goldfield, Art Killing Apathy. October 31, 2020 | Resistance Report In this sixth installment of the Deception 2020 Series, we highlight the most vibrant common thread between both of our corporate parties: imperialism. We sit down with Leonardo Flores to discuss Venezuela in particular, placing the ongoing attack on this progressive nation in the broader context of US imperialism both away and at home. NOTE: this video was recorded prior to the elections in Bolivia that saw the socialist party MAS win an overwhelming victory. It was also recorded prior to the Chilean vote to scrap the Pinochet constitution. Both of these events are huge victories for the people of South America ? and folks here could definitely learn a few things by looking south. 89 % of Senate Democrats help pass the 696.5 Billion Defense Bill ? _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Nov 2 15:07:18 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:07:18 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. In-Reply-To: <5C1846EC-2CC2-4AD8-8E37-09C96534DB38@illinois.edu> References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> <002401d6b067$51464c90$f3d2e5b0$@comcast.net> <5C1846EC-2CC2-4AD8-8E37-09C96534DB38@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <003301d6b129$e09c3f40$a1d4bdc0$@comcast.net> Well, I am really surprised and disappointed that Abby Martin has also succumbed to the scare tactics of the Democrats and the corporate owned media. She should know better. I say this over and over and over again. 1) The POTUS is NOT an elected king. We live in a BIPARTICSAN corporate oligarchy. The POTUS is the General manager of the corporate oligarchy and will never do anything that the oligarchy is fundamentally opposed to. 2) Put the emotions on hold and go look at the actually policies that Trump and Biden oppose and support. They are identical on the important issues. 3) The BIPARTISAN corporate oligarchy stays in power by ?A) Diversion and B) Divide and Conquer. Nothing will fundamentally change until a critical mass of people stop thinking that the Democrats are some type of ? opposition ? party. They are NOT. They are just another faction of the one party corporate state. And until we begin to build and support a non corporate people?s party with street heat as back up, things will continue to get worse, as they have for the last 40 years. Trump opposes Medicare for All, Biden opposes Medicare for All Trump opposes student debt forgiveness, Biden opposes student debt forgiveness Trump opposes fee post high school education, Biden opposes free post high school education Biden is an even bigger war monger than Trump Trump opposes a monthly UBI, Biden opposes a monthly UBI Trump opposes defunding the police, Biden opposes defunding the police Trump supports tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, Biden supports tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations Trump supports fracking, pipelines and artic drilling, so does Biden Trump supports job destroying corporate trade treaties, so does Biden Trump opposes national legalization of marijuana, Biden opposes national legalization of marijuana And the list goes on and on. David J. From: Brussel, Morton K [mailto:brussel at illinois.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2020 5:50 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Brussel, Morton K; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. A critique of Glenn Greenwald, specifically his appearance on tthe Tucker Fox show is well presented on Paul Jay?s interview with Abby Martin: It?s about 27 minutes into the podcast: https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ Regards, Mort On Nov 1, 2020, at 9:54 AM, David Johnson wrote: Perhaps, but obviously the Intercept and the rest of the corporate media thinks so, considering the Intercept?s censorship and the corporate media?s furious campaign trying to convince everyone that there is ? nothing there ?. The real story here is the censorship and it?s support by the corporate media and liberals, NOT so much further details exposing the corruption of the Bidens. David J. From: Brussel, Morton K [ mailto:brussel at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 10:27 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Brussel, Morton K Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. My impression is that there is much less here than meets the eye. Yes, the media is largely corrupt in imposing its biases while concealing them, and The Intercept has been disappointing, but they still have Naomi Klein on board, and Scahill. Even Caitland Johnstone has admitted regarding these arguable revelations: "I don't know that the Hunter Biden October surprise shows anything more scandalous than you'd expect for any major US presidential nominee.?? On Oct 30, 2020, at 2:43 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Here is the censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden ? the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept?s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me ? to shorten it, fix typos, etc ? but it?s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not ?edit? but completely gut as a condition to publication: TITLE: THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER?S EMAILS Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family's pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories. One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence. After the Post?s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father. Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the contents' authenticity. One of Hunter?s former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist that Hunter along with Joe Biden's brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of the published email chains, appeared to confirm the authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up questions about it. Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that "text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don?t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture." But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated -- so the conclusion that one had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing. Beyond that, the Journal's columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of documents and "found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post," including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, "records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy," and "make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his 'family?s brand' as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture." These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, "that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president." Strassel noted that "a May 2017 'expectations' document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for 'the big guy'?who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden." And the independent journalist Matt Taibbi published an article on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden's attempt to replace a Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma. All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son's business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them. The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution) to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims. Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its ?fact-check,? one that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for Twitter?s handling of the censorship and reversed the policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation?s fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as the election approaches, for almost two weeks. After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs have donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation's media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story. Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept, quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the ?classic trademarks" of a ?Russian disinformation? plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times reported that ?no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation? and the paper said even the FBI has ?acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.? The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed -- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories -- that contained this extraordinary proclamation: "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation ? even if they probably aren't." Even the letter from the former intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was all part of some ?Russian disinformation? scheme explicitly admitted that ?we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,? though many media outlets omitted that crucial acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot: Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. ?I think we need to be very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden emails at Thursday night?s debate. Biden?s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: ?if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation." The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along with the derogatory nickname ?MAGA Haberman.? CBS News? Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by his some in the media simply for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer, accusing Erickson of spreading a "smear." That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified NPR?s refusal to cover the story on the ground that ?we do not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers? and listeners? time on stories that are just pure distractions.? NPR Public Editor @NPRpubliceditor Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter?? tinyurl.com/y67vlzj2 October 22nd 2020 7,781 Retweets20,498 Likes To justify her own show?s failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes? Leslie Stahl resorted to an entirely different justification. ?It can?t be verified,? the CBS reporter claimed when confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program?s failure to cover the Hunter Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same phrase: ?it can?t be verified.? After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the story as too complex and obscure for anyone to follow -- a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the network's media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride, the story has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on Friday: "most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails.... CNN?s mentions of ?Hunter? peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC?s at 24 seconds one day last week." On Sunday, CNN's Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC's Elizabeth Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: "We're not going to do your work for you." Watch how the U.S.'s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic front-runner: These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday about this tawdry press spectacle: " The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies." All of those excuses and pretexts ? emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win ? served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it. The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and, when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the absolute right to know, including: * whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific ones); * whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store; * whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did so; * whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and, * how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement ? Yuriy Lutsenko, someone who had no experience in law; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself had a history of corruption allegations ? was acceptable if Biden?s goal really was to fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal affairs for some other objective. Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept?s questions, they have not done so. A statement they released to other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden ?has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business overseas.? To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that anyone discussing this story is ?amplifying Russian disinformation,? neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents -- which they and the press continue to label "Russian disinformation" -- are forgeries or whether they are authentic. The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny: First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified -- the excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others -- is blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014 and the Intercept?s Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level Bolsonaro officials), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden?s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those. With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected. This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process. The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake. Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting's authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting. The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material?s authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives. Second, the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published emails and texts were ?Russian disinformation? was, from the start, obviously baseless and reckless. No evidence ? literally none ? has been presented to suggest involvement by any Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible ? when one does not know for certain what the provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out ? but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was "Russian disinformation" was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA officials. Worse is the ?disinformation? part of the media?s equation. How can these materials constitute ?disinformation? if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions about "Russian disinformation" is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were "disinformation," became their placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these documents. Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden's aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid. But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son's highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was? The standard answer to the question about Biden's motive -- offered both by Biden and his media defenders -- is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption. ?Biden?s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine?s Western benefactors wanted to see as,? wrote the Washington Post?s Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a ?fact-check.? Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. ?The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine?s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,? Kessler claims. But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies. Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden's goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had "no legal background as general prosecutor," was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to "resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly," and "was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated." Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it. As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied ? that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma ? the evidence does not justify that assertion. It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that "no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general?s dismissal," this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma: [Biden's] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament. Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden?s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general. The Times added: "Mr. Shokhin?s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma's billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma." By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, "initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office." So whether or not it was Biden's intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin's firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko "cleared [Burisma's founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office." The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed: For all the negative press about Shokhin, there?s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like ?dormant.? Here?s how Ken Vogel at the New York Times put it in May of 2019: "When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources." Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time. ?There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,? says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General?s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were. ?There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don't know the exact amount." But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin. The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another ? 13 or 14? cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky. Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, "one can?t say there?s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky's assets] that got him fired." And, Taibbi notes, "the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement ? Yuri Lutsenko ? who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular." In sum: "it?s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin?s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month." The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden?s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son?s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried ? regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has. But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President?s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi?s headline put it: ?With the Hunter Biden Expos?, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.? The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years ? cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated. It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win. But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents. Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic ? large-city, college-educated professionals ? has vanishingly little Trump support. A New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of cultural insularity and homogeniety: Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in the last two months....It is not just that much of Mr. Biden?s strongest support comes overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does.... [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486 million to only $167 million ? accounting for almost his entire financial edge....One Upper West Side ZIP code ? 10024 ? accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York City in total delivered $85.6 million for him ? more than he raised in every state other than California.... The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was actually ahead by $53.4 million. Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post's Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance, issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt. That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and -- despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its contents. When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them: Michael Barbaro @mikiebarb Why NYT's David Barstow does not care who leaked us Trump's tax return, or what the motivation was. Listen: The Journalist Who Broke Open Trump?s Taxes On Why He Doesn?t Care Who The Source IsDavid Barstow, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-author of the bombshell New York Times investigation of Donald J. Trump?s taxes, was asked whether he cared who had anonymously msoundcloud.com October 4th 2016 418 Retweets812 Likes The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it. A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored. As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: "The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear." Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: "The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it's true." _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Nov 2 15:10:39 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:10:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Biden: A War Cabinet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004301d6b12a$537afc40$fa70f4c0$@comcast.net> NOVEMBER 2, 2020 Biden: A War Cabinet? BY MARIAMNE EVERETT https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/11/02/biden-a-war-cabinet/ Biden: A War Cabinet? - CounterPunch.org ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can?t count the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to ?normalcy? -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet. More www.counterpunch.org ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House.? I can?t count the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency ? which promises a return to ?normalcy? ? really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet. Susan Rice for Secretary of State Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden?s Vice President, served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security Advisor, both under the Obama administration. While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there. Some of her statements: ?I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don?t think many informed people doubted that.? (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003) ?It?s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It?s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that?s the path we?re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.? (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002) ?I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it?s a question of timing and tactics. We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions.? (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio of Rice?s statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.) She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African continent, which judging by the following quote at the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a ?laissez faire? attitude : ?If we use the word ?genocide? and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?? Susan Rice?s past rhetoric also includes choice generous words for African dictators. One great example is former prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, a man who ordered security services to open fire on protestors during its controversial 2005 election, has a track record of imprisoning journalists, used food aid as a political tool and stole land in south Ethiopia. In her speech at his funeral, Susan Rice described him as ?brilliant? and a ?close friend?. Although Rice has often been portrayed as someone who is anti-Israel, her mild criticisms pale in comparison to her staunch record and discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In a speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palsestinian land as illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as ?flawed? and ?insisted on Israel?s right to defend itself and maintained that Israel?s democratic institutions could credibly investigate any possible abuses.? Her position has changed little since then, as recently as 2016, she proclaimed that ?Israel?s security isn?t a Democratic interest or a Republican interest?it?s an enduring American interest.? Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP Biden?s National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017. Blinken had immense influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate Biden?s approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ?For Biden ?, he argued, ?and for a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy.? He added ?It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action is possible.? The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama?s campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it led to even more chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency. Blinken seems to be of the view that it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : ?On leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn?t organize itself. And until this [Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing, helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern relations among nations. When we?re not engaged, when we don?t lead, then one or two things is likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place ? but probably not in a way that advances our interests or values ? or no one does. And then you get chaos or a vacuum filled by bad things before it?s filled by good things. Either way, that?s bad for us.? Blinken also appears to be steering Biden?s pro-Israel agenda, recently stating that Biden ?would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions that it makes, period, full stop.? which includes an all out rejection of BDS, the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel?s occupation of Palestine. Mich?le Flournoy for Secretary of Defence Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. Flournoy, in writing the Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.?s endless and costly wars which prevent us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter?s prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, ?when the interests at stake are vital, we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.? While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a ?Top Defense and National Security Think Tank? based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she declared, that the United States would ?need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts to destroy an adversary?s weapons stockpile? before it ?could erect defenses to protect those weapons, or simply disperse them.? She continued along this path even in 2009, after the Bush administration, in a speech for the CSIS : ?The second key challenge I want to highlight is the proliferation ? continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to states such as Iran, North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to obtain these materials or weapons.? It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental, military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that describes itself on its website as ?a unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating future-defining research and technology to keep our world safer.? Their partnership on the AI initiative entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion by Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police operations. Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50 representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees supported ?ask(ing) Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict.? Flournoy did not. She said that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these advanced patriot missiles to defend itself. Conclusion If a return to ?normalcy? means having the same old politicians that are responsible for endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a call for ?normalcy? is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances, could set the stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even exceed those posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars. Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy currently living in France. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Nov 2 15:45:19 2020 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:45:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Biden: A War Cabinet? In-Reply-To: <004301d6b12a$537afc40$fa70f4c0$@comcast.net> References: <004301d6b12a$537afc40$fa70f4c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Insider Jewish press has claimed that AIPAC tool Chris Coons "has the inside track" to be Secretary of State. Hence, this petition in support of Chris Murphy. @JoeBiden: If you win, tap @ChrisMurphyCT at State to End Yemen War, Restore Iran Deal https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/joebiden-please-ask-chrismurphyct-to-be-your-secretary-of-state On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:11 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > NOVEMBER 2, 2020 > Biden: A War Cabinet? > > > BY MARIAMNE EVERETT > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/11/02/biden-a-war-cabinet/ > > Biden: A War Cabinet? - CounterPunch.org > > > ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can?t count > the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. > expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, > of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. > But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to > ?normalcy? -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? > Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered > about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a > Biden cabinet. More > > www.counterpunch.org > > ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House.? I can?t count > the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. > expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, > of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. > But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency ? which promises a return to > ?normalcy? ? really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? > Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered > about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a > Biden cabinet. > > *Susan Rice for Secretary of State* > > Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of > Biden?s Vice President, served as United States Ambassador to the United > Nations and as National Security Advisor, both under the Obama > administration. > > While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has > received virtually no scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and > claiming that there were WMDs there. Some of her statements: > > ?I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq > has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don?t think many informed > people doubted that.? (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003) > > ?It?s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It?s clear that its weapons of > mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that?s the path > we?re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic > balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on > the military side.? (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002) > > ?I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush > administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The > United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going > well back into the Clinton administration. So it?s a question of timing and > tactics. ? We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before > we can enforce this and previous resolutions.? (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; > requests for audio of Rice?s statements on NPR were declined by the > publicly funded network.) > > She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African > continent, which judging by the following quote > at > the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a > ?laissez faire? attitude : ?If we use the word ?genocide? and are seen as > doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] > election?? > > Susan Rice?s past rhetoric also includes choice generous words for > African dictators > . > One great example is former prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, a man > who ordered security services to open fire on protestors > during its controversial 2005 > election, has a track record of imprisoning journalists > , > used food aid as a political tool > and stole > land > in > south Ethiopia. In her speech at his funeral, Susan Rice described him as > ?brilliant? and a ?close > friend ?. > > Although Rice has often been portrayed as someone who is anti-Israel > , > her mild criticisms pale in comparison to her staunch record and discourse > on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. > > In a speech > given > at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about > vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied > Palsestinian land as illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone > Report as ?flawed? and ?insisted on Israel?s right to defend itself and > maintained that Israel?s democratic institutions could credibly investigate > any possible abuses.? Her position has changed little since then, as > recently as 2016, she proclaimed > that > ?Israel?s security isn?t a Democratic interest or a Republican > interest?it?s an enduring American interest.? > > *Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser * > > Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having > served first as VP Biden?s National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, > Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2015 and then as United > States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017. > > Blinken had immense influence > over > Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate > Biden?s approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. > > ?For Biden??, he argued > , > ?and for a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for > tough diplomacy.? He added ?It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, > if the other side knows military action is possible.? > > The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama?s campaign > promise > to > get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly > handled that it led to even more chaos > than > the initial occupation and insurgency. > > Blinken seems to be of the view > that > it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : ?On > leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn?t organize > itself. And until this [Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead > role in doing a lot of that organizing, helping to write the rules, to > shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern relations among > nations. When we?re not engaged, when we don?t lead, then one or two things > is likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place ? > but probably not in a way that advances our interests or values ? or no one > does. And then you get chaos or a vacuum filled by bad things before it?s > filled by good things. Either way, that?s bad for us.? > > Blinken also appears to be steering > Biden?s > pro-Israel agenda, recently stating > that > Biden ?would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political > decisions that it makes, period, full stop.? which includes an all out rejection > of BDS > , > the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel?s occupation of > Palestine. > > *Mich?le Flournoy for Secretary of Defence* > > Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to > 2012 in the Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon > Panetta. > > Flournoy, in writing the Quadrennial Defense Review > during > her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President > Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.?s endless and costly wars which > prevent us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like > Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. It has effectively granted the US > permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter?s > prohibition > against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, ?when the > interests at stake are vital, ?we should do whatever it takes to defend > them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.? > > While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies > (CSIS), a ?Top Defense and National Security Think Tank? > based > in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the Bush administration was > threatening aggression towards Iraq, she declared > , > that the United States would ?need to strike preemptively before a crisis > erupts to destroy an adversary?s weapons stockpile? before it ?could erect > defenses to protect those weapons, or simply disperse them.? She continued > along this path even in 2009, after the Bush administration, in a speech > for > the CSIS : ?The second key challenge I want to highlight is the > proliferation ? continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other > weapons of mass destruction, as these also pose increasing threats to our > security. We have to respond to states such as Iran, North Korea, who are > seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world > there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to > obtain these materials or weapons.? > > It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the > strategic consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large > database of governmental, military, venture capitalists and corporate > leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon contracts. One such > client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that describes > itself on its website as ?a unit within > Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating > future-defining research and technology to keep our world safer.? Their > partnership on the AI initiative entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion > by Google workers > who > opposed their technology being used by military and police operations. > > Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, > co-chaired the biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy > for America. Over 50 representatives of national-security groups were in > attendance. Most of the attendees supported > ?ask(ing) > Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict.? > Flournoy did not. She said that the weapons should be sold under certain > conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these advanced patriot missiles to > defend itself. > > *Conclusion* > > If a return to ?normalcy? means having the same old politicians that are > responsible for endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack > the courage to implement real structural change required for major issues > such as healthcare and the environment, then a call for ?normalcy? is > nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led > to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and > circumstances, could set the stage for the return of an administration with > dangers that could possibly even exceed those posed by the current one in > terms of launching new wars. > > *Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy > currently living in France.* > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jbn at forestfield.org Mon Nov 2 17:19:57 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:19:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. In-Reply-To: <003301d6b129$e09c3f40$a1d4bdc0$@comcast.net> References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> <002401d6b067$51464c90$f3d2e5b0$@comcast.net> <5C1846EC-2CC2-4AD8-8E37-09C96534DB38@illinois.edu> <003301d6b129$e09c3f40$a1d4bdc0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <3844bbda-b03c-a03b-2c3d-7415464aaf7e@forestfield.org> David Johnson wrote: [Regarding https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ where Paul Jay interviews Abby Martin] > I am really surprised and disappointed that Abby Martin has also succumbed to the > scare tactics of the Democrats and the corporate owned media. She should know > better. I think Martin does know better but I'm left wondering if she thinks differently because of what came at the top of this interview -- she now has a child. I'm not sure what the point of mentioning that was except for us to connect it to something else, something they don't clearly state. I'm sure that she sees the enormous amounts of money one can get for echoing the establishment line that Joe Biden is significantly different or not objecting to evidenceless speculation that things will be better for most Americans with a Biden presidency (which, for all we know, could turn into a Kamala "Top Cop" Harris presidency). People usually won't turn down economic security. I don't offer this as an excuse (like Aaron Mat? does and most recently did in https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nig6c1WEc-0 to Jimmy Dore's chagrin), I offer that as a description of what might motivate someone to do as they do. The cost of that choice is a public that has no reason to trust what that person has to say. The issues you listed are far more likely to be the issues on which Americans (who vote for POTUS at all) will base their vote. And therefore it's telling that we don't see proper explication of those issues in this Jay/Martin interview. Medicare for All, for instance, only came up once in this Jay/Martin interview and only because Martin brought it up. If either major party candidate had offered Medicare for All they would have won the election and convinced a majority of registered voters to vote for them. And it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the registered voters again don't vote for POTUS just like they didn't in 2016 (the majority that those who complain about the electoral college and majority voting typically don't talk about). Getting back to this Jay interview, I'm reminded of why I quit taking The Real News seriously under Jay's leadership and today: his analysis is not based in facts. I'll explain more below. On trying to make Biden look better than he is regarding the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq: > Paul Jay: Honestly, as much as I fully expect Biden to win this election and I > fully expect to spend the next four years savaging him on so many things, I do > find myself having to say two or three positive things in terms of foreign policy > and Biden. Even though, one, he?s fully rooted, as are almost all of the leaders > of the Democratic Party, rooted in the Cold War mentality. Meaning that America is > the real civilization, the pillar of democracy. What was Reagan?s line, ?the > beacon on the hill,? or whatever? I think he believes all that. And it?s > convenient to believe all that because the military industrial complex and > finance, it fits their strategy of how to make money out of being the global > policeman. > > But I also think he?s realistic and pragmatic in the way Obama was. And Obama, we > should remember, was against the Iraq war. And he said very clearly he wasn?t > against war and he wasn?t against regime change. > > Abby Martin: ?Dumb war.? > > Paul Jay: He just thought the Iraq war was stupid. Yeah, it was dumb. And I think > Biden agrees with him on that now, that that type of intervention is done. It > doesn?t help the empire. In one of his vice-presidential debates, he said that if > you didn?t want Iran to be a regional power, then the United States shouldn?t have > invaded Iraq. Because that?s what Iraq was: the buffer. And he said, It?s over > now, you did invade Iraq, and you do have to accept Iran as a regional power. > > That?s a very important point of difference because of the foreign-policy-gang > types around Trump. And I must include Chuck Schumer and, of course, Netanyahu > from Israel and the Saudis. They don?t want to accept Iran as a regional power. > They want to try to destroy the place, mostly through economic warfare, but > possibly more. > > And I think when Obama got elected, I said, I only have one hope that he?s going > to be anything different than a Clinton or any other centrist Democrat: on Iran, > he might be rational. And it turned out he was. The rest of his foreign policy was > just normal, corporate-Democratic, defend-the-empire policy. > > I?m saying I think Biden realized he was wrong about Iraq. He could have taken the > Obama position. On the other hand, he?s a political opportunist, Biden. He goes > where the wind blows, where he thinks his political fortunes will be best. So, I > think it was more about that than anything, why he voted for the resolution that > wound up enabling the Iraq war. Biden didn't "realize he was wrong about Iraq". For years after that vote he went on the lecture circuit telling people he was right to vote in support of authorizing Pres. G.W. Bush to invade Iraq. Biden only recently changed his tune to another lie[1], now saying something that tries to recast his vote to mean something other than authorizing an illegal invasion. That's not "realizing he [Biden] was wrong about Iraq". Jay doesn't even put proper emphasis on what Jay has tacitly admitted and downplayed in favor of constructing another narrative -- Biden was wrong. At the time when it counted, when there were millions of people on the streets of the world telling him not to support that invasion, Biden voted to authorize the invasion. Even if Biden genuinely had changed his mind, as Jay apparently believes, that would mean nothing. It's the vote at the time that counts for anything. [1] Notice how Trump's lying isn't so much a point of contention in this election? It's because Biden has a long documented record of lying going back to when he was more lucid and he lied about his own educational record and had given speeches which he copied from others without attribution. He even dropped out of his 1988 run because he got caught in these lies. Trump and Biden's treatment of women is also tellingly not a hotly contested point in the 2020 election for similar reasons -- both of those candidates are comparably horrible with women. On casting Glenn Greenwald to have a worse understanding of what just happened to him than Greenwald said: > Paul Jay: But when Glenn goes on Tucker Carlson? He crossed a line there. Not by > going on Tucker Carlson. I?ll go on Tucker Carlson, but they?d never invite me. > One, I?m not famous enough. Nobody knows who I am. And, two, they know, if they > listen to me, I?m not going to do what Glenn did, which is, I?m not going to > regurgitate Tucker Carlson?s own speaking points back to him and just say what he > wants to hear. Because when Glenn was on Rising, that Krystal Ball show on The > Hill, he didn?t say what he said on Tucker Carlson. He spoke completely > differently. He spoke to a leftwing audience. And to his left audience, all he did > was defend his right to have journalistic independence and integrity and so on. > But when he goes on Tucker Carlson, he says more or less the following words, that > there?s an alliance between the CIA and the Deep State and the Democratic Party > and most of the media to undermine the first four years of the Trump presidency. > Well, that?s a Fox News, rightwing Trump speaking point. More importantly, it?s > just not true. If what Greenwald said to Tucker Carlson was so horrible, quote what Greenwald said and explain precisely what was wrong with it. Even self-described "nightclub jagoff comedian" Jimmy Dore does this amount of legwork in his pieces. Don't do as The Intercept's Editor in Chief Betsy Reed recently did in https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ -- her 5 paragraph response to Greenwald's resignation. There she offered no quotes from Greenwald. Reed would have us believe that Greenwald's response is "designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time.". Reed has had plenty of time to explain precisely what happened with the Reality Winner case and it's clear that she won't do it no matter what she says later (if anything). The truth is that Reed is throwing the tantrum and Greenwald gave us the substance-filled arguments to back his case. We don't need to take Greenwald's word for it. We can read the quotes Greenwald provided and see the evidence for ourselves (all quotes from Greenwald, by the way, are not disputed anywhere by The Intercept). Jay (above) and Reed in her Intercept response to Greenwald's resignation offer nothing but their own respective opinions. On whether the Democrats want to win the presidency in 2020 at all: > Paul Jay: Yes, the Democratic Party obviously has been fighting against Trump. I'm not convinced of that. One doesn't run an issue-free campaign headed by someone with obvious mental problems if they want to win an election. If one wants to lower the expectations to the point where most don't vote and most understand that neither major party will help you, and both parties work together, one does precisely what the Democrats & Republicans are doing now (see David Johnson's list of important issues where these two parties agree). I think Greenwald has it right: party bosses might rather have Biden (who has a longer track record of being neocon and neolib) but they'll be okay with 4 more years of Trump who has been (to borrow a phrase) brought to heel. Russiagate has helped with bringing Trump into line and making up for making the establishment nervous with some of the things Trump said when he ran in 2016 like sharply critiquing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On Russiagate: > Paul Jay: I mean, in some ways, the Democrats? bullshit created this situation, > because, one, the Russia stuff. I?ve been saying from the very beginning ? and I > didn?t get into the weeds of it as some journalists did because I kept saying, I > don?t care if it?s all true. The Obama/Biden presidency is why we have Trump today. Voters did not elect Hillary Clinton because they didn't want 4 or 8 more years of what Obama/Biden had given them for the past 8 years. As for Paul Jay on Russiagate: he had echoed Russiagate bullshit, said that he didn't care if Russiagate was true (which itself is ridiculous, he should be in the job of identifying what is true and what is false and debunking the falsehoods), and The Real News put Russigators like Marc Jacobs on their shows rendering that network indistinguishable from what I can get anywhere in establishment media. Russiagate started as a baseless excuse to try and get Hillary Clinton out of taking responsibility for her poorly-run 2nd attempt at becoming POTUS. Russiagate has become much more than that since, including a basis for economic sanctions against Russia and that is a form of war. If even now Jay repeats that tired line of not caring if Russiagate is true or not, he's not a responsible journalist or commentator. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Nov 2 18:03:42 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:03:42 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. In-Reply-To: <3844bbda-b03c-a03b-2c3d-7415464aaf7e@forestfield.org> References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> <002401d6b067$51464c90$f3d2e5b0$@comcast.net> <5C1846EC-2CC2-4AD8-8E37-09C96534DB38@illinois.edu> <003301d6b129$e09c3f40$a1d4bdc0$@comcast.net> <3844bbda-b03c-a03b-2c3d-7415464aaf7e@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <003701d6b142$80ff4820$82fdd860$@comcast.net> Thanks for your response and commentary-analysis Jeff. I must say that I agree 100 % with everything you wrote. Yes, I think you are correct about Abby Martin. Having a child for the first time of course makes most people more insecure. And I agree with you that what Aaron Mate said about excusing journalists who compromise their principles for a career is unacceptable. There is always work somewhere for a talented journalist, and even if you have to work at something else for a while to pay the bills, so what. I did it for a while when I was blacklisted from the Carpenter's Union for my activism, at a time when my daughter was 5-7 years old. The only thing that will be standing in her way if that is what she might need to do, is her ego. Speaking of my daughter who is now 25 years old. It took me a LOT of persuasion to get her and her husband to vote. They both hate every candidate running and / or are not interested in the local county candidates. They both voted for Sanders twice and Jill Stein in 2016. The winning argument I made to convince them to vote was the importance of the FAIR tax ballot initiative. I told them that they could leave everything else blank if they wanted. So, as you mentioned, I wonder how many other young people ( and older people too for that matter ) are feeling the same way as my daughter. Last time in 2016 I believe it was 90 - 100 million eligible voters who did not vote or voted for 3rd parties. Biden may be ahead in the polls nationwide by 10 points, but if a lot of people don't vote, Biden may just barely squeak a win or maybe not. Regardless which asshole wins, we will be subjected to the same horrible policies. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 11:20 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. David Johnson wrote: [Regarding https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ where Paul Jay interviews Abby Martin] > I am really surprised and disappointed that Abby Martin has also succumbed to the > scare tactics of the Democrats and the corporate owned media. She should know > better. I think Martin does know better but I'm left wondering if she thinks differently because of what came at the top of this interview -- she now has a child. I'm not sure what the point of mentioning that was except for us to connect it to something else, something they don't clearly state. I'm sure that she sees the enormous amounts of money one can get for echoing the establishment line that Joe Biden is significantly different or not objecting to evidenceless speculation that things will be better for most Americans with a Biden presidency (which, for all we know, could turn into a Kamala "Top Cop" Harris presidency). People usually won't turn down economic security. I don't offer this as an excuse (like Aaron Mat? does and most recently did in https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nig6c1WEc-0 to Jimmy Dore's chagrin), I offer that as a description of what might motivate someone to do as they do. The cost of that choice is a public that has no reason to trust what that person has to say. The issues you listed are far more likely to be the issues on which Americans (who vote for POTUS at all) will base their vote. And therefore it's telling that we don't see proper explication of those issues in this Jay/Martin interview. Medicare for All, for instance, only came up once in this Jay/Martin interview and only because Martin brought it up. If either major party candidate had offered Medicare for All they would have won the election and convinced a majority of registered voters to vote for them. And it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the registered voters again don't vote for POTUS just like they didn't in 2016 (the majority that those who complain about the electoral college and majority voting typically don't talk about). Getting back to this Jay interview, I'm reminded of why I quit taking The Real News seriously under Jay's leadership and today: his analysis is not based in facts. I'll explain more below. On trying to make Biden look better than he is regarding the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq: > Paul Jay: Honestly, as much as I fully expect Biden to win this election and I > fully expect to spend the next four years savaging him on so many things, I do > find myself having to say two or three positive things in terms of foreign policy > and Biden. Even though, one, he?s fully rooted, as are almost all of the leaders > of the Democratic Party, rooted in the Cold War mentality. Meaning that America is > the real civilization, the pillar of democracy. What was Reagan?s line, ?the > beacon on the hill,? or whatever? I think he believes all that. And it?s > convenient to believe all that because the military industrial complex and > finance, it fits their strategy of how to make money out of being the global > policeman. > > But I also think he?s realistic and pragmatic in the way Obama was. And Obama, we > should remember, was against the Iraq war. And he said very clearly he wasn?t > against war and he wasn?t against regime change. > > Abby Martin: ?Dumb war.? > > Paul Jay: He just thought the Iraq war was stupid. Yeah, it was dumb. And I think > Biden agrees with him on that now, that that type of intervention is done. It > doesn?t help the empire. In one of his vice-presidential debates, he said that if > you didn?t want Iran to be a regional power, then the United States shouldn?t have > invaded Iraq. Because that?s what Iraq was: the buffer. And he said, It?s over > now, you did invade Iraq, and you do have to accept Iran as a regional power. > > That?s a very important point of difference because of the foreign-policy-gang > types around Trump. And I must include Chuck Schumer and, of course, Netanyahu > from Israel and the Saudis. They don?t want to accept Iran as a regional power. > They want to try to destroy the place, mostly through economic warfare, but > possibly more. > > And I think when Obama got elected, I said, I only have one hope that he?s going > to be anything different than a Clinton or any other centrist Democrat: on Iran, > he might be rational. And it turned out he was. The rest of his foreign policy was > just normal, corporate-Democratic, defend-the-empire policy. > > I?m saying I think Biden realized he was wrong about Iraq. He could have taken the > Obama position. On the other hand, he?s a political opportunist, Biden. He goes > where the wind blows, where he thinks his political fortunes will be best. So, I > think it was more about that than anything, why he voted for the resolution that > wound up enabling the Iraq war. Biden didn't "realize he was wrong about Iraq". For years after that vote he went on the lecture circuit telling people he was right to vote in support of authorizing Pres. G.W. Bush to invade Iraq. Biden only recently changed his tune to another lie[1], now saying something that tries to recast his vote to mean something other than authorizing an illegal invasion. That's not "realizing he [Biden] was wrong about Iraq". Jay doesn't even put proper emphasis on what Jay has tacitly admitted and downplayed in favor of constructing another narrative -- Biden was wrong. At the time when it counted, when there were millions of people on the streets of the world telling him not to support that invasion, Biden voted to authorize the invasion. Even if Biden genuinely had changed his mind, as Jay apparently believes, that would mean nothing. It's the vote at the time that counts for anything. [1] Notice how Trump's lying isn't so much a point of contention in this election? It's because Biden has a long documented record of lying going back to when he was more lucid and he lied about his own educational record and had given speeches which he copied from others without attribution. He even dropped out of his 1988 run because he got caught in these lies. Trump and Biden's treatment of women is also tellingly not a hotly contested point in the 2020 election for similar reasons -- both of those candidates are comparably horrible with women. On casting Glenn Greenwald to have a worse understanding of what just happened to him than Greenwald said: > Paul Jay: But when Glenn goes on Tucker Carlson? He crossed a line there. Not by > going on Tucker Carlson. I?ll go on Tucker Carlson, but they?d never invite me. > One, I?m not famous enough. Nobody knows who I am. And, two, they know, if they > listen to me, I?m not going to do what Glenn did, which is, I?m not going to > regurgitate Tucker Carlson?s own speaking points back to him and just say what he > wants to hear. Because when Glenn was on Rising, that Krystal Ball show on The > Hill, he didn?t say what he said on Tucker Carlson. He spoke completely > differently. He spoke to a leftwing audience. And to his left audience, all he did > was defend his right to have journalistic independence and integrity and so on. > But when he goes on Tucker Carlson, he says more or less the following words, that > there?s an alliance between the CIA and the Deep State and the Democratic Party > and most of the media to undermine the first four years of the Trump presidency. > Well, that?s a Fox News, rightwing Trump speaking point. More importantly, it?s > just not true. If what Greenwald said to Tucker Carlson was so horrible, quote what Greenwald said and explain precisely what was wrong with it. Even self-described "nightclub jagoff comedian" Jimmy Dore does this amount of legwork in his pieces. Don't do as The Intercept's Editor in Chief Betsy Reed recently did in https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ -- her 5 paragraph response to Greenwald's resignation. There she offered no quotes from Greenwald. Reed would have us believe that Greenwald's response is "designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time.". Reed has had plenty of time to explain precisely what happened with the Reality Winner case and it's clear that she won't do it no matter what she says later (if anything). The truth is that Reed is throwing the tantrum and Greenwald gave us the substance-filled arguments to back his case. We don't need to take Greenwald's word for it. We can read the quotes Greenwald provided and see the evidence for ourselves (all quotes from Greenwald, by the way, are not disputed anywhere by The Intercept). Jay (above) and Reed in her Intercept response to Greenwald's resignation offer nothing but their own respective opinions. On whether the Democrats want to win the presidency in 2020 at all: > Paul Jay: Yes, the Democratic Party obviously has been fighting against Trump. I'm not convinced of that. One doesn't run an issue-free campaign headed by someone with obvious mental problems if they want to win an election. If one wants to lower the expectations to the point where most don't vote and most understand that neither major party will help you, and both parties work together, one does precisely what the Democrats & Republicans are doing now (see David Johnson's list of important issues where these two parties agree). I think Greenwald has it right: party bosses might rather have Biden (who has a longer track record of being neocon and neolib) but they'll be okay with 4 more years of Trump who has been (to borrow a phrase) brought to heel. Russiagate has helped with bringing Trump into line and making up for making the establishment nervous with some of the things Trump said when he ran in 2016 like sharply critiquing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On Russiagate: > Paul Jay: I mean, in some ways, the Democrats? bullshit created this situation, > because, one, the Russia stuff. I?ve been saying from the very beginning ? and I > didn?t get into the weeds of it as some journalists did because I kept saying, I > don?t care if it?s all true. The Obama/Biden presidency is why we have Trump today. Voters did not elect Hillary Clinton because they didn't want 4 or 8 more years of what Obama/Biden had given them for the past 8 years. As for Paul Jay on Russiagate: he had echoed Russiagate bullshit, said that he didn't care if Russiagate was true (which itself is ridiculous, he should be in the job of identifying what is true and what is false and debunking the falsehoods), and The Real News put Russigators like Marc Jacobs on their shows rendering that network indistinguishable from what I can get anywhere in establishment media. Russiagate started as a baseless excuse to try and get Hillary Clinton out of taking responsibility for her poorly-run 2nd attempt at becoming POTUS. Russiagate has become much more than that since, including a basis for economic sanctions against Russia and that is a form of war. If even now Jay repeats that tired line of not caring if Russiagate is true or not, he's not a responsible journalist or commentator. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Nov 2 19:03:28 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:03:28 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. In-Reply-To: <1203259263.1451171.1604343228266@mail.yahoo.com> References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> <002401d6b067$51464c90$f3d2e5b0$@comcast.net> <5C1846EC-2CC2-4AD8-8E37-09C96534DB38@illinois.edu> <003301d6b129$e09c3f40$a1d4bdc0$@comcast.net> <3844bbda-b03c-a03b-2c3d-7415464aaf7e@forestfield.org> <003701d6b142$80ff4820$82fdd860$@comcast.net> <1203259263.1451171.1604343228266@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004b01d6b14a$d9bee170$8d3ca450$@comcast.net> Absolutely Midge ! It was the corporate media that created Trump ( TV program THE APPRENTICE, etc. ) and helped elect him. Trump received billions of dollars in free 2016 media coverage and often times, from my observations, his name was mentioned twice as often as Clinton?s and Sander?s name was rarely mentioned. And since the election, you are again absolutely correct. As one female comedian stated at the correspondents dinner a few years ago ? ? All of you say you hate Donald Trump but in reality you love him because of the billions of dollars you have made off of covering him nonstop ?. Many people have a very difficult time believing the reality that U.S. presidential elections as well as most of U.S. politics in general is kabuki theater. One big nonstop episode of WWF wrestling. David J. From: Mildred O'brien [mailto:moboct1 at aim.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 12:54 PM To: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. I had the same problem trying to get Tom & family to vote--for the "Fair Tax"--the 1% is spending so much to counteract the issue people have been intimated by the TAX INCREASE fear PAC ads). I'm of the opinion that it was dislike of Hillary that "elected" DJT instead of his dynamic personality. Biden as a man may not be perceived by some voters as much of a threat as an aggressive woman like H. You might call DJT the "man made president by the MSM." In spite of their supposed aversion to him, he has been a big money maker for the Media who open every leading newscast about him 24/7 for the past 4 years. If he goes, they'll probably follow him in the news to the extent that he will attempt to run again. I've got to pay attention to the SENDER address of emails when I mean to respond only to the sender, otherwise they go to P-D when I don't intend, as last night when I wanted to address my rant to you about Socialism instead of to P-D, and failed to close a parenthesis after "Capitalism" instead of after "Communism" in my comment, making it appear to equate the two. Oh well, I suppose no one reads my emails on P-D anyway. Midge Please God let Nov 2 be over soon -----Original Message----- From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss To: 'J.B. Nicholson' Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Mon, Nov 2, 2020 10:04 am Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. Thanks for your response and commentary-analysis Jeff. I must say that I agree 100 % with everything you wrote. Yes, I think you are correct about Abby Martin. Having a child for the first time of course makes most people more insecure. And I agree with you that what Aaron Mate said about excusing journalists who compromise their principles for a career is unacceptable. There is always work somewhere for a talented journalist, and even if you have to work at something else for a while to pay the bills, so what. I did it for a while when I was blacklisted from the Carpenter's Union for my activism, at a time when my daughter was 5-7 years old. The only thing that will be standing in her way if that is what she might need to do, is her ego. Speaking of my daughter who is now 25 years old. It took me a LOT of persuasion to get her and her husband to vote. They both hate every candidate running and / or are not interested in the local county candidates. They both voted for Sanders twice and Jill Stein in 2016. The winning argument I made to convince them to vote was the importance of the FAIR tax ballot initiative. I told them that they could leave everything else blank if they wanted. So, as you mentioned, I wonder how many other young people ( and older people too for that matter ) are feeling the same way as my daughter. Last time in 2016 I believe it was 90 - 100 million eligible voters who did not vote or voted for 3rd parties. Biden may be ahead in the polls nationwide by 10 points, but if a lot of people don't vote, Biden may just barely squeak a win or maybe not. Regardless which asshole wins, we will be subjected to the same horrible policies. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 11:20 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. David Johnson wrote: [Regarding https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ where Paul Jay interviews Abby Martin] > I am really surprised and disappointed that Abby Martin has also succumbed to the > scare tactics of the Democrats and the corporate owned media. She should know > better. I think Martin does know better but I'm left wondering if she thinks differently because of what came at the top of this interview -- she now has a child. I'm not sure what the point of mentioning that was except for us to connect it to something else, something they don't clearly state. I'm sure that she sees the enormous amounts of money one can get for echoing the establishment line that Joe Biden is significantly different or not objecting to evidenceless speculation that things will be better for most Americans with a Biden presidency (which, for all we know, could turn into a Kamala "Top Cop" Harris presidency). People usually won't turn down economic security. I don't offer this as an excuse (like Aaron Mat? does and most recently did in https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nig6c1WEc-0 to Jimmy Dore's chagrin), I offer that as a description of what might motivate someone to do as they do. The cost of that choice is a public that has no reason to trust what that person has to say. The issues you listed are far more likely to be the issues on which Americans (who vote for POTUS at all) will base their vote. And therefore it's telling that we don't see proper explication of those issues in this Jay/Martin interview. Medicare for All, for instance, only came up once in this Jay/Martin interview and only because Martin brought it up. If either major party candidate had offered Medicare for All they would have won the election and convinced a majority of registered voters to vote for them. And it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the registered voters again don't vote for POTUS just like they didn't in 2016 (the majority that those who complain about the electoral college and majority voting typically don't talk about). Getting back to this Jay interview, I'm reminded of why I quit taking The Real News seriously under Jay's leadership and today: his analysis is not based in facts. I'll explain more below. On trying to make Biden look better than he is regarding the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq: > Paul Jay: Honestly, as much as I fully expect Biden to win this election and I > fully expect to spend the next four years savaging him on so many things, I do > find myself having to say two or three positive things in terms of foreign policy > and Biden. Even though, one, he?s fully rooted, as are almost all of the leaders > of the Democratic Party, rooted in the Cold War mentality. Meaning that America is > the real civilization, the pillar of democracy. What was Reagan?s line, ?the > beacon on the hill,? or whatever? I think he believes all that. And it?s > convenient to believe all that because the military industrial complex and > finance, it fits their strategy of how to make money out of being the global > policeman. > > But I also think he?s realistic and pragmatic in the way Obama was. And Obama, we > should remember, was against the Iraq war. And he said very clearly he wasn?t > against war and he wasn?t against regime change. > > Abby Martin: ?Dumb war.? > > Paul Jay: He just thought the Iraq war was stupid. Yeah, it was dumb. And I think > Biden agrees with him on that now, that that type of intervention is done. It > doesn?t help the empire. In one of his vice-presidential debates, he said that if > you didn?t want Iran to be a regional power, then the United States shouldn?t have > invaded Iraq. Because that?s what Iraq was: the buffer. And he said, It?s over > now, you did invade Iraq, and you do have to accept Iran as a regional power. > > That?s a very important point of difference because of the foreign-policy-gang > types around Trump. And I must include Chuck Schumer and, of course, Netanyahu > from Israel and the Saudis. They don?t want to accept Iran as a regional power. > They want to try to destroy the place, mostly through economic warfare, but > possibly more. > > And I think when Obama got elected, I said, I only have one hope that he?s going > to be anything different than a Clinton or any other centrist Democrat: on Iran, > he might be rational. And it turned out he was. The rest of his foreign policy was > just normal, corporate-Democratic, defend-the-empire policy. > > I?m saying I think Biden realized he was wrong about Iraq. He could have taken the > Obama position. On the other hand, he?s a political opportunist, Biden. He goes > where the wind blows, where he thinks his political fortunes will be best. So, I > think it was more about that than anything, why he voted for the resolution that > wound up enabling the Iraq war. Biden didn't "realize he was wrong about Iraq". For years after that vote he went on the lecture circuit telling people he was right to vote in support of authorizing Pres. G.W. Bush to invade Iraq. Biden only recently changed his tune to another lie[1], now saying something that tries to recast his vote to mean something other than authorizing an illegal invasion. That's not "realizing he [Biden] was wrong about Iraq". Jay doesn't even put proper emphasis on what Jay has tacitly admitted and downplayed in favor of constructing another narrative -- Biden was wrong. At the time when it counted, when there were millions of people on the streets of the world telling him not to support that invasion, Biden voted to authorize the invasion. Even if Biden genuinely had changed his mind, as Jay apparently believes, that would mean nothing. It's the vote at the time that counts for anything. [1] Notice how Trump's lying isn't so much a point of contention in this election? It's because Biden has a long documented record of lying going back to when he was more lucid and he lied about his own educational record and had given speeches which he copied from others without attribution. He even dropped out of his 1988 run because he got caught in these lies. Trump and Biden's treatment of women is also tellingly not a hotly contested point in the 2020 election for similar reasons -- both of those candidates are comparably horrible with women. On casting Glenn Greenwald to have a worse understanding of what just happened to him than Greenwald said: > Paul Jay: But when Glenn goes on Tucker Carlson? He crossed a line there. Not by > going on Tucker Carlson. I?ll go on Tucker Carlson, but they?d never invite me. > One, I?m not famous enough. Nobody knows who I am. And, two, they know, if they > listen to me, I?m not going to do what Glenn did, which is, I?m not going to > regurgitate Tucker Carlson?s own speaking points back to him and just say what he > wants to hear. Because when Glenn was on Rising, that Krystal Ball show on The > Hill, he didn?t say what he said on Tucker Carlson. He spoke completely > differently. He spoke to a leftwing audience. And to his left audience, all he did > was defend his right to have journalistic independence and integrity and so on. > But when he goes on Tucker Carlson, he says more or less the following words, that > there?s an alliance between the CIA and the Deep State and the Democratic Party > and most of the media to undermine the first four years of the Trump presidency. > Well, that?s a Fox News, rightwing Trump speaking point. More importantly, it?s > just not true. If what Greenwald said to Tucker Carlson was so horrible, quote what Greenwald said and explain precisely what was wrong with it. Even self-described "nightclub jagoff comedian" Jimmy Dore does this amount of legwork in his pieces. Don't do as The Intercept's Editor in Chief Betsy Reed recently did in https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ -- her 5 paragraph response to Greenwald's resignation. There she offered no quotes from Greenwald. Reed would have us believe that Greenwald's response is "designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time.". Reed has had plenty of time to explain precisely what happened with the Reality Winner case and it's clear that she won't do it no matter what she says later (if anything). The truth is that Reed is throwing the tantrum and Greenwald gave us the substance-filled arguments to back his case. We don't need to take Greenwald's word for it. We can read the quotes Greenwald provided and see the evidence for ourselves (all quotes from Greenwald, by the way, are not disputed anywhere by The Intercept). Jay (above) and Reed in her Intercept response to Greenwald's resignation offer nothing but their own respective opinions. On whether the Democrats want to win the presidency in 2020 at all: > Paul Jay: Yes, the Democratic Party obviously has been fighting against Trump. I'm not convinced of that. One doesn't run an issue-free campaign headed by someone with obvious mental problems if they want to win an election. If one wants to lower the expectations to the point where most don't vote and most understand that neither major party will help you, and both parties work together, one does precisely what the Democrats & Republicans are doing now (see David Johnson's list of important issues where these two parties agree). I think Greenwald has it right: party bosses might rather have Biden (who has a longer track record of being neocon and neolib) but they'll be okay with 4 more years of Trump who has been (to borrow a phrase) brought to heel. Russiagate has helped with bringing Trump into line and making up for making the establishment nervous with some of the things Trump said when he ran in 2016 like sharply critiquing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On Russiagate: > Paul Jay: I mean, in some ways, the Democrats? bullshit created this situation, > because, one, the Russia stuff. I?ve been saying from the very beginning ? and I > didn?t get into the weeds of it as some journalists did because I kept saying, I > don?t care if it?s all true. The Obama/Biden presidency is why we have Trump today. Voters did not elect Hillary Clinton because they didn't want 4 or 8 more years of what Obama/Biden had given them for the past 8 years. As for Paul Jay on Russiagate: he had echoed Russiagate bullshit, said that he didn't care if Russiagate was true (which itself is ridiculous, he should be in the job of identifying what is true and what is false and debunking the falsehoods), and The Real News put Russigators like Marc Jacobs on their shows rendering that network indistinguishable from what I can get anywhere in establishment media. Russiagate started as a baseless excuse to try and get Hillary Clinton out of taking responsibility for her poorly-run 2nd attempt at becoming POTUS. Russiagate has become much more than that since, including a basis for economic sanctions against Russia and that is a form of war. If even now Jay repeats that tired line of not caring if Russiagate is true or not, he's not a responsible journalist or commentator. _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Nov 2 21:28:15 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 21:28:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biden: A War Cabinet? In-Reply-To: <004301d6b12a$537afc40$fa70f4c0$@comcast.net> References: <004301d6b12a$537afc40$fa70f4c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <88AC7AE5-71B8-4EEE-BE32-36C53352FC75@illinois.edu> So far, only speculation. Fearful, I agree. The alternatives with a Trump administration are likely even worse? ?mkb On Nov 2, 2020, at 9:10 AM, David Johnson > wrote: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 Biden: A War Cabinet? BY MARIAMNE EVERETT https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/11/02/biden-a-war-cabinet/ Biden: A War Cabinet? - CounterPunch.org ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can?t count the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to ?normalcy? -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet. More www.counterpunch.org ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House.? I can?t count the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency ? which promises a return to ?normalcy? ? really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet. Susan Rice for Secretary of State Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden?s Vice President, served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security Advisor, both under the Obama administration. While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there. Some of her statements: ?I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don?t think many informed people doubted that.? (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003) ?It?s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It?s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that?s the path we?re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.? (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002) ?I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it?s a question of timing and tactics. ? We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions.? (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio of Rice?s statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.) She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African continent, which judging by the following quote at the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a ?laissez faire? attitude : ?If we use the word ?genocide? and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?? Susan Rice?s past rhetoric also includes choice generous words for African dictators. One great example is former prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, a man who ordered security services to open fire on protestors during its controversial 2005 election, has a track record of imprisoning journalists, used food aid as a political tool and stole land in south Ethiopia. In her speech at his funeral, Susan Rice described him as ?brilliant? and a ?close friend?. Although Rice has often been portrayed as someone who is anti-Israel, her mild criticisms pale in comparison to her staunch record and discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In a speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palsestinian land as illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as ?flawed? and ?insisted on Israel?s right to defend itself and maintained that Israel?s democratic institutions could credibly investigate any possible abuses.? Her position has changed little since then, as recently as 2016, she proclaimed that ?Israel?s security isn?t a Democratic interest or a Republican interest?it?s an enduring American interest.? Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP Biden?s National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017. Blinken had immense influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate Biden?s approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ?For Biden??, he argued, ?and for a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy.? He added ?It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action is possible.? The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama?s campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it led to even more chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency. Blinken seems to be of the view that it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : ?On leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn?t organize itself. And until this [Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing, helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern relations among nations. When we?re not engaged, when we don?t lead, then one or two things is likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place ? but probably not in a way that advances our interests or values ? or no one does. And then you get chaos or a vacuum filled by bad things before it?s filled by good things. Either way, that?s bad for us.? Blinken also appears to be steering Biden?s pro-Israel agenda, recently stating that Biden ?would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions that it makes, period, full stop.? which includes an all out rejection of BDS, the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel?s occupation of Palestine. Mich?le Flournoy for Secretary of Defence Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. Flournoy, in writing the Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.?s endless and costly wars which prevent us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter?s prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, ?when the interests at stake are vital, ?we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.? While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a ?Top Defense and National Security Think Tank? based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she declared, that the United States would ?need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts to destroy an adversary?s weapons stockpile? before it ?could erect defenses to protect those weapons, or simply disperse them.? She continued along this path even in 2009, after the Bush administration, in a speech for the CSIS : ?The second key challenge I want to highlight is the proliferation ? continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to states such as Iran, North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to obtain these materials or weapons.? It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental, military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that describes itself on its website as ?a unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating future-defining research and technology to keep our world safer.? Their partnership on the AI initiative entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion by Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police operations. Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50 representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees supported ?ask(ing) Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict.? Flournoy did not. She said that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these advanced patriot missiles to defend itself. Conclusion If a return to ?normalcy? means having the same old politicians that are responsible for endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a call for ?normalcy? is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances, could set the stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even exceed those posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars. Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy currently living in France. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Nov 2 22:33:30 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 16:33:30 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Biden: A War Cabinet? In-Reply-To: <88AC7AE5-71B8-4EEE-BE32-36C53352FC75@illinois.edu> References: <004301d6b12a$537afc40$fa70f4c0$@comcast.net> <88AC7AE5-71B8-4EEE-BE32-36C53352FC75@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <001501d6b168$3522b330$9f681990$@comcast.net> Actually Mort, It will be the same foreign policy tactics and objectives. That is what I have been trying to show. They both ( Trump and Biden ) work for the SAME corporate oligarchy. David J. From: Brussel, Morton K [mailto:brussel at illinois.edu] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 3:28 PM To: David Johnson Cc: Brussel, Morton K; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: Biden: A War Cabinet? So far, only speculation. Fearful, I agree. The alternatives with a Trump administration are likely even worse? ?mkb On Nov 2, 2020, at 9:10 AM, David Johnson wrote: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 Biden: A War Cabinet? BY MARIAMNE EVERETT https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/11/02/biden-a-war-cabinet/ Biden: A War Cabinet? - CounterPunch.org ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can?t count the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to ?normalcy? -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet. More www.counterpunch.org ?Let?s bring decency and integrity back to the White House.? I can?t count the number of times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency ? which promises a return to ?normalcy? ? really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet. Susan Rice for Secretary of State Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden?s Vice President, served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security Advisor, both under the Obama administration. While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there. Some of her statements: ?I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don?t think many informed people doubted that.? (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003) ?It?s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It?s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that?s the path we?re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.? (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002) ?I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it?s a question of timing and tactics. ? We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions.? (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio of Rice?s statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.) She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African continent, which judging by the following quote at the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a ?laissez faire? attitude : ?If we use the word ?genocide? and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?? Susan Rice?s past rhetoric also includes choice generous words for African dictators. One great example is former prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, a man who ordered security services to open fire on protestors during its controversial 2005 election, has a track record of imprisoning journalists, used food aid as a political tool and stole land in south Ethiopia. In her speech at his funeral, Susan Rice described him as ?brilliant? and a ?close friend?. Although Rice has often been portrayed as someone who is anti-Israel, her mild criticisms pale in comparison to her staunch record and discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In a speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palsestinian land as illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as ?flawed? and ?insisted on Israel?s right to defend itself and maintained that Israel?s democratic institutions could credibly investigate any possible abuses.? Her position has changed little since then, as recently as 2016, she proclaimed that ?Israel?s security isn?t a Democratic interest or a Republican interest?it?s an enduring American interest.? Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP Biden?s National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017. Blinken had immense influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate Biden?s approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ?For Biden??, he argued, ?and for a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy.? He added ?It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action is possible.? The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama?s campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it led to even more chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency. Blinken seems to be of the view that it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : ?On leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn?t organize itself. And until this [Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing, helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern relations among nations. When we?re not engaged, when we don?t lead, then one or two things is likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place ? but probably not in a way that advances our interests or values ? or no one does. And then you get chaos or a vacuum filled by bad things before it?s filled by good things. Either way, that?s bad for us.? Blinken also appears to be steering Biden?s pro-Israel agenda, recently stating that Biden ?would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions that it makes, period, full stop.? which includes an all out rejection of BDS, the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel?s occupation of Palestine. Mich?le Flournoy for Secretary of Defence Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. Flournoy, in writing the Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.?s endless and costly wars which prevent us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter?s prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, ?when the interests at stake are vital, ?we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.? While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a ?Top Defense and National Security Think Tank? based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she declared, that the United States would ?need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts to destroy an adversary?s weapons stockpile? before it ?could erect defenses to protect those weapons, or simply disperse them.? She continued along this path even in 2009, after the Bush administration, in a speech for the CSIS : ?The second key challenge I want to highlight is the proliferation ? continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to states such as Iran, North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to obtain these materials or weapons.? It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental, military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that describes itself on its website as ?a unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating future-defining research and technology to keep our world safer.? Their partnership on the AI initiative entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion by Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police operations. Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50 representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees supported ?ask(ing) Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict.? Flournoy did not. She said that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these advanced patriot missiles to defend itself. Conclusion If a return to ?normalcy? means having the same old politicians that are responsible for endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a call for ?normalcy? is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances, could set the stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even exceed those posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars. Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy currently living in France. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Nov 2 22:41:12 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 16:41:12 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Countering Rightward Drift In The United States: This Struggle Is Long Term Message-ID: <002201d6b169$44f70490$cee50db0$@comcast.net> The "ratchet effect" describes the roles both Republicans and Democrats have played in moving our politics to the right for the last 40 years. Countering Rightward Drift In The United States: This Struggle Is Long Term By Margaret Flowers, Popular Resistance. November 1, 2020 | , Newsletter This week, people are planning protests across the nation beginning the day after the election. Some, like Democratic Party-aligned groups and unions, will only demonstrate if President Trump loses and refuses to leave office. Trump will fail if he tries because the ruling class has clearly shifted its support to Biden. Professor Adrienne Pine explains this in her analysis of the opposition to Trump. Others such as issues-based groups, coalitions and community groups are planning to take the streets no matter what the outcome of the election is. This is good news because a mass mobilization of left and progressive groups is needed to change the rightward direction in which the United States is headed. Michael J. Smith's explanation of the "ratchet effect" describes the roles both Republicans and Democrats have played in moving our politics in that direction since 1968. In a nutshell, each time the Republicans moved to the right, the Democrats followed with the excuse that it's necessary to win votes. This locks in the rightward motion, opening space for Republicans to move to the right again. But Smith also writes, "the Democratic Party has assumed the role of ensuring that the countervailing pressure from the Left doesn't happen. The party contains and neutralizes the Left, or what there is of it. Left voters are supposed to support the Democrat, come what may." This is one of the reasons why the expression "the Democratic Party is the graveyard of social movements" exists. How do we counteract that? 2020 vision on who we are In a recent episode of Eleanor Goldfield's series, Deception 2020, she and Eugene Puryear discuss why the trope of "this is the most important election ever" is recycled in every presidential election. It serves as a great distractor that puts the focus on personalities rather than the broader social context of where we are. It pits Republican and Democratic voters against each other while the ruling class plays both sides, putting the most money on the one that has the best chance of winning. The people hold their noses and vote for whomever they consider to be the lesser evil while the wealthy class knows their interests will be served no matter who wins. The year 2020 has brought into clear focus that we are living in a failed state and can't afford to be drawn into this distraction. The number of new COVID-19 cases surpassed 100,000 in one day. The recession is likely to deepen into a prolonged depression due to Congress' failure to provide supports for families and their businesses and farms. The climate crisis is raging. And structural racist violence goes on in all of its forms while the Pentagon continues its insatiable consumption of the federal budget leaving austerity for the rest of us Instead of being caught up in this "political ping pong", as Kevin Zeese would call it, we need to focus on these grave issues before us. I learned some lessons to avoid this ping pong during my involvement with the health reform process in 2009-10 when we were advocating for national improved Medicare for all while the Democrats were pushing their version of a healthcare bill that protected the profits of the health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and big businesses. The lesson is best summarized using the acronym "ICU." Think of it as what is needed, especially in a time of crisis. The "I" stands for independent. It is important not to tie our issue to the agenda of a political party but to maintain independence from them while we press for what we need, lest our struggle be co-opted. The "C" stands for clarity, meaning we must be clear about what we are demanding. Members of the corporate duopoly will always try to water our demands down with proposals that may sound positive but are less than what we need. Look at the Democrat's Green New Deal as a current example that protects the dirty energy industries and is too little, too late. And the "U" stands for uncompromising. The ruling class will always tell us we are asking for too much but we can't compromise on fundamentals such as health care, housing, education, financial security and an end to violence against us. These are universal basic needs that nobody should be denied. With this 2020 vision, we can mobilize a broad movement that puts forth a bold agenda of what we need and fights for it, no matter who is elected. This is how we reverse the ratchet effect. We can look to Chile as a recent example of a people succeeding in their struggle to reverse the ravages of neoliberalism. Patricio Zamorano describes how a similar situation to what we face, great inequality and injustice, drove people to mobilize despite severe repression and win the right to remake their Constitution. Violence on the rise One reality we must prepare for is the continued rise in right wing violence no matter who wins the election. If Trump wins and people continue to struggle to end the injustices we face, right wing extremists will be emboldened by a president who encourages them. If Biden wins, they will be angered at what they view as a threat to the gains they have made and may lash out. In light of this, communities need to organize to be vigilant to what is happening around them and to be proactive in creating structures that provide safety and mutual aid, particularly for those who are most vulnerable. We live in an era of great polarization. This is expected because it goes hand in hand with great inequality and it often precedes moments of social transformation. Think of it as heightening the contradictions and forcing a choice. Who are we and how do we want our society to be? George Lakey puts the polarization into historical context. Almost one hundred years ago, when extreme polarization existed in Europe, some countries moved to fascist dictatorships while others moved to socialized democracies. The difference was how the people organized and mobilized. Lakey suggests a road map. If people who consider themselves left or progressive fail to organize and mobilize, we may go the way of a fascist dictatorship no matter who wins this presidential election. If Trump wins, he may do what others have done by trying to further consolidate his power into an authoritarian state. If Biden wins, and he continues the neoliberal and repressive policies that have marked his 47 years in elected office, then the conditions will be created in 2024 or beyond for another Democratic Party loss and an opening for a right wing leader who is more effective than Trump at consolidating power. Either way we must mobilize and protect our rights. While most of our organizing will take place outside the electoral system because that is where we have power, it will also be necessary to focus on preserving whatever democratic rights exist and strengthening them. Protecting and improving the election process As flawed as the electoral process in the United States is, it is the system we currently have. Fair election and third party activists have been working to change it for decades. Now, as it is on so many issues, the major problems with that system - voter suppression, lack of transparency and the process for choosing a president - are more evident. While the United States has never been a democracy, in fact a look at the founding of the country shows the ruling class who wrote the Constitution were afraid of it, the people believe in democracy. Focusing on democratic rights in this election will bring people together and build momentum to change the system. Focusing on what President Trump says is a distraction. Recall that Trump was also saying that he would not commit to accepting the outcome in the lead up to the 2016 election. The Democrats and the groups aligned with them are amplifying fears to drive voter turn out, and it seems to be working. The latest Gallup Poll finds almost 70% of registered voters are enthusiastic about the election, which is an increase from the 50% who were enthusiastic in 2016 and similar to 2008 levels. This is highest among registered Democrats. Five Thirty Eight predicts that due to the electoral process in a few states, for example Pennsylvania is not allowed to start counting mail-in ballots until Tuesday, and the way the states are looking right now, neither of the major party candidates could reach the required 270 electoral votes on election night. It could take a few days. This is not cause for panic. Instead, let's take a collective deep breath and watch for problems with the process in our states. Documenting these can be used to challenge and improve the process for the next round. Already, people have been challenging the election process with more than 300 lawsuits filed in 44 states. There is a small chance that President Trump will be re-elected. If that happens, it will be critical to respect that result. To reject an outcome of the election process we have opens the door to a breakdown of that system and a vacuum that could threaten the hope of building more democratic structures. Remember, no matter what happens on November 3, our struggle goes on. It is a long term struggle against deeply entrenched structures of racism, capitalism, colonialism and imperialism that will have successes and failures. Our best chance for a better future is to keep our eye on the world we hope to create and keep working toward that goal. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Nov 2 22:41:35 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 16:41:35 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. In-Reply-To: <004b01d6b14a$d9bee170$8d3ca450$@comcast.net> References: <002401d6aef5$07744810$165cd830$@comcast.net> <0654EE9F-048A-4C56-953C-A6EA92711F0F@illinois.edu> <002401d6b067$51464c90$f3d2e5b0$@comcast.net> <5C1846EC-2CC2-4AD8-8E37-09C96534DB38@illinois.edu> <003301d6b129$e09c3f40$a1d4bdc0$@comcast.net> <3844bbda-b03c-a03b-2c3d-7415464aaf7e@forestfield.org> <003701d6b142$80ff4820$82fdd860$@comcast.net> <1203259263.1451171.1604343228266@mail.yahoo.com> <004b01d6b14a$d9bee170$8d3ca450$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Those who are interested in hearing the"left case" for Trump can Google articles by Benjamin Studebaker and Anis Shivani. On Mon, Nov 2, 2020, 1:03 PM David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Absolutely Midge ! > > > > It was the corporate media that created Trump ( TV program THE APPRENTICE, > etc. ) and helped elect him. Trump received billions of dollars in free > 2016 media coverage and often times, from my observations, his name was > mentioned twice as often as Clinton?s and Sander?s name was rarely > mentioned. > > And since the election, you are again absolutely correct. As one female > comedian stated at the correspondents dinner a few years ago ? ? All of you > say you hate Donald Trump but in reality you love him because of the > billions of dollars you have made off of covering him nonstop ?. > > > > Many people have a very difficult time believing the reality that U.S. > presidential elections as well as most of U.S. politics in general is > kabuki theater. One big nonstop episode of WWF wrestling. > > > > David J. > > > > > > > > *From:* Mildred O'brien [mailto:moboct1 at aim.com] > *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2020 12:54 PM > *To:* davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news > magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. > > > > I had the same problem trying to get Tom & family to vote--for the "Fair > Tax"--the 1% is spending so much to counteract the issue people have been > intimated by the TAX INCREASE fear PAC ads). > > > > I'm of the opinion that it was dislike of Hillary that "elected" DJT > instead of his dynamic personality. Biden as a man may not be perceived by > some voters as much of a threat as an aggressive woman like H. > > > > You might call DJT the "man made president by the MSM." In spite of their > supposed aversion to him, he has been a big money maker for the Media who > open every leading newscast about him 24/7 for the past 4 years. If he > goes, they'll probably follow him in the news to the extent that he will > attempt to run again. > > I've got to pay attention to the SENDER address of emails when I mean to > respond only to the sender, otherwise they go to P-D when I don't intend, > as last night when I wanted to address my rant to you about Socialism > instead of to P-D, and failed to close a parenthesis after "Capitalism" > instead of after "Communism" in my comment, making it appear to equate the > two. Oh well, I suppose no one reads my emails on P-D anyway. > > > > Midge > > > > Please God let Nov 2 be over soon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss > To: 'J.B. Nicholson' > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Sent: Mon, Nov 2, 2020 10:04 am > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news > magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. > > Thanks for your response and commentary-analysis Jeff. > > I must say that I agree 100 % with everything you wrote. > > Yes, I think you are correct about Abby Martin. Having a child for the > first time of course makes most people more insecure. And I agree with you > that what Aaron Mate said about excusing journalists who compromise their > principles for a career is unacceptable. There is always work somewhere for > a talented journalist, and even if you have to work at something else for a > while to pay the bills, so what. I did it for a while when I was > blacklisted from the Carpenter's Union for my activism, at a time when my > daughter was 5-7 years old. The only thing that will be standing in her > way if that is what she might need to do, is her ego. > > Speaking of my daughter who is now 25 years old. It took me a LOT of > persuasion to get her and her husband to vote. They both hate every > candidate running and / or are not interested in the local county > candidates. They both voted for Sanders twice and Jill Stein in 2016. > The winning argument I made to convince them to vote was the importance of > the FAIR tax ballot initiative. I told them that they could leave > everything else blank if they wanted. > So, as you mentioned, I wonder how many other young people ( and older > people too for that matter ) are feeling the same way as my daughter. Last > time in 2016 I believe it was 90 - 100 million eligible voters who did not > vote or voted for 3rd parties. Biden may be ahead in the polls nationwide > by 10 points, but if a lot of people don't vote, Biden may just barely > squeak a win or maybe not. > Regardless which asshole wins, we will be subjected to the same horrible > policies. > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On > Behalf Of J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 11:20 AM > To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] censored article at the INTERCEPT news > magazine that caused Glenn Greenwald to resign. > > David Johnson wrote: > [Regarding > https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ > > where Paul Jay interviews Abby Martin] > > I am really surprised and disappointed that Abby Martin has also > succumbed to the > > scare tactics of the Democrats and the corporate owned media. She should > know > > better. > > I think Martin does know better but I'm left wondering if she thinks > differently > because of what came at the top of this interview -- she now has a child. > I'm not > sure what the point of mentioning that was except for us to connect it to > something > else, something they don't clearly state. I'm sure that she sees the > enormous amounts > of money one can get for echoing the establishment line that Joe Biden is > significantly different or not objecting to evidenceless speculation that > things will > be better for most Americans with a Biden presidency (which, for all we > know, could > turn into a Kamala "Top Cop" Harris presidency). People usually won't turn > down > economic security. I don't offer this as an excuse (like Aaron Mat? does > and most > recently did in https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nig6c1WEc-0 to Jimmy Dore's > chagrin), I > offer that as a description of what might motivate someone to do as they > do. The cost > of that choice is a public that has no reason to trust what that person > has to say. > > The issues you listed are far more likely to be the issues on which > Americans (who > vote for POTUS at all) will base their vote. And therefore it's telling > that we don't > see proper explication of those issues in this Jay/Martin interview. > Medicare for > All, for instance, only came up once in this Jay/Martin interview and only > because > Martin brought it up. If either major party candidate had offered Medicare > for All > they would have won the election and convinced a majority of registered > voters to > vote for them. And it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the > registered voters > again don't vote for POTUS just like they didn't in 2016 (the majority > that those who > complain about the electoral college and majority voting typically don't > talk about). > > Getting back to this Jay interview, I'm reminded of why I quit taking The > Real News > seriously under Jay's leadership and today: his analysis is not based in > facts. I'll > explain more below. > > On trying to make Biden look better than he is regarding the 2003 US/UK > invasion of Iraq: > > Paul Jay: Honestly, as much as I fully expect Biden to win this election > and I > > fully expect to spend the next four years savaging him on so many > things, I do > > find myself having to say two or three positive things in terms of > foreign policy > > and Biden. Even though, one, he?s fully rooted, as are almost all of the > leaders > > of the Democratic Party, rooted in the Cold War mentality. Meaning that > America is > > the real civilization, the pillar of democracy. What was Reagan?s line, > ?the > > beacon on the hill,? or whatever? I think he believes all that. And it?s > > convenient to believe all that because the military industrial complex > and > > finance, it fits their strategy of how to make money out of being the > global > > policeman. > > > > But I also think he?s realistic and pragmatic in the way Obama was. And > Obama, we > > should remember, was against the Iraq war. And he said very clearly he > wasn?t > > against war and he wasn?t against regime change. > > > > Abby Martin: ?Dumb war.? > > > > Paul Jay: He just thought the Iraq war was stupid. Yeah, it was dumb. > And I think > > Biden agrees with him on that now, that that type of intervention is > done. It > > doesn?t help the empire. In one of his vice-presidential debates, he > said that if > > you didn?t want Iran to be a regional power, then the United States > shouldn?t have > > invaded Iraq. Because that?s what Iraq was: the buffer. And he said, > It?s over > > now, you did invade Iraq, and you do have to accept Iran as a regional > power. > > > > That?s a very important point of difference because of the > foreign-policy-gang > > types around Trump. And I must include Chuck Schumer and, of course, > Netanyahu > > from Israel and the Saudis. They don?t want to accept Iran as a regional > power. > > They want to try to destroy the place, mostly through economic warfare, > but > > possibly more. > > > > And I think when Obama got elected, I said, I only have one hope that > he?s going > > to be anything different than a Clinton or any other centrist Democrat: > on Iran, > > he might be rational. And it turned out he was. The rest of his foreign > policy was > > just normal, corporate-Democratic, defend-the-empire policy. > > > > I?m saying I think Biden realized he was wrong about Iraq. He could have > taken the > > Obama position. On the other hand, he?s a political opportunist, Biden. > He goes > > where the wind blows, where he thinks his political fortunes will be > best. So, I > > think it was more about that than anything, why he voted for the > resolution that > > wound up enabling the Iraq war. > > Biden didn't "realize he was wrong about Iraq". For years after that vote > he went on > the lecture circuit telling people he was right to vote in support of > authorizing > Pres. G.W. Bush to invade Iraq. > > Biden only recently changed his tune to another lie[1], now saying > something that > tries to recast his vote to mean something other than authorizing an > illegal > invasion. That's not "realizing he [Biden] was wrong about Iraq". Jay > doesn't even > put proper emphasis on what Jay has tacitly admitted and downplayed in > favor of > constructing another narrative -- Biden was wrong. At the time when it > counted, when > there were millions of people on the streets of the world telling him not > to support > that invasion, Biden voted to authorize the invasion. Even if Biden > genuinely had > changed his mind, as Jay apparently believes, that would mean nothing. > It's the vote > at the time that counts for anything. > > [1] Notice how Trump's lying isn't so much a point of contention in this > election? > It's because Biden has a long documented record of lying going back to > when he was > more lucid and he lied about his own educational record and had given > speeches which > he copied from others without attribution. He even dropped out of his 1988 > run > because he got caught in these lies. Trump and Biden's treatment of women > is also > tellingly not a hotly contested point in the 2020 election for similar > reasons -- > both of those candidates are comparably horrible with women. > > > > > On casting Glenn Greenwald to have a worse understanding of what just > happened to him > than Greenwald said: > > Paul Jay: But when Glenn goes on Tucker Carlson? He crossed a line > there. Not by > > going on Tucker Carlson. I?ll go on Tucker Carlson, but they?d never > invite me. > > One, I?m not famous enough. Nobody knows who I am. And, two, they know, > if they > > listen to me, I?m not going to do what Glenn did, which is, I?m not > going to > > regurgitate Tucker Carlson?s own speaking points back to him and just > say what he > > wants to hear. Because when Glenn was on Rising, that Krystal Ball show > on The > > Hill, he didn?t say what he said on Tucker Carlson. He spoke completely > > differently. He spoke to a leftwing audience. And to his left audience, > all he did > > was defend his right to have journalistic independence and integrity and > so on. > > But when he goes on Tucker Carlson, he says more or less the following > words, that > > there?s an alliance between the CIA and the Deep State and the > Democratic Party > > and most of the media to undermine the first four years of the Trump > presidency. > > Well, that?s a Fox News, rightwing Trump speaking point. More > importantly, it?s > > just not true. > > If what Greenwald said to Tucker Carlson was so horrible, quote what > Greenwald said > and explain precisely what was wrong with it. Even self-described > "nightclub jagoff > comedian" Jimmy Dore does this amount of legwork in his pieces. Don't do > as The > Intercept's Editor in Chief Betsy Reed recently did in > https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ -- > her 5 > paragraph response to Greenwald's resignation. There she offered no quotes > from > Greenwald. Reed would have us believe that Greenwald's response is > "designed to make > him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It > would take > too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record > in time.". > Reed has had plenty of time to explain precisely what happened with the > Reality > Winner case and it's clear that she won't do it no matter what she says > later (if > anything). The truth is that Reed is throwing the tantrum and Greenwald > gave us the > substance-filled arguments to back his case. We don't need to take > Greenwald's word > for it. We can read the quotes Greenwald provided and see the evidence for > ourselves > (all quotes from Greenwald, by the way, are not disputed anywhere by The > Intercept). > Jay (above) and Reed in her Intercept response to Greenwald's resignation > offer > nothing but their own respective opinions. > > > > > On whether the Democrats want to win the presidency in 2020 at all: > > Paul Jay: Yes, the Democratic Party obviously has been fighting against > Trump. > > I'm not convinced of that. One doesn't run an issue-free campaign headed > by someone > with obvious mental problems if they want to win an election. If one wants > to lower > the expectations to the point where most don't vote and most understand > that neither > major party will help you, and both parties work together, one does > precisely what > the Democrats & Republicans are doing now (see David Johnson's list of > important > issues where these two parties agree). I think Greenwald has it right: > party bosses > might rather have Biden (who has a longer track record of being neocon and > neolib) > but they'll be okay with 4 more years of Trump who has been (to borrow a > phrase) > brought to heel. Russiagate has helped with bringing Trump into line and > making up > for making the establishment nervous with some of the things Trump said > when he ran > in 2016 like sharply critiquing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. > > > > > > On Russiagate: > > Paul Jay: I mean, in some ways, the Democrats? bullshit created this > situation, > > because, one, the Russia stuff. I?ve been saying from the very beginning > ? and I > > didn?t get into the weeds of it as some journalists did because I kept > saying, I > > don?t care if it?s all true. > > The Obama/Biden presidency is why we have Trump today. Voters did not > elect Hillary > Clinton because they didn't want 4 or 8 more years of what Obama/Biden had > given them > for the past 8 years. > > As for Paul Jay on Russiagate: he had echoed Russiagate bullshit, said > that he didn't > care if Russiagate was true (which itself is ridiculous, he should be in > the job of > identifying what is true and what is false and debunking the falsehoods), > and The > Real News put Russigators like Marc Jacobs on their shows rendering that > network > indistinguishable from what I can get anywhere in establishment media. > > Russiagate started as a baseless excuse to try and get Hillary Clinton out > of taking > responsibility for her poorly-run 2nd attempt at becoming POTUS. > Russiagate has > become much more than that since, including a basis for economic sanctions > against > Russia and that is a form of war. If even now Jay repeats that tired line > of not > caring if Russiagate is true or not, he's not a responsible journalist or > commentator. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 jbn at forestfield.org Mon Nov 2 23:10:21 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:10:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Countering Rightward Drift In The United States: This Struggle Is Long Term In-Reply-To: <002201d6b169$44f70490$cee50db0$@comcast.net> References: <002201d6b169$44f70490$cee50db0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <57c1b937-9e5b-375a-611a-d78ea8d22e42@forestfield.org> David Johnson: > The "ratchet effect" describes the roles both Republicans and Democrats have > played in moving our politics to the right for the last 40 years. Yes; and this helps us put into context the claim that Trump is some kind of unique threat, a madman beyond compare ("I think Trump is an existential threat. I think that he is a unique threat. Unmatched." as Abby Martin said to Paul Jay in https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ echoing establishment media). The Democrats gave him his war budget and billions more. They made fun of his border wall then they funded his border wall. Certainly not the kind of reaction that jibes with the namecalling meant to get us to be so fearful that we'll settle for a known neocon like Biden or Harris, both of whom failed to capture interest in the DNC corporation primary. From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Nov 3 00:08:27 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:08:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Robert_Fisk_=2812_July_1946_=E2=80=93_?= =?utf-8?q?30_October_2020=29_has_died?= Message-ID: <1401b624-234f-0ab5-6b5c-bce229ce643a@forestfield.org> From John Pilger's Twitter.com account at https://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1323214193441603585 > Robert Fisk has died. I pay warmest tribute to one of the last great reporters. > The weasel word 'controversial' appears in even his own paper, The Independent, > whose pages he honoured. He went against the grain and told the truth, > spectacularly. Journalism has lost the bravest. He was 74 and he died in Dublin. From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Nov 3 02:09:26 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 02:09:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Countering Rightward Drift In The United States: This Struggle Is Long Term In-Reply-To: <57c1b937-9e5b-375a-611a-d78ea8d22e42@forestfield.org> References: <002201d6b169$44f70490$cee50db0$@comcast.net> <57c1b937-9e5b-375a-611a-d78ea8d22e42@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <5B655B7C-3319-46B4-B30D-216139280BFA@illinois.edu> I just can?t help wondering. Will you be pleased if Trump becomes the president for the next four years, more so than if Biden does? Or don?t you care, as it being irrelevant? A customary response that we need a truly progressive, social movement, not frivolous elections, just does not address the present mess. Issues worth taking into account: the pandemic, climate change, the environment, a national health system, education (higher and lower), women's and minority rights, human rights in general, workers rights, Science values. Indeed ?liberal democracy?. And not least, the ignorance and craziness and anomie of the Trump personality, one who can initiate a nuclear conflict on a whim, as he has threatened.. Are Trump and Biden essentially equivalent on these issues? I can agree that on other vital issues (the Empire ?we? strive to be, Capitalism, nuclear weaponry, foreign enemies (China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba,?), NATO, foreign relations (e.g., Europe, S America, Africa, India,?), ?terrorism?, trade, Israel-Palestine, the military/national security budget, Assange, Snowden and whistle blowers), what encompasses ?national security" ?, it is not clear who might be less malign for humanity and the planet. Finally, I consider the opinions of those I respect on the left who ?ve decided that the election is crucially important: Ellsberg, Chomsky, Jay, Martin, Stein, Nader, ?many others that don?t come to mind, perhaps even Greenwald! After saying all this, I confess that I want Trump removed, but I shall not vote for Biden. Yes, there may be something irrational in this decision; I just refuse to vote for someone instrumental in destroying/murdering so much of the middle east with his strong support for the Iraq war. A horror which persists. > On Nov 2, 2020, at 5:10 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > David Johnson: >> The "ratchet effect" describes the roles both Republicans and Democrats have >> played in moving our politics to the right for the last 40 years. > > Yes; and this helps us put into context the claim that Trump is some kind of unique threat, a madman beyond compare ("I think Trump is an existential threat. I think that he is a unique threat. Unmatched." as Abby Martin said to Paul Jay in https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ echoing establishment media). > > The Democrats gave him his war budget and billions more. They made fun of his border wall then they funded his border wall. Certainly not the kind of reaction that jibes with the namecalling meant to get us to be so fearful that we'll settle for a known neocon like Biden or Harris, both of whom failed to capture interest in the DNC corporation primary. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Nov 3 17:01:45 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:01:45 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recommended videos for AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and Labor's World View TV Message-ID: Here are the video suggestions I've sent to Jason Liggett of UPTV to run during AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and the final two are for playing in Labor's World View TV's timeslot. As before, I've asked Jason to prioritize AWARE member suggested videos ahead of my suggestions for AOTA/NFN and to prioritize anything David Johnson prefers for Labor's World View TV. Thanks. -J Consortium News https://youtube.com/watch?v=YGAL0GcaN5s -- (1h51m24s)"A Terrible Choice - Chris Hedges, Rick Wolff, Jill Stein, and Mike Gravel" on the presidential option before us. https://youtube.com/watch?v=JKMhf0CUd9o -- (59m56s) on voter suppression https://youtube.com/watch?v=s-mTqXP4bGw -- (14m01s) The Purged: The Vanished Voters of Trump's America (goes along with the voter suppression) -- report from Greg Palast on whose votes don't count, which voters are being disallowed from making a vote. RT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I2hqcOhmDE https://cdnv.rt.com/files/2020.10/5f9d3dbb203027154b630bea.mp4 -- (27m19s) Afshin Rattansi interviews comic and political commentator Jimmy Dore on "why Joe Biden?s record as vice president and as a senator is worse than Donald Trump?s. He also talks about Biden?s responsibility for the Crime Bill, leading to the US having the world?s biggest prison population; Kamala Harris? role in upholding the prison-industrial complex; whether Donald Trump is better than Joe Biden; the alleged smearing of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard during the primaries; why Biden won?t move to the left if he becomes president; and much more. Also, former senior adviser to Bernie Sanders, Phillip Agnew on the recent protests in Philadelphia after the police killing of another African American, Donald Trump?s ?bungled? response to the coronavirus pandemic, why black and poor people in the US have a poor choice on both sides, why he believes progressives and Americans should vote for Joe Biden despite his record, the shadow of McCarthyism over Joe Biden and the United States, what corporations and private banks can expect from a Biden presidency" (quote from Going Underground). https://cdnv.rt.com/files/2020.10/5f9d1c1685f54011604d8125.mp4 -- (27m32s) Afshin Rattansi interviews "President Donald Trump?s top coronavirus adviser Scott Atlas of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, from the White House. He discusses President Trump?s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and criticisms of the response, his belief that lockdowns were a failure of public policy, Bill Gates calling him a ?pseudo-expert? and ?off the rails?, differences with Anthony Fauci who called him an ?outlier? on the task force, and why he believes the damage of lockdowns is greater than the benefits for Americans. He also details why he believes the economy should reopen, why models predicting 500,000+ more deaths in America are wrong, why South Asian nations handled the pandemic better than the United States" (quote from Going Underground). This contains the interview that Atlas later apologized for (https://twitter.com/SWAtlasHoover/status/1322962638012358657) saying: > I recently did an interview with RT and was unaware they are a registered foreign > agent. I regret doing the interview and apologize for allowing myself to be taken > advantage of. I especially apologize to the national security community who is > working hard to defend us. In https://on.rt.com/attn RT explained what the interview covered and gave their response to Atlas' apology. This article included: > No explanation was offered for how voicing opinions on a Russian-funded > television outlet might jeopardize US national security. None was needed. > > Democrats and mainstream media outlets have repeatedly squashed discussion of > undesirable information or viewpoints, by alleging a nefarious Russian plot behind > the report. Such tactics were used, for example, to dismiss damning information > about the Hillary Clinton campaign ? released by WikiLeaks in 2016 ? and recent > revelations about alleged influence-peddling by Democratic presidential candidate > Joe Biden's family. I thought it would be better to understand the interview by seeing the interview itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I2hqcOhmDE -- (27m 5s) Jordan Chariton interviews Chris Hedges on putting Joe Biden in context including a sharp review of Biden's record. Thanks to Karen Aram for this recommendation. https://youtube.com/watch?v=GxSN4ip_F6M -- (1h58m) Chris Hedges on "The Politics of Cultural Despair", a talk he gave to a mostly empty audience, on what comes when the political choices the establishment puts in front of us are horrible. https://youtube.com/watch?v=XOKhl75chaY -- (2h21m56s) "On the eve of the Civil War Election: The Breakdown of American Democracy and the Fight for Socialism" from the Socialist Equality Party and World Socialist Web Site which stresses how the capitalistic countries have fought COVID-19 and where that fight has gone horribly wrong when viewed from the perspective of the death count and the effect on the living workers in those countries. Regarding Amazon on unions and how Amazon treats workers amidst Coronavirus https://youtube.com/watch?v=uRpwVwFxyk4 -- (29m03s) Amazon's Union-busting Training Video (the anti-union propaganda which Amazon told Whole Foods management in 2018 which was leaked to the public). https://youtube.com/watch?v=V3MuVRza6qs -- (50m26s) Christian Smalls, fired Amazon worker, on how Coronavirus is being dealt with by Amazon and Jeff Bezos, the world's richest man. This is an audio interview with a still for the video. This should go together with the previous anti-unionization video as they both cover workers backing actions in an attempt to compel management to treat workers better. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Nov 3 17:23:55 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:23:55 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Countering Rightward Drift In The United States: This Struggle Is Long Term In-Reply-To: <5B655B7C-3319-46B4-B30D-216139280BFA@illinois.edu> References: <002201d6b169$44f70490$cee50db0$@comcast.net> <57c1b937-9e5b-375a-611a-d78ea8d22e42@forestfield.org> <5B655B7C-3319-46B4-B30D-216139280BFA@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <006601d6b206$1c354790$549fd6b0$@comcast.net> To me it doesn't matter, BECAUSE....go look at the issues I listed they both support and oppose. IDENTICAL. Why do you think that is Mort ? It is one big game of kabuki theater WWF wrestling. The U.S. ruling class knows that Americans are getting angry and fed up- The massive loss of jobs ( even shitty ones ) due to the pandemic, lack of access to healthcare, lack of decent paying jobs due to offshoring, an entire generation with student debt peonage and many of those young people with medical debt as well, the inability to get access to post high school education, the extreme difficulty ( compared to other developed countries )to form Unions, police murders of unarmed citizens, Flint and other cities facing water crisis, decaying infrastructure everywhere, climate change becoming more noticeable ( wildfires etc. ), a rigged electoral system, endless wars, and the list goes on. Therefore they ( U.S. oligarchy ) need to DISTRACT and DIVIDE the American people to divert attention from themselves. Trump is the perfect catalyst ( foil ) for this task. Along with evidence free conspiracy theories about supposed ; Russian, Chinese, Iranian and next week probably Venezuelan interference in U.S. elections / politics. You would think that the ruling class would be smart enough to yield somewhat in their insatiable never ending quest for more money and power for a long term strategy of stability to ensure their continued existence. But they are so arrogant and obstinate that they pulled out all of the weapons ( nonstop corporate media propaganda, massive voter disenfranchisement, and outright ELECTION FRAUD ) to stop even a mild reformer like Bernie Sanders and refuse to even compromise on Medicare for All like what the other 33 developed countries in the world have except the U.S. But oh no, the U.S. ruling class are the biggest psychopaths in the world. Bernie Sanders was the real threat to the U.S. ruling class, NOT Trump. They prefer Biden but they are O.K. with Trump. Like all capitalists Mort, they have already hedged their bets. That is why Trump and Biden support the same issues and even both attack " Socialism", because that is what the ruling class wants. The rest ( the election ) is just a personality contest between two assholes that the ruling class made certain that they control. And an additional bonus for them is that they have stirred up enough hysterical shit about each candidate that regardless which one wins, there will be huge violent turmoil, which gives the ruling class a perfect excuse to use all of the instruments of repression and probably enact new repressive laws restricting freedom of assembly and speech. If you think that it will be happy days are here again or even a return to the " normal " we had prior to 2016 if Trump is defeated , I am sorry to inform you that that will not be the case. Even after Trump leaves office, he still will be getting all of the media attention he wants to stir up shit on a regular basis and the oligarch corporate owned media will love it. No matter how much the corporate owned media attacks Trump, they actually LOVE him. He is great for melodrama and divide and conquer / distraction politics and earns them billions. Regardless of who wins we will be fighting the same battles. With that said, it is going to get real interesting. The ancient Chinese curse of - " May you live in interesting times ". Sincerely David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 8:09 PM To: J.B. Nicholson Cc: Brussel, Morton K; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Countering Rightward Drift In The United States: This Struggle Is Long Term I just can?t help wondering. Will you be pleased if Trump becomes the president for the next four years, more so than if Biden does? Or don?t you care, as it being irrelevant? A customary response that we need a truly progressive, social movement, not frivolous elections, just does not address the present mess. Issues worth taking into account: the pandemic, climate change, the environment, a national health system, education (higher and lower), women's and minority rights, human rights in general, workers rights, Science values. Indeed ?liberal democracy?. And not least, the ignorance and craziness and anomie of the Trump personality, one who can initiate a nuclear conflict on a whim, as he has threatened.. Are Trump and Biden essentially equivalent on these issues? I can agree that on other vital issues (the Empire ?we? strive to be, Capitalism, nuclear weaponry, foreign enemies (China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba,?), NATO, foreign relations (e.g., Europe, S America, Africa, India,?), ?terrorism?, trade, Israel-Palestine, the military/national security budget, Assange, Snowden and whistle blowers), what encompasses ?national security" ?, it is not clear who might be less malign for humanity and the planet. Finally, I consider the opinions of those I respect on the left who ?ve decided that the election is crucially important: Ellsberg, Chomsky, Jay, Martin, Stein, Nader, ?many others that don?t come to mind, perhaps even Greenwald! After saying all this, I confess that I want Trump removed, but I shall not vote for Biden. Yes, there may be something irrational in this decision; I just refuse to vote for someone instrumental in destroying/murdering so much of the middle east with his strong support for the Iraq war. A horror which persists. > On Nov 2, 2020, at 5:10 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > David Johnson: >> The "ratchet effect" describes the roles both Republicans and Democrats have >> played in moving our politics to the right for the last 40 years. > > Yes; and this helps us put into context the claim that Trump is some kind of unique threat, a madman beyond compare ("I think Trump is an existential threat. I think that he is a unique threat. Unmatched." as Abby Martin said to Paul Jay in https://theanalysis.news/interviews/biden-is-not-on-the-left-but-there-is-a-difference-that-matters-abby-martin/ echoing establishment media). > > The Democrats gave him his war budget and billions more. They made fun of his border wall then they funded his border wall. Certainly not the kind of reaction that jibes with the namecalling meant to get us to be so fearful that we'll settle for a known neocon like Biden or Harris, both of whom failed to capture interest in the DNC corporation primary. > _______________________________________________ > 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 mkb3 at mac.com Tue Nov 3 21:37:52 2020 From: mkb3 at mac.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:37:52 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_America=E2=80=99s_Panic_Attack_?= =?utf-8?q?Could_Soon_Be_Over_=E2=80=94_But_It=E2=80=99s_Just_The_Beginnin?= =?utf-8?q?g?= References: <20201103190500.1.zudp4ju0t4@mg2.substack.com> Message-ID: <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> I?m sympathetic, with some reservations, to this article by David Sirota. You too may be. I?m less sympathetic to the nihilism displayed by others on this list-serve. ?mkb > Begin forwarded message: > > From: David Sirota > Subject: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning > Date: November 3, 2020 at 1:05:00 PM CST > To: mkb3 at mac.com > Reply-To: "David Sirota" > > > You are a free subscriber to The Daily Poster. We are working to expand our coverage and hire more reporters ? and the only way we can do that is with subscriber support. Please consider becoming a $5-a-month or $50-a-year supporting subscriber by clicking here . When you subscribe, you are helping us build out a full newsroom - and you get access to all of our subscriber only content, including our live chat events. > > Subscribe now > America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning > Whatever happens in the election, progressives will be either blamed or shamed. Don?t be surprised ? be ready for the fight of our lives. > > David Sirota > Nov 3 > This is the second of a two-part Daily Poster series being released just before the election. You can read the first part here . > > > I woke up at 4am this morning to a panic attack. I get them from time to time ever since living in Washington through 9/11, the anthrax attack and the D.C. sniper. My usual trick is to sit on the floor with my dog, Monty, but that didn?t help so I went for a long walk. > > Panic attacks aren?t only about the thing happening when you have them. For me, they tend to be triggered by something ? like, say, a really important election ? but also an expression of built up anxieties that I?ve white knuckled through but can no longer keep at bay. Eventually, the brain?s motherboard shuts down and demands a reset of the mind?s CPU. It?s not pleasant. > > I?m guessing I wasn?t the only one who woke up this morning with the shakes, the palpitations, the sweat and the feeling that the walls are closing in. We?ve all been white knuckling through the last 4 years, and if we?re really honest about it, much longer than that. > > In the span of two decades we?ve had 9/11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the Great Recession and a global pandemic. We?ve experienced these horrors while the meager social safety net has been weakened at the same time our economy mints billionaires. Politics has so normalized avarice that our policy debate over health care is about whether or not to let insurance companies discriminate against sick people during the outbreak of a lethal virus. > > We are surrounded by COVID death and climate destruction, and our government tells us everyday in so many ways that we are all alone ? a feeling made worse by the physical isolation of quarantine. > > This is a new ?normal? ? but it isn?t actually normal. It is obscene, it is unacceptable ? and it is why our country has been having one giant panic attack for the last 4 years. > > The Left Will Be Blamed Or Shamed > > During my walk, I kept trying to come up with ways to make myself feel like I know what is about to happen in the election. But, of course, I don?t. Nobody does, including the pundits who are paid to prognosticate about polls. We?re all just going to have to try to keep calm, knowing that nothing is under control. > > One thing I can predict with certainty is that no matter the results, the left will be blamed or shamed. > > If Biden (godforbid) loses, we will be told that he went too far to the left, which alienated swing voters, but still did not generate enough enthusiasm from disaffected Bernie Sanders voters who can?t get over the outcome of the Democratic primary. If that fantastical tale sounds eerily familiar, that?s because it was the bullshit story told after Hillary Clinton lost the most winnable presidential contest in history. > > And yes ? it was bullshit then and would be bullshit now. > > On everything from climate change to health care to corporate power, Biden is if anything more conservative than the general population. This is a guy who literally promised his donors that ?nothing would fundamentally change? and was nonetheless enthusiastically boosted by every wing of the Democratic Party, including progressives. Indeed, while third-party voting was a minuscule phenomenon in 2016, it looks to be even more infinitesimal in 2020 . > > Though we?re not supposed to admit it aloud, we all know Biden didn?t really earn the lockstep support of Democratic voters with any of his policy proposals. He originally won the nomination mostly because past vice presidents almost always win their party?s presidential nominations. In the general, Biden has been backed by nearly every left-of-center group, but that?s really only because Trump represents an existential threat to the survival of our democracy and the planet?s ecosystem. > > An inanimate object should be able to beat this out of control and brazenly corrupt president who has wildly mismanaged a lethal pandemic ? and if Biden still somehow manages to lose, he has nobody to blame but himself. Almost everybody looked at his problematic record and his uninspired campaign and nonetheless sucked it up and fell in line for him because we understood the stakes ? so if he still somehow manages to shit the bed, it?s on him. > > If Biden (hopefully) wins, the narrative will be the opposite ? we will be told that he won because he refused to fully embrace a progressive economic agenda. In this mythology, voters were supposedly desperate for a return to the kind of corporatism, incrementalism and neoliberalism that defined the Obama era and that continues to define Beltway Democratic culture amid the economic, public health and climate crises. > > It is certainly true that Biden has repeatedly refused to support Medicare for All, promised not to ban fracking and repeatedly boasted about how he defeated democratic socialist Bernie Sanders in the primary. Those were all attempts to contrast himself with the progressive base of his own party ? which is what he has tried to do periodically throughout his long political career, and which already has neoconservative Republicans praising his campaign. > > However, Biden would win in spite of that triangulation, not because of it. > > As millions of Americans lost their private health insurance during the pandemic, a Morning Consult survey showed support for Medicare for All has surged . While the Kaiser Family Foundation?s survey shows that most Americans do not want the Supreme Court to end protections for preexisting conditions, the same group?s survey showed support for the Affordable Care Act has remained relatively weak. > > In fact, at key moments during the COVID outbreak, the ACA has actually lost support among the middle-aged, who may have suddenly discovered that Obamacare doesn?t protect them from higher premiums and the loss of job-based medical insurance in an economic downturn. > > Similarly, polls show surging support for bold climate action as America has been ravaged by wildfires, droughts and hurricanes. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania ? where Biden?s fracking position has been cast as a positive ? polls show the majority of the state?s voters oppose the fossil fuel extraction process. > > And for all of Biden?s gratuitous football-spiking about beating Sanders in the primary, the Vermont senator remains one of America?s most popular politicians, and more popular than Biden himself, according to YouGov data . > > The point here is not merely that Biden is out of step with the public on specific issues ? but that it would be patently ridiculous for anyone to depict a Democratic victory as a repudiation of the left. > > The election has been an up-or-down vote on Trump, with Biden the recipient of the down vote. He is the quintessential generic Democrat in this race ? indeed, a recent Pew poll showed that the majority of Biden voters support him simply because ?he is not Trump,? not because of any particular position he has taken. > > > A new Morning Consult poll shows that almost half of Biden?s voters say they are supporting him more as ?a vote against Donald Trump? than an affirmative vote for the Democratic ticket. At the same time, the public broadly supports a progressive economic agenda. > > If Biden wins, those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will try to obscure this reality ? but it is a reality. > > Darkest Before Dawn > > I walked east from my home in southeast Denver ? east toward the rising sun, because I know for me it is most difficult to think clearly in the night. It truly is darkest before the dawn ? and we are all right now in that darkness, deciding whether or not to wallow or push ahead. > > It is easy to succumb to nihilism. My inner voice of negativity is a Rahm Emanuel-esque asshole, and it spent all night screaming a million reasons to give up. > > But as the sky turned red and then pink, I saw this little tent on the horizon at the local community center. Cars were driving up as people were dropping off ballots. > > As my friend Naomi Klein said in The Daily Poster?s ?live chat last night , we are taught to see voting as the ultimate form of self-expression, but it isn?t. It is one limited way to participate in civic life. But voting itself is an act of ? dare I say it ? hope. > > Even in a democracy as limited as America?s, we vote because we still believe in the idea of self-governance, and in the idea that things can change. And weirdly enough, in an election offering two of history?s most uninspired presidential choices, we have what could be the biggest opportunity for change in my own lifetime. > > Think about it: If Biden wins, we will have a relatively weak thumb-in-the-wind Democratic president who does not command the kind of worshipful fandom that past Democratic presidents have engendered. At the same time there are engaged activists, organizations and movements that are not just going back to brunch when the election is over. From the Sunrise Movement to Demand Progress to the Revolving Door Project to Black Lives Matter , there is more infrastructure than ever ready to pressure a new president ? and there are allied lawmakers in Congress ready to amplify their message. > > The key thing to understand about this potential future is that Biden does not engender the kind of fawning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama evoked when they were first elected president. He is rightly seen as a transactional and transitional politician ? and that?s actually a good thing. > > For too long, Democratic voters have seen their presidents as deities who should be immune from pressure and criticism. But it is far better for a democracy for a president to be perceived not as some pop culture idol or glorified instagram influencer, but instead as an administrator that is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. > > Biden?s low-key image makes it much more likely that we will finally view the presidency in those far more healthy and realistic terms ? and then confront that White House with pressure rather than genuflection. > > Will the pressure work? It is hard to say. But Biden does appear to be making some rhetorical shifts already ? in the last presidential debate, he made an argument for deficit spending . It was remarkable to see given that Biden has advocated for budget austerity for decades. > > Then again, there?s a difference between words and deed and in recent years, the MSNBC-ization of politics and the rise of Brunch Liberalism means there hasn?t been much pressure on Democratic lawmakers to do much of anything -- other than simply not be Republicans. But with climate, health care and economic emergencies tearing apart our country, we need them to do far more than that. We need to force them to deliver in a way the party hasn?t delivered in more than a half century. > > And here?s the thing to remember: Nothing will be given. Campaign promises will not be acted upon on their own ? they will only be fulfilled if there is constant pressure. Indeed, to achieve even the most minimal and necessary reforms to prevent more mass casualties and pain, lawmakers will have to face enormous amounts of organizing and pressure and activism. The leaders of both parties in Washington have taught us over and over and over again that they will nonchalantly let us suffer and die ? unless they are forced kicking and screaming to do something other than enrich their donors. > > I walked back home thinking about how daunting a task this will all be. The pit in my stomach was still there from the panic attack, and thinking about how much work we must do made the pangs a bit worse. > > But then I walked into the house and saw two kids ? my 6-year-old daughter finishing up her french toast and masking up for first grade, and my 9-year-old son working on his 4th grade essay before yet another day of remote learning because his grades are on lockdown. > > In their faces, I see the reason that despair and despondence cannot be our path. > > Their lives and the lives of every kid is on the line right now ? and our society is in a bad way. Our politics are deeply corrupt, our laws are driven by greed. The cultural and political panic unrest we?ve experienced over the last year is all a predictable result of that. > > But with our democracy and our ecosystem on the brink, failure is not an option. Retreat is not an option. > > We?ve had our panic attack ? now, hopefully, we get one more chance to move forward. > > This newsletter relies on readers pitching in to support it. If you like what you just read and want to help expand this kind of journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber by clicking this link . > > Subscribe now > > You?re on the free list for The Daily Poster . For the full experience, become a paying subscriber. > Subscribe > ? 2020 David Sirota Unsubscribe > 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Nov 3 22:54:11 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:54:11 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Countering Rightward Drift In The United States: This Struggle Is Long Term In-Reply-To: <006601d6b206$1c354790$549fd6b0$@comcast.net> References: <002201d6b169$44f70490$cee50db0$@comcast.net> <57c1b937-9e5b-375a-611a-d78ea8d22e42@forestfield.org> <5B655B7C-3319-46B4-B30D-216139280BFA@illinois.edu> <006601d6b206$1c354790$549fd6b0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: I concur with David's response. A few points David brought up which I wanted to expand on: David Johnson wrote: > The U.S. ruling class knows that Americans are getting angry and fed up- The > massive loss of jobs ( even shitty ones ) due to the pandemic, lack of access to > healthcare, lack of decent paying jobs due to offshoring, an entire generation > with student debt peonage and many of those young people with medical debt as > well, the inability to get access to post high school education, the extreme > difficulty ( compared to other developed countries )to form Unions, police murders > of unarmed citizens, Flint and other cities facing water crisis, decaying > infrastructure everywhere, climate change becoming more noticeable ( wildfires > etc. ), a rigged electoral system, endless wars, and the list goes on. There are a lot of people begging other working class and poor people for help on GoFundMe. GoFundMe's CEO Rob Solomon said in January 2019 that 1/3rd of the sites donations were to cover medical costs (https://time.com/5516037/gofundme-medical-bills-one-third-ceo/ and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crushed-by-medical-bills-many-americans-go-online-to-beg-for-help/) and GoFundMe apparently seeks to capitalize on their popularity in begging for healthcare payment money by making it easier to find such posts (https://www.gofundme.com/discover/health-insurance-fundraiser). Barack Obama and Joe Biden recently campaigned for Biden in Flint, Michigan to "blast Donald Trump for his response to the COVID-19 pandemic and said how "better" the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris tandem would be for America compared to the president" (per https://sputniknews.com/us/202011011080940832-obama-biden-slam-president-trump-at-their-first-joint-campaign-event-in-michigan/) and Pres. Trump followed up on Twitter: > Following the speech in Flint, Trump took to Twitter to criticise both Obama and > Biden for their failed policies in Flint (referring to the Flint water crisis) and > for endorsing Rick Snyder, who, according to the president, was an incompetent > Michigan governor. From https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1322616235423539200 > Biden & Obama owe a massive apology to the People of Flint. The water was poisoned > on their watch. Not only did they fail them, Biden proudly accepted the > endorsement of disastrous Gov Rick Snyder! Unlike Biden, I will always stand with > the People of the Great State of MICHIGAN! So both presidents Obama and Trump say something comparable; Obama claimed at a speaking engagement in Flint during his presidency that he "had their [Flint residents] back" which is in line with Trump "always stand with the People of the Great State of MICHIGAN!". Neither president gave Flint residents Medicare for All or potable water. And Flint is not alone in this predicament, Flint is perhaps just the best known example. Disaster after disaster adversely affects the poor and we're supposed to pick a favorite by arguing over who is slightly less criminally negligent on purpose? Shortly before the 2016 election, establishment comic John Oliver stumped for Hillary Clinton by criticizing everyone else who opposed her instead of telling us why we should vote for her. He admitted he didn't have much to complain about with Dr. Jill Stein's 2016 campaign but he criticized Stein's call to cancel student debt (which was about $1.26 trillion) via quantitative easing and used that as the means to dismiss Stein's entire campaign (because he couldn't let a compliment stand!). Not only was that view not widely shared at the time but years later we'd see the US add trillions to the economy in the CARES Act. Most of the CARES Act largesse was given to the wealthiest individuals and businesses with a virtually ignorable pittance for the poor and working class. You won't find many commentators who have criticized the CARES Act on the basis of "How will we ever afford this?", a question that establishment media drumbeats when there's something beneficial for the 99% like Medicare for All (which we're already more than paying for in how much we pay HMOs which deliver care that is consistently lower-rated than Medicare). Around the time of the CARES Act vote, House Democrats went on the liberal shows (like Democracy Now) and the floor of the House to tell us what a disaster passing the CARES Act would be. Then they obeyed House Speaker Pelosi and voted for the CARES Act and hid the roster of who voted for the CARES Act via a voice vote. AOC's widely-distributed arm-waving House floor speech stands out because of how many liberals took that speech to mean that AOC voted against the CARES Act and AOC's reason for being elected in the first place. But the audio of the voice vote is clear: no women voted against the CARES Act. The no votes were from no more than a handful of men. And apparently nobody challenged Pelosi by calling for a roll call vote. There was great agreement in the House and Senate -- the CARES Act had no trouble passing. > But they are so arrogant and obstinate that they pulled out all of the weapons ( > nonstop corporate media propaganda, massive voter disenfranchisement, and outright > ELECTION FRAUD ) to stop even a mild reformer like Bernie Sanders and refuse to > even compromise on Medicare for All like what the other 33 developed countries in > the world have except the U.S. I wanted to point out here how mild Bernie Sanders is (and how easily the liberals in the media conflate his efforts as working in our interests). His foreign policy is shameful, really nothing to celebrate. He, for example, echoed CIA talking points on Twitter when it came to the nascent Venezuelan coup attempts: https://nitter.snopyta.org/SenSanders/status/1099380342018912257 > The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis. The Maduro > government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the > country, and refrain from violence against protesters. https://nitter.snopyta.org/SenSanders/status/1088573769243914240 > The Maduro government has waged a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, > violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected > last year in an election many observers said was fraudulent. The economy is a > disaster and millions are migrating. But after a US-backed coup has been carried out, he'll wag his finger (when nothing he says could be interpreted as a threat to the establishment) as Zach Carter shows with a video clip of a Sanders interview in https://nitter.snopyta.org/zachjcarter/status/1195899676802854912 I think the late Bruce Dixon had it right in https://blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary where he wrote that Sanders is the sheepdog for the Democratic Party. Change a few of the names in that article to update it to current-day names in the news, and the article holds up. Sanders is known for his support of Medicare for All but this time around he abandoned that support in writing and in voice when he told his campaign followers "Let me be clear: I am not proposing that we pass Medicare for All in this moment. That fight continues into the future.". It's not clear when "the future" is. He also released a video statement saying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQV83U5Dk) "This is not Medicare for All, we can?t pass that right now." around 41m44s. Well, we could, but it would take a political will among the Democrats that doesn't exist. After his sheepdogging 2020 campaign (repeating what he did in 2016 which explains why he's not complaining about being 'cheated' in the DNC corporate primaries) his Sanders/Biden "task forces" drove home how Sanders and the Democrats don't care: From https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/08/biden-sanders-unity-task-force-recommendations-353225 > The task force recommendations don't include the kind of wide-scale systemic > upheaval that won Sanders such a fervent following in his two presidential > campaigns - while provoking an outcry from moderate Democrats and Republicans > alike. A single-payer health care system such as "Medicare for All," a "Green New > Deal" overhauling environmental policy, and doing away with Immigration and > Customs Enforcement are not among the policy proposals. and from https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889189235/democratic-task-forces-deliver-biden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency > Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal co-chaired the health care task force. She has > long pushed, like Sanders, for a single, government-run health insurance program > but didn't bring that recommendation to the table in any of the meetings or > negotiations. Biden pledged to veto any Medicare for All bill that crossed his desk as president. Trump apparently won't push for Medicare for All either. That's collectively pushing the bar of what passes for competition lower and lower. These are the choices from the Trump/Pence campaign or those we're supposed to see as 'resisting' Trump (also known as "the lesser evil"). There's not only great agreement on this election-deciding issue but Biden played a big role in why we have Pres. Trump now. We could have had better years ago: HR676 (John Conyers' Medicare for All bill which was glowingly reviewed by those advocating for Medicare for All, and called a "gold standard") could have been passed into law under Obama/Biden. The Democrats had a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress for a time during the Obama/Biden administration. Instead they chose to let HR676 sit on the metaphorical shelf and never brought it to the floor for a vote. I see them doing the same thing with Sanders' and Jayapal's Medicare for All bills today. This incentivizes me to think that both major corporate parties see Medicare for All the same cynical way -- it shall not pass because their funders are HMOs and Medicare for All threatens continued HMO campaign funding (whether direct or indirect through bundlers). So as https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B tells us: > Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups > representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. > government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have > little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for > theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but > not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. In other words, the 99% only really get what we want when what we want coincides with what the elites want. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Nov 3 23:29:40 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:29:40 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_America=E2=80=99s_Panic_Attack_?= =?utf-8?q?Could_Soon_Be_Over_=E2=80=94_But_It=E2=80=99s_Just_The_B?= =?utf-8?q?eginning?= In-Reply-To: <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> References: <20201103190500.1.zudp4ju0t4@mg2.substack.com> <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> Message-ID: <004801d6b239$34891f50$9d9b5df0$@comcast.net> Yes, I agree, good article Mort. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 3:38 PM To: peace-discuss Cc: Brussel Morton K. Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning I?m sympathetic, with some reservations, to this article by David Sirota. You too may be. I?m less sympathetic to the nihilism displayed by others on this list-serve. ?mkb Begin forwarded message: From: David Sirota Subject: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Date: November 3, 2020 at 1:05:00 PM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: "David Sirota" &wlsk&&68f30b2335ffcfe53f3a7496882eaff2af20837c2fc6d60ec8331fc498757df7 at mg1.substack.com> Image removed by sender. You are a free subscriber to The Daily Poster. We are working to expand our coverage and hire more reporters ? and the only way we can do that is with subscriber support. Please consider becoming a $5-a-month or $50-a-year supporting subscriber by clicking here. When you subscribe, you are helping us build out a full newsroom - and you get access to all of our subscriber only content, including our live chat events. Subscribe now _____ America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Whatever happens in the election, progressives will be either blamed or shamed. Don?t be surprised ? be ready for the fight of our lives. Image removed by sender. David Sirota Nov 3 Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. This is the second of a two-part Daily Poster series being released just before the election. You can read the first part here. Image removed by sender. I woke up at 4am this morning to a panic attack. I get them from time to time ever since living in Washington through 9/11, the anthrax attack and the D.C. sniper. My usual trick is to sit on the floor with my dog, Monty, but that didn?t help so I went for a long walk. Panic attacks aren?t only about the thing happening when you have them. For me, they tend to be triggered by something ? like, say, a really important election ? but also an expression of built up anxieties that I?ve white knuckled through but can no longer keep at bay. Eventually, the brain?s motherboard shuts down and demands a reset of the mind?s CPU. It?s not pleasant. I?m guessing I wasn?t the only one who woke up this morning with the shakes, the palpitations, the sweat and the feeling that the walls are closing in. We?ve all been white knuckling through the last 4 years, and if we?re really honest about it, much longer than that. In the span of two decades we?ve had 9/11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the Great Recession and a global pandemic. We?ve experienced these horrors while the meager social safety net has been weakened at the same time our economy mints billionaires. Politics has so normalized avarice that our policy debate over health care is about whether or not to let insurance companies discriminate against sick people during the outbreak of a lethal virus. We are surrounded by COVID death and climate destruction, and our government tells us everyday in so many ways that we are all alone ? a feeling made worse by the physical isolation of quarantine. This is a new ?normal? ? but it isn?t actually normal. It is obscene, it is unacceptable ? and it is why our country has been having one giant panic attack for the last 4 years. The Left Will Be Blamed Or Shamed During my walk, I kept trying to come up with ways to make myself feel like I know what is about to happen in the election. But, of course, I don?t. Nobody does, including the pundits who are paid to prognosticate about polls. We?re all just going to have to try to keep calm, knowing that nothing is under control. One thing I can predict with certainty is that no matter the results, the left will be blamed or shamed. If Biden (godforbid) loses, we will be told that he went too far to the left, which alienated swing voters, but still did not generate enough enthusiasm from disaffected Bernie Sanders voters who can?t get over the outcome of the Democratic primary. If that fantastical tale sounds eerily familiar, that?s because it was the bullshit story told after Hillary Clinton lost the most winnable presidential contest in history. And yes ? it was bullshit then and would be bullshit now. On everything from climate change to health care to corporate power, Biden is if anything more conservative than the general population. This is a guy who literally promised his donors that ?nothing would fundamentally change?and was nonetheless enthusiastically boosted by every wing of the Democratic Party, including progressives. Indeed, while third-party voting was a minuscule phenomenon in 2016, it looks to be even more infinitesimal in 2020. Though we?re not supposed to admit it aloud, we all know Biden didn?t really earn the lockstep support of Democratic voters with any of his policy proposals. He originally won the nomination mostly because past vice presidents almost always win their party?s presidential nominations. In the general, Biden has been backed by nearly every left-of-center group, but that?s really only because Trump represents an existential threat to the survival of our democracy and the planet?s ecosystem. An inanimate object should be able to beat this out of control and brazenly corrupt president who has wildly mismanaged a lethal pandemic ? and if Biden still somehow manages to lose, he has nobody to blame but himself. Almost everybody looked at his problematic record and his uninspired campaign and nonetheless sucked it up and fell in line for him because we understood the stakes ? so if he still somehow manages to shit the bed, it?s on him. If Biden (hopefully) wins, the narrative will be the opposite ? we will be told that he won because he refused to fully embrace a progressive economic agenda. In this mythology, voters were supposedly desperate for a return to the kind of corporatism, incrementalism and neoliberalism that defined the Obama era and that continues to define Beltway Democratic culture amid the economic, public health and climate crises. It is certainly true that Biden has repeatedly refused to support Medicare for All, promised not to ban fracking and repeatedly boasted about how he defeated democratic socialist Bernie Sanders in the primary. Those were all attempts to contrast himself with the progressive base of his own party ? which is what he has tried to do periodically throughout his long political career, and which already has neoconservative Republicans praising his campaign. However, Biden would win in spite of that triangulation, not because of it. As millions of Americans lost their private health insurance during the pandemic, a Morning Consult survey showed support for Medicare for All has surged. While the Kaiser Family Foundation?s survey shows that most Americans do not want the Supreme Court to end protections for preexisting conditions, the same group?s survey showed support for the Affordable Care Act has remained relatively weak. In fact, at key moments during the COVID outbreak, the ACA has actually lost support among the middle-aged, who may have suddenly discovered that Obamacare doesn?t protect them from higher premiums and the loss of job-based medical insurance in an economic downturn. Similarly, polls show surging support for bold climate action as America has been ravaged by wildfires, droughts and hurricanes. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania ? where Biden?s fracking position has been cast as a positive ? polls show the majority of the state?s voters oppose the fossil fuel extraction process. And for all of Biden?s gratuitous football-spiking about beating Sanders in the primary, the Vermont senator remains one of America?s most popular politicians, and more popular than Biden himself, according to YouGov data. The point here is not merely that Biden is out of step with the public on specific issues ? but that it would be patently ridiculous for anyone to depict a Democratic victory as a repudiation of the left. The election has been an up-or-down vote on Trump, with Biden the recipient of the down vote. He is the quintessential generic Democrat in this race ? indeed, a recent Pew poll showed that the majority of Biden voters support him simply because ?he is not Trump,? not because of any particular position he has taken. Image removed by sender. A new Morning Consult poll shows that almost half of Biden?s voters say they are supporting him more as ?a vote against Donald Trump? than an affirmative vote for the Democratic ticket. At the same time, the public broadly supports a progressive economic agenda. If Biden wins, those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will try to obscure this reality ? but it is a reality. Darkest Before Dawn I walked east from my home in southeast Denver ? east toward the rising sun, because I know for me it is most difficult to think clearly in the night. It truly is darkest before the dawn ? and we are all right now in that darkness, deciding whether or not to wallow or push ahead. It is easy to succumb to nihilism. My inner voice of negativity is a Rahm Emanuel-esque asshole, and it spent all night screaming a million reasons to give up. But as the sky turned red and then pink, I saw this little tent on the horizon at the local community center. Cars were driving up as people were dropping off ballots. As my friend Naomi Klein said in The Daily Poster?s live chat last night, we are taught to see voting as the ultimate form of self-expression, but it isn?t. It is one limited way to participate in civic life. But voting itself is an act of ? dare I say it ? hope. Even in a democracy as limited as America?s, we vote because we still believe in the idea of self-governance, and in the idea that things can change. And weirdly enough, in an election offering two of history?s most uninspired presidential choices, we have what could be the biggest opportunity for change in my own lifetime. Think about it: If Biden wins, we will have a relatively weak thumb-in-the-wind Democratic president who does not command the kind of worshipful fandom that past Democratic presidents have engendered. At the same time there are engaged activists, organizations and movements that are not just going back to brunch when the election is over. From the Sunrise Movement to Demand Progress to the Revolving Door Project to Black Lives Matter, there is more infrastructure than ever ready to pressure a new president ? and there are allied lawmakers in Congress ready to amplify their message. The key thing to understand about this potential future is that Biden does not engender the kind of fawning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama evoked when they were first elected president. He is rightly seen as a transactional and transitional politician ? and that?s actually a good thing. For too long, Democratic voters have seen their presidents as deities who should be immune from pressure and criticism. But it is far better for a democracy for a president to be perceived not as some pop culture idol or glorified instagram influencer, but instead as an administrator that is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. Biden?s low-key image makes it much more likely that we will finally view the presidency in those far more healthy and realistic terms ? and then confront that White House with pressure rather than genuflection. Will the pressure work? It is hard to say. But Biden does appear to be making some rhetorical shifts already ? in the last presidential debate, he made an argument for deficit spending. It was remarkable to see given that Biden has advocated for budget austerity for decades. Then again, there?s a difference between words and deed and in recent years, the MSNBC-ization of politics and the rise of Brunch Liberalism means there hasn?t been much pressure on Democratic lawmakers to do much of anything -- other than simply not be Republicans. But with climate, health care and economic emergencies tearing apart our country, we need them to do far more than that. We need to force them to deliver in a way the party hasn?t delivered in more than a half century. And here?s the thing to remember: Nothing will be given. Campaign promises will not be acted upon on their own ? they will only be fulfilled if there is constant pressure. Indeed, to achieve even the most minimal and necessary reforms to prevent more mass casualties and pain, lawmakers will have to face enormous amounts of organizing and pressure and activism. The leaders of both parties in Washington have taught us over and over and over again that they will nonchalantly let us suffer and die ? unless they are forced kicking and screaming to do something other than enrich their donors. I walked back home thinking about how daunting a task this will all be. The pit in my stomach was still there from the panic attack, and thinking about how much work we must do made the pangs a bit worse. But then I walked into the house and saw two kids ? my 6-year-old daughter finishing up her french toast and masking up for first grade, and my 9-year-old son working on his 4th grade essay before yet another day of remote learning because his grades are on lockdown. In their faces, I see the reason that despair and despondence cannot be our path. Their lives and the lives of every kid is on the line right now ? and our society is in a bad way. Our politics are deeply corrupt, our laws are driven by greed. The cultural and political panic unrest we?ve experienced over the last year is all a predictable result of that. But with our democracy and our ecosystem on the brink, failure is not an option. Retreat is not an option. We?ve had our panic attack ? now, hopefully, we get one more chance to move forward. _____ This newsletter relies on readers pitching in to support it. If you like what you just read and want to help expand this kind of journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber by clicking this link. Subscribe now Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. You?re on the free list for The Daily Poster. For the full experience, become a paying subscriber. Subscribe ? 2020 David Sirota Unsubscribe 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Image removed by sender. Publish on Substack Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD185.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: 3902 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 695 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Nov 3 23:41:25 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:41:25 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_America=E2=80=99s_Panic_Attack_?= =?utf-8?q?Could_Soon_Be_Over_=E2=80=94_But_It=E2=80=99s_Just_The_B?= =?utf-8?q?eginning?= In-Reply-To: <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> References: <20201103190500.1.zudp4ju0t4@mg2.substack.com> <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> Message-ID: <006401d6b23a$d92164e0$8b642ea0$@comcast.net> Are you referring to me Mort, when you say that you are ; ? less sympathetic to the nihilism displayed by others on this list-serve ? ? If so, I am sorry you think my analysis is ? nihilistic ? . It is reality as I see it, looking at the facts, and not succumbing to wishful thinking. I am hopeful for the long term future, especially this younger generation in their 20?s and 30?s. BUT, before things get better in my opinion, things are going to get a lot worse. I wish it didn?t have to be that way but all the indicators point to that. Respectfully David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 3:38 PM To: peace-discuss Cc: Brussel Morton K. Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning I?m sympathetic, with some reservations, to this article by David Sirota. You too may be. I?m less sympathetic to the nihilism displayed by others on this list-serve. ?mkb Begin forwarded message: From: David Sirota Subject: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Date: November 3, 2020 at 1:05:00 PM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: "David Sirota" &wlsk&&68f30b2335ffcfe53f3a7496882eaff2af20837c2fc6d60ec8331fc498757df7 at mg1.substack.com> Image removed by sender. You are a free subscriber to The Daily Poster. We are working to expand our coverage and hire more reporters ? and the only way we can do that is with subscriber support. Please consider becoming a $5-a-month or $50-a-year supporting subscriber by clicking here. When you subscribe, you are helping us build out a full newsroom - and you get access to all of our subscriber only content, including our live chat events. Subscribe now _____ America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Whatever happens in the election, progressives will be either blamed or shamed. Don?t be surprised ? be ready for the fight of our lives. Image removed by sender. David Sirota Nov 3 Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. This is the second of a two-part Daily Poster series being released just before the election. You can read the first part here. Image removed by sender. I woke up at 4am this morning to a panic attack. I get them from time to time ever since living in Washington through 9/11, the anthrax attack and the D.C. sniper. My usual trick is to sit on the floor with my dog, Monty, but that didn?t help so I went for a long walk. Panic attacks aren?t only about the thing happening when you have them. For me, they tend to be triggered by something ? like, say, a really important election ? but also an expression of built up anxieties that I?ve white knuckled through but can no longer keep at bay. Eventually, the brain?s motherboard shuts down and demands a reset of the mind?s CPU. It?s not pleasant. I?m guessing I wasn?t the only one who woke up this morning with the shakes, the palpitations, the sweat and the feeling that the walls are closing in. We?ve all been white knuckling through the last 4 years, and if we?re really honest about it, much longer than that. In the span of two decades we?ve had 9/11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the Great Recession and a global pandemic. We?ve experienced these horrors while the meager social safety net has been weakened at the same time our economy mints billionaires. Politics has so normalized avarice that our policy debate over health care is about whether or not to let insurance companies discriminate against sick people during the outbreak of a lethal virus. We are surrounded by COVID death and climate destruction, and our government tells us everyday in so many ways that we are all alone ? a feeling made worse by the physical isolation of quarantine. This is a new ?normal? ? but it isn?t actually normal. It is obscene, it is unacceptable ? and it is why our country has been having one giant panic attack for the last 4 years. The Left Will Be Blamed Or Shamed During my walk, I kept trying to come up with ways to make myself feel like I know what is about to happen in the election. But, of course, I don?t. Nobody does, including the pundits who are paid to prognosticate about polls. We?re all just going to have to try to keep calm, knowing that nothing is under control. One thing I can predict with certainty is that no matter the results, the left will be blamed or shamed. If Biden (godforbid) loses, we will be told that he went too far to the left, which alienated swing voters, but still did not generate enough enthusiasm from disaffected Bernie Sanders voters who can?t get over the outcome of the Democratic primary. If that fantastical tale sounds eerily familiar, that?s because it was the bullshit story told after Hillary Clinton lost the most winnable presidential contest in history. And yes ? it was bullshit then and would be bullshit now. On everything from climate change to health care to corporate power, Biden is if anything more conservative than the general population. This is a guy who literally promised his donors that ?nothing would fundamentally change?and was nonetheless enthusiastically boosted by every wing of the Democratic Party, including progressives. Indeed, while third-party voting was a minuscule phenomenon in 2016, it looks to be even more infinitesimal in 2020. Though we?re not supposed to admit it aloud, we all know Biden didn?t really earn the lockstep support of Democratic voters with any of his policy proposals. He originally won the nomination mostly because past vice presidents almost always win their party?s presidential nominations. In the general, Biden has been backed by nearly every left-of-center group, but that?s really only because Trump represents an existential threat to the survival of our democracy and the planet?s ecosystem. An inanimate object should be able to beat this out of control and brazenly corrupt president who has wildly mismanaged a lethal pandemic ? and if Biden still somehow manages to lose, he has nobody to blame but himself. Almost everybody looked at his problematic record and his uninspired campaign and nonetheless sucked it up and fell in line for him because we understood the stakes ? so if he still somehow manages to shit the bed, it?s on him. If Biden (hopefully) wins, the narrative will be the opposite ? we will be told that he won because he refused to fully embrace a progressive economic agenda. In this mythology, voters were supposedly desperate for a return to the kind of corporatism, incrementalism and neoliberalism that defined the Obama era and that continues to define Beltway Democratic culture amid the economic, public health and climate crises. It is certainly true that Biden has repeatedly refused to support Medicare for All, promised not to ban fracking and repeatedly boasted about how he defeated democratic socialist Bernie Sanders in the primary. Those were all attempts to contrast himself with the progressive base of his own party ? which is what he has tried to do periodically throughout his long political career, and which already has neoconservative Republicans praising his campaign. However, Biden would win in spite of that triangulation, not because of it. As millions of Americans lost their private health insurance during the pandemic, a Morning Consult survey showed support for Medicare for All has surged. While the Kaiser Family Foundation?s survey shows that most Americans do not want the Supreme Court to end protections for preexisting conditions, the same group?s survey showed support for the Affordable Care Act has remained relatively weak. In fact, at key moments during the COVID outbreak, the ACA has actually lost support among the middle-aged, who may have suddenly discovered that Obamacare doesn?t protect them from higher premiums and the loss of job-based medical insurance in an economic downturn. Similarly, polls show surging support for bold climate action as America has been ravaged by wildfires, droughts and hurricanes. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania ? where Biden?s fracking position has been cast as a positive ? polls show the majority of the state?s voters oppose the fossil fuel extraction process. And for all of Biden?s gratuitous football-spiking about beating Sanders in the primary, the Vermont senator remains one of America?s most popular politicians, and more popular than Biden himself, according to YouGov data. The point here is not merely that Biden is out of step with the public on specific issues ? but that it would be patently ridiculous for anyone to depict a Democratic victory as a repudiation of the left. The election has been an up-or-down vote on Trump, with Biden the recipient of the down vote. He is the quintessential generic Democrat in this race ? indeed, a recent Pew poll showed that the majority of Biden voters support him simply because ?he is not Trump,? not because of any particular position he has taken. Image removed by sender. A new Morning Consult poll shows that almost half of Biden?s voters say they are supporting him more as ?a vote against Donald Trump? than an affirmative vote for the Democratic ticket. At the same time, the public broadly supports a progressive economic agenda. If Biden wins, those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will try to obscure this reality ? but it is a reality. Darkest Before Dawn I walked east from my home in southeast Denver ? east toward the rising sun, because I know for me it is most difficult to think clearly in the night. It truly is darkest before the dawn ? and we are all right now in that darkness, deciding whether or not to wallow or push ahead. It is easy to succumb to nihilism. My inner voice of negativity is a Rahm Emanuel-esque asshole, and it spent all night screaming a million reasons to give up. But as the sky turned red and then pink, I saw this little tent on the horizon at the local community center. Cars were driving up as people were dropping off ballots. As my friend Naomi Klein said in The Daily Poster?s live chat last night, we are taught to see voting as the ultimate form of self-expression, but it isn?t. It is one limited way to participate in civic life. But voting itself is an act of ? dare I say it ? hope. Even in a democracy as limited as America?s, we vote because we still believe in the idea of self-governance, and in the idea that things can change. And weirdly enough, in an election offering two of history?s most uninspired presidential choices, we have what could be the biggest opportunity for change in my own lifetime. Think about it: If Biden wins, we will have a relatively weak thumb-in-the-wind Democratic president who does not command the kind of worshipful fandom that past Democratic presidents have engendered. At the same time there are engaged activists, organizations and movements that are not just going back to brunch when the election is over. From the Sunrise Movement to Demand Progress to the Revolving Door Project to Black Lives Matter, there is more infrastructure than ever ready to pressure a new president ? and there are allied lawmakers in Congress ready to amplify their message. The key thing to understand about this potential future is that Biden does not engender the kind of fawning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama evoked when they were first elected president. He is rightly seen as a transactional and transitional politician ? and that?s actually a good thing. For too long, Democratic voters have seen their presidents as deities who should be immune from pressure and criticism. But it is far better for a democracy for a president to be perceived not as some pop culture idol or glorified instagram influencer, but instead as an administrator that is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. Biden?s low-key image makes it much more likely that we will finally view the presidency in those far more healthy and realistic terms ? and then confront that White House with pressure rather than genuflection. Will the pressure work? It is hard to say. But Biden does appear to be making some rhetorical shifts already ? in the last presidential debate, he made an argument for deficit spending. It was remarkable to see given that Biden has advocated for budget austerity for decades. Then again, there?s a difference between words and deed and in recent years, the MSNBC-ization of politics and the rise of Brunch Liberalism means there hasn?t been much pressure on Democratic lawmakers to do much of anything -- other than simply not be Republicans. But with climate, health care and economic emergencies tearing apart our country, we need them to do far more than that. We need to force them to deliver in a way the party hasn?t delivered in more than a half century. And here?s the thing to remember: Nothing will be given. Campaign promises will not be acted upon on their own ? they will only be fulfilled if there is constant pressure. Indeed, to achieve even the most minimal and necessary reforms to prevent more mass casualties and pain, lawmakers will have to face enormous amounts of organizing and pressure and activism. The leaders of both parties in Washington have taught us over and over and over again that they will nonchalantly let us suffer and die ? unless they are forced kicking and screaming to do something other than enrich their donors. I walked back home thinking about how daunting a task this will all be. The pit in my stomach was still there from the panic attack, and thinking about how much work we must do made the pangs a bit worse. But then I walked into the house and saw two kids ? my 6-year-old daughter finishing up her french toast and masking up for first grade, and my 9-year-old son working on his 4th grade essay before yet another day of remote learning because his grades are on lockdown. In their faces, I see the reason that despair and despondence cannot be our path. Their lives and the lives of every kid is on the line right now ? and our society is in a bad way. Our politics are deeply corrupt, our laws are driven by greed. The cultural and political panic unrest we?ve experienced over the last year is all a predictable result of that. But with our democracy and our ecosystem on the brink, failure is not an option. Retreat is not an option. We?ve had our panic attack ? now, hopefully, we get one more chance to move forward. _____ This newsletter relies on readers pitching in to support it. If you like what you just read and want to help expand this kind of journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber by clicking this link. Subscribe now Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. You?re on the free list for The Daily Poster. For the full experience, become a paying subscriber. Subscribe ? 2020 David Sirota Unsubscribe 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Image removed by sender. Publish on Substack Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD259.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: 3902 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 695 bytes Desc: not available URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Wed Nov 4 04:58:36 2020 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 04:58:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Robert_Fisk_=2812_July_1946_=E2=80=93_?= =?utf-8?q?30_October_2020=29_has_died?= In-Reply-To: <1412122093.2021618.1604465254579@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1401b624-234f-0ab5-6b5c-bce229ce643a@forestfield.org> <1412122093.2021618.1604465254579@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <702845427.2014637.1604465916240@mail.yahoo.com> Misericordia. A great loss, one of my favorite journalists whose brilliant reporting from some of the world's worst conflicts was largely ignored?in this neck of the world (although he presented seminars in our vicinity in the recent past somewhere in the? Midwest, possibly Millikin Univ.?) but was disparaged by some in?U.K., his birthland.? As a pacifist he chose the strange occupation of war correspondent, reporting from troubled locations in Ulster to Beirut and the Orient, Afghanistan and Iraq, providing insight on the tragic effects of war on the victims. It is providential that he spent his last days peacefully in the nation of his chosen citizenship, Eire, and was spared the tragic explosion that destroyed much of his beloved Beirut, which he called home for so many years.? R.I.P. Robert Fisk. Midge Midge -----Original Message---- From: J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss To: Peace Discuss ; Peace Robert Fisk has died. I pay warmest tribute to one of the last great reporters. > The weasel word 'controversial' appears in even his own paper, The Independent, > whose pages he honoured. He went against the grain and told the truth, > spectacularly. Journalism has lost the bravest. He was 74 and he died in Dublin. _______________________________________________ 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 moboct1 at aim.com Wed Nov 4 21:03:43 2020 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Morning After: Where's the DNC Tsunami? In-Reply-To: <004801d6b239$34891f50$9d9b5df0$@comcast.net> References: <20201103190500.1.zudp4ju0t4@mg2.substack.com> <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> <004801d6b239$34891f50$9d9b5df0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1096144433.2282070.1604523823423@mail.yahoo.com> Even though it's predictably too early to count latent votes--as Biden wans the morning after and Trump waned us days ago was his strategy for winning/stealing the election, it is becoming apparent that the landslide assured by Biden and the DNC is not a cakewalk, maybe not even salvageable with enough Electoral College votes by a slim lead.? DNC power brokers who fixed the candidacy took for granted aversion to Trump if not loyalty to Party and their mediocore standard bearer to fork over hard earned cash to make it look like their billion-dollar treasure chest came from the obedient rank and file that would finally be transacted into votes? Landslide victory on election day.? They? even tried to dress up Joe in "progressive" clothing to try to attract voters who had once again hoped for a more progressive Party? platform on healthcare, demilitarization etc, but settled for the race card: the VP running mate, who some envision as the 1BWP (first Black--or any Woman--President), when Joe tires of the job. Perhaps enough disaffected Bernie backers who swallowed the cool-ade of Bernie's "Progressive" movement were too disillusioned to pull the DNC lever one more time.? Fool me once (2016) and then again (2020) is a bitter pill to swallow.? Besides, it's a joke that a "Socialist" in Dem clothing could win the nomination, much less the office of President on a "Leftist" platform; Donald Trump would have FRIED poor old "Socialist" Bernie like he smeared "Sleepy" Joe as a "Leftist" (that's a joke!)? Or perhaps it's the sheer magnetism of the DJT personality that attracted so many MAGA wannabes to believe in his political magic. Wiley old DJT is not a penniless tycoon without deal-making expertise in pulling a pig out of a poke and laughing at the gullible folks he duped.? He would almost be risible with his braggadocio, lies, audacity, and cartoonish gestures (wonder who his acting coach was?) IF he wasn't so damned dangerous.? But his power lies not in fooling so many who take him seriously but in those who are willing to be used in order to ascend the ladder of wealth and power themselves, until they realize it's too late and he has kicked the ladder out from underneath them.? The spectre of 4 more years as POT-US is enough to almost regret not have voted against him... mo'b --Original Message----- From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss To: 'Morton K. Brussel' ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 3:30 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning #yiv7054787767 #yiv7054787767 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv7054787767 #yiv7054787767 p.yiv7054787767MsoNormal, #yiv7054787767 li.yiv7054787767MsoNormal, #yiv7054787767 div.yiv7054787767MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv7054787767 h1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv7054787767 h3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:13.5pt;font-family:New;}#yiv7054787767 h4 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv7054787767 a:link, #yiv7054787767 span.yiv7054787767MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7054787767 a:visited, #yiv7054787767 span.yiv7054787767MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7054787767 span.yiv7054787767apple-converted-space {}#yiv7054787767 p.yiv7054787767button-wrapper, #yiv7054787767 li.yiv7054787767button-wrapper, #yiv7054787767 div.yiv7054787767button-wrapper {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv7054787767 span.yiv7054787767Heading1Char {color:#365F91;font-weight:bold;}#yiv7054787767 span.yiv7054787767Heading3Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv7054787767 span.yiv7054787767Heading4Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;}#yiv7054787767 p.yiv7054787767cta-box, #yiv7054787767 li.yiv7054787767cta-box, #yiv7054787767 div.yiv7054787767cta-box {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv7054787767 span.yiv7054787767EmailStyle25 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7054787767 .yiv7054787767MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv7054787767 div.yiv7054787767WordSection1 {}#yiv7054787767 Yes, ? I agree, good article Mort. ? David J. ? From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 3:38 PM To: peace-discuss Cc: Brussel Morton K. Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning ? I?m sympathetic, with some reservations, to this article by David Sirota. You too may be.? I?m less sympathetic to the nihilism displayed by others on this list-serve.? ? ?mkb Begin forwarded message: ? From: David Sirota Subject: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Date: November 3, 2020 at 1:05:00 PM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: "David Sirota" ? | | | | | | | | | | You are a free subscriber to The Daily Poster. We are working to expand our coverage and hire more reporters ? and the only way we can do that is with subscriber support. Please consider becoming a $5-a-month or $50-a-year supporting subscriber by?clicking here. When you subscribe, you are helping us build out a full newsroom - and you get access to all of our subscriber only content, including our live chat events. Subscribe now America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Whatever happens in the election, progressives will be either blamed or shamed. Don?t be surprised ? be ready for the fight of our lives. | ? | David Sirota | Nov 3 | | | | | This is the second of a two-part Daily Poster series being released just before the election. You can read the first part?here. | | | | I woke up at 4am this morning to a panic attack. I get them from time to time ever since living in Washington through 9/11, the anthrax attack and the D.C. sniper. My usual trick is to sit on the floor with my dog, Monty, but that didn?t help so I went for a long walk. Panic attacks aren?t only about the thing happening when you have them. For me, they tend to be triggered by something ? like, say, a really important election ? but also an expression of built up anxieties that I?ve white knuckled through but can no longer keep at bay. Eventually, the brain?s motherboard shuts down and demands a reset of the mind?s CPU. It?s not pleasant. I?m guessing I wasn?t the only one who woke up this morning with the shakes, the palpitations, the sweat and the feeling that the walls are closing in. We?ve all been white knuckling through the last 4 years, and if we?re really honest about it, much longer than that.? In the span of two decades we?ve had 9/11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the Great Recession and a global pandemic. We?ve experienced these horrors while the meager social safety net has been weakened at the same time our economy mints billionaires. Politics has so normalized avarice that our?policy debate over health care?is about whether or not to let insurance companies discriminate against sick people during the outbreak of a lethal virus.? We are surrounded by COVID death and climate destruction, and our government tells us everyday in so many ways that we are all alone ? a feeling made worse by the physical isolation of quarantine.?? This is a new ?normal? ? but it isn?t actually normal. It is obscene, it is unacceptable ? and it is why our country has been having one giant panic attack for the last 4 years.? The Left Will Be Blamed Or Shamed During my walk, I kept trying to come up with ways to make myself feel like I know what is about to happen in the election. But, of course, I don?t. Nobody does, including the pundits who are paid to prognosticate about polls. We?re all just going to have to try to keep calm, knowing that nothing is under control.? One thing I can predict with certainty is that no matter the results, the left will be blamed or shamed.? If Biden (godforbid) loses, we will be told that he went too far to the left, which alienated swing voters, but still did not generate enough enthusiasm from disaffected Bernie Sanders voters who can?t get over the outcome of the Democratic primary. If that fantastical tale sounds eerily familiar, that?s because it was the bullshit story told after Hillary Clinton lost the most winnable presidential contest in history.? And yes ??it was bullshit then?and would be bullshit now.? On everything from climate change to health care to corporate power, Biden is if anything more conservative than the general population. This is a guy who literally promised his donors that??nothing would fundamentally change?and was nonetheless enthusiastically boosted by every wing of the Democratic Party, including progressives. Indeed, while third-party voting was a minuscule phenomenon in 2016, it looks to be?even more infinitesimal in 2020.? Though we?re not supposed to admit it aloud, we all know Biden didn?t really earn the lockstep support of Democratic voters with any of his policy proposals. He originally won the nomination mostly because past vice presidents almost always win their party?s presidential nominations. In the general, Biden has been backed by nearly every left-of-center group, but that?s really only because Trump represents an existential threat to the survival of our democracy and the planet?s ecosystem.? An inanimate object should be able to beat this out of control and brazenly corrupt president who has wildly mismanaged a lethal pandemic ? and if Biden still somehow manages to lose, he has nobody to blame but himself. Almost everybody looked at his problematic record and his uninspired campaign and nonetheless sucked it up and fell in line for him because we understood the stakes ? so if he still somehow manages to shit the bed, it?s on him. If Biden (hopefully) wins, the narrative will be the opposite ? we will be told that he won because he refused to fully embrace a progressive economic agenda. In this mythology, voters were supposedly desperate for a return to the kind of corporatism, incrementalism and neoliberalism that defined the Obama era and that continues to define Beltway Democratic culture amid the economic, public health and climate crises.? It is certainly true that Biden has repeatedly?refused?to support Medicare for All,?promised?not to ban fracking and repeatedly?boasted?about how he defeated democratic socialist Bernie Sanders in the primary. Those were all attempts to contrast himself with the progressive base of his own party ? which is what he has tried to do?periodically?throughout his long political career, and which already has?neoconservative Republicans?praising his campaign.? However, Biden would win in spite of that triangulation, not because of it. As millions of Americans lost their private health insurance during the pandemic, a Morning Consult survey showed?support for Medicare for All has surged. While the Kaiser Family Foundation?s survey?shows?that most Americans do not want the Supreme Court to end protections for preexisting conditions, the?same group?s survey?showed support for the Affordable Care Act has remained relatively weak.? In fact, at key moments during the COVID outbreak, the ACA has actually?lost support?among the middle-aged, who may have suddenly discovered that Obamacare doesn?t protect them from higher premiums and the loss of job-based medical insurance in an economic downturn. Similarly, polls show?surging support for bold climate action?as America has been ravaged by wildfires, droughts and hurricanes. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania ? where Biden?s fracking position has been cast as a positive ??polls?show the majority of the state?s voters oppose the fossil fuel extraction process.? And for all of Biden?s gratuitous football-spiking about beating Sanders in the primary, the Vermont senator remains one of America?s most popular politicians, and more popular than Biden himself, according to?YouGov data.? The point here is not merely that Biden is out of step with the public on specific issues ? but that it would be patently ridiculous for anyone to depict a Democratic victory as a repudiation of the left. The election has been an up-or-down vote on Trump, with Biden the recipient of the down vote. He is the quintessential generic Democrat in this race ? indeed, a recent?Pew poll?showed that the majority of Biden voters support him simply because ?he is not Trump,? not because of any particular position he has taken.? | | | | A?new Morning Consult poll?shows that almost half of Biden?s voters say they are supporting him more as ?a vote against Donald Trump? than an affirmative vote for the Democratic ticket. At the same time, the public broadly supports a progressive economic agenda. If Biden wins, those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will try to obscure this reality ? but it is a reality.? Darkest Before Dawn I walked east from my home in southeast Denver ? east toward the rising sun, because I know for me it is most difficult to think clearly in the night. It truly is darkest before the dawn ? and we are all right now in that darkness, deciding whether or not to wallow or push ahead. It is easy to succumb to nihilism. My inner voice of negativity is a Rahm Emanuel-esque asshole, and it spent all night screaming a million reasons to give up.? But as the sky turned red and then pink, I saw this little tent on the horizon at the local community center. Cars were driving up as people were dropping off ballots.? As my friend Naomi Klein said in?The Daily Poster?s?live chat last night, we are taught to see voting as the ultimate form of self-expression, but it isn?t. It is one limited way to participate in civic life. But voting itself is an act of ? dare I say it ? hope.? Even in a democracy as limited as America?s, we vote because we still believe in the idea of self-governance, and in the idea that things can change. And weirdly enough, in an election offering two of history?s most uninspired presidential choices, we have what could be the biggest opportunity for change in my own lifetime. Think about it: If Biden wins, we will have a relatively weak thumb-in-the-wind Democratic president who does not command the kind of worshipful fandom that past Democratic presidents have engendered. At the same time there are engaged activists, organizations and movements that are not just going back to brunch when the election is over. From the?Sunrise Movement?to?Demand Progress?to the?Revolving Door Project?to?Black Lives Matter, there is more infrastructure than ever ready to pressure a new president ? and there are allied lawmakers in Congress ready to amplify their message. The key thing to understand about this potential future is that Biden does not engender the kind of fawning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama evoked when they were first elected president. He is rightly seen as a transactional and transitional politician ? and that?s actually a good thing.? For too long, Democratic voters have seen their presidents as deities who should be immune from pressure and criticism. But it is far better for a democracy for a president to be perceived not as some pop culture idol or glorified instagram influencer, but instead as an administrator that is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.? Biden?s low-key image makes it much more likely that we will finally view the presidency in those far more healthy and realistic terms ? and then confront that White House with pressure rather than genuflection. Will the pressure work? It is hard to say. But Biden does appear to be making some rhetorical shifts already ? in the last presidential debate, he made?an argument for deficit spending. It was remarkable to see given that Biden has advocated for budget austerity for decades.? Then again, there?s a difference between words and deed and in recent years, the MSNBC-ization of politics and the rise of Brunch Liberalism means there hasn?t been much pressure on Democratic lawmakers to do much of anything -- other than simply not be Republicans. But with climate, health care and economic emergencies tearing apart our country, we need them to do far more than that. We need to force them to deliver in a way the party hasn?t delivered in more than a half century.? And here?s the thing to remember: Nothing will be given. Campaign promises will not be acted upon on their own ? they will only be fulfilled if there is constant pressure. Indeed, to achieve even the most minimal and necessary reforms to prevent more mass casualties and pain, lawmakers will have to face enormous amounts of organizing and pressure and activism. The leaders of both parties in Washington have taught us over and over and over again that they will nonchalantly let us suffer and die ? unless they are forced kicking and screaming to do something other than enrich their donors.? I walked back home thinking about how daunting a task this will all be. The pit in my stomach was still there from the panic attack, and thinking about how much work we must do made the pangs a bit worse.? But then I walked into the house and saw two kids ? my 6-year-old daughter finishing up her french toast and masking up for first grade, and my 9-year-old son working on his 4th grade essay before yet another day of remote learning because his grades are on lockdown.? In their faces, I see the reason that despair and despondence cannot be our path.? Their lives and the lives of every kid is on the line right now ? and our society is in a bad way. Our politics are deeply corrupt, our laws are driven by greed. The cultural and political panic unrest we?ve experienced over the last year is all a predictable result of that.? But with our democracy and our ecosystem on the brink, failure is not an option. Retreat is not an option.? We?ve had our panic attack ? now, hopefully, we get one more chance to move forward. This newsletter relies on readers pitching in to support it. If you like what you just read and want to help expand this kind of journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber by?clicking this link. Subscribe now | | | | You?re on the free list for?The Daily Poster. For the full experience,?become a paying subscriber. Subscribe ? 2020?David Sirota?Unsubscribe 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 | | ? _______________________________________________ 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: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 695 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3902 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD185.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Wed Nov 4 21:19:29 2020 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 21:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Morning After: Where's the DNC Tsunami? In-Reply-To: <2044863482.2294726.1604524582587@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20201103190500.1.zudp4ju0t4@mg2.substack.com> <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> <004801d6b239$34891f50$9d9b5df0$@comcast.net> <1096144433.2282070.1604523823423@mail.yahoo.com> <2044863482.2294726.1604524582587@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1877219125.2309911.1604524769677@mail.yahoo.com> (After editing some oversights) Even though it's predictably too early to count latent votes--as Biden wans the morning after and Trump warned days ago his strategy for winning/stealing the election, it is becoming apparent that the landslide assured by Biden and the DNC is not a cakewalk, maybe not even salvageable with enough Electoral College votes by a slim lead.? DNC power brokers who fixed the candidacy took for granted aversion to Trump if not loyalty to Party and their mediocore standard bearer to fork over hard earned cash to make it look like their billion-dollar treasure chest came from the obedient rank and file that would finally be transacted into a Landslide victory on election day.? They? even tried to dress up Joe in "progressive" clothing to try to attract voters who had once again hoped for a more progressive Party platform on healthcare, demilitarization etc, but settled for the race card: the VP running mate, who some envision as the 1BWP (first Black--or any Woman--President), when Joe tires of the job. Perhaps enough disaffected Bernie backers who swallowed the cool-ade of Bernie's "Progressive" movement were too disillusioned to pull the DNC lever one more time.? Fool me once (2016) and then again (2020) is a bitter pill to swallow.? Besides, it's a joke that a "Socialist" in Dem clothing could win the nomination, much less the office of President on a "Leftist" platform; Donald Trump would have FRIED poor old "Socialist" Bernie like he smeared "Sleepy" Joe as a "Leftist" (that's a joke!)? Or perhaps it's the sheer magnetism of the DJT personality that attracted so many MAGA wannabes to believe in his political magic. Wiley old DJT is not a penniless tycoon without deal-making expertise in pulling a pig out of a poke and laughing at the gullible folks he duped.? He would almost be risible with his braggadocio, lies, audacity, and cartoonish gestures (wonder who his acting coach was?) IF he wasn't so damned dangerous.? But his power lies not in fooling so many who take him seriously but in those who are willing to be used in order to ascend the ladder of wealth and power themselves, until they realize it's too late and he has kicked the ladder out from underneath them.? The spectre of 4 more years as POT-US is enough to almost regret not have voted against him... mo'b --Original Message----- From: David Johnson via Peace-discuss To: 'Morton K. Brussel' ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Sent: Tue, Nov 3, 2020 3:30 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning #yiv2503293590 -- filtered {}#yiv2503293590 filtered {}#yiv2503293590 filtered {}#yiv2503293590 filtered {}#yiv2503293590 filtered {}#yiv2503293590 p.yiv2503293590MsoNormal, #yiv2503293590 li.yiv2503293590MsoNormal, #yiv2503293590 div.yiv2503293590MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2503293590 h1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2503293590 h3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:13.5pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2503293590 h4 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2503293590 a:link, #yiv2503293590 span.yiv2503293590MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2503293590 a:visited, #yiv2503293590 span.yiv2503293590MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2503293590 span.yiv2503293590apple-converted-space {}#yiv2503293590 p.yiv2503293590button-wrapper, #yiv2503293590 li.yiv2503293590button-wrapper, #yiv2503293590 div.yiv2503293590button-wrapper {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2503293590 span.yiv2503293590Heading1Char {color:#365F91;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2503293590 span.yiv2503293590Heading3Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2503293590 span.yiv2503293590Heading4Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;}#yiv2503293590 p.yiv2503293590cta-box, #yiv2503293590 li.yiv2503293590cta-box, #yiv2503293590 div.yiv2503293590cta-box {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2503293590 span.yiv2503293590EmailStyle25 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2503293590 .yiv2503293590MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv2503293590 filtered {}#yiv2503293590 div.yiv2503293590WordSection1 {}#yiv2503293590 Yes, ? I agree, good article Mort. ? David J. ? From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 3:38 PM To: peace-discuss Cc: Brussel Morton K. Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning ? I?m sympathetic, with some reservations, to this article by David Sirota. You too may be.? I?m less sympathetic to the nihilism displayed by others on this list-serve.? ? ?mkb Begin forwarded message: ? From: David Sirota Subject: America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Date: November 3, 2020 at 1:05:00 PM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: "David Sirota" ? | | | | | | | | | | You are a free subscriber to The Daily Poster. We are working to expand our coverage and hire more reporters ? and the only way we can do that is with subscriber support. Please consider becoming a $5-a-month or $50-a-year supporting subscriber by?clicking here. When you subscribe, you are helping us build out a full newsroom - and you get access to all of our subscriber only content, including our live chat events. Subscribe now America?s Panic Attack Could Soon Be Over ? But It?s Just The Beginning Whatever happens in the election, progressives will be either blamed or shamed. Don?t be surprised ? be ready for the fight of our lives. | ? | David Sirota | Nov 3 | | | | | This is the second of a two-part Daily Poster series being released just before the election. You can read the first part?here. | | | | I woke up at 4am this morning to a panic attack. I get them from time to time ever since living in Washington through 9/11, the anthrax attack and the D.C. sniper. My usual trick is to sit on the floor with my dog, Monty, but that didn?t help so I went for a long walk. Panic attacks aren?t only about the thing happening when you have them. For me, they tend to be triggered by something ? like, say, a really important election ? but also an expression of built up anxieties that I?ve white knuckled through but can no longer keep at bay. Eventually, the brain?s motherboard shuts down and demands a reset of the mind?s CPU. It?s not pleasant. I?m guessing I wasn?t the only one who woke up this morning with the shakes, the palpitations, the sweat and the feeling that the walls are closing in. We?ve all been white knuckling through the last 4 years, and if we?re really honest about it, much longer than that.? In the span of two decades we?ve had 9/11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the Great Recession and a global pandemic. We?ve experienced these horrors while the meager social safety net has been weakened at the same time our economy mints billionaires. Politics has so normalized avarice that our?policy debate over health care?is about whether or not to let insurance companies discriminate against sick people during the outbreak of a lethal virus.? We are surrounded by COVID death and climate destruction, and our government tells us everyday in so many ways that we are all alone ? a feeling made worse by the physical isolation of quarantine.?? This is a new ?normal? ? but it isn?t actually normal. It is obscene, it is unacceptable ? and it is why our country has been having one giant panic attack for the last 4 years.? The Left Will Be Blamed Or Shamed During my walk, I kept trying to come up with ways to make myself feel like I know what is about to happen in the election. But, of course, I don?t. Nobody does, including the pundits who are paid to prognosticate about polls. We?re all just going to have to try to keep calm, knowing that nothing is under control.? One thing I can predict with certainty is that no matter the results, the left will be blamed or shamed.? If Biden (godforbid) loses, we will be told that he went too far to the left, which alienated swing voters, but still did not generate enough enthusiasm from disaffected Bernie Sanders voters who can?t get over the outcome of the Democratic primary. If that fantastical tale sounds eerily familiar, that?s because it was the bullshit story told after Hillary Clinton lost the most winnable presidential contest in history.? And yes ??it was bullshit then?and would be bullshit now.? On everything from climate change to health care to corporate power, Biden is if anything more conservative than the general population. This is a guy who literally promised his donors that??nothing would fundamentally change?and was nonetheless enthusiastically boosted by every wing of the Democratic Party, including progressives. Indeed, while third-party voting was a minuscule phenomenon in 2016, it looks to be?even more infinitesimal in 2020.? Though we?re not supposed to admit it aloud, we all know Biden didn?t really earn the lockstep support of Democratic voters with any of his policy proposals. He originally won the nomination mostly because past vice presidents almost always win their party?s presidential nominations. In the general, Biden has been backed by nearly every left-of-center group, but that?s really only because Trump represents an existential threat to the survival of our democracy and the planet?s ecosystem.? An inanimate object should be able to beat this out of control and brazenly corrupt president who has wildly mismanaged a lethal pandemic ? and if Biden still somehow manages to lose, he has nobody to blame but himself. Almost everybody looked at his problematic record and his uninspired campaign and nonetheless sucked it up and fell in line for him because we understood the stakes ? so if he still somehow manages to shit the bed, it?s on him. If Biden (hopefully) wins, the narrative will be the opposite ? we will be told that he won because he refused to fully embrace a progressive economic agenda. In this mythology, voters were supposedly desperate for a return to the kind of corporatism, incrementalism and neoliberalism that defined the Obama era and that continues to define Beltway Democratic culture amid the economic, public health and climate crises.? It is certainly true that Biden has repeatedly?refused?to support Medicare for All,?promised?not to ban fracking and repeatedly?boasted?about how he defeated democratic socialist Bernie Sanders in the primary. Those were all attempts to contrast himself with the progressive base of his own party ? which is what he has tried to do?periodically?throughout his long political career, and which already has?neoconservative Republicans?praising his campaign.? However, Biden would win in spite of that triangulation, not because of it. As millions of Americans lost their private health insurance during the pandemic, a Morning Consult survey showed?support for Medicare for All has surged. While the Kaiser Family Foundation?s survey?shows?that most Americans do not want the Supreme Court to end protections for preexisting conditions, the?same group?s survey?showed support for the Affordable Care Act has remained relatively weak.? In fact, at key moments during the COVID outbreak, the ACA has actually?lost support?among the middle-aged, who may have suddenly discovered that Obamacare doesn?t protect them from higher premiums and the loss of job-based medical insurance in an economic downturn. Similarly, polls show?surging support for bold climate action?as America has been ravaged by wildfires, droughts and hurricanes. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania ? where Biden?s fracking position has been cast as a positive ??polls?show the majority of the state?s voters oppose the fossil fuel extraction process.? And for all of Biden?s gratuitous football-spiking about beating Sanders in the primary, the Vermont senator remains one of America?s most popular politicians, and more popular than Biden himself, according to?YouGov data.? The point here is not merely that Biden is out of step with the public on specific issues ? but that it would be patently ridiculous for anyone to depict a Democratic victory as a repudiation of the left. The election has been an up-or-down vote on Trump, with Biden the recipient of the down vote. He is the quintessential generic Democrat in this race ? indeed, a recent?Pew poll?showed that the majority of Biden voters support him simply because ?he is not Trump,? not because of any particular position he has taken.? | | | | A?new Morning Consult poll?shows that almost half of Biden?s voters say they are supporting him more as ?a vote against Donald Trump? than an affirmative vote for the Democratic ticket. At the same time, the public broadly supports a progressive economic agenda. If Biden wins, those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will try to obscure this reality ? but it is a reality.? Darkest Before Dawn I walked east from my home in southeast Denver ? east toward the rising sun, because I know for me it is most difficult to think clearly in the night. It truly is darkest before the dawn ? and we are all right now in that darkness, deciding whether or not to wallow or push ahead. It is easy to succumb to nihilism. My inner voice of negativity is a Rahm Emanuel-esque asshole, and it spent all night screaming a million reasons to give up.? But as the sky turned red and then pink, I saw this little tent on the horizon at the local community center. Cars were driving up as people were dropping off ballots.? As my friend Naomi Klein said in?The Daily Poster?s?live chat last night, we are taught to see voting as the ultimate form of self-expression, but it isn?t. It is one limited way to participate in civic life. But voting itself is an act of ? dare I say it ? hope.? Even in a democracy as limited as America?s, we vote because we still believe in the idea of self-governance, and in the idea that things can change. And weirdly enough, in an election offering two of history?s most uninspired presidential choices, we have what could be the biggest opportunity for change in my own lifetime. Think about it: If Biden wins, we will have a relatively weak thumb-in-the-wind Democratic president who does not command the kind of worshipful fandom that past Democratic presidents have engendered. At the same time there are engaged activists, organizations and movements that are not just going back to brunch when the election is over. From the?Sunrise Movement?to?Demand Progress?to the?Revolving Door Project?to?Black Lives Matter, there is more infrastructure than ever ready to pressure a new president ? and there are allied lawmakers in Congress ready to amplify their message. The key thing to understand about this potential future is that Biden does not engender the kind of fawning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama evoked when they were first elected president. He is rightly seen as a transactional and transitional politician ? and that?s actually a good thing.? For too long, Democratic voters have seen their presidents as deities who should be immune from pressure and criticism. But it is far better for a democracy for a president to be perceived not as some pop culture idol or glorified instagram influencer, but instead as an administrator that is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.? Biden?s low-key image makes it much more likely that we will finally view the presidency in those far more healthy and realistic terms ? and then confront that White House with pressure rather than genuflection. Will the pressure work? It is hard to say. But Biden does appear to be making some rhetorical shifts already ? in the last presidential debate, he made?an argument for deficit spending. It was remarkable to see given that Biden has advocated for budget austerity for decades.? Then again, there?s a difference between words and deed and in recent years, the MSNBC-ization of politics and the rise of Brunch Liberalism means there hasn?t been much pressure on Democratic lawmakers to do much of anything -- other than simply not be Republicans. But with climate, health care and economic emergencies tearing apart our country, we need them to do far more than that. We need to force them to deliver in a way the party hasn?t delivered in more than a half century.? And here?s the thing to remember: Nothing will be given. Campaign promises will not be acted upon on their own ? they will only be fulfilled if there is constant pressure. Indeed, to achieve even the most minimal and necessary reforms to prevent more mass casualties and pain, lawmakers will have to face enormous amounts of organizing and pressure and activism. The leaders of both parties in Washington have taught us over and over and over again that they will nonchalantly let us suffer and die ? unless they are forced kicking and screaming to do something other than enrich their donors.? I walked back home thinking about how daunting a task this will all be. The pit in my stomach was still there from the panic attack, and thinking about how much work we must do made the pangs a bit worse.? But then I walked into the house and saw two kids ? my 6-year-old daughter finishing up her french toast and masking up for first grade, and my 9-year-old son working on his 4th grade essay before yet another day of remote learning because his grades are on lockdown.? In their faces, I see the reason that despair and despondence cannot be our path.? Their lives and the lives of every kid is on the line right now ? and our society is in a bad way. Our politics are deeply corrupt, our laws are driven by greed. The cultural and political panic unrest we?ve experienced over the last year is all a predictable result of that.? But with our democracy and our ecosystem on the brink, failure is not an option. Retreat is not an option.? We?ve had our panic attack ? now, hopefully, we get one more chance to move forward. This newsletter relies on readers pitching in to support it. If you like what you just read and want to help expand this kind of journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber by?clicking this link. Subscribe now | | | | You?re on the free list for?The Daily Poster. For the full experience,?become a paying subscriber. Subscribe ? 2020?David Sirota?Unsubscribe 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 | | ? _______________________________________________ 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: ~WRD185.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3902 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 695 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 341 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Nov 5 04:21:27 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 22:21:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Foreseeable American economic future looks bleak In-Reply-To: <006401d6b23a$d92164e0$8b642ea0$@comcast.net> References: <20201103190500.1.zudp4ju0t4@mg2.substack.com> <871680D2-BD7D-4539-AA13-7CB6CB54A999@mac.com> <006401d6b23a$d92164e0$8b642ea0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <2302c4a103865f0cbd389c4fc27a05b2d876b111.camel@forestfield.org> David Johnson wrote: > I am hopeful for the long term future, especially this younger > generation in their 20's and 30's. > > BUT, before things get better in my opinion, things are going to get > a lot worse. I wish it didn't have to be that way but all the > indicators point to that. I concur; Jimmy Dore (whose show I find often does a good job of describing what's going on) calls for a general strike (which he called for again on his live show on 2020-11-04 while reading a promotional spot for PeoplesParty.org) for that reason -- people need to organize and stop the US government from handing out more money to the wealthy (trillions via the CARES Act, for example) and start prioritizing the needs of the poor and working class to stop the harm. Dore has pointed out that this general strike could probably include only Amazon.com workers and grocery store workers and effectively push Congress to pass legislation that would help most Americans right now -- a UBI, a national jobs program, and Medicare for All. I too think we're about to see things get worse for most Americans. People don't ignore their own economic reality. Perhaps more of the public will soon see through more identity politics too. This will be needed so people aren't bamboozled into thinking it's okay to evaluate someone's politics by believing that some shared identity politics characteristic will somehow mean better things for people generally (Obama is half-black so that should mean better things for blacks, right?). Apparently "the squad" didn't have the spine to challenge the largest upward transfer of wealth. CBS News reported the following in January 2017 ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-afford-a-500-emergency-expense/ ): > Fifty-seven percent of Americans don't have enough cash to cover a > $500 unexpected expense, according to a new survey from Bankrate, > which interviewed 1,003 adults earlier this month. While that may > appear dire, it reflects a slight improvement from 2016, when 63 > percent of U.S. residents said they wouldn't be able to handle such > an expense. The improvement reflects the stronger U.S. economy, but > is still far from ideal, Bankrate.com said. You don't get to a point like that without people considering their options and learning to separate the comfortable from those who struggle. From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Nov 6 03:01:24 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 21:01:24 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] $14B+ for 2020 US POTUS election so far; almost enough to "effectively eradicate" US homelessness Message-ID: <2f993b64-7fe0-730c-9594-900c909d8c0c@forestfield.org> According to https://youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNqYpfBPM the US 2020 POTUS election has cost $14 billion so far (the final tallies are not in because the election results are not yet final). To put that into context (particularly in light of a pandemic in which rent payment delays have run out or are running out soon with homelessness expected to rise): According to the New York Times in https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/us/homeless-rates-steady-despite-recession-hud-says.html > Mark Johnston, the acting assistant housing secretary for community planning and > development, estimated that homelessness could be effectively eradicated in the > United States at an annual cost of about $20 billion. And Huffpost cites ThinkProgress in https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homelessness-christmas-decorations_n_2276536 claiming: > That's just slightly less money than Americans spend on Christmas decorations, > according to an analysis from ThinkProgress. It's as if there are some problems we should throw money at instead of handing more money to the wealthiest people and businesses and funding an election where we only really get to hear from two candidates neither of whom promise us what most people want. From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 6 23:36:21 2020 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 23:36:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stephen Francis, A Trump/USPS Blockchain Sting Will Rescue the Election References: <559377508.2690626.1604705781091.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <559377508.2690626.1604705781091@mail.yahoo.com> Article from JamesFetzer.org https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/11/stephen-francis-a-trump-usps-blockchain-sting-will-rescue-the-election/ Stephen Francis, A Trump/USPS Blockchain Sting Will Rescue the Election November 6, 2020 | | | | | | | | | | | Stephen Francis, A Trump/USPS Blockchain Sting Will Rescue the Election ... Stephen Francis It?s absolutely brilliant. It?s now being revealed by many credible sources, that President Dona... | | | ?James Fetzerblog Stephen Francis It?s absolutely brilliant. It?s now being revealed by many credible sources, that President Donald Trump and the USPS have had a master plan all along to secure the integrity of the 2020 election. Blockchain is the key. In their plan, an invisible and unique?QFS code?was printed on each and every USPS-produced ballot. They know exactly all the relevant details, including dates, paths, identities (anonymized)..et al. As the saying goes, ?knowledge is power?. ? One, if not of the first sites to expose the sting is Alex Jone?s War Room, here?s the?video. Steve Pieczenik (Clancy novels, intelligence legend) is featured. There are a few MSM sites that have reported on the existence of the patent application last August, but the articles have no indication that it was actually being implemented. They can be viewed at?BusinessInsider,?Forbes,?Popular Mechanics,?CoinTelegraph, and the?USPS News page. Pieczenik?s?Wikipedia?page is not flattering, which is a badge of honor to those in the Alt world.In the Alt world, Popular Mechanics was one of the first publications to attempt to debug 9/11 Truth theorists. Consistent with their alignment with the Deep State, their?article?includes this diss on the USPS?s effort, ? But because patents can take years to come to fruition as legitimate products or services?if at all, because the intellectual property sometimes never sees the light of day?this technology certainly won?t be used in the 2020 election. And, because the patent application is provisional, there?s always the chance the USPTO may not grant the patent at all.It is now obvious and has been, actually since 2016 that the cabal of Dem leadership, CIA / FBI leadership, Big Tech, Big Money, and the MSM have been out to depose Donald Trump, first with Russiagate, then impeachment, then COVID-19 was launched in order to set up mail-in voting. It?s all as plain as day. The Trump / USPS plan?s exposing is only a few hours old.? Blockchain For those unfamiliar with?blockchain, they are decentralized digital ledgers that make it virtually impossible to alter records of past events. A certain amount of transactions and/or data are assembled into a ?block?, encryption is then added allowing that block to span the globe untouched by nefarious hands. All modern industries are adopting this tech for a multitude of reasons. It is adaptable to virtually any industry or concept. Bitcoin and Altcoins are the transactional currency of that system. ? According to the USPS patent, ?a registered voter receives a computer-readable code in the mail and confirms the identity and confirms correct ballot information in an election.? In various versions of the system, they either use that code to access an online ballot or can fill out their mailed paper ballot and then submit it online by taking a picture of it. ? Pieczenik and the Sting Pieczenik, ?This is really a sting operation, contrary to what everyone else said,? Pieczenik explained. ?We watermarked every ballot with QFS blockchain encryption code. In other words, we know pretty well where every ballot is, where it went and who has it, so this is not a stolen election.? ? He first appeared on Alex Jones? Infowars program on Thursday evening, the 5th of October.?video?? and?YouTubeIt will probably be censored by YouTube, but as of early morning October 6 it still exists. ? ?President-elect? Trump?s Tweet on the issue back in July: With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote??? ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020 ? This is a developing story, more soon.Steve FrancisFounder of?NewsFollowUp.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Nov 8 20:14:45 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Careless people & societal collapse? Message-ID: 1. Careless people? A ?Great Gatsby? Quote Takes On New Resonance People critical of the president?s and other Republicans? behavior have been sharing a line from the Fitzgerald novel about the wealthy characters whose ?carelessness? harms everyone around them. By Ian Prasad Philbrick NYT Oct. 7, 2020 It could have been any day on the internet: A critical comment, not naming President Trump or his Republican allies but clearly aimed at them, circulated on social media. But the passage shared over the past few days by educators, writers and veterans of past presidential administrations came from an unlikely source: ?The Great Gatsby,? F. Scott Fitzgerald?s novel about greed and aspiration published nearly a century ago. ?They were careless people,? Nick Carraway, the narrator, concludes about Tom and Daisy Buchanan, characters whose excesses ultimately destroy the lives of those around them. ?They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.? For those who shared the passage online, Fitzgerald?s indictment of the rich, blas? Buchanans in the novel?s final pages seemed to fit an administration that has attempted to downplay the pandemic, even after Trump and other top Republicans tested positive for Covid-19. ? ? 2. Societal collapse ahead? Society is About to Fall Apart? Ben Ehrenreich NYT Magazine 11/04/20 When I first spoke with Joseph Tainter in early May, he and I and nearly everyone else had reason to be worried. A few days earlier, the official tally of Covid-19 infections in the United States had climbed above one million, unemployment claims had topped 30 million and the United Nations had warned that the planet was facing ?multiple famines of biblical proportions.? George Floyd was still alive, and the protests spurred by his killing had not yet swept the nation, but a different kind of protest, led by white men armed with heavy weaponry, had taken over the Michigan State Legislature building. The president of the United States had appeared to suggest treating the coronavirus with disinfectant injections. Utah, where Tainter lives ? he teaches at Utah State ? was reopening its gyms, restaurants and hair salons that very day. The chaos was considerable, but Tainter seemed calm. He walked me through the arguments of the book that made his reputation, ?The Collapse of Complex Societies,? which has for years been the seminal text in the study of societal collapse, an academic subdiscipline that arguably was born with its publication in 1988. ?Civilizations are fragile, impermanent things,? Tainter writes. Nearly every one that has ever existed has also ceased to exist, yet ?understanding disintegration has remained a distinctly minor concern in the social sciences.? It is only a mild overstatement to suggest that before Tainter, collapse was simply not a thing. If Joseph Tainter, now 70, is the sober patriarch of the field, it is not a role he seems to relish. His own research has moved on; these days, he focuses on ?sustainability.? But even in his most recent work his earlier subject is always there, hovering like a ghost just off the edge of each page. Why, after all, would we worry about sustaining a civilization if we weren?t convinced that it might crumble? ? ? [ Curiously, does not mention the 2005 book by Jared Diamond, _Collapse_: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Penguin pb, 575 pp.). ~ RSz. ] # # # From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Nov 8 20:14:45 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2020 20:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Careless people & societal collapse? Message-ID: 1. Careless people? A ?Great Gatsby? Quote Takes On New Resonance People critical of the president?s and other Republicans? behavior have been sharing a line from the Fitzgerald novel about the wealthy characters whose ?carelessness? harms everyone around them. By Ian Prasad Philbrick NYT Oct. 7, 2020 It could have been any day on the internet: A critical comment, not naming President Trump or his Republican allies but clearly aimed at them, circulated on social media. But the passage shared over the past few days by educators, writers and veterans of past presidential administrations came from an unlikely source: ?The Great Gatsby,? F. Scott Fitzgerald?s novel about greed and aspiration published nearly a century ago. ?They were careless people,? Nick Carraway, the narrator, concludes about Tom and Daisy Buchanan, characters whose excesses ultimately destroy the lives of those around them. ?They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.? For those who shared the passage online, Fitzgerald?s indictment of the rich, blas? Buchanans in the novel?s final pages seemed to fit an administration that has attempted to downplay the pandemic, even after Trump and other top Republicans tested positive for Covid-19. ? ? 2. Societal collapse ahead? Society is About to Fall Apart? Ben Ehrenreich NYT Magazine 11/04/20 When I first spoke with Joseph Tainter in early May, he and I and nearly everyone else had reason to be worried. A few days earlier, the official tally of Covid-19 infections in the United States had climbed above one million, unemployment claims had topped 30 million and the United Nations had warned that the planet was facing ?multiple famines of biblical proportions.? George Floyd was still alive, and the protests spurred by his killing had not yet swept the nation, but a different kind of protest, led by white men armed with heavy weaponry, had taken over the Michigan State Legislature building. The president of the United States had appeared to suggest treating the coronavirus with disinfectant injections. Utah, where Tainter lives ? he teaches at Utah State ? was reopening its gyms, restaurants and hair salons that very day. The chaos was considerable, but Tainter seemed calm. He walked me through the arguments of the book that made his reputation, ?The Collapse of Complex Societies,? which has for years been the seminal text in the study of societal collapse, an academic subdiscipline that arguably was born with its publication in 1988. ?Civilizations are fragile, impermanent things,? Tainter writes. Nearly every one that has ever existed has also ceased to exist, yet ?understanding disintegration has remained a distinctly minor concern in the social sciences.? It is only a mild overstatement to suggest that before Tainter, collapse was simply not a thing. If Joseph Tainter, now 70, is the sober patriarch of the field, it is not a role he seems to relish. His own research has moved on; these days, he focuses on ?sustainability.? But even in his most recent work his earlier subject is always there, hovering like a ghost just off the edge of each page. Why, after all, would we worry about sustaining a civilization if we weren?t convinced that it might crumble? ? ? [ Curiously, does not mention the 2005 book by Jared Diamond, _Collapse_: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Penguin pb, 575 pp.). ~ RSz. ] # # # From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Nov 11 06:31:02 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:31:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Drabwords 111120 Message-ID: Herewith a little anthology of some cliches to be deployed in various combinations & permutations by would-be political pundits you either love it or you hate it. do the math it is what it is what goes around comes around checks all the boxes we know that without evidence no surprise that never ceases to amaze me follow the money disingenuous long story short trial balloon everything happens for a reason as if your life depended on it exceeds expectations hit the ground running light at the end of the tunnel make no mistake about it abundance of caution it DOES?T MAKE SENSE that I JUST CAN?T BELIEVE that it?s a game-changer we?re all in this together I/we wuz ROBBED cautiously optimistic headwinds insufficient bandwidth baked in but I digress . . . ~ RSz., trying to be helpful . . . From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Nov 11 06:31:02 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:31:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Drabwords 111120 Message-ID: Herewith a little anthology of some cliches to be deployed in various combinations & permutations by would-be political pundits you either love it or you hate it. do the math it is what it is what goes around comes around checks all the boxes we know that without evidence no surprise that never ceases to amaze me follow the money disingenuous long story short trial balloon everything happens for a reason as if your life depended on it exceeds expectations hit the ground running light at the end of the tunnel make no mistake about it abundance of caution it DOES?T MAKE SENSE that I JUST CAN?T BELIEVE that it?s a game-changer we?re all in this together I/we wuz ROBBED cautiously optimistic headwinds insufficient bandwidth baked in but I digress . . . ~ RSz., trying to be helpful . . . From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Nov 12 18:01:25 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:01:25 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter to Nazi Gazette a.k.a. News Gazette Message-ID: <003001d6b91d$dcf8c790$96ea56b0$@comcast.net> Mort, I wanted to complement you on your recent letter to the News Gazette on Nov. 5th - " No Reason To Fear Anything ". Excellent, concise and accurate points. It really disturbs me how many people in their 60's and 70's who were involved in or sympathetic to the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960's to early 1970's, have been so brainwashed ( I can't think of a more appropriate term ) into believing that the CIA, FBI et al are all of a sudden " The Good Guys " and that a new cold war 2.0 with Russia is both appropriate and necessary. Even attempts at red baiting ( Putin baiting )/ McCarthyite smears and all. Your letter was both timely and necessary. Thank You David Johnson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Nov 13 00:27:02 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:27:02 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting "anti-war" video interview on Jimmy Dore Message-ID: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jS51-q-aDH8 Last night Jimmy Dore interviewed Army Afghan war veteran Dan Berschinski and challenged Berschinski's effectively pro-war message (objecting to "stupid" wars, quoting Berschinski) with eminent sense that goes right in like with Dore's support for direct action and organizing workers in unions that fight for the workers' interest. You'll want to see this to the end. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Nov 13 00:45:21 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:45:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recommended videos for AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and Labor's World View TV Message-ID: Here are the video suggestions I've sent to Jason Liggett of UPTV to run during AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and Labor's World View TV's timeslots. As before, I've asked Jason to prioritize AWARE member suggested videos ahead of my suggestions for AOTA/NFN and to prioritize anything David Johnson prefers for Labor's World View TV. Thanks. -J The Grayzone https://youtube.com/watch?v=8_jnd3uXFMY -- (22m 56s) Red Lines from The Grayzone -- Anya Parampil interviews Leonardo Flores on what a Biden victory means for Venezuela (world's largest known reserve of oil). Black Agenda Report https://youtube.com/watch?v=S9Amdj9Y-UA -- (35m 16s) Black Agenda Report's Left Lens with Danny Haiphong and Margaret Kimberley on what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' presumed victory means. Consortium News https://youtube.com/watch?v=KvnlcoYWAmM -- (1h 38m) Consortium News panel discussion on "The Targeted Campaign to Topple Jeremy Corbyn" RT Video: https://cdnv.rt.com/files/2020.11/5fa7ad1185f54030f77ad0be.mp4 Transcript: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/506002-american-discontent-ruling-parties/ -- (28m 11s) Chris Hedges interviews Professor Paul Street "about the outcome of the US presidential election, and how despite likely losing, Donald Trump has solidified an angry, dispossessed working class that cuts across racial lines and has embraced a right-wing populism.". I don't entirely agree with Prof. Street here but he has some interesting points to raise. https://youtube.com/watch?v=LYEbR3-bCkY -- (2m 36s) clip from Going Underground interview in which we get some analysis of the $15T spent on Middle East wars. Independently made https://youtube.com/watch?v=zyXffRtvwak -- (21m) "The Gaggle" with Peter Lavelle (host of RT's CrossTalk) and guest on the idea that "The 2020 election was a referendum on liberals and liberalism and the media". This offers a small bit of response to the interview with Prof. Street. From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Nov 13 02:34:23 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 20:34:23 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore videos stressing better priorities, what Biden promised, and which corporatists we can foresee being in charge Message-ID: I recommend catching Jimmy Dore's recent spate of videos, his opinion pieces and interviews have been very interesting lately. I can't suggest any of them to UPTV because of swearing (a pity really, as Comcast's NBC recently aired Dave Chappelle saying "nigger" multiple times on Saturday Night Live in https://youtube.com/watch?v=Un_VvR_WqNs when he had said the same thing in his previous appearance on the same show ~3 years ago in https://youtube.com/watch?v=--IS0XiNdpk around 5m13s and 6m39s, and MSNBC broadcast one of their establishment-friendly guests saying "shit, fuck" as well). So here are some examples: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9yRlwJ3oG-o -- Tech oligarchs in Biden administration overseeing censorship. https://youtube.com/watch?v=7-uY7AxHpEg -- "Biden World" blames progressives for their losses (hint: every Congressperson who said they supported Medicare for All won, those who said they didn't support Medicare for All lost). https://youtube.com/watch?v=iYgOx-r9erQ -- "Fuck Trump, Fuck Biden too! They don't give a fuck about you!". The Chicago protest had a better beat, if you ask me; more syncopation, more fun. https://youtube.com/watch?v=BusmxznLDOo -- Don't worry: Biden's cabinet looks like it'll have plenty of Republicans in it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=sRjCaWnrsts -- Biden's cabinet of war (if you voted for Joe Biden, you voted for more war from a guy who was a known war criminal when he ran). https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=1A66LpB7Axw -- New COVID-19 numbers say that "1 in 5 grocery store workers have tested positive for COVID-19, most asymptomatic" according to Study Finds in a widely-repeated story: https://www.newsmax.com/health/health-news/grocery-workers-infection-covid/2020/10/30/id/994560/ https://trulytimes.com/study-finds-20-percent-of-grocery-workers-infected-with-covid-19.html https://www.eatthis.com/grocery-store-workers-with-covid/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/30/about-20-of-grocery-workers-had-covid-most-without-symptoms-study/ https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3900075/posts https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/29/health/grocery-workers-increased-covid-19-risk-wellness/index.html -J From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Nov 15 06:08:42 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 06:08:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Denialism Message-ID: [ Denialism has been characterized as] "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none". It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy: > Conspiracy theories ? Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth". > Cherry picking ? Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research. > False experts ? Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility. > Moving the goalpost ? Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence. > Other logical fallacies ? Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring. / Tara Smith of the University of Iowa also stated that moving goalposts, conspiracy theories, and cherry-picking evidence are general characteristics of denialist arguments, but went on to note that these groups spend the "majority of their efforts critiquing the mainstream theory" in an apparent belief that if they manage to discredit the mainstream view, their own "unproven ideas will fill the void". / In 2009 author Michael Specter defined group denialism as "when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie". ? from Wikipedia, online ? ? ? => Examples of denialist controversy: flat earth theories, creationism vs. Darwinian evolutionism, smoking & cancer, HIV & AIDS, Holocaust denial, moon landing, climate change/global warming, coronavirus pandemic, legitimate election of Joe Biden as next president. ~ RSz. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Nov 15 06:08:42 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 06:08:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Denialism Message-ID: [ Denialism has been characterized as] "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none". It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy: > Conspiracy theories ? Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth". > Cherry picking ? Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research. > False experts ? Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility. > Moving the goalpost ? Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence. > Other logical fallacies ? Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring. / Tara Smith of the University of Iowa also stated that moving goalposts, conspiracy theories, and cherry-picking evidence are general characteristics of denialist arguments, but went on to note that these groups spend the "majority of their efforts critiquing the mainstream theory" in an apparent belief that if they manage to discredit the mainstream view, their own "unproven ideas will fill the void". / In 2009 author Michael Specter defined group denialism as "when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie". ? from Wikipedia, online ? ? ? => Examples of denialist controversy: flat earth theories, creationism vs. Darwinian evolutionism, smoking & cancer, HIV & AIDS, Holocaust denial, moon landing, climate change/global warming, coronavirus pandemic, legitimate election of Joe Biden as next president. ~ RSz. From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 16 12:40:45 2020 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:40:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] State of the Nation publishes a Stephen Francis article References: <1934814638.5961168.1605530445996.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1934814638.5961168.1605530445996@mail.yahoo.com> Will A Trump/USPS Blockchain Sting Rescue the Election? | SOTN: Alternative News, Analysis & Commentary | | | | | | | | | | | Will A Trump/USPS Blockchain Sting Rescue the Election? | SOTN: Alternat... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 19:01:55 2020 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 13:01:55 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] BOOK REVIEW, CALEB MAUPIN, DEMOCRATS, FRANKFURT SCHOOL, POLITICS, RIGHT WING JERKS, TULSI GABBARD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well worth reading, and watching YouTube video re Marcuse that is linked to. On Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 12:36 PM Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > BOOK REVIEW , CALEB MAUPIN > , DEMOCRATS > , FRANKFURT SCHOOL > , POLITICS > , RIGHT WING JERKS > , TULSI GABBARD > > A WARNING OF THE IMMINENT DANGER OF A KAMALA HARRIS PRESIDENCY > > OCTOBER 17, 2020 > > MAX PARRY > > > With > the 2020 U.S. presidential election less than a month away, there is > widespread speculation concerning Democratic nominee Joe Biden?s mental and > physical fitness at 77 years of age if he were to defeat incumbent Donald > Trump on November 3rd. The former Vice President and Senator from Delaware > would surpass his opponent as the oldest to ever hold the office of the > presidency if victorious, while his generally acknowledged cognitive > decline has led many to question whether he is even capable of serving a > single term. Given the concerns about his health, the likelihood that > Biden?s running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, would become his successor has > put the controversial former prosecutor and California Attorney General?s > own politics under scrutiny, though not to a degree sufficient with the > odds she could very well become commander-in-chief in the near future. > Trump himself suggested it was the hidden motivation behind House Speaker > Nancy Pelosi?s recent introduction of a 25th Amendment commission on > removing a ?mentally unfit? president to enable the replacement of an > incapacitated Biden with Harris after the election. Even *Saturday Night > Live* recently joked about Biden?s poor first debate performance as a > Harris term in-the-making ? but as journalist Caleb Maupin explains in his > new book *Kamala Harris and the Future of America: An Essay in Three > Parts *, > the prospect of her becoming president is no laughing matter. > > Maupin?s ambitious essay surpasses the redundant analysis of the > vice-presidential nominee by placing her political success in a broader > historical context while forewarning the unique danger of a budding Harris > administration waiting in the wings. The majority of the critical > examinations of Harris during the campaign have critiqued her rebranding as > an outwardly ?progressive? figure in stark contrast with the reality of her > career as a ruthless criminal prosecutor turned establishment politician. > While that is true, Maupin?s analysis takes an important step further by > formulating the rise of Harris, who is the first Jamaican and South > Asian-American nominee on a major party ticket, as the culmination of the > U.S. left?s failures in the last several decades resulting in its present > deteriorated state preoccupied with liberal identity politics. More > specifically, a result of the defeats suffered by the so-called New Left of > the 1960s and 70s which had long-term consequences for progressive politics > in America today. > > Although not a biography, Maupin does link Harris?s psychological profile, > personality traits and upbringing with her political career which he > parallels with the life stories of previous presidents and other political > figures. Born in 1964, Harris was raised in a hub of the organized left in > the Bay Area by immigrant parents who were politically active during her > early childhood in Northern California. While not a communist, her > estranged Jamaican-American father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University > professor and Marxian economist whose work influenced the progressive > domestic reforms in his native island country during the administration of > Prime Minister Michael Manley, a democratic socialist who introduced land > redistribution, socialized medicine and free education until Jamaica?s > neocolonization by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) decimated the > Carribean nation with enormous debt, as explored in the documentary *Life > and Debt* (2001). Young Kamala grew up attending civil rights protests in > Berkeley with her parents until their bitter divorce which resulted in her > Indian-American mother gaining sole custody. Maupin dares to ask ? is her > chosen career path as a criminal prosecutor and top legal officer > disproportionately locking up black men unconsciously motivated by a > vendetta against her father? Could it even explain her thinly-veiled contempt > for the progressive politics she > now pretends to uphold as a politician? > > Maupin also argues that Harris was likely groomed for her present role as > Biden?s running mate by the Clintonite wing of Democratic Party once it > became apparent Hillary was not in a position to run again in 2020, citing a > 2017 closed door meeting > in > the Hamptons with elite party donors and apparatchiks. Despite her own > early exit from the primaries after a knockout blow in the debates > delivered by Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii who sharply criticized > her record as a prosecutor, Harris was already vetted by the party > leadership to be Biden?s heir apparent. For the Democratic establishment, > she is the perfect choice to derail the emerging progressive faction of the > party led by Bernie Sanders which champions a similar brand of the social > democratic politics championed by her father. This could also hold > disastrous geopolitical implications, as the world is still reeling from > the four years spent ravaged by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton?s > State Department which oversaw the wholesale destruction of several nations > in the global south. We can only expect the same regime change policies > from Harris if she is cut from the same cloth. > > Maupin then uses Harris and her Berkeley upbringing to explore the history > of leftism in the United States, tracing the New Left?s ceding of > leadership roles to students and marginal groups while discarding labor > rights and the class struggle back to the influence of the Frankfurt School > of Social Theory. The philosophical movement of intellectuals and academics > associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, > otherwise known as ?critical theory?, put forward that both capitalist > societies and Marxist-Leninist states like the Soviet Union were equally > rigid ?totalitarian? systems. The interdisciplinary sociological school > viewed Marx?s prediction of revolutionary emancipation in the 20th century > as an evident failure and rejected the historical materialism of orthodox > Marxism, arguing that forces of economic change were undermined by the > dominant ideology of the ruling class represented in mass media which > produced false consciousness in the working class. Theorists such as > Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse attempted to reformulate Marxism with > Freudian psychoanalysis and other disciplines while critiquing mass > consumer culture and modern technology. > > As the impact of the Frankfurt School gave rise to the New Left in the > U.S. and Western Europe, mass social movements became housed in the > universities instead of the factories. This was favorable to the ruling > class, as student-led counterculture revolts were much easier to control in > comparison with a revolution organized by the workers. If any authentic > revolutionary leaders did emerge, they were quickly neutralized. After the > student protests of 1968, the New Left withdrew further to its comfort zone > in the realm of ideas and out of the streets, which was perfectly alright > with the powers that be since they were intellectuals who denounced > Marxism-Leninism. Soon the academy would be dominated by an even more > pessimistic and ?anti-authoritarian? ideology, postmodernism, which > rejected the value of all universal truths and grand narratives. How did > this all happen? > > Maupin emphasizes that the intelligentsia of the New Left were actively > supported by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) through its clandestine > Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) program during the Cold War, which > sought to subvert the sympathies of liberals and the non-communist left > with the Soviet Union through the covert funding of prominent literary > magazines > , > journals, international conferences, modern art exhibitions > , > and other cultural activities. The objective was to promote an intellectual > consensus on the Western left that the Soviet Union was to be opposed as > much as capitalism and it was indisputably successful. Meanwhile, the > Church Committee and Rockefeller Commissions of the 1970s exposed how in > the previous decade the CIA had played an enormous role in introducing > drugs to the counterculture as part of its domestic espionage against the > anti-war movement in Operation Midnight Climax, a sub-program of Project > MK-Ultra, where the Bay Area became a petri dish for its human > experimentation. With the drug culture came the popularization of eastern > mysticism and eventually, the New Age movement. > > As it happens, the relationship between the CIA and the New Left?s > intellectuals goes back to its origins. One of the most prominent > idealogues of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse ? often referred to as > the ?father of the New Left? ? spent almost a full decade during the 1940s > working for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the > CIA, and as an anti-Soviet intelligence analyst in the U.S. State > Department. This was not just during wartime but continued well after WWII > was over in West Germany until 1951 when Marcuse immigrated to the United > States to work as a professor at universities on the east coast, the same > year that the CCF was founded. However, one interesting fact that Maupin > overlooks is that while Kamala Harris was growing up in Oakland in the > 1960s, Marcuse relocated his teaching career out to the west coast at the > University of California, San Diego (UCSD), where his work continued to be > cited as an influence by the middle-class student activists and radicals of > the counterculture as the left drifted further away from the socialist > countries and the working class. The documentary The documentary *Herbert?s > Hippopotamus: Marcuse and Revolution in Paradise* > examines Marcuse?s time in > Southern California in the late 60s. > > Prior to his work in the OSS, in Weimar Germany the young Marcuse had been > a pupil of philosopher Martin Heidegger even as his mentor infamously > joined the ascendant Nazi Party, though the relationship came to an end > once Marcuse?s own academic career was obstructed by the Third Reich in the > early 1930s. One of the major thinkers associated with the New Left > promoted by the CCF was a former lover of Heidegger?s, Hannah Arendt, who > penned one of the most seminal and harmful works in equating the Soviet > Union with Nazi Germany as twin pillars of authoritarianism in *The > Origins of Totalitarianism*. In particular, Maupin takes aim at Arendt?s > essay *Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil* where she > famously observed Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann?s thoughtless conformism > and ministerial disposition in his lack of remorse for his atrocities while > covering his trial. Maupin interprets her notion as implicitly concluding > that lurking underneath the surface of every ordinary hardworking person is > a potential fascist, therefore anyone who would try to organize them for a > collective cause is a threat to society. This cynical, psychoanalytic > definition of fascism as rooted in what Adorno called the ?authoritarian > personality? replaced the Marxist economic understanding. Yet in spite of > her work, Arendt controversially participated in the shameful post-war > apologia and rehabilitation of Heidegger?s reputation. > > Critics might say that Maupin?s diagnosis of the Western left as the > manipulated brainchild of Western intelligence agencies is oversimplistic, > conspiratorial or risks espousing a form of vulgar Marxism. Indeed, it is a > touchy subject for those too personally connected to the artistic and > intellectual milieu of the time to accept the undeniably significant role > played by the CIA in subverting leftist politics, arts and culture in the > second half of the twentieth century. Some on the left will inevitably try > to dismiss his analysis by likening it to the right-wing canard of > ?cultural Marxism? spoken of by paleoconservatives simply because of the > overlap in mutual subjects of criticism. Nonetheless, there is a small > kernel of truth at the heart the right?s mostly fictitious narrative of > Western Marxism?s control of academia but unfortunately, what they > misinterpret as a plot to ?subvert Western culture? was hatched at CIA > headquarters in Langley, Virginia ? not the former Soviet Union. Today?s > pseudo-left which recoils working people is truly an imposter generated by > the CIA?s cultural cold war program to replace actual Marxism, the real > casualty of the pervasiveness of Western Marxism in universities. > > Others may find Maupin?s assessment of the Frankfurt School and thinkers > of the New Left to be too dismissive of their contributions. Ironically, > Adorno?s worthwhile conception of ?actionism? applies to the left-wing > anti-intellectualism and leaderless, spontaneous voluntarism of the very > movement to which the Frankfurt School gave birth and is even more relevant > per Maupin?s thorough description of what he calls the ?synthetic left? > today. Look no further than the ?propaganda of the deed? which dominates > Antifa and the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests this year. In *Thesis > on Feuerbach* , > Karl Marx articulated the predicament of revolutionary politics in his day > being restrained by the gap between thought and action, or ?*philosophers > have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to > change it*.? One could say the mantra of the Western left now seems to be > taking action without any thought whatsoever. Or as Lenin wrote in *What > is to be Done?* > , ?*without > revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement*.? > > If the idea that Kamala Harris represents an apotheosis of the New Left?s > failures feels like a bit of a stretch, it is only because the examination > warrants further inquiry which Maupin should continue in his work, > regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election. Nevertheless, in just a > little over 125 pages he manages to comprehensively piece together the > trajectory of the Western left from the end of WWII to what can only be > described as its ?stinking corpse? today, a term once used by Rosa > Luxembourg to describe the treacherous Social Democratic Party of Germany > (SPD) after it voted to support the imperialist bloodbath of WWI in 1914. > Maupin?s use of Harris and the environment she grew up in as a springboard > to investigate the shortcomings of the Western left generally is a > formidable exploration that is desperately needed at a time where the > American people are faced with the probability of enduring yet another > destructive administration and no authentic left to represent it. > > The post A Warning of the Imminent Danger of a Kamala Harris Presidency > first > appeared on Dissident Voice . > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Nov 16 21:09:27 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 21:09:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] How the Deniers die Message-ID: South Dakota ER nurse recalls how dying coronavirus patients spend last minutes insisting virus isn't real Kathryn Krawczyk Yahoo, Mon, November 16, 2020, 9:18 AM CST South Dakota ER nurse Jodi Doering has seen some disturbing examples of COVID-19 denial as she works through the pandemic. After a Twitter thread of her experiences started circulating, Doering appeared on CNN's New Day on Monday to describe how South Dakota hospitals are overwhelmed with coronavirus patients ? and yet some of them don't believe the virus they have is real. While many patients are "grateful for the care they receive" from nurses, some COVID-19 patients spend their last moments refusing to call family and friends because they're convinced they're going to be fine, Doering said. "Their last dying words are, 'This can't be happening. It's not real,'" Doering recalled. In some cases, patients even insist they have the flu or lung cancer to avoid acknowledging the coronavirus. ? Note that we have fervent assurances from at least two pundits, based on current rumor & gossip, that a mysterious nameless whistleblower will soon appear out of somewhere & deliver some sort of DOCUMENTARY PROOF that the votes for Biden were mostly FAKE & FRAUDULENT, planted by agents of the corporate establishment Deep State conspiracy. So, hang in there! Keep the faith, Baby! From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Nov 16 21:09:27 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 21:09:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] How the Deniers die Message-ID: South Dakota ER nurse recalls how dying coronavirus patients spend last minutes insisting virus isn't real Kathryn Krawczyk Yahoo, Mon, November 16, 2020, 9:18 AM CST South Dakota ER nurse Jodi Doering has seen some disturbing examples of COVID-19 denial as she works through the pandemic. After a Twitter thread of her experiences started circulating, Doering appeared on CNN's New Day on Monday to describe how South Dakota hospitals are overwhelmed with coronavirus patients ? and yet some of them don't believe the virus they have is real. While many patients are "grateful for the care they receive" from nurses, some COVID-19 patients spend their last moments refusing to call family and friends because they're convinced they're going to be fine, Doering said. "Their last dying words are, 'This can't be happening. It's not real,'" Doering recalled. In some cases, patients even insist they have the flu or lung cancer to avoid acknowledging the coronavirus. ? Note that we have fervent assurances from at least two pundits, based on current rumor & gossip, that a mysterious nameless whistleblower will soon appear out of somewhere & deliver some sort of DOCUMENTARY PROOF that the votes for Biden were mostly FAKE & FRAUDULENT, planted by agents of the corporate establishment Deep State conspiracy. So, hang in there! Keep the faith, Baby! From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Nov 17 02:17:05 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:17:05 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recommended videos for AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and Labor's World View TV Message-ID: Here are the video suggestions I've sent to Jason Liggett of UPTV to run during AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and Labor's World View TV's timeslots. As before, I've asked Jason to prioritize AWARE member suggested videos ahead of my suggestions for AOTA/NFN and to prioritize anything David Johnson prefers for Labor's World View TV. Thanks. -J Shadowproof https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=z4m0KkiqDPo -- (44m 46s) Dissenter Weekly: Biden Transition Team Members Were Involved In Obama's War On Whistleblowers; Kevin Gosztola with Brian Sonenstein on the Biden-Harris transition agency review teams, and a Julian Assange update. https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=8PcC4Ymp_Ac -- (1h 30m 06s) Unauthorized Disclosure: Max Blumenthal Shares Reporting From Bolivia?Plus, US Election Results with Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal. Bolivia recently democratically regained control of their country from US-backed coupsters by voting the coupsters out of office and reinstating the Mas party. acTIvism https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=zlyQ_j-jpYw -- (1h 4m) Taylor Hudak interviews Dr. Jill Biden on the 2020 election and US elections in general including the evidenceless allegations of fraud, RT: On Contact Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j4WEALCaOcg -- (25m 24s) Chris Hedges interviews Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian fundamentalist threat to civil liberties. Transcript: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/506667-american-fascists-christian-right/ RT: Going Underground https://youtube.com/watch?v=iCRDvTEHPc8 -- (14m 49s) US and UK imprisonment: Are they fundamentally broken? Afshin Rattansi interview with Chris Daw, QC. https://youtube.com/watch?v=BgHm81oZsjg -- (13m 29s) Communist Cuba develops Coronavirus vaccine despite US sanctions. Cuba also has fewer COVID-19 deaths (both overall and per capita). What does this threat of a better example mean? Afshin Rattansi interview with Dr. Helen Yaffe. Dr. Yaffe's interview gives much cause for rethinking our economic model in which you get as much healthcare as you can afford. https://youtube.com/watch?v=XazRcWEzKvg -- (13m 27s) Afshin Rattansi interviews Matt Taibbi on Biden's past and foreseeable future. RT: Renegade, Inc. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Aow-mPXjrME -- (27m 58s) Two interviews: Doug Henwood (Left Business Observer) and Ariel Gold (CODEPINK National Co-Director) on a Biden/Harris presidency in separate interviews. Henwood's interview is fairly good but the latter interview is rather unfortunate both in that the subject, Gold, apparently holds evidenceless views that "we voted out fascism" by electing Joe Biden, repeating the evidenceless belief (that amounts to excuse-making for passivity) that people can push Biden into supporting their policies, and that progressive Congressmembers will do us a favor (even citing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC, in that set). The interviewer gives no evidence that he knows that AOC voted for the CARES Act (where the alleged progressives never used their power to get us a UBI or Medicare for All but gave the wealthy trillions), Biden's previous administration was soundly pro-war (more bombing than GW Bush before him), threw 50+ million families out of their homes in a comparable economic circumstance to what we see now, and wrote the Crime Bill never once being pushed out of any of those things. I respect the anti-war activism CODEPINK has carried out, most notably with Medea Benjamin (who might have made a better interview here), and I appreciate that CODEPINK reps bring up anti-war points in their interviews even if I disagree with some of the liberal fictions one can hear on establishment media all day long. Grayzone https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=5H5P9Mewq6A -- (20m 27s) Biden "chief propagandist" opposes free press; Anya Parampil talks with Ben Norton on how US propaganda works and what the Clinton & Obama/Biden administrations did as a forecast for what's coming in a Biden/Harris administration. https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=0AWTYGZnkvk -- (43m 39s) As Trump rejects US election, Biden signals continued regime change abroad; Aaron Mat? talks with Max Blumenthal. https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=XcgS6Z8Arn0 -- (39m 10s) "The real 2020 election scandal: voter theft targeting Black people, youth"; Aaron Mat? interviews Greg Palast. From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Nov 18 02:30:29 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 20:30:29 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Catch Jimmy Dore tonight... Message-ID: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pj0XtxN2Sco He's on fire with anti-war positions, properly covering establishment media, talking sense about Michael Moore's recent commentary about Joe Biden, and showing a proper fact-based view of Biden. I'll have more pointers to segments as they appear. One part to highlight what Dore was talking about after the kids protested: From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdXBrhV4B-I Joe Biden from an on-stage interview with Patt Morrison of the LA Times. > Joe Biden: I only had two political heroes in my whole life. And this is not new, > I mean I've said this since 1972: Dr. King and Robert Kennedy. And up to that > point there was a war raging, there was a a bitter fight over even whether we > should talk about the environment, women were still viewed as second-class > citizens and not prepared to have significant jobs and thought that, and we were > told the people didn't talk to one another over the war. And we were told: drop > out, go out to Haight-Ashbury, get engaged; you know shortly after I graduated > '68 Kent State -- 17 kids shot dead. And so 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 going to change the > world and we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement to the first > stage. The women's room had came into being. So my message is: get involved... This is what Dore was referring to when he said that Biden has no empathy for those kids, Biden doesn't care. Jimmy Dore & co. from about a year ago covered this in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdmeV0GJ-oE From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Nov 18 15:50:58 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:50:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alt-news from an alt-world: Message-ID: A Trump/USPS Blockchain Sting Will Rescue the Election by Stephen Francis, State of the Nation, 11/6/2020 It?s absolutely brilliant. It?s now being revealed by many credible sources, that President Donald Trump and the USPS have had a master plan all along to secure the integrity of the 2020 election. Blockchain is the key. In their plan, an invisible and unique?QFS code?was printed on each and every USPS-produced ballot. They know exactly all the relevant details, including dates, paths, identities (anonymized)..et al. As the saying goes, ?knowledge is power?. . . . ?President-elect? Trump?s Tweet on the issue back in July: With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote??? ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020 This is a developing story, more soon. Steve Francis Founder of?NewsFollowUp.com ___ https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/11/stephen-francis-a-trump-usps-blockchain-sting-will-rescue-the-election/ This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ? Trump?s Insurance Policy: ?REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES: YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT.? This is why the Founding Fathers hardwired the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights. ?? From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Nov 19 00:16:40 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 18:16:40 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Catch Jimmy Dore tonight... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You wrote: > He's on fire with anti-war positions, properly covering establishment media, talking > sense about Michael Moore's recent commentary about Joe Biden, and showing a proper > fact-based view of Biden. Dore is live again tonight on https://youtube.com/watch?v=zEb-MjYLltg with Glenn Greenwald. > I'll have more pointers to segments as they appear. https://youtube.com/watch?v=nheRUYXh7SY -- Defender of Family Separations joins Biden's team (and highlights how partisan the objection to immigrant detention policy is) https://youtube.com/watch?v=89GLG7sVrWs -- Michael Moore saying indefensible things about Joe Biden. If you want to see a properly-prioritized set of values about evaluating Moore's work, watch this. Objections to Moore's 11/9 could have fit into this but Dore didn't mention it. That movie (like CNN's Christiane Amanpour[1]) compared Trump to Hitler, more virtue signalling for the liberals. -J [1] See https://youtube.com/watch?v=1PDV2ZpoHhY for more on this. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 19 04:08:37 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:08:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Well Worn Words 111820 Message-ID: Well Worn Words 111820 More cliches to be deployed in various combinations & permutations by those with aspirations to political punditry denialism alarmism hysterical no accident that the right side of history fake news enemy of the people bad guys deep doodoo disgrace badass cognitive dissonance cognitive ease cognitive hygiene taken out of context there is no evidence that studies show that research has shown that asking the wrong question the new normal that changes everything I/we had no choice/alternative down the rabbit hole get my/your head around bloviate bunk / bunkum B.S. [taurine excreta] poppycock humbug malarky hokum / hokey having said that tipping point drill down ?ber at the end of the day bully pulpit going forward awesome epic iconic plays well with others working the refs I am sure that . . . this is becoming tedious. ~ RSz. From mkb3 at mac.com Thu Nov 19 04:21:50 2020 From: mkb3 at mac.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:21:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?What_to_expect=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <75B6560F-D2F7-4AAA-BDFD-9FFD0C7E1B33@mac.com> Regarding what to expect with Biden administration?s foreign and military policies. By {atrick Lawrence: https://consortiumnews.com/2020/11/16/patrick-lawrence-hillary-clinton-at-the-un/ It hasn?t happened yet, but this is what one can expect. ?mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 19 17:22:21 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:22:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INTENT TO EXECUTE Message-ID: WASHINGTON ? In the final weeks of President Trump?s term, his administration intends to execute three inmates on federal death row, the last scheduled executions by the Justice Department before the inauguration of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has signaled he will end federal use of capital punishment. Since July, when it resumed carrying out the death penalty after a 17-year hiatus, the Trump administration has executed seven federal inmates. Weeks before Mr. Biden is sworn in, the three inmates face the prospect of being the last federal prisoners to die by capital punishment for at least as long as Mr. Biden remains in office. Orlando Cordia Hall, 49, convicted in the brutal death of a teenage girl, is scheduled to be executed on Thursday. Two other prisoners are to be executed in December, including Lisa M. Montgomery, the only woman on federal death row. Mr. Biden has pledged to eliminate the death penalty. His campaign promised to work to pass legislation to end capital punishment on the federal level and offer incentives to states to follow suit. An aide reiterated Mr. Biden?s platform when asked how he planned to do so and did not respond to requests for comment on the scheduled executions. The Justice Department under Mr. Trump resumed federal capital punishment this summer after a nearly two-decade informal moratorium. Before then, only three people had been executed by the federal government in the past 50 years, according to Bureau of Prisons data. Federal executions during a transition of power are extremely unusual, according to Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. He said that presidents have generally deferred to incoming administrations. ?This is another part of the Trump legacy that?s inconsistent with American norms,? he said. ?If the administration followed the normal rules of civility that have been followed throughout the history in this country, it wouldn?t be an issue. The executions wouldn?t go forward.? The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment about the timing of the executions. ? Hailey Fuchs NYT 11/19/20 INTENT TO EXECUTE The Trump administration continues to carry out capital punishment for federal crimes even though President-elect Biden has signaled he will reverse the policy. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 19 17:22:21 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:22:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INTENT TO EXECUTE Message-ID: WASHINGTON ? In the final weeks of President Trump?s term, his administration intends to execute three inmates on federal death row, the last scheduled executions by the Justice Department before the inauguration of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has signaled he will end federal use of capital punishment. Since July, when it resumed carrying out the death penalty after a 17-year hiatus, the Trump administration has executed seven federal inmates. Weeks before Mr. Biden is sworn in, the three inmates face the prospect of being the last federal prisoners to die by capital punishment for at least as long as Mr. Biden remains in office. Orlando Cordia Hall, 49, convicted in the brutal death of a teenage girl, is scheduled to be executed on Thursday. Two other prisoners are to be executed in December, including Lisa M. Montgomery, the only woman on federal death row. Mr. Biden has pledged to eliminate the death penalty. His campaign promised to work to pass legislation to end capital punishment on the federal level and offer incentives to states to follow suit. An aide reiterated Mr. Biden?s platform when asked how he planned to do so and did not respond to requests for comment on the scheduled executions. The Justice Department under Mr. Trump resumed federal capital punishment this summer after a nearly two-decade informal moratorium. Before then, only three people had been executed by the federal government in the past 50 years, according to Bureau of Prisons data. Federal executions during a transition of power are extremely unusual, according to Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. He said that presidents have generally deferred to incoming administrations. ?This is another part of the Trump legacy that?s inconsistent with American norms,? he said. ?If the administration followed the normal rules of civility that have been followed throughout the history in this country, it wouldn?t be an issue. The executions wouldn?t go forward.? The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment about the timing of the executions. ? Hailey Fuchs NYT 11/19/20 INTENT TO EXECUTE The Trump administration continues to carry out capital punishment for federal crimes even though President-elect Biden has signaled he will reverse the policy. From jbn at forestfield.org Thu Nov 19 23:55:07 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:55:07 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Australian special forces involved in Afghanistan war crimes -- https://youtube.com/watch?v=sSsuKpUvKAI Message-ID: From RT: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sSsuKpUvKAI -- coverage of the story, quoting the Australian military describing the horrors carried out outside the heat of battle, and George Galloway rightly pointing out both the proper prioritization of said crimes and the related underreported police raid against ABC (Australian Broadcast Company, equivalent of the BBC) which looks like punishment of the journalists who told us about war criminality. Galloway points out that this is like punishing Julian Assange instead of subjecting US war leaders to war crimes trials. From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Nov 20 04:28:09 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 22:28:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore put Nancy Pelosi's solo nomination to remain House Speaker into proper context Message-ID: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2ndlY1VK3V4 -- (14m 37s) Nancy Pelosi nominated to be House Speaker again by Democrats. Pelosi ran unopposed for House Speaker, so the outcome was clear. The vote was, shamefully, a voice vote. As Jimmy Dore said: > Voting for a progressive inside the Democratic Party is a fool's errand. > Progressives inside the Democratic Party, the argument is they actually do more > damage because it gives the people the false impression that there's an opposition > party in the United States and there isn't. Let's start a third party. Let's do > this because voting Democrat -- we're all going to be dead by the time there's > enough progressives to take over that party. It should happen about five years > after we're all dead from climate change. Other points made in the segment: - Pelosi is a firm opponent of Medicare for All. Keep that in mind the next time you hear anyone telling you that they're a progressive running inside the Democratic Party: if they get into Congress they'll be changed just like every member of "the squad" has been. Dore referred to his recent interview with Rep. Ro Khanna (https://youtube.com/watch?v=tZeeGMeSUuo). Rep. Khanna (California's 17th district) voted for the CARES Act (which is the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history) and he put up no opposition to his party keeping Pelosi in power nor did he object to doing this via a voice vote. - Voting for anyone who votes for Pelosi is voting against Medicare for All, no matter the rhetoric coming from the candidate. This is how Democrats can afford to write Medicare for All legislation, co-sign Medicare for All legislation, and know that they'll never be called upon to put their vote where their empty rhetoric is. From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Nov 20 15:44:09 2020 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:44:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] LABOR'S WORLD VIEW " TV for the annual special showing of the 1988 Nigel Turner documentary ; " The Men Who Killed Kennedy " Message-ID: <005101d6bf53$fd2eecb0$f78cc610$@comcast.net> Tune in to " LABOR'S WORLD VIEW " TV for the annual special showing of the 1988 Nigel Turner documentary ; " The Men Who Killed Kennedy " . The first part will run on Thursday, November 26 at 7:00 - 9 PM The second part will run on Saturday, November 28 at 7:00 - 9 PM. On COMCAST channel 6 and live worldwide at www.urbanapublictelevision.org ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Nov 21 00:36:16 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:36:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore live -- https://youtube.com/watch?v=uvu9BhwW6zI Message-ID: <3486d2cc-ed13-5ceb-73d8-34ccef60bdce@forestfield.org> https://youtube.com/watch?v=uvu9BhwW6zI is starting soon. It promises to be good. From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Nov 21 00:49:15 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:49:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald interview with Jimmy Dore -- https://youtube.com/watch?v=9uHbXMPP0pc Message-ID: <3ef8b732-34ec-b180-f4c1-d0f4f51a19d0@forestfield.org> https://youtube.com/watch?v=9uHbXMPP0pc -- (38m 43s) Glenn Greenwald interview with Jimmy Dore. This is an excellent interview but for those who can't handle swearing you will want to skip this one. Glenn really lets loose here. It's probably the most sincere interview I've ever heard him give. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Nov 21 02:55:06 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:55:06 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald interview with Jimmy Dore -- full interview coming, clips are being published now In-Reply-To: <3ef8b732-34ec-b180-f4c1-d0f4f51a19d0@forestfield.org> References: <3ef8b732-34ec-b180-f4c1-d0f4f51a19d0@forestfield.org> Message-ID: On tonight's live show they said what's out now on https://youtube.com/channel/UC3M7l8ved_rYQ45AVzS0RGA are clips and what's coming is the full interview. That appears to be the case. Visit that URL to keep up with the latest including future live shows. It's a shame that none of this can run on UPTV, it's a very good interview in full (I saw it on the live show). Apparently what's acceptable for Dave Chappelle is not okay for you and me. From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Nov 21 03:03:20 2020 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 21:03:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] State Dept. designates BDS as antisemitic -- Jewish Voice for Peace petition opposing this In-Reply-To: <19.AC.03308.93548BF5@asv11mtam003.ngpweb.com> References: <19.AC.03308.93548BF5@asv11mtam003.ngpweb.com> Message-ID: <312d97f2-361f-0ec5-c52c-6ab6c12586fb@gmail.com> It's not news that opponents of the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions movement have tried to label it as antisemitic. But now, the US State Dept is making that nonsensical and dangerous association be official US policy. Jewish Voice for Peace is opposing this.?? There's a petition -- see below.?? I signed it and hope you will too. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Pompeo is escalating. So are we. Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 17:37:40 -0500 From: Beth Miller Reply-To: info at jvpaction.org To: Stuart Levy Dear Stuart, Yesterday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the State Department will designate the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as antisemitic, and directed his office to create a blacklist of organizations that support BDS.? We saw this coming. Weeks ago, we launched a campaign to demand Pompeo stop using false allegations of antisemitism to attack Palestinians and the Palestinian rights movement. We ran an ad in The Hill to make sure everyone in Washington knows that this policy has nothing to do with Jewish safety. *But the Trump administration is continuing to escalate ??so we need to escalate too.* Our petition passed its original goal of 5,000 signatories, so we?re setting a new one. We need another 5,000 people to join us now to make it clear: *anti-Zionism is NOT antisemitism. BDS is not antisemitism. Criticizing Israel is not antisemitism. *And the U.S. government must not use false claims of antisemitism to silence Palestinians and criminalize free speech.?*Please sign our petition if you haven?t already. If you have already signed, please share widely. * Pompeo?s attack on BDS comes alongside his visit to an illegal Israeli settlement and announcement that all goods made in illegal settlements will now be labeled as products of Israel, reversing longstanding U.S. policy. Taken together, Pompeo?s actions paint a very clear picture of the U.S. and Israel?s unified position: Israel has full impunity to uphold a one-state, apartheid reality in which rights are afforded only to Jewish Israelis ??and any movement to oppose that injustice will be smeared as antisemitic. His opaque blacklist is designed to terrify organizations critical of Israel into silence*. Every person who believes in free speech should be speaking out against this authoritarian move by the Trump administration.* *We can?t ignore these policy shifts in the hopes that President-elect Biden will reverse them come January ??we know better. *Every time the Trump administration moves further to the right, it becomes that much harder to reverse the damage, and*declarations like these cause immediate and direct harm against Palestinians and this movement.?* *We have to show our outrage RIGHT NOW, and make it loud enough that it cuts through the chaos of this moment. When we reach our goal, we?re going to make sure Pompeo ??and the incoming Biden administration ??can?t ignore us. Please sign and share widely now.* *Make no mistake, this policy is not about Jewish safety ??in fact, it?s dangerous for Jews.* Pompeo?s false charge of antisemitism is particularly harmful and contemptible at a time when actual antisemitism is a real and growing threat in America and the world. And it?s especially disingenuous coming from an administration that has openly embraced white nationalists, evangelical antisemitism, and outright neo-Nazis.? As a Jewish and proudly pro-BDS organization, we know that using our grassroots power to fight for equality, justice, and freedom for Palestinians is a powerful expression of our own Jewish tradition. *Join us in saying: Working towards Palestinian freedom is not ? and never has been ? antisemitic.* head shot ? Beth Miller Government Affairs Manager ? You are receiving this email because you are a core supporter of JVP Action,?a multiracial, intergenerational movement of Jews and allies?working toward justice and equality in Israel/Palestine by transforming U.S. policy. We are an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(4)?organization formed as the political and advocacy arm of Jewish Voice for Peace . If you are receiving this email in error, you can unsubscribe anytime. * DONATE * FACEBOOK * TWITTER www.jvpaction.org 712 H Street NE, Suite 1363 Washington, D.C. 20002 This email was sent to stuartnlevy at gmail.com 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 bill.strutz at gmail.com Sat Nov 21 05:07:41 2020 From: bill.strutz at gmail.com (Bill Strutz) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 23:07:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INTENT TO EXECUTE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I suppose he'll pardon turkeys for Thanksgiving, but he's coming down hard on human prisoners. --Bill On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:22 AM Szoke, Ron wrote: > WASHINGTON ? In the final weeks of President Trump?s term, his > administration intends to execute three inmates on federal death row, the > last scheduled executions by the Justice Department before the inauguration > of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has signaled he will end > federal use of capital punishment. > > Since July, when it resumed carrying out the death penalty after a 17-year > hiatus, the Trump administration has executed seven federal inmates. Weeks > before Mr. Biden is sworn in, the three inmates face the prospect of being > the last federal prisoners to die by capital punishment for at least as > long as Mr. Biden remains in office. > > Orlando Cordia Hall, 49, convicted in the brutal death of a teenage girl, > is scheduled to be executed on Thursday. Two other prisoners are to be > executed in December, including Lisa M. Montgomery, the only woman on > federal death row. > > Mr. Biden has pledged to eliminate the death penalty. His campaign > promised to work to pass legislation to end capital punishment on the > federal level and offer incentives to states to follow suit. An aide > reiterated Mr. Biden?s platform when asked how he planned to do so and did > not respond to requests for comment on the scheduled executions. > > The Justice Department under Mr. Trump resumed federal capital punishment > this summer after a nearly two-decade informal moratorium. Before then, > only three people had been executed by the federal government in the past > 50 years, according to Bureau of Prisons data. > > Federal executions during a transition of power are extremely unusual, > according to Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty > Information Center. He said that presidents have generally deferred to > incoming administrations. > > ?This is another part of the Trump legacy that?s inconsistent with > American norms,? he said. ?If the administration followed the normal rules > of civility that have been followed throughout the history in this country, > it wouldn?t be an issue. The executions wouldn?t go forward.? > > The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment about the > timing of the executions. > > ? Hailey Fuchs NYT 11/19/20 > > INTENT TO EXECUTE The Trump administration continues to carry out capital > punishment for federal crimes even though President-elect Biden has > signaled he will reverse the policy. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *My name is a complete sentence* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill.strutz at gmail.com Sat Nov 21 05:07:41 2020 From: bill.strutz at gmail.com (Bill Strutz) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 23:07:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INTENT TO EXECUTE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I suppose he'll pardon turkeys for Thanksgiving, but he's coming down hard on human prisoners. --Bill On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:22 AM Szoke, Ron wrote: > WASHINGTON ? In the final weeks of President Trump?s term, his > administration intends to execute three inmates on federal death row, the > last scheduled executions by the Justice Department before the inauguration > of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has signaled he will end > federal use of capital punishment. > > Since July, when it resumed carrying out the death penalty after a 17-year > hiatus, the Trump administration has executed seven federal inmates. Weeks > before Mr. Biden is sworn in, the three inmates face the prospect of being > the last federal prisoners to die by capital punishment for at least as > long as Mr. Biden remains in office. > > Orlando Cordia Hall, 49, convicted in the brutal death of a teenage girl, > is scheduled to be executed on Thursday. Two other prisoners are to be > executed in December, including Lisa M. Montgomery, the only woman on > federal death row. > > Mr. Biden has pledged to eliminate the death penalty. His campaign > promised to work to pass legislation to end capital punishment on the > federal level and offer incentives to states to follow suit. An aide > reiterated Mr. Biden?s platform when asked how he planned to do so and did > not respond to requests for comment on the scheduled executions. > > The Justice Department under Mr. Trump resumed federal capital punishment > this summer after a nearly two-decade informal moratorium. Before then, > only three people had been executed by the federal government in the past > 50 years, according to Bureau of Prisons data. > > Federal executions during a transition of power are extremely unusual, > according to Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty > Information Center. He said that presidents have generally deferred to > incoming administrations. > > ?This is another part of the Trump legacy that?s inconsistent with > American norms,? he said. ?If the administration followed the normal rules > of civility that have been followed throughout the history in this country, > it wouldn?t be an issue. The executions wouldn?t go forward.? > > The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment about the > timing of the executions. > > ? Hailey Fuchs NYT 11/19/20 > > INTENT TO EXECUTE The Trump administration continues to carry out capital > punishment for federal crimes even though President-elect Biden has > signaled he will reverse the policy. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *My name is a complete sentence* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Nov 21 06:31:01 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 06:31:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Contested locutions Message-ID: Pop quiz: Define these terms of art as used in recent political debates fantastic where s/he is coming from tell my/your/their story shelter in place lawyer up rule of law law & order landslide patriot freedom liberty liberal conservative communist fascist leftist bizarre witch hunt affidavit demagog[ue] charlatan honesty truth reality integrity dignity streamline clarify backfire be careful what you wish for no stone unturned/unthrown allege => Keep in mind that I routinely deny the allegation & defy the alligator. ~ RSz. ? From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Nov 21 06:31:01 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 06:31:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Contested locutions Message-ID: Pop quiz: Define these terms of art as used in recent political debates fantastic where s/he is coming from tell my/your/their story shelter in place lawyer up rule of law law & order landslide patriot freedom liberty liberal conservative communist fascist leftist bizarre witch hunt affidavit demagog[ue] charlatan honesty truth reality integrity dignity streamline clarify backfire be careful what you wish for no stone unturned/unthrown allege => Keep in mind that I routinely deny the allegation & defy the alligator. ~ RSz. ? From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Nov 22 18:07:56 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 12:07:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recommended videos for AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and Labor's World View TV Message-ID: <9afe368f-cf8a-19f2-f56c-2650fa41ec2c@forestfield.org> Here are the video suggestions I've sent to Jason Liggett of UPTV to run during AWARE on the Air, News from Neptune, and Labor's World View TV's timeslots. As before, I've asked Jason to prioritize AWARE member suggested videos ahead of my suggestions for AOTA/NFN and to prioritize anything David Johnson prefers for Labor's World View TV. I've got some family events coming up which will require my attention so I might not be able to submit new videos next week. There should be enough here and what I submitted as suggestions previously to keep the timeslots filled with like-minded content for a couple of weeks. David Johnson also told UPTV about "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy) which will run on UPTV on Thursday, November 26 from 7-9 PM: Thanks. -J acTVism https://youtube.com/watch?v=OxJ9eVF-c2w -- (1h 4m) Australian whistleblower David McBride exposes war crimes in Afghanistan. Grayzone https://youtube.com/watch?v=GmZhz-0Ds2Y -- (50m 34s) Key Mueller witness exposes key Russiagate lies in interview with Aaron Mat?. https://youtube.com/watch?v=SstDuYVbPY8 -- (22m 10s) Biggest trade deal in history excludes U.S. https://youtube.com/watch?v=5H5P9Mewq6A -- (20m 27s) Biden "chief propagandist" opposes free press. https://youtube.com/watch?v=l4ZmeyF6tRA -- (16m 3s) How Pompeo bulled Sudan into Israel normalization. Shadowproof https://youtube.com/watch?v=0js62L2ohYs -- (57m 2s) "Unauthorized Disclosure: Interview With Danny Haiphong On US Foreign Policy Under President Biden" Mint Press News https://youtube.com/watch?v=o4g1PPGCfuQ -- (17m 13s) "How Joe Biden Plans to Make The American Empire Great Again" -- Dan Cohen on who will likely head up high-ranking positions in the upcoming Biden/Harris administration, focusing on Michele Flournoy & Anthony Blinken. Old names are coming back, continuing illegal and unethical wars from the Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, Obama/Biden, and Trump/Pence administrations. In other words, all available evidence shows that Biden/Harris will be no antidote to Trump/Pence because the policies will remain overwhelmingly the same (perhaps only changing by increasing their lethality). The next administration looks to merely continue the aggression the US is widely known for. Cohen's report is an excellent summary of recent wars, the lies that launched & sustained these wars, carried out all with the cooperation of the establishment media. Consortium News https://youtube.com/watch?v=m6qHto3D0xE -- (1h 21m 50s) "FREE PRESS = PRESS ASSANGE, with Dan Ellsberg, Marjorie Cohn & Joe Lauria" explaining the threat of Julian Assange's detention (even beyond that which can be explained by his purposefully skipping bail), his torture in prison (which was called torture by a special UN rapporteur on torture), his risk of exposure to COVID-19 even as other prisoners are let go, and questionable UK sovereignty because the UK government is doing this at the behest of the US government. RT https://youtube.com/watch?v=-4eQYffAnYc -- (27m 18s) Dr. Margaret Flowers on COVID-19 and America's health care crisis in interview with Chris Hedges. Transcript: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/507334-covid19-america-health-crisis/ should show up at this URL shortly. From jbn at forestfield.org Mon Nov 23 04:59:57 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:59:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Full Glenn Greenwald interview with Jimmy Dore -- https://youtube.com/watch?v=K_xmYwr6qt8 In-Reply-To: References: <3ef8b732-34ec-b180-f4c1-d0f4f51a19d0@forestfield.org> Message-ID: The full 1h 26m interview has been published: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K_xmYwr6qt8 It's worth the time to watch or hear. From moboct1 at aim.com Tue Nov 24 18:25:27 2020 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:25:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Winkin, Blinken & NOD--Obama Foreign Policy Redux In-Reply-To: <1473470718.1188856.1606230860037@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1473470718.1188856.1606230860037.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1473470718.1188856.1606230860037@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <697128626.1256362.1606242327977@mail.yahoo.com> Tony Blinken, POTUS-elect Biden's nod for Secy of State, will serve Biden and DNC like the good Neocon his past record has proven.? ?More of the same Obama-Biden (or Biden-Obama): "May God Bless America.? May God bless our troops!"? Hello Bibi!?Ho Hum--or should we say: time for peace activists to get to work! mo'b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Nov 25 02:45:22 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Pop Quiz II 112420 Message-ID: For extra credit: What is the correct definition of these terms as used in recent political debates ? alternate (alt- ) sycophant yes-man / woman ass-kisser democracy socialism republic looting capitalism anarchy plutocracy kleptocracy kakistocracy meritocracy freedom of speech sincere contrarian defund dog whistle dumpster fire train wreck fight / fighter war winner loser success failure narcissist troll repellent revulsion puke As in ?You make me PUKE ! ? ? Monty Python, passim From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Nov 25 02:45:22 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Pop Quiz II 112420 Message-ID: For extra credit: What is the correct definition of these terms as used in recent political debates ? alternate (alt- ) sycophant yes-man / woman ass-kisser democracy socialism republic looting capitalism anarchy plutocracy kleptocracy kakistocracy meritocracy freedom of speech sincere contrarian defund dog whistle dumpster fire train wreck fight / fighter war winner loser success failure narcissist troll repellent revulsion puke As in ?You make me PUKE ! ? ? Monty Python, passim From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 26 05:28:25 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 05:28:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Intent to Execute Message-ID: Trump pushing through dozens of last minute policy changes ? including use of firing squads Alex Woodward Independent, Wed, November 25, 2020 Donald Trump has sought fast-track authorisation for several administration-wide policy changes before he leaves the White House in January, including the use of firing squads and electrocutions in federal executions, according to a report from ProPublica. The Department of Justice entered a proposed rule change into the federal register in August. It cleared a White House review earlier this month, and the president could authorise the policy before he leaves office. Federal executions are typically carried about by lethal injection, unless a judge orders a person to death by other means. According to the proposed rule change, the administration claims that ?death by firing squad and death by electrocution do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?. The proposal argues: ?In recent US Supreme Court litigation involving Eighth Amendment challenges to execution by lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia and firing squad have been identified as potential alternative methods of execution, including by prisoners themselves, that might ? or even must? be used instead of lethal injection, in particular because those methods allegedly carry a lesser risk of pain." It?s unlikely that the rule could be put into practise ? president-elect Joe Biden does not support the death penalty and has signalled that he could seek to eliminate capital punishment for felony convictions and suspend federal executions, which Attorney General William Barr aggressively pursued after he was sworn in last year. Federal executions resumed for the first time in 17 years in July, following a divided Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for their return. Daniel Lee was killed in Indiana following a conviction for the murder of a family of three in Arkansas in 1996. The Associated Press reporter present for his killing said his last words were "you?re killing an innocent man." Orlando Cordia Hall was executed on 19 November. In the remaining weeks of the Trump administration, the federal government will kill five more people ? Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois, Dustin Higgins, Corey Johnson and Lisa Montgomery, who will be the first female federal inmate to be executed in decades. ? ? From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 26 05:28:25 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 05:28:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Intent to Execute Message-ID: Trump pushing through dozens of last minute policy changes ? including use of firing squads Alex Woodward Independent, Wed, November 25, 2020 Donald Trump has sought fast-track authorisation for several administration-wide policy changes before he leaves the White House in January, including the use of firing squads and electrocutions in federal executions, according to a report from ProPublica. The Department of Justice entered a proposed rule change into the federal register in August. It cleared a White House review earlier this month, and the president could authorise the policy before he leaves office. Federal executions are typically carried about by lethal injection, unless a judge orders a person to death by other means. According to the proposed rule change, the administration claims that ?death by firing squad and death by electrocution do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?. The proposal argues: ?In recent US Supreme Court litigation involving Eighth Amendment challenges to execution by lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia and firing squad have been identified as potential alternative methods of execution, including by prisoners themselves, that might ? or even must? be used instead of lethal injection, in particular because those methods allegedly carry a lesser risk of pain." It?s unlikely that the rule could be put into practise ? president-elect Joe Biden does not support the death penalty and has signalled that he could seek to eliminate capital punishment for felony convictions and suspend federal executions, which Attorney General William Barr aggressively pursued after he was sworn in last year. Federal executions resumed for the first time in 17 years in July, following a divided Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for their return. Daniel Lee was killed in Indiana following a conviction for the murder of a family of three in Arkansas in 1996. The Associated Press reporter present for his killing said his last words were "you?re killing an innocent man." Orlando Cordia Hall was executed on 19 November. In the remaining weeks of the Trump administration, the federal government will kill five more people ? Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois, Dustin Higgins, Corey Johnson and Lisa Montgomery, who will be the first female federal inmate to be executed in decades. ? ? From mkb3 at mac.com Thu Nov 26 05:35:35 2020 From: mkb3 at mac.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 23:35:35 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Bacevich_on_our_wars=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <79902E7C-2851-4741-975B-8BBAE448CFD1@mac.com> A ?realist? perspective, which gives Trump some credit: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176778/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_yes%2C_it%27s_time_to_come_home/#more My reticience about Basevich?s writing is that he never considers the damage done by ?our? wars to those coutries we undermine and invade. Yet his perspective has worth. ?mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Nov 27 04:50:32 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 04:50:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Intent to Execute Message-ID: Trump pushing through dozens of last minute policy changes ? including use of firing squads Alex Woodward Independent, Wed, November 25, 2020 Donald Trump has sought fast-track authorization for several administration-wide policy changes before he leaves the White House in January, including the use of firing squads and electrocutions in federal executions, according to a report from ProPublica. The Department of Justice entered a proposed rule change into the federal register in August. It cleared a White House review earlier this month, and the president could authorise the policy before he leaves office. Federal executions are typically carried about by lethal injection, unless a judge orders a person to death by other means. According to the proposed rule change, the administration claims that ?death by firing squad and death by electrocution do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?. The proposal argues: ?In recent US Supreme Court litigation involving Eighth Amendment challenges to execution by lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia and firing squad have been identified as potential alternative methods of execution, including by prisoners themselves, that might ? or even must? be used instead of lethal injection, in particular because those methods allegedly carry a lesser risk of pain." It?s unlikely that the rule could be put into practice ? president-elect Joe Biden does not support the death penalty and has signalled that he could seek to eliminate capital punishment for felony convictions and suspend federal executions, which Attorney General William Barr aggressively pursued after he was sworn in last year. Federal executions resumed for the first time in 17 years in July, following a divided Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for their return. Daniel Lee was killed in Indiana following a conviction for the murder of a family of three in Arkansas in 1996. The Associated Press reporter present for his killing said his last words were "you?re killing an innocent man." Orlando Cordia Hall was executed on 19 November. In the remaining weeks of the Trump administration, the federal government will kill five more people ? Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois, Dustin Higgins, Corey Johnson and Lisa Montgomery, who will be the first female federal inmate to be executed in decades. ? ? From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Nov 27 04:50:32 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 04:50:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Intent to Execute Message-ID: Trump pushing through dozens of last minute policy changes ? including use of firing squads Alex Woodward Independent, Wed, November 25, 2020 Donald Trump has sought fast-track authorization for several administration-wide policy changes before he leaves the White House in January, including the use of firing squads and electrocutions in federal executions, according to a report from ProPublica. The Department of Justice entered a proposed rule change into the federal register in August. It cleared a White House review earlier this month, and the president could authorise the policy before he leaves office. Federal executions are typically carried about by lethal injection, unless a judge orders a person to death by other means. According to the proposed rule change, the administration claims that ?death by firing squad and death by electrocution do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?. The proposal argues: ?In recent US Supreme Court litigation involving Eighth Amendment challenges to execution by lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia and firing squad have been identified as potential alternative methods of execution, including by prisoners themselves, that might ? or even must? be used instead of lethal injection, in particular because those methods allegedly carry a lesser risk of pain." It?s unlikely that the rule could be put into practice ? president-elect Joe Biden does not support the death penalty and has signalled that he could seek to eliminate capital punishment for felony convictions and suspend federal executions, which Attorney General William Barr aggressively pursued after he was sworn in last year. Federal executions resumed for the first time in 17 years in July, following a divided Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for their return. Daniel Lee was killed in Indiana following a conviction for the murder of a family of three in Arkansas in 1996. The Associated Press reporter present for his killing said his last words were "you?re killing an innocent man." Orlando Cordia Hall was executed on 19 November. In the remaining weeks of the Trump administration, the federal government will kill five more people ? Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois, Dustin Higgins, Corey Johnson and Lisa Montgomery, who will be the first female federal inmate to be executed in decades. ? ? From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Nov 27 23:18:43 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:18:43 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore on Medicare for All: "House Progressives can FORCE a Medicare for All Vote Now -- Here's How!" Message-ID: <986bd9e9-fa28-c8e8-63a4-0effb61dae5c@forestfield.org> https://youtube.com/watch?v=iIqw-mTX6ro -- "House Progressives can FORCE a Medicare for All Vote Now -- Here's How!" One of the more important Jimmy Dore segments given that we're in the midst of a pandemic, millions are losing their jobs (and thus whatever healthcare came with that job, if any), and their ability to pay for privatized healthcare. Jimmy Dore strongly encourages us to urge 15 self-styled progressive Congresspeople to push for bringing a Medicare for All bill to the floor of the House for a vote by telling them that they will not vote for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker unless Pelosi brings a Medicare for All bill to the floor for a vote (such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal's (WA-07) Medicare for All bill, H.R. 1384 -- https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384). Jimmy Dore names 15 Congresspeople who (given their rhetoric) should be amenable to such a demand of them and then asked: > Jimmy Dore: If you voted for them, please ask them: are you fighters or are you > careerists? Are you activists for the people or are you posers on Twitter? Is > healthcare just a carrot to dangle in front of voters so you can win your next > election[1] or are you gonna fight for it? Here's your chance: people's lives hang > in the balance. He also, again rightly, wants everyone in independent media to join him in this mission. I think that Jimmy Dore's advocacy here is quite wise and appropriate to push for and achieve. The US healthcare delivery system is not working for the vast majority of us. Therefore we can't wait until some other set of conditions arises (no matter what that is, be it a popular corporatist trope like 'wait for Biden to take office' or 'wait for the midterm elections to change Congress', or anything else). Medicare for All won't come about without dedicated persistent political action taken together. Medicare for All is an easy sell to the public: most people want Medicare for All regardless of party affiliation and most independents want Medicare for All too. Nancy Pelosi opposes Medicare for All and she seeks to remain Speaker. So now is the time to tell Congress to not vote for Pelosi as House Speaker unless Medicare for All is put on the floor of the House for a vote. Mark Pocan Progressive Caucus, Co-Chair Phone: 202-225-2906 Pramila Jayapal Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Phone: 202-225-3106 [1] The correlation between Congresspeople who recently ran for election and their stance on Medicare for All is telling but not at all surprising: those who won were those who backed Medicare for All. Those who lost were those who did not back Medicare for All. From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Nov 28 05:55:18 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 23:55:18 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore on Medicare for All: "House Progressives can FORCE a Medicare for All Vote Now -- Here's How!" In-Reply-To: <986bd9e9-fa28-c8e8-63a4-0effb61dae5c@forestfield.org> References: <986bd9e9-fa28-c8e8-63a4-0effb61dae5c@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <77d5fc8e-56f9-2e0a-c91e-a7b0d264ebf8@forestfield.org> You wrote: > https://youtube.com/watch?v=iIqw-mTX6ro -- "House Progressives can FORCE a > Medicare for All Vote Now -- Here's How!" > > One of the more important Jimmy Dore segments given that we're in the midst of a > pandemic, millions are losing their jobs (and thus whatever healthcare came with > that job, if any), and their ability to pay for privatized healthcare. > > Jimmy Dore strongly encourages us to urge 15 self-styled progressive > Congresspeople to push for bringing a Medicare for All bill to the floor of the > House for a vote by telling them that they will not vote for Nancy Pelosi as House > Speaker unless Pelosi brings a Medicare for All bill to the floor for a vote (such > as Rep. Pramila Jayapal's (WA-07) Medicare for All bill, H.R. 1384 -- > https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384). Jimmy Dore names > 15 Congresspeople who (given their rhetoric) should be amenable to such a demand > of them and then asked: To go along with this, I recommend also watching https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/507334-covid19-america-health-crisis/ which is Dr. Margaret Flowers, long-time advocate for single-payer universal healthcare and Medicare for All, interviewed by Chris Hedges. There's a video and transcript there and I'm sure there will be a higher resolution copy of this on YouTube soon ("On Contact" usually appears on Sundays on the RT America or RT channel). An earlier Hedges interview with Dr. Flowers is https://tube.cadence.moe/watch?v=uVHa_yS2aGk and is also worth watching. It puts many healthcare policies into perspective. Among them: reiterating the truth that liberals often don't want to acknowledge -- when Mitt Romney ran against Barack Obama it wouldn't have made any difference who won in terms of healthcare because what we got from the Obama/Biden administration was essentially what had already been tested under Gov. Romney -- the 2006 Heritage Foundation-written healthcare plan Gov. Romney put into action in Massachusetts colloquially known as "RomneyCare" is largely the same as what became the ACA ("ObamaCare"). This is also a point Jimmy Dore makes from time to time and it's a good reminder of how narrow the range of allowable debate is in this corporate-owned country. From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Nov 28 06:00:29 2020 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 00:00:29 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Jimmy Dore on Medicare for All: "House Progressives can FORCE a Medicare for All Vote Now -- Here's How!" In-Reply-To: <77d5fc8e-56f9-2e0a-c91e-a7b0d264ebf8@forestfield.org> References: <986bd9e9-fa28-c8e8-63a4-0effb61dae5c@forestfield.org> <77d5fc8e-56f9-2e0a-c91e-a7b0d264ebf8@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <68dd15c9-685e-e5c9-daf6-92d5c34bc338@forestfield.org> I wrote: > There's a video and transcript there and I'm sure there will be a higher > resolution copy of this on YouTube soon [...] https://youtube.com/watch?v=-4eQYffAnYc is that higher-res version and it's online now. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Nov 28 18:17:22 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:17:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumpian reversion to barbarism ? Message-ID: The Root Trump Administration Fast Tracking Executions and Trying to Bring Back Firing Squads Before Biden's Inauguration Ishena Robinson Sat, November 28, 2020, 10:15 AM CST ? ?HuffPost New Rule To Allow Use Of Firing Squads, Electrocution For Federal Executions Liza Hearon?Editor, Breaking News, HuffPost Fri, November 27, 2020, 9:00 AM CST --- From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Nov 28 18:17:22 2020 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:17:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumpian reversion to barbarism ? Message-ID: The Root Trump Administration Fast Tracking Executions and Trying to Bring Back Firing Squads Before Biden's Inauguration Ishena Robinson Sat, November 28, 2020, 10:15 AM CST ? ?HuffPost New Rule To Allow Use Of Firing Squads, Electrocution For Federal Executions Liza Hearon?Editor, Breaking News, HuffPost Fri, November 27, 2020, 9:00 AM CST --- From mkb3 at mac.com Sun Nov 29 20:05:39 2020 From: mkb3 at mac.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 14:05:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=F0=9F=8E=A7_ZCommunications/ZN?= =?utf-8?q?et=27s_new_release=3A_=22Ep_101_-_Q/A_-_Talking_About_Noam_Chom?= =?utf-8?q?sky=22?= References: <20201129161705.1.CBADE3E542B06AE8@mailgun.patreon.com> Message-ID: Interesting presentation about the person many think of as one of the worlds most prominent intellectuals. By Michael Albert, MIT person and rdical, who has known and interacted with Chomsky for over 50 years. > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Patreon > Subject: ? ZCommunications/ZNet's new release: "Ep 101 - Q/A - Talking About Noam Chomsky" > Date: November 29, 2020 at 10:17:05 AM CST > To: M. K. Brussel > > ZCommunications/ZNet > > Ep 101 - Q/A - Talking About Noam Chomsky > > Listen on Patreon > This is Episode 101 of the podcast titled RevolutionZ. It is a new entry in the Question and Answer stream of episodes and this time the questions and answers are about a person, our guest in episode 100, Noam Chomsky. The questions are ones I, Michael Albert, have been asked about Noam over the years, which I try to answer as best I can in an audio exchange of this sort. > > Listen now > > Get the Patreon app > > > Patreon Inc. > 600 Townsend St, San Francisco, CA 94103 > This email was sent to mkb3 at icloud.com > Manage email settings -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Nov 30 22:21:38 2020 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:21:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] An astonishing discussion Message-ID: <506EEB6A-8604-4087-950B-688FAECFF69C@illinois.edu> This is long, and probably you may not be tempted to listen, but I found it truly remarkable. It started with a discussion, mostly with an Australian journalist, about the gruesome atrocities revealed recently by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. But the discussion widens broadly to what should concern everybody about what their leaders/nations do, what the media does, and why. And what will probbly be the result. Peter Cronau is the Australian journalist who speaks from a marvelous and informed open mind. Ann Wright is a former American military officer and diplomat. The show is due to Joe Lauria who runs the website Consortium News. It should be a must listen, but unfortunately very few will take it in. You have an opportunity. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/11/28/watch-cn-live-new-episode-war-crimes/ ?mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: