[Peace-discuss] NfN/AOTA notes

[J.B. Nicholson]

Elections: Ballot mishandling is purposeful and planned

https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/new-york-city-purged-voters-2016-it-wasnt-mistake.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T0Is5AZW9M
Video of Broward County, Florida ballot mishandling including:

- transporting ballots without supervision (there's nobody to see what 
happens to the ballots)

- blocking candidate ballot observers from seeing what's going on with the 
ballots (preventing the observer from doing their job)

- separating ballots according to mysterious criteria (why not feed all of 
the ballots into a ballot reader machine?)

The video Niko House talks about (and seen in the aforementioned URL) is 
the cause of lawsuits and recount efforts in Florida now. Tim Canova is 
running against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (yes, that Debbie 
Wasserman-Schultz) again and Canova is, thanks to unfair and illegal 
practices like those shown in the video, losing votes.

Broward County supervisor of elections Brenda Snipes is also back in the 
news; she admitted in court that she illegally destroyed all of the ballots 
in Canova's 2016 election. Thanks to rampant corruption she still has her 
job and is working with Wasserman Schultz again.



Exploitation: Poor Mexicans see a spike in type-2 diabetes due to replacing 
water with Coca-Cola.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNsCGrkyYHw -- Poor residents of Chiapas, 
Mexico drink about 2 liters of Coca-Cola per day because it's cheap, 
cheaper than water. We're told that here Coca-Cola is used as a form of 
currency for people too poor to pay for goods and services with money. As a 
result their blood sugar spikes beyond their bodies ability to handle it, 
and predictable chronic illnesses of obesity and sugar intake result: 
type-2 diabetes. One can expect predictable consequences of this corporate 
manipulation into what is essentially a large-scale food desert including 
earlier deaths.


Exploitation: California fires are an opportunity to exploit prisoners

30% of California's forest firefighters are prisoners
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/08/40-percent-californias-fires-are-fought-prison-inmates/

> Between 30 and 40 percent of California’s forest firefighters are state
> prison inmates. The state has become a tinderbox of sorts from a
> four-year drought, and roughly 4,000 low-level felons are on the front
> lines of the state’s active fires. Here’s what’s going on:
> 
> Why are prisoners fighting fires? For years, California’s prison system
> has operated a number of “conservation camps,” in which low-level felons
> in the state prison system volunteer to do manual labor outside, like
> clearing brush to prevent forest fires or fighting the fires themselves.
> A handful of other states have similar programs, but California’s
> program is by far the largest, with roughly 4,000 participants. At its
> best, the program is a win-win situation: Inmates learn useful skills
> and spend time outside the normal confines of prison, and the
> collaboration with Cal Fire saves the state roughly $80 million a year.
> 
> Participants make $2 per day in the program and $2 an hour when they’re
> on a fire line. That may sound paltry, though it’s not bad by prison
> standards: Many prison jobs bring in less than $1 per hour. In addition,
> for each day they work in the program, the inmates receive a two-day
> reduction from their sentences.
> 
> So these are convicted felons? Yes—the prisoners are typically low-level
> felons, all of whom have volunteered to participate in the program and
> have demonstrated good behavior in prison. Some convictions exclude
> prisoners from applying, like arson (surprise, surprise) or sex crimes.
> One benefit of the program is that it often breaks down racial barriers:
> “When people are incarcerated they tend to segregate by race,” says
> Hadar Aviram, a law professor and criminologist at the University of
> California-Hastings. “The fire camps are not like that. People who do
> not associate with each other inside a prison are willing to be friends
> when they’re at a fire camp.”
> 
> As California reforms its prison system and more low-level offenders are
> sent home sooner, the state may have to entertain the idea of including
> more violent offenders in the firefighting ranks.



This week's irony alert: George W. Bush was given the "Liberty Medal", an 
award "given for leadership in the pursuit of freedom" by the National 
Constitution Center. Not only is getting a minor boost here, corporate 
media sycophants want in on praising Bush as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL0M13CDFQo -- Comics have been remarkably 
supportive of the Permanent Government/Deep State and its apparent desire 
to rewrite G.W. Bush's image. All of the comedy news programs are hosted by 
comics and all of them except RT's "Redacted Tonight" spend most of their 
time either distracting people away from any critique of G.W. Bush's and 
Obama's policies (such as the many wars they got the US into and/or 
sustained), or these shows engage in minimizing those presidents illegal 
and unethical choices. The preferred form of distraction seems to be Trump 
Derangement Syndrome -- doing whatever they can to make the past seem 
brighter than it was so they can justify quips which aim to make Pres. 
Trump seem uniquely horrible. One pattern stands out -- looking back on 
G.W. Bush with rose-colored glasses:

- Joy Behar of daytime talk show 'The View' said "I like George W. Bush now!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yQd9O4MJTE

- Margaret Cho spoke with Larry King on his RT program ("Politicking") and 
she said she "misses" George W. Bush now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMooJf0FaJo

- Ellen DeGeneres had George W. Bush on her daytime talk show ("Ellen") to 
promote his art book. She danced with him, reminisced about his trouble 
wearing a rain poncho at Donald Trump's inauguration, and she took smiling 
promotional selfies with him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK6D8rCj6eM

Stand-up comic Brooks Whelan came pointed out the shift in perception 
(which I'd call hypocrisy) about Bush around 18m49s into his Comedy Central 
stand-up routine:

> I want Obama to leave office just so he is liked again. That's what I 
> want him to leave. (audience laughs) You know what I mean? That's why I
> want him to leave. Just so he's liked again.
> 
> Because when you're president, you just get blamed for everything. Like,
> if someone loses their job, they're like, "Obama!" (angrily makes fist)
> Like...It's, like, no, you're a racist drunk at your job, dude. Like,
> that's why you got fired, like... 'Cause once you're not president,
> you're just an old celebrity, that's all you are. And that's the most
> fun thing to be in the world. Like, think about it, remember how mad
> everyone was at George Bush. Everyone was like, "He's killing
> everybody!"
> 
> And now we're like, "Look at what he's painting over there. (laughs)
> "Look at that. He's drawing his dad. Can you believe that?"

but then went on to stump for Hillary Clinton saying he wanted to see Bill 
Clinton have nothing to do and become the star of a reality TV show 
focusing on what he'd do with his copious spare time.





Hillary Clinton still in the news: she tells Europe to stem refugee flow to 
avoid 'populist politics'

https://on.rt.com/9j45 -- Quoting the article:

> Speaking to the Guardian as part of a series of interviews with “senior
> centrist political figures” about the rise of right-wing populism,
> Clinton mused that Europe “needs to get a handle on migration” because
> the influx of refugees from the Middle East and Africa in recent years
> is “what lit the flame” of support for anti-immigration political
> figures.

[...]

> The NATO-led ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Libya — a decision which
> Clinton herself was instrumental in making — turned what was once the
> richest country in Africa, into a failed state and hotbed for terrorism
> and the slave trade. “We came, we saw, he died!” Clinton exclaimed
> cheerfully upon hearing the news of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal
> death, during which he was sodomized with a bayonet by rebels.

One twitter user (Ronan Burtenshaw (@ronanburtenshaw)) concluded she'd get 
another bite at the POTUS apple:

https://twitter.com/ronanburtenshaw/status/1065611722675953664

> She's running. And it's going to be a complete disaster. Again.

Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) pointed out in 
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1065619607606738944 :

> Clinton says Europe should make clear that “we are not going to be able
> to continue provide refuge & support.” Isn’t this the attitude we
> denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton’s regime wars in Libya &
> Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the migration she wants to stop.







War: Support for war and "Being Saudi Arabia's bitch"

https://on.rt.com/9j5b -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) gets quite a supportive 
writeup on RT.com for what was called "a blistering criticism of President 
Trump" which was said to "shak[e] up the Dem Party establishment".

Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) wrote in 
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1065289231977738240 :

> Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”

But how much of a divergence from the status quo does Rep. Gabbard really pose?

In January she was interviewed by Jeremy Scahill for his audio show 
"Intercepted":

Transcript: 
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/

Audio: https://player.megaphone.fm/PPY1407171456

She talked about the DPRK sanctions and the (still ongoing) so-called 
"denuclearization" negotiations:

> Gabbard: I think the sanctions that have been put in place have been
> ineffective. If we look throughout history, through different
> administrations that have tried to enact sanctions to be able to spur
> these kinds of negotiations, they haven’t worked. You know, many of them
> because they either haven’t been put in place long enough to have an
> effect or they just simply were ineffective.
The sanctions aren't objectionable because they're "ineffective". They're 
objectionable because they're a form of economic warfare which harm the 
people of a country, not really its government. DPRK has shown they know 
how to get around the sanctions. They even show this off in interviews 
(such as documentaries where they have reasonably recent Internet-connected 
computer labs, for instance), but how about the people? How successful are 
ordinary DPRK citizens at securing their needs (not just high-tech needs, 
but food, water, healthcare, a livable home, etc.)? These should be the 
bases for objection to sanctions.

She comments on drone warfare:

> Gabbard: So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still
> believe that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces,
> surgical strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no
> long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and
> then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations
> where our military is not able to get in without creating an
> unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not
> causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties.

Drones kill civilians extrajudicially by design; literally anyone in the 
area of the euphemistically labeled "surgical strike" is killed. So clearly 
the term "surgical strike" is propaganda to deceive the US public into 
believing fewer people are being killed than really are (a clear sign that 
the US Government knows the American people are mostly anti-war and thus 
must be lied into war). The definition of "militant" seems to be any male 
of fighting age despite any evidence that that man fought the US. There's 
no US Government body count (the drone war is a secret war, after all) and 
the US Government does not know whom it is killing. The list of drone 
targets is ultimately determined without evidence, charges, trial, or 
debate and is arrived at singlehandedly by one person -- the US President 
-- in what are called "Terror Tuesday" meetings. The President is given a 
series of dossiers on candidates for drone murder (nicknamed "baseball 
cards") every Tuesday and then chooses whom to kill.

Here Rep. Gabbard is announcing she's a rank-and-file Democrat, really no 
different than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders on war, despite Gabbard's 
objection to occupying Iraq and attacking Libya. These are relatively easy 
objections to make because they pose no real threat to power but give the 
speaker some seemingly beneficial-looking press. As we see with the 
objections to the ongoing US-backed Saudi Arabian war in Yemen, US 
representatives can vociferously object to the killing while doing nothing 
to stop those killings.

Peter Bergen in The New York Times 
(https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/president-obama-warrior-in-chief.html) 
wrote:

> Compare Mr. Obama's use of drone strikes with that of his predecessor.
> During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in
> Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama
> administration, there was a drone strike there every four days.
It's been said that Gabbard might run for US President. If she becomes the 
next Democratic Party representative, it seems reasonable to ask: if she 
were elected, would Pres. Gabbard continue assassinating people via drones? 
Her own statements to date indicate that she would. Or would she escalate 
that further beyond Pres. Obama or Pres. Trump's level of assassination?

In 2013, Gabbard stated:

> I applaud the [Obama] Administration for clarifying that drone strikes
> on non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil are not and will not be
> authorized. I understand firsthand the value of using counter-terrorism
> warfare tactics and strategies overseas in dealing with 21st century
> threats. But these tactics should never be used against our own citizens
> here at home. Just as U.S. law enforcement strategies do not apply in
> war with a foreign enemy, drone strikes and other counter-terrorism
> tactics should not be targeting non-combatant U.S. citizens.
Source: 
http://gabbard.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-statement-on-the-administration-s-drone-policy

Source: 
http://mauitime.com/news/what-us-representative-tulsi-gabbard-thinks-about-republican-budgets-and-targeted-drone-killings/

Yet the drone war did kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen whom the US 
Government claims recruited and motivated people to work for al-Qaeda (but 
killed without charge, evidence, or any opportunity for inspection of 
evidence or rebuttal in a court of law). Two weeks later the US Government 
killed his 16-year-old, American citizen son Abdulrahman who had never been 
charged or convicted of any crime. Abdulrahman was killed as well as 
everyone he was having dinner with while he was visiting friends and family 
in Yemen. Both of these strikes occurred during the Obama administration. 
It's not known what offense Abdulrahman was said to have committed to 
deserve being killed, let alone killed extrajudicially. Both of these 
murders appear to be clear and straightforward unconstitutional due process 
violations. When asked to justify killing the minor, Robert Gibbs, Obama's 
press secretary, said Abdulrahman should have "had a more responsible 
father"[1] Under the Trump administration a SEAL team conducted a drone-led 
raid which included killing 30 people including al-Awlaki's 8-year-old 
daughter Nawar[2] and 10 women and children.

[1] 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

[2] 
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/

The bombing, droning, and killing civilians drove people into the arms of 
al-Qaeda[3].

[3] 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-yemen-us-airstrikes-breed-anger-and-sympathy-for-al-qaeda/2012/05/29/gJQAUmKI0U_story.html

In 
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/03/tulsi-gabbard-primary-challengers-hawaii/ 
Aída Chávez reminded us

> In 2015, she was one of 47 Democrats to join Republicans in passing the
> Security Against Foreign Enemies Act, a bill derived from heightened
> fear in the aftermath of the deadly Paris attacks which would have
> effectively blocked refugees from war-torn Syria and Iraq. (The bill did
> not make it through the Senate and never became law.)

When it comes to war and the effects of war, Rep. Gabbard seems rather down 
with the program, hardly a "blistering criticism" of anyone let alone G.W. 
Bush, Obama, or Trump's administrations and in no way "shaking up the Dem 
Party establishment" but instead confirming the Democratic Party's 
fundamental neoliberal and neoconservative choices.






War: Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHfwxtUvdQY -- When will the US respect 
Syria's sovereignty? Probably not until Syria stops being useful to the US.







War: The war party "mistakenly" casts votes blocking a resolution on ending 
the war in Yemen.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/yemen-war-house-resolution/ -- The 
Intercept tells us that

> Six House Democrats voted with the GOP to prevent any action
> on the Yemen war this legislative session. Two said they did
> it by accident.

More from Lee Fang's article:

> In a political maneuver that was equal parts bizarre and grimly
> predictable, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill moved yet again on
> Wednesday to block a vote to wind down U.S. military support for the war
> in Yemen, this time by tucking a parliamentary procedure into a rule
> governing legislation that removes gray wolves from the endangered
> species list.
> 
> The measure narrowly passed with a 201-187 vote, making it more
> difficult for the House to take action on the war in Yemen this
> legislative session.
> 
> What’s more, several of the co-sponsors of the Yemen resolution to end
> the war either voted to advance the wolf bill or abstained from the vote
> entirely, meaning that they played a part in preventing their own bill
> from reaching the House floor.
> 
> Adding to the confusion, two of the six House Democrats who joined
> Republicans in beating back the Yemen bill have told The Intercept that
> they cast their votes in error.
> 
> “Mr. Vela’s vote was actually mistake – we are in the process of
> changing it,” wrote Mickeala Carter, a spokesperson for Rep. Filemon
> Vela, D-Texas, who voted for the rule that prevented the Yemen vote.
> 
> Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the Yemen legislation,
> which invokes the 1973 War Powers Act to compel the Trump administration
> to remove U.S. forces from “hostilities” related to the Saudi Arabia-led
> intervention. Eshoo voted for the measure blocking her own resolution
> from reaching the floor, a move that puzzled human rights advocates.
> 
> “She is a cosponsor of the Resolution and made a mistake on the vote,”
> wrote Emma Crisci, a spokesperson for Eshoo’s office, in an email to The
> Intercept. “The Congresswoman is submitting a statement for the
> Congressional Record saying that she made a mistake in voting and meant
> to vote NO on the rule.”
> 
> Four other House Democrats — Reps. Gene Green and Vicente González of
> Texas, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and Jim Costa of California — also
> voted for the rule to prevent the Yemen bill from reaching the floor,
> and did not respond to a request for comment.




War: Afghanistan war is long, making Afghanistan worse, but should 
continue, according to Rep. Jim Banks.

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/20181122/afghanistan-moredangerous-thanbefore-banks-says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inBGK0qfSRQ -- Rep. Jim Banks says 
Afghanistan "feels like a more dangerous place" today than was when he was 
stationed there in 2014-2015. RT piece saying that war and occupation make 
more "terrorism".

But Rep. Banks says this war should continue.

> Banks, R-3rd, led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Afghanistan
> this week to receive briefings and show support for U.S. troops deployed
> there. The lawmaker is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
> 
> “I learned a lot and saw a lot that I didn't anticipate. The rise of
> ISIS-K is potentially a greater threat at this point than the Taliban,
> and that's a new development there,” he said in a telephone interview.
> 
> Banks and his six colleagues in the House arrived in Afghanistan on
> Sunday and left Tuesday about the time they learned of a suicide bombing
> in the Afghan capital Kabul that killed at least 55 people. The Taliban
> rebel movement denied involvement, and ISIS-K – also called
> ISIS-Khorasan, the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State terrorist
> organization – is suspected in the attack.

But don't let that deceive you into thinking Rep. Banks is calling for an 
end to the war in Afghanistan.

> Banks called on President Donald Trump to visit Afghanistan, something
> Trump indicated this week that he might do.
> 
> “I think he would benefit tremendously by going to Afghanistan, seeing
> the situation on the ground. ... Not to mention going there to show
> support for the troops,” Banks said.
> 
> In a series of tweets on Tuesday, Banks urged Trump to visit Afghanistan
> and for his administration to issue “a serious progress report to the
> American people” on its 2017 strategy for South Asia.
> 
> Asked whether the Trump administration should add to the 15,000 American
> troops in Afghanistan, Banks said, “I didn't go there to play general.”
> He also said he was “greatly impressed” with the leadership of Gen.
> Scott Miller, the commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
[...]
> “Until Afghanistan can have a stable government and a civil society, 
> which they will never have with the war with the Taliban, which appears 
> to be at a stalemate, it will be harder than ever for them to push out 
> ISIS-K or any other terrorist groups that reside within Afghanistan,” he
> [Rep. Banks] said.
> 
> “It remains a dangerous and tumultuous place, which is why our ongoing 
> efforts and commitment there are as important as they've ever been,” 
> Banks said. “That being said, the American people are weary of 17 going 
> on 18 years of the longest war in American history.”





War is up and all around the US, everywhere the US goes: Trump surpasses 
record for most bombs dropped in one year in Afghanistan: over 5,200...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIEJTgKhhAI -- ...and that's only through 
the end of September. The piece also gets into:

Cost of the "war on terror" so far: almost $6 trillion according to 
https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-war-on-terror-has-cost-taxpayers-5-6-trillion/

https://www.axios.com/global-terror-attacks-have-skyrocketed-since-911-34eec00f-ac8a-496f-8a30-3f3f6d054110.html 
says "Global terror attacks have skyrocketed since 9/11":

> There were more than 10,000 terrorist attacks worldwide last year — five
> times as many as there were the year of the Sept. 11 attacks, the leader
> of a new congressionally mandated task force on extremism told
> reporters.

[...]

> The incidents labeled as terror attacks include armed assault, 
> assassination, bombing/explosion, facility/infrastructure attack, 
> hijacking, hostage taking (barricade incident), hostage taking 
> (kidnapping) and unarmed assault.
> 
> Terror groups thrive on instability, a newly released report from the
> task force explains. Areas that have no solid governing power, are in
> the midst of a civil war or are suffering from a "breakdown of social
> order" are at the highest risk of fostering extremism.
> 
> * Per the report, 77% of conflicts in the Middle East, the Sahel region
> in Africa and the Horn of Africa "have a violent extremist element," up
> from 22% in 2001.
> 
> * But the damage brought on fragile states is only the beginning: "As
> more states suffer violent outbreaks of extremism ... international
> order unravels further."
> 
> * And extremism undermines regional influence and fuels chaos, the task
> force explains, allowing powers like Russia, Iran and China to exploit
> threats for their own economic and strategic purposes.
> 
> * Per the report, the U.S. "cannot compete effectively against China,
> Russia, or Iran as long as extremism fuels an arc of instability" in the
> region.
> 
> The bottom line: The report concludes that extremists are now focused on
> "establishing a new political order." The task force says the U.S.
> strategy must evolve into one of prevention, starting by strengthening
> the world's most at-risk states.
It seems to me that the "bottom line" is that the "war on terror" was meant 
to and is meant to create so-called "terrorism" (funny how our attacks are 
never called terrorism) and thus preventing us from experiencing another 
"enemies gap" as we were warned about so many years ago.

And the lack of indignation or anger over ongoing war. This is likely due 
to a Permanent Government/Deep State-compliant media that simply doesn't 
report repeatedly on war. If there's no "drumbeat" coverage, it won't 
matter. So the media is largely silent on war but they'll occasionally file 
something presumably so people can't complain there's absolutely no 
coverage. Any time there's a need for ramping up a new war we see the 
corporate media fall in line (watch clips from the run-up to the 2003 Iraq 
invasion for plenty of examples).










Economy: Anytime someone asks how the US can afford policy X, ask them we 
pay for it in the same way we apparently paid for the $21T the US DoD and 
HUD lost track of over 2 decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yIwMC1NDzY -- Pentagon fails its first 
audit. Despite the Dept. of Defense's own inspection general report showed 
that $21 trillion had gone unaccounted for by the Pentagon and the Dept. of 
Housing and Urban Development over the past 20 years ("Redacted Tonight" 
remains one of very few media sources that covers this story).

What could we buy for $21T? Basically every national policy we want 
including Medicare for All, ending homelessness, annual guaranteed income, 
free (gratis) college for all, national jobs program where everyone works a 
living wage job if they want to work, and more.









US and Saudi Arabia: still doing business, Trump administration continues 
the same line as previous American administrations -- this relationship is 
a national security matter.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/21/trumps-amoral-saudi-statement-is-a-pure-and-honest-expression-of-decades-old-u-s-values-and-foreign-policy-orthodoxies/ 
-- Glenn Greenwald on how Trump's continuing with Saudi Arabia is simply 
Trump repeating the exact same rationale used in the past (including by 
now-celebrated Obama & Hillary Clinton) to prop up and continue favorable 
relationships with world despots. Trump also gave (as Greenwald pointed 
out) his usual clarity in his speech leaving everyone informed as to the 
US' current position on the matter.

> Donald Trump on Tuesday issued a statement proclaiming that,
> notwithstanding the anger toward the Saudi Crown Prince over the
> gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, “the United States
> intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the
> interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region.”
> To justify his decision, Trump cited the fact that “Saudi Arabia is the
> largest oil producing nation in the world” and claimed that “of the $450
> billion [the Saudis plan to spend with U.S. companies], $110 billion
> will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing,
> Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other great U.S. defense
> contractors.”
> 
> This statement instantly and predictably produced pompous denunciations
> pretending that Trump’s posture was a deviation from, a grievous
> violation of, long-standing U.S. values and foreign policy rather than
> what it actually and obviously is: a perfect example – perhaps stated a
> little more bluntly and candidly than usual – of how the U.S. has
> conducted itself in the world since at least the end of World War II.
> 
> The reaction was so intense because the fairy tale about the U.S.
> standing up for freedom and human rights in the world is one of the most
> pervasive and powerful prongs of western propaganda, the one relied upon
> by U.S. political and media elites to convince not just the U.S.
> population but also themselves of their own righteousness, even as they
> spend decades lavishing the world’s worst tyrants and despots with
> weapons, money, intelligence and diplomatic protection to carry out
> atrocities of historic proportions.
> 
> After all, if you have worked in high-level foreign policy positions in
> Washington, or at the think thanks and academic institutions that
> support those policies, or in the corporate media outlets that venerate
> those who rise to the top of those precincts (and which increasingly
> hire those security state officials as news analysts), how do you
> justify to yourself that you’re still a good person even though you arm,
> prop up, empower and enable the world’s worst monsters, genocides, and
> tyrannies?
> 
> Simple: by pretending that you don’t do any of that, that such acts are
> contrary to your system of values, that you actually work to oppose
> rather than protect such atrocities, that you’re a warrior and crusader
> for democracy, freedom and human rights around the world.

An example from the US arming and funding Guatemala's Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt:

> In April of this year, Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt, the dictator of Guatemala
> during the 1980s, died. The New York Times obituary, noting that he had
> been convicted of genocide for “trying to exterminate the Ixil ethnic
> group, a Mayan Indian community whose villages were wiped out by his
> forces,” explained that “in the panoply of commanders who turned much of
> Central America into a killing field in the 1980s, General Ríos Montt
> was one of the most murderous.” The obituary added: “In his first five
> months in power, according to Amnesty International, soldiers killed
> more than 10,000 peasants.”
> 
> The genocide-committing General Rios Montt was a favorite of President
> Ronald Reagan, one of the closest figures the U.S. has to a secular
> saint, after whom many monuments and national institutions are still
> named. Reagan not only armed and funded Rios Montt but heaped praise on
> him far more gushing than anything Trump or Jared Kushner has said about
> the Saudi Crown Prince. The Washington Post’s Lou Cannon reported in
> 1982 that “on Air Force One returning to Andrews Air Force Base [from
> South America], [Reagan] said Rios Montt had been getting ‘a bum rap’
> and ‘is totally dedicated to democracy in Guatemala.'”
> 
> At a press conference standing next to the mass murderer, Reagan hailed
> him as “a man of great personal integrity and commitment,” who really
> “wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote
> social justice.” What about all those unfortunate acts of mass slaughter
> against Guatemalan peasants? That, said President Reagan, was justified,
> or at least understandable, because the General was “faced with a
> challenge from guerrillas armed and supported from those outside
> Guatemala.”

An example from how the US worked with Iraqi's Saddam Hussein before the 
2003 Iraqi invasion:

> Trump’s emphasis yesterday on the Saudis’ value in opposing Iran
> provoked particular anger. That anger is extremely odd given that the
> iconic and notorious photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with
> Saddam Hussein took place in 1983, when Rumsfeld was dispatched to
> Baghdad to provide arms and other weapons to the Iraqi regime in order
> to help them fight Iran.
> 
> This trip, Al Jazeera noted when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, all
> happened while “Iraq was at war with Iran and was using chemical
> weapons. Human rights abuses were practised on large sections of the
> Iraqi population.” The U.S. nonetheless “renewed the hand of friendship
> [with Saddam] through the special envoy Rumsfeld” because “Washington
> wanted Iraq’s friendship to stymie Iran” – exactly the rationale cited
> yesterday by Trump for continuing friendly relations with Riyadh (The
> Saudis “have been a great ally in our very important fight against
> Iran,” said Trump).

An example of Obama defending Saudi Arabia after lecturing India on 
tolerance and women's rights:

> As for the Saudis themselves, they have long been committing atrocities
> on par with and far worse than the Khashoggi killing both within their
> borders and outside, and their partnership with U.S. Presidents has only
> flourished. As the Saudis beheaded dissidents and created the planet’s
> worst humanitarian crisis by slaughtering Yemeni civilians without mercy
> or restraint, President Obama not only authorized the sale of a record
> amount of weapons to Saudi tyrants, but also cut short his visit to
> India, the world’s largest democracy, where he was delivering lectures
> about the paramount importance of human rights and civic freedoms, in
> order to travel to Riyadh to meet with top U.S. leaders from both
> political parties to pay homage to the murderous Saudi King who had just
> died (only in the last month of his presidency, with an eye toward his
> legacy, did Obama restrict some arms to the Saudis after allowing those
> weapons to freely flow for eighteen months during the destruction of
> Yemen).
> 
> UK Prime Minister David Cameron – perhaps Obama’s only worthy competitor
> when it came to simultaneously delivering preening speeches about human
> rights while arming the world’s worst human rights abusers – actually
> ordered UK flags flown at half-mast in honor of the noble Saudi despot.
> All of this took place at roughly the same time that Obama dispatched
> his top officials, including his Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to pay
> homage to the rulers of Bahrain after they and the Saudis crushed a
> citizen uprising seeking greater freedoms.

An example regarding Egypt's Hosni Mubarak:

> In 2011, Americans gathered around their TV sets to cheer the inspiring
> Egyptian protesters gathering in Tahir Square to demand the ouster of
> the brutal Egyptian tyrant Hosni Mubarak. Most TV announcers neglected
> to remind excited American viewers that Mubarak had managed to remain in
> power for so long because their own government had propped him up with
> weapons, money and intelligence. As Mona Eltahawy put it in the New York
> Times last year: “Five American administrations, Democratic and
> Republican, supported the Mubarak regime.”
> 
> But in case anyone was confused about the U.S. posture toward this
> incomparably heinous Egyptian dictator, Hillary Clinton stepped forward
> to remind everyone of how U.S. officials have long viewed such tyrants.
> When asked in an interview about how her own State Department had
> documented Egypt’s record of severe, relentless human rights abuses and
> whether this might affect her friendship with its rulers, Secretary
> Clinton gushed: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be
> friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in
> the United States.”
> 
> How can anyone pretend that Trump’s praise for the Saudis is some kind
> of aberration when Hillary Clinton literally heralded one of the
> planet’s most murderous and violent despots as a personal friend of her
> family? A Washington Post Editorial at the time proclaimed that “Clinton
> continues to devalue and undermine the U.S. diplomatic tradition of
> human rights advocacy” and that “she appears oblivious to how offensive
> such statements are to the millions of Egyptians who loathe Mr.
> Mubarak’s oppressive government and blame the United States for propping
> it up.”

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c537c6gcc2o -- It doesn't matter 
that the Trump administration concluded Jamal Khashoggi was likely murdered 
at the command of MBS (Mohammad Bin Salman, crown prince of Saudi Arabia). 
It's time to resume the previous public relations with Saudi Arabia where 
the US continues doing business with them. There will not be further 
investigation of MBS killing Khashoggi; the CIA got its information from 
Turkish tapes and that will be the end of any looking into this.

Remember that Hillary Clinton also did business with Saudi Arabian 
businesses and took campaign money from them, was photographed holding 
business talks in what was framed as her beneficially leveraging her 
considerable experience.

Germany cut off arms sales to the Saudis but will that resume too?

Former CIA agent and whistleblower John Kiriakou says the US could rightly 
demand that MBS has to go.








Assange/WikiLeaks

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/julian-assange-wears-out-his-welcome-in-ecuadorian-embassy-a-1239715-amp.html 
-- article on Assange's status including how he was secretly charged and 
this charge was accidentally revealed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66kC78gK5w -- The UK's Metropolitan police 
are facing a lawsuit that could force it to reveal whether it holds 
correspondence with US law enforcement regarding 3 members of WikiLeaks' 
staff including 2 British citizens. Apparently employees' personal emails, 
calendar data, and login IP addresses were secretly shared with American 
prosecutors as part of an investigation into allegations of violating 
federal law.

Independent investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi tweeted in 
https://mobile.twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/1064795029540126720:

> Today 10 am #London First-tier Tribunal.Represented by @estelledehon and
> @suigenerisjen I will defend the right of the press to access the docs
> on @khrafnsson Sarah #Harrison @SwaziJAF to shed light on the US-UK
> investigation on @wikileaks pic.twitter.com/86TZByM58m



https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Mthz_jvrQ -- The Intercept and frequent 
RT commentator Lionel remind us that Obama's Dept. of Justice concluded 
they couldn't prosecute Julian Assange without running into "The New York 
Times problem" (avoiding hypocrisy and chilling free speech by letting NYT 
do what Assange was being prosecuted for doing with WikiLeaks). Don't 
forget: Obama's DOJ was horrible to Assange--Obama's DOJ got the UK and 
Sweden to put pressure on Assange and slow-roll a known-bogus allegation of 
sexual misconduct against Assange which forced him to hole up in the 
Ecuadorian embassy. Sweden dragged out their investigation partially by 
lying claiming they couldn't interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. 
The ultimate beneficiary was to be the US which would get physical custody 
of Assange; the US could then imprison and torture Assange for any 
information or extrajudicial punishment the US wanted to mete out.

By the way, where was the feminist reaction to this? Rape and sexual 
misconduct allegations are serious allegations but the US, UK, and Swedish 
governments used those allegations as a political gambit to try and scare 
or derail Assange and WikiLeaks from publishing documents which challenged 
and embarrassed international corporate power. I recall no marches in the 
street which championed taking rape and sexual misconduct allegations 
seriously; nobody in the womens' march sending virtue signals that these 
countries had better back their allegations with evidence and file 
appropriate charges or drop the allegations because they were baseless.



Dueling DOJs: will Trump's DOJ pursue a case against Assange which earlier 
DOJs knew they could not win (and good public policy says Trump's DOJ 
should not win)?

Putting the prosecution of Julian Assange into context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrEVbrGozME -- RT's frequent commentator 
Lionel says WikiLeaks is "absolutely protected under the 1st Amendment" 
from successful prosecution by the Dept. of Justice (DOJ).

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/ 
-- Glenn Greenwald also explains why and cites the Obama DOJ which reads 
the result of prosecutions against Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.

Few people, including Democratic Party supporters, know about this history. 
Democratic Party supporters apparently back Trump's DOJ in its (one would 
hope fruitless) pursuit of Assange for publishing classified documents 
obtained and given to WikiLeaks illicitly. News of this prosecution was 
recently leaked or 'accidentally' revealed in another document (see 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jPKsiISnmY for more).

> Remarkably, the speech by Donald Trump’s hand-picked CIA chief and
> long-time right-wing Congressman sounded like (and still sounds like)
> the standard Democratic view when they urge the Trump administration to
> prosecute Assange. But at the time of Pompeo’s speech, Obama DOJ
> spokesman Matt Miller insisted to me that such promises to prosecute
> Assange were “hollow,” because the First Amendment would bar such
> prosecutions:
> 
> it's also hollow. DOJ knows it can't win a case against someone just for
> publishing secrets.
> 
> — Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) April 13, 2017 
> https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/852636857741578242
> 
> But the grand irony is that many Democrats will side with the Trump DOJ
> over the Obama DOJ. Their emotional, personal contempt for Assange – due
> to their belief that he helped defeat Hillary Clinton: the gravest crime
> – easily outweighs any concerns about the threats posed to press
> freedoms by the Trump administration’s attempts to criminalize the
> publication of documents.
> 
> This reflects the broader irony of the Trump era for Democrats. While
> they claim out of one side of their mouth to find the Trump
> administration’s authoritarianism and press freedom attacks so
> repellent, they use the other side of their mouth to parrot the
> authoritarian mentality of Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo that anyone who
> published documents harmful to Hillary or which have been deemed
> “classified” by the U.S. Government ought to go to prison.




Labor & Economy: Amazon deal is not good for the public but great for Amazon.

https://therealnews.com/stories/amazon-gets-3-billion-in-ny-tax-breaks-while-underfunded-public-transport-enters-death-spiral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlECXGQfVyY -- Amazon gets $3 billion in 
New York state, city tax breaks while underfunded public transport enters a 
"death spiral", and yes, the rent is too damn high (recalling the pithy 
71-year-old James McMillan III). Ben Norton interviews Prof. Richard Wolff. 
Video on youtube.com link, transcript should be published at 
https://therealnews.com/stories/amazon-gets-3-billion-in-ny-tax-breaks-while-underfunded-public-transport-enters-death-spiral

Gentrification was already underway in New York City and will likely 
accelerate under coming Amazon's "HQ2" (2nd headquarters) just like it did 
in Seattle under multiple tech companies setting up headquarters there.

This interview offers some of the same larger points as RT's Wolff 
interview but with a more clear context:

- Jobs: Norton points out the low number of jobs NY gains for their $3bn 
one-way gift to Amazon -- 25,000. In 2017 NYC gained over 72,000 new jobs. 
Therefore that money effectively buys NY (city and state) about 4 months of 
job growth going by how many jobs were added in 2017, well prior to 
Amazon's deal. That's a remarkably low number of jobs for such a large 
amount of money. It's not even clear if the 25,000 jobs are new jobs or if 
Amazon will shift workers from one location to HQ2 (remember how Amazon 
raised the minimum wage for workers? They canceled bonuses for higher-paid 
workers, in effect moving money from one set of Amazon workers to another 
set of Amazon workers. This apparently let Amazon garner a lot of rosy 
press without costing Amazon much, if any, money). This means New Yorkers 
are subsidizing job movement for extant employees.

- It's also not clear if New Yorkers (city or state residents) will occupy 
those jobs: there's no requirement that Amazon hire only city or state 
residents, there's no incentive for Amazon to hire city/state residents, 
and the jobs could be remote-friendly meaning New Yorkers could be 
competing with the world for these jobs.

- $3bn comes with no expectations of payback or penalties to Amazon if they 
don't deliver the jobs promised in any particular timeframe. There's no 
profit sharing with NY city or state. Amazon is not required to give the 
city or state money in exchange for failing to live up to their own hype. 
This deal is hence more like a gift than an exchange; if one were 
purchasing goods or services from someone else they'd put terms into the 
contract detailing what happens if the goods or service don't live up to 
documented expectations.

- 1 in 10 NYC public schools lived in temporary housing during the last 
school year -- "Homelessness in New York Public Schools Is at a Record 
High: 114,659 Students" the New York Times reports in 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/nyregion/homeless-students-nyc-schools-record.html 
which means that (much like the national budget choices) homelessness is a 
choice Americans make and can afford to throw serious money at in order to 
end. NYC apparently could have spent over $1bn to address this, perhaps by 
simply giving housing away to homeless residents.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aidew3kSIk -- Kshama Sawant, Seattle 
councilwoman, on Amazon's defeat of a Seattle "head tax" which would have 
gone to benefit the poor (including Amazon workers who are on food stamps). 
Amazon's pressure against the all-Democratic Party city government turned 
the initial head tax victory into repealing the head tax.

Sawant rightly calls for democratic control over major corporations:

> In addition to taxing big business, in addition to citywide movements
> for affordable housing, we also need to talk about unionizing tech
> workers and all logistics workers -- all warehouse workers -- and I
> think we need to start talking about taking corporations like Amazon
> into democratic public ownership because it is very clear that these
> giant corporations have the power and the wealth to dictate to the
> entire city, to the entire nation, and even internationally. The only
> way to end that, the only way to combat this kind of complete imbalance
> of power is to take corporations into democratic public ownership and to
> run them in the interests of society and the planet.





Poverty & Exploitation: Haiti objects to IMF-friendly president Jovenel Moise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4akqBdood7E -- Country-wide general strike 
(8 deaths so far) objecting to Pres. Moise. IMF ordered Moise to cut fuel 
subsidies (which would result in a fuel price spike for consumers) in 
exchange for financial aid to Haiti. Moise complied and now Haiti is 
suffering even further. The Miami Herald quoted Philip Alston, the U.N. 
special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights who noted that 
raising the price of fuel would be

> guaranteed to lead to a backlash and bizarrely, undermine the very
> programs the fund is trying to implement.

from 
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article214982420.html

The price of gasoline went up 38%, diesel went up 47%, and kerosene went up 
by 51%. Also, Petrocaribe funds also went missing (embezzlement) resulting 
in an additional scandal (see 
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article221878135.html 
for video).

There is said to be video footage of protestors being shot and killed, with 
their bodies dumped in pig pens. Jeb Sprague, Sociology lecturer from Univ. 
of Virginia, said he got the videos via text and these videos have not yet 
been shared via social media.









Healthcare

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/20/medicare-for-all-healthcare-industry/ 
-- The Democrats will apparently play a critical role in stopping any 
progress toward Medicare for All.

> Internal strategy documents obtained by The Intercept and Documented
> reveal the strategy that private health care interests plan to use to
> influence Democratic Party messaging and stymie the momentum toward
> achieving universal health care coverage.
> 
> At least 48 incoming freshman lawmakers campaigned on enacting “Medicare
> for All” or similar efforts to expand access to Medicare. And over the
> last year, 123 incumbent House Democrats co-sponsored “Medicare for All”
> legislation — double the number who supported the same bill during the
> previous legislative session.
> 
> The growing popularity of “Medicare for All” in the House has made
> progressives optimistic that the Democratic Party will embrace ideas to
> expand government coverage options with minimal out-of-pocket costs for
> patients going into the 2020 election. But industry groups have watched
> the development with growing concern.
> 
> Over the summer, leading pharmaceutical, insurance, and hospital
> lobbyists formed the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, an ad
> hoc alliance of private health interests, to curb support for expanding
> Medicare.
> 
> The campaign, according to one planning document, is designed to “change
> the conversation around Medicare for All,” then “minimize the potential
> for this option in health care from becoming part of a national
> political party’s platform in 2020.”




https://theintercept.com/2018/11/20/nancy-pelosi-obamacare-democrats/ -- 
Nancy Pelosi's real value: saving the ACA (Affordable Care Act, aka 
"ObamaCare") from dying. The article is overlong and doesn't do anything to 
help the reader understand that the ACA is criticized not for being 
"imperfect" but for being written by an HMO representative (WellPoint VP 
Elizabeth Fowler) and benefiting the HMOs. Medicare for All (particularly 
when phrased using that exact language instead of "socialized medicine" or 
"universal single-payer healthcare") is widely preferred in the US over any 
HMO-based medical care delivery plan.

On Medicare for All the article offers:

> Yet headed into 2019, she has already begun handcuffing a populist
> agenda and has proposed a rule — called paygo — that any new spending
> would need to be offset by tax hikes or spending cuts elsewhere. And she
> has put forward another rule that would require a three-fifths vote for
> any legislation that increased taxes on the bottom 80 percent of
> earners, a proposal that would rule out a wide swath of policies aimed
> at reducing inequality.
> 
> Meanwhile, she has taken to ridiculing the push to abolish Immigration
> and Customs Enforcement and is far from an ally in the fight for
> “Medicare for All,” urging Democrats instead to focus on reducing drug
> prices or making health care more affordable, the kind of incremental
> politics she rightly belittled in 2010.


https://theintercept.com/2018/11/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-rashida-tlaib-justice-democrats/ 
-- Regarding the shameful prose at The Intercept about Rep.-elect 
Ocasio-Cortez:

> Now that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is transitioning from insurgent
> candidate to incumbent member of Congress, a major question on the minds
> of her soon-to-be colleagues has been whether she will continue the
> practice of endorsing primary challenges to sitting members of Congress,
> or whether she will work to ingratiate herself with the institution
> she’ll be joining.
> 
> That question was given a resounding answer on Saturday evening, as she
> gathered on a strategy call with volunteers from the group Justice
> Democrats, which played a key role in the elections of Ocasio-Cortez,
> Rashida Tlaib, and other representatives-elect.
> 
> Earlier in the week, Justice Democrats helped organize the sit-in at
> House Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office that Ocasio-Cortez joined.

At best, that question remains an unanswered question. A more realistic 
reading of that question would highlight that Ocasio-Cortez has never made 
any announcement about substantive issues of the day including war. We just 
won't know where she stands when it comes to votes on important issues 
until she makes those votes.

War: it's not clear where she stands on the US's many wars because not a 
lot has been said about them.

Education: She's said "[f]or the cost of the GOP's tax bill, we could 
forgive ALL the student loan debt in the United States." but when similar 
words were said by the Green Party's Jill Stein, the sycophantic John 
Oliver was one of the few to respond at all and he said that was 
unrealistic. I don't take him seriously on that point, I mention his 
reaction because I think it indicates who is really in charge here--the big 
banks--and his view was apparently allowed to stand unchallenged by most (I 
disagreed in an article I wrote for CounterPunch.org). In fact, Oliver's 
view was allowed to justify dismissing Stein's entire presidential campaign 
on that sole point--that Dr. Stein thought it right and proper to cancel 
all student loan debt through having the Federal Reserve buy the debt and 
promise never to collect on it, effectively ending it.

Environment: The so-called "Green New Deal" which some Democrats seem 
interested in now was previously promoted by the Green Party including Jill 
Stein's campaign. The recent protest in Rep. Nancy Pelosi's D.C. office 
seems to have been followed up with nothing. Yet Ocasio-Cortez is receiving 
glowing praise for the photo-op and strong words in her post-protest 
strategy call with volunteers (including in The Intercept's article linked 
above).

Healthcare: Ocasio-Cortez supports "transitioning" to a single-payer 
healthcare system but so do other Democrats that have used that language to 
buy time while HR676 (Medicare for All) sits on the metaphorical shelf, 
never being brought up for a vote even when Congress is a majority 
Democratic and with a Democratic Party president. HR676 is soon-to-be 
former Rep. John Conyers' legislation. It's not clear if Conyers' 
replacement, Rashida Tlaib, will continue HR676 or drop it perhaps 
replacing it with something amenable to the HMOs (just as the Obama 
administration did with its call for single-payer and the vague "public 
option" in the Sen. Max Baucus-headed healthcare talks). Baucus received a 
great deal of HMO payback for doing so well for the HMOs during those 
talks. There's even a photo of former WellPoint VP Elizabeth Fowler sitting 
behind her boss, Sen. Max Baucus, as he announced in 2009 that the health 
care bill (the "ACA" commonly known as "ObamaCare") will have no public 
option. As Glenn Greenwald points out, Fowler wrote the ACA:

 From 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1

> When the legislation that became known as "Obamacare" was first drafted,
> the key legislator was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance
> Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the
> legislation. As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted, the architect of that
> legislation was Elizabeth Fowler, his chief health policy counsel;
> indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered, it was Fowler who actually drafted
> it. As Politico put it at the time: "If you drew an organizational chart
> of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be
> the chief operating officer."








Police violence: Chicago PD killed 26-year-old father and security guard 
Jemel Roberson after Roberson chased down an armed would-be nightclub 
robber in the course of doing his job. The community sees another instance 
of an ugly pattern in which cops kill black men. The Chicago PD won't 
release the shooting officer's name or bodycam footage, nor will the 
Chicago PD confirm that there is bodycam footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1w-igifBY -- Family, community want to 
know which officer is responsible for killing Roberson so they can pursue a 
lawsuit. The nightclub where Roberson was working had its license pulled 
(for reasons that are not clear). Before the cop shot Roberson, witnesses 
say Roberson had told the officer he was security and not to shoot. And the 
witnesses also told the officer Roberson was security and not to shoot. But 
the policeman shot anyway.







Russiagate: The insane gift that keeps on giving.

https://on.rt.com/9isx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YBDnmLCUMU -- "Masha and the Bear" is an 
animated cartoon series, a hit with children worldwide; it's the most 
viewed animated series in the world -- over 2 billion YouTube views on its 
main channel (including one piece which is the 5th most-watched YouTube 
video; British newspaper 'The Times' claims it has 40 billion views across 
13 channels).

Masha and the Bear is an independently-funded Russian-made animated cartoon 
series which is translated into many languages. The story is based on 
Goldilocks and the Three Bears and features a Russian girl, Masha, and her 
imaginary friend, a stuffed bear toy, in cartoonish adventures.

But the The Times claims the show is Russian propaganda and Masha is, to 
quote one so-called expert, "Putinesque" (I have no idea what that means).

Anthony Glees, intelligence expert, University of Buckingham:

> Masha is feisty, even rather nasty, but also plucky. She punches above
> her weight. It's not far-fetched to see her as Putinesque.

 From 
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811211069988617-russia-eu-uk-cartoon-news-propaganda-reality/

> The Times article printed on Saturday entitled ‘Children’s show is 
> propaganda for Putin’[1] cites a reference to an interview with an
> Estonian professor, Priit Hobemagi last year which was then printed in a
> Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat. In the interview Professor
> Hobemagi, from Tallinn University’s Communication School, claimed that
> in the cartoon the bear symbolised Russia and was designed to encourage
> Estonian children to think well of Russia.
> 
> He said the beautifully presented cartoon was part of a campaign that 
> was dangerous to Estonian national security.

[1] https://archive.fo/Srjfl or 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/childrens-show-is-propaganda-for-putin-say-critics-j9wxcvslm 
for the source article.

One (allegedly controversial) scene from one episode shows Masha wearing a 
Soviet-era border guard's hat as she teases a rabbit who is pulling carrots 
out of the ground. Masha lightly taps the rabbit with a long stick and says 
"Don't move, I'll catch you!". This, we're told, is a metaphor for "how 
Russia protects its borders".

RT found a 2-second clip where one can see the Kremlin and another scene 
featuring a Christmas tree with a red star on the top of the tree (a Soviet 
red star or innocent tree decoration?), and another scene where Masha wears 
what the RT reporter calls "a traditional Russian hat".








Russiagate: UK is not immune -- a "large-scale information secret service" 
is underway to control public opinion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RoXEsTOPJw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzCQPu9SWBc
https://on.rt.com/9j5t
Additional commentary on this topic from George Galloway in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rF94xQZQI0 starting at 6m30s

Evidence for Russiagate accusations essentially boil down to American 
social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google) claiming some Russians 
spent thousands of dollars on social media ads during the US presidential 
race (where hundreds of millions of dollars must be spent to be heard at 
all) and somehow these ads put Trump in office. It seems quite clear that 
these claims can't withstand much scrutiny but it's no secret that election 
interference is real: the US intervenes in foreign governments and this 
hypocrisy upstages any Russophobic accusations the US makes. It's widely 
known that the US upends and assassinates democratically elected leaders 
and sometimes replaces those leaders with US-friendly stooges.

But has the UK been meddling in foreign governments via social media 
coordination amongst those who write widely-read articles (sometimes called 
"influencers")?

The group known as "Anonymous" says that this is underway and has uploaded 
documents (including WhatsApp screenshots) to back their claim.

Introducing the "Integrity Initiative":

Quoting the RT article:

> Anonymous has published documents which it claims have unearthed a
> massive UK-led psyop to create a "large-scale information secret
> service" in Europe – all under the guise of countering "Russian
> propaganda."
> 
> In a document dump[1] on November 5, the group exposed the UK-based
> 'Integrity Initiative'[2], said to have been established by the ominously
> titled Institute for Statecraft[3] in 2015.
> 
> The main objective[4] is "to provide a coordinated Western response to
> Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare." The
> Institute for Statecraft is affiliated with the NATO HQ Public Diplomacy
> Division and the Home Office-funded 'Prevent' program, so objectivity
> is, of course, at the forefront of their work.

[1] 
https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation-integrity-initiative-british-informational-war-against-all/

[2] https://www.integrityinitiative.net/

[3] https://www.statecraft.org.uk/about-us

[4] https://www.scribd.com/document/392195560/II-Handbook-v2

> The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of
> which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin, with little or no
> corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in
> Russia itself" as well as influencing Russian speakers in the EU and
> North America, one of the leaked documents[5] states.

[5] https://www.scribd.com/document/392195390/FCO-Application-Form-2018-v2

It's not clear if the Integrity Initiative had a hand in elections (in 
other words, foreign election meddling), but it's possible this tweet is 
indicative of the Integrity Initiative's work:

Colonel Pedro Banos was a candidate to become director of Spain's 
Department of Homeland Security. Col. Banos reportedly said:

> What Country has everything we lack? Russia. We've achieved nothing by
> provoking Russia.
and this kicked off seven-and-a-half hours of social media posts among 
several high-profile Spanish journalists within the secretive group 
including Nacho Torreblanca (@jitorreblanca) in 
https://twitter.com/jitorreblanca/status/1004711279536300032 who wrote:

Spanish (original text):

> Hilo: El Gobierno se dispone a nombrar al Coronel Baños, conocido por
> sus posiciones prorrusas y pro-Putin en los conflictos de Siria y
> Ucrania, Director del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DSN), un
> organismo clave situado en La Moncloa.

English:

> The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known
> for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian and Ukrainian
> conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key
> body located at the Moncloa.

RT's article describes the conclusion for Col. Banos:

> Spanish media, such as El Pais, then reported on these murmurings 
> [social media posts]. Notably, members of the UK team, like MP Bob 
> Seely, are also listed in the Banos op document. The latter [Col. Banos]
> lost out to Miguel Angel Ballesteros.
It's not clear if Banos lost to Ballesteros as a result of the Integrity 
Initiative.




Russiagate: Another piece of Russiagate falling apart? George Papadopoulos 
says so and George Galloway concurs with Papadopoulos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rF94xQZQI0 -- George Papadopoulos now says 
the man who gave him information alleging incriminating information on 
Hillary Clinton -- emails from her account -- was not a Russian agent but 
really has Western intelligence connections thus making Papadopoulos a pawn 
of Western intelligence:

> In January 2017 it was unbeknownst to every American, especially me
> that:
> 
> 1) Joseph Mifsud is no Russian agent. He was western intelligence sent
> to entrap and make up lies.
> 
> 2) “Putin’s niece” is a fake
> 
> 3) Alexander Downer was not repping Australia
> 
> America deserves the truth
https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1065280332704804865

George Galloway agrees with Papadopoulos saying

> [Mifsud's] previous track record would indicate to me that he's much
> more likely a freelance opportunist for Western intelligence. There's
> the fact that he ran something in London called the 'Diplomatic Academy'
> giving an education to future generations of diplomats. It's unlikely
> that the British authorities would have allowed him to do so if they had
> thought he was a Russian agent. Moreover, he's closely tied to a woman
> who was three times a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee, that's
> the official Joint Intelligence Committee in the British state which is
> charged with bringing together intelligence material and presenting it
> to ministers. Again, the British state would never have allowed her
> relationship with him to develop if they had thought he was in any way a
> Russian agent much more likely that he was an agent, at least from time
> to time, of theirs.
Also cited as evidence for Papadopoulos' claim: Papadopoulos' short prison 
term (14 days).










Spoils of empire: Should the British Museum return items it obtained by theft?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egLFovdX4VA -- The British museum says they 
might lend items (such as Easter Island's "Hoa Hakananai'a" which was 
stolen in 1968) back. The list of goods is quite long and includes:

- Koh-i-noor diamond from the 19th century is claimed by India, Pakistan, 
Iran, and Afghanistan.
- The Parthenon Sculptures from the 19th century is claimed by Greece.
- The Rosetta Stone from 1801 is claimed by Egypt.









Celebrating Chomsky's 90th year

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/23/noam-chomsky-turns-90-how-a-u-s-anarchist-has-more-than-survived/ 
-- Bruce Levine on Chomsky turning 90 and remaining a highly influential 
anarchist.








Economy: Jobs that can be automated will be, if your job relies on doing 
something that requires little creativity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI73eqUvP9c -- Zume [pronounced "zoom"] 
Pizza said to be worth $2.25B with minimal human intervention and 
oppressive-sounding work environment despite a poor end product. What's the 
real product here? Patents covering the method by which ordered food is 
prepared in a food truck that parks near your home, prepares and cooks the 
food, and then a human delivers the freshly-made food shortly after you 
order it.

This piece takes a bit too much solace in that Zume's current pizzas are 
low-rated -- the crust is said to taste like 'cardboard'. The qualities 
described in making the pizza are all adjustable. There's nothing about 
making a fresh pizza that has to do with where the pizza is made; good 
pizzas aren't good because they're made in a building or a home. Good 
pizzas are good because they have higher-quality ingredients, an 
appropriate amount of toppings, cook for the right length of time in a 
properly and evenly heated oven, and are delivered to people while the 
pizza is freshly hot. There's nothing about this that couldn't be done from 
a food truck. So the underlying question remains: if this approach to 
making takeout food can eventually be shown to produce sufficiently 
high-quality food people will pay for, how will we deal with a reduction in 
staff?











https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJK2K08TWHU -- A Detroit judge declared 
female circumcision ban to be unconstitutional. The "regulation of practice 
is up to states, not Congress" and some of the charges against 8 
practitioners were dropped (including 2 doctors) for doing this to underage 
girls. This practice is widely banned around the world.

But this discussion conflates a number of issues that need to be separated 
and explained more so we can understand the facts at hand. As I understand 
it, "female [genital] circumcision" is the term used by supporters and 
"female genital mutilation" is the term used by opponents (contrary to what 
the introduction host said). Fuambai Sia Ahmadu, anthropologist and female 
rights activist, said that there were multiple types of female circumcision 
but we aren't told anything about the details of this (this might 
ultimately not be needed but if one is going to bring it up as though it 
were relevant we might as well come to see if this is really a 
distractionary ruse which ignores a more fundamental problem or relevant 
information for ourselves). It's not clear if this is being done to people 
(adults or children) against their will (my understanding is this is known 
to be done to girls, minors, whom one would imagine cannot consent).

One of the discussants, Gina Loudon, in this piece drew a distinction 
between adults choosing to do this for themselves (calling that 
unproblematic "plastic surgery") versus one choosing to have this done to a 
child. She then followed this up with:

> So how do we let those values impose themselves on American values which
> are based on Constitutional and individual freedoms, and certainly
> genitally mutilating a child without their ability to even consent as an
> adult is not an American value.
which is problematic in that values don't "impose themselves" on anyone 
because people choose what to do to themselves and others, and unusual in 
that the neutrality of her language (talking about "a child" rather than "a 
girl") doesn't get into how commonly male genital circumcision/mutilation 
is performed and whether the reasons for that are widely-believed but 
ultimately specious.







Economy & Climate change: Unprecedented fires in CA, the ruse of a 'carbon 
tax', and how consumers paying more won't fix underlying structural 
problems of a fossil fuel economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIEJTgKhhAI -- Interview with Food and 
Water Watch's co-director Scott Edwards regarding the state of a largely 
lightly-regulated food and water systems (GMO foods get a light touch 
regarding proving safety including labeling, waterway regulation including 
lead in drinking water) and how a lack of democratic process results in 
benefits to a small handful of corporate interests at the cost of the great 
many in the public (recall that the Flint, MI water change happened by an 
unelected body deciding to "save money").









Free speech or coddling students? UK University tells staff not to write in 
all caps because it might worry students. Another university worries about 
offending "particular races or cultures" including cowboys, ISIS bombers, 
and Nazis.

The moral of the story: censorship is okay if you frame it in the language 
of sensitivity.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1046977/university-lecturers-not-to-use-cap-letters-student-failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvI071_5WlY -- I couldn't have made this up.

> Staff at Leeds Trinity's school of journalism have also been told to
> "write in a helpful, warm tone, avoiding officious language and negative
> instructions". Some blasted the move as "more academic mollycoddling" of
> the snowflake generation. An "enhancing student understanding,
> engagement and achievement" memo lists dos and don'ts - with "do" and
> "don't" among words frowned upon.

Apparently this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened:

- Univ. of Manchester Students' Union bans clapping in favor of silently 
shaking one's hands about (called "jazz hands")
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-45717841

Being done out of consideration for others, if you believe the sales pitch: 
"We should all aspire to improve our public spaces so that all members of 
society feel comfortable and able to contribute fully."

- Univ. of Kent student union issues fancy dress guidelines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-45826809

> Kent Union, which represents students from the University of Kent, said 
> outfits which threaten others' rights to "a safe space" should not be 
> worn.
> 
> Banned costumes include cowboys, Native Americans, priests and 
> Mexicans.
> 
> The union said the draft guidelines were in response to "complaints" in 
> recent years.
> 
> In the guidance, which has been circulated to student groups, the union 
> says it will not tolerate behaviours that seek to offend a "particular 
> race or culture".
> 
> Students are warned against using props, such as maracas, to "emphasise 
> racial stereotypes".
> 
> They are also told not dress as "any influential black person with black
> face paint (black face)".
> 
> Also on the banned list are costumes which centre around historical
> events that "degrade someone's ancestry in a derogatory way", such as
> "the Crusades, Nazi uniform, ISIS bomber and The Prophet Mohammed (peace
> be upon him)".
> 
> According to the union, acceptable costume choices include cartoon
> characters, letters of the alphabet, cave people and aliens.

Won't someone please think of the...cowboys?




Speaking of the cowboys...

Surveillance state: Cameras are being hidden in streetlights. Why? Probably 
not for your safety but for gleaning something you might do that can be 
used against you, or something from which the state can profit (spying is 
big business nowadays).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrX0p5WoT44 -- The Texas company "Cowboy 
Streetlight Concealments LLC" is hiding cameras in streetlights at the 
behest of the DEA and ICE.

-J